The Entrapment and Anti-Creativity Nature of Level-Based Weapon Professioncy

[Lord_Mord]

As this is not WoW, there is a limited amount of enemies available in the game. There is no opportunity for pointless grinding unless you start killing NPCs or searching the woods for every last Xaurip. Who would do such a stupid thing in this kind of game?

So you have the option to use your long sword in every battle, to get better at it, or switch your weapon from time to time, to get better at multiple weapons. Basically that is the same thing as having points for weapon specialisation with the only difference, that your use of weapons in the game better reflects your needs.

Wait ... as I write those lines, I realise that this is bull****. Imagine a game full of spiders. You'll use spider bane all the time, so you would get better at bastard swords (or whatever spider bane was). Than you meet the big dragon and you want to use your twohander. But as you fought spiders all the time, you're ****ty at using twohanders. You didn't need to be good at bastard swords to fight silly spiders, so in a point based system you would have used spider bane against spiders but invested all those points into twohanders to be really good at the important fights. So a usage based system prevents you from using specialised weapons.

[Gfted1]

As this is not WoW, there is a limited amount of enemies available in the game. There is no opportunity for pointless grinding unless you start killing NPCs or searching the woods for every last Xaurip. Who would do such a stupid thing in this kind of game?

Iirc, kill XP was removed from the game for EXACTLY this reason. That and it made people have the sad's because it would somehow compel them to kill every last living organism in the game. True story.

[rjshae]

I find it much more odd they didn't include retraining from the start. It's an expected feature in RPGs nowadays, and for a good reason. It means you can develop your character the way you want, without worrying that you're stumbling into a bad decision.

 

I always thought that allowing respec was a bit daft. What's the point of allowing choice if there are no consequences? At least provide a plausible in-game mechanism for it... like cipher mind surgery... or Futurama-style brain slugs.

[MortyTheGobbo]

I think I can live without consequences of picking the wrong option when making my first character. Or making a character type I've never played before. I enjoy being able to advance my characters without worrying I'll bungle something up if I don't plan it painstakingly. Which, again, isn't really an option without playing the game at least twice or following Internet guides. You don't have to use it if its existence offends you.

 

Also, just to skewer the "choices" chestnut - since it's a level-based game with a set number of abilities and talents you can have at any given time, the choice is there anyway.

Edited July 24, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[teknoman2]

in a party based rpg, there is no real problem for choosing one type of weapon over another, because the super weapon you can't use can probably be used by another party member. after all its about synergy of the party and not about making the most OP main character.

[Heijoushin]

The thing is, when you have a usage based system, then every skill must become something that you can do/practice from the beginning (run, jump, slash, cast). But how to you learn something misc. or completely new? 

Let's say you have a monk. As he levels up, he might learn: Dragon Fist lvl 5, Mantis Claw lvl 8, Tiger Stance lvl 10. But what about a usage based game? It just ends up being: Punch --> brawl skill improves, punch --> brawl skill improves, punch --> brawl skill improves... etc. 

With level based systems, the sky is the limit with regard to what abilities you can create. With usage based systems, you've got to kind of keep things basic (or strictly separate them into categories) so that player can "practice" them. It's for this reason that I find skill sets in usage based games to be not very interesting. 

 

Of course, a usage based system is great for an open world game, where you might join the warriors, thieves, mages, and assassins guilds in the same playthrough. But it works less well for a focused, story-based RPG like Pillars. 

[teknoman2]

there is also the approach of gaining generic skill points by performing actions and then use them to buy certain skills.

in any case, there are many systems for the growth of characters in rpgs and each has its merits and drawbacks. its more important to use the one that fits the setting better than trying to find the perfect system

[Sannom]

* Soulbound weapon.

 

* Not Skyrim.

 

* Tactical challenge.  Not "wack a rock for 10hr."

 

I wish people actually read the post before commenting.  It'd actually lead to more fruitful discussions.  Sigh...  It seems people's brain turn off after they see "usage-based" then goes off hating it.  Then people saying it'll take 30 hour when I already said in the post that nobody wants skyrim's 3-hr-grind of crap.  

Soulbound weapon.  I thought RPG forum had people who can read, but... oh well.  I guess I have to use the keywords system and not bother forming complete sentences since that require too much attention span.

Not to be mean, but my problem is that I didn't understand your point even after reading the post. Notably, "tl;dr" is supposed to happen at the end of the post, not at the beginning, it's meant to clarify your point, not confuse it. You say "Not Skyrim", but you seem to want a "learn by doing" all the same. Reading it, it looks like you believe that characters in Deadfire will become better at one kind of weapon over the course of the game when we know that's not how it will work.

[Karkarov]

I find it much more odd they didn't include retraining from the start. It's an expected feature in RPGs nowadays, and for a good reason. It means you can develop your character the way you want, without worrying that you're stumbling into a bad decision.

A well made RPG doesn't have "bad decisions" in character development.  I still laugh when I read min maxer posts on Eternity, it is not needed at all, and the game is very beatable without it.

[MaxQuest]

A well made RPG doesn't have "bad decisions" in character development.

And PoE1 indeed does not have "non-viable decisions". Bow barbarians don't count)

 

I still laugh when I read min maxer posts on Eternity, it is not needed at all, and the game is very beatable without it.

That's the point of min-maxing... to make the game (or a specific encounter) as easy as possible.

 

And what does it mean "not needed"?  

Once you have beat the story, it's time to start and test the boundaries of the game, explore it's ins and outs, and check how far the optimization can go. Because... it's a pleasure in itself.

 

Also it's great when there comes a new difficulty with new patch or expansion. Like Dark Mode in Witcher 2.

Edited July 25, 2017 by MaxQuest

[rjshae]

The thing is, when you have a usage based system, then every skill must become something that you can do/practice from the beginning (run, jump, slash, cast). But how to you learn something misc. or completely new?

 

Find a trainer... or a lore book.

[Karkarov]

 

A well made RPG doesn't have "bad decisions" in character development.

And PoE1 indeed does not have "non-viable decisions". Bow barbarians don't count)

It has less optimal choices, not "non viable" choices.  Also min maxing is a matter of taste, you enjoy it, I don't.  I don't go out of my way to game the system if making normal choices is already good enough.  It probably didn't help that all the min maxers I grew up playing D&D with sucked all fun out of some games with retarded builds, and rules lawyering.

[MaxQuest]

 

And PoE1 indeed does not have "non-viable decisions". Bow barbarians don't count)

It has less optimal choices, not "non viable" choices.

 

That's what I said)

 

Also min maxing is a matter of taste, you enjoy it, I don't.  I don't go out of my way to game the system if making normal choices is already good enough.

Indeed I do. It's basically an optimization problem, and pleasure comes from solving it. But hey, there are different types of players, and that's ok. There are 4 types according to Bartle, and even more if you take a look at Quantic. And it's not like player tastes are binary (where you either like a specific facet or completely not), it's more percent based. (example).

 

I must note also, that min-maxing does not necessary lead to min-maxed stats. It depends on how the system is implemented.

Crudest example: if you have 10 points of something, and there is plain multiplication at hand: 5x5 > 2x8.

 

It probably didn't help that all the min maxers I grew up playing D&D with sucked all fun out of some games with retarded builds, and rules lawyering.

Now that's bad.

Min-maxing character's efficiency in a single-player game, or in a mmorpg which is based on competition is one thing.

Min-maxing in a cooperating tabletop is another. Tbh I never played any tabletop D&D games. But my understanding is that if you make a powerful but onesided character - GM will just bring harder enemies that target your weaknesses. Min-maxing the character/build in such environment does seem to have little returns. So one can focus on minmaxing the fun)

Edited July 26, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Karkarov]

Now that's bad.

Min-maxing character's efficiency in a single-player game, or in a mmorpg which is based on competition is one thing.

Min-maxing in a cooperating tabletop is another. Tbh I never played any tabletop D&D games. But my understanding is that if you make a powerful but onesided character - GM will just bring harder enemies that target your weaknesses. Min-maxing the character/build in such environment does seem to have little returns. So one can focus on minmaxing the fun)

Well the thing is, you are playing with a number of other players.  So the DM can target your weakness all they want, someone else on the team probably covers it.  Also any creative DM can make unwinnable encounters, but it isn't that much fun killing off your players believe it or not. 

 

The real skill was in building encounters that were challenging, but winnable.  The line between an easy win, and an unfair cheap encounter, is way finer than you think.

 

That is enough off topic about that though

[Madscientist]

I hope that PoE2 will not include skills based on usage. It sounds like it makes sense, but in most games (like the elder scrolls) it means that you repeat the same stuff all the time like in the example where you constantly damage and heal yourself.

 

PoE2 will be a game where you select a fixed number of skills/talents/abilities (or whatever they call it) when you level up.

You will also set your stats at at character creation and they do not change much when you play.

This means you should think what kind of char you want to have before you start playing. I also think this increases your identification with this char. In The Elder Scrolls, at the end you will have a char who is good in everything. In the beginning you might feel powerful, but usually it gets boring fast when you kill everything with one hit. By the way, a lot of people (including me) say that Tyranny was very easy after the first chapter and there are some obvious choices that make your char much more powerful (like using only 1 skill for dodge and parry).

 

My suggestion: PoE2 should be similar to PoE1 in this regard. You spend points when you level up and sometimes you get a bonus when you finish a quest. I liked the "leveling" for the soulbound items, but I do not want to have it for every type of item.

If you want to optimize immersion, I think you could add a "no respec button" before you start a new game. If you do not use this, you can respec yourself and party members in every inn for money.

[MortyTheGobbo]

There will be better choices and worse choices in every RPG. That includes Deadfire, no matter how the developers will try. No game will be perfectly balanced. More importantly, a choice doesn't need to be bad for me to want to change it. Maybe a given option just doesn't work like I hoped it would. Or I just don't like how it feels in actual play. Or I'm undecided about what sort of character I want to play, exactly. In all those cases, a respec option removes a lot of stress. I'd much rather change things than grit my teeth and stick with it. Or meticulously plan my build from beginning to end. Which isn't really an option during a first playthrough.

Edited July 27, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo