Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But then, it doesn't make sense for might to increase gun damage, does it? Some things we may have to just learn to roll with.

Or they could be changed. It's an option, *shrug*.

 

The gun-damage thing is just another symptom. The problem generates so many little symptoms that are easy to shrug off individually, but when observed collectively serve to illuminate the problem.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fighters with high Int would still be bashing the door down with magic, even though they don't really use potent magic.

 

Of course the above was meant for wizards only.


---

We're all doomed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord_Mord:

 

That only illustrates the problem further. It was MEANT for Wizards, but it doesn't apply to only the things it was meant for, as there can still be high-INT Fighters.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "problem" with the Mig stat is player preconception. Viewed without that bias, Mig does the job its supposed to do just fine.

 

This is simply incorrect. It's not about bias or preconception, it's about the literal purpose of stats. They are simply player metrics. Why? Because, well, imagine PoE without any stats, (nothing else added to compensate, just no stats), then tell me nothing would be missing. Imagine that everything's subjective, and there's no objective reason for the existence of stats within an RPG system. Can you tell me what's missing in that hypothetical? Of course you can.

 

Same thing with Might. If I were a developer, and I wanted to quite feasibly take advantage of a character metric that exists within the game world (physical strength), in the interest of creating a scenario in which ONE Wizard might be able to do something that a different type of Wizard would be unable to do, I am unable to do it. In the equation, Might is a big "(X+Y)", and I cannot call upon either X or Y, separately, even though they exist. I'm not inventing muscles or arcane power. They both exist, as dictated by the game.

 

Maybe Might does everything that you and Obsidian want it to do, but that's not the same thing as doing what it's "supposed to." Or, to be more technically specific, the stat system is not doing what it is supposed to do. If you had a system whose stats were only Tallness, Gumption, and Hair, would you tell me that "Meh, if that's how the person who invented it wanted it to be, then it does everything it needs to do"? Would it be simple bias that anyone would have any kind of a problem with those stats, as entire character metrics?

 

I really wish you would put as much effort into actually explaining how the problem is only player preconception as I put into explaining my point. Everyone keeps trying to shoot down this stuff with "Nope, sorry. Incorrect. Also you just like DnD stats too much" or some such nonsense. Just because two things happen to be similar doesn't mean they correlate. I'm not biased against anything. I'm objectively evaluating the stat system as it exists, in the unbiased context of an RPG that aims to do what it is RPGs do. The Might stat (amongst others) have shortcomings within this context, not simply as compared to one or another attribute systems that I just so happen to like. If I like a different stat system, it's because it does a better job of actually providing character metrics that support more creativity in the game world. Not "because it's stat system X."

 

Well, I can't say you actually convinced me of anything with these statements. Take the Wasteland series, which uses an attribute called "Luck". Does it have anything to do with the actual physical attributes of the character? No, of course not. It's a tuning parameter; a hidden attribute. Luck is provided as a random modifier to certain outcomes. People here keep trying to attribute the Might attribute to a mechanical function. But is it? Or is it a value for chi in a world setting with a different physics? Somebody says I want to build a "wimpy Wizard/Barbarian". Okay, call him a wimpy Wizard/Barbarian with poor muscle tone but with a powerful chi drive to propel a great axe or cast a fireball. Or some other explanation. Might can just as well be a tuning parameter. Toss out your expectations and adapt to the setting as it is.

  • Like 3

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also see the main issues with this (apart from player expectation) in implementation and communication to the player.

Is it possible to design a system that uses MIG for the purposes it serves in PoE, mechanically? Sure. But you have to think it through and use the stat, accordingly.

For instance, you could just not use attribute checks for physical feats and check some skill like Athletics instead. If you want to know whether your wizard will be able to bend prison bars with her bare hands, you look at Athletics. But that has to be done consistently for that attribute/skill combination.

You also don't need to do that for every attribute. CRPGs have limited gameplay focus, and if you don't check some things, you don't need to simulate them. Does beauty have to be represented in stats? In a tabletop game, some mechanic would probably be useful. In a CRPG, you can just decide to leave it to the player, and model RES and Speechcraft, or some such thing.

  • Like 1

Therefore I have sailed the seas and come

To the holy city of Byzantium. -W.B. Yeats

 

Χριστός ἀνέστη!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That only illustrates the problem further. It was MEANT for Wizards, but it doesn't apply to only the things it was meant for, as there can still be high-INT Fighters.

 

*sigh*

 

Do you really have no imagination at all, or are you just enjoying the discussion?

 

 

if( fighter ) {

   if( mig > 13 && con > 10 ) {

      kick in door

   }

} else if( wizard ) {

   if( mig > 13 && con > 10) {

      kick in door

   } else if( mig > 13 && int > 10 ) {

      use magic to destroy door

   }

}

 

 

P.S.: I know this piece of pseudocode is ****ty. I just wanted to write it down in an understandable way.

Edited by Lord_Mord

---

We're all doomed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I can't say you actually convinced me of anything with these statements. Take the Wasteland series, which uses an attribute called "Luck". Does it have anything to do with the actual physical attributes of the character? No, of course not.

 

Nowhere in any of my post that you quoted (nor in any unquoted posts) did I say anything about attributes bearing the requirement of making physical measurements. I merely said that they are player metrics.

 

If you're going to keep telling someone to toss out their expectations and adapt, you might want to put a hold on your own expectations of their general argument, until you've actually read and evaluated the words that they've presented. Also, the sheer amount of mental effort I've put into evaluating this seems far more adaptive than the "Nah, it's all fine, and the hundreds of people who have brought up individual arguments and breakdowns of this are all just narrow-minded and need to deal with it" notion that you seem to be ferociously holding to. I do not understand why, as you are and have been an extremely valuable collaborator on these forums.

 

To clarify, it's fine that you disagree with me, but you could at least show enough respect to disagree on the same level, and not with a little hand-wave that already assumes the entire idea behind my argument was wrong before my argument even got around to being made. I just honestly cannot see how you're giving my posts much thought if you think "Luck isn't physical, and it's an attribute" somehow shot down any percentage of my presented argument.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord_Mord:

 

Ahh, I appreciate it. I honestly just wasn't understanding how you meant that "That was only meant for wizard" bit. Sorry about that.

 

Yeah, it works, but it doesn't change the fact that something's missing, and it only illustrates that one, "doesn't really matter how you do it" scenario of kicking in a door.

 

To not-measure Strength is not morally wrong or evil, all right? I've made my arguments as objective as possible. Yes, if they just called "Might" something else, like "Power" or "Damage" or something, AND didn't actually represent it as your character's strength (if it was ONLY like... "spirit power" or something and the whole game just said "F you!" to any measurement or reference of physical strength), then stuff would be a bit better. Still, strength is a commonly used stat in rulesets for a reason, as it effects so many different possibilities in an RPG setting. Anything else that is a separate power source (i.e. arcane magic, priest faith/devotion, etc.) is an entirely separate thing that can have very interesting pros and cons when compared to physical strength. We're talking about the possibilities here. So, to say "Meh, the strength of your soul is just how strong anything you do is going to be" sort of throws a lot of that out the window, which is unfortunate.

 

That's the gist of the Might "problem." It's semantics, and oversimplified character metrics, AND it's just plain a poorly-chosen compromise that didn't really accomplish much in the way of eliminating dump stats, etc (and it was not the best way to eliminate dump stats, either). I understand that they had a time crunch and limited resources, so I don't blame them for doing it. This isn't about bashing Obsidian. This is about striving for the best design there can be. So, ideally, much more can be accomplished, reasonably, within the stat system than they are currently accomplishing.

 

I'm not posting any of this to make anyone agree with me. I'm posting it on the off chance that someone actually cares to consider it fully, thereby reinforcing whatever conclusion they end up reaching after such consideration (even if it's their same conclusion, but with a greater consideration backing it, and possibly even for new reasons.) And I don't mind anyone disagreeing here. I'm just sick of people trying to highlander the discussion (there can be only ONE idea) and trying to shoot down any other NOTIONS in here, rather than the actual arguments that are being presented for those notions.

 

It's as if some people cannot even fathom how any human being could possibly have a problem with the current stat system, or simply believe there to be a different way of doing it.

  • Like 2

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the people who have a problem with the might attribute as it is. I already stated this before in these forums. My character is a female pale elf priestess. Tiny, feeble. I would like to measure her physical strength (low) separately from her magical power (potent). But can't. Her character sheet does not make sense to me, which is a problem since i roleplay her as much as possible.

 

This is a big flaw of the game to me. One of the worst (with the rest system). I don't have much hope of it being ever fixed though.

 

Lephys pretty much spoke for me. I agree with everything he said, down to the "i'm sick..." part.

Edited by Abel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the issue of not being able to reduce the might attribute (or any attribute for that matter) beyond a certain point (on character creation that is) is that it can cause problems for the game? I get it from a roleplay standpoint, but would it work from a programming or game design standpoint?

 

Though most of the argument here seems to be the semantics of it rather than the implementation of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe in this world you have to be physically strong to have strong magic. DONE.

 

I mentioned this in a previous post in this thread. I would have been perfectly fine with such a solution. I don't think it would have been the optimal solution but I could've worked with it. Obsidian didn't define it in this manner though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That. And it's not just semantics. Some people have made arguments for pure semantics, sure, but it's a problem no matter how you look at it. The PoE world has defined strength as separate from "soul strength." And even in animes (where it's most prevalent) in which almost everyone has some inner power or "spirit force," etc., that they do stuff with, there are still people in the world who don't. Hence the "oh no, I better use my awesome power to protect all these innocent people who can't do anything."

 

There could be a world in which your muscular capabilities actually translate directly into your fictional power source, and there probably are such worlds somewhere in the Earth's library of fictional media. However, in this case, the world would need to be designed around that. Not just "everyone's got both, but you measure them together, or just never measure one of them ever and pretend everything's okay."

 

Again, people are free to disagree, but I hate seeing people consistently fail to understand the issue.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh I always perceived the MIG attribute in PoE1 as power.

- If your character is a fighter, he uses physical power to swing that axe.

- If your character is a wizard, he uses whatever physical power he has, plus somewhat augments it with his magic abilities. I mean if he can hurl a fireball or transmit enough kinetic energy to the various missiles he can fire, he can probably make a hack of some mundane weapon a bit more impactful as well.

 


I had more problems in rationalizing Dominate though.

Charming is subtle, and intelligence + perception is enough. But domination? It's like a brutal suppression/crumbling of someone else will. No?

 

Would it make sense if MIG would add to accuracy roll of domination effects, but provided that powers like Puppet Master will have the inherent +10 acc bonus reduced to +5?

Edited by MaxQuest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh I always perceived the MIG attribute in PoE1 as power.

- If your character is a fighter, he uses physical power to swing that axe.

- If your character is a wizard, he uses whatever physical power he has, plus somewhat augments it with his magic abilities. I mean if he can hurl a fireball or transmit enough kinetic energy to the various missiles he can fire, he can probably make a hack of some mundane weapon a bit more impactful as well.

 

There are still just weird loose-end questions. Can the Wizard infinitely enhance his "physical" attacks with a bit of magic? If so, then why are his spells so limited, and why can't he turn that off to preserve stamina at the cost of reduced damage, or amplify it even more at the cost of stamina? That would be tactically interesting. And the Fighter's using "magic" as well (soul power or what-have-you, as everyone is), so why can't HE enhance his weapon swing with that? And if he is doing that already, then how does the Wizard's weapon swing enhancement differ from the Fighter's?

 

That perception mostly works, but it just has a weird hole in it. And I know these things seem nitpicky, but they're valid questions to be asked, especially in a game type who's rule system is filled with dozens of little values that cause dynamic adjustments to things to determine the values that we actually look at/use. Like damage. Imagine if you had a flaming sword, and it just said "20 damage." Wouldn't you wonder how much of that was fire, and how much of that was physical/slashing? I don't think you'd be appeased if someone just said "Meh, that's just the sword's overall power. I'd imagine it's being enhanced a bit by the fire." Even if all 20 of it was fire damage... if you went and hit something that was immune to fire, wouldn't you wonder why the physical impact of the sword did 0 damage? That's honestly the best example I've seen as a comparison to the Might problem, and I have no idea why I couldn't think of as good of an example before now.

 

It's not only perfectly reasonable to ask these questions and figure out how these breakdowns work, but they are the bread-and-butter of RPG mechanics. Just because you don't want to use ALL of them doesn't mean that you don't want to use any of them.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh I always perceived the MIG attribute in PoE1 as power.

- If your character is a fighter, he uses physical power to swing that axe.

- If your character is a wizard, he uses whatever physical power he has, plus somewhat augments it with his magic abilities. I mean if he can hurl a fireball or transmit enough kinetic energy to the various missiles he can fire, he can probably make a hack of some mundane weapon a bit more impactful as well.

 

 

People always mention only wizards and fighters.

How does chanter make his axe swings stronger? With his voice?

  • Like 1

Vancian =/= per rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still just weird loose-end questions.

Yeap, there are. And atm I think we can't find perfect explanations for this, simply because the system was not build with realistic attributes in mind.

I mean the focus was shifted towards bringing a large variety of fail-safe builds instead.

 

Can the Wizard infinitely enhance his "physical" attacks with a bit of magic?

I guess. It would take infinite effort / amount of energy though.

 

If so, then why are his spells so limited, and why can't he turn that off to preserve stamina at the cost of reduced damage, or amplify it even more at the cost of stamina?

Blame game designers)

 

As far as backward rationalization goes, Citzal could be viewed as weirdo due to his love of solving problems in melee.

Majority of wizards could prefer decimating their enemies via just spells instead, and since they can't cast and auto-attack at the same time... they focus on the former, resulting in self-buffing spells being so limited.

 

Btw, there is no stamina in this game. And if you are referring to endurance... yeah that could make a great end/hp manipulating warlock character. I still miss the drain-tanking style of SL-SL from the Burning Crusade days..

 

And the Fighter's using "magic" as well (soul power or what-have-you, as everyone is), so why can't HE enhance his weapon swing with that? And if he is doing that already, then how does the Wizard's weapon swing enhancement differ from the Fighter's?

A character can have that "soul-power", "inner power", "inner energy" or whatever, which is used to fuel the action he is performing. But first he should define/create/imagine the form of that action.

 

Think of rune magic. One draws a rune. And it's not active yet. You have to channel your energy into it, in order for it to start working.

Wizards can imagine the form of a spell and pour part of their energy for it to activate.

Fighters can't, as they simply lack needed knowledge. Ofc if they find a scroll and understand it (lore skill), they can make it work.

But without special education they seem to lack the ability to learn the spells permanently, maybe their memory is not that well trained in order to invoke the exact form of the spell from memory?

 

And I know these things seem nitpicky, but they're valid questions to be asked, especially in a game type who's rule system is filled with dozens of little values that cause dynamic adjustments to things to determine the values that we actually look at/use. Like damage.

Imo, these are legit questions.

Personally I like immersion and mechanics.

I mean I usually play the first playthough for the story and immersing in the world,

While the second and furthermore ones are dedicated to character optimization.

In PoE1 though, attributes and non-intuitivity of attack speed system, have pushed me out of the flow, and inclined towards learning mechanics right of the bat. 

 

People always mention only wizards and fighters.

How does chanter make his axe swings stronger? With his voice?

The spirits help you ;p

While in the state of part-trance, the experience of hundreds of ancestors helps you guide your hand. Well maybe)

Other possible rationalization could be: like wizards use the visual representations of spell forms (drawn or imagined), chanters use their voice to modulate specific waveforms as well. It's a usual thing in rpgs for some kind of sirens to enchant their enemies. In this case a chanter could direct this upon himself. Or think of a bard that can bolster/motivate his allies, but in his chanting state of trance he gains the ability to affect himself.

 

But again, this is backward rationalization. It's the system which should actually explain this.

Edited by MaxQuest
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brain might vs Body might, wait I am confused what is Intellect?  I thought that was your ability to solve problems?  Also what about perception which is how perceptive you are but doesn't add anything to magic usage?  If I more perceptively cast my spell and know the enemy is traveling some tricky way won't that perceptiveness help?

 

Also shouldn't perceptiveness, or intellect effect how well you can determine the range on AoE spells? :D  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't they rename these stats, Might to Power, Intelligence to AOE Radius. Just name them the actual thing they modify. If that's all it is. Then have a separate stat sheet for Roleplaying stats.


nowt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MaxQuest:

 

I really appreciate the awesome response. I was honestly asking those questions rhetorically, just to point out that the existing system/world doesn't really account for them. But, those answers were spot on and well-thought-out, :). I don't necessarily want all that stuff to be mechanically represented in the game (I mean, it'd be great if it was, but I don't expect that of a CRPG, until maybe a bunch of them slowly inch toward that and we get better able to do such things with game programming). I just think those questions need to be asked when designing a stat system. "What exactly are we measuring, and what aren't we measuring, and why?". Also, those questions were partially to illustrate how the "It's cool, Might doesn't have any weird loose-ends" notion is flawed, as oodles of folk keep jumping into this and rolling with that. Which I don't blame them, I suppose, as at a glance it does seem like it's all just semantics. But when you look a bit closer, it's a lot more than semantics.

 

And if this wasn't an actual RPG with lots of story and lore depth, I wouldn't care about answering these questions. For example, Diablo. I don't really care how everything's measured in Diablo. You hack-and-slash your way through enemies. The end. It's a fun game, but the stats aren't trying to tie into a bunch of actual RPG elements. They just have the combat and numbers-progression of a lite RPG system, and a linear story. That's it. That's a different kind of game. You could basically make up whatever stats you want, because all they functionally affect are your end-numbers (damage, defense, regen, mana, health, etc.).

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

A character can have that "soul-power", "inner power", "inner energy" or whatever, which is used to fuel the action he is performing. But first he should define/create/imagine the form of that action.

Think of rune magic. One draws a rune. And it's not active yet. You have to channel your energy into it, in order for it to start working.
Wizards can imagine the form of a spell and pour part of their energy for it to activate.
Fighters can't, as they simply lack needed knowledge. Ofc if they find a scroll and understand it (lore skill), they can make it work.
But without special education they seem to lack the ability to learn the spells permanently, maybe their memory is not that well trained in order to invoke the exact form of the spell from memory?

 

Just to further illustrate, this raises the "so does soul power handle everything, or wouldn't you think Intellect (or at least some kind of mental metric) would play some sort of a role here?" I mean, does soul power power their brains, too? Basically, if your soul is an energy source, then what all does it do? Or do you use other metrics (intelligence, strength, agility, etc.) to shape and use it?

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The symbol for Might is a flexed bicep...I hate seeing that. I already can't shake the impression that the PoE1 Wizard is the beefiest character in the party.

 

I don't know why they're insisting on keeping a system that so many players find vague and annoying. It doesn't have to be.

 

An RPG attribute system is a tool to convey an impression of the characters and their abilities. Then you have the PoE system where you don't even know how physically strong a character actually is because you're just putting points in "damage and healing" instead of an actual attribute.

 

PoE attribute system has been designed with mathematical precision but it does a poor job of reflecting your characters. It's not just Might. With Dexterity it's impossible to gauge what it actually achieves. Intellect doesn't make your characters seem any smarter or more skilled, just their stun attack maybe lasts 2 seconds longer which will go completely unnoticed in the heat of battle. Resolve has an impact so tiny you can't tell any difference. Same with Perception.

 

It feels like the attribute system is too clever and perfect for its own good. Sometimes simple, noticeable things like +3 AC and dump stats achieve something mathematical perfection can't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No attribute system in a video game has ever managed to actually do any of that. Which is part of why I find it hard to give a good gorram about this controversy. Incremental number increases will never properly represent your character, and that's all attributes are ever going to be. It's just that people vastly overstate how important they are.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I think the problem is?  That RPGs have too many attributes in general usually.  Take a look at Wasteland 2: they went and created a 7 attribute system just so they could spell out CLASSIC with it and ended up with redundant attributes or ones they faffed out with stuff to try and make a reason for it.  I honestly think they should just look at the attributes without preconceptions and go "Do we actually need an attribute for that?"  For instance, do we really need Strength (or Might) and Constitution as separate attributes?  A physically strong person will tend to also be healthier than someone weaker than them, maybe give the option to choose a 'speciality' for the attribute to represent them focusing on body building over cardio or vice versa.  Likewise, in D&D you had intelligence and wisdom separate, sure you could get smart people with no common sense but that is more a roleplay thing or possibly a Flaw than an attribute surely? 

 

While it is renowned for being overly complicated, GURPS 4th edition did at least do one thing right in my mind in that it had just 4 base attributes: Strength, Dexterity, Health, and Intelligence.  It had sub-attributes based off these 4, such as Perception and Hit Points, that could vary to a certain degree from the base attribute.  Strength was even the one that determined that Hit Points (Health was for Fatigue and cardio activities), and the editor for 4th said that he wanted to rename some of them to more accurately reflect what they were (such as renaming Intelligence to Mind since it wasn't just academic ability) but was limited by being required to keep the same names for them by the owners.

 

So instead of saying, "We need another attribute to cover this aspect!" I think we should be asking ourselves, "Do we actually need this or that attribute?"  I would have no problem with them cutting down on the attributes in order to make the ones they have more relevant, but then I'm probably just weird.

  • Like 2

"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...