List of Prios to Fix until the Early 2015 Release

[PrimeJunta]

Some people here apparently have this really romantic idea on how stuff gets made. Like it springs pure and fully-formed from a genius creator's forehead.

 

It doesn't work like that. Trying things out and throwing them away, discussing ideas, putting numbers on a spreadsheet to see how they pan out, and showing it off to gauge reactions are all a part of it. There's no way Obsidian could turn us into designers simply because the range of opinion is so broad. What they can do is get an overall vibe of how their decisions are received, then change things and bounce them off us again.

 

We're a sounding board. It doesn't really matter that we don't know what their priorities are, because our job is to let them know what our priorities are. And then it's their job to sort the signal from the noise and decide what to do about it.

[Sensuki]

I'm going to give the same feedback regardless, to many people's displeasure it seems.

 

You should ask yourselves what you want. That's what they want to hear. You shouldn't need to be told what to look for.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Sensuki

[IndiraLightfoot]

All this talk about beta feedback makes me feel peckish for more. I can't wait till the next BB update.

Edited October 4, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Sensuki]

I can, because I haven't even begun to uncover half of the changes. There were lots of changes made to abilities ... and the corresponding Ability descriptions were not updated to reflect them.

 

It's not very helpful if you don't release documentation to go with important changes like this.

[Vivis Clone]

After playing the beta backer a little bit I found the biggest issue in being that I wasn't quite sure what stats to take so as to make sure my class worked. In NWN (the cRPG I played and loved) it sad that certain classes might want to focus specific attributes because they required it. I know you can probably determine it by logically looking at it but it would be really nice to know what classes might benefit from what.

 

I would really like it off by the portraits there was a symbol stating their current intended action. If this were to be implemented it could also then lead to maybe a 2 or 3 action queue I don't want a large cue but a small one would be nice.

 

Also perhaps we could see the implementation of a small tutorial. One that defines what stamina is and how it works. When I first launched it I had no clue what is our how it would work. I haven't played a whole lot maybe 3 hours in all (just got in the beta last week or so!) So it might become clear once I play more, but

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I don't want this to come off as nasty. Sensuki has done a lot of work. Matt has also.  In fact, a lot of people have.  I'm guess I'm responding to Hiro, and I agree with much that he posts.  However, I didn't pony for a game made by Sensuki, Matt, or Hiro.  I think their feedback is valuable and I hope they keep giving it, but I would be incredibly discouraged if Obsidz fawned over posts in the forums.

 

What the? Do you really think Obsidian listens to me? LOL.

 

Also, I think it shows that if you did a 20 page paper that took two weeks to do with a certain amount of logic and reason behind it, Obsidian have shown they've pretty much brushed it aside. So what hope does the average Joe Schmoe without the university degree, without the maths behind them have when a 20 page paper pretty much gets tossed in the bin. Not to say that's exactly what happened but it does seem like that to me.

 

I think it shows the opposite. Obsidian will look at something but will usually go with their design anyway.

[Quantics]

 

 

I think it shows the opposite. Obsidian will look at something but will usually go with their design anyway.

 

 

Not sure that's entirely fair. 

 

Yeah ultimately the decisions are in their hands, but that doesn't mean that we can't make them change their minds about something. 

 

They probably had their reasons not to implement Matt and Sensuki's attribute system. Now as to speculate what those reasons were...

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm not saying S&M's attribute should have been implemented. It was more the case of it can be pretty hard to convince Obsidian to change anything with mere suggestions when compared to two people who do a 20 page paper. It's the perception I have at the moment of the development of the game and the dev's themselves. Everything is feature locked, we're testing bugs, and I doubt anything major can be changed. I'd like to be proven wrong and it'd be good if the dev's came onto the forums to discuss the suggestions that everyone here has proposed.

[C2B]

Thats some black and white speak.

 

And Brandon stated that they are more interested in the communitys feedback on the games mechanics rather than bugs. In WORDS!!!!!!

 

So, of course every suggestion is important.

Edited October 4, 2014 by C2B

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Lets see some dev's come on the forums and interact with the backers. All I'm seeing is a lot of corporate speak, even from Brandon

Edited October 4, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[TheNationer]

Lets see some dev's come on the forums and interact with the backers. All I'm seeing is a lot of corporate speak, even from Brandon

 

I'm glad they've got their heads down, if the developers answered every open challenge to them they'd never be out of this damn forum.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I'm glad they've got their heads down, if the developers answered every open challenge to them they'd never be out of this damn forum.

 

So you don't want the dev's interacting with the backers? Okay. Well I'm glad that's cleared up. I'm glad you don't speak for all the backers.

[morhilane]

 

 

 

I think it shows the opposite. Obsidian will look at something but will usually go with their design anyway.

 

 

Not sure that's entirely fair. 

 

Yeah ultimately the decisions are in their hands, but that doesn't mean that we can't make them change their minds about something. 

 

They probably had their reasons not to implement Matt and Sensuki's attribute system. Now as to speculate what those reasons were...

 

 

You're not going to change their mind, unless it's something that doesn't interfere (much) with their design intentions and/or goals.

 

For example, switching attributes value with 0 bonus to value 10 is cosmetic so they did it. or putting inventory size to 16 or the stash access changes (now available in town map, not just by resting).

 

People where asking for scalable AoE, but they went with their idea. Same goes for the attribute systems. That's because those beta testers suggestions were not 100% inline with what the Sawyer believed would fulfill his design intentions and goals (which is part "religion", part YMMV and part pure maths).

[Sensuki]

For example, switching attributes value with 0 bonus to value 10 is cosmetic so they did it.

It's not cosmetic. The attribute bonuses have been nerfed through the roof. Previously 18 Might gave you +36% damage, and changed your Morningstar damage (base 18-28) to 24.48 - 38.08

 

Now 18 Might gives you +16% damage, and you get 20.88 - 32.48

 

Pretty big difference.

 

18 Dexterity used to give you 18 Accuracy, now 18 Perception gives you 8.

 

And so on and so forth.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Sensuki

[Elerond]

 

For example, switching attributes value with 0 bonus to value 10 is cosmetic so they did it.

It's not cosmetic. The attribute bonuses have been nerfed through the roof. Previously 18 Might gave you +36% damage, and changed your Morningstar damage (base 18-28) to 24.48 - 38.08

 

Now 18 Might gives you +16% damage, and you get 20.88 - 32.48

 

Pretty big difference.

 

18 Dexterity used to give you 18 Accuracy, now 18 Perception gives you 8.

 

And so on and so forth.

 

 

If something didn't change in Obsidian end after discussion in attribute thread it should have been only cosmetic change, but they may have forgotten or not have time or wanted to adjust every creatures' and characters' stats in world lower but haven't made all the changes yet or maybe wanted to rise relative power level of some creatures and characters, hard to say when we don't know what their intentions behind changes are. I would say if they would disclose their intentions we could give more accurate feedback how we feel about how well they have succeeded in those intentions, but maybe their intention is just to adjust numbers around until most of the feedback about them become positive/accepting/something like that.

[morhilane]

 

For example, switching attributes value with 0 bonus to value 10 is cosmetic so they did it.

It's not cosmetic. The attribute bonuses have been nerfed through the roof. Previously 18 Might gave you +36% damage, and changed your Morningstar damage (base 18-28) to 24.48 - 38.08

 

Now 18 Might gives you +16% damage, and you get 20.88 - 32.48

 

Pretty big difference.

 

18 Dexterity used to give you 18 Accuracy, now 18 Perception gives you 8.

 

And so on and so forth.

 

 

It's cosmetic in the sense that how the math works did not change. The values were nerfed but considering the game balance is all over the place before and after the change I don't think that was much of concern for the dev at the time.

[Sensuki]

I will not agree that it is purely a cosmetic change because before you could not get a penalty to a derived stat, now you can. The formula did change, although you get the same percentile amount per point.

[PrimeJunta]

 

For example, switching attributes value with 0 bonus to value 10 is cosmetic so they did it.

It's not cosmetic. The attribute bonuses have been nerfed through the roof. Previously 18 Might gave you +36% damage, and changed your Morningstar damage (base 18-28) to 24.48 - 38.08

 

Now 18 Might gives you +16% damage, and you get 20.88 - 32.48

 

Pretty big difference.

 

18 Dexterity used to give you 18 Accuracy, now 18 Perception gives you 8.

 

And so on and so forth.

 

You do realize that now values below 10 give you penalties? I.e. going from 3 to 18 gives you -7 to +8, whereas previously it was... well, 3 to 18. That's pretty much the same thing (assuming the baseline has been adjusted accordingly).

[Sensuki]

The baseline has not been adjusted accordingly - check the numbers yourself in the game. Pick a weapon, put less than 10 points into Might and your damage will be less than the base.

 

Are people just not noticing this stuff because v301 is super easy anyway? (other than the obvious OP enemies).

Edited October 4, 2014 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

The whole system is cosmetic. Making a half orc fighter and giving him 19 str gave you +7 damage which doubled average two handed weapon damage 1d12 (average 6.5). Having 18 con gave fighters + 4 to hp while average Hp was 1d10 (average 5.5). Wizards with 16 con had about double hp to wizards with 10 to 14 con.

All together influenced attack, AC, damage, saves, spells to cast, spells known, carry capacity, regeneration of health, max health, influence on NPC, vendor prices, spell learning (although I didn't like this), break chance, reaction time, spell interruption, immunity to illusions (from very high wisdom). Later D&D has attributes have even more effect.

 

People spend too much time talking about attributes while their effect on the game is not good enough.

[Elerond]

Why effect in the game is not good enough? Because effect isn't as massive as it is in AD&D. And I would point out that when you calculate average damage increase caused by might in combat compared to AD&D you should also take account factor that character's in PoE do damage with their attacks more regularly than character's in AD&D, because default hit change is higher in PoE.

[morhilane]

The baseline has not been adjusted accordingly - check the numbers yourself in the game. Pick a weapon, put less than 10 points into Might and your damage will be less than the base.

 

Are people just not noticing this stuff because v301 is super easy anyway? (other than the obvious OP enemies).

 

I realized it, but I also realize that the game is not balanced on bit so what the numbers do right now and what they did before is kind of inconsequential at this point in time.

[Sensuki]

But you were saying it was a cosmetic thing, when it's not just cosmetic. That's why I corrected you. Sure, the balance isn't right - everyone can probably agree on that.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Sensuki

[TheNationer]

 

 

I'm glad they've got their heads down, if the developers answered every open challenge to them they'd never be out of this damn forum.

 

So you don't want the dev's interacting with the backers? Okay. Well I'm glad that's cleared up. I'm glad you don't speak for all the backers.

 

 

Didn't say that at any point. At the end of the day, this is a game that could forge Obsidian a great cash cow of a franchise and thusly they're not gonna take forum posts as gospel over their own ideas/experience, so you don't have to worry about this being some forum users' game.

 

Judge them by the game, regardless of who's thought figured out which mechanic.

Edited October 4, 2014 by TheNationer

[Elerond]

But you were saying it was a cosmetic thing, when it's not just cosmetic. That's why I corrected you. Sure, the balance isn't right - everyone can probably agree on that.

 

I would say that it depends how you want look at it.

 

Difference in between might 3 and might 18 is in both cases is 30% (0 as zero point might 3 gives character +6% and might 18 gives character +36%, 10 as zero point  might 3 gives -14% and might 18 gives +16% ). So in that sense it cosmetic change. But if base values in game aren't changed accordingly then there will be changes in in final values of things in the game. But one could argue that base values are actually interdependent thing from attribute bonuses, which can be adjusted independently to change balance in the game.

 

So ultimately you can say that change is cosmetic or that it isn't cosmetic and be right depending on how you want to look at it.