Pillars of Eternity Beta Discussion [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[tuluse]

less than 5% finished dos? whilst the game after cyseal took an unforgiving nose dive, i would not have expected such low numbers.

It's not uncommon. Lots of people just buy a game and never play it. Others like to mess around for a few hours. Others just play it until it's not fun anymore and stop.

I bet if we had stats on BG2 from back in the day, it would look similar.

 

[Grunker]

The more I play Lords of Xulima the more I think about the attribute system of PoE and why I dislike it so much. The two attribute systems are pretty similarly designed. The aim is to have all attributes be almost equally useful for all classes. Yet when I receive an attribute point in Lords I feel heaven blessed and I see a notable change in the game. I can cast more spells, deal more damage, my characters take longer to die, they eschew that armor penalty they had and so on. There are many factors assigned to each attribute and they all feel worth taking for most classes.

The point is that Lords of Xulima somewhat accomplishes Sawyer's goals, but without reducing the attributes to +2% to something each.

less than 5% finished dos? whilst the game after cyseal took an unforgiving nose dive, i would not have expected such low numbers.

D:OS did not do anything to warrant me finishing it. I finish 90% of the games I play, even most bad ones I start, yet I didn't finish D:OS even though I really liked the first fourth of it. The last half of the game was a huge chore.

 

[Infinitron]

The more I play Lords of Xulima the more I think about the attribute system of PoE and why I dislike it so much. The two attribute systems are pretty similarly designed. The aim is to have all attributes be almost equally useful for all classes. Yet when I receive an attribute point in Lords I feel heaven blessed and I see a notable change in the game. I can cast more spells, deal more damage, my characters take longer to die, they eschew that armor penalty they had and so on. There are many factors assigned to each attribute and they all feel worth taking for most classes.

Well, the difference is that in Lords (correct me if I'm wrong) you receive attribute points when you level up, not just on chargen. They're your reward that you bust your ass for and your main form of character progression. So of course they have to have an impact, and feel more rewarding. Same for Banner Saga, btw.

In PoE, your attributes are just a template you roll up on chargen.

 

[Grunker]

Well, the difference is that in Lords (correct me if I'm wrong) you receive attribute points when you level up, not just on chargen. They're your reward that you bust your ass for and your main form of character progression. So of course they have to have an impact, and feel more rewarding. Same for Banner Saga, btw.

In PoE, your attributes are just a template you roll up on chargen.

I know, I'm not saying they should be provided at level up, I'm saying the system is superflous and superficial and that "they must be there 'cause BG but I don't like attibutes so they won't matter" is a bad argument. Josh had two choices:

1) get rid of the attributes

2) design a sawyerist attribute system

What the attributes are currently is halfway to both and thus all the way to nowhere.

I like Sawyer's design philosophy, but I detest the way he compromises.

 

[Rake]

Well, the difference is that in Lords (correct me if I'm wrong) you receive attribute points when you level up, not just on chargen. They're your reward that you bust your ass for and your main form of character progression. So of course they have to have an impact, and feel more rewarding. Same for Banner Saga, btw.

In PoE, your attributes are just a template you roll up on chargen.

Since you can't change them after character creation, all the more reason to have them being critical on how your character plays, with huge bonuses and huge drawbacks

 

[Grunker]

Or, well, detest is much too strong of a word. I just hate to see all that massive amount of design work go into what is basically just a tiny customization option.

Since you can't change them after character creation, all the more reason to have them being critical on how your character plays, with huge bonuses and huge drawbacks

They don't have to be critical exactly, like the way some stats completely define characters, just enticing and exciting.

 

[Infinitron]

I know, I'm not saying they should be provided at level up, I'm saying the system is superflous and superficial and that "they must be there 'cause BG but I don't like attibutes so they're there for reason is a bad argument. Josh had two choices:

1) get rid of the attributes

2) design a sawyerist attribute system

What the attributes are currently is halfway to both and thus all the way to nowhere.

Since you can't change them after character creation, all the more reason to have them being critical on how your character plays, with huge bonuses and huge drawbacks

It's not that simple.

How extreme can the differences between two Level 1 characters possibly be, even if they have very different attributes? In a system where the primary form of character progression is "level ups" that directly increase various derived stats (instead of increasing your attributes like in Xulima and Banner Saga), your attributes simply can't have as large an impact.

 

[Grunker]

Well, I don't think it can be that simple.

How extreme can the differences between two Level 1 characters possibly be

A properly designed unleveling attribute system would have bonuses that scale with the character's level. The difference between a +1 bonus and a +4 bonus would matter more as the character leveled up. Maybe some skills/abilities add the stat boni more times depending on their level, for instance. The difference between a +1 bonus and a +4 bonus added three times to damage is quite significant.

Sawyer's system already does this, it's just that the boni are a bit small and hard to notice. Maybe I'm judging it wrong, I dunno.

 

[tuluse]

I went through and checked completion rates of any vaguely rpg thing I could on steam.

Fallout: New Vegas has 4 main quest achievements so we don't know exactly what percentage got at least 1.
Wild Card 12.5%
Eureka - 6.6%
All or Nothing - 4.8%
Veni, Vidi, Veci - 3.1%

So somewhere between 12.5-27%

Skyrim - about 30%

Grimrock - 9.2%


So I suppose D:OS completion rate is significantly below these, but it has been out for less time.

 

[Kem0sabe]

DOS drop in quality after the first map is indeed quite sharp, it doesn't surprise me a lot of people just didn't bother with it.

 

[Athelas]

In a shockingly bold new design decision, the stats have actually been changed recently to give a much bigger bonus.

Spoiler

They now give 3%.

Spoiler

Though I believe Resolve, Perception and Intelligence provide a 6% bonus per point now. Will have to wait for the next patch to be sure.

 

[Infinitron]

A properly designed unleveling attribute system would have bonuses that scale with the character's level. The difference between a +1 bonus and a +4 bonus would matter more as the character leveled up. Maybe some skills/abilities add the stat boni more times depending on their level, for instance. The difference between a +1 bonus and a +4 bonus added three times to damage is quite significant.

Well, that's an interesting idea, though it sounds difficult to balance. And it's also even more of a departure from D&D than what PoE is doing.

(It still might not have satisfied some people though since they wouldn't have felt extreme differences between characters immediately after creating them.)

 

[Grunker]

Well, that's an interesting idea, though it sounds difficult to balance.

Eh? Like I said, it's basically what PoE does already (+% damage for instance), it's just that the impact is too insignificant.

And it's also even more of a departure from D&D than what PoE is doing.

4th edition does it

 

[Infinitron]

Eh? Like I said, it's basically what PoE does already (+% damage for instance), it's just that the impact is too insignificant.

No, you're talking about attributes with effects that increase as you level-up - the attributes themselves become more valuable as you level up. That sounds like it could get mathematically messy - harder to balance than just having the level-up linearly increase various derived stats directly.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just harder.

 

[tuluse]

They could also compress the attribute range. It would feel much better if it was a 5 point scale instead of 15, but it has to go from 3 to 18 because AD&D apparently.

 

[Athelas]

Yeah, I also thought they should have reduced the number of points you get to assign during chargen while increasing their impact.

 

[Grunker]

No, you're talking about attributes with effects that increase as you level-up - the attributes themselves become more valuable as you level up. That sounds like it could get mathematically messy - harder to balance than just having the level-up linearly increase various derived stats directly.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just harder.

No I'm not. You misunderstood me. i'm talking about te rest of the system drawing differently on the attribute system. Like a level five ability would add the bonus trice instead of once. It'sbasically a less fluid version of percentile progression. 4th ed already does it, like I said.

My problem with the system as is remains that it has little reason to exist at all.

 

[Athelas]

Or, well, detest is much too strong of a word. I just hate to see all that massive amount of design work go into what is basically just a tiny customization option.

I wouldn't go that far. The difference between the lowest and highest Might (3 and 20) is 50% damage, i.e. doing 10 damage versus 15 damage (simplying damage ranges into an average base damage to keep the example simple). The gap will be bigger when you factor in the enemy's DT, which will block out a part of the less Mightier character's attack and the fact that it's a % boost, meaning weapons with higher base damage benefit more from the stat. I'd like to have seen more significant bonuses, but it's certainly not 'tiny'. I'd argue it's greater than the effect of the strength stat in the IE games in chargen.

 

[tuluse]

I wouldn't go that far. The difference between the lowest and highest Might (3 and 20) is 50% damage, i.e. doing 10 damage versus 15 damage (simplying damage ranges into an average base damage to keep the example simple). The gap will be bigger when you factor in the enemy's DT, which will block out a part of the less Mightier character's attack and the fact that it's a % boost, meaning weapons with higher base damage benefit more from the stat. I'd like to have seen more significant bonuses, but it's certainly not 'tiny'. I'd argue it's greater than the effect of the strength stat in the IE games in chargen.

The difference between 3 and 20 in BG is -1 dam to +8 dam. That would be 9 to 18 range with the damage roll as above (10).

So also go from -3 to +3 to hit.

 

[Athelas]

The difference between 3 and 20 in BG is -1 dam to +8 dam. That would be 9 to 18 range with the damage roll as above (10).

So also go from -3 to +3 to hit.

I was comparing it to chargen in the IE games. You couldn't go past 18.xx in chargen, classes had minimums (i.e. a fighter couldn't go below 9 strength) and since classes only needed a few stats, there was no reason to make sacrifices and choose between stats.

The difference between 9 and 18 strength is +1 hit and + 2 damage, which could go up to +3 hit and +6 damage at 18/00.

 

[tuluse]

I was talking about chargen. You couldn't go past 18.xx in chargen, classes had minimums (i.e. a fighter couldn't go below 9 strength) and since classes only needed a few stats, there was no reason to make sacrifices.

Fair enough.

The difference between 9 and 18 strength is +1 hit and + 2 damage, which could go up to +3 hit and +6 damage at 18/00.

This is irrelevant. A fighter couldn't go below 9, but it was possible to make a character who could.

At any rate, 0-6 is still a bigger difference with a damage roll of 10 and you're still going to have accuracy differences on top of that. AD&D also generally has lower damage rolls than PoE does.

Edit: You also get significantly more attacks per time in IE games which means these get added up to. In 12 seconds in IE a fighter who has merely specialized in his weapon is getting 6 attacks, while in PoE he's getting 3 attacks. That's essentially doubling the value of damage.

 

[Athelas]

Fair enough.

This is irrelevant. A fighter couldn't go below 9, but it was possible to make a character who could.

Why would you? If anything, rolling an 18/00 takes a lot more effort than a stat setup which avoids penalties, which is fairly easy to roll.

At any rate, 0-6 is still a bigger difference with a damage roll of 10 and you're still going to have accuracy differences on top of that. AD&D also generally has lower damage rolls than PoE does.

0-6 isn't much more than 0-5 though (though the lower base damage of D&D probably makes the difference relatively bigger and the strength boost more significant than PoE's might boost). With PoE there is the aspect of higher damage allowing you to better bypass the enemy's DT (making the damage gap between low Might and high Might characters even bigger) and the % boost makes the bonus scale with weapons with higher base damage.

Edit: You also get significantly more attacks per time in IE games which means these get added up to. In 12 seconds in IE a fighter who has merely specialized in his weapon is getting 6 attacks, while in PoE he's getting 3 attacks. That's essentially doubling the value of damage.

The PoE wizard can damage 6+ enemies with a single attack, his Might bonus being applied to each target.

Your fighter can get more attacks in quicker by taking off his armor and fighting in the buff.

 

[tuluse]

Why would you? If anything, rolling an 18/00 takes a lot more effort than a stat setup which avoids penalties, which is fairly easy to roll.

I think it was pretty common to have min-maxed wizards with p low str. And then that differentiates between the wizard and fighter more than PoE attributes allow.

At any rate, none of this has anything to do with the original statement that PoE attributes are equal in range to AD&D. We've tightened it up to where 3-20 on PoE is about equal to 9-18 in IE. Which was my complaint since the first beta that the attribute ranges are far too big for what you get. If you went from 10-20 with the same range of effect it would feel much better.

 

[Athelas]

I agree that the attribute range should have been smaller.

I think it was pretty common to have min-maxed wizards with p low str. And then that differentiates between the wizard and fighter more than PoE attributes allow.

The fighter automatically has better accuracy with weapons than the wizard.

 

[Shannow]

Yeah, Steam, you know that place where almost anyone who plays games buys their games. Such an unreliable metric.

Yeah, Steam, you know that place where almost anyone who plays games buys their games. Such an unreliable metric.

Almost everyone except a few select PC hipsters.

The true elite, in other words.

The rest of us are but mere mortals in comparison.

Codex making fun of an elitist niche group that clearly exhibits better taste and higher intelligence than the mainstream...
What is this I don't even

Spoiler

of the codex. But then, then I've been bitching about this for years. Not to worry though, I now know from experience that one only has to suffer through 10-15 years before incline returns

You may continue "discussing" stats.