Jump to content

How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity


Recommended Posts

I think that the no negatives worked in this system, people will be less inclined to put anything below 10 with the upcoming changes.

 

Sadly, that's something a fair amount of people actively requested. 

1669_planescape_torment-prev.png


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that the no negatives worked in this system, people will be less inclined to put anything below 10 with the upcoming changes.

 

Sadly, that's something a fair amount of people actively requested. 

 

 

It's like comfort food to some people...

Azarhal, Chanter and Keeper of Truth of the Obsidian Order of Eternity.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, it doesn't make a difference as long as they balance the base values correctly. So if you know that, you can dump freely without worry. ;)

 

That's my point. It's simply because some people need to have a few -'s in the character sheet, otherwise THIS IS NOT AN HARDCORE RPG HERP.

1669_planescape_torment-prev.png


Link to post
Share on other sites

People like Saeri are the most clear way to describe how bad a public feedback forum can be.

 

EDIT: It's the second time I report you, I really hope this get you banned.

Edited by Uomoz

1669_planescape_torment-prev.png


Link to post
Share on other sites

People like Saeri are the most clear way to describe how bad a public feedback forum can be.

 

EDIT: It's the second time I report you, I really hope this get you banned.

 

So you offend me and a lot of others in a passive aggressive manner, and when I respond directly in kind, you're butthurt? :lol: I'm not gonna take your **** buddy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well anyway....

 

Regarding the "10 is average" thing. While I recognize that there are a few problems with it, my overall feeling is that it will be a change for the better. Maybe they'll want to revise it down to 9 at some point (I dunno), but I think that since the math behind things can be the same either way, and since most of the PoE audience (not all) is used to the D&D way of doing things, it doesn't hurt to frame very low scores as losses. I dunno - I don't really care all that much either way myself, but I got the feeling that a lot of people were clamoring for this change and I understand why. As for how this affects min-maxing? The people who are going to min-max will figure out what they want their stats to be and pick based on the math anyway. The people who want to role-play will be aided, as if you want to play a "dumb" character (for example) it helps to see that combat modifer as a penalty - reinforces the idea that the character really is deficient in some way and not just "smart, but not as smart as that 18 INT guy over there".

 

So ultimately - I don't think it will affect the mechanical balance of the game much, other than encouraging slightly more "middle-of-the-road" builds. And (from my point of view) it aids the role-playing aspects by reinforcing with mechanics the RP "feel" one will be going for if they intentionally dump a stat.

yeah, am not genuine certain what the goal is o' this change other than to match player expectations. the change doesn't seem to do much, but then again, Gromnir were advocating a name change for rogue and fighter, so it would be kinda hypocritical o' us to dismiss the value o' something we see as largely cosmetic.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68526-how-to-fix-the-attribute-design-in-pillars-of-eternity/?p=1508219

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68526-how-to-fix-the-attribute-design-in-pillars-of-eternity/?p=1508334

 

we genuine haven't paid much attention to the thread past the aforementioned links as josh were addressing our (Gromnir's) primary concerns regarding attributes. QA saw less value in resolve and perception than other attributes. also, we were in favor o' josh's notions o' aoe and duration splits between int and resolve.  from what we saw in liked material, the changes identified by josh addressed the issue o' making resolve and perception valuable to any and all classes, though not necessarily equally. curiously, while josh were not actual adopting changes as suggested by matt and sen but were rather independent relying and adjusting according to QA feedback, the board appeared relatively positive 'bout obsidian proposed changes, though everybody had notions on how to further improve the attributes. 

 

from reading only a few recent posts, am seeing that interrupt has possibly been decoupled from attributes altogether?  am clearly gonna need to do a search, but am gonna concede that am initially having knee-jerk resistance to such an idea. nevertheless, we have no freaking idea how interrupts has been functionally working up until now, so is tough for us to express a reason why we is in favor or against changing interrupts.

 

am recalling that matt didn't wanna do the maths on interrupts and we don't recall obsidian ever clarifying, so am kinda finding ourselves reflexively contrary, but rationally ambivalent about changes to interrupt. 

 

clearly we need to catch up on the recent suggested changes, but that being said, am having difficulty rejecting the functional cosmetic base-10 for attributes. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here's how the math for any individual interrupt roll works: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3593502&userid=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=10#post434357315

 

Since the constants in that post were from memory and subject to change, I was (and am) hesitant to do the maths on how interrupt affects expected DPS. That and the fact that it's dependent on a number of random factors like attack speed ratio, who attacked first, what weapon they're using, etc. To complicate things further, how much you get interrupted also depends on if you're attacking them and what your interrupt (and their concentration) is since when you interrupt them you reduce the number of times they attack (and interrupt) you.

 

It's very difficult to boil the value of a point in concentration to a single graph without doing some kind of simulation of a bunch of different battles with a bunch of different values for parameters and averaging out the results or something. :p

Even then, my results would largely be dependent on my arbitrary choices of which conditions to test, how to "average" it, etc. It's kind of a mess.

 

Here's a quick summary table I put together from page 22, Gromnir. That should catch you up on the major attribute systems suggested up to that point, though it won't catch you up on the other random discussion re: AoEs and the like (much of which was very good).

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68526-how-to-fix-the-attribute-design-in-pillars-of-eternity/?p=1509826

 

Cheers!

Edited by Matt516
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here's how the math for any individual interrupt roll works: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3593502&userid=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=10#post434357315

 

Since the constants in that post were from memory and subject to change, I was (and am) hesitant to do the maths on how interrupt affects expected DPS. That and the fact that it's dependent on a number of random factors like attack speed ratio, who attacked first, what weapon they're using, etc. To complicate things further, how much you get interrupted also depends on if you're attacking them and what your interrupt (and their concentration) is since when you interrupt them you reduce the number of times they attack (and interrupt) you.

 

It's very difficult to boil the value of a point in concentration to a single graph without doing some kind of simulation of a bunch of different battles with a bunch of different values for parameters and averaging out the results or something. :p

Even then, my results would largely be dependent on my arbitrary choices of which conditions to test, how to "average" it, etc. It's kind of a mess.

 

Here's a quick summary table I put together from page 22, Gromnir. That should catch you up on the major attribute systems suggested up to that point, though it won't catch you up on the other random discussion re: AoEs and the like (much of which was very good).

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68526-how-to-fix-the-attribute-design-in-pillars-of-eternity/?p=1509826

 

Cheers!

ah.  much thanks.

 

based on josh's post, it don't appear as if current value o' perception to interrupt is all that meaningful... though if perception is linked to attack roll, then it is still significant, but not specific tied to interrupts. weapon type is current important, and if perception is complete excised from the interrupt chance equation, we suspect weapon type become more significant. hopeful this is an aspect that talents develop a bit as it would appear interrupts is of tactical importance, but currently players can do little beyond weapon choice to boost interrupt success.  makes us wonder how animal companions for ranger's is treated as weapon type for interrupt. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep trying to make it happen, but it's just not catching on. :p

 

EDIT: Bonussen would also be an acceptable alternative. "Bonuses" is just so... boring.

 

Boni works, but if we want to be technically correct (which is the best kind of correct) I would suggest using the neuter plural bona.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My fear is two years from now, a patch will be released with Sawyer still trying to balance the game with tweaks to the attributes, skills, etc.

 

My hope is two years from now, a patch will be released with Sawyer still trying to balance the game with tweaks to the attributes, skills, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My fear is two years from now, a patch will be released with Sawyer still trying to balance the game with tweaks to the attributes, skills, etc.

 

My hope is two years from now, a patch will be released with Sawyer still trying to balance the game with tweaks to the attributes, skills, etc. 

 

 

Eh. Realistically, I don't see balance changing after release - until the sequel, at least. ;)

 

Outside of a few overpowered skills that will inevitably be discovered, that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And in the current Beta build, perception is useless so you can dump it easily. As I understand, the proposition aims at redistributing power among the attributes so you won't be able to dump perception (or you will be punished for it).

..that's what they say, yes. The point I made, and explained, in enough detail, and which you all ignored in order - was that people dump perception and resolve because they think it's useless. And then complain when they get petrified for an hour, and when a monster takes out the entire party with some charging super-ability they can't seem to stop.

 

The problem is this: the proposed changes come from the idea that everyone will dump "useless stats" to maximize their builds. And when that is punished severely in certain situations, the demand turns up that the game should change. 

 

And those suggested changes are geared into narrowing a deeper system into a very specific type of play that I guarantee you that not "everyone" will appreciate. 

 

 

Nipsen, you mentioned that you don't like people playing designers without describing their approach to embarrassing detail. Here's the thing - we did describe our approach in an extremely detailed way. We wrote a 20 page paper describing exactly what our approach was and why we think it results in a better system. So I'll ask you again - did you read the pdf linked on page 1 of this thread? If not, there's not much point in any continued discussion as you will remain uninformed of our actual arguments and the math supporting them. If so, your accusations that we didn't go into enough detail are strange to say the least.

I didn't get through the entire thing, no. But what it seems to me is that - like I explained - that you're stating on beforehand that there's really only one real build in the game, the min-maxed might build. And then you're spending a lot of time suggesting changes to the system to make that build less vulnerable.

 

If I was being rude, I would make a huge treatise on it, and declare that Josh will have to read it and take it into account if he doesn't want to ship the game with a broken system.

 

But since I'm not a rude bastard I won't do that.

 

You claim that our makeup will never lead to perception and resolve being maxed (and that the current system somehow does? Wat.) You're claiming that our approach somehow lessens the penalties of dumping certain stats compared to in the current system. Both of these assertions are simply... wrong, and I'm really not sure how you arrived at them other than completely misunderstanding either our suggested system or the game mechanics themselves...

 

 

 1. I don't see why any attribute /should/ have to be maxed in a "balanced" system. But in the current system you can max stats and have extreme tilts for very specialized builds. That is what the design set out to do. And you don't approve of that. Which is fine. But you don't have a monopoly on opinions about that.

 

2. Again, I explained in detail what I meant. I'm saying that if you dump certain stats, perception and resolve - which you already seem to do always - then you still get baseline bonuses where you would have none before. The proposed system also adds abilities that can't be tied to maximize other "skills", so to speak. I.e., that you can't pump interruption chance and balance it against might. Or go for lower might and gamble on critical range and graze conversion.

 

And if you pump those dump-stats, you get very few useful bonuses in the new system and also lose the maximized bonuses from the other stats.

 

Even worse, when you balance the build, there's very little useful you get out of it, since the actual mechanics in the game doesn't double up dex-defense and dodge in practice: In other words, the proposed system encourages min-maxing, and it encourages a very specific type of gameplay that you only get in the current build if you min-max might and slavishly play that way with all the characters.

 

My opinion is that what you're proposing is to essentially force all of us to play the game exactly like you are when you are building max-min characters. And I dislike that, and just wanted to say so. That's all there is to it.

 

 

Not the case. If you pump might, dex and int, you lose will-saves, reflex saves, and you interrupt extremely poorly.

If you have high Int and low Res you'll still have the same Will defense as someone with balanced Int and Res

 

If you have high Dex and low Per you'll still have the same Reflex defense as someone with balanced Per and Dex.

 

"Interrupt extremely poorly" - this bit is a dead giveaway that you took a quick glance, saw the attribute array and then didn't read further.

 

That's very out of the ordinary for someone who's usually a pretty good poster.

 

I've actually been harping on this several times, and I do wonder why some of you keep on ignoring parts of the game mechanics. What I mean is that you recover from effects that affect your speed and intellect faster with a higher bonus. Freeze and daze lasts shorter (and are recovered against sometimes completely), to the point where the effects are almost negated every time. And interrupts in the game apparently works in the way that you have a chance to attempt an interrupt on practically everything. And that chance to interrupt increases with better perception. 

 

So what I had with my perception/int based fighter was that I had a solid chance at occupying mobs, and still interrupting all of their effects as they were trying to squish me. That was interesting. I could boost the number of people I can engage simultaneously with.. whatever stat that was governed by, and the abilities. And actually have a decent chance at resisting and really punishing the casters around me (depending on how I placed the fighter, and how the enemy responded).

 

I made an example of it in another thread where a character like that would treat a might-based mage as some sort of minor annoyance - even while fighting another nearby enemy. Because I have so high interrupt chance I can trust it to go off practically every time. And that effect is apparently relative to the lower chance of the target to resist an interrupt, rather than being a linear function. Meanwhile the might-based mage would skewer the guy on a distance if he isn't interrupted. 

 

But in this case the system makes sense, right? The characters have weaknesses and strengths. With the proposed changes, the might-based mage would just have extra bonuses and have a better chance at getting off their spells. Which.. they already do if they use their abilities and spells wisely.

 

So I don't think you've thought this through.

 

 

On a sidenote - I guess I really should stop getting annoyed by stuff like this, but I've been very unpleasant to random peeps on the forum for playing designers and making suggestions without explaining their own approach to embarrassing detail. So now it's your turn.

:blink: 20 pages not embarrassing detail enough ?

 

Not when it boils down to fifty repetitions of "I have now explained why this makes complete sense, for reasons that are already obvious", no.

 

I mean no offense with this - but I've "consulted" on enough papers at the university and for "political" organisations of different kinds to recognize a foregone conclusion when I see one.

  • Like 1

The injustice must end! Sign the petition and Free the Krug!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Nipsen, but you're still not making any sense.

 

I read through your latest post three times, and I simply do not see how it relates to what is actually in the S&M proposal.

 

How, specifically, does bringing deflection and action speed into the mix and moving accuracy from dexterity to perception make your duration and interrupt-based build unviable?

 

Does not compute.

 

I.e. I'm still picking up epic butthurt, and still completely failing to discern the reason. From past experience I would guess that something else is going on; something matt and Sensuki said hit some button of yours and brought back old bad feelings. Something like that.

  • Like 4

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean is that you recover from effects that affect your speed and intellect faster with a higher bonus. Freeze and daze lasts shorter (and are recovered against sometimes completely), to the point where the effects are almost negated every time.

 

Uhhhh, what? Nothing makes you recover from effects faster ...

Edited by Sensuki
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Nipsen, but you're still not making any sense.

 

I read through your latest post three times, and I simply do not see how it relates to what is actually in the S&M proposal.

 

How, specifically, does bringing deflection and action speed into the mix and moving accuracy from dexterity to perception make your duration and interrupt-based build unviable?

 

Does not compute.

 

I.e. I'm still picking up epic butthurt, and still completely failing to discern the reason. From past experience I would guess that something else is going on; something matt and Sensuki said hit some button of yours and brought back old bad feelings. Something like that.

 

I think he is annoyed that Sensuki/Matt proposal feels like it is geared toward min/maxing casters at the expense of everything else.

 

In their proposal, weapon based classes needs to make hard choices between defense, offense, interrupts, etc build-related attributes. The attributes make it so that they need to sacrifice something to fulfill a specific build. Casters just have to wonder where to put their remaining points after maxing Intellect and Might because these two attribute max their entire spell list.

 

Although, that is how the current system works too, so I'm not sure why he is bringing it up has being "better".

Azarhal, Chanter and Keeper of Truth of the Obsidian Order of Eternity.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is annoyed that Sensuki/Matt proposal feels like it is geared toward min/maxing casters at the expense of everything else.

I've stated multiple times that durations are overpowered at the moment. Nerf Durations - and casters won't be as powerful.

 

I've also stated that splitting Intellect and AoE hurts support casters more than damage casters.

Edited by Sensuki
Link to post
Share on other sites

Offensive casters also need Accuracy - as every offensive action requires an ACC-DEF check. Not all warrior classes need CON either. In the end it works out pretty much the same for everyone class wise, but the key differences are melee and ranged, not warrior and caster. That is not a fault of the attribute system design - but of the game in general.

 

The new AI routines next patch may help balance this out.

Edited by Sensuki
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not geared towards min maxing any particular build... We just want to make it such that any attribute distribution is viable. I apologize for my inability to convey our goals better than that, but there it is. You're welcome to insist that we're trying to make everyone minmax our way or that our system is overwhelmingly geared towards a maxed Might build, but from where I sit I don't see it. We're trying to combat that by giving the attributes commonly dumped by such a build valuable bonussen that will hurt if not present. For example, in our proposal a character with 3 Resolve would have 7 less Deflection than in the current system while still having less Concentration. If that's not a painful stat to dump, I don't know what is. And that's our goal - to move away from the current system's "RES and PER are dumpable, therefore max MIG and INT and DEX to win" to a system where every attribute is valuable.

 

And that's really all I can say about that.. If you still think we're trying to make the max Might build king and force everyone to minmax characters "our way", there's not much else I can say. :p

Edited by Matt516
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's our goal - to move away from the current system's "RES and PER are dumpable, therefore max MIG and INT and DEX to win" to a system where every attribute is valuable.

And the amount of effort you put in it is astonishing.

 

Still, do you think it'll make things more exciting? If every attribute is as valuable as the next one, then choosing carefully is no better than assigning values at random. I see how from a pure RP point of view such ultimately balanced system is welcome because metagame reasons no longer determine stats distribution. But mechanically won't it be a little bit boring?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...