Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Grunker]

How is this a compromise and how is it bad?

Either, the best design was Int to damage, or it wasn't. If it was, then undoing that is a compromise. If it wasn't, then why did he begin with that design?

Judging by the complete lack of care at the Obsidian forums and the Kickstarter comments, no one gives a damn except a couple of grogs at the Codex.

I couldn't give less of a fuck, and you've seen me laugh at the people who get so mad about the name of a stat. I'm just calling you out on your hypocrisy.

 

[Nihiliste]

Other than the % modifiers, the current attribute systems seems to be an improvement over what they had before. I'm glad they're willing to scrap some of the ideas they have that suck (durability)

 

[Roguey]

How is this a compromise and how is it bad?

Either, the best design was Int to damage, or it wasn't. If it was, then undoing that is a compromise. If it wasn't, then why did he begin with that design?

It's just a name. Apparently no one at Obsidian had much of a problem with damage and healing being labelled as Int. And as always

I believe the most skillfully executed designs in any medium appear effortless and natural. In reality, it typically takes an enormous amount of time, effort, and iteration to reach that point. It is extraordinarily uncommon for good design to arrive from a single, artful stroke of the pen, though the best designs will appear to have been made in that way.

It's pretty fantastic how Josh is exposing the ugly process of making RPGs. As opposed to inXile who just dumped a whole bunch of bizarre ugliness on us .

 

[Grunker]

It's just a name. Apparently no one at Obsidian had much of a problem with damage and healing being labelled as Int. And as always

It's not just a name. They moved the damage amplifier from one ability score to another. Damage is no longer keyed to the same stat it was before. They didn't rename Int, they moved the damage amplification.

Again, I don't give a toss. You should.

 

[Roguey]

It's not just a name. They moved the damage amplifier from one ability score to another. Damage is no longer keyed to the same stat it was before. They didn't rename Int, they moved the damage amplification.

Again, I don't give a toss. You should.

Why should I? The previous system was fine but not perfect. This system is also fine but not perfect. Ignoring what it's called, there's still a stat that increases all damage and healing.

 

[Lhynn]

Why should I? The previous system was fine but not perfect. This system is also fine but not perfect. Ignoring what it's called, there's still a stat that increases all damage and healing.

You should because if it wasnt sawyer you would.
Or at least thats what hes trying to say i think. Hes probably right if thats what he meant.
Also, there are no perfect systems, and if there were, theyd be boring.

 

[Sensuki]

Suggestion for attribute system again: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64964-update-70-new-year-project-update/#entry1408389

(inb4 cofeetable and Roguey)

I still think it's a bit off and there's still a bit of a problem with Perception, but other than that, pretty good.

 

[MicoSelva]

There will be no non-combat stuff to do with strength in the game (as it seems), so whatever.

No, it'll be used in skill checks in dialogue and elsewhere.

The idea here is that the numbers are balanced such that mage spells do enough damage that you don't really NEED to increase Might much to do more damage than a Fighter.

But a wizard with higher might will deal more damage than one with lower might. So, I would assume most wizards in Dyrwood, or whatever it is called, look more like Conan the Barbarian than Merlin. It would make no sense for them not to train their might if that also increases their magic power.

Obviously, this could be explained in-lore, with magical energy being drawn from one's muscles (like in Dragon Ball!), but I doubt that's going to be the case.

Anyway, if the same attribute governs magical damage and affects Darklands-style cutscenes about moving boulders out of the way, I want a photoshop mix between Gandalf and The Hulk.

 

[Infinitron]

But a wizard with higher might will deal more damage than one with lower might. So, I would assume most wizards in Dyrwood, or whatever it is called, look more like Conan the Barbarian than Merlin.

Some do, but damage isn't everything, especially when you have enough of it already.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64964-update-70-new-year-project-update/page-6#entry1407842

That is a matter of tuning and overall impact. Just saying "Might affects damage" seems pretty compelling, but if I say, "Each point of Might adds 0.5% to Damage" that might be less valuable to players than each point of Constitution adding +10% to your Stamina and Health -- it doesn't/it won't, but that's just to illustrate the point.

Everyone wants to do or heal more damage if they can, but everyone also wants to score more hits than misses, wants to be able to take hits, wants to interrupt enemy attacks, wants their effects to be big and have long durations, and wants to be able to resist being interrupted. I'm not under any illusions that this will be perfectly, objectively balanced system, but I believe people will be able to make a lot of different and interesting builds by emphasizing different aspects of their characters.

Please look at the character sheet in this update. The listed character has a 13 Might, granting +26% to Damage. Let's assume you're Pro Mighty and have an 18 Might. That's +36%. Or you're an Ordinary Joe with a 10 Might, which is +20%. Let's say a normal Fireball does 5-30 damage. Pro Mighty does 6.8-40.8. Ordinary Joe does 6-36. Ordinary Joe does not need multiple fireballs to kill a rat because his average damage is 21 vs. 23.8.

Of course, these aren't the final values for the attribute modifiers, but proportion of advantage is important.

 

[MicoSelva]

So, you're saying quouting that Might doesn't really matter? So much for no dump stats.

 

[Infinitron]

So, you're [q]saying[/q] quouting that Might doesn't really matter? So much for no dump stats.

I'm saying there's a midpoint here between "must have" and "dump"

Remember, focusing on DAMAGE ABOVE ALL ELSE isn't actually a smart strategy for mages in D&D, traditionally. Their crowd control/status effect-type spells are much more useful at early levels.

 

[Sensuki]

Those won't be the final values. Min-maxing in this game is probably gonna be weird (and maybe even fun?)

 

[MicoSelva]

All the better. I like making weird builds. My first p&p character was a dual-class merchant/barbarian (in a Polish D&D clone RPG, Crystals of Time).

But the game's system needs to make sense for me in order to have fun in the first place.

If I make s trong wizard, it is to check if a strong wizard build is viable and see how it performs. If strength (or equivalent) is not a dump stat for a wizard, all the better, I will have more fun.

But if strength for a wizard makes sense because for some reason it increases his magic power/damage or lets him learn more spells, or something like that, I lose all interest to experiment because 1. it feels unintuitive and 2. suddenly there are no quirky builds any more, because all are more or less equally viable by design.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

The attribute system is fine except for damage bonus. Keep Might for melee damage. Int for Magic/Ranged damage. But no different stats governing different types of damage might confuse some potential players....

 

[SCO]

Dragon Ball D&D wizards... very amusing scenario.

 

[Infinitron]

suddenly there are no quirky builds any more, because all are more or less equally viable by design.

??? I don't understand this sentence.

How can you simultaneously complain that all builds are "equally viable by design" and that Might is a must-have stat?. If Might is must-have then they're NOT all equally viable by design.

 

[Shadenuat]

Please look at the character sheet in this update. The listed character has a 13 Might, granting +26% to Damage. Let's assume you're Pro Mighty and have an 18 Might. That's +36%. Or you're an Ordinary Joe with a 10 Might, which is +20%. Let's say a normal Fireball does 5-30 damage. Pro Mighty does 6.8-40.8. Ordinary Joe does 6-36. Ordinary Joe does not need multiple fireballs to kill a rat because his average damage is 21 vs. 23.8.

Seems like almost negligible difference. If removing "bad builds" for Josh means that stats just don't affect that much, I don't see why use stats at all. You might as well base whole system around items and perks.
The difference between a fighter with moderate strength and a fighter with exceptional 18/90+ strength is humongous in comparison. Good or bad, at least those are two completely different characters from performance and roleplay, while +16% is just marginal.
What's the point? Maybe I will see the point when I play the game, but on paper I don't.

 

[Infinitron]

Seems like almost negligible difference. If removing "bad builds" for Josh means that stats just don't affect that much, I don't see why use stats at all. You might as well base whole system around items and perks.

That's the idea.

The game was designed without stats first - they were only added relatively recently. It's quite likely that they wouldn't have made it in at all if this wasn't supposed to be an Infinity Engine-like game.

That said, I'm not sure that 16% is that marginal.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Seems like almost negligible difference. If removing "bad builds" for Josh means that stats just don't affect that much, I don't see why use stats at all. You might as well base whole system around items and perks.

That's the idea.

The game was designed without stats first - they were only added relatively recently. It's quite likely that they wouldn't have made it in at all if this wasn't supposed to be an Infinity Engine-like game.

That said, I'm not sure that 16% is that marginal.

I think they'd just have preferred to be able to drop the three situational stats (Resolve, Int and Perception), so they could afford to give the three base ones meaningful modifiers without throwing off the balance, and handle the rest with items/feats.

 

[MicoSelva]

How can you simultaneously complain that all builds are "equally viable by design" and that Might is a must-have stat?

Where did I write that Might is a must-have stat? (If I did, it wasn't by intention.)

 

[ZagorTeNej]

That's the idea.

The game was designed without stats first - they were only added relatively recently. It's quite likely that they wouldn't have made it in at all if this wasn't supposed to be an Infinity Engine-like game.

That said, I'm not sure that 16% is that marginal.

Considering the game won't have multi/dual-classes and kits let's hope that's not the idea, otherwise if the difference between different stat-based char builds is barely noticeable the game's replayability is gonna take a hit (as it will be only limited to different core classes which you'll partially experience through party members anyway), though there are still abilities and skills I guess.

 

[Infinitron]

How can you simultaneously complain that all builds are "equally viable by design" and that Might is a must-have stat?

Where did I write that Might is a must-have stat? (If I did, it wasn't by intention.)

In that case what you said was a complete non-sequitur. "Might is unintuitive therefore all builds are equally viable by design" wut?

That's the idea.

The game was designed without stats first - they were only added relatively recently. It's quite likely that they wouldn't have made it in at all if this wasn't supposed to be an Infinity Engine-like game.

That said, I'm not sure that 16% is that marginal.

Considering the game won't have multi/dual-classes and kits let's hope that's not the idea, otherwise if the difference between different stat-based char builds is barely noticeable the game's replayability is gonna take a hit (as it will be only limited to different core classes which you'll partially experience through party members anyway), though there are still abilities and skills I guess.

*shrug* It's not like "different stat-based char builds" were ever a big reason to replay the Infinity Engine games. Trying out different classes was the reason to replay BG2.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

*shrug* It's not like "different stat-based char builds" were ever a big reason to replay the Infinity Engine games. Different classes were the reason to replay BG2.

Of course not (every fighter was boring 18, 18, 18 in physical stats and whatever for the rest) which is exactly my point.

BG2 had a massive amount of multi/dual-class and kits combinations to rely on for the replay value (and only small amount of them were covered by joinable NPCs), PoE will only have core classes. For example If I play through the game as any random class and have that blond rogue guy (can't remember his name) during the whole ride why would I be interested in making my own rogue afterwards if any rogue build is gonna be very similar (stats don't really matter)?

I consider replayability to be one of the most important factors in a CRPG and the replay value has to come from somewhere/something (whether it be stats, skills, abilities, perks, items etc.)

 

[Infinitron]

*shrug* It's not like "different stat-based char builds" were ever a big reason to replay the Infinity Engine games. Different classes were the reason to replay BG2.

Of course not (every fighter was boring 18, 18, 18 in physical stats and whatever for the rest) which is exactly my point.

BG2 had a massive amount of multi/dual-class and kits combinations to rely on for the replay value (and only some of them were covered by joinable NPCs), PoE will only have core classes. For example If I play through the game as any random class and have that blond rogue guy (can't remember his name) during the whole ride why would I be interested in making my own rogue afterwards if any rogue build is gonna be very similar (stats don't really matter)?

I consider replayability to be one of the most important factors in a CRPG and the replay value has to come from somewhere.

Well, like you said, talents and skills, and more generally, different "roles" - melee rogue vs ranged rogue vs crit rogue etc. (I guess you could try to specialize the core classes into different "roles" in the D&D games too, but they probably weren't nearly as flexible)

It's not like a game even needs classes at all to be replayable.

 

[Infinitron]

SA dump: http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...d=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post424443954