How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity

[archangel979]

 

What? Hold Person was lvl 2 for clerics, and lvl 3 for Wizards. Hold Monster never affected your allies. You mistook it for Confusion (lvl 4) which worked on all in area while Chaos (lvl 5) only worked on enemies.

And AoE spells in IE games were balanced by not showing you their AoE before casting. So each casting you needed to guess if you are going to do FF or not.

 

Thanks for the correction on Hold Person. However, Hold Monster not affecting friendlies was exactly what I wrote above? Maybe you misread something here.

 

Yes I did. Because I assumed you were comparing it with Hold Person, not Web. Hold Monster and Web are different kind of CC spells and cannot really be compared. They work on different kind of creatures and are defended against with different protections. Their AoE is even completely different. Web works on whole area and can catch anyone walking into after the spell is cast while Hold spells only work on specific subjects and don't work on anyone coming near the original targets afterwards.

Stinking Cloud is more of a continuation of Web.

[Sensuki]

I'll admit I didn't read the entire pdf

deflection doesn't really seem very resolvy to me

There's the problem right there.

[Gfted1]

Might should allow the carrying of more Camping Supplies.

[Sensuki]

Or I could just make an unlimited camping supplies mod for you

 

Shouldn't be too hard to do.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Sensuki

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Might should allow the carrying of more Camping Supplies.

There should be a "Gfted1" mode that has no need of resting supplies.

[Gfted1]

Or I could just make an unlimited camping supplies mod for you

 

Shouldn't be too hard to do.

 

That would be awesome and much appreciated. Seriously.

 

 

Might should allow the carrying of more Camping Supplies.

There should be a "Gfted1" mode that has no need of resting supplies.

 

 

I like how you think KP.

[Shallow]

 

I'll admit I didn't read the entire pdf

deflection doesn't really seem very resolvy to me

There's the problem right there.

 

The one quote you presented from your pdf didn't really convince me, its argument wasn't really sensible, as having guts and determination doesn't make you any better at defending yourself (besides not being stressed out with fear, but that fear would manifest itself in other ways just as much), if there is something inside the pdf that shows why I'm wrong you shouldn't have had a harder time quoting it than the thing you did quote.

Deflection not seeming very resolvy to me also wasn't my only argument, I stated that I felt adding deflection for no real reason clouded the clear tradeoff resolve has and would have under my system, better vs crowds, better vs individuals.

[Sensuki]

That wasn't from my .pdf - I don't care about what the attributes are called. You could call them "Fox", "Cat", "Eagle", "Bear" or whatever, I wouldn't give a **** - what I do care about is that the attribute system offers balanced choices and Deflection and Concentration would be an excellent pairing mechanically, because they go hand in hand with eachother.

[archangel979]

That wasn't from my .pdf - I don't care about what the attributes are called. You could call them "Fox", "Cat", "Eagle", "Bear" or whatever,

Haha, those are actually great names for attributes in some jRPG :D

[Shallow]

That wasn't from my .pdf - I don't care about what the attributes are called. You could call them "Fox", "Cat", "Eagle", "Bear" or whatever, I wouldn't give a **** - what I do care about is that the attribute system offers balanced choices and Deflection and Concentration would be an excellent pairing mechanically, because they go hand in hand with eachother.

Ah, sorry then, the context and that it was in a quote made me assume so, my apologies. I disagree here, the names should fit what they do, it makes it easier for people to assign attributes without having to do the math, if the name doesn't fit the name should be changed, you could even just straight up name it deflection&interruptionavoidal, but the name has to allow people to make their chars without putting to much thought into things. I don't feel agree that they make an excellent pair, and I don't see why you even need a pair there, the reason healing and damage, and aoe and duration, are paired is so the stats are useful to everyone. If interrupt was made more severe, and the concentration on resolve was upped so chars with medium resolve won't get stunlocked unless they're completely surrounded with as many people as possible beating them, and chars with high resolve won't get stunlocked at all, then resolve would be useful to everyone, and because you didn't throw deflection into the mix it'd be a clean understandable stat offering users choice and not forcing them to get concentration if they want deflection, or the other way around. The clearer and straighter attributes effects are the better, I don't care about the quantity of different attributes, as long as they allow me to define my chars.

[Sensuki]

I think it makes sense and you don't - that kind of stuff is in the eye of the beholder. That's the only difference really.

[Matt516]

The RP concerns are secondary IMO. As long as it makes reasonable sense, the mechanical balance is the most important thing to me. You're welcome to make suggestions and welcome to disagree - just don't expect Sensuki or I to agree with you on a system that places Concentration as the only major stat on an attribute. Neither of us is a fan of that for various reasons already stated. To each their own though.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Matt516

[Seari]

Does that sound fun to you?

 

You must be one of the few people that doesn't think Concentration is boring. We stated in the paper that Resolve with pure concentration is boring and it's not very helpful - what you are suggesting appears to in opposition to the design goals of the game IMO. I don't see your issue with Deflection and Concentration together (did you read the paper?). Deflection grants effective interrupt resistance the same as Concentration does, but it also gives you extra survivability by reducing the incoming DPS from Deflection based attacks.

 

Based on that, why wouldn't you like those two together, they give you more of the same - except better!

[Ineth]

A) Change Accuracy and Deflection lines to "+1" and solid lines because they aren't actually percentage increases but integer increases.

 

But they're still a bonus on top of the (class/level determined) base value, right? Whereas for defenses, the attributes are actually the main input for determining the base value itself. (Or maybe that's a distinction without a difference...?)

Anyhow I've left them as dashed lines for now, but updated the captions to reflect that they are not percentage increases:

 

BB278 attributes

SM attributes

 

Btw Matt516, are you sure that nerfing the Concentration bonus from +3% to +1% is necessary to balance the additional +1 Deflection bonus to Resolve? Wouldn't +2% Concentration still be fair? After all, Concentration fits really well with RES conceptually (and may even be what the attribute was invented for), so it should have a noticeable impact.

 

I do like your proposal overall; Accuracy and Interrupt will go really well together I think, and I agree that MIG/CON/INT are fine as they are, mechanically speaking -- although a little grating from a simulationist perspective (but that's something we'll just have to live with, given Josh's design principles), and in need of some overall boosting compared to other things that influence the same derived attributes.

[Ineth]

deflection doesn't really seem very resolvy to me, a person with resolve doesn't feel less pain when struck, nor does he move his body in certain ways when hit to reduce the blow (that's dexterity if anything), he just ignores it in order to complete his task.

 

Well, from playing Badminton, I know that if you're in a 1-on-1 game and starting to get exhausted, and the opponent gets the upper hand and delivers powerful shot after shot that you can just barely defend against & recover from, it can take some determination to keep blocking them no matter what it takes until he makes a mistake that allows you to turn things around. (Rather than, having a moment of weakness and deciding to "give up & let him have the point".)

 

Now I've never been in a sword fight (let alone a sword fight to the death ), but I can imagine conceptually similar situations arising there...

 

So, I don't think Resolve increasing Deflection is problematic.

 

I know this rationalization does not realistically explain why Resolve is the only attribute that increases Deflection (i.e. failure of the attribute system to represent things like physical strength or dexterity contributing to evading blows), but note that:

1. It's no worse than tying weapons + spell damage to the single attribute Might (i.e., failure to represent things like physical strength affecting one type of damage but not the other).

    

2. If we're honest, it's also no worse than some of the D&D rules in the Infinity Engine games -- we're just more used to those. E.g. how melee Thac0 was only affected by STR (i.e. failure to represent things like dexterity/speed/perception affecting to-hit chances).

    

3. The attribute system is only part of defining your character's abilities -- even with +1 Deflection bonus per point of Resolve, the biggest factor for determining your character's Deflection will still be your choice of class (e.g. "25 + bonus" as fighter vs "5 + bonus" as barbarian).

I actually complained about the lack of "realism/intuitiveness" of parts of the attribute system myself in earlier threads, but I've since made peace with it. It's meant to be that way. (In line with Josh's "gamism over simulationism" design principle, which Sensuki and Matt are also supporters of.)

As long as they make sure the end result is fun and allows interesting choices, I can live with some impure rationalizations...

[Shallow]

 

deflection doesn't really seem very resolvy to me, a person with resolve doesn't feel less pain when struck, nor does he move his body in certain ways when hit to reduce the blow (that's dexterity if anything), he just ignores it in order to complete his task.

 

Well, from playing Badminton, I know that if you're in a 1-on-1 game and starting to get exhausted, and the opponent gets the upper hand and delivers powerful shot after shot that you can just barely defend against & recover from, it can take some determination to keep blocking them no matter what it takes until he makes a mistake that allows you to turn things around. (Rather than, having a moment of weakness and deciding to "give up & let him have the point".)

 

Now I've never been in a sword fight (let alone a sword fight to the death ), but I can imagine conceptually similar situations arising there...

 

So, I don't think Resolve increasing Deflection is problematic.

 

I know this rationalization does not realistically explain why Resolve is the only attribute that increases Deflection (i.e. failure of the attribute system to represent things like physical strength or dexterity contributing to evading blows), but note that:

1. It's no worse than tying weapons + spell damage to the single attribute Might (i.e., failure to represent things like physical strength affecting one type of damage but not the other).

    

2. If we're honest, it's also no worse than some of the D&D rules in the Infinity Engine games -- we're just more used to those. E.g. how melee Thac0 was only affected by STR (i.e. failure to represent things like dexterity/speed/perception affecting to-hit chances).

    

3. The attribute system is only part of defining your character's abilities -- even with +1 Deflection bonus per point of Resolve, the biggest factor for determining your character's Deflection will still be your choice of class (e.g. "25 + bonus" as fighter vs "5 + bonus" as barbarian).

I actually complained about the lack of "realism/intuitiveness" of parts of the attribute system myself in earlier threads, but I've since made peace with it. It's meant to be that way. (In line with Josh's "gamism over simulationism" design principle, which Sensuki and Matt are also supporters of.)

As long as they make sure the end result is fun and allows interesting choices, I can live with some impure rationalizations...

 

A very valid and fair response, insane amounts of intuitiveness isn't a musthave for me either, although it is nice. I still don't see why there's any need to go down that whole road in the first place though, resolve can be just fine without deflection tied to it, heck concentration could be thrown out the window and replaced with something else, but tying two things to one attribute when one of those things could be about just as useful for nearly all classes seems a bit irrational.

[Fiebras]

I arrived pretty late to the thread so I wont coment much beyond thanking you guys for the effort and that DEX should be chaned to SPD for speed maybe to better clarify its purpose. That way the only remants of the D&D system would be INT and CON.

[Matt516]

 

 

A) Change Accuracy and Deflection lines to "+1" and solid lines because they aren't actually percentage increases but integer increases.

But they're still a bonus on top of the (class/level determined) base value, right? Whereas for defenses, the attributes are actually the main input for determining the base value itself. (Or maybe that's a distinction without a difference...?)

Anyhow I've left them as dashed lines for now, but updated the captions to reflect that they are not percentage increases:

 

BB278 attributes

SM attributes

 

Btw Matt516, are you sure that nerfing the Concentration bonus from +3% to +1% is necessary to balance the additional +1 Deflection bonus to Resolve? Wouldn't +2% Concentration still be fair? After all, Concentration fits really well with RES conceptually (and may even be what the attribute was invented for), so it should have a noticeable impact.

 

I do like your proposal overall; Accuracy and Interrupt will go really well together I think, and I agree that MIG/CON/INT are fine as they are, mechanically speaking -- although a little grating from a simulationist perspective (but that's something we'll just have to live with, given Josh's design principles), and in need of some overall boosting compared to other things that influence the same derived attributes.

Yeah, it's a distinction without a difference - 10 Resolve (SM system) will give you 10 Deflection no matter if your base Deflection is 5 or 25. It's all additive - any given one of those is calculated as "base value (for deflection)" + "(lvl-1)*3" + "attribute bonus", where attribute bonus is individual to the stat. Your call though ultimately on how you want to represent that - it's your chart and your system.

 

As for nerfing concentration... I honestly don't know. As I've said, actually quantifying the value of a given concentration percentage is pretty difficult. 2% would probably be fine. I'm not hugely concerned with numbers at the moment though - we suggested numbers that would work, but OE will likely be changing the scale anyway (what with 10 soon to be the "default" value for attributes). I'm just trying to get the stat distribution across attributes balanced such that the numerical values won't have to be wildly different to create a balanced system - so you won't have to, for example, have +5 Deflection on one attribute so another attribute with +5% Duration and +1 Accuracy and +2% Speed won't be more powerful than it. That's an extreme example, but hopefully it illustrates the goal of having the stat distribution across attributes be relatively even - hence the categories I made up of "primary" and "secondary" stats.

[Matt516]

I arrived pretty late to the thread so I wont coment much beyond thanking you guys for the effort and that DEX should be chaned to SPD for speed maybe to better clarify its purpose. That way the only remants of the D&D system would be INT and CON.

You're welcome to comment! On the previous page (or maybe the one before? Anyway it's close) I posted a table that sums up all the attribute system ideas people have had so far. The pdf linked on the first page is also good if pretty long (though I'm a bit biased since I Co wrote it ).

[Sensuki]

*Should* be able to mod in our attribute system if they go with Josh's one. I just have to see how to make sure it updates all the UI screens correctly.

[Matt516]

Oh Josh's second one is fine.

To each their own though. Modding is great.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Matt516

[illathid]

*Should* be able to mod in our attribute system if they go with Josh's one. I just have to see how to make sure it updates all the UI screens correctly.

Nice! Was wondering if something like this would be moddable.

[Sensuki]

Oh Josh's second one is fine.

To each their own though. Modding is great.

Well I wanna see if it's actually any good!

[tobajas89]

Great work

[nipsen]

 

 

Might should allow the carrying of more Camping Supplies.

There should be a "Gfted1" mode that has no need of resting supplies.

 

 

I like how you think KP.

 

As long as the rest of us don't have to play with these mod-ideas implemented on launch-day -- why not?