Graze gotta go, no?

[Matt516]

 

 

Back on topic, I like grazes. I don't mind some randomness to combat, but if I lose a battle I don't want to be able to reload, employ the exact same tactics, and win just because the RNG was nicer to me this time. I prefer combat to require skill rather than luck, and less variance in the damage helps with that.

That's my main beef with it. The fact that I can employ the exact same tactics and have a wildly different result was always a bit annoying, and I'm glad to see it go. Not that there's a problem with RNG in combat, far from it - but it was badly balanced in 2e rules.

 

And this is just what I am talking about. You are proposing changes to PoE while not liking basic stuff of IE games (and D&D), randomness.

I don't know if you played WL2, but lots of randomness is what makes that game good. It also made Xcom the hit it was (and old Xcom is still one of the best games I know because of randomness).

 

 

XCOM is completely different because if one battle goes south because of RNG you aren't screwed over for the whole game. It creates hardship to overcome. By contrast, in a party-based RPG, losing one battle because of RNG ends your game. I've stated multiple times that I don't mind RNG in battle systems and that I think it can make a game better. But I think the addition of Graze balances the battle RNG better for a party-based RPG when compared to the IE games. You're welcome to disagree, but continuing to claim that I'm not a real fan of the IE games because I hold that opinion is insulting and ridiculous.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Matt516

[Jon of the Wired]

 

 

Back on topic, I like grazes. I don't mind some randomness to combat, but if I lose a battle I don't want to be able to reload, employ the exact same tactics, and win just because the RNG was nicer to me this time. I prefer combat to require skill rather than luck, and less variance in the damage helps with that.

That's my main beef with it. The fact that I can employ the exact same tactics and have a wildly different result was always a bit annoying, and I'm glad to see it go. Not that there's a problem with RNG in combat, far from it - but it was badly balanced in 2e rules.

 

And this is just what I am talking about. You are proposing changes to PoE while not liking basic stuff of IE games (and D&D), randomness.

I don't know if you played WL2, but lots of randomness is what makes that game good. It also made Xcom the hit it was (and old Xcom is still one of the best games I know because of randomness).

 

 

Sure, guilty as charged. I liked the IE games, but that doesn't mean I think they were perfect and impossible to improve upon. Shifting the balance between luck and skill a bit farther over to the skill side is one of the improvements I think can be made.

 

I'm playing Wasteland 2 now, and I'm about eight hours in. I like the game a lot, but the degree of randomness in its mechanics is not one of the reasons I like it. In combat it's tolerable, because there's a lot of rolls in your average fight, and it tends to balance out. I can tell you I've already been doing a ton of save-scumming to open containers though. The skill use mechanics are completely unsound.

[archangel979]

Watching the screen for 30 seconds as 6 people completely fail to hit a near-dead guy in heavy armor gets pretty boring. The missing sounds amplify the effect.

 

Then the guy in heavy armor gibs one of your guys and JUST THEN someone manages to land the killing blow.

 

Dont get me started on mages.

I am not talking about attack animations here. It does not matter if attack animations are done IE way or PoE way. PoE was is more realistic, IE way was to make it look like something was happening instead of everyone standing still for 6s.

 

The other stuff of your post is meaningless when presented like this. Let me give you a equal level response: "Don't let your guys get gibbed."

[archangel979]

 

 

 

Back on topic, I like grazes. I don't mind some randomness to combat, but if I lose a battle I don't want to be able to reload, employ the exact same tactics, and win just because the RNG was nicer to me this time. I prefer combat to require skill rather than luck, and less variance in the damage helps with that.

That's my main beef with it. The fact that I can employ the exact same tactics and have a wildly different result was always a bit annoying, and I'm glad to see it go. Not that there's a problem with RNG in combat, far from it - but it was badly balanced in 2e rules.

 

And this is just what I am talking about. You are proposing changes to PoE while not liking basic stuff of IE games (and D&D), randomness.

I don't know if you played WL2, but lots of randomness is what makes that game good. It also made Xcom the hit it was (and old Xcom is still one of the best games I know because of randomness).

 

 

XCOM is completely different because if one battle goes south because of RNG you aren't screwed over for the whole game. It creates hardship to overcome. By contrast, in a party-based RPG, losing one battle because of RNG ends your game. I've stated multiple times that I don't mind RNG in battle systems and that I think it can make a game better. But I think the addition of Graze balances the battle RNG better for a party-based RPG when compared to the IE games. You're welcome to disagree, but continuing to claim that I'm not a real fan of the IE games because I hold that opinion is insulting and ridiculous.

 

You are trying to compare whole Xcom with whole IE games which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about combat vs combat. In Xcom, the randomness made the game unpredictable and exciting. All you actions had the purpose of getting favor of the Gods of RNG but in the end anything could happen. Same in BG. Even the perfect plan might fail at first contact with the enemy and it made the game unpredictable and exciting. You maximized you chances to win and let the Gods of RNG do what they do. Maybe you don't like that, but that was at the core of IE experience.

Removing RNG from PoE is removing some of the core elements of IE games.

 

IE games were not just isometric, party based RPG with lots of talking and quasi turnbased system. DA:O had all those elements but in the end its combat was crap and boring and I played it only to be able to have more fully voiced fun conversation with my companions (only part of the game that truly shined). So far PoE is following DA:O more than IE games. Only real difference is "2d" backgrounds and 6 instead of 4 companions.

I don't want another DA:O and I will be here reminding you of this until this game becomes better.

[Fiebras]

 

Watching the screen for 30 seconds as 6 people completely fail to hit a near-dead guy in heavy armor gets pretty boring. The missing sounds amplify the effect.

 

Then the guy in heavy armor gibs one of your guys and JUST THEN someone manages to land the killing blow.

 

Dont get me started on mages.

I am not talking about attack animations here. It does not matter if attack animations are done IE way or PoE way. PoE was is more realistic, IE way was to make it look like something was happening instead of everyone standing still for 6s.

 

The other stuff of your post is meaningless when presented like this. Let me give you a equal level response: "Don't let your guys get gibbed."

 

I wasnt adressing you at all, I was tangentially complaining out loud about annoying combat caveats in BG. Dont know were you get that Im talking about animations or whatever. If you find graze spam annoying in PoE then you can also find miss spam annoying in BG.

[ctn2003]

They need to fix it up a bit buts its neat its like 4e dnd but better lol POE in a nut shell

[thelee]

Base Accuracy with acc bonus from Per inclusive is 10 less than it used to be at the same score in Dex from v278.

 

Base Deflection is the same at 10 Int.

 

The total amount per point that you get from attributes probably needs to be raised a bit.

 

You're wrong, and it seems it's because you're missing a grasp on simple math.

 

Put another way, let's say everything used to be 20 and you used to have a +5 bonus to it. Now everything is 25 and you have a +0 bonus. Of everything is 30 and you have a -5 penalty. Did anything actually change? No, the net effect is 25.

 

Most of the attribute "re-balancing" that occurred in 301 is simply that the neutral point has been adjusted. Basically, everything used to be net positive gains from a base of 3. Now everything is positive if greater than 10, negative if less than 10. But the overall math hasn't largely changed because the neutral point has simply been moved (sometimes dramatically to a point where a comparison before/after can't be meaningfully made, like with virtually every wizard spell range/AoE). And plus, anecdotally, I rip through combat faster in 301 than I did in 278 (and I'm on hard now instead of normal) and less anecdotally I know just from looking at enemy stats in combat that their deflection scores are lower.

 

I'm actually amazed that you apparently have the arrogance to write up all these game design tips but can't have this basic insight. It's also fairly interesting the small shift in psychology that people have had, where everything used to be a dump stat, but now stats are apparently interesting, solely because of a shift from everything being a + to some being a - and some being a + (I guess this is loss-aversion at work and whichever game designer wanted to pull off this "trick" on people dissatisfied with the previous system has succeeded).

 

EDIT: it may be that the benefit for any given attribute needs to be raised a bit (e.g. it's arguable whether a 2% damage/health bonus per might is worth the marginal stat increase, especially when you have spells and effects that buff or debuff it on the order of 1 or 2 points and that's supposed to be "significant"), but the argument that things have gotten nerfed simply because instead of a +10 you have a +3 or something is off the mark.

Edited September 29, 2014 by thelee

[Matt516]

He's right, thelee. What they did for Accuracy is move the neutral point for attribute boni up, but not adjust the base values accordingly. So everyone now has less overall accuracy than before since you get +0 at attribute 10 instead of +10 (like before).

Conversely with Deflection, they added it to an attribute (where it wasn't on one before) but didn't adjust the base values at all. Which is fine, because at 10 Int (the "average" value), you have your "base" Deflection, with a possibility of going 10 above that or 8 below it with changes in Int.

The problem is that because of these two facts, characters generally have lower Accuracy than before (because of the aforementioned shift in the neutral point without corresponding shift in the base value) but roughly similar Deflection as before. This leads to more grazes than in the previous build.

So... Yeah. He's right. I'll let him answer the ad hominem attack himself - but I can vouch for his math.

 

EDIT: Psychology is part of it, but the main reason far fewer people see "dump stats" in the new system is that the attributes are better balanced. In the previous system, some attributes just weren't as good as others. The new system is much better from a purely mechanical balance standpoint.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Matt516

[thelee]

He's right, thelee. What they did for Accuracy is move the neutral point for attribute boni up, but not adjust the base values accordingly. So everyone now has less overall accuracy than before since you get +0 at attribute 10 instead of +10 (like before).

 

Conversely with Deflection, they added it to an attribute (where it wasn't on one before) but didn't adjust the base values at all. Which is fine, because at 10 Int (the "average" value), you have your "base" Deflection, with a possibility of going 10 above that or 8 below it with changes in Int.

 

The problem is that because of these two facts, characters generally have lower Accuracy than before (because of the aforementioned shift in the neutral point without corresponding shift in the base value) but roughly similar Deflection as before. This leads to more grazes than in the previous build.

 

So... Yeah. He's right. I'll let him answer the ad hominem attack himself - but I can vouch for his math.

 

EDIT: Psychology is part of it, but the main reason far fewer people see "dump stats" in the new system is that the attributes are better balanced. In the previous system, some attributes just weren't as good as others. The new system is much better from a purely mechanical balance standpoint.

 

Do you actually have documented proof that the deflection base values haven't been adjusted? They may not have been for players, but looking at enemy stats themselves indicates that enemy deflection scores are lower (though these are all noisy data points - 278 had the deflection bug and 301's combat is much faster regardless - I rip through enemies like a knife through butter in 301 vs 278). 

Edited September 29, 2014 by thelee

[Matt516]

 

He's right, thelee. What they did for Accuracy is move the neutral point for attribute boni up, but not adjust the base values accordingly. So everyone now has less overall accuracy than before since you get +0 at attribute 10 instead of +10 (like before).

 

Conversely with Deflection, they added it to an attribute (where it wasn't on one before) but didn't adjust the base values at all. Which is fine, because at 10 Int (the "average" value), you have your "base" Deflection, with a possibility of going 10 above that or 8 below it with changes in Int.

 

The problem is that because of these two facts, characters generally have lower Accuracy than before (because of the aforementioned shift in the neutral point without corresponding shift in the base value) but roughly similar Deflection as before. This leads to more grazes than in the previous build.

 

So... Yeah. He's right. I'll let him answer the ad hominem attack himself - but I can vouch for his math.

 

EDIT: Psychology is part of it, but the main reason far fewer people see "dump stats" in the new system is that the attributes are better balanced. In the previous system, some attributes just weren't as good as others. The new system is much better from a purely mechanical balance standpoint.

 

Do you actually have documented proof that the deflection base values haven't been adjusted? They may not have been for players, but looking at enemy stats themselves indicates that enemy deflection scores are lower (though these are all noisy data points - 278 had the deflection bug and 301's combat is much faster regardless - I rip through enemies like a knife through butter in 301 vs 278).

 

 

Well, the fact that they haven't been adjusted for player classes (and presumably for NPCs based off of player classes since they use the same system) is my first bit of evidence. Beyond that, I don't know - I haven't gone through and compared every single creature's scores before and after. That said, it sounds like you're not quite sure either haha. Given that they didn't bother to adjust the player class default scores (which would've been very easy to do), I find it unlikely that they went through and adjusted all the other NPC scores (monsters, etc).

[Seari]

It's seems to me that thelee is an ****, and I do love to point those out.

 

It's also fairly interesting the small shift in psychology that people have had, where everything used to be a dump stat, but now stats are apparently interesting, solely because of a shift from everything being a + to some being a - and some being a + (I guess this is loss-aversion at work and whichever game designer wanted to pull off this "trick" on people dissatisfied with the previous system has succeeded).

 

Also an idiot.

[Matt516]

It's seems to me that thelee is an ****, and I do love to point those out.

 

It's also fairly interesting the small shift in psychology that people have had, where everything used to be a dump stat, but now stats are apparently interesting, solely because of a shift from everything being a + to some being a - and some being a + (I guess this is loss-aversion at work and whichever game designer wanted to pull off this "trick" on people dissatisfied with the previous system has succeeded).

 

Also an idiot.

 

Hey now. Just because someone starts the ad hominem train rolling doesn't mean you need to throw coal in the furnace. Answer fallacies with logic and let their rude manner speak for itself.

 

Loss aversion is very much a thing btw, and it is very much at work in the attribute system rebalance. He was incorrect about that being why there aren't dump stats anymore (there aren't because the attributes are better balanced), but the loss-aversion aspect of that rebalance is very much an important part of the design from a "player feels" standpoint.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Matt516

[thelee]

 

 

He's right, thelee. What they did for Accuracy is move the neutral point for attribute boni up, but not adjust the base values accordingly. So everyone now has less overall accuracy than before since you get +0 at attribute 10 instead of +10 (like before).

 

Conversely with Deflection, they added it to an attribute (where it wasn't on one before) but didn't adjust the base values at all. Which is fine, because at 10 Int (the "average" value), you have your "base" Deflection, with a possibility of going 10 above that or 8 below it with changes in Int.

 

The problem is that because of these two facts, characters generally have lower Accuracy than before (because of the aforementioned shift in the neutral point without corresponding shift in the base value) but roughly similar Deflection as before. This leads to more grazes than in the previous build.

 

So... Yeah. He's right. I'll let him answer the ad hominem attack himself - but I can vouch for his math.

 

EDIT: Psychology is part of it, but the main reason far fewer people see "dump stats" in the new system is that the attributes are better balanced. In the previous system, some attributes just weren't as good as others. The new system is much better from a purely mechanical balance standpoint.

 

Do you actually have documented proof that the deflection base values haven't been adjusted? They may not have been for players, but looking at enemy stats themselves indicates that enemy deflection scores are lower (though these are all noisy data points - 278 had the deflection bug and 301's combat is much faster regardless - I rip through enemies like a knife through butter in 301 vs 278).

 

 

Well, the fact that they haven't been adjusted for player classes (and presumably for NPCs based off of player classes since they use the same system) is my first bit of evidence. Beyond that, I don't know - I haven't gone through and compared every single creature's scores before and after. That said, it sounds like you're not quite sure either haha. Given that they didn't bother to adjust the player class default scores (which would've been very easy to do), I find it unlikely that they went through and adjusted all the other NPC scores (monsters, etc).

 

 

I disagree that player scores are easier to do versus enemies. If we're talking about a simple move of the needle, you could easily make a wholesale change across the entire database of enemies with a set change trivially (presuming that Obsidian has fairly standard tools in place) - and given the state of combat in 301 anyway, it sounds like they were re-balancing enemies to begin with.

 

More to the point - directed more at sensuki in particular, justifying anecdotally wrong or specious evidence (that there are more grazes now) with unverified or wrong information (that essentially Obsidian has nerfed everyone by moving the neutral point without compensation in some other means), while at the same time writing up series of game design tips to people who are actually feted game designers strikes me as the very definition of arrogance. You can call that an ad hominem if you will, but i wasn't using his alleged arrogance to dispute his argument, so it's not really an ad hominem in the debating fallacy sense. (I.E. I was not saying "he is arrogant, therefore he is wrong" I was saying "he is wrong, and the way that makes him wrong makes him arrogant")

 

EDIT: for NPCs that use the same system, they wouldn't need to do any re-balancing, because they would be equally impacted by any needle moves that PCs endure. (i.e. if a fighter suddenly gets -5 deflection because of the intelligence change, so too would an NPC fighter, likewise for accuracy or e.g. health/stamina bonuses/penalties)

Edited September 29, 2014 by thelee

[Matt516]

Except they haven't adjusted for the move in neutral point. We know that for a fact with player classes, and we don't know anything for certain about the other creatures. Given that, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they haven't moved it for the other creatures as well. Even if they have - fights against humanoid class-based enemies are quite common, and like I said, we know those values haven't been adjusted. He's not making wild assumptions here. You are making assumptions for the sake of proving he's arrogant, or wrong, or whatever. It's weird. 

 

Sensuki's original statement was correct, because it sought to explain why there might be more grazes in the current build. Player characters use classes, we know the default values for classes haven't been adjusted, therefore we know that the Accuracy values for classes are lower. Period. When I pointed that out, you moved the target to only non-humanoid enemies for some reason (even though the Accuracy of non-humanoid enemies isn't really even relevant to Sensuki's original statement).

 

Your posts read more as attack-motivated than truth-motivated. Sensuki could well be wrong about non-humanoid enemies. Most likely, he's wrong about some and right about others (as they very well may have rebalanced all sorts of creatures in different ways). We really don't know as far as non-humanoid enemies goes. But in the regime we do know about - that of humanoids who follow the class system, we know that the base values for Accuracy weren't adjusted. Classed characters have lower Accuracy with the same attribute scores than they did before, which would lead to more Grazes unless enemy Deflection values were specifically adjusted down to compensate. Which (again), they might have been for non-humanoids, but we know they weren't for classed characters.

 

EDIT: Yeah, I used ad hominem technically incorrectly. Find/replace with "name-calling" instead if you like.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Matt516

[Sensuki]

Do you actually have documented proof that the deflection base values haven't been adjusted? They may not have been for players, but looking at enemy stats themselves indicates that enemy deflection scores are lower (though these are all noisy data points - 278 had the deflection bug and 301's combat is much faster regardless - I rip through enemies like a knife through butter in 301 vs 278).

Yes I do. Here's the source code from v301 and v278 that calculates attribute bonuses

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68744-is-might-a-dump-stat-is-perception-the-dps-stat/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1517063

 

No classes have had Base Deflection adjustments.

 

I think the reason they nerfed the accuracy bonus is for balancing purposes, because in combat hits were very common and it was causing large damage spikes against the party, either that or they forgot to adjust the values. Not sure.

 

People seem to prefer this version though.

 

I can find out what the base accuracy of creatures is, it's stored in a file somewhere. I remember seeing it before. I saved my v257 files as well so I can compare the values.

 

I don't care whether you find me arrogant, I do think it's funny that you had a go at me for something I was correct about though.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Sensuki

[thelee]

 

Do you actually have documented proof that the deflection base values haven't been adjusted? They may not have been for players, but looking at enemy stats themselves indicates that enemy deflection scores are lower (though these are all noisy data points - 278 had the deflection bug and 301's combat is much faster regardless - I rip through enemies like a knife through butter in 301 vs 278).

Yes I do. Here's the source code from v301 and v278 that calculates attribute bonuses

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68744-is-might-a-dump-stat-is-perception-the-dps-stat/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1517063

 

 

That doesn't actually disprove what I said, it just reiterates what's already known about in stats in 301.

[Sensuki]

The highest value of Class Base Accuracy of melee,ranged is the same and the Base Deflections are the same.

 

Fighter had 25 Acc and 25 Deflection in v257 and v278. Fighter has 25 Acc at 10 Perception in v301. In v278 the Fighter had 28 Acc at 3 Dexterity.

[thelee]

Except they haven't adjusted for the move in neutral point. We know that for a fact with player classes, and we don't know anything for certain about the other creatures. Given that, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they haven't moved it for the other creatures as well. Even if they have - fights against humanoid class-based enemies are quite common, and like I said, we know those values haven't been adjusted. He's not making wild assumptions here. You are making assumptions for the sake of proving he's arrogant, or wrong, or whatever. It's weird. 

 

Sensuki's original statement was correct, because it sought to explain why there might be more grazes in the current build. Player characters use classes, we know the default values for classes haven't been adjusted, therefore we know that the Accuracy values for classes are lower. Period. When I pointed that out, you moved the target to only non-humanoid enemies for some reason (even though the Accuracy of non-humanoid enemies isn't really even relevant to Sensuki's original statement).

 

Your posts read more as attack-motivated than truth-motivated. Sensuki could well be wrong about non-humanoid enemies. Most likely, he's wrong about some and right about others (as they very well may have rebalanced all sorts of creatures in different ways). We really don't know as far as non-humanoid enemies goes. But in the regime we do know about - that of humanoids who follow the class system, we know that the base values for Accuracy weren't adjusted. Classed characters have lower Accuracy with the same attribute scores than they did before, which would lead to more Grazes unless enemy Deflection values were specifically adjusted down to compensate. Which (again), they might have been for non-humanoids, but we know they weren't for classed characters.

 

EDIT: Yeah, I used ad hominem technically incorrectly. Find/replace with "name-calling" instead if you like.

 

They don't *need* to adjust the neutral point in terms of PC vs classed NPC conflicts, because given that NPCs were themselves constrained in some way for stat points (i.e. they don't have 18 in all stats), they have been equally affected as PCs. Barring any stat redistribution, a 278 PC Fighter loses as much accuracy to 301 as a 278 NPC fighter does in 301 (same with deflection, etc.) Put another way, given a finite set of stats, a point to increase or maintain deflection now comes at the cost of another point, such as a point to increase accuracy, which did not use to happen. So if an enemy NPC class has more or equivalent deflection to 301 (which in my sampling, has not been the case in 301, unless I was inordinately affected by the deflection bug in 278) it comes at the expense of making the NPC weaker in some other aspect.

 

Non-classed enemies would have to be re-tuned and again, I have no evidence to indicate that this hasn't been the case. 

 

EDIT: it may also be the case that they way non-classed enemies are implemented may be through pseudo-classes or by stats anyway, and if that is the case, then re-balancing may not actually have been necessary for reasons given above. In effect, the neutral point is automatically moved.

Edited September 29, 2014 by thelee

[Sensuki]

A lot of NPCs have character classes, and later on today I will find the files from v257 and v301 that governs creature stats and post them for you.

 

they're either in one of the .unity3d or .resource files. I do remember seeing them before.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Sensuki

[thelee]

The highest value of Class Base Accuracy of melee,ranged is the same and the Base Deflections are the same.

 

Fighter had 25 Acc and 25 Deflection in v257 and v278. Fighter has 25 Acc at 10 Perception in v301. In v278 the Fighter had 28 Acc at 3 Dexterity.

 

I think you're completely missing what I'm saying. If doesn't matter if all of a sudden Perception now gives -2 accuracy per point below 18 so long as there is an equivalent shift in what was the "neutral" point that game designers were using to balance combat. 

[Sensuki]

And I think you're ignoring what I am saying. Humanoid creatures have character classes. Medreth as a Ranger will have less Accuracy than he did before.

 

As for creatures I can check those values later, when I find where the file is that stores their values. I can't remember which file it was in, but I should be able to recover it.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Sensuki

[thelee]

And I think you're ignoring what I am saying. Humanoid creatures have character classes. Medreth as a Ranger will have less Accuracy than he did before.

 

As for creatures I can check those values later, when I find where the file is that stores their values. I can't remember which file it was in, but I should be able to recover it.

 

I think you're still missing what I'm saying. It doesn't matter that they have character classes - that actually favors *my* argument, because unless humanoid enemies are cheating, they are equivalently affected by any stat change/rebalancing.

 

I'm not sure how differently I can phrase it. All PC classes have gotten "nerfed" in the sense that their baseline is now at 10. But guess what - unless class NPCs have been cheating, so have they as well. And in particular for acc vs deflection, given the stat re-balancing in 301, if you see a fighter-type enemy with equivalent deflection as before (because my running assumption is that in 278 fighter-type enemies rarely had significant intelligence since they offered near-0 benefit to those types of classes), that most likely means they have had their intelligence *specifically buffed* so they could have their equivalent deflection, and that came at the expense of stat points elsewhere (unless Obsidian deliberately cheated them in the redesign with extra stat points to make the game harder), which makes them elsewhere weaker. And if they haven't had their intelligence buffed, then they automatically lost deflection in the re-balancing, effectively canceling out any perceived loss in accuracy on the part of PCs (since it is now, in effect and almost by definition, a zero-sum game between accuracy and deflection).

 

The exceptions would be if non-humanoid enemies are non-classed and have their own system for health/damage/defenses (Oblivion/Skyrim-style), they would thus need manual re-balancing to maintain the same neutral point.

Edited September 29, 2014 by thelee

[Elerond]

Player's party members accuracy may have dropped 10 points from previous build, but deflection values of enemy parties (at least Meredith and his party, because it was only one that I checked) seems to be about halved from previous build. As Meredith had in previous build deflection over 50 now he has 28 and cowled man in brigandine had deflection over 90 in previous build has now under 50, so hitting them is now much easier than what it was in previous build, even with smaller accuracy bonus from attributes.

[Matt516]

Missing it, thelee - he's not saying PCs have been nerfed compared to NPCs, he's saying that Accuracy has been nerfed compared to Deflection. Hence more grazes...

 

This is a silly argument.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Matt516

[Sensuki]

I think you're still missing what I'm saying. It doesn't matter that they have character classes - that actually favors *my* argument, because unless humanoid enemies are cheating, they are equivalently affected by any stat change/rebalancing.

Sigh, once again you're missing my original point.

 

This thread was about grazes, the OP complained about grazes. I explained WHY there are more grazes, because Accuracy as a base is 10 less.

 

The end.

 

As for my "I think the values need tweaking", all attributes have been nerfed. The maximum Might bonus you can get now is quite small to previous, so is the maximum duration and AoE values, Concentration ... etc

 

Everything is weaker. People did not want weaker attributes, they wanted meaningful attributes. Therefore, raising the per-point bonuses of everything to be higher would accomplish this.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Sensuki