Odd Hermit Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I'm not talking an increased cost for attributes. I'm talking an increased -> decreased value for what we have now. So take Dexterity and do something like this - 11 Dex gives +5% action speed, 12 gives +10%, 13 gives +14%, 14 gives +18% 15 gives +21% 16 gives +24% 17 gives +26% and every level thereafter gives another 2% (A very rough example obviously numbers can be tweaked) This wouldn't necessarily reduce min/maxing's value for offensive/defensive focused characters, but it'd make everything no min/maxed considerably less suckitude. And could have it work similarly for attributes under 10 as well, with penalties starting lower and then rising up to a point. And then, take racial attribute bonuses and have the base for this be raised by that bonus. This way they're not completely pointless unless you plan on taking above 18. So using Dex again, but with an Elf! 11 Dex gives +5% action speed, 12 gives +10%, 13 gives +15%, 14 gives +19% 15 gives +23% 16 gives +26% 17 gives +29% 18 gives +31% and every level thereafter gives another 2% So an Elf gets a bigger benefit from Dex at lower and higher values now rather than no benefit unless they want 19 Dex. Just feels... right to me. And it'd make race a more interesting choice.
Voss Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Oh, I don't like the latter at all. It just makes certain class/race (or just build) combinations mandatory (and all others subpar), like 4th/5th D&D The former... eh. I'm not that excited about it. It changes the point where you min/max to, but doesn't actually improve anything. Edited March 25, 2015 by Voss
Odd Hermit Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Oh, I don't like the latter at all. It just makes certain class/race (or just build) combinations mandatory (and all others subpar), like 4th/5th D&D The former... eh. I'm not that excited about it. It changes the point where you min/max to, but doesn't actually improve anything. It improves all non min/maxed builds. Which includes probably every pre-made companion. And the latter, well, it's already that way right now, but you have to min/max to get any benefit from the attribute bonuses from a race. It encourages very specific races and attribute values. With diminishing returns and the race extension you get more interesting trade-offs at least. I'd definitely be more inclined to build hybrid characters if this were how it worked. It'd open up more varied build possibilities. Right now, for most builds it's just better to build purely offensively/defensively because the trade-off is assumed to be equal regardless of class/build's goal. But it's not. There should have a more weighted trade-off where at some point offense costs you more than defense or vice versa. Diminishing returns achieves this, as an option. Edited March 25, 2015 by Odd Hermit
mrmonocle Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) . Edited March 25, 2015 by mrmonocle I see the dreams so marvelously sad The creeks of land so solid and encrusted Where wave and tide against the shore is busted While chanting by the moonlit twilight's bed trees (of Twin Elms) could use more of Magran's touch © Durance
Voss Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Oh, I don't like the latter at all. It just makes certain class/race (or just build) combinations mandatory (and all others subpar), like 4th/5th D&D The former... eh. I'm not that excited about it. It changes the point where you min/max to, but doesn't actually improve anything. It improves all non min/maxed builds. Which includes probably every pre-made companion. And the latter, well, it's already that way right now, but you have to min/max to get any benefit from the attribute bonuses from a race. It encourages very specific races and attribute values. With diminishing returns and the race extension you get more interesting trade-offs at least. I'd definitely be more inclined to build hybrid characters if this were how it worked. It'd open up more varied build possibilities. Right now, for most builds it's just better to build purely offensively/defensively because the trade-off is assumed to be equal regardless of class/build's goal. But it's not. There should have a more weighted trade-off where at some point offense costs you more than defense or vice versa. Diminishing returns achieves this, as an option. The problem is, the attributes are so cut and dry that I don't think it really fixes anything. Sure, it could be marginally better (in some fashion) if best dps build is 16/16/16 (might/int/dex) and best tank build is 16/16/16 (per/res/con), but it doesn't really change the major problem with the attributes which is those three matter if you tank, but these three matter if you don't. The characters aren't any more hybrid than before (and the companions certainly don't suck any less, at least not 3 of the 4 spoiled in that other thread). You still have the absolute split of tank stats and dps stats and no other build options. When it comes to the companions, this doesn't really help anyone, with the possible exception of Eder, though he is really still just a dps build with high con. The ridiculous amounts of points spent in resolve help Durance in no way at all, nor do the other half of Aloth's points. They were both built as if perception and resolve in some way mattered to them*, and as NPCs they can't even be used for conversation thresholds. Diminishing returns doesn't change that. All it would really do is nerf Kana's durations and AoE's by...some uncertain amount. *or if stats mattered in some fashion, rather just being mathematical increments with no tie to the game world. Edited March 25, 2015 by Voss
Recommended Posts