Update #99: Announcing the Expansion and Update 2.0

[Tennisgolfboll]

Yes it does. We all know this.

 

But to have recovery time from armor reduced even more from con would be a great change

[Nakia]

In real life stamina and speed are reduced by what armour you wear and what weapons you use.  Constitution would and in my opinion should affect endurance recovery.  In a fantasy setting these can be offset by enchantments.

[AndreaColombo]

  On 6/28/2015 at 11:13 AM, Tennisgolfboll said:

But to have recovery time from armor reduced even more from con would be a great change

 

I don't think it would be that great, actually; it would only solve half the problem.

 

If CON governed recovery, you wouldn't want to dump it anymore lest it would slow you down and hurt your DPS; but you wouldn't want to pump it as those points would be better spent on DEX, which makes everything faster rather than just recovery.

[View619]

So, put the benefits of Armoured Grace on Con? Why not just make the Con bonus more meaningful, greater gains for pumping it and greater losses for dumping it? I would prefer if they take Fortitude off of Might, Reflex off of Perception and Will off of Intelligence so there's one stat for each defense. Then they could tweak the gains and you would be forced to take Con/etc if you want certain defensive benefits.

 

I'm not against a minor Armoured Grace talent btw, but the issue with Con is that it doesn't affect Health & Endurance enough to be worthwhile. The values need to be addressed.

Edited June 28, 2015 by View619

[Cluas]

Thanks Obsidian, looking forward to 2.0

[Luckmann]

  On 6/25/2015 at 10:58 PM, View619 said:

A one-time respec for the PC seems fair, maybe a dream you have upon resting. Making changes to attributes which affect a player's build during his game needs to be covered in some way, whether it "breaks immersion" or not. They shouldn't need to access the console to do it.

 

I agree, but I don't think it should be reflected in any way in the narrative. A simple no-questions-asked popup upon loading a pre-2.0 save would be enough, and probably the least grating and jarring thing possible under the circumstances.

 

 

  On 6/28/2015 at 2:28 AM, mrmonocle said:

Any chance we see a -3%/point armor recovery penalty for endurance?

 

  On 6/28/2015 at 7:27 AM, Tennisgolfboll said:

 

  On 6/28/2015 at 7:15 AM, AndreaColombo said:

DEX already does that, as its Attack Speed bonus also applies to recovery. It would be kinda redundant :\

 

I agree CON needs help, though. As it is, the penalty for dumping it is negligible and so are the benefits of pumping it.

Dex increases speed but more (faster) armor recovery would be really nice for constitution.

 

 

I always kinda liked that idea for Constitution, but I'm not sure how it'd play, which is why I was always hesitant to add it to my suggested attribute bonuses.

 

Making it another attribute that effects DPS could be good, because DPS always trumps Soak, but at the same time, the real issue with Constitution is that not even tanks really want it, and that those that really could benefit from more health gets the least benefit out of it, and those that get good benefit from it, has no need for extra health. And making it another attribute whose bonuses revolve around increased DPS (or less of a penalty to DPS, as it were) might just incentivize further dumping of the attribute for tanks, because of how the armour system works, they won't be stellar damage-dealers anyway.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Scissored from "Issues as According to me", from way back when:

 

 

• The Attributes.

   

  By now, I think that most people have acknowledged that the Attributes are.. lopsided, to say the least. When the current set of Attribute modifiers were introduced in BBv435, they were a considerable departure from the previous set of modifiers. What is notable here is that before BBv435, damage calculations were extremely off, with the result being that Accuracy was far more valuable than it is now, leading to Perception, which gave +2 Accuracy, was the undisputed king of everything.

   

  BBv435 thus did a "double-whammy" in that when fixing that issue, Accuracy was (rightfully) devalued, but the Attribute modifiers were still changed considerably to deal with an issue that may not even have been as pronounced any more. Also, with BBv435, many beta testers pointed out some obvious issues, but were unable to truly test the setup, because BBv435 was also broken in that the Dexterity bonus, +3% Action Speed, worked in reverse (so lower Dexterity was better) and Interrupt calculations were broken (meaning you could put enemies into stunlocks by having high Perception.

   

  Despite this, it was said that this setup was supposedly feeling like "the most balanced yet", a statement that in hindsight should be taken with a bowl of salt. Despite the issues being pointed out by sheer theorycrafting alone, the Attributes did not change with BBv480, which was released very shortly before release, and then finally, the Attributes were still not changed on release.

   

  For references:

  Really Old Modifiers (Removed after BBv392):
  
  MGT: +3% Damage & Healing, +2 Fortitude.
  CON: +2% Endurance & Health, +2 Fortitude.
  DEX: +3% Action Spd, +2 Reflex.
  PER: +2 Accuracy, +5% Range, +2 Reflex.
  INT: +6% AoE, +2 Deflection, +2 Will.
  RES: +3% Concentration, +5% Duration, +2 Will.

  Current Modifiers (BBv435 to 1.03):
  
  MGT: ±3% Damage & Healing, ±2 Fortitude.
  CON: ±3 Endurance & Health, ±2 Fortitude.
  DEX: ±3% Action Speed, ±2 Reflex.
  PER: ±3 Interrupt, ±1 Deflection, ±2 Reflex.
  INT: ±6% Area of Effect, ±5% Duration, ±2 Will.
  RES: ±3 Concentration, ±1 Deflection, ±2 Will.

  This current setup favours heavy specialization, which I find somewhat infuriating. Min/maxing is greatly encouraged, not even by class like in the Infinity Engine games (which also had pronounced issues with this, but at least the min/maxing was different for each class) but by build itself - boiling it down to two, DPS and Tank.

   

  Tanks want PER/RES, while DPS wants DEX/MGT. This ties into somewhat with the issues of the armour system, with Dexterity being virtually useless for anyone in armour, because the DPS/Tank dichotomy carries over into that, but that's another point. INT is useful for almost everyone, and is a completely consolidated caster attribute, increasing both Duration% and Area of Effect% at the same time.

   

  CON is largely useless, because it adds much more for High-Endurance Classes than for Low-Endurance Classes. The Low-Endurance Classes are very unlikely to serve as tanks, and if they can be considered needing of an Endurance boost, they will actually receive very little, and certainly not to the point where it will make a real difference; if they get caught taking damage consistently, they will die consistently whether they have a relatively small +% boost or not.

   

  The opposite is true for High-Endurance Classes; if they are serving as tanks, they will be good or bad tanks based on factors far beyond their Endurance pool, and while they get more Endurance than a Low-Endurance Class, they also need the boost far less. So CON doesn't help those that need it, and it's not necessary for those that it could help.

   

  For ranged DPS, the situation is slightly worse, because they can even get away with dumping CON; not only are they likely to already have very low Endurance, meaning that they don't take as big of an impact as a High-Endurance class reducing their CON, but they are also out of harms way, meaning that they should never be consistently hit outside of fringe cases (Shadows, etc).

   

  The goal of the Attribute System as a whole is truly admirable. The goal that each of the Attributes should affect everyone equally, and be reasonably viable to some degree, allowing different builds to be different yet competative - a high-Perception Wizard being comparable to a high-Dexterity wizard, just with relatively different play-styles.

   

  But it falls woefully short of that mark.

   

  Furthermore, the modifiers are largely unintuitive. For example, all of the best barbarian builds all use Intellect, which I definitely think should be doable, but it should not be the default, intuitive assumption. Likewise, any Paladin that isn't specifically a tank should never taken Resolve, despite Resolve being what you'd expect to be a primary Attribute for Paladins.

   

  Gruff and violent fighters clad in heavy armour are not the first ones you think of when you think Perception and Resolve, yet it is exactly the thing you'd want. All casters will want Might as at least a secondary Attribute, and although it was conceptualized as a general Attribute signifying inner strength, it tends to revolve more around physical prowess in play, which is the opposite of every wizardly archetype ever.

   

  What is more worrysome is that Obsidian has already acknowledge this as an issue. In 1.03, the CNPC Attributes were overhauled, likely in the response to overwhelming commentary regarding the truly gimp Attribute Spreads that CNPC:s had. For example, Aloth had major scores in Intellect and Perception, the latter which is completely dead weight for him.

   

  The Attributes were moved around for most of the CNPC:s to give them objectively better Attributes. Instead of using the realization that the Attributes were bad for the CNPC:s to change the Attribute system, they instead acknowledged the issue and decided to change the CNPC:s to make them better, compromising the Attribute/Character Concept foundation that shaped those decisions to begin with.

   

  Pallegina, the literally bird-eyed Avianlike lost Perception for Resolve. Hiravias, the wood-born tough-as-nails had-eye-gouged-out-and-ear-ripped-off Wild Orlan lost two points of Constiution and Dexterity in favour of Intellect. Durance, the crazy old firebrand of a soldier that is burned and battered to the bone and hates hesitation or needless discussion lost Constitution and gained Intellect. Edér, the contemplative and clever ex-soldier that questions whether his god even exists, lost all his Intellect and instead gained Perception and Resolve.

   

  All of these changes were clearly specifically to make the CNPC:s better within the confines of an Attribute system that can only be described as broken, and it clearly acknowledges that Obsidian knows this, or the change wouldn't even have been considered necessary. Doubly so since it clearly compromises who these characters are supposed to be on a personal level.

   

  Instead of doing that, the Attribute Modifiers need to be changed. And while doing so, the characters' Attribute-Concept consistencies restored. Now, I am by no means an expert, but as many know, this has been one of my biggest pet-peeves since BBv435, and I've tried to repeatedly suggest an alternate set. Whether it is perfect or not is extremely debatable - I certainly think it isn't, myself - but it is certainly better.

   

  Suggested Modifiers:
  
  MGT: ±3% Damage & Healing, ±2 Interrupt, ±2 Fortitude.
  CON: ±1 Endurance, ±3% Endurance, ±2% Armour Recovery Penalty, ±2 Concentration, ±2 Fortitude.
  DEX: +3% Action Speed, +2 Deflection +2 Reflex.
  PER: +1 Accuracy, +4 Interrupt, +2 Reflex.
  INT: +6% Duration, +2 Deflection, +2 Will.
  RES: +6% AoE, +6 Concentration, +2 Will.

  This has several advantages to the current system. There would be a greater synergy between some of the Attributes, for focused builds, such as an interrupter (Interrupt) that hits hard (MGT) and precise (PER) with every blow, the intelligent (INT) and nimble (DEX) warrior playing on his defensive strengths (Deflection), or a focused (RES) and athletic (CON) man that pushes through no matter how hard he's hit (Concentration.

   

  Intellect would no longer be a consolidated caster attribute and a one-stop-shop for spell/ability modifiers, and Intellect would be an option for the intelligent defensive warrior.

   

  Resolve reaffirms it's position as the Attribute that represents a character's power (or wish) to influence the world and not be influenced by it, affecting a character's ability to direct his soul or the powers associated with it.

   

  Constitution is no longer largely meaningless, and slightly less of a dump stat. A small but significant boost, but mostly conceptually. Assuming a Constitution of 20 ("fully maxed") the flat modifier to Health & Endurance is equal to over one extra level's worth for Wizards (10/level) but not nearly as much for Barbarians (16/level).

   

  Furthermore, given that Endurance by itself is of questionable value, it also affects the effects of wearing armour, reducing the Armour Recovery Penalty by percentage. For example, let's say a base Plate Armour has a penalty of -50%, with a fully pumped, 20 Constitution (10*3%) it would be reduced by 20%, to -35%.

   

  These changes makes Constitution more desirable to both low-Endurance characters with little armour and tanks that do not need the endurance but are woefully gimped by their superheavy armour. Do note that the examples given are extremes. It might not even be a bad idea to scrap the percentage modifier to Endurance completely, although I'm hesitant to suggest it myself.

   

  Perception may appear overvalued again, but do note that the bonus to Interrupt have been cut in half. Accuracy is not nearly as valuable anymore, and even if you fully min/max to get Perception, it still only provides a maximum of +10 Accuracy. The fact that this is a blanket bonus makes Perception a good choice for casters, but would still be a choice made at the expense of not taking other Attributes that are now of equal or greater worth.

   

 

 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Luckmann

[Namutree]

I think CON should be as much about reducing armor penalty as increasing health/endurance. This would not only make CON more interesting, but it would make the armor system more interesting as well.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Namutree

[AndreaColombo]

  On 6/28/2015 at 12:08 PM, View619 said:

So, put the benefits of Armoured Grace on Con? Why not just make the Con bonus more meaningful, greater gains for pumping it and greater losses for dumping it? I would prefer if they take Fortitude off of Might, Reflex off of Perception and Will off of Intelligence so there's one stat for each defense. Then they could tweak the gains and you would be forced to take Con/etc if you want certain defensive benefits.

 

This very much.

 

If there was only one stat per defense, alongside the comeback of Accuracy on PER, the attribute system would be pretty darn fine.

 

Of course attributes affecting defenses would have to provide twice the bonus/penalty they do now to compensate for the fact that you could only get them from a single attribute as opposed to two, but CON and RES would definitely become more important.

 

Top that with greater Health/Endurance numbers tied to CON, and the system would be really good (though integer numbers would probably make the most sense for the very reason Luckmann mentioned: Right now, those who need CON the most are also those who benefit from it the least.)

[Dinky Dino]

So is resolve staying the same or will deflection be buffed more? I really dig the constitution suggestion changes since in my opinion, it's not even that useful on my tanks when you have a party to crowd control most encounters (But still need a tank to take those few hits by those that slip by the CC). So I keep it on minimum.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Dinky Dino

[Matiati]

Could you also make something about Constitution, Might, Intelligence and other stats? So that min-maxing a class is more difficult?

Some problems I've identified are:

1: Currently Constituion has very low value in the Game. Even for barbarians the boost you get from other stats are much greater. I've seen Fighter builds for instance with 6-7 Constitution with maxed perception and resolve (and also minimum might) that can stands against loads of damage and can interrupt like hell while dealing very weak damage...

It is a fighter afterall and having 3 might and 8 constitution really breaks the role playing feeling...

Possible Solutions:

A: Constitution may have additional affects... For instance it can give +0.5 DR per point after 10 and can give -0.5 DR per point below 10.
B: Constitution may help mitigate armor debuffs. For instance each point in constitution above 10 may cut say %5 of the recovery time debuff on armor. For instance a character with 20 constituion will have (20 - 10) * %5 = %50 reduction in recovery time on armor. If this character wears a heavy full plate armor he/she will get -%25 recovery time instead of the original -%50. The boost is less for medium and light armor as it is proportional. So a %30 recovery time debuff medium armor will reduce to %15 for this character. Similarly a 5 constituion mage will be penalized by (5-10)*%5 = -%25 reduction. If the mage is a battle mage and wears a %40 reduction heavy armor it will be %50 reduction.

2. Currently Intelligence have too much importance for barbarian.

This also breaks the role playing feeling as barbarians are historically muscular but dump warriors capable of rushing into the battle in a frenzy or berserk state and butchering everyone. They do not think or do something else.

Intelligence stat in the game on the other hand affects both the area of affect radius of the barbarian attacks and also the barbarian buff durations which are very criticial.

For instance constituion is also currently marked as one of the two primary stats of the barbarian but it is again useless. I've never seen a valid barbarian build for path of the damned that exceed 10-12 constituion. But almost all builds max out intelligence...

Possible solution:

A: Barbarian shouts and the frenzy state affects can be removed from the affects that can be expanded (in terms of duration) with intelligence. They can be fixed. Their durations for instance can be increased with barbarian talents acquired at each level. Dexterity can become the new secondary stat for the barbarian. Intelligence may affect only the durations of spells, blessings etc. To compensate for this, each point in constituion may give slight DR to the barbarian as I discussed in the first problem.

3. Might is useless for tanks...

Perhaps not for paladins but for fighters who wanna tank the primary stat of the fighter that is might is useless. I've seen very valid builds in which it is set to 3 only. And the performance of the tank is just awesome. Just block a passage with it and let your guys kill the monsters.

Possible Solutions:

A: Might can determine what armor types and weapons a character can wear or wield. And this can be stated in the tool-tip text during character creation. For instance two-handed weapons and heavy armor may require 14+ might. One handed weapons and medium armor may require 6-12. Wands, Scepters, Rods and Light Armor may require 6-. The thresholds can vary. But this would force tanking fighters to stack at least some might to perform well in a fight.  

[View619]

  On 6/29/2015 at 8:55 AM, Dinky Dino said:

So is resolve staying the same or will deflection be buffed more? I really dig the constitution suggestion changes since in my opinion, it's not even that useful on my tanks when you have a party to crowd control most encounters (But still need a tank to take those few hits by those that slip by the CC). So I keep it on minimum.

 

Pretty sure that one of the reasons deflection was dropped from Perception is to reduce the ability of players to pump it using attributes. So, I doubt deflection will be buffed on Resolve.

Edited June 29, 2015 by View619

[Gromnir]

  On 6/29/2015 at 4:33 PM, Matiati said:

Could you also make something about Constitution, Might, Intelligence and other stats? So that min-maxing a class is more difficult?

 

Some problems I've identified are:

 

1: Currently Constituion has very low value in the Game. Even for barbarians the boost you get from other stats are much greater. I've seen Fighter builds for instance with 6-7 Constitution with maxed perception and resolve (and also minimum might) that can stands against loads of damage and can interrupt like hell while dealing very weak damage...

 

It is a fighter afterall and having 3 might and 8 constitution really breaks the role playing feeling...

 

stopped reading.

 

we agree that deflection is far too important compared to health, but if the reason you is averse to the current attribute system is 'cause it offends your role-play preconceptions, then we need not read any further, and we hope that the obsidian developers do not bother doing so.

 

relative impotence of constitution= bad

 

viability of non-traditional attribute load-outs resulting in grognard discomfort = good.

 

it were a GOAL o' developers to allow players to explore unique and non-traditional builds. the classes themselves were initially not built to conform to traditional crpg conventions.  

 

differing from expectations is not a flaw.  that being said, the poe implementation o' constitution, as with so many crpgs that has reloads, is a relative weak attribute.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am gonna note again that this is another example o' something so simple and inane as the naming choice for classes led to player inability to accept poe differences.  what a terrible and predictable shame. 

[Luckmann]

  On 6/30/2015 at 12:28 AM, Gromnir said:

 

  On 6/29/2015 at 4:33 PM, Matiati said:

Could you also make something about Constitution, Might, Intelligence and other stats? So that min-maxing a class is more difficult?

 

Some problems I've identified are:

 

1: Currently Constituion has very low value in the Game. Even for barbarians the boost you get from other stats are much greater. I've seen Fighter builds for instance with 6-7 Constitution with maxed perception and resolve (and also minimum might) that can stands against loads of damage and can interrupt like hell while dealing very weak damage...

 

It is a fighter afterall and having 3 might and 8 constitution really breaks the role playing feeling...

stopped reading.

 

we agree that deflection is far too important compared to health, but if the reason you is averse to the current attribute system is 'cause it offends your role-play preconceptions, then we need not read any further, and we hope that the obsidian developers do not bother doing so.

 

relative impotence of constitution= bad

 

viability of non-traditional attribute load-outs resulting in grognard discomfort = good.

 

it were a GOAL o' developers to allow players to explore unique and non-traditional builds. the classes themselves were initially not built to conform to traditional crpg conventions.  

 

differing from expectations is not a flaw.  that being said, the poe implementation o' constitution, as with so many crpgs that has reloads, is a relative weak attribute.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am gonna note again that this is another example o' something so simple and inane as the naming choice for classes led to player inability to accept poe differences.  what a terrible and predictable shame.

 

Strawnir, replace "Fighter" with "Tank" and your complaint holds no water; which I believe to be the intent of Matiati's post to begin with, not specifically all fighters as a class, but some fighters. It is just plain weird that the best tanks would be those that dump Constitution and Might.

 

Also, roleplaying tends to be a viable basis for complaints or calls for improvements in a roleplaying game. I dunno, your mileage may vary.

 

I think that it should be perfectly viable to have a low-Might/low-Con Fighter, sure, but as an easy default for tanks? Melee DPS dumping Con? It doesn't matter how you cut it, it feels wrong as hell. It is no different than Intellect being the most crazy good Attribute for Barbarians; I'm not opposed to builds that makes good use of Intellect for Barbarians, but when it's such a no-brainer? Yeah, it offends my roleplaying sensibilities.

 

Mechanics and fluff should match up to some degree.

[Nakia]

If we study real life combat to any degree we quickly learn that certain things are important.  Physical strength and endurance are important.  What I found interesting is that in melee combat speed is more important than either physical strength or even endurance.  Assuming the combatants are relatively equal in experience and armour and weapons the faster combatant will have the advantage.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Nakia

[Gromnir]

still haven't figured out what strawman is... and not embarrassed enough by half at your own ignorance. shame.  once you learn how to use logic fallacies, then, perhaps, you can get away with silly labels.

 

 

"It is a fighter afterall and having 3 might and 8 constitution really breaks the role playing feeling.."

 

we do not profess to read minds.  we read as it were written.  

 

even so, our complaint would stand with tank or fighter.  is not outside our experience to play mage tanks.  oh, sure, is quirk builds, but is equal likely/unlikely that we has run into low might/strength and low con tanks as we has been able to find low might/strength and low con fighters.  poe is different.  poe is intentional different.  classes and roles is far less rigid in poe. duh.  missed the point... again.

 

and role-play as a basis for complaint?  HA! poe allows a player to play a fighter or tank with high con and high might.  hell, poe sure as hell don't force a player to play a tank or fighter with might at 3 and con at 8-- those clear ain't any kinda default numbers.  lord knows why we would want our tank to have basement fort saves, eh?

 

nevertheless,

 

http://www.ebay.com/bhp/introduction-to-logic-copi

 

you can pick a copy up pretty cheap.  invest and save yourself future embarrassments.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps as we noted earlier, we stopped reading the post we quoted, but we reviewed the rest o' his/her post moments ago and we can see that the author knows how to distinguish fighters from tanks.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Gromnir

[Luckmann]

  On 6/30/2015 at 7:48 AM, Gromnir said:

[...]

 

and role-play as a basis for complaint?  HA! poe allows a player to play a fighter or tank with high con and high might.  hell, poe sure as hell don't force a player to play a tank or fighter with might at 3 and con at 8-- those clear ain't any kinda default numbers.  lord knows why we would want our tank to have basement fort saves, eh?

 

[...]

But Strawnir, it was never about what you fundamentally can or cannot do, but that the current setup so blatantly favours min-maxing. Yes, it is possible to play just about any combination of Attributes, but no-one has ever said that you couldn't. What is always discussed is the relative viability of the attributes and the balance between them, and yes, this includes role-playing feels.

 

Like how it feels odd that Constitution would be useless for almost everyone, but feels especially odd for tanks and/or fighters. Or how it feels odd that Intellect is the absolutely best stat for Barbarians, and simultaneously a one-stop-shop for all spellcasters.

 

If it was anyone else, I'd find the argument odd that just because you can do something and survive doing it, it works well and shouldn't be changed, or, worse, possible change or improvement shouldn't even be discussed. Because it is possible to make a high-Constitution Spellcaster with Resolve and dumped Intellect, that somehow means that the goal of build variety and less rigid classes and roles is achieved?

 

With your track record, I'm not surprised you somehow reach a conclusion opposite to everyone else. A good system would be one where the attribute bonuses supports build variety and the less rigid classes and roles, not one where the most obvious min/max is apparent at a mere glance, and half the Attributes doesn't support your class or role or desired build. Currently, the "you can make pretty much anything and still stumble through the game"-thing is in spite of the attribute bonuses - and one of my least favourite aspects of th game - not because of them, and most Attributes do in no way support what you suggest, that "poe is different.  poe is intentional different.  classes and roles is far less rigid in poe. duh.".

Edited June 30, 2015 by Luckmann

[cavemandiary]

  On 6/28/2015 at 11:26 AM, Nakia said:

In real life stamina and speed are reduced by what armour you wear and what weapons you use. Constitution would and in my opinion should affect endurance recovery. In a fantasy setting these can be offset by enchantments.

[cavemandiary]

As a personal trainer/ strength coach with a degree, I think we should be grateful that fantasy stats have little in common with real life, because flavorwise it would make little sense to gamers, barring ones with weightlifting experience.

 

Strength, for instance, would be the governing stat for swinging heavy weapons faster and harder, while for light weapons like daggers, strength would have little effect on the attackspeed but still potentially increase your ability to penetrate armor.

 

On top of that, it would increase your endurance in heavy armor for short-term (aka anaerobic) fights.

 

For example, an endurance athlete who can deadlift 300 pounds, is asked to do as many reps as possible with 250 pounds, will have zero chance against a strength athlete who deadlifts 500 pounds. The strength athlete will put out many more reps with 250 pounds, because each rep is much less taxing on his system.

 

Besides, strength would increase your run speed ( up to a certain point, then theres a dropoff) and bodytype/relative strength would have a significant impact as well.

 

If you had to follow such guidelines, stats would have to be renamed and expanded to:

 

Maximal strength

Rate-of-force development ( speed and agility)

Strength endurance (ability to tolerate and metabolize lactic acid buildup..endurance, but not of your health)

Vo2 max (ability to use oxygen as an energysource, increasing your endurance also)

Technique (precision in movement, and economization of energysystems... dexterity)

Physical stress toleration (Hardening of bones and cartilidge tissue due to constant physical stress and pain as seen in MMA fighters and boxers, aka constitution)

 

And each of these can be divided into more specific qualities as well.

 

 

My point is, let's just be thankful that fantasy stats are what they are; easy to understand, makes sense to the common man, and have zero scientific validation.

Edited June 30, 2015 by cavemandiary

[Kogorn733]

Is something going to be done to enhance the overall reactivity in the game? Found it really strange how few recognitions there were in dialog for things like class, race (especially godlike), and homeland. This was done so perfectly in Arcanum, and I don't understand why few such dialogs are present in POE

[Gromnir]

  On 6/30/2015 at 8:10 AM, Luckmann said:

 

  On 6/30/2015 at 7:48 AM, Gromnir said:

[...]

 

and role-play as a basis for complaint?  HA! poe allows a player to play a fighter or tank with high con and high might.  hell, poe sure as hell don't force a player to play a tank or fighter with might at 3 and con at 8-- those clear ain't any kinda default numbers.  lord knows why we would want our tank to have basement fort saves, eh?

 

[...]

But Strawnir, it was never about what you fundamentally can or cannot do, but that the current setup so blatantly favours min-maxing. Yes, it is possible to play just about any combination of Attributes, but no-one has ever said that you couldn't. What is always discussed is the relative viability of the attributes and the balance between them, and yes, this includes role-playing feels.

 

Like how it feels odd that Constitution would be useless for almost everyone, but feels especially odd for tanks and/or fighters. Or how it feels odd that Intellect is the absolutely best stat for Barbarians, and simultaneously a one-stop-shop for all spellcasters.

 

If it was anyone else, I'd find the argument odd that just because you can do something and survive doing it, it works well and shouldn't be changed, or, worse, possible change or improvement shouldn't even be discussed. Because it is possible to make a high-Constitution Spellcaster with Resolve and dumped Intellect, that somehow means that the goal of build variety and less rigid classes and roles is achieved?

 

With your track record, I'm not surprised you somehow reach a conclusion opposite to everyone else. A good system would be one where the attribute bonuses supports build variety and the less rigid classes and roles, not one where the most obvious min/max is apparent at a mere glance, and half the Attributes doesn't support your class or role or desired build. Currently, the "you can make pretty much anything and still stumble through the game"-thing is in spite of the attribute bonuses - and one of my least favourite aspects of th game - not because of them, and most Attributes do in no way support what you suggest, that "poe is different.  poe is intentional different.  classes and roles is far less rigid in poe. duh.".

 

"feel" arguments is exactly what is so frustrating to the obsidians, 'cause they don't mean anything w/o individual context, and individual context is, *gasp* individual.  "feel" is not the reason why intellect benefits the barbarian, or why constitution is a relative weak attribute.  is not difficult to show the math behind the advantage o' taking +15 intelligence for your carnage barbarian.  again, duh.

 

the obsidian developers specific developed an attribute system that would not unduly punish experimentation, creativity and even ignorance o' the nuances o' the system.  Gromnir, for example, has played through potd with 3 different characters: rogue striker/dps), a paladin (tank) and a priest (support).  all three has near identical attribute distributions.  is all slight variations on the following:

 

m 10

c 10

d 10

p 16

i 16

r 16

 

all three characters has been not only viable, but effective.

 

a primary goal o' the attribute system is to not punish folks for playing unique builds.  to thus complain that a non-traditional fighter build is viable is therefore showing a certain level o' ignorance.  mati being unaware the a Goal o' the poe attribute system is exactly what disturbs his rp feeling is understandable.  you don't get such a benefit.  you should be aware that the attribute system is built precisely to avoid what mati wants.

 

and every complex numbers based crpg system favors min-max.  again, duh.  poe developers did not pretend or promise that min-max would be impossible in poe.  the developers specific has noted that min-maxers would still find advantages.  a goal were not to dissuade min-max. a goal were to make alternative builds not only viable but fun.  that is precisely what happened and is continuing to happen. with 2.0, maxing resolve, depending on race, will gain a tank a whopping +8-+11 deflection.  that is a noteworthy gain, but it is hardly determinative o' success.  by the end o' the game, a tank will, even with a 10 in resolve that gives no deflection bonus whatsoever, will be able to generate deflection scores in the 130-140 range.  max resolve will see that number increased by 8-11 points. conversely, the tank who instead put points into might or intelligence may discover that those benefits are noteworthy as well.  for example, our paladin tank's prime attribute were actually intelligence with perception and resolve scores o' 15 apiece.  

 

again, went right over your head.

 

"With your track record, I'm not surprised you somehow reach a conclusion opposite to everyone else."

 

if you think our conclusion is opposite o' everybody, you have not been paying attention.  even stun finally reached enlightenment.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78279-rpgcodex-review-1-hŵrpa-dwrp/?p=1676639

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78279-rpgcodex-review-1-hŵrpa-dwrp/?p=1676649

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78279-rpgcodex-review-1-hŵrpa-dwrp/?p=1676654

 

that you can't even reach stun level o' comprehension is telling... is perhaps why we still cannot get you to understand strawman fallacy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sotof]

Well, now I am certainly looking forward to playing through the game again whenever this expansion thingy gets out.

[Jeff_Strix]

Hey guys! One question, if I play the game now, should I start it new after installing White March/2.0 Update? Will "new" version of the game somehow cooperate with old saves or not?

[Nakia]

You should be able to play the game with old saves after the update but it may change your character builds a little bit.

[santodx5]

Halo any ETA for the new patch?

 

I just play the game now, how will i change the build after the update?

 

Should I wait for 2.0? Any ETA?

 

Thanks

[Luckmann]

  On 6/30/2015 at 4:23 PM, Gromnir said:

[...]

to thus complain that a non-traditional fighter build is viable is therefore showing a certain level o' ignorance. 

 

[...]

 

But Strawnir, no-one has complained that a non-traditional fighter build is viable.

 

I realized long ago that your strawmen doesn't stem from issues with fallacies, but from some cognitive issue in regards to understanding what people are actually saying, and I think you're obfuscating those cognitive issues by "pretending" to speak like a hyperbolically accentuated retard. But it doesn't make it any less important to point it out, lest you'd win arguments by walkover.

 

  On 6/30/2015 at 9:42 PM, Jeff_Strix said:

Hey guys! One question, if I play the game now, should I start it new after installing White March/2.0 Update? Will "new" version of the game somehow cooperate with old saves or not?

 

Nakia is correct. Everything that's been mentioned so far has suggested that the saves will be entirely compatible, but depending on the changes made, your character(s) might go through a mild change, since the bonuses for certain characteristics will be changed somewhat (hopefully for the better).

 

And before you ask, the idea of a respec has been thrown around a bit, although it's (thankfully) not certain.

 

I still advocate the idea of a one-time respec upon loading a pre-2.0 save, a neat little pop-up on the loading screen, and a paperclip going "I see you're trying to load a pre-2.0 savegame. Would you like to respec your characters?".

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

OK, so maybe forget about the paperclip.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

....oh god, can we have a sword version of Clippy?!

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

ᵒᶰᶫʸ ⁹⁰'ˢ ᵏᶦᵈˢ ʷᶦᶫᶫ ᵘᶰᵈᵉʳˢᵗᵃᶰᵈ ᵗʰᶦˢ

 

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2015 by Luckmann