How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity

[Shadenuat]

We have a bunch of people saying "yeah, AoE increase doesn't really seem that valuable", mostly because the marginal increase can be a liability.  Allowing you to scale it down solves the liability problem, but also means that in those circumstances, you get literally no benefit from it at all.  I still really don't get why this is such a spot of resistance when making the margins safe doesn't remove friendly fire, it makes INT valuable all the time instead of sometimes being a liability, and it doesn't require adding a UI layer on top of the system just to regulate AoE sizes.

I don't get your logic. Friendly AoE increase or just AoE increase that can be turned off have equal value (or rather, none) as long as there are no enemies or friends there.

 

Your design gives it more value but it also means that, basically, player can "cheat" and move the margin over enemies and his comrades and suffer no liablity whatsoever, making damage and ignoring friendly fire. That defeats tactical challenge of landing an AoE. Yeah, you're not using full circle, but concidering how player can sometimes cluster mobs it makes circle spells better than, say, fan of flames that always hits friends and enemies.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Shadenuat

[Matt516]

 

 

I think the only real reason for the resistance (assuming this would be balanced properly) is the RP perspective. I'm personally more of a mechanics focused person myself, so I can look past it - but many people won't like a system like this unless there's some plausible game-world explanation for it.

 

I do and don't understand that perspective.  I understand wanting a justification, but it's always seemed fitting to me.  Many AoE spells/effects originate at a point and spread outward.  Fireball is probably the most obvious example, but I tend to think of most effects that way.  You're a super smarty, so as you extend the AoE outward, you are able to selectively shape it at the margins, where it terminates.  You can't do it on the interior because that's the origin of the effect, where it's emanating from.  That's always been my view of it, anyway.

 

That explanation is 100% sufficient for me, at least. Awesome. I would advise including it somewhere in the attribute description though - it's not immediately apparent and many would appreciate seeing that the Devs thought of that. Also adds flavor to the world if the mechanical benefits from attributes are explained in purple prose.

[Lasweetlife]

 

 

 

 

Is there some technical issue that makes changing radii difficult? Because you're going for some weird way around the issue instead the most obvious one.

Seeing AoE affect characters is great (in ToEE creature circles changed color and glowed for that), but what if player is a big fan of "fair4all" friendly fire and expects it affect everyone from high difficulty he have chosen for his playthrough?

We have a bunch of people saying "yeah, AoE increase doesn't really seem that valuable", mostly because the marginal increase can be a liability. Allowing you to scale it down solves the liability problem, but also means that in those circumstances, you get literally no benefit from it at all. I still really don't get why this is such a spot of resistance when making the margins safe doesn't remove friendly fire, it makes INT valuable all the time instead of sometimes being a liability, and it doesn't require adding a UI layer on top of the system just to regulate AoE sizes.

I think the only real reason for the resistance (assuming this would be balanced properly) is the RP perspective. I'm personally more of a mechanics focused person myself, so I can look past it - but many people won't like a system like this unless there's some plausible game-world explanation for it.

Your high-intellect-soul not only allows you to increase the size of your AoEs, it also allows you to shape them is such a way as to protect your allies beyond the natural limits of the spell. However, the natural limits of a spell (the base AoE size) is based on some immutable law of soul-physics and no amount of soul-intellect can shape the spell within that zone. Viola.

 

Edit: Ninja'd x2

Edited September 13, 2014 by Lasweetlife

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

Is there some technical issue that makes changing radii difficult? Because you're going for some weird way around the issue instead the most obvious one.

Seeing AoE affect characters is great (in ToEE creature circles changed color and glowed for that), but what if player is a big fan of "fair4all" friendly fire and expects it affect everyone from high difficulty he have chosen for his playthrough?

 

We have a bunch of people saying "yeah, AoE increase doesn't really seem that valuable", mostly because the marginal increase can be a liability.  Allowing you to scale it down solves the liability problem, but also means that in those circumstances, you get literally no benefit from it at all.  I still really don't get why this is such a spot of resistance when making the margins safe doesn't remove friendly fire, it makes INT valuable all the time instead of sometimes being a liability, and it doesn't require adding a UI layer on top of the system just to regulate AoE sizes.

 

 

I believe the prevailing concept is that AoE would start small as with, 3 Intellect, but be possible to scale larger with the mouse-wheel according to the degree of bonus you have invested to attain. This would provide the benefit of making it larger should one desire--not smaller. The extra UI would be problematic, no doubt.

 

The ultimate point is, that many of the Wizard classes problems would go away simply by mitigating friendly fire, either through Talent, base mechanic, or some other device. I would prefer this over a mouse-wheel solution, as I feel many of the base AoE scopes are still so large as to be prohibitive/punitive without any Intellect bonus.

[morhilane]

 

 

Is there some technical issue that makes changing radii difficult? Because you're going for some weird way around the issue instead the most obvious one.

Seeing AoE affect characters is great (in ToEE creature circles changed color and glowed for that), but what if player is a big fan of "fair4all" friendly fire and expects it affect everyone from high difficulty he have chosen for his playthrough?

 

We have a bunch of people saying "yeah, AoE increase doesn't really seem that valuable", mostly because the marginal increase can be a liability.  Allowing you to scale it down solves the liability problem, but also means that in those circumstances, you get literally no benefit from it at all.  I still really don't get why this is such a spot of resistance when making the margins safe doesn't remove friendly fire, it makes INT valuable all the time instead of sometimes being a liability, and it doesn't require adding a UI layer on top of the system just to regulate AoE sizes.

 

 

I think the only real reason for the resistance (assuming this would be balanced properly) is the RP perspective. I'm personally more of a mechanics focused person myself, so I can look past it - but many people won't like a system like this unless there's some plausible game-world explanation for it.

 

 

RPer resistance to fixed AOE size? I had the impression that people mostly were "I never use damage AoE and Intellect sucks because fight all end up with my party and enemies dancing in a tiny circle". The thing is, the base AoE size is still quite large in most cases, being able to scale the AoE size between normal and Int-buffed size isn't going to make AoE easier to land. The problem with fight clustering isn't AoE anyway, it's pathfinding, mob speed and AI.

[Shadenuat]

Your high-intellect-soul not only allows you to increase the size of your AoEs, it also allows you to shape them is such a way as to protect your allies beyond the natural limits of the spell. However, the natural limits of a spell (the base AoE size) is based on some immutable law of soul-physics and no amount of soul-intellect can shape the spell within that zone. Viola.

When you need to make an explanation like that to players as why you went for some confusing decision instead of an obvious one it feels like not efficient design to me. Already have journalists saying that +2 Might on Amaumas makes them most powerful warriors, isn't that enough.

 

Some ummutable law of soul-physics lmao

Edited September 13, 2014 by Shadenuat

[Matt516]

 

 

Your high-intellect-soul not only allows you to increase the size of your AoEs, it also allows you to shape them is such a way as to protect your allies beyond the natural limits of the spell. However, the natural limits of a spell (the base AoE size) is based on some immutable law of soul-physics and no amount of soul-intellect can shape the spell within that zone. Viola.

When you need to make an explanation like that to players as why you went for some confusing decision instead of an obvious one it feels like not efficient design to me. Already have journalists saying that +2 Might on Amaumas makes them most powerful warriors.

 

 

Well it does... Might makes anyone more powerful. Since Amaumas have the highest Might, they are, by definition, the most powerful warriors.

 

I know what you're referring to though - the journalist equated it with Strength. So what? That's going to happen because PoE's attributes are somewhat unconventional (in most ways strengthening the game IMO). An attribute that causes journalists to get it wrong based on ~1.5 hours of gameplay (when cRPGs may not even be said journalist's forte) is hardly broken just because of that.

 

And besides - plenty of systems are confusing when not fully explained. If an unintuitive issue can be solved with a quick ~3 sentence blurb in the attribute description, it's a nonissue IMO.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Matt516

[Lasweetlife]

 

Your high-intellect-soul not only allows you to increase the size of your AoEs, it also allows you to shape them is such a way as to protect your allies beyond the natural limits of the spell. However, the natural limits of a spell (the base AoE size) is based on some immutable law of soul-physics and no amount of soul-intellect can shape the spell within that zone. Viola.

When you need to make an explanation like that to players as why you went for some confusing decision instead of an obvious one it feels like not efficient design to me. Already have journalists saying that +2 Might on Amaumas makes them most powerful warriors, isn't that enough.

 

Some ummutable law of soul-physics lmao

I was just trying to be snarky. JES gave a much simpler explanation along the same logical lines.

[Wombat]

We have a bunch of people saying "yeah, AoE increase doesn't really seem that valuable", mostly because the marginal increase can be a liability.  Allowing you to scale it down solves the liability problem, but also means that in those circumstances, you get literally no benefit from it at all.  I still really don't get why this is such a spot of resistance when making the margins safe doesn't remove friendly fire, it makes INT valuable all the time instead of sometimes being a liability, and it doesn't require adding a UI layer on top of the system just to regulate AoE sizes.

To be absolutely honest, I find myself glad when I need not hesitate to throw AoE of BB Priest's spells, which discern enemies and allies, while I find much more problem in throwing the spells of BB Wizard.  In terms of pure balancing, it doesn't feel right.  I understand friendly fire made more sense in DnD/IE games, where AoE spells are extremely strong and can be used just in limited circumstances but, at the end of the day, I can adapt myself to new systems as long as they are well-thought and balanced.  I'll be more likely to end up giving up "broken" systems, sooner or later.

[Shadenuat]

 

I was just trying to be snarky. JES gave a much simpler explanation along the same logical lines.

You'll still need one, and probably an additional UI work, like making AoE different color or circles different color or possible damage done shown on characters, ect.

Ofc just re-coloring is easier than adjusting spell sizes and shapes but as a player from simple or more difficult but elegant I'd choose difficult&elegant. Being natural egoist and all that.

 

I agree that simple fix is better than no fix though.

I still think range of spells is surprisingly short compared to possible AoE sizes however.

 

I'll repeat though - making part of AoE friendly makes it easier to land compared to all over mass spells and could possibly be abused.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Shadenuat

[GreyFox]

Dex only affecting speed seems underpowered to me.

 

Dex looks like a stat that will be underpowered or overpowered....before it was basically a must have now it's meh(imo at least) and if you add deflection possibly too good again.

[Valorian]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Your explanation for selective outer AoE of spells is sensible.

 

My observation is that +duration would perhaps make more sense on INT, overall, than on RES. Imagine mundane abilities like crippling strike or knockdown; where to hit (intelligence) is more important than your willpower (resolve).

 

AoE + Concentration could work on Resolve.

And I'll add that it's easier to imagine deflection on INT (hey there combat expertise) than on RES.

[Seari]

 

 

I think the only real reason for the resistance (assuming this would be balanced properly) is the RP perspective. I'm personally more of a mechanics focused person myself, so I can look past it - but many people won't like a system like this unless there's some plausible game-world explanation for it.

 

I do and don't understand that perspective.  I understand wanting a justification, but it's always seemed fitting to me.  Many AoE spells/effects originate at a point and spread outward.  Fireball is probably the most obvious example, but I tend to think of most effects that way.  You're a super smarty, so as you extend the AoE outward, you are able to selectively shape it at the margins, where it terminates.  You can't do it on the interior because that's the origin of the effect, where it's emanating from.  That's always been my view of it, anyway.

 

I could probably accept that, but shouldn't there be some kind of drawback to that? Say having the outer part of the fireball, while party-friendly, do less damage than the unscaled/default part.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Seari

[Lasweetlife]

Dex only affecting speed seems underpowered to me.

 

Dex looks like a stat that will be underpowered or overpowered....before it was basically a must have now it's meh(imo at least) and if you add deflection possibly too good again.

Actually no. The risk is faaaaar more likely that it will be OP than UP. Generally, in CRPGs, any attribute that increases the number of actions one can take (i.e. action speed), unless carefully balanced, is a no-brainier to pump.

[Valorian]

And at this point I'd just rename Intellect to Cunning.

 

Works better for deflection and duration.

[Matt516]

Dex only affecting speed seems underpowered to me.

 

Dex looks like a stat that will be underpowered or overpowered....before it was basically a must have now it's meh(imo at least) and if you add deflection possibly too good again.

 

When compared to any other attribute, it will be underpowered. However, because it helps your character do literally everything faster (and therefore better), it ends up balanced IMO. If IAS was added to DEX, it would be the very definition of a "jack-of-all-trades, master of none" attribute.

 

We went into this a bit in our paper, but you might have missed it. And the attack speed bonus can always be increased if it is too weak.

[Matt516]

 

Dex only affecting speed seems underpowered to me.

 

Dex looks like a stat that will be underpowered or overpowered....before it was basically a must have now it's meh(imo at least) and if you add deflection possibly too good again.

Actually no. The risk is faaaaar more likely that it will be OP than UP. Generally, in CRPGs, any attribute that increases the number of actions one can take (i.e. action speed), unless carefully balanced, is a no-brainier to pump.

 

 

This is true in turn based and round based games - less so in real time, where attack speed can be completely granular. As Sensuki and I mentioned in the paper, when you run the numbers, 2% IAS ends up being significantly weaker than MIG against any kind of DT at all. This is made up for by the fact that IAS helps everything, but it's still hardly a no-brainer to pump.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Matt516

[Matt516]

And at this point I'd just rename Intellect to Cunning.

 

Works better for deflection and duration.

 

Potato potato. :D

[Valorian]

 

And at this point I'd just rename Intellect to Cunning.

 

Works better for deflection and duration.

 

Potato potato. :D

 

 Evokes... slightly different connotations. At least for me.

 

Let's say one is slightly more combat oriented. Intellect.   Cunning.     

Edited September 13, 2014 by Valorian

[GreyFox]

 

Dex only affecting speed seems underpowered to me.

 

Dex looks like a stat that will be underpowered or overpowered....before it was basically a must have now it's meh(imo at least) and if you add deflection possibly too good again.

Actually no. The risk is faaaaar more likely that it will be OP than UP. Generally, in CRPGs, any attribute that increases the number of actions one can take (i.e. action speed), unless carefully balanced, is a no-brainier to pump.

 

 

If you read the paper it shows that it IS underpowered....I'm not really debating it...

 

[GreyFox]

 

Dex only affecting speed seems underpowered to me.

 

Dex looks like a stat that will be underpowered or overpowered....before it was basically a must have now it's meh(imo at least) and if you add deflection possibly too good again.

 

When compared to any other attribute, it will be underpowered. However, because it helps your character do literally everything faster (and therefore better), it ends up balanced IMO. If IAS was added to DEX, it would be the very definition of a "jack-of-all-trades, master of none" attribute.

 

We went into this a bit in our paper, but you might have missed it. And the attack speed bonus can always be increased if it is too weak.

 

 

Na I understand the paper but some classes don't do a wide variety of things for this to help them out in....and some classes do a whole lot of ****.

 

Good job BTW guys I'm not trying to complain or anything but I am worried about the Dex stat the rest seems like it's going in the right direction.

Also If I understand what Josh was saying:

"1) Interrupt chance should be primarily attack/weapon-based with Accuracy (or rather, attack resolution) being the modifying factor.  This doesn't entirely align with your conclusions, but it essentially decouples Interrupt from an Attribute independent of what's affecting Accuracy."

 

This means something I asked for a while ago has come to pass and that is taking interrupt OFF of stats....yea maybe have a stat to help you resist an interrupt but it was never(imo) a good idea to have an interrupt stat.

Edited September 13, 2014 by GreyFox

[Roarkkk]

Woha, my 2 cents.

 

Sensuki, Matt: You are seriously amazing. Thank you for taking the time. Thank you! You two deserve a NPC named after you or some kind of in-game tribute. 

 

Josh: Wow. Thank you too! I'm blown away by how open and positive you are to receive feedback from others. Really having the balls to go toe to toe with us and actually take into consideration the ideas presented is remarkable for an accomplished game dev such as you ; i'm really impressed and thankful since this can only mean that PoE will only get better

 

 

As for the proposed changes made by OP, i wholeheartedly agree with what was presented.

I fell in love with the beauty and symmetry of the proposed attribute system: 2 Offensive, 2 Defensive, 2 Augment.

I also feel that it makes the attributes and bonuses WAY clearer. Actually, reading the paper i realized only now i understand how all game variables interact with each other. It suddenly started to make sense in my head (i'm talking about attributes, DT, recovery time, etc).

 

Also i'm blown away with what this 2-2-2 proposal allows for. The variety of builds that can be achieved is really revolutionary and i think that is what Josh intended. I think that with OPs changes, this system is the best RPG attribute system i've seen in all my years of gaming. I'm impressed by the flexibility it has, and the design principles that it achieves (no bad builds, all attributes good for everyone). 

 

I want OE to implement this so bad. To me having this really nice attribute system created by Josh + community members feedback would be the icing on the cake

[Elerond]

I would leave renaming attributes in that point where their balance is found and then if one or more of them don't sound right then rename those with more appropriate names, but I don't see point to rename attributes during balancing process as there is pretty high likelihood that there will be changes more changes in what they do, which probably will lead that people ask renaming them. 

 

EDIT: And it should also be taking in consideration that those attributes are used in conversations and interactive scenes, and names should also reflect on what they have already written in those, so that there isn't need for major overhauls in writing. IMO.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Elerond

[Seari]

 

 

And at this point I'd just rename Intellect to Cunning.

 

Works better for deflection and duration.

 

Potato potato. :D

 

 Evokes... slightly different connotations. At least for me.

 

Let's say one is slightly more combat oriented. Intellect.   Cunning.     

 

It would help to distinguish this attribute system from dnd as well.

[Matt516]

Sensuki, Matt: You are seriously amazing. Thank you for taking the time. Thank you! You two deserve a NPC named after you or some kind of in-game tribute. 

 

Also i'm blown away with what this 2-2-2 proposal allows for. The variety of builds that can be achieved is really revolutionary and i think that is what Josh intended. I think that with OPs changes, this system is the best RPG attribute system i've seen in all my years of gaming. I'm impressed by the flexibility it has, and the design principles that it achieves (no bad builds, all attributes good for everyone). 

 

I want OE to implement this so bad. To me having this really nice attribute system created by Josh + community members feedback would be the icing on the cake

 

Haha thanks! I didn't back at that tier (was there a tier for that? O_o) but I certainly wouldn't turn it down if it were offered. ;P

 

I'm glad you like the symmetry and the flexibility! Those are the strongest elements of our design IMO.

 

And while this symmetry still causes me to prefer our design to the others presented in this thread thus far (not that those are bad, mind you), this discussion has brought me to realize that I'm really most concerned about three things at the moment. If these three suggestions are implemented, I'll consider it a win:

1. Deflection and Action Speed should be on attributes (but not paired with each other or Accuracy)
2. Might and Constitution should be left alone
3. Accuracy should be paired with Interrupt (if Interrupt exists as a stat)

Beyond that, I'm not too concerned as to what goes where - as long as Deflection and Action Speed don't go on the same stat with each other or Accuracy, of course. That would be crazy overpowered.

 

As for which stats "fit" with which attributes - I think a case can be made for pretty much any of DEF, IAS, or ACC going on any of RES, PER, or DEX (except for ACC on RES and IAS on PER). So I don't really care about that too much. As long as the three above are implemented, I'll consider the core purpose of our paper accomplished (though I'm not putting words in Sensuki's mouth, he may feel otherwise).