Pillars of balancing

[Sannom]

That's no possible. 30 - 50 % is a pretty wide discrepancy mate which one is it 30 or 50. And like I said please stay away from my posts. You arguing for no other reason then to argue. There is no substance to what you are saying and no one wants to read this crap. Stay away from my posts or I will wipe it again by deleting all my posts. Go start your own thread man your to negative

Well, someone forgot to buy some skin to drape over that over-sensitive flesh .

 

Stay away from my posts or I will wipe it again by deleting all my posts.

I don't think you can do that.

[Ymarsakar]

I think Ele won because his counterpart pulled the SJW trick build already.

 

I'm surprised people know about that, when they don't know about crits and builds in Pillars. In case people didn't know or just skipped all the earlier stuff, the anti ranger position is centered around not knowing anything about Pillars mechanics, to the point where they don't know what the "critical" point of certain builds are.

 

So, no build= no dps, I would conclude. If your ranger has 6 talents in "weapon focus" groups... well maybe it would have the same dps as a wizard using the same weapon.... you know.

 

Sannom, maybe he was looking too much at the space pig, the transparency got in and stuck.

 

Cantousent

"I'll reread the whole thread also, just in case, but I haven't seen any reason that you guys can't get along on anything else just because you don't agree about the exact damage output of the classes."

 

You might also want to pay some attention to the other threads started by the OP, which also got moderator closed for some reason. Pattern?

Edited October 16, 2015 by Ymarsakar

[brindle88]

I think Ele won because his counterpart pulled the SJW trick build already.

 

I'm surprised people know about that, when they don't know about crits and builds in Pillars. In case people didn't know or just skipped all the earlier stuff, the anti ranger position is centered around not knowing anything about Pillars mechanics, to the point where they don't know what the "critical" point of certain builds are.

 

So, no build= no dps, I would conclude. If your ranger has 6 talents in "weapon focus" groups... well maybe it would have the same dps as a wizard using the same weapon.... you know.

 

Sannom, maybe he was looking too much at the space pig, the transparency got in and stuck.

 

Cantousent

"I'll reread the whole thread also, just in case, but I haven't seen any reason that you guys can't get along on anything else just because you don't agree about the exact damage output of the classes."

 

You might also want to pay some attention to the other threads started by the OP, which also got moderator closed for some reason. Pattern?

The other threads where closed by the mods at my request because this elerond guy kept being really negative and posted heaps of off topic posts. I appreciate everyone's comments here but I would also appreciate it more if elerond would simply leave my threads alone. I look forward to discussing more pillars stuff soon.

[Valorian]

It's far from balanced, unfortunately.

 

The economy for instance. I'd love having to ponder whether to use an expensive potion/scroll or not because gold's precious and I'm saving for a nice item. Alas, you can afford everything.

 

Also, sacred immolation recently acquired. Everything explodes. 

[BelgarathMTH]

I'm a noob to PoE, and my only experience with rangers is Sagani. I've found her wolf companion to be a very valuable contributor to my frontline melee team including Eder, Durance (built for sword and board), and my watcher paladin. She has a lot of talents to make her companion even stronger, and also to synergize the wolf with Aloth's and Durance's DoT spells.

 

In an earlier saved game, now abandoned, I had given Sagani talents to improve her load speed and damage with an arbalest or arquebus, and I was underwhelmed with her, because of the long reload times, even with abilities chosen to speed it up.

 

In my current game, I built her for her wolf companion to be her main contribution to the party, and that wolf has been extremely useful to our overall party damage output.

 

So, I think maybe the developers had in mind more that the animal companion would be what would make the ranger class appealing, more so than the slight bonuses to ranged weapon fighting. It also needs to be there for roleplaying purposes, as the ranger class is a traditional staple of rpg's, and many players would be disappointed if they couldn't play one.

 

All the above is merely my opinion, based on having barely started playing the game. I've put in 55 hours, but I've started over several times, and have mostly been in Act I and in the Endless Paths.

[Gairnulf]

Sagani's companion is a snow fox.

 

Pardon my ignorance, but what does it matter if you're playing a "ranged" ranger or a melee ranger? PoE doesn't feature penalties for using a ranged weapon at melee distance anyway. As far as I know, and correct me if there are other cases, the only instance where being at range from an enemy makes a difference, is if you are a Wood Elf, which gets you a bonus to accuracy if attacking targets at a distance of 4 meters or more.

 

That's if you are playing with a party. If you're playing solo, you're pretty much always fighting in melee with at least one opponent. In the whole of PoE there are no enemies that will only fight ranged and try to kite you (which is a pity).

 

That's my question. On a sidenote, I want to say I agree with this:

In addition I have a magick chest of holding that is pretty much carrying more stuff than any merchant in the entire world...

The infinite inventory (aka "the stash") is a uniquely bad idea and I was saying this as far back as the backer beta times. Managing finite resources and choosing between tradeoffs is one of the core things that a game is about. When you remove the restriction on a resource (inventory space), you remove part of the fun.

 

But those that get their kicks from finding god hammer or mega sword that are without question best weapons in the game, PoE will be disappointing as it tries its best that there aren't such equipment in the game.

Yeah, but this leads to people feeling like this:

 

This aspect of the game is hands down the worst part of it for me because nothing feels rewarding when I get it.  I just feel like I am sitting under a candy dispenser that doesn't stop dropping candy.

And I share that feeling myself. I don't think that being a low to mid-level adventure is a logical explanation or an excuse for having boring and samey "unique" items which only look different but hardly give you a noticeable improvement in your combat performance.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Gairnulf

[Oralaina]

@Gairnulf - excellent points all.  The first run through (wasn't complete since I realized about halfway in that I was going to want a full party of my own girls), the first couple of times I got something that was a really nice upgrade in the way of gear/weapons, I was happy.  About halfway through chapter 1, I was like 'oh, it's another *whatever* - no real upgrade' and it lived in the inventory forever.

 

And actually that was one of the things which prompted me to make my own 5 extras:  some really nice gear being unused.  It's just honestly "too much of a good thing" - kind of like baklava....

[Gairnulf]

I like baklava

 

I've been arguing for some time that granulating effects down to tenths of a second, plus the overall relatively low difficulty (you have to play on at least hard for some challenge, and to make pausing required) leads players to a situation where they never need to learn the combat rules, because it's faster to just "tank & spank" or "select all + right click on enemy", and because everything happens so fast, it's also impossible to tell how much better it is to be .5s faster than .2s faster.

 

I guess with PoE being crucial to Obsidian's survival they aimed to make the game very accessible and didn't want to take chances, I don't know.

 

The average player has little idea what "+3% action speed" means (for example), but intuitively, it doesn't look like anything important ("just 3%? So what?"), and since he/she doesn't need to know the rules to win in combat anyway, you end up not having the knowledge needed to tell the quality of a piece of equipment neither by looking at its description (because you don't need to know what these stats mean), nor by trying it out in combat (because you win combat with mundane and with unique weapons all the same).

 

At least that was my experience until I started playing solo. Soloing really helps you learn the rules and it suddenly questions like "does this spell attack deflection or reflex" become important. I'm kind of sorry I miss out on the party management, but the game gets too easy as soon as I have more than one party member.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Gairnulf

[rheingold]

Really Rangers suck? I must be playing a different game to the OP. You can criticize obs for some things, class balance is not one of them. They have done a pretty good job at that. Almost all classes are viable the one notable exception being chanters, though I have no doubt Obs will sort them out soon as they did with rangers and paladins. And class balance is a very good thing indeed.

[hilfazer]

Rangers suffer from the same debilitating illness as barbarians and chanters........NO USEFULL ABILITIES TO CHOOSE FROM AT LEVEL UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Bottom line the rangers abilities on level up are to underpowered. Eg the point of my thread pillars of balancing

 

 

I do have a problem when choosing ranger talents. But not because there's nothing to my taste, quite the contrary - there's too much stuff i'd like to have.

 

 But again, i'm a boring passive player. People who want many active abilities may not find much appeal in Ranger class.

[wanderon]

 

Rangers suffer from the same debilitating illness as barbarians and chanters........NO USEFULL ABILITIES TO CHOOSE FROM AT LEVEL UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Bottom line the rangers abilities on level up are to underpowered. Eg the point of my thread pillars of balancing

 

 

I do have a problem when choosing ranger talents. But not because there's nothing to my taste, quite the contrary - there's too much stuff i'd like to have.

 

 But again, i'm a boring passive player. People who want many active abilities may not find much appeal in Ranger class.

 

 

I too find the ranger has too many options that I would like to have rather than too few or the ridiculous idea that there are NO useful abilities to choose from - I think the ranger is now in excellent shape and not underpowered at all.

[Crucis]

 

And to all you people out there who are listening to this guy read this again

 

Rangers so gloriously suck for the following reasons:

 

- ANY Character can use the EXCAT same ranged weapon that a ranger can use at the same attack speed (slightly faster for ranger if they picked a certain talent)

- Rangers tend to sit on the outskirts of battle and generally avoid getting hit. Spellcasters fit into this category also.

- So after taking the above into consideration you have a choice = have a ranger with a ranged weapon or have a spellcaster with a ranged weapon.

 

Its a no brainer, if you picked ranger you will have slightly better accuracy and there are 2-3 talents (MAX) to choose from at level up that are even worth picking, and you don't get 2 of them until nearly the end of the game.

 

If you pick a Cipher/ Wizard/ Druid/ Preist (especially a preist with the arquebus +10 accuracy) you will be able to use your ranged weapon with slightly less effectiveness as the ranger but you will also be able to rain down hell on your enemies with fire, lighting ect and you will be able to stun, heal, charm paralyze ..........................................

 

Rangers suffer from the same debilitating illness as barbarians and chanters........NO USEFULL ABILITIES TO CHOOSE FROM AT LEVEL UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Bottom line the rangers abilities on level up are to underpowered. Eg the point of my thread pillars of balancing

 

 

I have to disagree with you here.

 

First, clearly have have a problem with ranged warrior type characters, so any opinion you have on them is, IMO, worthless.  You essentially think that sitting on the outskirts of a battle, using a ranged weapon, and avoiding taking hits makes the character "gloriously suck".  Frankly, I'd say that that's why your opinions on such characters "gloriously suck". 

[Crucis]

 

 

Rangers suffer from the same debilitating illness as barbarians and chanters........NO USEFULL ABILITIES TO CHOOSE FROM AT LEVEL UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Bottom line the rangers abilities on level up are to underpowered. Eg the point of my thread pillars of balancing

 

 

I do have a problem when choosing ranger talents. But not because there's nothing to my taste, quite the contrary - there's too much stuff i'd like to have.

 

 But again, i'm a boring passive player. People who want many active abilities may not find much appeal in Ranger class.

 

 

I too find the ranger has too many options that I would like to have rather than too few or the ridiculous idea that there are NO useful abilities to choose from - I think the ranger is now in excellent shape and not underpowered at all.

 

 

I don't know whether Rangers are OP or UP at this point.  All I know is that I don't like playing rangers with animal companions, no matter how good the AC's are.  I wish that there was an option to NOT have an AC.

 

Also, while I probably do prefer the theme of ranger as ranged combatant (mostly as an archer), I'm not entirely fond of the idea that PoE's Rangers are forced into this box due to their class talents being focused entirely on their AC's and ranged combat.  I know that one could take general talents that were more melee oriented to create a more balanced ranger, but to me that's avoiding the issue.

 

 

[Eisenheinrich]

I don't know whether Rangers are OP or UP at this point. 

 

 

And this, gentlemen, is good balancing!

[Crucis]

 

I don't know whether Rangers are OP or UP at this point. 

 

 

And this, gentlemen, is good balancing!

 

 

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, Eisen, but in my case it's more that I haven't played PoE since before White March was released, meaning that I haven't had a chance to get a feel for whether they're OP or UP.

 

Side note: Much as I have always love playing rangers, I don't particularly like PoE's version of them, in very large part because I seriously dislike being forced to have an animal companion.  But that's neither here nor there regarding whether they're UP or OP as a class.

[VahnXIII]

 

I don't know whether Rangers are OP or UP at this point. 

 

 

And this, gentlemen, is good balancing!

 

There is only OP and UP. There is no Balanced.

[Gairnulf]

Either it's good balancing or opaquely presented rules.

[Grump]

I feel like them having an AC is a flavor choice that is somewhat needed to make them feel distinctly different from, say, a ranged rogue or a fighter that can do both melee and ranged decently.  The presence of an extra body (that is arguably more mobile than the rest of the party) offers the class some unique strategic options that other classes can't pull off independently. Where Rangers may not have as many flashy buttons, they do have battlefield options.  I feel like the OP is just looking at pure numbers when he says that Rangers are UP, and that's just not fair.

[Gromnir]

 

I agree the magic items in the game are *extremely* lacking.  I want to fight a Firkraag and get a Carsomyr out of the deal.  Not just keep stacking, not very useful slightly magic effects to the same silly mace I've had since the beginning of the game.

Bingo

 

bingo... in the sense that this is exact what we would want the developers to avoid.  carsomyr were a ridiculous overpowered weapon that you could gets early in the game.  get your ultimate weapon and armour early in the game and then... well, that's it for equipment improvements for burt the paladin, eh?  oh, and if you didn't follow the old soa boards and you were not aware that carsomyr were a greatsword, then the joke is on you burt.  you chose long sword and so you end up with carsomyr envy for the next 50 to 150 hours o' gaming.  sucker.

 

etc.

 

carsomyr is a great example o' what were freaking wrong with bg2 weapons. yeah, it's a game, so folks understandably wanna win, and better equipment means a stronger character.  unfortunately, the presence o' powerful equipment, particularly if that equipment is only available to a particular build, is a bad idea.  so yeah, "bingo." carsomyr were exact what obsidian should be attempting to avoid, regardless o' the fact that similarly powerful weapons is an attractive nuisance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[brindle88]

 

 

I agree the magic items in the game are *extremely* lacking.  I want to fight a Firkraag and get a Carsomyr out of the deal.  Not just keep stacking, not very useful slightly magic effects to the same silly mace I've had since the beginning of the game.

 

Bingo

bingo... in the sense that this is exact what we would want the developers to avoid.  carsomyr were a ridiculous overpowered weapon that you could gets early in the game.  get your ultimate weapon and armour early in the game and then... well, that's it for equipment improvements for burt the paladin, eh?  oh, and if you didn't follow the old soa boards and you were not aware that carsomyr were a greatsword, then the joke is on you burt.  you chose long sword and so you end up with carsomyr envy for the next 50 to 150 hours o' gaming.  sucker.

 

etc.

 

carsomyr is a great example o' what were freaking wrong with bg2 weapons. yeah, it's a game, so folks understandably wanna win, and better equipment means a stronger character.  unfortunately, the presence o' powerful equipment, particularly if that equipment is only available to a particular build, is a bad idea.  so yeah, "bingo." carsomyr were exact what obsidian should be attempting to avoid, regardless o' the fact that similarly powerful weapons is an attractive nuisance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

bg2 has been consistently voted number 1 rpg of all time by critics and user alike. Maybe you should go tell the critics that according to you there is something wrong with the game,............

[Grump]

 

 

 

I agree the magic items in the game are *extremely* lacking.  I want to fight a Firkraag and get a Carsomyr out of the deal.  Not just keep stacking, not very useful slightly magic effects to the same silly mace I've had since the beginning of the game.

Bingo

bingo... in the sense that this is exact what we would want the developers to avoid.  carsomyr were a ridiculous overpowered weapon that you could gets early in the game.  get your ultimate weapon and armour early in the game and then... well, that's it for equipment improvements for burt the paladin, eh?  oh, and if you didn't follow the old soa boards and you were not aware that carsomyr were a greatsword, then the joke is on you burt.  you chose long sword and so you end up with carsomyr envy for the next 50 to 150 hours o' gaming.  sucker.

 

etc.

 

carsomyr is a great example o' what were freaking wrong with bg2 weapons. yeah, it's a game, so folks understandably wanna win, and better equipment means a stronger character.  unfortunately, the presence o' powerful equipment, particularly if that equipment is only available to a particular build, is a bad idea.  so yeah, "bingo." carsomyr were exact what obsidian should be attempting to avoid, regardless o' the fact that similarly powerful weapons is an attractive nuisance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

bg2 has been consistently voted number 1 rpg of all time by critics and user alike. Maybe you should go tell the critics that according to you there is something wrong with the game,............

 

 

Gaming culture changes, ideas are refined, and the industry evolves.  BG2 was amazing for its time, and still is a VERY good game.  But that shouldn't stop us from critically analyzing it and comparing it (or at least, the system it uses) to modern titles, especially titles that are described as "spiritual successors".  That's how we change.

[Cantousent]

bg2 has been consistently voted number 1 rpg of all time by critics and user alike. Maybe you should go tell the critics that according to you there is something wrong with the game,............

Conversely, is everything perfect with the game? There was nothing that could have been done better then and nothing that could be done better now?

 

If we're enslaved to BG2 (which I also quite enjoyed), then what do we do? Have a game with a sword identical to Carsomyr in every way except for name? Designers *must* push the envelope. They have the right and obligation to pursue their own vision. Otherwise, we're going to have nothing but increasingly cheap and unfulfilling counterfeits of a dwindling number of original games.

 

I actually respect that you don't like what you consider bad balancing in the game. Moreover, I can sympathize with you to a certain degree. However, I don't agree with the idea that BG2 was a great game solely, primarily, or perhaps at all because there was a sword so manifestly superior any rational player with prior knowledge to its existence would automatically plan gameplay around accessing it early. You can love BG2. I can love BG2. It's a really great game, but I don't believe for a moment it was good because the devs put in such a specific weapon.

 

Having a weapon that truly has a special feel and for which you have struggled long and hard, one that will serve for a good amount of time from the point of acquisition (certainly not one that renders all other choices foolish from early in the game forward), and has some special history and lore? That's all good. I think PoE could have done better in giving that feeling to me, I suppose. I've seen some games that feature such a weapon that grants the player choices upon acquisition in order to make sure it's in a usable form by the party. That makes some sense to me.

[Gromnir]

 

bg2 has been consistently voted number 1 rpg of all time by critics and user alike. Maybe you should go tell the critics that according to you there is something wrong with the game,............

Conversely, is everything perfect with the game? There was nothing that could have been done better then and nothing that could be done better now?

 

If we're enslaved to BG2 (which I also quite enjoyed), then what do we do? Have a game with a sword identical to Carsomyr in every way except for name? Designers *must* push the envelope. They have the right and obligation to pursue their own vision. Otherwise, we're going to have nothing but increasingly cheap and unfulfilling counterfeits of a dwindling number of original games.

 

I actually respect that you don't like what you consider bad balancing in the game. Moreover, I can sympathize with you to a certain degree. However, I don't agree with the idea that BG2 was a great game solely, primarily, or perhaps at all because there was a sword so manifestly superior any rational player with prior knowledge to its existence would automatically plan gameplay around accessing it early. You can love BG2. I can love BG2. It's a really great game, but I don't believe for a moment it was good because the devs put in such a specific weapon.

 

Having a weapon that truly has a special feel and for which you have struggled long and hard, one that will serve for a good amount of time from the point of acquisition (certainly not one that renders all other choices foolish from early in the game forward), and has some special history and lore? That's all good. I think PoE could have done better in giving that feeling to me, I suppose. I've seen some games that feature such a weapon that grants the player choices upon acquisition in order to make sure it's in a usable form by the party. That makes some sense to me.

 

 

you took the fun out it.  we woulda' been much harsher while reaching same place. 

 

*sigh*

 

bg2 (and d&d) is a wonderful game that is also deeply flawed. heck, am recalling how funny some o' the bg2 purists were during poe development.  no doubt cant witnessed more than a few folks who railed against proposed features for no reason save that obsidian were planning on doing different than bg2.  were doubly amusing 'cause some o' those same bg2 purists appeared to loathe d&d, and they frequent became defensive and confused when confronted with a feature that were having origins in ad&d.  am not recalling how many predictions o' doom we heard from the purists.  

 

... 

 

you do realize the kinda restraint am showing not to go full medival-mode, yes?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[MunoValente]

While a lot of the weapons do sort of blend together in this game, I do think that are handful that still really standout like Blade of Endless Paths, Cloudpiercer, Stormcaller, Tall Grass and Tidefall.  Personally I also really like the Grey Sleeper, although I know there isn't as much consensus on that.  There also a couple early game weapons that are really good for when you can get them like Gaun's Share, Resolution and Persistence.

[Gairnulf]

"Really stand out"? Quite the opposite. Categorizing every weapon by the same scale kills all notion of uniqueness. The blade of the endless paths is simply a "Superb Estoc" with Speed and Marking mods. Even the damage is the default Estoc damage. Marking weapons like this is a mistake and I hope the designers take note of it for PoE 2.

 

Just look at this mess:

Edited October 24, 2015 by Gairnulf