How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity

[Matt516]

Well, just because each attribute is equally worthwhile does not mean that each attribute is the same. The idea is that every attribute spread is viable, but you still have to play to the strengths of that build. If you want a fast striker character, you have to put points in different stats then if you want a defensive character. That's the idea, anyway. Equal, but different.

[Ink Blot]

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?

 

This was my knee-jerk at first as well. I thought "well, now everything is vanilla". But considering it more critically, I think what it does is give you the flexibility to build a lot more varied and viable characters. You get to choose your character concept's strengths and vulnerabilities without basically being forced into a specific attribute array and trying to pigeonhole that into the concept. When every attribute has some value to the character, it's far easier to build out a concept that has a specific weakness/es or strength/s, I think. Hope I made that understandable.

 

*edit* Yeah, what MAtt516 said.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Ink Blot

[Matt516]

On a slightly related note, I'm going to go ahead and try and run the numbers at some point tonight or tomorrow on a few interrupt cases. I'll be making some simplifications, but hopefully we can get at least a decent idea on how concentration affects your DPS in a few example situations. My suspicion is that interrupt will create a significant DPS loss, but that one percentage point in concentration won't have a huge effect on that.

[illathid]

 

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 ...

 

 

I think he's saying that with a high interrupt, you'll interrupt enemies more often which will reduce the duration of hostile effects they create. I think.

[Sensuki]

It will also reduce their DPS. I don't understand his problem, in our version Interrupt is stronger. In the current version it's awful if you don't also have a high Accuracy.

 

Obsidian is removing it - we didn't ask for that.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

Meh, I don't know that it makes much of a difference. It's perhaps even a little counterintuitive that you can hit hard and accurately and not be likely to cause interrupts. I assume different attacks still have different base Interrupts, so it's not like there's no way to use it tactically.

[Matt516]

It will also reduce their DPS. I don't understand his problem, in our version Interrupt is stronger. In the current version it's awful if you don't also have a high Accuracy.

 

Obsidian is removing it - we didn't ask for that.

Well, we did suggest lowering the percentage interrupt per point though. I'd say it's about the same. Either any, it looks like the interrupt stat is going away.

[Sensuki]

Well, we did suggest lowering the percentage interrupt per point though. I'd say it's about the same. Either any, it looks like the interrupt stat is going away.

Stronger in the sense that it's always a good choice.

[Gfted1]

Interrupts are being removed? w00t w00t

[Sensuki]

No, just Attribute-influenced Interrupt.

[Falendor]

Wow, first thread longer than I could bear reading through.

At first I like the symmetry of the 2-2-2 system, but now im thinking it forces all DPS characters into 2 attributes and all tanks into 2 attributes, etc. Mixing it up so each class TYPE needs all 6 attributes would be a closer to the stated goals of the attribute system, going to be tough, messy, work, but I think its doable.

Looking forward to more from the Sensuki/Matt516 team, make sure deflection gets on a stat!

 

MOST PRODUCTIVE THREAD EVER!

[Matt516]

Wow, first thread longer than I could bear reading through.

At first I like the symmetry of the 2-2-2 system, but now im thinking it forces all DPS characters into 2 attributes and all tanks into 2 attributes, etc. Mixing it up so each class TYPE needs all 6 attributes would be a closer to the stated goals of the attribute system, going to be tough, messy, work, but I think its doable.

Looking forward to more from the Sensuki/Matt516 team, make sure deflection gets on a stat!

 

MOST PRODUCTIVE THREAD EVER!

 

Well, with our suggested system, DPS benefits primarily from MIG and secondarily from DEX, PER, and RES. Casters love MIG, DEX, RES, PER, and INT, and Tanks love CON and PER. While I understand your sentiment re: each type needing all 6 attributes, I don't really think such a goal is realistic without making the attribute system needlessly complicated (i.e. MIG gives 3% damage, 1% speed, CON gives 2% HP/Stam, 1% Concentration, DEX gives 2% speed, 1 accuracy, 1 deflection, etc...).

 

If we want to keep the attribute system simple and easy-to-understand, there shouldn't really be much more than 1 or 2 stats on each attribute. This means that some attributes will, be nature, be favored by some character archetypes.

 

What we tried to achieve was a system in which each class could benefit from any attribute, but not necessarily each archetype. Which (IMO) is as far as it needs to go. After all, we want there to be interesting choices between the attributes - and if not only any class but any character type period will benefit from all attributes, that interesting choice goes away. After all, if all DPS characters and all tank characters etc all benefit from the same attributes, how do you even know what the difference is between the two anymore?

 

Anyway, YMMV - but we aren't really all that interested in taking the all-inclusiveness of the attributes further than the "any class" level. The idea is that the attributes define the archetype, and the class gives "flavor" to that archetype.

[Falendor]

If we want to keep the attribute system simple and easy-to-understand, there shouldn't really be much more than 1 or 2 stats on each attribute. This means that some attributes will, be nature, be favored by some character archetypes.

 

What we tried to achieve was a system in which each class could benefit from any attribute, but not necessarily each archetype. Which (IMO) is as far as it needs to go. After all, we want there to be interesting choices between the attributes - and if not only any class but any character type period will benefit from all attributes, that interesting choice goes away. After all, if all DPS characters and all tank characters etc all benefit from the same attributes, how do you even know what the difference is between the two anymore?

I think the problem comes from the fact that many classes are pigeon holed into certain party roles (Rogues are DPSrs, if your not DPSing with your rouge you are sub optimal.) if the class system could be expanded so all classes could fill several party roles (with the correct stat/talent picks) then this stat balance would be perfect.

I think we can all agree that a full class rebalance is totally out of the question, but some class rebalances (Sensuki sounds lake he want to take on that next) could work with this system very nicely. (I want me my dodge tank rogue).

[Sensuki]

Some classes do need a bit of a look, yes - Ranger, Rogue, Fighter and Monk are probably the four in the most dire need of a look at IMO. Ranger is by far the worst class in the game atm.

[Falendor]

Mostly played a ranger so far, so I know what your talking about.

Fighters seemed ok to me, I believe Josh said that different classes will have different levels of skill needed to play them, if any class should be "low skill" then its the fighter. that'll be a discussion for another thread though.

[Monte Carlo]

Mostly played a ranger so far, so I know what your talking about.

Fighters seemed ok to me, I believe Josh said that different classes will have different levels of skill needed to play them, if any class should be "low skill" then its the fighter. that'll be a discussion for another thread though.

 

Ha ha ha where did he say that? I thought the entire design philosophy ran contrary to this.

[Namutree]

Some classes do need a bit of a look, yes - Ranger, Rogue, Fighter and Monk are probably the four in the most dire need of a look at IMO. Ranger is by far the worst class in the game atm.

It sucks too because I really wanna play a ranger. 

[Corto81]

No, just Attribute-influenced Interrupt.

 

The Interrupt thing, to me, looks like a lot of the issues I'm having with the game right now - reinventing the wheel, changing something for the sake of changing it, and definitely NOT making it better or more modern etc.

 

IMO interrupting spells should be based of two things:

- damage taken theshold

- straight out stuns/interrupt spells/skills

 

Simple, yet effective in basically any game I've played. RPG, MMO, Dota, whatever...

 

...

 

Again, though this new patch is an improvement over the first initiial BB release, I'm still having a lot of issues that I find concerning and some of them flat out disappointing - and I'm not talking bugs and unfinished content, I'm talking design decisions...

Some of them feel just so pointless and wrong.

I'm not saying this game needs to be an improved BG2/IWD2... But it's gotten away in some aspects from the original design for no apparent reason other than to be different.

 

Same goes for the attribute system... It looks... I dunno... Not properly thought out, not thoroughly tested and gauged for pros and cons etc.

 

Which is why this paper in the original post is fantastic...

I don't necessarily think Obsidian will change according to everything in it, but they should definitely be taking a long look at it.

Some sort of change IS necessary IMO.

 

...

 

Also, some of the classes are dull, as pointed out in this thread.

Ranger is the worst, which is a bit sad... Hell, just mix Windrunner and Lone Druid from Dota and you have an interesting class.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Corto81

[PrimeJunta]

Mostly played a ranger so far, so I know what your talking about.

Fighters seemed ok to me, I believe Josh said that different classes will have different levels of skill needed to play them, if any class should be "low skill" then its the fighter. that'll be a discussion for another thread though.

I don't think he said 'skill.' I think he said 'maintenance.' Fighters are lower-maintenance than, say, wizards, meaning you can basically park them and have them auto-attack, and they'll mostly do fine.

 

As to 'skill,' I recall that Josh has said that in his view character-building or class selection is the wrong place to adjust game difficulty; that's what the difficulty settings are for. I.e. he is attempting to make all the classes roughly equally powerful.

 

I've no doubt though that, say, priests and wizards will take more 'skill' -- or at least knowledge -- to play effectivcely, since it's all about understand what the spells do, so you know which one to use in any given situation. Fighters or rogues have fewer abilities so they're more straightforward.

 

I don't know if that really counts though since I think "figuring out what the spells do" falls under "cRPG 101" -- i.e., the very basic minimum you have to do to be able to play at all.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Some classes do need a bit of a look, yes - Ranger, Rogue, Fighter and Monk are probably the four in the most dire need of a look at IMO. Ranger is by far the worst class in the game atm.

 

It sucks too because I really wanna play a ranger. 

 

 

What do you find lacking with the ranger?

[Namutree]

 

 

Some classes do need a bit of a look, yes - Ranger, Rogue, Fighter and Monk are probably the four in the most dire need of a look at IMO. Ranger is by far the worst class in the game atm.

 

It sucks too because I really wanna play a ranger. 

 

 

What do you find lacking with the ranger?

 

The ranger is simply too weak. Doesn't do enough damage; dies to easily. 

[morhilane]

 

If we want to keep the attribute system simple and easy-to-understand, there shouldn't really be much more than 1 or 2 stats on each attribute. This means that some attributes will, be nature, be favored by some character archetypes.

 

What we tried to achieve was a system in which each class could benefit from any attribute, but not necessarily each archetype. Which (IMO) is as far as it needs to go. After all, we want there to be interesting choices between the attributes - and if not only any class but any character type period will benefit from all attributes, that interesting choice goes away. After all, if all DPS characters and all tank characters etc all benefit from the same attributes, how do you even know what the difference is between the two anymore?

I think the problem comes from the fact that many classes are pigeon holed into certain party roles (Rogues are DPSrs, if your not DPSing with your rouge you are sub optimal.) if the class system could be expanded so all classes could fill several party roles (with the correct stat/talent picks) then this stat balance would be perfect.

I think we can all agree that a full class rebalance is totally out of the question, but some class rebalances (Sensuki sounds lake he want to take on that next) could work with this system very nicely. (I want me my dodge tank rogue).

 

 

Rogue are utility/DPS in the IE games, why should it be different in PoE?

 

Also, I like my class pigeonholed into specific roles, I don't need a pseudo-classless system where classes exist only to give different sparkles to the same abilities all the other classes can use.

[Sensuki]

The Ranger is boring.

 

I really like the animal companion mechanic but they are essentially glorified auto attackers with a shared health pool. They really need to look at some of the stuff you can do with Lone Druid in DotA or whatever. They need some active abilities. The Animal companion itself could have it's own active that is gained through the Ranger advancement.

 

If they don't want the Ranger to feel as half-arsed as Rangers do in every edition of D&D then they need to put more work into it. Good concept - not very good implementation.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Sensuki

[morhilane]

The Ranger is boring.

 

I really like the animal companion mechanic but they are essentially glorified auto attackers with a shared health pool. They really need to look at some of the stuff you can do with Lone Druid in DotA or whatever. They need some active abilities. The Animal companion itself could have it's own active that is gained through the Ranger advancement.

 

If they don't want the Ranger to feel as half-arsed as Rangers do in every edition of D&D then they need to put more work into it. Good concept - not very good implementation.

 

According to the Ranger page on the wiki (and Update about Ranger/Rogue), there is/was pet-only abilities for the ranger.

[Sensuki]

The Lion has a roar. I think the Stag might have a Rake or something, but yeah ... that's about it I think. They're kind of lacking in depth.