Things you want PoE 2 to specifically avoid if possible

[Ninjamestari]

 

I dont understand the gymnastics. I play the game they way i wanted without min maxing using for instance using aloth as mostly a dps and won the game, and i have used him in other runs as cc but so what. That proves your statements are wrong. I dont have to go into anything specific about the stats to prove this point. The dev claimed you could role play the stats and play the game in they way you wanted and i did that and it worked. There is no complicated arguments here just an example to prove the devs meet the goal they stated for the stats. I am giving you a data point, a provable fact not my belief.

 

 

That proves that *one* of my statements was wrong, namely the "they failed at everything they set out to do" - one. It however doesn't even approach dealing with the rest of what I've said. Besides, if making a system that has so little impact that you can distribute your stats randomly and still win the game on the hardest difficulty, then the situation is even more alarming than I initially proposed. Especially considering that Min-Max builds are still the most powerful ones. Every single character concept can find one or two dump stats that will make them more powerful, and if your answer to that is to use the stat system as a tool of make-believe rather than a system to be gamed for a variety of powerful approaches then go ahead, but I want my choices in character creation to have an impact and to have them resonate a plausible fantasy so that I can immerse in my character, not just be meaningless numbers that only facilitate the ability to play pretend.

 

That being said, Aloth is still a bad damage dealer, and if the rest of your party is even worse then they definitely aren't very good, and hell yeah you need to go to specifics about this, otherwise you're just blowing **** out of your ass.

[rjshae]

 

1. The companions are not perfectly optimized. For some people, this is a pretty big deal. I like to think of it as a touch of realism, as people aren’t perfectly optimized for their jobs in real life

 

This was a bigger problem in BG2, where players would select companions based on their stats rather than their interactions. With PoE, that is less of an issue. Most discussions seem to focus on the persona of the companion. I'd say that's a win for the PoE approach.

[Varana]

I often give people multiple threads to follow, the smart thread for people genuinely interested in the subject matter and the stupid thread for people who aren't. It's useful in determining the kind of person I'm dealing with. I'll let you guess which thread you followed.

Really, you take yourself way too seriously. You don't "give people threads to follow". You're just a random guy who writes stuff on the internet, as we all are.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Varana

[DigitalCrack]

@Ninjamestari would you mind providing a spreadsheet of the math that explicitly proves what your saying. Preferrably one that shows performance breakdown per character per role, also considering applicable equipment and spell effects? If your going to demand as much from others we shouldnt expect less from you concerning your assertions. Not to mention we could end this silly arguement of opinions on stats and builds which is all personal preference when it come down to it.

[Ninjamestari]

@Ninjamestari would you mind providing a spreadsheet of the math that explicitly proves what your saying. Preferrably one that shows performance breakdown per character per role, also considering applicable equipment and spell effects? If your going to demand as much from others we shouldnt expect less from you concerning your assertions. Not to mention we could end this silly arguement of opinions on stats and builds which is all personal preference when it come down to it.

 

So you want proof that a wizard with 12 perception and 12 might deals less damage than a wizard with 18 in both? You need proof that a character that can engage two enemies and has lower deflection (Pallegina) cannot tank as effectively as a charcter that can engage 4 enemies and has higher deflection (Eder)? Or that either of those could even hold a candle to a properly min-maxed fighter tank build? I mean seriously?

[draego]

 

@Ninjamestari would you mind providing a spreadsheet of the math that explicitly proves what your saying. Preferrably one that shows performance breakdown per character per role, also considering applicable equipment and spell effects? If your going to demand as much from others we shouldnt expect less from you concerning your assertions. Not to mention we could end this silly arguement of opinions on stats and builds which is all personal preference when it come down to it.

 

So you want proof that a wizard with 12 perception and 12 might deals less damage than a wizard with 18 in both? You need proof that a character that can engage two enemies and has lower deflection (Pallegina) cannot tank as effectively as a charcter that can engage 4 enemies and has higher deflection (Eder)? Or that either of those could even hold a candle to a properly min-maxed fighter tank build? I mean seriously?

 

 

I never stated the part about aloth in the way your are representing here. I said i used him for mostly dps in one of my runs not he was optimally built and he was still good at it. Nice that you keep moving the goal post. I am sorry if you misunderstood. i tried to explain my position several times. And no having higher deflection is not the ultimate gage of who makes the best tank. traditional Tanks have been devalued in this game because now enemies are willing to break engagement or flat out just by pass your tank. So now tanks that can do other thing besides being a meat shield seem to be better thank jsut a meat shield. ie. paladins with great aoe damamge and support and chanters with aoe damage and support while still being built like a tank. And this is not to say you cant build a good tank fighter. like i keep saying your lack of imagination for what is possible with both the stats and builds and roles does not prove the stat system sucks. And the proof is all over the old POE build forums and even this one. You will see poeple make comments like 'Do i have to min max the stats the way you show for this build?' or 'What about aloth or zahua can who dont have those stats can i still build them like this build' and the answer is usually yes you can still play the build with companion or mc without min max stats.

 

All i have ever contented is that min max stats are not required in the same way the old dnd game were and many classes can play many roles you find in the party including tanks, dps, support, ranged even if their stats are not min maxed and this proves the stat system does what the dev say they do

Edited April 5, 2017 by draego

[DigitalCrack]

 

@Ninjamestari would you mind providing a spreadsheet of the math that explicitly proves what your saying. Preferrably one that shows performance breakdown per character per role, also considering applicable equipment and spell effects? If your going to demand as much from others we shouldnt expect less from you concerning your assertions. Not to mention we could end this silly arguement of opinions on stats and builds which is all personal preference when it come down to it.

So you want proof that a wizard with 12 perception and 12 might deals less damage than a wizard with 18 in both? You need proof that a character that can engage two enemies and has lower deflection (Pallegina) cannot tank as effectively as a charcter that can engage 4 enemies and has higher deflection (Eder)? Or that either of those could even hold a candle to a properly min-maxed fighter tank build? I mean seriously?

high probability does not equal concrete truth only that it may be more likely true than not. It remains as such unitl observable evidence is presented to take it out of the realm of probability.

[PizzaSHARK]

 When you say stuff like:

 

In some ways, Pillars' system is worse because of how the stats work.  Aloth, for example, will always be an utterly horrible choice for a damage Wizard because he only has 12 Might; instead, you need to run him as a control Wizard to maximize the impact of his 16 Intelligence.  Pallegina is kind of awful at everything because of her stats being all over the place - not enough CON to be a good tank, not enough MIG to be good at damage, etc.

 

which is objectively not true its hard to take you seriously. And i suspect like i mentioned you cant imagine you could have a role in a party without having the most optimally perfect stats because you are married to systems where stats are the end all be all of builds, but that is the fun thing about POE you can build like you like and play almost any role. stats are for roleplaying in many ways just as much as mechanics so if you wanted to be a 10 might wizard damager you could be and still be good at it.

 

And to be honest i thought making might the single source of damage was a nice change to past DnD systems from BG to NWN.

 

I'll qualify that as "Aloth can never be a damage Wizard compared to a custom Wizard designed for the role."  Basically, a Wizard with low Might and high Intelligence is designed to be a control Wizard, not a damage Wizard.  Yes, you can use them as a damage Wizard, but they will be sub-par at that role because of their inefficient stat distribution.

[PizzaSHARK]

 

 

1. The companions are not perfectly optimized. For some people, this is a pretty big deal. I like to think of it as a touch of realism, as people aren’t perfectly optimized for their jobs in real life

 

This was a bigger problem in BG2, where players would select companions based on their stats rather than their interactions. With PoE, that is less of an issue. Most discussions seem to focus on the persona of the companion. I'd say that's a win for the PoE approach.

 

 

I agree here.  I don't have a problem with characters having "realistic" stats rather than optimized ones, so long as they can still perform their role.  Stats being generally less important in Pillars (for better or for worse) does make it easier to fit most any NPC into any party, but I never had a problem with characters with questionable stat distribution (Aerie, freaking Khalid, etc) in the BG games, either.  Maybe because it was a lot easier to 'fix' their stats with items and long-term buffs.

 

 

 

 

@Ninjamestari would you mind providing a spreadsheet of the math that explicitly proves what your saying. Preferrably one that shows performance breakdown per character per role, also considering applicable equipment and spell effects? If your going to demand as much from others we shouldnt expect less from you concerning your assertions. Not to mention we could end this silly arguement of opinions on stats and builds which is all personal preference when it come down to it.

So you want proof that a wizard with 12 perception and 12 might deals less damage than a wizard with 18 in both? You need proof that a character that can engage two enemies and has lower deflection (Pallegina) cannot tank as effectively as a charcter that can engage 4 enemies and has higher deflection (Eder)? Or that either of those could even hold a candle to a properly min-maxed fighter tank build? I mean seriously?

high probability does not equal concrete truth only that it may be more likely true than not. It remains as such unitl observable evidence is presented to take it out of the realm of probability.

 

 

Dude... come on.  Do you really need someone to run the math for you why a character with 18 Might and 18 Perception is going to deal more direct damage than a character with 12 Might and 12 Perception?

[draego]

 

 When you say stuff like:

 

In some ways, Pillars' system is worse because of how the stats work.  Aloth, for example, will always be an utterly horrible choice for a damage Wizard because he only has 12 Might; instead, you need to run him as a control Wizard to maximize the impact of his 16 Intelligence.  Pallegina is kind of awful at everything because of her stats being all over the place - not enough CON to be a good tank, not enough MIG to be good at damage, etc.

 

which is objectively not true its hard to take you seriously. And i suspect like i mentioned you cant imagine you could have a role in a party without having the most optimally perfect stats because you are married to systems where stats are the end all be all of builds, but that is the fun thing about POE you can build like you like and play almost any role. stats are for roleplaying in many ways just as much as mechanics so if you wanted to be a 10 might wizard damager you could be and still be good at it.

 

And to be honest i thought making might the single source of damage was a nice change to past DnD systems from BG to NWN.

 

I'll qualify that as "Aloth can never be a damage Wizard compared to a custom Wizard designed for the role."  Basically, a Wizard with low Might and high Intelligence is designed to be a control Wizard, not a damage Wizard.  Yes, you can use them as a damage Wizard, but they will be sub-par at that role because of their inefficient stat distribution.

 

 

I actually agree. I have never said giving a wizard more might would not result in more damage. I know his stats are better suited for cc. all i am saying is that the stats aren't as ridged as some of the post are making them out to be. And the fact that i have seen aloth do lots of dps because mage spells are just powerful shows that stats are not ridged and are not the only determinate of what role you play in the party. So yes most of my runs i have aloth as a cc wizard but even for that his stats are not as optimal as custom build cc mc wizard but he can still do that role of dps because the stat dont have as big a impact as dnd games. I mean i could use aloth as an off tank and that would be fine and his stats dont stop me from doing any of those roles.

 

I am not trying to compare what build does more damage or what build would be best for tanks (well not really. I got off on a tagent there I was just trying to point out that palligina can be a good tank despite the non optimal stats.). I am combating the idea that stats are just as ridged as dnd game and that the dev didnt accomplish their goal of making stats more flexible so min maxing was not required or that you should only pick certain stats for certain classes or builds or else you couldn't play the game right (whatever that means) and the companions are a perfect example of that. And that its false to say their start distribution means you can only build them for one role in the party and no other role just because, which applies to your mc also

 

The dev wanted you to be able to role play with the stats and not be boxed in as compared to some of the old dnd games. They did that.

 

I get some may prefer dnd systems that is subjective and fine but you cant say you dont like the system because min max in POE is a required feature or that npc can only play one role in the party because they have bad stats just isnt true or that to build a mc for a certain role you had to pick these perfect stats

Edited April 5, 2017 by draego

[PizzaSHARK]

Right, but I find Pillars stats are terrible for roleplaying because they're so meaningless.  A Fighter with low Strength requires a different feat build and plan than a Fighter with high Strength - but can still be useful, particularly where archetypes (a Pathfinder feature that replaces some class abilities with others) are concerned.  For example, a Tactician Fighter highly values Intelligence because they get more class skills, more skill points, and have a lot more use for those skills - if you want to invest in Diplomacy (one of the skills they gain as a class skill), you'll also value Charisma.

 

Pillars is better in some ways than the *old* D&D games but I find it to be incredibly weak compared to Pathfinder and even 5th Edition in most ways.  Maybe Pillars 2 will address that.  I hope so.

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

 

• The companions are not perfectly optimized. For some people, this is a pretty big deal. I like to think of it as a touch of realism, as people aren’t perfectly optimized for their jobs in real life

This was a bigger problem in BG2, where players would select companions based on their stats rather than their interactions. With PoE, that is less of an issue. Most discussions seem to focus on the persona of the companion. I'd say that's a win for the PoE approach.

I agree here. I don't have a problem with characters having "realistic" stats rather than optimized ones, so long as they can still perform their role. Stats being generally less important in Pillars (for better or for worse) does make it easier to fit most any NPC into any party, but I never had a problem with characters with questionable stat distribution (Aerie, freaking Khalid, etc) in the BG games, either. Maybe because it was a lot easier to 'fix' their stats with items and long-term buffs.

 

 

 

@Ninjamestari would you mind providing a spreadsheet of the math that explicitly proves what your saying. Preferrably one that shows performance breakdown per character per role, also considering applicable equipment and spell effects? If your going to demand as much from others we shouldnt expect less from you concerning your assertions. Not to mention we could end this silly arguement of opinions on stats and builds which is all personal preference when it come down to it.

So you want proof that a wizard with 12 perception and 12 might deals less damage than a wizard with 18 in both? You need proof that a character that can engage two enemies and has lower deflection (Pallegina) cannot tank as effectively as a charcter that can engage 4 enemies and has higher deflection (Eder)? Or that either of those could even hold a candle to a properly min-maxed fighter tank build? I mean seriously?

high probability does not equal concrete truth only that it may be more likely true than not. It remains as such unitl observable evidence is presented to take it out of the realm of probability.

Dude... come on. Do you really need someone to run the math for you why a character with 18 Might and 18 Perception is going to deal more direct damage than a character with 12 Might and 12 Perception?

No I dont, it was more making a point about him asking the same kind of ridiculousness from others on something that its value is totally subjective in the first place. He was assigning concrete value to his opinions as being fact without presenting any evidence but then requiring others to provide evidence for their claims and that their lack of(or unwillingness to provide) evidence was proof of his own opinion as fact.

[draego]

Right, but I find Pillars stats are terrible for roleplaying because they're so meaningless.  A Fighter with low Strength requires a different feat build and plan than a Fighter with high Strength - but can still be useful, particularly where archetypes (a Pathfinder feature that replaces some class abilities with others) are concerned.  For example, a Tactician Fighter highly values Intelligence because they get more class skills, more skill points, and have a lot more use for those skills - if you want to invest in Diplomacy (one of the skills they gain as a class skill), you'll also value Charisma.

 

Pillars is better in some ways than the *old* D&D games but I find it to be incredibly weak compared to Pathfinder and even 5th Edition in most ways.  Maybe Pillars 2 will address that.  I hope so.

 

And i respect that. I may have been more combative than i was really trying to be. And you are right I am sure there some changes in POE2 that would improve the game that i never even thought of since i am not a dev or have not played role playing games outside video games.  i did enjoy the role play value of POE stats. I am glad they are adding more non combat skills to help flesh out your characters build to improve ability to role play. Anything that helps you flesh out your character role would be welcome.

Edited April 5, 2017 by draego

[PizzaSHARK]

 

 

 

 

• The companions are not perfectly optimized. For some people, this is a pretty big deal. I like to think of it as a touch of realism, as people aren’t perfectly optimized for their jobs in real life

This was a bigger problem in BG2, where players would select companions based on their stats rather than their interactions. With PoE, that is less of an issue. Most discussions seem to focus on the persona of the companion. I'd say that's a win for the PoE approach.

I agree here. I don't have a problem with characters having "realistic" stats rather than optimized ones, so long as they can still perform their role. Stats being generally less important in Pillars (for better or for worse) does make it easier to fit most any NPC into any party, but I never had a problem with characters with questionable stat distribution (Aerie, freaking Khalid, etc) in the BG games, either. Maybe because it was a lot easier to 'fix' their stats with items and long-term buffs.

 

 

 

@Ninjamestari would you mind providing a spreadsheet of the math that explicitly proves what your saying. Preferrably one that shows performance breakdown per character per role, also considering applicable equipment and spell effects? If your going to demand as much from others we shouldnt expect less from you concerning your assertions. Not to mention we could end this silly arguement of opinions on stats and builds which is all personal preference when it come down to it.

So you want proof that a wizard with 12 perception and 12 might deals less damage than a wizard with 18 in both? You need proof that a character that can engage two enemies and has lower deflection (Pallegina) cannot tank as effectively as a charcter that can engage 4 enemies and has higher deflection (Eder)? Or that either of those could even hold a candle to a properly min-maxed fighter tank build? I mean seriously?

high probability does not equal concrete truth only that it may be more likely true than not. It remains as such unitl observable evidence is presented to take it out of the realm of probability.

Dude... come on. Do you really need someone to run the math for you why a character with 18 Might and 18 Perception is going to deal more direct damage than a character with 12 Might and 12 Perception?

No I dont, it was more making a point about him asking the same kind of ridiculousness from others on something that its value is totally subjective in the first place. He was assigning concrete value to his opinions as being fact without presenting any evidence but then requiring others to provide evidence for their claims and that their lack of(or unwillingness to provide) evidence was proof of his own opinion as fact.

 

 

You don't need to present supporting evidence if your argument makes logical sense.  A character with higher accuracy and a higher bonus to damage is naturally going to deal more damage than a character with low accuracy and low bonus to damage.

[Ninjamestari]

No I dont, it was more making a point about him asking the same kind of ridiculousness from others on something that its value is totally subjective in the first place. He was assigning concrete value to his opinions as being fact without presenting any evidence but then requiring others to provide evidence for their claims and that their lack of(or unwillingness to provide) evidence was proof of his own opinion as fact.

 

 

I suspected that your intentions were not honest. I'm glad you're willing to admit that. I've found that people defending the system rarely do, due to the fact that their arguments are based on sentiment and not reality. When faced with arguments they can't deal with honestly, they tend to act like you did.

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

 

 

 

• The companions are not perfectly optimized. For some people, this is a pretty big deal. I like to think of it as a touch of realism, as people aren’t perfectly optimized for their jobs in real life

This was a bigger problem in BG2, where players would select companions based on their stats rather than their interactions. With PoE, that is less of an issue. Most discussions seem to focus on the persona of the companion. I'd say that's a win for the PoE approach.

I agree here. I don't have a problem with characters having "realistic" stats rather than optimized ones, so long as they can still perform their role. Stats being generally less important in Pillars (for better or for worse) does make it easier to fit most any NPC into any party, but I never had a problem with characters with questionable stat distribution (Aerie, freaking Khalid, etc) in the BG games, either. Maybe because it was a lot easier to 'fix' their stats with items and long-term buffs.

 

 

 

@Ninjamestari would you mind providing a spreadsheet of the math that explicitly proves what your saying. Preferrably one that shows performance breakdown per character per role, also considering applicable equipment and spell effects? If your going to demand as much from others we shouldnt expect less from you concerning your assertions. Not to mention we could end this silly arguement of opinions on stats and builds which is all personal preference when it come down to it.

So you want proof that a wizard with 12 perception and 12 might deals less damage than a wizard with 18 in both? You need proof that a character that can engage two enemies and has lower deflection (Pallegina) cannot tank as effectively as a charcter that can engage 4 enemies and has higher deflection (Eder)? Or that either of those could even hold a candle to a properly min-maxed fighter tank build? I mean seriously?

high probability does not equal concrete truth only that it may be more likely true than not. It remains as such unitl observable evidence is presented to take it out of the realm of probability.

Dude... come on. Do you really need someone to run the math for you why a character with 18 Might and 18 Perception is going to deal more direct damage than a character with 12 Might and 12 Perception?

No I dont, it was more making a point about him asking the same kind of ridiculousness from others on something that its value is totally subjective in the first place. He was assigning concrete value to his opinions as being fact without presenting any evidence but then requiring others to provide evidence for their claims and that their lack of(or unwillingness to provide) evidence was proof of his own opinion as fact.

You don't need to present supporting evidence if your argument makes logical sense. A character with higher accuracy and a higher bonus to damage is naturally going to deal more damage than a character with low accuracy and low bonus to damage.

If your going to state it as undeniable fact without evidence and dimiss anyone elses opinion then yes you better regardless of a high probability of being right. but thats neither here nor there and wasnt what I was getting at either.

[Ninjamestari]

If your going to state it as undeniable fact without evidence and dimiss anyone elses opinion then yes you better regardless of a high probability of being right. but thats neither here nor there and wasnt what I was getting at either.

 

 

Perhaps you should go back to school so you can learn to use terms like "high probability" in a proper context. A wizard with 18 might and 18 perception does better damage than wizard with 12/12, that is an undeniable fact, and you're trying to deny that. I really don't appreciate your dishonest arguments.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[draego]

 

If your going to state it as undeniable fact without evidence and dimiss anyone elses opinion then yes you better regardless of a high probability of being right. but thats neither here nor there and wasnt what I was getting at either.

 

 

Perhaps you should go back to school so you can learn to use terms like "high probability" in a proper context. A wizard with 18 might and 18 perception does better damage than wizard with 12/12. I really don't appreciate your dishonest arguments.

 

 

No one every was arguing this but you. So i dont why you keep saying this stuff. Once again you made up something i never posted about aloth. And once again i a sorry you misunderstood my post. 

Edited April 5, 2017 by draego

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

If your going to state it as undeniable fact without evidence and dimiss anyone elses opinion then yes you better regardless of a high probability of being right. but thats neither here nor there and wasnt what I was getting at either.

 

Perhaps you should go back to school so you can learn to use terms like "high probability" in a proper context. A wizard with 18 might and 18 perception does better damage than wizard with 12/12. I really don't appreciate your dishonest arguments.

No one every was arguing this but you. So i dont why you keep saying this stuff. Once again you made up something i never posted about aloth. And once again i a sorry you misunderstood my post.

^this

[Amentep]

 

 

If your going to state it as undeniable fact without evidence and dimiss anyone elses opinion then yes you better regardless of a high probability of being right. but thats neither here nor there and wasnt what I was getting at either.

 

 

Perhaps you should go back to school so you can learn to use terms like "high probability" in a proper context. A wizard with 18 might and 18 perception does better damage than wizard with 12/12. I really don't appreciate your dishonest arguments.

 

 

No one every was arguing this but you. So i dont why you keep saying this stuff.

 

 

If you go back, this line of inquiry started due to an assertion about Aloth being less-optimal as DPS vs control wizard based on stats made against an argument that he was as good a DPS as anyone else in the party, which is where the 12/12 & 18/18 example comes from.

 

Ultimately I'm not sure arguing a normal distribution really gets anyone anywhere. If you follow the system, the statistics tells us that a 12 perception 12 might wizard will deal less damage than the one with 18 in both on average.  The formulas will provide a range and if the RNG is truly random that range will provide a normal distribution which, when compared, will have the normal distribution shifted higher on the 18 character when compared to the 12 one.

 

This again assumes the RNG is indeed random.

 

The problem is I think that while the argument made was statistical ('Aloth is just as good at DPS'), I think the argument on hand wasn't about statistics, but about whether the character was "good" or not.

Or to put it another way, I think the problem lies in an argument about whether being less optimized for a specific role is a value judgement about that character in that role.  If Aloth's DPS is the same as my rogue's DPS, then my rogue - like Aloth - isn't built in a way that maximizes the characters for a  DPS role.  That to me doesn't mean the character is bad (unless your goal was to build a high DPS rogue).  Given the make-up of the party, the difficulty setting, etc., the character may actually be quite serviceable and fulfill a role within the party.  So that Aloth is less-optimal in a role doesn't mean that he couldn't have utility in that role relative to the party.

 

Further there's the question of whether the ability to create less viable builds is inherently a problem within the system.  I'd argue that its a natural consequence of trying to build characters to not have dump stats.  If the effort is to devalue min-maxing, then the value is going to be either towards jack-of-all-trades where the skills show limited variance or building a character towards a specific goal in mind and applying the stats in ways that will least penalize that role.

[Ninjamestari]

No one every was arguing this but you. So i dont why you keep saying this stuff. Once again you made up something i never posted about aloth. And once again i a sorry you misunderstood my post. 

 

 

You, or someone, did argue against the fact that Aloth being the main dps in a party doesn't make him a good dps. Don't try to pretend this didn't happen, we can go back to quote those old posts if you want, they're still here. Shame on you, at least have the integrity to stand by your words or admit your mistake.

[draego]

 

No one every was arguing this but you. So i dont why you keep saying this stuff. Once again you made up something i never posted about aloth. And once again i a sorry you misunderstood my post. 

 

 

You, or someone, did argue against the fact that Aloth being the main dps in a party doesn't make him a good dps. Don't try to pretend this didn't happen, we can go back to quote those old posts if you want, they're still here. Shame on you, at least have the integrity to stand by your words or admit your mistake.

 

 

I said i used him primarily as a dps wizard and he turned out to be good at it (not the best, not as good as a min maxer pc, not better than if he had 18 might). As in he was first or second in damage in that game i roled with him, thats it. That was my metric of why i think the stats are not as important as some posters keep saying they are.I was using this as an example that you dont have to setup the stats in an optimal manner to have that character fulfill that role of dps (especially for a wizard or druid for that matter). The aoe and single target spells are really powerful whether you get a 18% damage bust from 6 might between 12 and 18.

 

Now i understand lots of people have a problem with the stats being devalued as compared to the spells, gear, and abilities. That is fine and great and subjective.

 

You kept posting stuff to make the point below:

 

100% this. PoE traded away the class-specific min-max distribution in favor of a role specific min-max distribution, which is an even worse thing. Objectively speaking, the PoE stat system doesn't achieve a single goal it set out to achieve. It's just another min-max system, but feels more like an MMO than an RPG. You know, you're a tank, max out CON and RES and PER, kinda the same as with WoW, max out your STA and DEF and get to the HIT cap.

 

And i was using aloth as an example that it wasnt true. even though he is better suited for cc you could just use him to cast dps spells primarily and he would be good at it. As in not suck, as in the stats wouldn't stop you from doing that. You keep making stuff up to move the goal post or metrics of why i couldn't do this. But i did do this in one of my playthroughs for the whole game which shows it possible. I could even build aloth as a frontline off tank and he would be good at that. I am being a little unfair here because wizard are so powerful and versatile but it still proves my point

 

I dont know why it bothers you so much that someone has the nerve to not min max in the way you feel they should have or that they didn't follow your arbitrary rules as to what makes a good tank or dps character. My playthroughs are proof the stats allow what i am saying. If you were correct then i shouldn't be able to damage enemies alot with aloth but i did or palligina wouldnt be able soak up damage and engage first mutiple enemies without dying alot but she did. And the rest of my post was just trying to show you that your conception of what stats i have to use to play certain roles in this game is wrong because i was able to do the opposite of what you keep saying.

 

I am just trying to expand you mind to what builds are possible to play the game. You have a very restricted view of what stats you 'must' take to be a tank, or dps, or ranged, or whatever.

 

I know we are just going to have to disagree. i have obviously failed to prove to you that you dont have to take certain stats for certain roles (tanks, dps, ranged, etc) in your party. that is life. oh well you cant win them all.

Edited April 5, 2017 by draego

[Ninjamestari]

 

 

If you can imagine Might only as physical strength, then your assumptions about a PoE wizard with high Might are simply wrong. He didn't just study books all the time; if your wizard has high Might, then obviously his training included a lot of physical exercise. If you can't imagine a wizard in the gym or in boot camp, then don't give them high Might.

Actually my dumbass wizard probably never studied a single book; he's a steroid-pumped gym-monster through and though, and is probably too stupid to even tell different letters apart, let alone read or write.

 

I really don't see a problem with this. *shrug*

 

Also, I seriously doubt that assertion that if Aloth is the main DPS character, the rest must suck, would hold up to actual scrutiny.

 

 

 

This was the original argument, you merely extended that to tanking by stating that you can make a non min-max tank that is viable, Pallegina for example. I tried to explain to you that this wasn't the case being discussed, as we were making comparisons, not assessing viability. I obviously forgot who had said what, and you obviously were not the problem child here. That honor goes to this guy: 

 

 

 

@Ninjamestari would you mind providing a spreadsheet of the math that explicitly proves what your saying. Preferrably one that shows performance breakdown per character per role, also considering applicable equipment and spell effects? If your going to demand as much from others we shouldnt expect less from you concerning your assertions. Not to mention we could end this silly arguement of opinions on stats and builds which is all personal preference when it come down to it.

So you want proof that a wizard with 12 perception and 12 might deals less damage than a wizard with 18 in both? You need proof that a character that can engage two enemies and has lower deflection (Pallegina) cannot tank as effectively as a charcter that can engage 4 enemies and has higher deflection (Eder)? Or that either of those could even hold a candle to a properly min-maxed fighter tank build? I mean seriously?

high probability does not equal concrete truth only that it may be more likely true than not. It remains as such unitl observable evidence is presented to take it out of the realm of probability.

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 That honor goes to this guy: 

 

 

 

@Ninjamestari would you mind providing a spreadsheet of the math that explicitly proves what your saying. Preferrably one that shows performance breakdown per character per role, also considering applicable equipment and spell effects? If your going to demand as much from others we shouldnt expect less from you concerning your assertions. Not to mention we could end this silly arguement of opinions on stats and builds which is all personal preference when it come down to it.

So you want proof that a wizard with 12 perception and 12 might deals less damage than a wizard with 18 in both? You need proof that a character that can engage two enemies and has lower deflection (Pallegina) cannot tank as effectively as a charcter that can engage 4 enemies and has higher deflection (Eder)? Or that either of those could even hold a candle to a properly min-maxed fighter tank build? I mean seriously?

high probability does not equal concrete truth only that it may be more likely true than not. It remains as such unitl observable evidence is presented to take it out of the realm of probability.

 

 

 

 

In all fairness, "deals more damage" is not necessarily the most helpful way to assess a DPS wizard's effectiveness. The answer to "how many spell slots do I need to spend to kill these opponents?" can be the same for the Mig 12 Per 12 wizard who deals 50% of the target's health with a single spell as it is for the Mig 18 Per 18 wizard who manages to get a few lucky crits in and deals 70% instead.

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

 

If you can imagine Might only as physical strength, then your assumptions about a PoE wizard with high Might are simply wrong. He didn't just study books all the time; if your wizard has high Might, then obviously his training included a lot of physical exercise. If you can't imagine a wizard in the gym or in boot camp, then don't give them high Might.

Actually my dumbass wizard probably never studied a single book; he's a steroid-pumped gym-monster through and though, and is probably too stupid to even tell different letters apart, let alone read or write.

I really don't see a problem with this. *shrug*

 

Also, I seriously doubt that assertion that if Aloth is the main DPS character, the rest must suck, would hold up to actual scrutiny.

 

This was the original argument, you merely extended that to tanking by stating that you can make a non min-max tank that is viable, Pallegina for example. I tried to explain to you that this wasn't the case being discussed, as we were making comparisons, not assessing viability. I obviously forgot who had said what, and you obviously were not the problem child here. That honor goes to this guy:

 

 

@Ninjamestari would you mind providing a spreadsheet of the math that explicitly proves what your saying. Preferrably one that shows performance breakdown per character per role, also considering applicable equipment and spell effects? If your going to demand as much from others we shouldnt expect less from you concerning your assertions. Not to mention we could end this silly arguement of opinions on stats and builds which is all personal preference when it come down to it.

So you want proof that a wizard with 12 perception and 12 might deals less damage than a wizard with 18 in both? You need proof that a character that can engage two enemies and has lower deflection (Pallegina) cannot tank as effectively as a charcter that can engage 4 enemies and has higher deflection (Eder)? Or that either of those could even hold a candle to a properly min-maxed fighter tank build? I mean seriously?

high probability does not equal concrete truth only that it may be more likely true than not. It remains as such unitl observable evidence is presented to take it out of the realm of probability.

Yes cause I totally and specifically mentioned Aloth and dps.... you were being d*ck plain and simple and totally disregarding everyone elses opinion on the basis that your build philosphy was undeniable "because reasons" and then got all over people for not providing proof of their opinion. mine was an argument of process and nothing to do with the arguement itself which actually had nothing to do with Aloth being a dps god... Which was what I have been trying to get across more than once. anyway, over it think the topic has derailed enough.