Concerns with the proposed Perception change

[MadDemiurg]

Most spells have +10 modifiers to compensate for 10 lower base accuracy of caster classes, but there are some inconsistencies. Tbh it would be better and cleaner if they split weapon and magic accuracy as stats.

 

As for changes to minimise the damage - I have a feeling that Perception change would be the least of possible concerns when the expansion comes out. So just buff all enemies across the board and put adragans and fampyrs everywhere .

Edited July 1, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[Tennisgolfboll]

Most spells have +10 modifiers to compensate for 10 lower base accuracy of caster classes, but there are some inconsistencies. Tbh it would be better and cleaner if they split weapon and magic accuracy as stats.

 

As for changes to minimise the damage - I have a feeling that Perception change would be the least of possible concerns when the expansion comes out. So just buff all enemies across the board and put adragans and fampyrs everywhere .

Yeah a split could work

[Luckmann]

[...] Next you dump Resolve and Constitution as they are purely defensive stats. [...]

Full stop there. You're making an assumption that in no way needs to be true. If Perception is changed, don't look at that change in isolation. One of the things that have been discussed a lot is splitting up the benefits of Intellect as a consolidated spellcaster attribute, meaning that if you want both +AoE and +Duration, you'll have to take both Resolve and Intellect.

 

Also, if my suggestion for Constitution is considered, while you as a fully ranged Wizard that stays away from the positioning spells might not want to pump it, dumping it will leave you weak as a kitten, especially in the early game. And enjoy that extra penalty to your recovery speed if you were considering wearing anything other than Clothing.

 

Anyway, these considerations is what makes for a good Attribute system, the point being that the "no-brainer" choices die.

[AndreaColombo]

My .02

 

• Having two stats governing Deflection and zero governing Accuracy doesn't make a great deal of sense. Plus duplication is boring.
• "Perception" was always meant to be an offsensive stat ("Interrupt" is an offensive ability; Perception used to carry "Accuracy" during the beta and was changed only later.)
• If you remove the Accuracy bonus from spells, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. The initial claim is that Perception would become a must-pump stat for everyone if it carried Accuracy (which is wrong; more on that later); from this the (incorrect) assumption is made that everyone would automatically max it out on every character. To counter that, the Accuracy bonus is removed from spells—and now spells would almost always miss unless casters maxed out Perception. Perception would therefore become a must-pump stat for casters not because it carried Accuracy instead of Deflection, but because Accuracy was removed from spells and you need it for them to hit.
• We've been playing PoE so far with no stat governing Accuracy, yet people complain that even PotD is too easy. Why would you feel like you have to max Perception to gain bonus Accuracy, if Perception was changed? Would the game suddenly become more difficult to the point you couldn't win unless you had +10 Accuracy from Perception? Not at all.
• In fact, if you max out any stat, you are willingly power-gaming. Nothing wrong with that, but the very purpose of power-gaming is to make the game easier, so you can't really complain the game's too easy if you power-game. The norm should be jack-of-all-trades builds, not min/maxed builds.
• Min/maxing is not inherently evil. It is a perfectly viable play stile that doesn't warrant any more or less attention than any other play style. This means that it should not be prevented, but also not encouraged. The main issue with the current Attribute System in PoE is that it encourages min/maxing by making min/maxed builds overwhelmingly more combat effective than jack-of-all-trade builds (the reason being that the penalty from dumping certain stats is disproportionately inferior to the bonus from pumping others.)
• Min/maxed characters should be viable, but hazardous—the penalties they get from dumping stats should be proportional to the benefits they get from pumping the others.
• The fact that enemies are too dumb to take advantage of your weak points if you dump certain stats is not the fault of the Attribute System, and is therefore not a problem the Attribute System should be tasked to solve. It is an enemy A.I. problem and it should be solved by fixing enemy A.I.. So any criticism to the Attribute System that stems from the argument "I can dump this because enemies will do that" is fallacious.

 

As for CON, I still disagree it should mitigate recovery penalty as DEX already does that better. Sure, I would be prevented from dumping CON, but would I be encouraged to invest points in it? Most certainly not, since I could spend points in DEX instead and speed up everything, rather than just counter armor recovery penalty.

 

As I see it:

 

• CON benefits the most those characters that need it the least. This stems from its effects being percentage based, so the obvious solution would be to make them integer based instead.
• The impact of CON is too small. Dumping doesn't really cripple your character and pumping it doesn't give any significant advantage. The solution is to increase its effects. In a world where 10 is average, a score of 3 in CON should be barely enough to stand on your feet when there's no wind. If an enemy so much as looks at a 3-CON character sideways, the character should be maimed already.
• As I mentioned above, duplication is bad and right now we have two stats for each defense. MIG is already good enough with damage and healing, and CON should be the only stat governing Fortitute (with ±4, rather than ±2.) That would make CON more attractive. Likewise, Reflexes should only be on DEX—this would assist in mitigating Perception as the "must-pump stat" that many believe it to be with Accuracy attached. Will should only be on Resolve (INT is already plenty good and RES would become more attractive.)

 

I guess the penalty for dumping RES could be steeper too, but if PER is changed to ±Accuracy monsters will also hit harder so... yeah.

Edited July 1, 2015 by AndreaColombo

[View619]

I wonder if the modder working on IE mod would be interested in changing the defenses on attributes.

[AndreaColombo]

I wonder if the modder working on IE mod would be interested in changing the defenses on attributes.

 

I think it's more than one person. We could always ask them, once 2.0 is out

[Luckmann]

I wonder if the modder working on IE mod would be interested in changing the defenses on attributes.

 

I'm not sure if any of them figured out how to change the Attribute Bonuses - I would've expected someone to push out a mod for it by now, considering that it's one of the more criticized flaws of the main game by fans discussing the mechanics of the game.

 

I tried to take a crack at it myself. Took a glance into the files and it was like staring into the maw of hell.

[View619]

 

I wonder if the modder working on IE mod would be interested in changing the defenses on attributes.

 

I'm not sure if any of them figured out how to change the Attribute Bonuses - I would've expected someone to push out a mod for it by now, considering that it's one of the more criticized flaws of the main game by fans discussing the mechanics of the game.

 

I tried to take a crack at it myself. Took a glance into the files and it was like staring into the maw of hell.

 

 

Yeah, apparently the attribute values are hard-coded somewhere; doesn't sound like a fun time for modders.

Edited July 1, 2015 by View619

[Nobear]

I like the idea too, but if memory serves, I liked the idea of the engagement system, too. I'm just not sure. That being said, my standing suggestion actually is CON: ±1 Endurance, ±3% Endurance, ±2% Armour Recovery Penalty, ±2 Concentration, ±2 Fortitude. It's just that I'm not entirely sure.

 

That'd be a lot of bonuses to one stat and go too far IMHO. I do think just adding the armor recovery penalty is an interesting idea though. Another that's been proposed is to have it affect healing received.

[Luckmann]

 

I like the idea too, but if memory serves, I liked the idea of the engagement system, too. I'm just not sure. That being said, my standing suggestion actually is CON: ±1 Endurance, ±3% Endurance, ±2% Armour Recovery Penalty, ±2 Concentration, ±2 Fortitude. It's just that I'm not entirely sure.

 

That'd be a lot of bonuses to one stat and go too far IMHO. I do think just adding the armor recovery penalty is an interesting idea though. Another that's been proposed is to have it affect healing received.

 

 

It's not a lot of bonuses. It just looks like a lot of bonuses because of the format. It's essentially a bonus to Endurance, the Armour Recovery penalty, and Concentration. This covers defensive bonuses, offensive bonus, and endurance/health mechanics. The +2 <Defense> is a ubiquitous bonus that every Attribute gets. Armour penalty reducation alone wouldn't solve the issue of Constitution being useless to most classes or roles, in fact, I've questioned the idea of Armour Recovery Penalty Reducation extensively.

 

It sounds neat, but in reality, with the current armour dichotomy, you'll end up wanting either full armour or no armour anyway, depending on whether you're tank or DPS, meaning that all simply and only adding Recovery Penalty Reducation would practically just mean an increase of DPS for tanks. A DPS that's still going to be comparatively rubbish. The goal should be to make Constitution a better choice for a wider range of classes (and arguably roles), without making it a no-brainer choice.

 

Would a flat +1 Endurance per Constitution and +2 Concentration do that? I don't think so. It would just make Constitution a more appealing choice for your spellcasters and your melee non-tanks. I would even consider increasing the +1 Endurance to +2 Endurance, although that might make the very earliest game too easy.

 

The both-flat-and-percentage bonus to Endurance is necessary to compensate for the fact that low-Endurance classes gets extremely little use out of Constitution, but could use the boost the most, while those that gets use out of it, doesn't really need it. I would change it to flat-per-level, but no bonuses are doled out in fractions, and I'm not sure how the system would handle it (or be able to), and if it was +1 Endurance per level, well that'd very quickly get out of hand; assuming 20 Endurance, that'd be an extra 120 Endurance by level 12, and I'm not sure the system would be happy with that.

 

Edit: Actually, I'm going to go ahead and revise my current suggestions to the following:

 

 

Suggested Modifiers:

MGT: ±3% Damage & Healing, ±2 Interrupt, ±2 Fortitude.
CON: ±2 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.

 

Accounting for the fact that 20 Constitution (or higher) are significant edge cases, and even so would only add an extra 26 Endurance (10 Points * 2 Endurance * 30%), albeit at level 1. For reference, Barbarians have an Endurance of 48 + (16*LVL), and Wizards 30 + (10*LVL).

 

(For rationale behind the other modifiers, see this thread)

Edited July 2, 2015 by Luckmann

[Uni]

It sounds neat, but in reality, with the current armour dichotomy, you'll end up wanting either full armour or no armour anyway

One small thing that really irks me is how the damage reduction to action slow correlation on armors is kind of weird and makes the naked or plate problem even worse. There would be such a smooth curve, but it seems like they almost deliberately made it nonsensical and to promote tank and spank even more. Medium armors(everything between berathian robes and plate) have weird 5% extra penalty.

 

Keeping the slow on clothes(0), berathian robes(5) and plate(50) as they are now and reducing it by 5 for every other armor type would be a nice thing. This way robes would have a slow of 10 and brigandine 45, so more protection would always mean more slow and the bottom(clothes and berathian are way superior to robes) and top(plate is pretty much just free protection over brigandine) end would not be as nobrainer choices.

 

Clothes and plate would still propably be the optimal choices, but at least the mathematical systems wouldnt skew that balance even further for no reason. 5% is not that big deal, but it makes things like durable dps fighter with medium armor and armored grace a bit more reasonable choices.

[Dinky Dino]

I agree with OP with how humans should really have more unique racials for ocean, meadow, etc. Other's like nature godlike need to be brought up to par as well.

 

Not sure about nerfing accuracy though. It seems to me that the tradeoff for more accuracy is more squishy teammates, so I feel the trick is seriously tuning the enemy AI mid to take advantage of this. Perhaps tossing in support enemy types per group to compensate. Like early game, shadows and shades really mess the squishy units up to the point where cc is difficult due to how tricky they are by moving all over the place. Maybe one to two enemy type in each group that is extremely resistant to cc through reflex/will but low deflection and in turn deploys their own quick cc and debuffs/buffs sort of like vithraks. The Xaurip Priest/High Priest with their prone inducing aoes is a good example of ruining my day mid game but late game are easily eliminated.  So perhaps handing more attacks like those to enemies like say enemy types like beetles or a no damage short timed prone inducing stomp to forest dwellers where you have to get out of range might help. Of course they would have to make/modify specific enemy units for it so it might be too much work but it would help a lot. Enemies like vithrak are also very annoying in groups and handing more enemies aura’s like those of cail with a set range would be good as well. At least that way you have to think about formation if you want to get around being debuffs or CC’d. Though I’m assuming stuff like this can easily devastate the player if overdone or not done right so I’m not sure. Obviously stuff like vithraks and ogre matrons/druids don’t really need that many changes imo.

[Luckmann]

I agree with OP with how humans should really have more unique racials for ocean, meadow, etc. Other's like nature godlike need to be brought up to par as well.

 

[...]

So much this. It's been annoying the hell out of me since Day 1, that all of the different races gets (at least supposedly) meaningful sub-races, while humans get the whole "race is only skin deep" spiel and a whole bunch of nothing. The fact that the human racial is also both so conditional and specifically circumstantial is also annoying, and contributes to the strong sense of meh-ness of humans as an option.

[EdwinP]

Luckmann, why should Constitution affect armor recovery penalty? Would Might have a larger effect in the real world?

 

Example: Plate Armor - (High Might & Weak Constitution) vs (Low Might and High Constitution). For plate armor I would think that the stronger person would have the faster recovery time.

 

I would also say that heavy armor should have a minimum Might requirement. Fall below that requirement and suffer a fatigue penalty every hour.

[Fardragon]

Why should Might affect how much you can heal, or Intelligence affect how long you can knock someone down for?

 

The stats in PoE don't make much sense, and at the moment Constitution doesn't do anything useful.

[Luckmann]

Luckmann, why should Constitution affect armor recovery penalty? Would Might have a larger effect in the real world?

 

Example: Plate Armor - (High Might & Weak Constitution) vs (Low Might and High Constitution). For plate armor I would think that the stronger person would have the faster recovery time.

 

I would also say that heavy armor should have a minimum Might requirement. Fall below that requirement and suffer a fatigue penalty every hour.

 

Well, you're looking at the wrong man, if you're looking for the rationale behind that one - I've repeatedly questioned Constitution gaining Armour Recovery Penalty Reduction and said that I'm not entirely sure it's a good thing. At the end of the day, my suggestions are based on assumptions and arguments made by others, and my knowledge of how the game works, and my own ideals of what would be conceptually consistent and rellatively thematic - it's not gospel, nor would I sell it as such.

 

Well, not most of it, anyway.

 

However, if anything should have Armour Recovery Penalty Reduction, it should be Constitution. First of all, thematically, Constitution is, well, your constitution. It makes a lot more sense that your recovery penalty would be reduced because you have the endurance (the word, not the mechanic) to move around a lot in armour, rather than your sheer strength or might to haul things around (which isn't even represented in the game, regrettably - I would not mind Might restrictions on armour, but I also want Encumbrance and limited inventories and stash).

 

Second, if we keep to the thematic explanation behind Might (which is entirely incompatible with how Might is actually portrayed, I know that, and would have no problems abandoning this silly idea, or actually reinforce it in the game, but that would require revision of a hell of a lot of content) then Might is a lot more than Strength, and at least partly represents your personal willpower and spiritual strength as much as physical oomph. Take from that what you will.

 

But thirdly, it ultimately does not even come down to the first two points. It comes down to Attribute Bonus balance, and Constitution could use a boost, especially an offense-minded boost, to give it more utility beyond meatheading. If we get to the bare-bones of it all, mechanics will always have to trump realism or versimilitude, as well as conceptual or thematic arguments, and in this case it just does.

 

My suggestion aren't written in stone. If you can convince me that some other setup of Attribute bonuses would be better, while still in line with how it works in PoE (rather than a complete revamp of the system, which isn't feasible in the least) I will start pitching that instead. I used to oppose Perception-based Accuracy, too, but changed my mind after a discussion with Sensuki.

 

In this particular instance, though, while I question the very idea of Armour Recovery Penalty Reduction as a thing, at least to a degree, at least it mechanically, thematically and conceptually lines up, which is actually quite important to me. A lot of people have no trouble saying "It doesn't matter" if Aloth would have a Might of 18 or Edèr Suddenly having higher Intellect than before, but I prefer if everything lines up.

 

My issue with the idea of Armour Recovery Penalty Reduction is that it could end up reinforcing the Armour Dichotomy even further, and I would like to see it coupled with a complete overhaul of the armour and weapons system, but I know that's not going to happen.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Luckmann

[Uni]

why should Constitution affect armor recovery penalty? Would Might have a larger effect in the real world?

I dont think so. While they both represent muscular ability, might is more about maximum exerted force for short duration(how hard i can hit/powerlift) and constitution correlates to general fitness and being able to use your muscles for longer time without them tiring. The latter kind of ability is much more relevant to sustain a reasonable level of movement in armor.

 

Oxygen uptake and muscles conditioned to constant stress are way more relevant to fighting in armor without completely gassing out than how much maximum power you can generate with your muscles. I think the recovery while wearing armor in PoE is supposed to simulate getting tired more than how your limbs move slower when you have weight on you.

[Uni]

My issue with the idea of Armour Recovery Penalty Reduction is that it could end up reinforcing the Armour Dichotomy even further, and I would like to see it coupled with a complete overhaul of the armour and weapons system, but I know that's not going to happen.

 

Im interested in why you think so. I might be wrong, but quick intuition suggests that being able to get slowed less by armor promotes the use of lightish armor. Something like a fighter in enchanted leather could attack almost in clothed speed while having significant DR. Things like cuirass and propably mail would still be pointless, but even that could change if the DR to action slow correlation of armors get balanced to being reasonable(the -5 recovery penalty to everything exepth clothes, berathian and plate that i suggested).

[transfett]

Dumping constitution works because of 2 reasons:

1. you get dps from it (because you get more might/dexterity and now perception)

2. you get away with it

 

As long as dumping con works, dumping con+wearing no armor will be the way to go. dumpng con + wearing armor will become worse.

What we need is a universal reason not to skip con, which is both a harsh health penalty and more AoE damage and group swarming. What happens with armor recovery penalty then is free to creativity.

What if 1 point in constitution also gave 20% health multiplier? That way leaving con on 3 would result in a measle 160% health on wizards and priests, 260% on druids,chanters, ciphers and rogues.

[View619]

There need to be penalties to having less than average con, as well as enemy AI with the ability to target squishy targets. Give Constitution higher multipliers per point or make it a flat integer system so high health/endurance classes will still out-strip squishy units with higher values. The complete revamp of the attribute isn't necessary, it's just a relatively simple fix that should be incoming with the possible Perception update imo. 

[Luckmann]

 

My issue with the idea of Armour Recovery Penalty Reduction is that it could end up reinforcing the Armour Dichotomy even further, and I would like to see it coupled with a complete overhaul of the armour and weapons system, but I know that's not going to happen.

Im interested in why you think so. I might be wrong, but quick intuition suggests that being able to get slowed less by armor promotes the use of lightish armor. Something like a fighter in enchanted leather could attack almost in clothed speed while having significant DR. Things like cuirass and propably mail would still be pointless, but even that could change if the DR to action slow correlation of armors get balanced to being reasonable(the -5 recovery penalty to everything exepth clothes, berathian and plate that i suggested).

 

 

It wouldn't change anything. You'd still want to have the highest possible DR for your tanks, and the fastest possible action/action recovery speed for everyone else. The biggest effect would really be to increase the DPS of tanks, which in itself isn't a terrible idea, honestly, because the trade-offs are currently humongous.

 

It could make off-tanks more viable, though, such as an offensively minded Paladin in full plate.

 

There need to be penalties to having less than average con, as well as enemy AI with the ability to target squishy targets. Give Constitution higher multipliers per point or make it a flat integer system so high health/endurance classes will still out-strip squishy units with higher values. The complete revamp of the attribute isn't necessary, it's just a relatively simple fix that should be incoming with the possible Perception update imo.

I prefer the idea of both flat integer and as well as percentage. The problem really is that the lowest possible amount is +/-1, when it comes to flat integers. So if we want something scaling per level, it needs to be percentage (imagine getting an extra 10 (with 20 Con) Endurance per level, otherwise). But a flat integer modifier at creation could give a good boost to those that really need it, and a good (if not persistent) penalty for everyone that dumps it.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Luckmann

[evilcat]

The points are good.

 

But im all for Perception change (as long as its just +1% per point not 2). That would give more options and harder choices when building character.

Right now going all Might on dps (or even not) does not feels like balanced. WIth dex and Int (if caster).

 

There is big question how would caster look in expansion. Generally higher levels buff Casters more.

 

Maybe, if we already buffing Perception, maybe as well buff Constitucion to 5% per tick. There will be more hits, so more hp would help. And far less "con is a dump stat" aproach.

Edited August 3, 2015 by evilcat

[jsaving]

I have trouble understanding why having perception affect accuracy is automatically a bad thing, provided the size of the increase doesn't make perception a must-have.  Certainly something needs to be done to avoid the BG2 situation where you dump-stat INT/WIS/CHA on most characters, and we're perilously close to that with PER and CON in 1.06. 

[Kilburn]

There need to be penalties to having less than average con, as well as enemy AI with the ability to target squishy targets. Give Constitution higher multipliers per point or make it a flat integer system so high health/endurance classes will still out-strip squishy units with higher values. The complete revamp of the attribute isn't necessary, it's just a relatively simple fix that should be incoming with the possible Perception update imo. 

 

 

Everything is squishy on PotD except 100% full on fighter tank builds. If perception increases accuracy the enemy are going to punch through your party like a wet paper bag.

 

It's a cool change, im not sure if its a good one though.

[anameforobsidian]

 

There need to be penalties to having less than average con, as well as enemy AI with the ability to target squishy targets. Give Constitution higher multipliers per point or make it a flat integer system so high health/endurance classes will still out-strip squishy units with higher values. The complete revamp of the attribute isn't necessary, it's just a relatively simple fix that should be incoming with the possible Perception update imo. 

 

 

Everything is squishy on PotD except 100% full on fighter tank builds. If perception increases accuracy the enemy are going to punch through your party like a wet paper bag.

 

It's a cool change, im not sure if its a good one though.

 

 

Couldn't a lot of that problem be solved by boosting con (and maybe slightly boosting res?  Really that would solve the problem of resolve being kinda redundant and con being a drop stat.  Seems like a pretty elegant fix.