What NEEDS to be fixed before launch?

[Voss]

 

But the DnD racial bonuses also only come into play when you min/max...

 

Here the racial bonus play to literally nothing because a 14 CON Human is just as likely as a 14 CON Dwarf, given they cost the exact same thing to make.

 

It sounds more like your objection isn't to racial bonuses but that the point buy is 1 to 1.  That is a fish of a different color.

 

 

@Namutree- the problem with that approach is it quickly degenerates into a talent tax, and the talent system is already carrying too many burdens (and far too much dead weight).  Too many junk talents, and too many (virtual) feat trees, since hyper-specialization grants more rewards than thematic or even 'ooo, that sounds interesting' talent choices (not that many of those exist, as most talents are about stacking multipliers and bonuses).  Adding defining features of dwarfishness or elvinity to an already overstressed system seems like a bad idea. Especially since the upshot is with multiple racial talents you can't epitomize your race at all at low level, and most characters won't even bother unless the racial talents are better than general or class talents [the latter of which should be on a different resource schedule altogether].

[JohnnySideburns]

How about if the racial bonuses, affected your starting stats instead. Like class does, you know: Hp, defenses, accuracy etc.?

 

Come to think of it, as it is now, I am not entirely fond of how class affects those stats. Would rather all classes started out with the same, that way attributes would mean the same to all classes, and you would have more control over your build. I think abilities do enough to define the classes on their own.

[Voss]

How about if the racial bonuses, affected your starting stats instead. Like class does, you know: Hp, defenses, accuracy etc.?

 

Come to think of it, as it is now, I am not entirely fond of how class affects those stats. Would rather all classes started out with the same, that way attributes would mean the same to all classes, and you would have more control over your build. I think abilities do enough to define the classes on their own.

That would honestly make some classes completely worthless (or in the ranger's case, more worthless) and others crazy good.  The monk particularly does not function if his base health/endurance is on par with everyone else, and the barbarian has similar problems.  Paladin would be absolutely eclipsed by the casters (all the casters) and all sorts of defensive abilities would go completely off the rails. 

Edited March 15, 2015 by Voss

[Namutree]

The game could really use a small penalty for getting knocked out.

[Elerond]

I would like if they would lower npc's ability to detect your characters in stealth mode as now even character with maxed stealth in level 6 can barely sneak next enemy to hit them backstap attack, let alone trying solve quest in sneaky way. 

[Tartantyco]

Is the detection range simply a radius? Because, it should really be based on the senses of the creatures. Humans and the like would mostly go by sight, so their detection range would mainly be their FOV, while some other races and creatures would have larger radii due to sense of smell or hearing, or the soul stuff that one of the creatures have in the game right now.

[Sensuki]

FYI Tartanyco I tested flanked, it is indeed based off two units attacking you from different sides. Not 100% sure how it's calculated but it might be a cone or something.

[Adventurer]

From the top of my head

 

Spiritshift: Yes i know they just got buffed but they are nowhere near as good as they should be especially if you start taking magical equipment into account

 

1 handed fighting style: 1 h style is seriously lacking it needs faster attack speed a default damage reduction and deflection bonus you only have one weapon so you have to make it count the talent should also be revisited 20% graces to hits just won't do eighter make that number considerably higher or change the bonus the talent grants altogether

 

Fast weapons: As for the fast weapons they would need something like that as well maybe an accuracy bonus as they are small and easy to use ? they really could use bonus damage reduction as of right now stilettos are the go to choice due to that it would be a great default trait to have for fast weapons their speed factor might need a little tweaking as well they are fast weapons after all

 

The racial bonuses: The godlike traits all seem underwehelming especially those that activate once you are below 50% stamina i mean they sacrifice the ability to wear helmets nice shiny magical helmets so they have to be compensated accordingly my suggestion for the nature godlike would be to extend the duration of all their spells and abilities that might be op though

 

we need one attribute that allows us to gain accuracy the reasons for that have already been stated by others

i would also like to see spells and abilities scale with level including spiritshift

 

pathfinding and engagement/disengagment are a given

 

that is all i can think of right now i have a question can anyone tell me what bonus a flail grants ? is it still that lame ignore a portion of shield deflection thing ? or has it been changed ?

[Adventurer]

When i say bonus damage reduction or damage reduction in the post right above this one i of course mean DR bypass for the weapons and styles mentioned (sorry ) one handed style also should grant an increased crit multiplier those extra 25% sure would come in handy as would DR bypass for all fast weapons

Edited March 16, 2015 by Adventurer

[Namutree]

I think the "flanked" concept makes engagement a bit more interesting.

[Sensuki]

Regarding system balance/tuning/fixing post-release

 

 

 

How much of this could we expect to see happen in patches? (regarding system/mechanics tuning or fixing)

 

 

 

A lot, I think. As much as I'd love to keep iterating on various ideas pre-launch, there's a point in development where we're in a difficult tug of war between iteration and bug fixing. It's hard to justify another round of iteration on ideas when you have a big list of broken stuff to fix. Whether it's what Attributes give bonuses to what stats, how certain things are calculated and displayed, how an interface works, or general balance/tuning, there's a lot we can do in patches -- and more safely than we can do just before launch.

[Luckmann]

I'm not sure how much I trust them in that, especially when it comes to changing things like attribute bonuses, because those things are core parts of the system.

I'll give them that, that they are incredibly brave if they actually do it, because changing functionality like that is inevitably something that upsets a lot of people that are mid-game. Let's say for example that they'd re-separate +AoE and +Duration and make Resolve not terrible for non-tanking paladins. It'd basically ruin any ongoing game where someone min-maxed to any degree.

It'd screw over tanks, because Resolve was changed, it'd screw over Wizards, because Resolve is no longer a dump stat and Intelligence the win-all attribute, and it'd in general just invalidate a lot of builds. I'm not saying that shouldn't do it, quite the opposite, I just don't think they will. Hell, even if they implemented the exact changes I want, I would still probably be annoyed to hell and back, either because it ruined my current play-through, or because I'd feel like I'd have to go back to creation and create the character I wanted from the beginning.

Either would result in considerable bellyaching.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Luckmann

[Sensuki]

Well I know that Divinity and Wasteland 2 are both undergoing large changes to core systems in patches, so there's no reason why PE cannot follow suit.

[Namutree]

Well I know that Divinity and Wasteland 2 are both undergoing large changes to core systems in patches, so there's no reason why PE cannot follow suit.

Except for the reasons Luckmann just listed. 

 

I guess they "can", but they probably shouldn't.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Namutree

[Luckmann]

Well I know that Divinity and Wasteland 2 are both undergoing large changes to core systems in patches, so there's no reason why PE cannot follow suit.

 

Neither Divinity: Original Sin nor Wasteland 2 have actually gone through with it yet, and D:OS is approaching a year old with the current community the size of my toenail clippings and the livegiving properties of a pool of chlorine. It isn't even clear what changes they're going to make (to me, at least, but I don't keep track of everything the devs put out through social media and such), but I'd be very surprised if they touch base character functionality.

 

I have no doubt that Obsidian will polish a lot post-release, come with meaningful content and mechanical updates, but I'd be very (pleasantly) surprised if they mucked around with the Attributes in any meaningful capacity, and I think it'd be very brave (and maybe stupid, from a self-serving perspective) to do so.

[Sensuki]

Neverwinter Nights 2 had a lot of post-release support, so I imagine we'll see something similar.

[Endrosz]

I have no doubt that Obsidian will polish a lot post-release, come with meaningful content and mechanical updates, but I'd be very (pleasantly) surprised if they mucked around with the Attributes in any meaningful capacity, and I think it'd be very brave (and maybe stupid, from a self-serving perspective) to do so.

 

You'll be surprised then, I reckon. This is their system, no license holder's lash present, and Sawyer is more than willing to shake things up if he sees a good reason. He will simply continue to do what he did during the beta. There is now a launch hiatus in balancing/reworking, after that, it's back to business.

[DigitalCrack]

This is nothing to do with attributes but it was pointed out to me that there are no classes that have average endurance. Classes are either some degree of high or low but nothing on between. I haven't had a chance to confirm but if so that's seems a little ridiculous that classes like rouge, chanter, and ranger couldnt be bumped to an average health bracket considering based off their descriptions they should be heartier than more scholarly classes.

[lordkim]

Patience, and delay the launch with 2-3 months, and clean up all ( most) the bugs....

[Dorky88]

I wouldn't be surprised if they were focusing more on game breaking bugs that

have come up outside of the BB. I would rather not lose a save or something

of that caliber happen rather than have a perfectly balanced game. 

These kind of games are rarely ever perfectly balance and bug free but

they are still great, Arcanum was a mess but a great game and the same

thing goes for the IE titles. Comes with the territory.

[Ark Evensong]

This is nothing to do with attributes but it was pointed out to me that there are no classes that have average endurance. Classes are either some degree of high or low but nothing on between. I haven't had a chance to confirm but if so that's seems a little ridiculous that classes like rouge, chanter, and ranger couldnt be bumped to an average health bracket considering based off their descriptions they should be heartier than more scholarly classes.

I think that was my post? I think you misunderstood. They are average(~ish). There not being any 'average'is just how the current naming scheme labels it.

• Very Low (30+10/level) - Cipher+, Wizard
• Low (36+12/level) - Chanter, Druid, Priest-, Ranger+, Rogue
• High (42+14/level) - Fighter, Monk+, Paladin
• Very High (48+16/level) - Barbarian

(The +/- is their health multiplier, relative to the 'average' of their grouping. (V. Low 3, Low 4, High 5, and V. High 6)

 

You would prefer they rename Low to Average? Does that matter?

[DigitalCrack]

 

This is nothing to do with attributes but it was pointed out to me that there are no classes that have average endurance. Classes are either some degree of high or low but nothing on between. I haven't had a chance to confirm but if so that's seems a little ridiculous that classes like rouge, chanter, and ranger couldnt be bumped to an average health bracket considering based off their descriptions they should be heartier than more scholarly classes.

I think that was my post? I think you misunderstood. They are average(~ish). There not being any 'average'is just how the current naming scheme labels it.

• Very Low (30+10/level) - Cipher+, Wizard
• Low (36+12/level) - Chanter, Druid, Priest-, Ranger+, Rogue
• High (42+14/level) - Fighter, Monk+, Paladin
• Very High (48+16/level) - Barbarian

(The +/- is their health multiplier, relative to the 'average' of their grouping. (V. Low 3, Low 4, High 5, and V. High 6)

 

You would prefer they rename Low to Average? Does that matter?

I see what you were saying. I didn't know what the actual number spread was and the naming convention used leads one to believe there is a huge gap between "high" and "low". On a side note I do think those three classes should be heartier than they are or at the very least game systems reworked to actually let you build them to be less squishy

[Answermancer]

I'm not sure how much I trust them in that, especially when it comes to changing things like attribute bonuses, because those things are core parts of the system.

 

I'll give them that, that they are incredibly brave if they actually do it, because changing functionality like that is inevitably something that upsets a lot of people that are mid-game. Let's say for example that they'd re-separate +AoE and +Duration and make Resolve not terrible for non-tanking paladins. It'd basically ruin any ongoing game where someone min-maxed to any degree.

 

It'd screw over tanks, because Resolve was changed, it'd screw over Wizards, because Resolve is no longer a dump stat and Intelligence the win-all attribute, and it'd in general just invalidate a lot of builds. I'm not saying that shouldn't do it, quite the opposite, I just don't think they will. Hell, even if they implemented the exact changes I want, I would still probably be annoyed to hell and back, either because it ruined my current play-through, or because I'd feel like I'd have to go back to creation and create the character I wanted from the beginning.

 

Either would result in considerable bellyaching.

 

A lot of games these days lock savegames to a major version to avoid rules changes messing up existing saves. In other words if you save was made on game version 1.01, you will keep playing the 1.01 version of the game if you load it, and only new games you start would actually have the changes in 1.1, or whatever.

 

I'm not saying they'll do that, but it's not all that uncommon these days. I could see PoE version 1.0-1.09 or whatever being mostly bugfixes that don't invalidate savegames, and 1.1 introducing rules changes (attribute bonuses, combat rules, etc.) and requiring a new game.

[Diogenes]

They need to fix the soul whip glow when dual wielding, my gamer OCD demands it.

[Sensuki]

If you're desperate you could always PM someone about it