Is Might a Dump Stat? Is Perception THE DPS stat?

[Monte Carlo]

* shrugs *

 

I just want the stats to do stuff you expect them to do. I'm taking quite a lot of flak for the heresy of pointing out that it's not very intuitive to have a fighter for whom intelligence is more important than strength (for example).

 

Guys, listen in - the emperor is naked. I know many of you will find this shocking but there it is. This stat system is FUBAR.

 

None of the infinity engine games had this stat algebra going on where you have to second guess which stat does what, along with grazes and deflection. Simple doesn't have to be stupid. In fact not simple, elegant. This system isn't elegant. It's obtuse.

 

Furthermore, the idea that I suddenly have to understand MMO tropes (damage dealer / dps / tank) when playing a game marketed as an Infinity Engine tribute is another slap in the face. If I make a fighter I expect a durable combatant whom I can tweak within the class. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

At the moment the character-building system in poE is like a complex joke only Josh and a few of his admirers seem to understand. The shills on this forum who dig it might be happy but trust me the rest of the gaming population are about to brew up a big cauldron of WTF once this hits the streets.

 

Happily, it's not too late to change it.

[nipsen]

 

Well, my understanding was that the bonus from int skewed the scale for the severity of the wounds you inflicted. I.e., made the critical hits hurt more. That isn't reflected in the stats directly, and it's not dependent on derived bonuses from stats. And it won't show up until the damage compounds and stamina depletes. So if the intention to make that was implemented in the game, then Int would affect the severity of critical hits. Example: a more severe critical hit snaps endurance and speed, making the amount of stamina to be depleted before a knock-out would perhaps as much as halve.

Where are you getting this information from? Intellect in PE BB Attribute System v1 only affected Durations and AoE. It would have some effect on the magnitude of non-damaging hits where the effect duration scales with grazes and crits. However only at a flat percentile value of -50% (0.5% per attribute point) or +50% (+1.5% per attribute point).

 

So it was there, but I'm clearly wrong about everything I said. And it had the effect I suggested, but I'm wrong about how that works as well. Got it.

 

Here's the thing though, I'm not sure if you've read much of Josh Sawyer's posts about the attribute system, but he has said he wants it to be a gamey system rather than a simulation-y system where the attributes are balanced via the combat benefits, with 'making sense' from an RP perspective being a secondary concnern. That's how it's been all along, we took that into account when designing our alternate system and this new version goes even further in the 'making less sense' department IMO even though they think it makes more sense than ours.

It seems to me he hasn't actually said much about how it works. The piece about accuracy, int and perception, is from the official news-thread about fighters and barbarians where Josh posted. 

 

And here's the kicker - where have you read that Josh's intention is to create a game-y system over one that makes narrative sense? Or a stat system that is 100% removed from dialogue and narrative as a principle?

 

That is what your suggestion for improvement is. And the tendency to go that route certainly is there with the latest patch. But where does that come from? And how are you able to rationalize it..?

 

Because the attribute system revolves around balance in combat. This stuff is only important for Dialogue and Scripted Interactions. And it already does what it's supposed to do there.

So again, that perception helps with interrupts. And that intellect helps with more severe criticals, part of which is simply adding direct health damage it seems. Just as resolve helps any class resist interruption -- is not only not existent in your retelling of how the system works. You also want to specifically remove the importance of these in the stat-makeup at character creation, unless you specifically want a character to do only dialogue.

 

Until the idea apparently is to maximize the combat relevance of "dialogue only stats", while removing the narrative consistency completely.

 

Again. Why would you want that? What does it accomplish? Other than allowing max-min builds based on Might to function without severe penalties and draw-backs in terms of party wipes, I mean.

 

Well you're flailing your arms around ignoring the actual reasons for things, and making your own up due to your negative experience with ... what game was it ? Gears of War or something.

So where did I make up anything? As you admit, INT and PER as well as RES are..were relevant in combat, and they were relevant before the patch as per design. It was relevant, even though YOUR and Matt's suggestion denies it is from the outset, or assumes it's not there. It was also narratively consistent with how the characters could be role-played, and allowed, like I specifically explained, for example the int and perception based fighter to exist. It would also allow the truly fanatical paladin who could ignore wounds and keep going with his blessing. He would be no superman, but have solid faith literally sustaining him (the character would again be easy to role-play into the dialogue system - he gains solid reputations, he is not swayed by arguments, he is favoring the consistent honesty approaches, etc). It would allow the clever ranger who is extremely fast and nimble, who almost consistently will have his or her abilities trap or pin the target, although they do little damage outside shapeshifts or buffs. It would allow the slow and fat rogue who rarely gets into position, but can still deal a ton of damage and pick locks. It would allow the dwarven fighter that rely on the class' hardiness but is actually relatively fast and quick for dwarves. Etc., etc. It's endless.

 

And now it's just the same across everything, unless it's predefined in the class, with the added on ability modifiers that favor your and Matt's Might builds. 

 

So with your and matt's suggestion, just as with the curious changes to the current beta - the system changes. Into, by your own admission, a "game-y" system rather than a more narratively consistent one. You admit it, and you are now getting what you want. Although you put the reason for why this should be changed into a game-y system rather than the previous one that made sense (and came out of nowhere I guess) on Josh's design intention.

 

So where, Sensuki, am /I/ making something up?

 

And where did Josh ever signal the intention to make a stat and combat system that had no relation to the narrative? It's the opposite of what he's been saying from the beginning. It's also the opposite of what the first system was and so successfully accomplished that I hardly didn't believe my ears when some of you started complaining.

 

And that's been my problem with your mangling here - you make this entire thing up out of whole cloth, put in something that seems familiar from the IE games, and convince yourself that it somehow fits with what was the "true intention". And you flail and cry at everyone who points that out. We make things up, we don't know what we're talking about, and we haven't made 50 hours of video or made a pdf with our explanations of how things should be. And Josh agrees with you, even though I have no idea where that comes from.

 

But you're the one in the right, because you say so.

 

Look, I don't know whose ear you're having at Obsidian, I don't care how you're gaining exclusivity on the feedback here. Just please stop doing it. 

 

Or maybe have yourself and Matt put on the credits for the game as "The people who mangled the stat system and convinced us that everyone wanted this and that it fit with the game as the kickstarter pledge said". That'd be perfectly fine as well.

 

But I don't want that system. If you spelled out what you wanted instead of insisting you're intending and accomplishing the opposite of what you're actually doing for the sake of promoting it, I seriously doubt you would have many others want the system as well. But at least I don't want a system that is disconnected to role-playing the character. If you want that, you can write a mod and play the game that way yourself. Hell, just maximize the abilities and give you a million stat points and shut up about it, I don't care! 

 

And if you force the rest of us to play your system as well, I'll have you credited, one way or the other, for doing that after the game releases. And I'll have Obsidian raked over the fire for tossing out a well-working system because they put the loudest fans ahead of the design-intention they had. Because I won't have much entertainment value from the game, and that's how I'll get the return from my evidently wasted pledge money.

[nipsen]

 

At the moment the character-building system in poE is like a complex joke only Josh and a few of his admirers seem to understand. The shills on this forum who dig it might be happy but trust me the rest of the gaming population are about to brew up a big cauldron of WTF once this hits the streets.

 

Happily, it's not too late to change it.

Then by all means, monte - do tell us where you picked up that the system until the current build didn't make sense.

 

Was it, perhaps, here on the forum?

[Sensuki]

And here's the kicker - where have you read that Josh's intention is to create a game-y system over one that makes narrative sense? Or a stat system that is 100% removed from dialogue and narrative as a principle?

His posts here, His posts on Something Awful, his posts on badgame.net, his Tumblr and Twitter, his interviews (including the RPGCodex Q&A 2013 where he first revealed what he wanted to do with the attribute system).

 

So again, that perception helps with interrupts.

In PE BB v301 Attribute System Perception no longer helps with Interrupts.

 

In the "Sensuki&Matt516 system" Perception still affects Interrupt, but it also affects Accuracy now too because Interrupt relies on the Accuracy score to be effective, therefore making an Interrupt based build a good build.

 

And that intellect helps with more severe criticals, part of which is simply adding direct health damage it seems.

Intellect doesn't help with more severe criticals, it increases your Deflection thereby reducing the chance of being critted. In the old system, Intellect did not do anything to critical hits, it increased the base duration of abilities, which has nothing to do with attack damage. Not sure where you're getting at with that.

 

You also want to specifically remove the importance of these in the stat-makeup at character creation, unless you specifically want a character to do only dialogue.

No. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, it's just something you are imagining.

 

Until the idea apparently is to maximize the combat relevance of "dialogue only stats", while removing the narrative consistency completely.

There are no dialogue only stats.

 

Again. Why would you want that? What does it accomplish? Other than allowing max-min builds based on Might to function without severe penalties and draw-backs in terms of party wipes, I mean.

All Attributes will probably be used pretty equally in dialogue. Attribute design needs to be balanced in the dialogue system SEPARATELY to how it is balanced for combat. In other systems they are both taken into account, but not in Pillars of Eternity, they are separate systems.

 

As you admit, INT and PER as well as RES are..were relevant in combat, and they were relevant before the patch as per design.

Intellect was fine but Perception and Resolve were completely dumpable in combat. You might not have thought so but pretty much everyone else did, including the developers. They do something, but the bonus is not great on it's own and High Perception combined with Low Accuracy is a trap build. Your Interrupt is not useful if you are only missing and grazing.

 

It was also narratively consistent with how the characters could be role-played

Our version is no different in this regard IMO, but I couldn't care less about roleplaying though, I'm more interested in the combat systems.

 

And now it's just the same across everything, unless it's predefined in the class, with the added on ability modifiers that favor your and Matt's Might builds.

No it's not.

[illathid]

Nipsen, Josh stated that stats should be more handy than simulationist, but so far hasn't said anything about thier narrative standing.

 

Are you conflating simulationism with narrative? Because the two are very different and I don't see how the new stats lack narrative consistency.

 

Also, if you're upset with the changes you shouldn't blame Matt and Sensuki too much. Shortly after they posted their paper Josh said he had already been working on a similar changes to the stats himself. So we probably would have gotten the same or very similar changes this update even if they hadn't posted anything.

[Sensuki]

So with your and matt's suggestion, just as with the curious changes to the current beta - the system changes. Into, by your own admission, a "game-y" system rather than a more narratively consistent one. You admit it, and you are now getting what you want. Although you put the reason for why this should be changed into a game-y system rather than the previous one that made sense (and came out of nowhere I guess) on Josh's design intention.

Our system aims for balance of the mechanical benefits that each attribute gives.

 

Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity is not how I would design them if I was going to make a D&D style game. Our design tries to find the best balance within the constraints of our understanding of the design goals that Josh has laid out.

 

And where did Josh ever signal the intention to make a stat and combat system that had no relation to the narrative? It's the opposite of what he's been saying from the beginning. It's also the opposite of what the first system was and so successfully accomplished that I hardly didn't believe my ears when some of you started complaining.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=9059

 

Infinitron has an exclusive request:

I'd like us to try to get a Kodeks Eksklusive look at Project Eternity's ability scores in this Q&A. We know they already exist. Let's see how crazy they are.

 

Josh: The specific list may change, but the biggest difference players will notice in Attributes (compared to A/D&D ability scores) is that all of their bonuses are uniformly applied instead of being keyed to specific types of weapons or attacks. E.g. one Attribute affects bonus damage (and healing) and one affects bonus accuracy -- regardless of the weapons or spells being used.

 

We would like your character concepts to be viable regardless of how you distribute your Attributes. Part of our solution for this is decoupling things like Attribute-based accuracy and damage bonuses from specific types of gear or class abilities. The focus of your character may change based on how you shift the points around, but we want to avoid setting up "must-have" and "must-dump" stats.

​

Here is some info from the Attribute System first revision in late 2013:

 

Strength affects your Health and number of inventory slots. Constitution affects Stamina. Dexterity affects Accuracy. Perception affects Critical Damage. Intellect affects Damage and Healing. Resolve affects Durations and AoE size. We may slightly shift these, but this is what we will be working with in the foreseeable future.

 

Each defense (other than Deflection) is equally influenced by two stats. Aside from level, the attributes that contribute to each defense are the primary determining factors of that defense. Class (now) rarely has a large influence on a character's defenses.

 

Fortitude - Strength and Constitution

Reflexes - Dexterity and Perception

Willpower - Intellect and Resolve

 

Deflection is the exception to this. While Fort/Ref/Will share roughly equal time in defending characters, Deflection is the most commonly-attacked defense. It is not influenced by any attribute and is mostly determined by level and class. Characters like fighters and paladins have great base Deflection. Characters like priests and wizards do not.

Does Intellect Damage and Healing make narrative sense to you?

 

Combat and Narrative (Dialogue/Scripted Interactions) are different. You are starting to sound like smudboy who thinks that Turn based combat is worse than RTwP because it makes less "narrative sense".

 

Look, I don't know whose ear you're having at Obsidian, I don't care how you're gaining exclusivity on the feedback here. Just please stop doing it.

I don't have anybody's ear. I don't have exclusivity on feedback. And I will not stop doing anything that I am doing. You will just have to suffer my presence.

 

And if you force the rest of us to play your system as well

Our system wasn't used. I made it into a mod. I do not care what they do for attributes now, as I can just make whatever I want into a mod. If you want the original system I can mod it back in for you and send you the link.

[Sensuki]

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

 

This will sound like BS, but just before lunch, I wrote this chart on my board:

 

 

 

2) Accuracy makes as much, if not more, sense on Perception as it would on Dexterity.

 

3) Dexterity should modify Action Speed by 2% per point.

 

Here is proof that they were already going to add in Action Speed into the system before we proposed ours, and they were also going to move Accuracy to Perception.

 

Deflection was not added into the attribute system because of our paper, but because the community wanted it. It was not solely because of Mine and Matt's paper. People had been asking for attribute based Deflection for a while because AC was in the IE games system. There were only a few people (such as Karkarov) who didn't want it.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Sensuki

[Hellraiser789]

Yeah I know. Point is that the marginal % DPS increase from 1 point in Perception (aka 1 Accuracy) is (in general) higher than the marginal % DPS increase from 1 point in Might when and only when the enemy's Deflection is higher than your Accuracy. Once your Accuracy gets above 5 greater than their Deflection, Might starts being worth more (a LOT more).

 

A bit behind, but wouldnt this require Might to rely heavily on Perception? Because if your accuracy relies on Perception, and Might is only better if your accuracy is higher, that means Might relies on Perception right? Or does the boost in Perception not make as much a difference as your class's base accuracy? Also, are there currently any other ways to improve accuracy other than Perception? And does your accuracy get better as you level up?

 

Sorry for so many questions - dont have the beta so I cant test this stuff myself.

[Sensuki]

Accuracy doesn't rely on Perception. The Accuracy bonus from Perception is added to your Accuracy score. The bonus you get from Perception is actually pretty small compared to what you get from Class, Progression, Items and Buffs.

 

Might does not scale with level, and Might gives a higher per point bonus than Perception does to DPS if ACC-DEF = +6 or higher.

[Hellraiser789]

Accuracy doesn't rely on Perception. The Accuracy bonus from Perception is added to your Accuracy score. The bonus you get from Perception is actually pretty small compared to what you get from Class, Progression, Items and Buffs.

 

Might does not scale with level, and Might gives a higher per point bonus than Perception does to DPS if ACC-DEF = +6 or higher.

 

Ah, okay. Thanks for helping me understand the system better. 

 

And dont let those guys bother you. We all know you make those suggestions and stuff because you are looking to improve the game and we appreciate all the hard work you've been contributing to the project. Regardless of whether they used your suggestions or not, I'm sure it helps them with considerations and ideas, and if they happen to seem like they listen to you more than others, I'd say its because you present sound and logical conclusions based upon your ideas and understanding of the system. 

 

So keep up the good work!

[Fiebras]

Looking at the crafting menu you can get several +Atribute comsumables so in theory you can make any character you want and temporaly compensate for anything through consumables,

Then you have item enchantments.

Its not exactly min/max-y since the buffs are temporary and you got to spend money and resources to get them. Same with enchantments.

Id like to see how the enchantment thing is balanced as I dont know how many enchantments you can pile onto a single weapon/armor or how rare/expensive the ingredients are.

[tdphys]

Here's how it was supposed to work: "Yeah, the way we display the non-verbose final roll is always relative to the standard ranges: Miss on <=5, Graze on 6-50, Hit on 51-95, Crit on >=96.  Defense is subtracted from Accuracy and then applied as a modifier to the roll itself.  E.g. the attacker has 52 Accuracy and the defender has 30 Defense.  The difference is 22.  Three attacks happen in sequence.  The actual rolls are 65, 43, and 84.  Those are modified to 85 (Hit), 65 (Hit), and 106 (Crit).  There are two exceptions to this: a natural roll of <=5 can never be better than a Graze and a natural roll of >=96 can never be worse than a Hit, no matter how much the table gets skewed." So says Josh.

 

 

 

If this is the case, then high accuracy gives inordinate higher chances of crits and I can see how that could be overpowered.  The fact that crits depends non-uniformly on accuracy /deflection / DS etc also probably lends itself to feelings like this:

 

 

 

At the moment the character-building system in poE is like a complex joke only Josh and a few of his admirers seem to understand. The shills on this forum who dig it might be happy but trust me the rest of the gaming population are about to brew up a big cauldron of WTF once this hits the streets.

 

 

 

 

For simplicity's sake, how about:

 

Accuracy and Defense operate as mentioned for hits and grazes.  A hit always has 5% chance of being a crit,  a graze has 5% chance of being a miss.  ( I think a miss should be a critical miss, like .5 seconds of stun or something) 

 

Intellect:  anything above 10 gives +1.5% to critical hit chance and -.5% to critical miss chance

           anything below 10 gives -.5% to critical hit chance and +1.5% to critical miss chance.

 

I think this could balance per and int.

 

And now, to weigh in on the acrimonious simulation vs gamey definition, though I hope it doesn't swamp the design debate, which is more interesting to me.

 

Role-Play Simulation is one of the greatest parts of playing pen and paper DnD.  It also requires the flexibility and brain power of the DM and the players.  You can't simulate that on a computer.  Role-play on the computer emerges from game-play.  Having a robust stat system that enables emergent game play will increase the role-playability (with emphasis on playability).  You can't ask obsidian to make a simulationist RPG,  only ask that it balance narrative and combat game-play in its stat build.  I think the narrative part will be primarily supported by the background, writing,reputation and narrative system that will be POE. It therefore makes sense to weight the stats to apply more in combat then the narrative.  I agree that trying to make the stats make sense in narrative and combat is a worthy goal, but It's much easier to write in *intellect* into a quest dialogue then make a balanced combat game.

 

 

It's been fun to see the game design and I'm really looking forwards to playing this.

 

  

Edited September 28, 2014 by tdphys

[tdphys]

It seems odd that accuracy would affect crit chance.   To-hit bonuses don't in DnD.

[Azrael Ultima]

It seems odd that accuracy would affect crit chance.   To-hit bonuses don't in DnD.

And PoE isn't a D&D based game.

[Matt516]

The dependency of crits on Accuracy is not nonlinear. The effect of Accuracy on total DPS is quite modest. Here's how the mechanics work: http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Attack_Resolution

[tdphys]

The dependency of crits on Accuracy is not nonlinear. The effect of Accuracy on total DPS is quite modest. Here's how the mechanics work: http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Attack_Resolution

 

 

Thanks, the wiki article made good sense.  The dependency of crits probability on accuracy  is nonlinear, since above a certain threshold, there is zero crit chance while below it there's a linear dependency.   This seems to me to make accuracy a very critical part of DPS by enabling crits, but from what you've said,  PER  doesn't do that much to affect it compared to class features, and therefore isn't  necessarily the buff stat it was hypothesized to be in the beginning of the thread.  

 

I actually think that INT as a critical  hit modifier (def) is narrative, as the genius/knowledge it takes to exploit a persons anatomy/situation  or avoid being exploited.  So if Int is still the nerf stat I think it could be buffed by moving crit ranges rather then, or including the AOE mods.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2014 by tdphys

[Matt516]

 

The dependency of crits on Accuracy is not nonlinear. The effect of Accuracy on total DPS is quite modest. Here's how the mechanics work: http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Attack_Resolution

 

 

Thanks, the wiki article made good sense.  The dependency of crits probability on accuracy  is nonlinear, since above a certain threshold, there is zero crit chance while below it there's a linear dependency.   This seems to me to make accuracy a very critical part of DPS by enabling crits, but from what you've said,  PER  doesn't do that much to affect it compared to class features, and therefore isn't  necessarily the buff stat it was hypothesized to be in the beginning of the thread.  

 

I actually think that INT as a critical  hit modifier (def) is narrative, as the genius/knowledge it takes to exploit a persons anatomy/situation  or avoid being exploited.  So if Int is still the nerf stat I think it could be buffed by moving crit ranges rather then, or including the AOE mods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, it's fully linear within the regime in which crits are possible. 1 point of Accuracy is always +1% crit chance if crits are possible. And accuracy is indeed a very critical part of DPS - but its not more important than Might. 1 point of Accuracy gives, at most +1.5% effective DPS (+1% of 150% damage and -1% of 0% damage in the -5 to 5 range of Accuracy - Defense). 1 point of Might always gives +2% effective DPS. Now, the true value of a point in either one of these is actually dependent on the value of the other (you can't compare the flat percentages) - but in general, Might gives a lot more effective DPS if your Accuracy is higher than their Defense and Accuracy gives a bit more DPS if your Accuracy is lower than their Defense. Might and Accuracy are pretty well balanced as far as DPS goes (assuming there isn't an overwhelming trend of enemies with more or less Defense than Accuracy values, that is).

Edited September 28, 2014 by Matt516

[Cantousent]

I actually really appreciate the fact that you crunch all these numbers, Matt.  The fact that you explain them simply without sounding condescending and superior is merely a plus.  Keep up the good work, bud.

[nipsen]

 

And where did Josh ever signal the intention to make a stat and combat system that had no relation to the narrative? It's the opposite of what he's been saying from the beginning. It's also the opposite of what the first system was and so successfully accomplished that I hardly didn't believe my ears when some of you started complaining.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=9059

 

Infinitron has an exclusive request:

I'd like us to try to get a Kodeks Eksklusive look at Project Eternity's ability scores in this Q&A. We know they already exist. Let's see how crazy they are.

 

Josh: The specific list may change, but the biggest difference players will notice in Attributes (compared to A/D&D ability scores) is that all of their bonuses are uniformly applied instead of being keyed to specific types of weapons or attacks. E.g. one Attribute affects bonus damage (and healing) and one affects bonus accuracy -- regardless of the weapons or spells being used.

 

We would like your character concepts to be viable regardless of how you distribute your Attributes. Part of our solution for this is decoupling things like Attribute-based accuracy and damage bonuses from specific types of gear or class abilities. The focus of your character may change based on how you shift the points around, but we want to avoid setting up "must-have" and "must-dump" stats.

​

 

And that's where the "true intention" to make the stat-system utterly and completely uninteresting comes from?

 

Unbelievable. You're really interpreting that into meaning you must - at every cost, including narrative consistency - make the stats equally "important" - for a given value of teapot - in combat.

 

*sigh*

 

Here is some info from the Attribute System first revision in late 2013:

 

Strength affects your Health and number of inventory slots. Constitution affects Stamina. Dexterity affects Accuracy. Perception affects Critical Damage. Intellect affects Damage and Healing. Resolve affects Durations and AoE size. We may slightly shift these, but this is what we will be working with in the foreseeable future.

 

Each defense (other than Deflection) is equally influenced by two stats. Aside from level, the attributes that contribute to each defense are the primary determining factors of that defense. Class (now) rarely has a large influence on a character's defenses.

 

Fortitude - Strength and Constitution

Reflexes - Dexterity and Perception

Willpower - Intellect and Resolve

 

Deflection is the exception to this. While Fort/Ref/Will share roughly equal time in defending characters, Deflection is the most commonly-attacked defense. It is not influenced by any attribute and is mostly determined by level and class. Characters like fighters and paladins have great base Deflection. Characters like priests and wizards do not.

Does Intellect Damage and Healing make narrative sense to you?

 

Yes. And here's why. An intelligent priest should be able to focus their power better, and perhaps be able to cure specific diseases or poison with more skill. So, as I understand it, they would have a greater range for their healing spells, and a greater bonus so allies can beat their resistance checks. Against enemies, they would be able to conjure up large areas with modest bonuses. While might would make the treshold for minimum amount of healing higher. But the priest should be unable to do the soul-manipulation with any finesse.

 

Damage would work in the same way. A wizard with high power and no discipline would unleash massive spells, but be unable to sustain the more artful ones.

 

And I massively prefer this to the usual "more or less powerful, period" stats in D&D. For mechanical as well as narrative reasons. 

 

 

Combat and Narrative (Dialogue/Scripted Interactions) are different. You are starting to sound like smudboy who thinks that Turn based combat is worse than RTwP because it makes less "narrative sense".

Why? If that's your opinion, then you can explain what you're basing it on. If not, you're just insulting me for no reason. Which isn't an argument.

 

The point was that when you build a character based on the abilities you have - perception, might, dexterity, etc. And then when you play the game, that build actually fits into the narrative. In the way that a very nimble and perceptive archer can make incredibly damaging critical hits, and make them more often, also against fast targets and very quickly in interrupt situations. But he doesn't do as much damage as a character with very high might, can't handle a really big bow perhaps, and just will never beat the damage threshold for heavily armored targets. For example. Then that is a success for the system, since the stats not only make mechanical sense, but they also make narrative sense.

 

And when it makes sense when the game responds to you as well. By letting a perceptive priest notice things intuitively, but be clueless in terms of putting two and two together logically. Or when a strong and intelligent fighter can get by with threats, and clever threats as well - but will miss certain obvious cues - both in combat and dialogue. Then that is also a success for the system. Since it is narratively consistent with how the characters are built.

 

This is different from D&D, where I'm used to that a class generally has one stat used for "role-playing". Priest has wisdom. Wizard has intelligence. Fighter has strength. Paladin has charisma. And that the role-playing essentially exists outside of the system altogether. End of story.

 

But that this previous PoE system had opportunities to expand on that somehow simply does not register on your scale. Not only that, but I don't understand "the real system" because I don't agree with the idea that anything outside mechanical consistency across the stats is impossible.

 

Why is that? And given that this is how I think - why would you think it's reasonable for me to simply accept your and for example Matt's point of view on this?

 

 

Look, I don't know whose ear you're having at Obsidian, I don't care how you're gaining exclusivity on the feedback here. Just please stop doing it.

I don't have anybody's ear. I don't have exclusivity on feedback. And I will not stop doing anything that I am doing. You will just have to suffer my presence.

 

And if you force the rest of us to play your system as well

Our system wasn't used. I made it into a mod. I do not care what they do for attributes now, as I can just make whatever I want into a mod. If you want the original system I can mod it back in for you and send you the link.

 

 Don't bother. You're already missing large parts of the class-specific bonuses and how they interact with the stats. So a mod that "looks right" isn't what I want.

 

It's also beside the problem that somehow Obsidian has started to change their system to some absurd mathematical equation based on what their community wants to believe Josh intended, or whatever the hell is going on.

 

(...)

[nipsen]

Nipsen, Josh stated that stats should be more handy than simulationist, but so far hasn't said anything about thier narrative standing.

 

Are you conflating simulationism with narrative? Because the two are very different and I don't see how the new stats lack narrative consistency.

 

Also, if you're upset with the changes you shouldn't blame Matt and Sensuki too much. Shortly after they posted their paper Josh said he had already been working on a similar changes to the stats himself. So we probably would have gotten the same or very similar changes this update even if they hadn't posted anything.

"All hearken to the interpreted wisdom of the Pharaoh!".

 

Then I guess the most probable thing is that the previous system - that worked surprisingly well - was an accident, and Obsidian simply screwed up and made it by mistake? Which now is made more properly broken again, as was their intention and normal mode? Sounds completely logical.

 

And no, I'm not conflating "simulationism" with narrative. I am suggesting that the stat system is not, and was not ever intended to be "realistic". That there is no way to explain everything a person does in every detail with the system. Josh obviously knows that this is impossible. And the context that was explained in suggested that he favored a more narratively pleasing system that makes sense (thanks to useful shortcuts) in the game-world's context, over a system that aims to somehow reflect a "real person" and their every aspect. Or a system that is "simulationistic". 

 

So this means that not all possible actions by a player will at all times be reflected perfectly with the stat system. But that it does give the players a framework to explain how raising and lowering stats will impact their overall abilities. Such as that a charismatic and perceptive politician will be able to manipulate people more easily - and that when you shaped your character in the stat-sheet, that potential is actually reflected right there in high charisma and perception. This is narrative consistency. Same with the paladin that is a complete fanatic, and who relies on force to solve every problem. This again can be seen as a potential in the stat sheet, and it fits with how that person is in the game's world.

 

But the system doesn't explain how a character will be able to learn certain common tasks, or how easily or with how much difficulty they are able to read spells, etc. That falls outside the system - so the system isn't "simulationistic". But it is "narratively consistent".

 

And you know as well as I do - or at least you should - that the people who tend to argue for a "simulationistic" system tend to argue for a "1 to 1" system that simply makes no sense to normal people who have any imagination at all. They populate the bioware forums in massive herds. Meanwhile no one can really determine their actual number. Or even figure out how they propagate.

[nipsen]

 

And here's the kicker - where have you read that Josh's intention is to create a game-y system over one that makes narrative sense? Or a stat system that is 100% removed from dialogue and narrative as a principle?

His posts here, His posts on Something Awful, his posts on badgame.net, his Tumblr and Twitter, his interviews (including the RPGCodex Q&A 2013 where he first revealed what he wanted to do with the attribute system).

 

And from what you've quoted and what you say, you're literally inventing his approval of changes from nothing. In addition to clearly misinterpreting what the guy actually said. What does that suggest?

 

 

So again, that perception helps with interrupts.

In PE BB v301 Attribute System Perception no longer helps with Interrupts.

 

In the "Sensuki&Matt516 system" Perception still affects Interrupt, but it also affects Accuracy now too because Interrupt relies on the Accuracy score to be effective, therefore making an Interrupt based build a good build.

 

So now my perceptive but bumbling priest is not only a super-fast striker, but he also makes incredible critical hits. Success? I guess I'll just have to up his might now, or else he'll be a hobbled priest!

 

 

And that intellect helps with more severe criticals, part of which is simply adding direct health damage it seems.

Intellect doesn't help with more severe criticals, it increases your Deflection thereby reducing the chance of being critted. In the old system, Intellect did not do anything to critical hits, it increased the base duration of abilities, which has nothing to do with attack damage. Not sure where you're getting at with that.

 

My understanding was, like I said, that it affected other things as well. That it skewed the severity of the wounds that were inflicted. I wrote this already, and I'm taking that from the "frontline fighters" backer update.

 

 

You also want to specifically remove the importance of these in the stat-makeup at character creation, unless you specifically want a character to do only dialogue.

No. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, it's just something you are imagining.

 

So what's the intention, then? You're arguing right over here for a system that ignores role-playing completely. And with that system, I'm left with having to choose between hitting the right dialogue stats I want, and actually building a character that has a fighting chance to survive. This is a direct result of the tweaks.

 

 

Until the idea apparently is to maximize the combat relevance of "dialogue only stats", while removing the narrative consistency completely.

There are no dialogue only stats.

 

Then what is there in your opinion? Are you beginning from a starting point that makes all stats equally important for dialogue, and that they therefore then should be equally important mechanically, inside a very specific and narrow system in combat as well? So that in the end, you're happy with a completely disconnected system where perception has something to do with perception in dialogue, and that it has to do with learned skill and dexterity in combat?

 

You know, the extremely perceptive Orc fighter, who somehow is able to supernaturally spot the critical points on the opponent right before the strike, in some sort of eternal serial epiphany streak?

 

This isn't narratively pleasing, as I'm sure you will agree - but you don't care? Because you only have a might-maxed build anyway, or something like that?

[nipsen]

 

Again. Why would you want that? What does it accomplish? Other than allowing max-min builds based on Might to function without severe penalties and draw-backs in terms of party wipes, I mean.

All Attributes will probably be used pretty equally in dialogue. Attribute design needs to be balanced in the dialogue system SEPARATELY to how it is balanced for combat. In other systems they are both taken into account, but not in Pillars of Eternity, they are separate systems.

 

So.. no narrative consistency, then. That's your opinion about how it should work. Because... the other option just was so much worse? 

 

See, here's my problem with this - you don't get a system that is perfectly mathematical in all situations anyway. It's simply not possible to get that, never mind predict what the other encounters we haven't seen in the game actually looks like.

 

And you know on beforehand that if you run into variants with variables you haven't predicted - which seems very likely - then the system is even less mathematically pleasing.

 

So why would you want to change the system so it is definitely not narratively consistent - on the off chance that the entire game is as uniform as the backer beta scenario? 

 

See, the only thing you're accomplishing is to ruin a system that worked. And replacing it with another narratively displeasing one, that the developers still will have to tweak the encounters into in order to make them "balanced".

 

You're creating extra work for Obsidian - or they're creating extra work for themselves - in order to remove a system that at least was narratively pleasing. That's what annoys me.

 

 

As you admit, INT and PER as well as RES are..were relevant in combat, and they were relevant before the patch as per design.

Intellect was fine but Perception and Resolve were completely dumpable in combat. You might not have thought so but pretty much everyone else did, including the developers. They do something, but the bonus is not great on it's own and High Perception combined with Low Accuracy is a trap build. Your Interrupt is not useful if you are only missing and grazing.

 

But that's wrong. And you would know that if you made an int-based fighter and tested it in combat. You would also know that a consistently hitting "base damage" character with high perception is extremely useful for interruption.

 

My guess - although it doesn't matter now - was that interrupts also disregarded or reduced deflection. Making perception a very useful stat, and perhaps a build based on perception could have been necessary in a team. Meanwhile - we have somehow decided that perception was a dump stat, and that the entire system had to be thrown out.

 

 

It was also narratively consistent with how the characters could be role-played

Our version is no different in this regard IMO, but I couldn't care less about roleplaying though, I'm more interested in the combat systems.

 

So why do you want the system changed? Why does it not "make sense" without the changes? How does it improve the system when it is no longer narratively pleasing? Again - I don't care much for your perspective on this. But you could be honest and explain what it is you're actually trying to accomplish.

 

 

And now it's just the same across everything, unless it's predefined in the class, with the added on ability modifiers that favor your and Matt's Might builds.

No it's not.

 

And yet, might is the only stat that should really not be dropped if you look at it mechanically with the new system, as well as with your suggestions. Matt ran the numbers as well and it's proven there. Why should I not interpret that as if this was your only intention with this?

[Valeris]

Within a last weeks, I´ve come to the conclusion that  few, but very active members of this community are desperately begging for attention. They spam the beta backer forums with threads suggesting this and that, only backed by there own ideals how the game should be run to make THEM happy.

I would seriously suggest that said people take a back seat and stop begging for attention. Let the developers do their work. You have LONG crossed the line between useful feedback and self-presentation for the sake of Ego-inflation. The developers are ALL much more competent in what they do than 99% of the attension beggars in this forum.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Valeris

[nipsen]

Well, it's fully linear within the regime in which crits are possible. 1 point of Accuracy is always +1% crit chance if crits are possible. And accuracy is indeed a very critical part of DPS - but its not more important than Might. 1 point of Accuracy gives, at most +1.5% effective DPS (+1% of 150% damage and -1% of 0% damage in the -5 to 5 range of Accuracy - Defense). 1 point of Might always gives +2% effective DPS. Now, the true value of a point in either one of these is actually dependent on the value of the other (you can't compare the flat percentages) - but in general, Might gives a lot more effective DPS if your Accuracy is higher than their Defense and Accuracy gives a bit more DPS if your Accuracy is lower than their Defense. Might and Accuracy are pretty well balanced as far as DPS goes (assuming there isn't an overwhelming trend of enemies with more or less Defense than Accuracy values, that is).

 

There were already a lot of enemies that obeyed the defense/speed and Damage Treshold/slow combination. The only ones that had both seems to be the cowled dwarf.

 

And the point that was made was that if a character has high accuracy far above another character, then the damage isn't going to have just a percentage-wise boost, but pretty much consistently have their hits converted to critical hits.

 

In the same way, a low dexterity build might end up hitting every time (thanks to to-hit-bonuses). But never beat the damage treshold, as well as have practically all hits converted to grazes. As well as have a very low probability of getting critical hits. That put together makes the scale for damage not linear in any way.

 

The bonuses would of course be linear. But the output would be extremely skewed once you actually beat the defense, and start to score critical hits on for example more than half the rolls. Which again is completely different to d&d, and doesn't let the final damage output fit in a linear spreadsheet either.

 

Not that any of this is in any way something we want in a game that runs on a computer, of course. Making the entire discussion moot, clearly. And besides, Josh's intention was a system that is utterly boring and predictable.

[nipsen]

Within a last weeks, I´ve come to the conclusion that  few, but very active members of this community are desperately begging for attention. They spam the beta backer forums with threads suggesting this and that, only backed by there own ideals how the game should be run to make THEM happy.

I would seriously suggest that said people take a back seat and stop begging for attention. Let the developers do their work. You have LONG crossed the line between useful feedback and self-presentation for the sake of Ego-inflation. The developers are ALL much more competent in what they do than 99% of the attension beggars in this forum.

Well, I hope you can take the time to say that in some channel that Josh or someone else at Obsidian reads. Because the fact of it is that someone found out at Obsidian that the latest changes were needed. And these changes do break with what was put in there in the first couple of builds in the worst way possible - that they sacrifice explanations that make narrative sense for a more "mechanically balanced" system.