435 Discussion

[Sensuki]

Regardless of whether Will is +1 or +2, it's not going to make people do anything different than they do currently (which I believe is the idea). It's just silly.

[Namutree]

Regardless of whether Will is +1 or +2, it's not going to make people do anything different than they do currently (which I believe is the idea). It's just silly.

I know I'd be more inclined to max out INT if it gave more Will.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Namutree

[Sensuki]

I get it for the AoE or Duration increase. For casters (and other classes too) - those are the exact things you want behind Accuracy.

[Namutree]

I get it for the AoE or Duration increase. For casters (and other classes too) - those are the exact things you want behind Accuracy.

Maybe if you nerf it in some way +2 Will would be acceptable. Because if INT were any better it would be a must have attribute; well assuming the player isn't stupid. 

[Sensuki]

It's not must have for every class in the way Perception was when it was changed to +2 Accuracy per point. Even in v257 and v278, Intellect was arguably one of the best attributes for all casters. Another thing that's putting more emphasis on it, is the lack of Accuracy in the Attribute system. Since you can no longer invest in it, then your only real choices are increasing AoE/Duration, Damage or Speed (which is broken). In this build as a Cipher, Wizard or Druid - I just bump 18 Might and 18 Int and leave the rest.

 

When Dexterity is fixed, that will create a bit more choice, but with Accuracy at +1 on Perception - I think there would be at least four valid choices. 

 

If everything is continuously nerfed, we'll be on the road to impactless attributes 101.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Sensuki

[Namutree]

You have a good point. Okay, +2 Will on INT is acceptable. I concede.

[Lephys]

I really don't see why there's not a lot more inter-attribute synergy like in Luckmann's proposal. The only downside I can see is that it becomes harder to intuitively gauge the value of those broken-up bonuses when they're all split between attributes. A downside that is easily remedied by providing an "average, below average, above average, high," etc., indicator next to the values at character creation. As long as you know what Deflection does for you, (a la a "Deflection is the defense rating for almost all physical attacks in the game, including some spell projectiles like fireballs, etc." description), and you know "Ahh, 65 Deflection... that's apparently high, relatively speaking," then you're good to go.

 

That, and you don't have enough points to JUST max out one stat and put none in anything else, so you're almost always going to be focusing on at least two stats. Might as well have synergistic pairings.

[Sensuki]

That was one of the things Josh was trying to avoid I believe. I was surprised to see them put Deflection on two Attributes, and I don't think it works either. I am also surprised to see Intellect only giving +1 Will, which I think is not a good thing either.

 

Suffice to say, despite what QA said, I am not finding this attribute spread to be 'the best yet'.

[Namutree]

That was one of the things Josh was trying to avoid I believe. I was surprised to see them put Deflection on two Attributes, and I don't think it works either. I am also surprised to see Intellect only giving +1 Will, which I think is not a good thing either.

 

Suffice to say, despite what QA said, I am not finding this attribute spread to be 'the best yet'.

Which would you say is best?

[Lephys]

That was one of the things Josh was trying to avoid I believe. I was surprised to see them put Deflection on two Attributes, and I don't think it works either.

Hmm... I don't see why, though. I'm curious to know why he wishes to avoid it, if that's the case. Also, why don't you think split-Deflection works? Is it a bad idea in general, or do you just mean "it doesn't work the way it's currently split"?

[Sensuki]

They have all had their problems.

 

v257 and v278: Attributes were 'fairly meaningless', meaning that you could drop Dex or Might to 3 with pretty much no impact on build. Perception and Resolve were dumpable to 3 for everyone.

v301 and v333: A step in the right direction. Dexterity didn't work. Perception Range didn't work. Might, Perception, Intellect and Resolve were chosen by people. 

v364: Perception became "always maxed" for every class. AoE Size was increased to +6% per point, which was much better than 3%, making Intellect a lot better.

v392: Nothing changed, but we discovered the Dex problem, and the damage calculation problem with the system.

v435: Perception is OP/broken. Dexterity doesn't work properly with weapons. Might and Intellect are pretty much the only things I pick if I don't want to abuse Perception. The Attack Resolution changes made high Deflection builds get hit less, but spreading them across two attributes cripples the offensive capability of the build.

A fixed Interrupt and Dexterity for the final pre-launch build should allow us to properly test this current one, but we'll see if the devs end up making/trialling any changes based off feedback between now and then.

I think v301 was the best version for Attributes solely based on their being four attributes that people chose often. However I would not like to see that version come back, and I would like to see changes made in the future.

I also think they should change CON to give integer bonuses to Endurance, then people might actually pick it.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Sensuki

[Lephys]

Seems to me the split-Deflection problem has more to do with how it is split, and not with the sheer fact that it is split.

 

Look at Luckmann's suggestion, for example:

 

I'd like to suggest the following:

 

Suggested Modifiers:

MGT: +3% Damage & Healing, +3 Interrupt +2 Fortitude.
CON: +3% Endurance & Health, +3% Concentration, +2 Fortitude.
DEX: +3% Action Speed, +2 Deflection +2 Reflex.
PER: +1 Accuracy, +3 Interrupt, +3% Range +2 Reflex.
INT: +6% Duration, +2 Deflection, +2 Will.
RES: +6% AoE, +6% Concentration, +2 Will.

 

In that, if you decided "I just want maximum Deflection," and you maxed INT and DEX, then, at the very least, you have also maxed Duration and Action Speed. So, any offensive effects you apply are going to last for-freaking-ever (relatively), and you're going to be able to attack/make actions much more often.

 

Now, I'm not saying the math's perfect. But numbers are easily tuned. Maybe for that exact stat system to work, testing would show that the action speed needs to be increased, or duration decreased, or the Deflection bonuses changed for each of the stats, etc. But, in general, it doesn't make you "Nothing-But-Defense-Guy" simply because you had to pump 2 stats instead of just 1 to get what you wanted.

 

As another example, if you wanted maximum Duration AND AoE (as were paired, way back when, into a single stat, even), you'd pump INT and RES. This wouldn't make you "Only-High-AoE-And-Duration-Guy," since you'd also have good Concentration, Will, and decent Deflection.

 

*shrug*. I don't see any glaring problems with such a general concept. But, I could very well be missing them.

[Sensuki]

Well for starters, extra range is terrible. I don't think Luckmann actually has the beta so he is unable to play and see if it does anything.

 

I also like Josh's general idea that what attributes give should be kept simple and unique (for Pillars of Eternity).

 

While I can see the merit in that general idea - here are some problems.

• Interrupt and Concentration should follow the same rules. He has interrupt as an integer and concentration as a percentage. 
• You can't get the same amount of bonus interrupt as bonus concentration
• +2 Deflection on two Attributes is too high. The reason +1 on two attributes is not good is because it requires investment in two attributes to get it. At least when it was on one attribute you could have a high Deflection and a high something else that did not have anything to do with the interrupt system.
• Range bonus is unnecessary - default ranges of abilities just need tweaking
   

[Lephys]

Yeah, the value of a range bonus is negligible, because you're not going to be far enough from most things in most situations for it to even matter. I've mentioned it before in previous discussions of attributes, but I think if range functioned as a modifier to attack resolution, instead of just a "you can't attack until you step here," it would have more of an impact. In other words, if you could attack with your bow from... well, basically wherever on the same battle screen, feasibly (think... 70 feet, for example), but you'd have a -15 to your rolls on Target A because of the distance, then +Range could actually just modify the distance at which that drops off.

 

Even then, though... *shrug*. Doesn't seem on par with some other stuff. If you had a range modifier that boosted the range of a ton of very short-ranged abilities, that might be pretty useful. I dunno.

 

And I get the "unique stat effects" idea. That makes sense. But, to do that, you've still basically got to break things up into their aspects. I mean, with offense/damage output, you've got action speed, Damage, and Accuracy right now (which... I know Accuracy isn't currently on a stat). So, if you want to max damage output, you've got 3 things to pump, and you can't really max all three (without suffering horribly in other things, which is kind of the idea... it's not worth your while to just dump 3 stats so you can have the utmost DPS).

 

But, with defense, it's a bit less interesting, as you simply just have different defense types. It'd be a little like if you split Piercing Damage, Crushing Damage, and Slashing damage between three stats. Well, that's great that they're unique aspects, but, no one really wants all three as badly as they want other things. So, with the defenses, you've just got one stat for each defense type. You're not really getting anything different, per se, you're just getting defense against a different thing. It's the same exact defense, using the same exact attack resolution system, even.

 

So, I dunno. It just feels a bit like half-uniqueness with those. I'm trying to think of other aspects of defense that could be included. Maybe DT? But, that has what... 9 different types? It's probably not 9. I can't remember...

 

 

As for your bulleted points, though, that's exactly what I meant to cover by "I'm not saying the math is perfect, but numbers are easily tuned." I'm more concerned with whether or not +Deflection works on two attributes, than whether or not +2, specifically, works on both. That's the easy to figure out part.

 

I very much agree with the numbers-balancing, i.e. if you can get +30 Will, you should be able to get +30 Deflection or Fortitude or Reflexes.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Lephys

[Sensuki]

edit: dw

Edited February 14, 2015 by Sensuki

[ushas]

• Intellect now only gives +1 Will, instead of 2; this was likely to prevent the overvaluing of Intellect after endowing it with the consolidation of caster modifiers, but honestly it does nothing to curtail it. This is likely the reason Fortitude, Reflex and Will modifiers are now also listed, as previously they were not, when they did not differ from eachother, it was +2 across the board (afaik).

 

 

I actually like Intellect as AoE and Duration. It makes the Attribute a good one! I just don't think +1 Will is justified as it imbalances the totals you can get from bumping attributes.

 

The +1 Will on Intellect is basically a "we realize Resolve is bad" admittance.

 

Didn't you take this numbers from character creation screen? Or do you have some future info?

 

I think, in the beginning of beta there was a report (and recognition?) of inconsistent descriptions:

Char. creation lists that Int gives +1 Will per point above 10, but in game on char sheet you can see +2 Will, consistently with other attributes. After targeting Will defence of BB Priest, I tough that it's obvious that +2 Will modifier is the correct one in BBv435...

 

But now, this discussion is so confusing, shorting my circuits.

[Sensuki]

Ah they forgot to update it did they? Fair enough.

[Bazy]

Might -Same

Con -Same

Dex + Reflex Defense

Perception + Deflection Defense

Intellect +Will Defense

Resolve: + Fort Defense

 

I'm gonna find someway to mod this in. 

 

Regardless, people are making attributes way too complicated. They should be super simple and straightforward. Most of the proposals I see are a cluster**** of numbers. 

Edited February 14, 2015 by Bazy

[Diogenes]

Don't discount the need for certain attributes to make dialogue choices, you need high resolve to convince people of things for example.

[Sensuki]

That's irrelevant when balancing their combat stats. Balancing Attributes for dialogue is done by the Narrative Designers. They are completely separate systems.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Sensuki

[Luckmann]

Wait what? why does INT only give +1 Will ?

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

I thought the whole ****ing point of having all attributes give the same amount of the secondary defenses was because of unification / easy to explain rules? Now all of a sudden we're having exceptions?

 

Not to mention that you can now get 10 less Will than the other Attributes if you want to build a max-Will character.

 

[jackie-chan-wtf.jpeg]

 

I only noticed yesterday, as I was double-checking when making this list. It had completely passed me by, and I was just assuming that it was +2. I didn't check it in-game, so it could be a display error, but I doubt it. In fact, I think the reason they even display the +Will/Reflex/Fortitude now is because it's not consistent, Intellect being the one exception. And no, it makes no sense.

 

Just give RES +3 will defense. That'll fix it.

 

Aside from the issue of consistency that has already been raised, the reason I wouldn't want to change the +Will/Reflex/Fort is because it's fundamentally boring. They don't actively do anything that feels relevant to my character concepts, unless I for some reason want to build a completely passive defender.

 

The defence stats in PoE are very much like the Saving Throws (so much so that I don't understand why they didn't just call them "Saves") which are good, maybe even important, but also so very, very boring. It's a stat that gently plinks upward good, downwards bad and you pay no attention to it other than for resolution on those Save or X-tests.

 

It's much better to just say that all Attributes gives a +2 to a thematically appropriate defence stat and then promptly forget about it. I'm also inclined to think that the developers agree on this, since they apparently felt it was so "behind the curtain"-boring that they didn't even display the modifiers the defences got from attributes until they started mucking about with it.

 

Honestly I think they're so boring, so thematically meaningless and add so little when fleshing out a character concept that they should be hidden again. This, of course, necessitates that they are also equal; +2 from each, bing, bam, boom.

[Gromnir]

That's irrelevant when balancing their combat stats. Balancing Attributes for dialogue is done by the Narrative Designers. They are completely separate systems.

that is exactly why people ignored wisdom when they played ps:t their firstest time. no "mag. def. adj." for high wisdom in the ie games and you couldn't play a cleric, so why boost wisdom? 

 

am doubting obsidian does anything so oblique with attributes, but am thinking it would be a bit foolish to complete discount the gameplay impact o' attributes outside o' combat.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

edit: weird auto-correct on spelling

Edited February 14, 2015 by Gromnir

[Sensuki]

Well the thing is, is that it doesn't matter what the combat stats are - it's up to the Narrative Designers to make sure they check Attributes relatively equally and give appropriate numbers of checks at certain thresholds with appropriate rewards.

[Gromnir]

Well the thing is, is that it doesn't matter what the combat stats are - it's up to the Narrative Designers to make sure they check Attributes relatively equally and give appropriate numbers of checks at certain thresholds with appropriate rewards.

and yet, wisdom, which is kinda the resolve equivalent, has gotten disproportionate attention from obsidian in past games.

 

even if resolve, intelligence, perception and lore skill looked complete worthless, we would be very cautious about ignoring those stats and that skill.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 14, 2015 by Gromnir

[Luckmann]

Well for starters, extra range is terrible. I don't think Luckmann actually has the beta so he is unable to play and see if it does anything.

 

I also like Josh's general idea that what attributes give should be kept simple and unique (for Pillars of Eternity).

 

While I can see the merit in that general idea - here are some problems.

• Interrupt and Concentration should follow the same rules. He has interrupt as an integer and concentration as a percentage. 
• You can't get the same amount of bonus interrupt as bonus concentration
• +2 Deflection on two Attributes is too high. The reason +1 on two attributes is not good is because it requires investment in two attributes to get it. At least when it was on one attribute you could have a high Deflection and a high something else that did not have anything to do with the interrupt system.
• Range bonus is unnecessary - default ranges of abilities just need tweaking

 

I do have access to BBv392 and BBv435 (and backed up, just in case ).

• That's because that's how they're listed. I'm inclined to agree with you that they should play by the same rules, but I deliberately mirrored the format of the game because I do not actually know of what relevance these modifiers are in the context of integer vs. modifier. Maybe it's an oversight by the developers, forgetting the "%", maybe it's of profound importance; I don't know, so I deferred to the default format.
• I actually don't see why that'd be a problem. Although Interrupt and Concentration have a dichotomous (dichotomic?) relationship, there's really no reason (that I can see) as to why they'd offer the same bonus. From a player perspective, Interrupt is much more important than Deflection. I'm surprised you'd not agree, since you often espouse the virtues of offence compared to defence. The fact of the game - even as we know Interrupt will be fixed - is that it's always better with a strong offence than a strong defence. Because of this, I think it's appropriate that the defensive bonuses would be somewhat stronger than the offensive ones. In a straight comparison, if they are completely analogous, otherwise, the offensive option (Interrupt) will always be better than the defensive (Concentration).
• I'm not convinced, but I will concede that it requires playtesting. At the end of the day, my suggestion is very much knee-jerk, because it is impossible to test anything relevant in 435 when it comes to the attributes, and therefore it is also hard to come up with hard suggestions that are guaranteed to be good.
• Maybe. One possibility would be to remove the range bonus and up the Interrupt to +5 (from +3) but I don't really want to do that, because I like the range modifier conceptually, and it may end up overvaluing Perception again. Default ranges always need tweaking, and should always be tweaked as if the modifier is 0% anyway.