Oh, yeah. Resolve. Thanks. ..It actually granted a bonus to a "resistance" stat, though. But thanks for that.

 

There is no "resistance" stat, and never was. You may be thinking of Concentration though, but given how confused you clearly are about the game's mechanics it's hard to take anything you say seriously at this point. And you claim to have turned this into a PnP system? :boggle:

 

Like my example with the weak but criminally perceptive priest, who normally doesn't fight much, has low stamina, etc. But he can spot any detail, etc. and could for example completely dominate in a defensive battle if he had a magical touch attack prepared, that didn't rely on accuracy to beat the armor class. Gaining attacks, and hitting every time, with the defensive bonus an interrupt would give you.

And since in P:E all attacks, including touch attacks, rely on Accuracy to hit, and there is no such thing as "armor class"... well.

 

That's what made the system interesting. That you could literally break a formation, or crash a well-organised attack. And when the line falls, it's overy in a moment. Instead of... after kiting down to the next corner, etc.

Your imaginary system maybe. You clearly have no idea about what the actual system in P:E is, or was like though.

 

But keep talking, this is amusing.

 

 

1. ..An attribute called "Resolve". Affected a stat called "resistance".

 

Resistance is what governs damage, status changes, and possibly other things - from the mechanical point of view.

 

From a character creation point of view, a character with high resolve happens to have high "resistance".

 

So "resistance" is probably what you're going to be worried about when writing a ruleset..?

 

2. If you had a heavily armored fighter, your armor class would be average (in spite of the class bonus). But the damage threshold would be high. So a low-might build would rely on beating the armor class, and beating it with so much that it would range towards a critical hit -- which then would bypass the DT. A character with average accuracy would still be able to hit a heavily armored fighter, though -- but not do any damage.

 

So - a build that has decent attacking ability through some spell or buff (touch-spells that bypass DT?), but has low accuracy, can now suddenly hit every turn for non-critical hit damage and roast everything. Every graze is a full magical hit, etc. Add attacks of opportunity from the fighter trying to retreat, and that rogue or priest could have a situation where they'd dominate completely.

 

3. Well, I know how a lot of you played the original Backer Beta. And I know some of you think that your way of playing that beta is "how the game really is". That's fine, it's understandable that people think this way. Some of you even argue that "how you specifically play the game" is also "how the game should be, even if we could imagine anything". That's less easy to respect.

 

Meanwhile - the system is abstract, isn't it. It's supposed to be a driver for imagining what actually happens. When you role-play a fighter, you don't imagine the knight kneeling down before every turn to throw the dice, to figure out if he hit when he next swings the sword, yeah? It's abstract and figurative. The trick would be to let the abstraction actually work with the mechanics in your rule-set, rather than against them, like you have with DnD.

 

And I don't understand why people are so narrow-minded that they get a crisis of faith when you create a ruleset with a formalisation level that actually gives you both the abstract concepts, and then successfully tie those to the game's actual mechanics, without breaking either the rules, or the abstract concepts you constructed your character with. Specially when their way of playing the game is completely well-described in the game, and isn't even really that disadvantageous in the first place.

 

It's like photographing people and suddenly finding that they scream and trash around and can't be reasoned with because their soul has been stolen into the box. You know, it's not really all that great of a feeling. 

Btw, did we understand how armor class works, then? That if you throw all your armor off, have decent dexterity (although that last part doesn't matter any more), then you're difficult to hit - and your armor class will be high.

 

So it's difficult to hit you, and your armor class penalty is non-existent. If you can somehow boost that AC high enough, physical attacks are either going to miss, or simply not do all that much damage (because of the graze system. Of course if you do get hit, even a "normal" hit is going to be painful, since you have no damage reduction/threshold).

 

If you heap on a full armor, and don't have dexterity and so on - you're slow moving and easy to hit. Your armor class will be low, but your damage threshold will be high. So now, even though you get hit more often on average, you don't take as much damage (on each hit). 

 

However, the tank can still be vulnerable to: status attacks, poison, fortitude attacks, drains, critical hits, and slow and inaccurate heavy blows, etc. Specially since any creature is going to hit really often, and even special attacks with a relatively low hit-probability (poison stingers?) will hit often.

 

And because of how accuracy skews the attack roll against low AC characters - you're more likely to score a critical hit, if your accuracy bonus is high. If your accuracy bonus is low, you merely hit normally, and the blow is deflected.

 

Situational spells and abilities can turn that around really quickly. And that's why I enjoyed playing the game early in the BB. Since what you did in the game was meaningful, rather than a tedious grind designed to last for as long as possible.

 

Since then, all - literally all - of those things were removed from the game. Per request, to make the game play in a way that didn't offend a few selfish, unintelligent misers. 

 

And I'm just saying that it's not going to serve Obsidian either in terms of reviews, sales or "legacy" afterwards.

Edited January 24, 201511 yr by nipsen

I've never heard of someone LARPing to a make believe system in a game before. There you go.

1. ..An attribute called "Resolve". Affected a stat called "resistance".

There. Is. No. Stat. Called. "Resistance." You're making that up.

 

There is Concentration which is opposed to Interrupt, and was determined by Resolve. The defense stats are Deflection, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will, and Accuracy is used to attack any and all of them.

 

Resistance is what governs damage, status changes, and possibly other things - from the mechanical point of view.

In which system? Not P:E, that's for sure.

 

From a character creation point of view, a character with high resolve happens to have high "resistance".

In which system? Not P:E, that's for sure.

 

So "resistance" is probably what you're going to be worried about when writing a ruleset..?

Speak for yourself. It certainly doesn't, and didn't, exist in P:E.

 

2. If you had a heavily armored fighter, your armor class would be average (in spite of the class bonus).

There is no stat named "armor class." There is a defense named "deflection" though.

 

But the damage threshold would be high. So a low-might build would rely on beating the armor class, and beating it with so much that it would range towards a critical hit -- which then would bypass the DT.

You mean deflection. Yes, you would want to pump Accuracy for such a build.

 

A character with average accuracy would still be able to hit a heavily armored fighter, though -- but not do any damage.

Yes, accuracy is crucial for everyone and everything.

 

You do realize that they removed Accuracy from the stat system against Sensuki &co's advice, right? (I like it, FWIW -- accuracy is so crucial to every class that it's a bit of a must-pump stat unless you nerf the effect to oblivion IMO.)

 

So - a build that has decent attacking ability through some spell or buff (touch-spells that bypass DT?), but has low accuracy, can now suddenly hit every turn for non-critical hit damage and roast everything. Every graze is a full magical hit, etc. Add attacks of opportunity from the fighter trying to retreat, and that rogue or priest could have a situation where they'd dominate completely.

Except that grazes are not "full magical hits." Grazes are grazes. Accuracy determines whether something's a miss, graze, hit, or crit. If an attack does more than one type of damage and/or attacks more than one defense, they're calculated separately. There is no such thing as DnD's touch-attack spells, where a graze would result in a "full magical hit."

 

Disengagement attacks (not "attacks of opportunity") are indeed brutal, which is why it's crucial to break engagement in some way before attempting to retreat. (I don't think the AI ever attempts to retreat if engaged by the way.)

 

3. Well, I know how a lot of you played the original Backer Beta. And I know some of you think that your way of playing that beta is "how the game really is". That's fine, it's understandable that people think this way. Some of you even argue that "how you specifically play the game" is also "how the game should be, even if we could imagine anything". That's less easy to respect.

 

It's pretty damn clear you didn't, though, or if you did, you had no clue of what's going on or what the attributes and stats actually did or do.

 

Meanwhile - the system is abstract, isn't it. It's supposed to be a driver for imagining what actually happens. When you role-play a fighter, you don't imagine the knight kneeling down before every turn to throw the dice, to figure out if he hit when he next swings the sword, yeah? It's abstract and figurative. The trick would be to let the abstraction actually work with the mechanics in your rule-set, rather than against them, like you have with DnD.

 

And I don't understand why people are so narrow-minded that they get a crisis of faith when you create a ruleset with a formalisation level that actually gives you both the abstract concepts, and then successfully tie those to the game's actual mechanics, without breaking either the rules, or the abstract concepts you constructed your character with. Specially when their way of playing the game is completely well-described in the game, and isn't even really that disadvantageous in the first place.

 

It's like photographing people and suddenly finding that they scream and trash around and can't be reasoned with because their soul has been stolen into the box. You know, it's not really all that great of a feeling.

That rambling was remarkably incoherent even by your standards. I didn't understand a word of it.

Btw, did we understand how armor class works, then? That if you throw all your armor off, have decent dexterity (although that last part doesn't matter any more), then you're difficult to hit - and your armor class will be high.

No, you didn't.

 

In BB278 -- the one you loved so much you qq'ed for a refund, remember -- Deflection (still not "armor class") was not affected by any stat. It was determined exclusively by class, talents, and gear. Dexterity governed Accuracy.

 

So it's difficult to hit you, and your armor class penalty is non-existent. If you can somehow boost that AC high enough, physical attacks are either going to miss, or simply not do all that much damage (because of the graze system. Of course if you do get hit, even a "normal" hit is going to be painful, since you have no damage reduction/threshold).

Yeah, if. If only the attributes let you pump Deflection.

 

Oh, you know what? It does! In BB392, that is. Not in BB278 you loved so much. Aren't you happy they accommodated your wishes on that?

 

(snip ramble based on that particular misunderstanding of what the attributes actually did)

 

Since then, all - literally all - of those things were removed from the game. Per request, to make the game play in a way that didn't offend a few selfish, unintelligent misers.

On the contrary, the possibility to pump Deflection was added to the system. The original attribute system did not let you do what you say you did. The current one does. (Or, OK, would, if the numbers weren't so badly out of whack your Deflection is as good as useless since they're going to ream you anyway. I hope this changes in the next build.)

 

And I'm just saying that it's not going to serve Obsidian either in terms of reviews, sales or "legacy" afterwards.

You know, it is considered good form to at least have a basic understanding of the thing you're criticising, before you criticise it.

Not to mention, PJ that the thing that made him go cuckoo over (mine and matt's attribute thingo) had both Interrupt and Deflection in the attribute system. I couldn't understand why he was complaining about it in the first place ...

When the new system comes out I might try modding Accuracy back onto Per and chucking Interrupt over onto Dex, and see how that plays.

I think v364 was my favorite. I made a Chanter with high Gentleness, Subtlety and Sticktoitiveness. His caring persona was a disadvantage when fighting due to his low aggression stat, but intelligent enemies would always underestimate him and you could see that in prolonged fights he didn't get bored or frustrated like other characters and he gave his party great encouragement.

 

I also made a fighter with maxed out CaringFather, DarkPast and ParticularSetOfSkills. He was a fairly efficient character, strong against enemies with high distraction, but a bit boring most of the time and tended to make party members uncomfortable if they have high squeamishness. But then if one of his party members got in trouble he would just lose control and there would suddenly be all kinds of medieval carnage. Needed more points in "IThoughtIWasOutButTheyPulledMeBackIn" though, great potential synergy there.

 

People may object that this stuff wasn't strictly "real" or "in the actual game", but this is a rather ignorant perspective and I'm disappointed it got removed in any case.

The game kept saying "not enough food, build more farms". Couldn't figure out how to do it - the UI is terrible. So I quit.

When the new system comes out I might try modding Accuracy back onto Per and chucking Interrupt over onto Dex, and see how that plays.

Could you also chuck +AoE over to Intelligence, because consolidating both the prime caster stats into a single Score is absolutely daft.

Huh? 

I don't have anything against the way intellect worked originally, not all the melee classes get much benefit from AoE - but sure it's the absolute #1 option for Priests and Druids.

It's not like DnD attributes were particularly simulationist either. I'll give you STR, but the others are entirely gamey and arbitrary.

....

 

 

 And, if you really want to be simulationist, high STR should mostly just improve recovery time for weapons like hammers and axes ('head heavy' weapons); these weapons mostly work by gravity but recovery is hard. 

 

 Cutting with a sword really doesn't take much strength (it's why swords are useful) but very low strength should impose a penalty on weapon speed.

I think v364 was my favorite. I made a Chanter with high Gentleness, Subtlety and Sticktoitiveness. His caring persona was a disadvantage when fighting due to his low aggression stat, but intelligent enemies would always underestimate him and you could see that in prolonged fights he didn't get bored or frustrated like other characters and he gave his party great encouragement.

 

I also made a fighter with maxed out CaringFather, DarkPast and ParticularSetOfSkills. He was a fairly efficient character, strong against enemies with high distraction, but a bit boring most of the time and tended to make party members uncomfortable if they have high squeamishness. But then if one of his party members got in trouble he would just lose control and there would suddenly be all kinds of medieval carnage. Needed more points in "IThoughtIWasOutButTheyPulledMeBackIn" though, great potential synergy there.

 

People may object that this stuff wasn't strictly "real" or "in the actual game", but this is a rather ignorant perspective and I'm disappointed it got removed in any case.

This system sounds more fun than what we have now.

Who else wants GordonHalfman to be given Sawyer's position for PoE2? :D

@GordonHalfman: Oh, haha. If only people were this imaginative when making their characters, and when writing their feedback later. Anyway - Josh's walkthroughs of the attributes and how they were intended to work are still up on the site.

 

 

When the new system comes out I might try modding Accuracy back onto Per and chucking Interrupt over onto Dex, and see how that plays.

Could you also chuck +AoE over to Intelligence, because consolidating both the prime caster stats into a single Score is absolutely daft.

 

..I suppose it would be useful to know if modding the stat-sheet code actually does change the math for the damage calculation, though.. But hey, details.

Cultures do get different bonuses.

 

Are you of the persuasion who believes black people are great at athletics but not so great at maths?

well..it makes sense, even in real life

 

lets say we took 100 healthy random danish people and 100 healthy random people from afrika.

 

the Danish people would probably be better at math, and the African people would probably be in better shape....

 

this has nothing to do with RACE. But with CULTURE, and how they grew up.

... evidence that perception at one time was what determined "interrupt%" and "range", determining how likely you were to interrupt casters, ability triggers, runners and so on that were in range? 

 

Turns out I actually don't have evidence that that ever happened. But I think the game simulated (badly, imo - even if it was a good idea) a system where you would generate a possible attack of opportunity at pretty much everything - movement, ranged attack preparations, spells, ability triggers, stance changes, whatever. But only a few of these would actually be exploited, depending on the build standing next to you. And typically, the might-based builds would have low perception, making them less dangerous than a faster one if you were triggering a lot of interrupts against you.

Yes. It did affect interrupt%. Not Attack-of-Opportunity%. And that's not semantics, because they're two entirely different things. If you roll an attack, you made an attack of opportunity. Hell, you can even HIT with it, and still not successfully interrupt, and you still got an attack of opportunity (that hit and dealt damage). No stat ever governed your ability to generate an attack of opportunity. So, if you have a legimitate complaint about how interrupt works, then make that.

 

Also, all they did was take interrupt out of the distributable stats. I think there are probably still (and/or will be, in the final game version) talents, etc. that affect your interrupt chance. It just won't be a stat you pump at character creation, anymore, that does it.

 

Also, the whole "that early build totally let you make more than just 1 fighter build" argument you're in with Namutree is missing the point. Which is that, the build you're wishing we could just rewind time back to is the build that had MORE restriction on Fighter builds, while the newer builds have provided less restriction. I get that it's still differing restrictions. It's possible there was some very specific aspect of your build you could alter to a different degree in your revered version of the game, but that doesn't change the evidence placed forth in front of your face, here, that the passage of time only saw more flexibility provided to the Fighter class.

 

Finally, I hate to say it, but it really, truly, sounds like you just had some misunderstandings about the mechanics of the game and how things worked, and assumed that you instead possessed the greatest understanding known to mankind of these mechanics, then knee-jerk reacted so hard you lost a leg.

 

Not saying you would've love the mechanics if you had understood them, but, at the very least, you made your "Oh well, this game is terrible now; refund please!" decision based on inaccurate information. Some of the things you hated to see get removed weren't even in in the first place, but were added in the build you hated for "removing them," amongst other misconceptions.

 

And if you're just going to claim that everyone's wrong/lying when they correct you on these misconceptions, then what's the point of even posting? If you're omniscient, then, by all means, enjoy your life as such.

I'm in some ways sorry to provoke people who seem happy enough in spite of their disabilities.

 

Classy.

..I suppose it would be useful to know if modding the stat-sheet code actually does change the math for the damage calculation, though.. But hey, details.

The 'stat sheet code' has nothing to do with how damage is calculated. It's a separate class altogether that merely handles the character sheet UI. There is a large CharacterStats.cs file that has a few classes in it that stores pretty much everything stat/mechanic/calculation related - damage calculation is in there, and handled separately from attributes.

 

There used to be only 4-5 things you needed to change to mod an attribute - a few values in CharacterStats, one in the CharacterSheet, CharacterCreation and some string entries. Now it's a bit more complicated than that, there's some 'Calculate...forUI' methods that I need to look at as well.

 

Yes. It did affect interrupt%. Not Attack-of-Opportunity%. And that's not semantics, because they're two entirely different things. If you roll an attack, you made an attack of opportunity. Hell, you can even HIT with it, and still not successfully interrupt, and you still got an attack of opportunity (that hit and dealt damage). No stat ever governed your ability to generate an attack of opportunity. 

 

So in other words - you agree that I was right, but insist I'm still wrong, because bleh. Well played! Also, separating attributes from affecting game-stats in mass /may have limited the build options/, perhaps, possibly, against all evidence -- but really not because stuff and I'm stupid! Well played again!

 

Now it's a bit more complicated than that, there's some 'Calculate...forUI' methods that I need to look at as well.

 

Maybe they changed the names of the methods so it would be easier to tell the UI and the table generation apart? That possibly they haven't actually made any new UI methods late in the game?

 

 

Not to mention, PJ that the thing that made him go cuckoo over (mine and matt's attribute thingo) had both Interrupt and Deflection in the attribute system. I couldn't understand why he was complaining about it in the first place ...

I complained about how you two forced the idea that:

 

1. No mortal could ever understand the attribute system, and it had to be simplified. 

 

2. That since you didn't see the point with perception, resolve, intellect, and so on -- then no one else should either. 

 

Anyone who had a good explanation, including Josh, got trashed. In the end, you argued something like that maybe you weren't completely right - but because you were not completely right, the idea that the attribute system was too complicated, was still proven right in the end. After all, you guys are literally the only people who backed the project, and at least you are eminently representative with your thousand hours of BG and Call of Duty "under your belts". You trashed me across multiple forums - and then used your own post on a different forum as source as how "everyone hates this nipsen guy". Because that's obviously how someone with a good argument acts.

 

The best part was how you argued here, in the beta-forums, that something should be changed - not because you had a good argument for it - but because if it wasn't changed, then there'd be bad press. End of discussion.

 

You even complained that your "might only" builds got murdered by the spiders, and insisted that this was proof the game was broken. And you did this while presenting yourselves with Matt's credentials as a role-playing book writer and lecturer, and I guess your supreme gaming hardcore skills with Call of Duty competitions. Along with how "mathematics don't lie". And you did this while multiple people explained, with a lot of patience, that the basis for your math tables was wrong. That the answers you had were answers to questions no one, including you, had asked.

 

You answered that by starting to report - and successfully got removed - posts that attacked you, for any reason. Many posters who had interesting things to say just left.

 

In the end, you weren't - as I said at the time - even interested in actually getting the game changed. Instead, you were simply interested in abusing the indirect access Obsidian gave us. You only wanted attention. Until Obsidian naturally wouldn't talk with anyone afterwards.

 

And the only thing Obsidian took from this still was that their hardcore crazy fans, the hardcore folks they allegedly rely on as customers, don't understand the system Josh presented. And that anything other than a pretty trailer will generate bad press. That's the only thing you and the dittoheads here managed to prove. We could have had a reasonable beta-test, with a good dialogue with the Obsidian devs, if a couple of you hadn't gone overboard. I literally suggested that ahead of the beta, that you should be aware of how you can shape how the dialogue with the devs happen.

 

But unfortunately, most of you are pretty unpleasant and over the average egotistical twats with no self-control. So that's that. Obsidian screwed themselves over for ever listening to any of your yak.

 

So that's the lesson for Obsidian next time. Closed and limited tests, and to not trust their fans to sit down the right way on a toilet.

I suggest you go read everything over again, but I suppose that won't help. I don't think there's a single person here who'll agree that we argued those two points or anything in any of your paragraphs even happened. Seems to be an illusion in your mind.
 
The part about arguing something must be changed or it will get bad press is hilarious - that sounds more like something you did 

 

I also like the bit about me reporting posts hahah, any moderator here should be able to confirm that I have not once reported a post on this forum.

Edited January 30, 201510 yr by Sensuki

Then do you have alt accounts here as well?

Nope. I'm a Codexer - why would I report anything.

nipsen: If you don't like the fact that beta testers provide feedback that causes changes in the developers' "original vision", then by all means say so, but I don't understand the point of making up random sh*t to basically libel those beta testers.

 

Be honest with yourself: It's not like you would have felt happier if the changes introduced by the beta testers were provably GOOD, right? Because that's not the point. The point is that changes were made, and the original vision has been diluted. That's what it's always been about.

Edited January 30, 201510 yr by Infinitron

nipsen: If you don't like the fact that beta testers provide feedback that causes changes in the developers' "original vision", then by all means say so, but I don't understand the point of making up random sh*t to basically libel those beta testers.

If he doesn't make up random sh*t then he has no argument. 

It never ceases to amaze me you guys still reply.  He hates the game, he wanted BG3 not Eternity, he was never going to get that, and now he only comes to the forums to flame and trash Obsidian.  There is nothing worth reading or responding to there.  Keep the RPG Codex on the RPG Codex.