How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity

[Sensuki]

Animal Companions have their own base Deflection I think. They would likely get some sort of benefit from leveling up though, but they would not get your Deflection bonus because they have their own individual pros and cons.

 

I agree that I am unsure that these benefits are large enough to make them not be dumps, but intellect in its present form isn't necessary for these 2 classes either way. The rogue can lean on another party member for status effects if they dissipate too quickly. While the ranger only benefits from the duration on an ability or 2 anyway and very little from AoE.

Rogue needs a re-work, faaar too passive IMO. Really boring. They were originally going to be a more active class but they changed it. There needs to be some work done so that classes actually get a benefit from such things.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[Doppelschwert]

Concentration reduces DPS loss, if you want more DPS it's always better to max Might and Accuracy instead and cop the interrupts.

 

They could put it to vote in a KS update or something tbh, or test both internally and see what feels better - or give us two diff versions one after the other and then have us vote on it. Would be nice to test the differences.

 

Regarding the DPS loss, that scales with the number of enemies attacking you, so I think that's not true in general. Just to make a point by using hyperbole, if you are attacked by 100 enemies with a small interrupt chance, you're not going to be acting anymore statistically.

 

For the rest, I think that you're getting a bit entitled here. Your suggestions are going to be incorporated one way or another, I don't think there is a need for design by comitee.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Doppelschwert

[Matt516]

I think the main Idea for splitting duration and AoE was:

 

Might - damage and healing

Dexterity - Attack speed

Con - health/stamina

Perception - Accuracy and interrupt

Intellect - AoE and Deflection

Resolve- concentration and duration

 

This is how I understood Josh's statement on the subject.

 

So in this example AoE would indeed be combined with a strong effect (Deflection). While Duration which is pretty powerful makes up for Concentration being weaker.

 

Many classes that have limited AoE can still use Intellect for the Deflection: Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, ect. Where Rangers can make use of the AoE if they have the appropriate animal companion. The Archer Rogue may not need Intellect here, but a melee rogue definitely could. This coupling of effects on intellect also, as has been pointed out, a very Combat Expertise vibe.

 

Where Resolve governing concentration and duration adds something similar to the above. Any class with any duration abilities benefit: Casters, rogues, fighters, barbarians, rangers, etc. Where the added concentration gives the casters the options of stepping into melee range more.

 

The other benefit to this is that you get more variety in builds with casters. Using the Wizard:

 

Wizard 1 - high might and high intellect makes a good ranged nuker. This needs to be coupled with Josh's AoE improvements or the mouse wheel suggestion. While you could be safer if you get attention from enemies with the higher Deflection.

Wizard 2 - high might and high resolve would make a solid muscle wizard. The AoE from intellect would be cumbersome at times in melee engagement with coned attacks since increased AOE could lead to a liability here. This makes you hit hard, your buffs last longer, and you have good concentration.

 

Replace might with perception and you have an interrupter build in either of these scenarios. Replace might with Dexterity and you have a solid quick casting build. You could even have a high constitution, high intellect, and decent Resolve and make a very tanky Wizard.

 

I am assuming we can get 2 high attributes with averaging the other stats around 10ish from the point buy, but the current system allows for 1 or 2 high (16+), a moderately high (14ish), and the rest around average. I am sure this will be tweaked. Just using it since it is what I have seen in beta.

 

I think you are right, Matt. Decoupling duration and AoE has to leave AoE with a powerful sister effect. Which IMHO this does by pairing deflection and AoE. It spruces up Resolve as well. It keeps those 2 attributes useful to most classes in a plethora of builds and can be very problematic to dump them. The other 4 attributes should be fine. As long as the Attack Speed increase from Dexterity is enough to be useful.

 

Well as I've said - I still think our system is more elegant and I prefer it. But this proposed split would be my 2nd choice. It's certainly not bad, and miles ahead of what's in place now. I could get behind this even though I prefer Intellect to remain unchanged. I think those of us who prefer what you're suggesting or what Sensuki and I have been suggesting should try to form a united front. Josh Sawyer seems willing to go with one of the two, and from what I can tell most people who prefer one or the other still acknowledge the benefits of the other system.

 

We just need to keep Accuracy with Interrupt, get Deflection and Action Speed implemented, and keep Might and Constitution the same (IMO). If those three are implemented, we'll have a good solid base to playtest and tune from there.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Matt516

[Seari]

I don't understand how concentration is mostly regarded as a dps increase. What about having spells interrupted, i.e. not just damage spells. I mostly have BG2 in mind here and insect plague, but I'm guessing that it doesn't work like that in PoE. As in there's no spell failure, but just casting/action is delayed? Maybe that should be changed.

[Infinitron]

It seems to me that a lot of people are taking "all attributes should be useful in some way for all classes" to mean "all attributes should be useful for all characters". Those aren't the same thing. Yes, Constitution is not as useful for back liners as it is for front liners. That doesn't mean it fails to meet the design goal though, because all classes can benefit from increased survivability if the player chooses to build and play them that way. The meaning of this design goal is that systems such as the Infinity engine stats, where certain classes literally mechanically do not benefit in any way from some attributes, should be avoided. But let us not fall into the trap of trying to make all attributes useful for all character archetypes. That is simply a nonsensical goal in my opinion.

 

Ah, but what if you want to make all attributes useful for all classes, and you also make all of them useful to both "line of fire" characters and non-"line of fire" characters (regardless of class)?

 

Because it sounds to me like Josh is toying with that idea.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Infinitron

[Sensuki]

Yeah me too, I prefer our system, I may be biased on that. But the other one we're talking about isn't that much worse, but I'd lose a bit more sleep over it than Matt would I think

 

I don't understand how concentration is mostly regarded as a dps increase.

Not the same thing, it reduces your effective DPS if you're doing damaging actions and effective durations on non-damaging actions

Edited September 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[Matt516]

Just wanted to take a minute to say: Thanks everyone for reading, and for your awesome feedback so far! 10,000 views in 24 hours - wow. Really making me glad we put the time into this, that's all I'm gonna say.

 

And thanks for replying, Josh! If you happen across this post but haven't read the rest of the replies from after you left, I would highly recommend doing so (even though there are a lot). For the most part, the quality of discussion in this thread has been top-notch, and I think you'll find there are a ton of great ideas being presented from all sides.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Matt516

[Sensuki]

Regarding the DPS loss, that scales with the number of enemies attacking you

That's certainly true but it also depends what they're attacking you with

 

Deflection and Concentration together would be great for actually making it worth taking to prevent that loss though because they both contribute to effective interrupt resistance.

 

For the rest, I think that you're getting a bit entitled here. Your suggestions are going to be incorporated one way or another, I don't think there is a need for design by comitee.

I think that's a bit unfair, because I don't think it's just me in favor of my idea. At the moment it's me arguing about it against two people is all.

 

I know PrimeJunta and IndiraLightFoot and a bunch of other people earlier in the thread also said they didn't like Josh's proposal as much.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[Ganrich]

Animal Companions have their own base Deflection I think. They would likely get some sort of benefit from leveling up though, but they would not get your Deflection bonus because they have their own individual pros and cons.

I agree that I am unsure that these benefits are large enough to make them not be dumps, but intellect in its present form isn't necessary for these 2 classes either way. The rogue can lean on another party member for status effects if they dissipate too quickly. While the ranger only benefits from the duration on an ability or 2 anyway and very little from AoE.

Rogue needs a re-work, faaar too passive IMO. Really boring. They were originally going to be a more active class but they changed it. There needs to be some work done so that classes actually get a benefit from such things.

I only expect the deflection bonus from an attribute to increase the animal companions deflection. Everything else shouldn't be added, but if deflection is added as a bonus to any attribute then the companion should benefit.

 

I agree on rogues. I think the mundane classes need to see benefits from AoE and Duration in their abilities, or we need to split those effects from lying under a single attribute.

[Seari]

 

I don't understand how concentration is mostly regarded as a dps increase.

Not the same thing, it reduces your effective DPS if you're doing damaging actions and effective durations on non-damaging actions

 

But are you taking into account the length of combat when comparing it to other stats?

[Sensuki]

I only expect the deflection bonus from an attribute to increase the animal companions deflection. Everything else shouldn't be added, but if deflection is added as a bonus to any attribute then the companion should benefit.

I am not sure that the animal companion mechanics work like that ?

 

But are you taking into account the length of combat when comparing it to other stats?

2% damage per point for every damaging action that you make is better than whatever 0.5s loss of DPS per interrupt is worth IMO. There MAY be a situation where you actually lose more DPS in an individual fight, but for the far majority of fights in the game, the damage and accuracy is better.

 

Matt is the numbers guy, but the actual benefit from Concentration is really hard to work out because it's so convoluted.

 

But yeah another thing that's kinda strange is what purpose does mixing benefits serve? It seems like the Deflection/AoE and Durations/Concentration is trying to make up for flaws in the class design and the game itself than anything.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[Ganrich]

@Sensuki - I would be biased toward my hard work as well. If it makes any difference, I am 100% happy if your system makes it into the game. You 2 have done amazing work, and have earned it.

 

 

I am just voicing my issues with it. Which I am willing to admit are also somewhat bias.

 

Also, IMHO animal companions should benefit from attribute boni. I am unsure if they do. I have to go to work so I don't have time to test that. :/

[Sensuki]

That's fine man, I can't help but be biased towards it and I understand why people would prefer the other one. Just having done the research I just don't think it's a better option.

 

I think that the fact that classes "don't need AoE and Durations" or whatever can be fixed by giving all the classes some durations and AoEs. The Deflection/Concentration thing will be fixed when the AI is improved, then it will matter for more characters than currently.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[Matt516]

 

 

I don't understand how concentration is mostly regarded as a dps increase.

Not the same thing, it reduces your effective DPS if you're doing damaging actions and effective durations on non-damaging actions

 

But are you taking into account the length of combat when comparing it to other stats?

 

In general, the length of combat shouldn't make a difference over the long term (i.e. many battles) when comparing stats that increase effective DPS. The frequency with which you get interrupted (i.e. your effective DPS loss) should remain relatively constant over the course of a battle. In the same way, effective DPS increases from other stats such as Accuracy and Might are also relatively constant in the long term.

 

All the changes to effective DPS are battle-time independent by nature - they're changes to effective damage per second, so they scale with battle length. Yes, with shorter battles there will be more individual variance with variables like Accuracy and Concentration, but again - from a long-term statistical perspective, DPS loss is DPS loss.

 

So the length of combat really isn't a factor when comparing stats that affect your effective DPS. The magnitude of those effects is important - but as I've mentioned, actually determining that for the Interrupt-related stats is really difficult because it depends on so many variables. The strength of the Interrupt mechanic will likely have to be tuned more by "feel" than by algebra for that reason.

[Doppelschwert]

For the rest, I think that you're getting a bit entitled here. Your suggestions are going to be incorporated one way or another, I don't think there is a need for design by comitee.

I think that's a bit unfair, because I don't think it's just me in favor of my idea. At the moment it's me arguing about it against two people is all.

 

I know PrimeJunta and IndiraLightFoot and a bunch of other people earlier in the thread also said they didn't like Josh's proposal as much.

 

 

It's fine and welcomed that you are arguing, as it helps everyone a lot and I also appreciate the work you've put into this paper.

Being a bit entitled refered only to the part where you suggest that you think we should vote on this stuff. You're biased with this and I can understand that perfectly well, but I still think it's joshs job to judge this stuff in the end, not ours. Otherwise, by that logic, everyone who puts enough effort into an argument should be given the choice to have his idea voted on, e.g. kill exp and romances and all the other stuff. I just think it's a slippery slope, that's all. Regardless, josh will read your pdf and discuss it internally.

 

Your input will get into the game, so you should feel proud (as you deserve it) and let the devs decide for themselves, at least thats my opinion.

[Ganrich]

That's fine man, I can't help but be biased towards it and I understand why people would prefer the other one. Just having done the research I just don't think it's a better option.

 

I think that the fact that classes "don't need AoE and Durations" or whatever can be fixed by giving all the classes some durations and AoEs. The Deflection/Concentration thing will be fixed when the AI is improved, then it will matter for more characters than currently.

Ironically, when I first saw that Barbarians got a built in AoE component I thought to myself "I would add an AoE component to 2 handed melee weapons." That would help IMHO. There are other things that could be done as well.

[Sensuki]

Being a bit entitled refered only to the part where you suggest that you think we should vote on this stuff. You're biased with this and I can understand that perfectly well, but I still think it's joshs job to judge this stuff in the end, not ours.

That was just thinking out aloud, if they were undecided they could do that is what I meant, as this is a crowd-funding project after all. WL2 had votes for stuff and so did Torment, not sure about D:OS (can't remember).

 

Oh there was already a vote on extra stretch goals, but they went against it anyway.

 

Your input will get into the game, so you should feel proud (as you deserve it) and let the devs decide for themselves, at least thats my opinion.

Apparently they were already going to put 2% IAS on Dexterity and put Accuracy on Perception, I don't know if we convinced them on the Deflection thing either that was more sparked by the other people in the thread

 

I knew Deflection would be the hardest sell as Josh has seemed VERY resistant to it for a long time, over multiple multiple attribute threads.

 

I think if anything Matt's work (the graphs and calculations) could be helpful for them if they want to do any of this stuff based off some stats.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[aeonsim]

 

Being a bit entitled refered only to the part where you suggest that you think we should vote on this stuff. You're biased with this and I can understand that perfectly well, but I still think it's joshs job to judge this stuff in the end, not ours.

That was just thinking out aloud, if they were undecided they could do that is what I meant, as this is a crowd-funding project after all. WL2 had votes for stuff and so did Torment, not sure about D:OS (can't remember).

 

Oh there was already a vote on extra stretch goals, but they went against it anyway.

 

 

Perhaps but that was likely a lot earlier in the process of making the game. With the time they have left now a "vote" would be costly and somewhat meaningless, the vast majority of backers are unlikely to care either way and the result would be pretty much random chance. The amount of time and detail that would go into helping everyone understand the differences would be better spent working on the game. Votes are great for getting a general direction and for broad questions for a game but the specifics need to be decided by smaller groups.

 

 

The work you two have done has likely helped strengthen the devs view of where to go next and possibly given them a different look at what could be done. As such well done and I'm looking forward to seeing what ever the new abilities system looks like, and by the looks of it a large proportion of it will be similar to your suggestions.

[Sensuki]

With the time they have left now a "vote" would be costly and somewhat meaningless, the vast majority of backers are unlikely to care either way and the result would be pretty much random chance.

You're probably right, I was just typing what came into my mind, there seems to be a split on the direction.

 

Regardless thanks for the rap, and there will be more where this came from, probably not as verbose or in .pdf format , but there are many other avenues of the game that are in need of dire attention.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[Ganrich]

@Matt - on break at work, and sending this from my phone. So I will be brief.

 

I think both sides of this debate can easily agree that accuracy and interrupt need to stay together. I also agree that might and con do not need to be changed. Keeping attack speed and deflection I also agree with because there isn't enough to spread around and keep any one of the remaining stats from becoming potential dump stats. Without attack speed and deflection there is too much bread and not enough butter.

[Hormalakh]

 

 

Deflection on Int makes slightly more sense than on Res, but it still doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

Intelligence would become the attribute for all front-line warriors and meh on casters. 

 

If you believe that deflection can't be put on an attribute that makes RP sense, stick to your vision. 

 

Bigger AoEs seems pretty good for casters, IMO.

 

Ultimately my vision is that PoE is a "gamist" game so I err on the side of solutions that produce what I see as better gameplay even if they don't fit perfectly from a simulationist perspective.

 

Mechanics:

Of the two statistics currently tied to Intellect, Duration is obviously far superior. The AoE bonus is not very valuable at the moment due to the "my AoE is too big and I can't make it smaller" problem - not sure if that's planned to be customizable pre-cast with the mouse wheel or something. That said, even if that is fixed, AoE will still be much less powerful than Duration IMO. In light of that fact, combining AoE with Deflection doesn't seem like it would end up with an overpowered attribute, but I'm not entirely sure it wouldn't be underpowered either. Doesn't immediately strike me as a good or bad idea though - worth a try. Duration is very very powerful, so tying Concentration to it doesn't seem like a bad idea either since Concentration is kind of "meh" in my opinion. If it did turn out to be overpowered, the Concentration or Duration bonus could just be decreased to balance it.

 

I know some people have objected to it, but I still think that if the marginal increased area for AoEs were made foe-only for friend-or-foe spells (e.g. a Fireball that, in the expanded margin, only affects hostiles), it would immediately become much more valuable.  

 

 

Josh, have you considered increasing ranges instead of AoEs for friend-or-foe type spells? Being able to cast a spell further from the line of fire is actually quite useful. "Global" type spells - which can be cast from anywhere on the map - or something close to it, is quite the boon to have.

 

You might want to consider making the AoE bonus to a AoE/range bonus instead and to just mention which spells get Aoe which get range bonuses, the argument for AoE being a two-edged sword is very true, at least in one example of the fireball. casting ranges being affected should also be considered in certain cases where the increase in AoE is too OP or has the ~* feels *~ of being more of a negative than a positive. Range increases are always beneficial, at least for "ranged" classes.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Matt516]

@Matt - on break at work, and sending this from my phone. So I will be brief.

 

I think both sides of this debate can easily agree that accuracy and interrupt need to stay together. I also agree that might and con do not need to be changed. Keeping attack speed and deflection I also agree with because there isn't enough to spread around and keep any one of the remaining stats from becoming potential dump stats. Without attack speed and deflection there is too much bread and not enough butter.

 

Awesome! The reason I ask is that if we can be sure to emphasize those 3 things (as a unified group), the game should be in an insanely better place than it is right now, attribute design wise.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Matt516

[Silent Winter]

@Cunning Would it really be a problem for dialogue? I would think that if fits really well. But I don't know enough to say.

 

On the other hand, is changing INT as a stat really a bad idea? I mean right now it's just a go-to pick for casters. Separating AoE and duration would increase build variety, no?

Some spells use AOE, some use duration and some use both.

Comparing with might - that helps all spells that damage/heal (though I guess not other buffs).

I was originally going to post that it's fairer to keep AOE and Duration together, works better in my head overall, but I can see an argument for deciding between the 2 - I guess I'd need more info on which classes use which AOE/Duration/Both skills and what the benefits of each point would be.  Basically, it'd need playtesting.

 

Even with Josh's selective fringe idea (which would buff AoE considerably), AoE is still much, much weaker than Duration simply by virtue of the fact that benefiting from increased AoE is very situational, whereas you always benefit from increased Duration.

Maybe I'm misunderstaning you - Fireballs have no duration for example - or do you mean all builds will benefit in some way from duration?

Don't always need the added AOE, true - but if everyone's clumped and you can use the fringe as ally-safe nuke-zone, you could cast fireballs freely.

I wonder how this tallies with barbarian's 'carnage' AOE - do some AOEs originate with the 'caster' - so barbarian would need to run away behind enemy lines to benefit from the fringe (or are their AOEs party-friendly anyway?)

 

Durations and Concentration would be dumpable on quite a few classes IMO. The classes with the least durations would quite literally laugh at this attribute and just grab Deflection/AoE instead. Barbarians spring to mind - Intellect was already good on Barbarians, but now it's like LOL THX GUISE free Deflection! They don't need extra durations or concentration. There's other classes like that as well.

Don't barbarians have duration on things like wild-sprint?  What about their 'carnage' type AOEs? - I seem to recall there being a couple mentioned but I can't remember where.  Or are these simply already long enough for their use (or just too limited in number to care compared with other stats?)

 

 

Josh, have you considered increasing ranges instead of AoEs for friend-or-foe type spells? Being able to cast a spell further from the line of fire is actually quite useful. "Global" type spells - which can be cast from anywhere on the map - or something close to it, is quite the boon to have.

Increased range is a good idea for increased AOE but there are practical limits based on fog-of-war - and being able to see through that and hit enemies on the other side of the map would be way OP (other side of screen OTOH, at a certain resolution anyway, would be ok)

 

Edit: While we're discussing AOE and fringe - if there are cloudkill type spells that hang around - will the friendly-zone be marked visually in some way so you don't end up moving your fighter into the deadly zone?

Edited September 14, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Matt516]

 

 

Even with Josh's selective fringe idea (which would buff AoE considerably), AoE is still much, much weaker than Duration simply by virtue of the fact that benefiting from increased AoE is very situational, whereas you always benefit from increased Duration.

Maybe I'm misunderstaning you - Fireballs have no duration for example - or do you mean all builds will benefit in some way from duration?

Don't always need the added AOE, true - but if everyone's clumped and you can use the fringe as ally-safe nuke-zone, you could cast fireballs freely.

I wonder how this tallies with barbarian's 'carnage' AOE - do some AOEs originate with the 'caster' - so barbarian would need to run away behind enemy lines to benefit from the fringe (or are their AOEs party-friendly anyway?

Good point - what I meant to convey was that every time you cast a spell with a duration, you are benefiting from your % duration bonus (getting more Dot, longer buff, etc - it's pretty much never wasted). But sometimes when you cast an AoE, you don't benefit from the extra radius because you would've been able to hit all your targets anyway. So Duration is always helpful on spells with a duration, but AoE is only selectively useful, even for spells with an AoE.

 

I think Carnage is no friendly fire by default.

 

EDIT: said duration when I meant aoe

Edited September 14, 2014 by Matt516

[PrimeJunta]

Just my 10¢ -- I prefer AoE/Duration on Int and Concentration/Deflection on Res. 

 

Reasons -- intuitive: while Duration would make more sense on Res than Int, Deflection on Int makes even less sense than Duration, i.e. switching them would be a (small) net loss in intuitiveness.

 

Reasons -- mechanical: Concentration and deflection are both defensive/passive characteristics, while AoE/Duration are both offensive/active. I like the option being able to build a more active or more passive character by pumping one and dumping the other, and then adjusting tactics accordingly. Split the other way would make this more difficult.

 

Admittedly Int would be dumpable for characters who don't do much with AoE or Duration, but that would be easy to solve by giving them more such talents, or increasing the effect on the talents they do have. A significantly longer-duration Knockdown would be a most tangible advantage.

 

I.e. IMO switching Duration and Deflection would be a net loss both in intuitiveness and especialy mechanically, in terms of character-building freedom.