Update #99: Announcing the Expansion and Update 2.0

[Jeff_Strix]

Thanks for answers!^^

[Dinky Dino]

 

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?".

 

 

OK, so maybe forget about the paperclip.

 

 

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

 

 

ᵒᶰᶫʸ ⁹⁰'ˢ ᵏᶦᵈˢ ʷᶦᶫᶫ ᵘᶰᵈᵉʳˢᵗᵃᶰᵈ ᵗʰᶦˢ

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they do that, I hope it extends to the custom party members since those will be potentially messed up as well.

 

Well not like it matters for me since I don't trust respecs since they tend to screw up or remove abilities you can't get back so it's a new game for me.

 

 

 

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

 

We got nothing other than the statement that 1.7 is now 2.0 which is likely going to be shipped with the expansion "soon." Kinda of wish we got the gameplay/balance changes before the expansion just to play around with it.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Dinky Dino

[Luckmann]

I expect we will. I'd be very surprised if 2.0 isn't released before the expansion, and if the expansion isn't going to be 2.1 at best.

[Uni]

I hope paladin auras growing and attack speed boost not working on unique weapons get fixed in next patch. They already fixed some other stacking issues and just making 20% attack speed buff work(like dual wield talent does) doesnt sound very complicated.

[Gromnir]

 

[...]

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.

 

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

 

you can't be this obtuse.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Luckmann]

 

 

[...]

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.

 

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

 

you can't be this obtuse.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Saying that having a 3 Might and 8 Constitution Fighter breaks his roleplaying feeling is not the same as as complaining that non-traditional builds are viable. Misconstruing someone's position in order to make it largely indefensible and attacking that argument (or lack thereof) instead is known as a strawman. And that's why you're called Strawnir.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

[...]

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.

 

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

 

you can't be this obtuse.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Saying that having a 3 Might and 8 Constitution Fighter breaks his roleplaying feeling is not the same as as complaining that non-traditional builds are viable. Misconstruing someone's position in order to make it largely indefensible and attacking that argument (or lack thereof) instead is known as a strawman. And that's why you're called Strawnir.

 

*chuckle*

 

irony?

 

compare:

 

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

 

v.

 

is not the same as as complaining that non-traditional builds are viable.

 

indeed.  is not the same.  oh, wait, you ain't gonna now try and convince us that the underlying intent is the same based on the context o' our post, are you? 

 

HA!

 

the low might and low con fighter breaks the poster's role-play feeling?   the poster wants changes to the attribute system. a reason the change is required is that a 3 might 8 con fighter is incongruous with his role-play feelings. am not prepared to divine mati feelings to quite the degree you do.  hell, we sure ain't gonna try and explain how you could suggest that the poster meant tank when he said fighter.  is not difficult to recognize that the the poster's role-play feelings is disturbed by the viability o' a non-traditional fighter build such as a fighter with 3 might and 8 con. 

 

...

 

you still don't get strawman.  is doubly humorous as you bring up a logic fallacy in the context o' a "feel" argument.  is treble humorous given your last post.

 

heck, earlier in this thread you misrepresented strawman and were corrected by posters other than Gromnir.  it were you being obtuse that made you see strawman where it were not.  elerond and matt516 both corrected, and you nevertheless go ahead and make the same mistake(s) in the same thread.  

 

why won't you learn? why?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  to keep this from going complete off the rails, we will note that feel arguments is providing little guidance.  obsidian cannot possibly divine the precise perfect feel point that is gonna satisfy the mostest number of people.  they sure as hell cannot get feel right for everybody.  if a particular build is too far away from an individual player's range o' what is reasonable, how does obsidian measure that against the feel o' Gromnir or anybody else?  oh, sure, no doubt many such shot-in-the-dark attempts to find the perfect feel point is made with every crpg development, but any feel appeal is offering little guidance to the developers.

 

obsidian, took a rational approach.  feel is necessarily minimized if you are trying to maximize attribute spreads that is playable and fun.  to that end, we will note that a few classes would benefit from greater tuning to maximize attribute diversity.  perception were too easy for non-tanks to dump previous to 2.0, but there is other attributes that clear need some work... and not just constitution neither.  for instance, while intelligence extends the duration o' knockdown and the max distance of clear-out, there is relative little pay-off for increasing intelligence on a fighter.  rogues has a similar problem.  yes, the duration o' blindness or hobble is increased with intelligence, but from a functional perspective, the duration o' the rogue debuffs is inconsequential as they is single-target, and those single targets is likely to be dead before durations become an actual concern.  

 

am believing that for the expansion or sequel, fighters and rogues would benefit from a few additional aoe debuff or attack options.  sounds like a smoke bomb is available to the companion rogue in the expansion, yes?  am hopeful there is other such aoe debuffs or attacks that we could envision as being genuine worthy o' additional points in int.  goal is to make all the attributes useful to any class. not expect equal use for all roles-- that would be silly.  give us options.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Gromnir

[Luckmann]

*chuckle*

 

irony?

 

compare:

 

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

 

v.

 

is not the same as as complaining that non-traditional builds are viable.

 

indeed.  is not the same.  oh, wait, you ain't gonna now try and convince us that the underlying intent is the same based on the context o' our post, are you? 

 

HA!

I think you've completely lost it, old man.   If anyone can divine this, give me a call.

 

the low might and low con fighter breaks the poster's role-play feeling?   the poster wants changes to the attribute system. a reason the change is required is that a 3 might 8 con fighter is incongruous with his role-play feelings. am not prepared to divine mati feelings to quite the degree you do.  hell, we sure ain't gonna try and explain how you could suggest that the poster meant tank when he said fighter.  is not difficult to recognize that the the poster's role-play feelings is disturbed by the viability o' a non-traditional fighter build such as a fighter with 3 might and 8 con. 

 

...

 

you still don't get strawman.  is doubly humorous as you bring up a logic fallacy in the context o' a "feel" argument.  is treble humorous given your last post.

Pointing out your constant strawmen is completely unrelated to anything revolving around "o' a feel argument" (?). Saying that how something feels has meaning has nothing to do with logical fallacies. You can argue appeal to emotion and so on and so forth, but ultimately it's unrelated.

 

heck, earlier in this thread you misrepresented strawman and were corrected by posters other than Gromnir.  it were you being obtuse that made you see strawman where it were not.  elerond and matt516 both corrected, and you nevertheless go ahead and make the same mistake(s) in the same thread.

This honestly left me confused at first, so I went back and reviewed the thread, and yup, neither Elerond and Matt516 "corrected" "you misrepresented strawman". I'm trying to work out your sentences there; your meaning isn't entirely clear, but neither of them corrected anything revolving around strawmen relating to me (or you, for that matter). I don't think Matt516 has even addressed me. You are the single most confused individual on these forums and if we compare what you're writing these days to before, you've seriously gone downhill. This is rapidly approaching "rambling ol' man peeing himself at the supermarket"-levels of sad. :|

 

Only thing Elerond said was that, when I said no-one had made that argument, he claimed that apparently, some people in some thread somewhere had, at some point. Which I hadn't seen before nor since.

 

why won't you learn? why?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  to keep this from going complete off the rails, we will note that feel arguments is providing little guidance.  obsidian cannot possibly divine the precise perfect feel point that is gonna satisfy the mostest number of people.  they sure as hell cannot get feel right for everybody.  if a particular build is too far away from an individual player's range o' what is reasonable, how does obsidian measure that against the feel o' Gromnir or anybody else?  oh, sure, no doubt many such shot-in-the-dark attempts to find the perfect feel point is made with every crpg development, but any feel appeal is offering little guidance to the developers.

 

obsidian, took a rational approach.  feel is necessarily minimized if you are trying to maximize attribute spreads that is playable and fun.  to that end, we will note that a few classes would benefit from greater tuning to maximize attribute diversity.  perception were too easy for non-tanks to dump previous to 2.0, but there is other attributes that clear need some work... and not just constitution neither.  for instance, while intelligence extends the duration o' knockdown and the max distance of clear-out, there is relative little pay-off for increasing intelligence on a fighter.  rogues has a similar problem.  yes, the duration o' blindness or hobble is increased with intelligence, but from a functional perspective, the duration o' the rogue debuffs is inconsequential as they is single-target, and those single targets is likely to be dead before durations become an actual concern.  

 

am believing that for the expansion or sequel, fighters and rogues would benefit from a few additional aoe debuff or attack options.  sounds like a smoke bomb is available to the companion rogue in the expansion, yes?  am hopeful there is other such aoe debuffs or attacks that we could envision as being genuine worthy o' additional points in int.  goal is to make all the attributes useful to any class. not expect equal use for all roles-- that would be silly.  give us options.

 

Feels are obviously hard to gauge, but it is far from impossible to get a general idea. The rational approach is indeed to maximize attribute spreads that are playable and fun, and contributes to build diversity, without obvious pitfalls or "no-brainer" choices. In this, Obsidian failed miserably with the Attribute Bonuses at launch, which are lopsided, easily min-maxed, and only tangentially useful to anything other than the very widely defined roles of Tank vs. DPS.

 

That's not options. You say it yourself, you are, at the end of it all, fundamentally agreeing. All the attributes should be useful for any class, not necessarily of equal use for all roles. Meanwhile, in reality, there's a very sharp line, mechanically, for roles and classes in relation to the Attribute Bonuses. To this, you basically say that oh, it doesn't matter too much, you can finish it with any combination.

 

And that's true. I know that's true. I've said that many times.

 

But just because something works doesn't mean that it works well. And that's the difference. And Obsidian knows that the Attribute Bonuses are wonky and lopsided, and that many of them contribute absolutely zero to most classes or roles, and heavily favours min-maxing. They know it so well that they changed the Attributes of the companions to compensate, because they knew full well that Perception wasn't just sub-optimal for Aloth, they knew it was utterly and completely useless, dead weight, soak-up of relatively (in the right sense of the word, relatively) valuable points.

 

And the fact that you can stumble your way through the game like a drunken fool and still not only succeed, but prosper, and the fact that Attributes doesn't matter that much at the end of the day are things I actually consider terrible, so it hardly feels like an argument worth considering to begin with.

[Gromnir]

poor reading skills may be your problem.  could explain a few things.

 

we said:

 

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

 

you say:

 

is not the same as as complaining that non-traditional builds are viable.

 

still need to point out the difference?  is actual a more significant alteration than the one you fallaciously claim we is making.  given the poster's feel argument, we do not know to what extent he/she is claiming that non-traditional builds is viable.  we do however know that the viability o' a particular non-traditional build does in fact cause a feel problem for his/her role-play sensibilities.  regardless, making more builds viable, including non-traditional ones such as a 3 might/strenght  and 8 con is a Goal o' the poe attribute system... but we are going in circles... again.  

 

 

as to matt and elerond, you are nuts.  you clear do not know what strawman nor did you read their replies.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/80445-update-99-announcing-the-expansion-and-update-20/?p=1707902

 

elerond responded.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/80445-update-99-announcing-the-expansion-and-update-20/?p=1707910

 

you claimed that "no-one" had made such an argument.  elerond identified that the argument were in fact made.    matt516 chimed in to observe that he could not see another option.  oh, sure, folks could try and "mischaracterize"  to use your turn o' phrase, but there weren't, a reasonable alternative. again, we are using logic fallacies, so some kinda retreat to feels is laughably misguided. Gromnir, by contrast, never actual attributed a particular misbegotten respec argument to you in this thread, so the only wacky strawman argument you had to make were an extreme general umbrella statement that," as usual, no-one has made that argument."  both matt516 and elerond rejected your assertion.  you helped prove matt's point in your follow-up, but that is typical luckman icing on the cupcake.

 

regardless One o' these days you will grasp strawman.  did you teach self strawman via internet?  perhaps you need more guidance.  is why we suggested getting yourself a copy o' copi.  it could/should help.  

 

you failed to understand 2x in this thread.

 

you failed in the codex review thread 'cause you couldn't grasp that strawman requires that we attribute a weak argument to you that we then would dismantle.  our claim that there were no functional difference 'tween d&d hard counters and ie game hard counters does not create even the possibility o' strawman.

 

your strawman assertion failed in the mechanics for priest thread, 'cause we never suggested that you had made a claim other than that mechanics modification o' seals were a bug.  again, were your fail, though for a different reason.  

 

you spam strawman.  it should be embarrassing to you... though we suspect that you will eventual get it right given that you use so frequent.  

 

as to obsidian failing miserably with attributes...

 

*chuckle*

 

is more feel, eh?  as we noted, obsidian observed that their attribute system would not preclude min-max, so identify that min-max were possible is not having as much impact as you believe.  we noted how personally we played a melee dps, tank, and support character with near the same attribute spreads and clear not following any kinda-min-max guidelines.  our efforts were not punished.  in fact, we were frequent rewarded.  sure, some kinda spread sheet would show that we did not have optimal tank or dps builds, but our tank were far better in support than an optimal tank, and our dps, with extreme high deflection, were not near as squishy as so-called optimal builds.  we had choices.  we made choices that enhanced our gameplay.  what a terrible result.

 

oh, and by observing this and other boards, the feel we get (*chuckle*), the general idea (HA!) is that the attribute system were well-received by many, confusing to some, and loathed by a few.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-oHYYaw9jA

 

yeah... am thinking we don't need more feelings, luckman or otherwise.

 

 

"And that's true. I know that's true. I've said that many times."

 

...

 

you are gonna realize that you (you in particular) saying stuff many times, don't count for much.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/pillars-of-eternity  

 

is a better barometer o' community feelings than luckman or Gromnir, no?  

Edited July 1, 2015 by Gromnir

[gkathellar]

So here's a question: if the Perception bonus is changing from Deflection to Accuracy, how is that going to be reflected in enemy statistics? Are we going to see a global increase in defenses and a decrease in Accuracy? Because as-is, this is going to be a pretty significant nerf to Defense tanks (Deflection tanks like paladins in particular will suffer from it) and a pretty significant boost to DPS and debuffers.

[Matiati]

You guys are just awesome...

The thing is Gromnir the current attribute system is the exact thing that invalidates non-traditional attribute setups...

If you are playing trial of iron , path of the damned for instance you would want to maximise the effectivity of all your party members.

The problem is the attribute system immediately lets you do that. So you are bound to only one traditional attribute setup.

A good attribute system will have many trade-offs so you would think many times before cutting one point from constitution or might when creating a fighter tank character or a barbarian. Min-maxing would not be possible without trade-offs in such an attribute system. If you min-max then you ll be certain that you are sacrificing something crucial to get some good benefit. It would be about trade offs...

Such is not the case with PoE's attribute system...

The minimum might, low constitution fighter tank is the best tank in the game... Right from the start to the end game...

This is because Perception and Resolve both give deflection, perception gives interrupt so that your fast hitting fighter can interrupt mobs effectively increasing defensive advantage and resolve gives concentration so your fighter's attacks are less likely to be interrupted.

Dexterity gives speed so you interrupt more often and cover up for the damage lost due to low might... Fighter already has high hp/level so constitution can be dumped to certain degree... Might on the otherhand is utterly pointless. Also there are very very few enemies in the game that attack fortitude so fortitude does not mean much. Deflection > Fortitute as a thumb rule.

So it is right from the start obvious that a minimum might and low constituion fighter tank is superior to all other tank setups. It is also obvious that some races are such as Fire Godlikes or Moonelves or Moon Godlikes are far more superior to other classes in tanking such as the human...

Which invalidates other fighter setups really if you arent a masochist who would waste lots of hours micro managing all your characters in the game so they dont get killed in trial of the iron... The thing is this setup is more preferable (very easily) compared to others... Which breaks the attribute system and destroys variety in the game.

You can of course go for other setups like a max might constitution tank but good luck with that. I would call you a masochist.

Second role playing game (RPG) is all about role playing. You put yourself in the position of your character. Reflect your own decisions in the game. And lots and lots of players play RPGs for the role playing feeling... So when I say a 3 might 8 const fighter breaks the role playing feeling I am making a very valid point for a lot of gamers out there.

So attributes should more or less physically correspond to the class you are playing...

A super intelligent barbarian for instance is unheard of...

You may of course ignore it. But many customers wont be interested that much in the game because such inconsistencies.

[Sannom]

So when I say a 3 might 8 const fighter breaks the role playing feeling I am making a very valid point for a lot of gamers out there.

Why don't you make a 16 might, 16 constitution fighter if that upsets you so much? It's not like it's not viable.

[Noin]

You can of course go for other setups like a max might constitution tank but good luck with that. I would call you a masochist.

 

You'd be surprised but I didn't use a tank in my PotD playthrough. People tend to forget that PoE is not a MMO

[Elerond]

So it is right from the start obvious that a minimum might and low constituion fighter tank is superior to all other tank setups. It is also obvious that some races are such as Fire Godlikes or Moonelves or Moon Godlikes are far more superior to other classes in tanking such as the human...

 

 

That is not actually true. Also there isn't moon elves in the game. Humans are better in tanking than fire godlikes actually. Also humans are race not class.

 

But anyway it seems to me that you don't really craps how attribute system works, and also you don't seem to really know how to create superior fighter tank.

[Luckmann]

 

So when I say a 3 might 8 const fighter breaks the role playing feeling I am making a very valid point for a lot of gamers out there.

Why don't you make a 16 might, 16 constitution fighter if that upsets you so much? It's not like it's not viable.

 

In spite of the current attribute bonuses. In spite of.

 

The fact that you can sorta fall your way through the game like a drunk rolling around the ball pit at Mcdonalds is a completely separate issue.

[AndreaColombo]

So here's a question: if the Perception bonus is changing from Deflection to Accuracy, how is that going to be reflected in enemy statistics? Are we going to see a global increase in defenses and a decrease in Accuracy?

 

That would make PER a must-pump stat because you'd actually need the extra Accuracy to maintain the same level of power you have now in pre-2.0 games. So that would also turn the "OMG PER is a must-pump stat!" outcry in a self-fulfilling prophecy. I sure hope it doesn't happen.

Edited July 6, 2015 by AndreaColombo

[Gromnir]

 

So when I say a 3 might 8 const fighter breaks the role playing feeling I am making a very valid point for a lot of gamers out there.

Why don't you make a 16 might, 16 constitution fighter if that upsets you so much? It's not like it's not viable.

 

offering such a reasonable suggestion is unlikely to have the impact you would expect.  after all,  "role playing game (RPG) is all about role playing."

 

"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?"

 

we mentioned already that a more traditional (insert *eye-roll* here) allocation is viable.

 

*shrugs*

 

"The problem is the attribute system immediately lets you do that. So you are bound to only one traditional attribute setup."

 

is wrong... or a misconception.  we pointed out earlier with our personal potd examples for dps/support/ tank characters that you sure as heck ain't bound to one particular build.  even the logic-impaired luckman opined that, "you can stumble your way through the game like a drunken fool and still not only succeed, but prosper."  *chuckle*   by then he were a bit agitated and missing more than a few salient points, but it is true that insofar as the attribute system is concerned, you are able to choose virtual any build and still "prosper."  that were a freaking GOAL o' the developers.  sure, if you wanna prosper with a so-called non-optimal tank build, you are gonna need be a bit more discerning about talent and ability choices, but the game does Not bind you to any particular build.  

 

as we noted, (edit: change indefinite article) a mistake the obsinaties made were giving their poe classes the same names as other games.  obsinaties created certain expectations.  call a poe fighter a fighter and folks have difficulty adjusting to the differences.  

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 6, 2015 by Gromnir

[Nakia]

The term "role  playing" is a broad term and has been debated quite a bit.  PoE gives you a great many ways to play a role.   Starting with race, country, class, background.  Once these ae decided on you build your character using attributes, abilities, talent, weapons, armour, other gear.  Then in the prologue you have a chance to add to the role of your character.  Why are you in Dyrwood?    Is your character benevolent, rational, stoic, aggressive, cruel, etc.?

 

Would you put a bowman i plate armour with gauntlets?  Would you want your front line melee fighter wearing leather armour?  What would a rogue assassin wear?  These are all questions that need to be answered as you develop your character.  The more choices you have the more roles you can play and PoE gives you a lot of choices.

 

Traditional role playing?  What is that?  My first cRPG was Betrayal at Krondor where you played owen a novice wizard and some of the characters from the Rift War Stories.  The D&D PnP games gave you more role playing choices and the Baldurs Gate games were based on that.  The TES games are called RPGs.  

 

The role we play in a game depends on the rules of a game and the choices that the game gives us.

[gkathellar]

 

So here's a question: if the Perception bonus is changing from Deflection to Accuracy, how is that going to be reflected in enemy statistics? Are we going to see a global increase in defenses and a decrease in Accuracy?

 

That would make PER a must-pump stat because you'd actually need the extra Accuracy to maintain the same level of power you have now in pre-2.0 games. So that would also turn the "OMG PER is a must-pump stat!" outcry in a self-fulfilling prophecy. I sure hope it doesn't happen.

 

 

Well, that depends. It could definitely have that effect, but it would really depend on the particular amounts by which they adjust defenses, and whether base accuracy scaling is adjusted with it. They might also boost some defenses but not all on each enemy, giving attacks targeting different ones a greater variety of niches. I dunno, it's complicated, like you say.

 

Mind, I don't know that I think they should increase defenses, but they've sure as hell gotta bring down accuracy if they're gonna drop max deflection by 16-22 points.

 

A good attribute system will have many trade-offs so you would think many times before cutting one point from constitution or might when creating a fighter tank character or a barbarian. Min-maxing would not be possible without trade-offs in such an attribute system. If you min-max then you ll be certain that you are sacrificing something crucial to get some good benefit. It would be about trade offs.

 

I don't disagree, although I'd add that those same tradeoffs would - in a perfect world, or at least in my perfect world - exist for cutting a point of any stat from a character of any class.

 

I'd also add that systems like that play to what a lot min-maxers typically want: systems with very intricate, dynamic balance, where you have to carefully weigh your decisions to get exactly what you want for your character in particular.

 

The minimum might, low constitution fighter tank is the best tank in the game... Right from the start to the end game...

 

That's not strictly true. Most tank builds want either Might or Con for Fortitude, because Fortitude is a much more common. Fighters in particular benefit from the increased self-healing from a high Might score, since that's really the main reason to use them as tanks. Paladin ubertank builds want something like 15 Might and 18 Con. And Paladin is, at the high end of optimization, simply a Defense better tank, with the ability to reach higher defensive numbers.

 

Mind, I don't dispute that stat balance is a load of bull. The aformentioned ubertank, for instance, drops Dex to 4 and Int to 3 with no meaningful consequences. But it's not quite as straightforward as that.

Edited July 6, 2015 by gkathellar

[Luckmann]

Again, though, this time aimed at Gkthellar; don't look at the Perception change in isolation, or as an isolated mechanic. While Perception may lose +Deflection, another Attribute might (and should, probably) gain +Deflection.

 

And having most enemies in the game gain a few points of Accuracy would probably be a pretty good thing, come to think of it.

[AndreaColombo]

 

 

So here's a question: if the Perception bonus is changing from Deflection to Accuracy, how is that going to be reflected in enemy statistics? Are we going to see a global increase in defenses and a decrease in Accuracy?

 

That would make PER a must-pump stat because you'd actually need the extra Accuracy to maintain the same level of power you have now in pre-2.0 games. So that would also turn the "OMG PER is a must-pump stat!" outcry in a self-fulfilling prophecy. I sure hope it doesn't happen.

 

 

Well, that depends. It could definitely have that effect, but it would really depend on the particular amounts by which they adjust defenses, and whether base accuracy scaling is adjusted with it. They might also boost some defenses but not all on each enemy, giving attacks targeting different ones a greater variety of niches. I dunno, it's complicated, like you say.

 

Mind, I don't know that I think they should increase defenses, but they've sure as hell gotta bring down accuracy if they're gonna drop max deflection by 16-22 points.

 

But you don't need that much Deflection. Not in the slightest.

 

I'm in my third play through, and zero of my characters so far have invested a single point in PER or RES. I've never had a pure tank in my party, and I never exploited doorways; yet, I've never had a problem beating fights or the game.

 

The idea that pure tanks must be nearly immortal and absolutely incapable of landing anything but grazes is what needs changing. That's an extremely boring concept whose sole purpose is to exploit the limitation of the (rather dumb) enemy A.I. in the game.

 

If you max out RES and don a shield, you'll be VERY durable. Like, VERY (I tried with Pallegina; she's got 15 RES and 14 PER—the effects of which can be replicated in the new system by having 19 RES—and I equipped her with a medium Superb shield; she could not go down, and I'm talking PotD.)

 

On the other hand, a tank with pumped RES and PER could make up for the Accuracy penalty from the shield and actually be semi-useful in combat, which would be a welcome change.

 

If relative Accuracy and defense values are changed, trust me, you will always want the extra Accuracy from PER to retain the power level you had before 2.0.

Edited July 7, 2015 by AndreaColombo

[iceteazz]

 _ I hope they use another bonus for Per, not only accuracy like current info. Because many builds just dump Per max Res, that will hurt them much. So, imo, 1 per ~ +- 0.5 acc, 0.5 defl is good enough. Each 2 per from 10 you earn 1 acc, each 2 per from 11 you earn 1 defl so with 3 Per, you only lost 3 acc, 4 defl, that's acceptable.

[AndreaColombo]

Dumping any stat is supposed to hurt. The fact that it doesn't happen in the current system is a design flaw.

[Luckmann]

 _ I hope they use another bonus for Per, not only accuracy like current info. Because many builds just dump Per max Res, that will hurt them much. So, imo, 1 per ~ +- 0.5 acc, 0.5 defl is good enough. Each 2 per from 10 you earn 1 acc, each 2 per from 11 you earn 1 defl so with 3 Per, you only lost 3 acc, 4 defl, that's acceptable.

 

This is getting under my skin, because that's not "current info". It is an completely baseless assumption made due to the fact that we know that they were/are considering adding +Accuracy to Perception as part of the Attribute Bonus changes in 2.0.

 

To recap:

• We have no idea what other changes will be made to the Attribute Bonuses, and it is silly to assume that Perception getting +Accuracy would be the only change, so we cannot look at the Perception change in isolation, and assume that all other bonuses (boni?) will be the same.

   

• We have no idea if Perception getting +Accuracy will or will not be the only bonus Perception has, and I think that it's silly to assume that it's the only aspect the entire Attribute will have to it, because it would pretty much be the opposite of what an Attribute Bonus overhaul should try to do, which is to make attributes more diversely useful for a variety of builds.

Also, nothing in the mechanics works with fractions like that, so expecting +0,5 (or variations thereof) on anything is beyond hopeful. In the name of consistency, the game'd need quite the overhaul to accomodate that. I'd personally welcome it, for a variety of reasons, but I think it's beyond the scope of a mere patch intended to be backwards compatible.

 

Now, that idea for a Director's Cut overseen by Avellone, though..

Edited July 7, 2015 by Luckmann

[Phoynix]

This is going to get me murdered...

 

Any chance we could have a Classic RPG Char creation option....

Where stats are randomly rolled(not just for the player for for monsters in game)

 

It may sound silly but spending 30 mins to roll the "perfect" char made me far more attached from the outset. It can also allow builds that currently are just not possible.

It also means you can come up against tanky mages or weak warriors in game.... make fights a little diffrent.