Removing non class specific talents was a bad idea

[Katarack21]

we explicit stated the importance o' feel. nevertheless, our query remains: how should the developer judge competing feel arguments?

 

HA! Good Fun!

The job of a game maker is, in part, to make arbitrary decisions revolving what kind of game they want to make.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Katarack21

[Gromnir]

 

we explicit stated the importance o' feel. nevertheless, our query remains: how should the developer judge competing feel arguments?

 

HA! Good Fun!

The job of a game maker is, in part, to make arbitrary decisions revolving what kind of game they want to make.

 

*sigh*

 

perhaps you genuine believe the developers should make fundamental design decisions based on whim. am doubting you will find many who agree.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Answermancer]

 

At the most basic level it all comes down to feels.

while this observation is failing from a fair bit o' reductio ad absurdum, it is also not complete wrong. as we observed earlier, ignoring feel is as much a mistake as is simple abandoning rational and reasonable. ultimately, regardless o' whether a game system objective provides more options and flexibility, if the folks playing and purchasing feel more limited, then the additional options is wasted.  am not denying the importance o' feel.  we explicit stated the importance o' feel.  nevertheless,  our query remains: how should the developer judge competing feel arguments?

 

In what way does the observation fail from reductio ad absurdum. Why make dismissive and wholly unqualified claims like this about about someone's statement.

 

And it is a developers job precisely to use their experience and judgment to balance competing feel arguments (among other things). That's why they are paid for it.

 

 

perhaps you genuine believe the developers should make fundamental design decisions based on whim. am doubting you will find many who agree.

 

It has nothing to do with whims. Again, experience and judgment, and above all iteration.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Answermancer

[theBalthazar]

I feel POE2 need more choices, any kind. I think general talents like POE1 + Balancing them with active abilities (because shared ressources) can improve the game strongly.

 

RPG like NWN1/2/Original Sin etc = build for me (concept of pleasure). Strictly personal. I want this because I feel it's good for the rpgs I usually like. It's my subjectivity, and no one can judge it.

 

End of the debate : p

Edited November 22, 2017 by theBalthazar

[IndiraLightfoot]

I feel POE2 need more choices, any kind. I think general talents like POE1 + Balancing them with active abilities (because shared ressources) can improve the game strongly.

 

RPG like NWN1/2/Original Sin etc = build for me (concept of pleasure). Strictly personal. I want this because I feel it's good for the rpgs I usually like. It's my subjectivity, and no one can judge it.

 

End of the debate : p

Hey there, soulmate!

[Katarack21]

 

 

we explicit stated the importance o' feel. nevertheless, our query remains: how should the developer judge competing feel arguments?

HA! Good Fun!

 

The job of a game maker is, in part, to make arbitrary decisions revolving what kind of game they want to make.

 

*sigh*

 

perhaps you genuine believe the developers should make fundamental design decisions based on whim. am doubting you will find many who agree.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

whim/(h)wim/

noun

 

a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained.

 

I never said based on "whim". I said arbitrary decisions based on what kind of game they intend to make is part of making games. Do you equate that with unexplained sudden changes of mind? Because that sounds like a terrible way to make games.

[Gromnir]

 

 

At the most basic level it all comes down to feels.

while this observation is failing from a fair bit o' reductio ad absurdum, it is also not complete wrong. as we observed earlier, ignoring feel is as much a mistake as is simple abandoning rational and reasonable. ultimately, regardless o' whether a game system objective provides more options and flexibility, if the folks playing and purchasing feel more limited, then the additional options is wasted.  am not denying the importance o' feel.  we explicit stated the importance o' feel.  nevertheless,  our query remains: how should the developer judge competing feel arguments?

 

In what way does the observation fail from reductio ad absurdum. Why make dismissive and wholly unqualified claims like this about about someone's statement.

 

And it is a developers job precisely to use their experience and judgment to balance competing feel arguments (among other things). That's why they are paid for it.

 

 

perhaps you genuine believe the developers should make fundamental design decisions based on whim. am doubting you will find many who agree.

 

It has nothing to do with whims. Again, experience and judgment, and above all iteration.

 

if is based on judgement and experience, then is not actual arbitrary, is it?  the fact the developer must use own judgement as part o' the equation it does not mean everything ultimate comes down to feels. absurd.  is the core o' the fallacy.  use extreme example: if after careful analysis one comes up with two very different solutions to a problem and then tosses a coin to choose 'tween final two options. to suggest "it all comes down to feels" is misleading, no?  is ignoring all the hard and objective analysis which went into the decision making process.

 

"how should the developer judge competing feel arguments?"

 

for poe, josh would mention how the developers had hard data feedback to be observing just how people play games.  poe beta has some kinda telemetry, yes?  the developers is using statistics and cold-hard numbers to see just how folks is playing.  to somehow suggest that the judgement element renders all decisions arbitrary is reductio ad absurdum defined.

 

very few rule mechanics decisions is gonna be genuine described as arbitrary... not without reductio ad absurdum fueling.

 

silliness.

 

and to kat21

 

ar·bi·trar·y

ˈärbəˌtrerē/Submit

adjective

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

 

HA Good Fun!

Edited November 22, 2017 by Gromnir

[Katarack21]

You know it's a lot easier to have these long debates when I'm not sitting on my phone at my friends house helping clean for Thanksgiving. :-/

[MortyTheGobbo]

It's frankly amazing to me that people bring up Neverwinter Nights 2, of all games, as an example of good design or variety. 3.5 D&D is bad enough on tabletop; bringing it to a computer game was an unmitigated disaster.

[theBalthazar]

unmitigated disaster.

 

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/neverwinter-nights-2

 

82 %. A unmitigated disaster, indeed.

[Gromnir]

You know it's a lot easier to have these long debates when I'm not sitting on my phone at my friends house helping clean for Thanksgiving. :-/

distractedness doesn't make you any less wrong.

 

am kidding... at least a little.

 

even so, to suggest that arbitrary is the way developers address design choices and decisions is, at best, misleading. the simple recognition o' developer judgment being a factor in most design decisions does not by any stretch o' the imagination render all such decisions arbitrary. 

 

"At the most basic level it all comes down to feels."  

 

the logic is busted but the observations is not entire wrong.  we already agreed that feel is important, but to suggest arbitrary is what these choices do and should "come down to" is gonna be finding very few developers in agreement.

 

absurd.

 

am suspecting folks is arguing just to argue.

 

that being said, happy thanksgiving.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[MortyTheGobbo]

 

unmitigated disaster.

 

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/neverwinter-nights-2

 

82 %. A unmitigated disaster, indeed.

 

 

Are we really going with an appeal to popularity? There's plenty of very popular things that I consider bad. Does Twilight ring any bells? I consider the mechanical side of NWN2 to be very poor, not that the plot of the main campaign is any better.

[Katarack21]

You can objectively show how many options a system has or how balanced it is. You can not objectively show whether a system is good, bad, or "an unmitigated disaster". That's an opinion.

[Gromnir]

 

 

unmitigated disaster.

 

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/neverwinter-nights-2

 

82 %. A unmitigated disaster, indeed.

 

 

Are we really going with an appeal to popularity? There's plenty of very popular things that I consider bad. Does Twilight ring any bells? I consider the mechanical side of NWN2 to be very poor, not that the plot of the main campaign is any better.

 

last post for us before am out-of-town,

 

am thinking obsidian did a fair job with nwn2, but they were limited by the constraints of d&d 3.5.  am knowing a few current obsidian developers who see 3.5 prestige classes, no-brainer feats, essential ability scores, threshold bab/saves/sr, unbalanced spells and general bloat as pretty much antithetical to good crpg design.  the developers am personal having communicated with are not gonna be voluntarily modeling much o' deadfire 'pon 3.5 d&d.  

 

is counter-intuitive, but you can build a good game with wonky mechanics.  as well beloved as is fallout by its cult following, it were a curious system with much room for improvement.  obsidian developers once noted how in spite o' all the possible fallout builds, more than 80% o' folks played one of 7 general builds. outdoorsman skill?  am thinking somebody, years after the game's release, finally discovered how the only thing outdoorsman did were reduce random event rock-fall injuries and dehydration. useless skill which sounded keen from the description.  why have such in a game? fallout were objective a poor balanced system. hundreds o' other issues we could name, but folks love fallout.  inspite o' much/most o' fallout being horrible broken, it did a few important things right, and the setting were kewl. 

 

a terrible system can produce a great game.  well designed content makes up for many mechanics shortcomings.  our favorite pnp campaign evar were a tunnels and trolls campaign...we kid you not.  weren't the mechanics but the content which made our TnT campaign so great.

 

anywho, happy thanksgiving to all.  back in a few days.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am wondering how many folks actual heard o' tunnels and trolls 'fore we mentioned.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Gromnir

[Katarack21]

I've heard of it, but like AD&D 1st Edition I wasn't even alive when it was made. For what it's worth, my favorite campaign has been in Exalted, which is of course horribly, horribly broken as a system.

[MortyTheGobbo]

If people liked NWN2, that's their prerogative. But when they try to present it as an example of a balanced and varied system Deadfire should emulate, well, we run into problems. NWN2 is very unbalanced, like D&D 3E in general. And like 3E D&D, the variety available is hugely dependent on whether or not you use magic. The way it adapts the rules into a RTWP computer game is also problematic. Transplanting tabletop rules into video games is difficult at best in general, which is why I appreciate games like Pillars or Shadowrun Returns that focus on giving us the spirit of a game without all the rules.

[Katarack21]

Who said NWN 2 was balanced? I saw people talking about build diversity, which is only tangentially related to being balanced. You have *lots* of build options in NWN 2; those build options are not equal to each other, but that's a seperate thing...and whether that is a problem is up to how you feel. For some players, that's not a concern.

[Wormerine]

So, I'm very much interested in your thoughts on how the warrior classes can be fixed so that they can effectively fill caster roles in parties, going beyond just changing up a few talents. Tell me how a party with no spellcasters can do just fine in PoE2?

An expanded granadeer set of perks?

 

For now let’s not panic and see how the next update will look like. I have a feeling that things won’t change all that much. It doesn’t seem like one will be able to pick too many of those warrior passives and skills which really make warriors tick right now (stances) are theirs only.

 

I am more worried for rangers. They just don’t seem really fun right now. Pretty much limited to ranged, either long ranged active skills, or dull passives. Right now I can see them as a multiclass potential only.

[DigitalCrack]

If people liked NWN2, that's their prerogative. But when they try to present it as an example of a balanced and varied system Deadfire should emulate, well, we run into problems. NWN2 is very unbalanced, like D&D 3E in general. And like 3E D&D, the variety available is hugely dependent on whether or not you use magic. The way it adapts the rules into a RTWP computer game is also problematic. Transplanting tabletop rules into video games is difficult at best in general, which is why I appreciate games like Pillars or Shadowrun Returns that focus on giving us the spirit of a game without all the rules.

It was very enjoyable to play and thats why it succeeded. shocker that people like fun games and balanced doesnt always equate to fun. A certain level of inbalance is required for games to feel fun imo

[Wormerine]

Liked NWN2 a lot, system itself not so much.

[CENIC]

Oh god, I couldn't even figure out how to prestige properly without spending hours reading guides! 

But no game since then has come close to capturing the epic feel of Lord of the Rings for me. Well... maybe Pillars.

[Katarack21]

Personally, I love 3.5. It's my favorite system, unbalance and all.

[Ganrich]

 

If people liked NWN2, that's their prerogative. But when they try to present it as an example of a balanced and varied system Deadfire should emulate, well, we run into problems. NWN2 is very unbalanced, like D&D 3E in general. And like 3E D&D, the variety available is hugely dependent on whether or not you use magic. The way it adapts the rules into a RTWP computer game is also problematic. Transplanting tabletop rules into video games is difficult at best in general, which is why I appreciate games like Pillars or Shadowrun Returns that focus on giving us the spirit of a game without all the rules.

It was very enjoyable to play and thats why it succeeded. shocker that people like fun games and balanced doesnt always equate to fun. A certain level of inbalance is required for games to feel fun imo

There are a lot of older games (PC, console, or P&P) that have a following despite their flaws. Both NWN games are imperfect, but great. Each have a handful of great mod-campaigns and with their build diversity have had a lot of longevity. Also, MotB is still fantastic. I have no qualms about reinstalling NWN2 to go through MotB again every once and a while.

 

I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread: 3.5s issues stem from three things, primarily.

 

One is skill points. You were capped at 3 + class level in a class skill, and cross-class skills were half that (?) iirc. Also x-class skills required double the skill points to increase iirc. So, players would save skill points from class A to use on Class B's level up. This allowed you to maximize skill points, but required taking the class at the appropriate character level. It was a convoluted system that made people building a min/max build jump through a lot of hoops.

 

The other issue is gaming feats where people would take a class like fighter, and level it up at a particular point to gain a feat at what would normally be a dead level for them. It would be a level that they didn't get a feat, spells, or abilities with their other class. This kept the power curve steady. You are a 3/3 wizard fighter, and you take fighter at level up because you gain weapon spec with it vs not gaining a new spell level. This is a poor example.

 

The last was grossly insane level 1 abilities like the Shadow Dancer's Hide in Plain Sight. This caused single level dips in a PrC just for that one ability.

 

Let's not talke about the Red Dragon Desciple, tyvm.

 

Deadfire won't allow up to 4 classes to be multiclassed, but only two. That combined with how power levels are handled would make single level dips very rare. Unless you use those single dips for a buff or two from a caster. Taking a level of Chanter to gain a buff Chant and invocation might happen periodically, but I bet those high level pure class abilities would be worth more than what the Chanter single dip would give.

 

The skill system can't be gamed like 3.5, and the feat/talent system can't be gamed the same way. So, even if Obsidian went a more 3.5 route the major issues with build complexity that many have won't be a problem. That said, there might be a few new ways to game it, but likely won't be nearly as meticulously planned out like the NWN builds were. To each their own. I hate AD&D's MC system, but I am ok with Deadfire ATM. I'd still prefer a more 3.5 approach, but not enough to complain too much about what we have.

[Katarack21]

Shadow Dancer was a prestige class. Thanks to the skill cap you mentioned, it can be taken no sooner than level 6, making Hide in Plain Sight a level six ability. That's still broken, but not as broken as "level 1 ability" implies.

[KDubya]

The multiclassing here is much better than what NWN2 had.

 

Here I want to make a fighter/mage I select that at creation and then choose from either for abilities as I level up. Very simple yet by choosing more or less from each class I can tailor make what I want.

 

In NWN2 you needed to use a character builder and follow it exactly in order to take what was needed, when needed in order to qualify for the next perk. There was optimal and everything else was gimped.