1eyedking What's wrong with min-maxing?

[Skinwalker]

I literally don't understand why some people use this term disparagingly. What's wrong with putting all of your available points into the stats that you need, while completely avoiding the stats that you don't need, for your class/build/role/whatever? Is it, like, some kind of violation of the equity thought police that mandates gender quotas and affirmative action for all stats, to make sure the useless ones don't feel left out? What's the downside of min-maxing?

Make it make sense to me. Also, what does it mean when you put 1eyedking as a tag for your thread?

 

[430am]

Nothing.

 

[Tyranicon]

It's a holdover from tabletop.

In a TTRPG when you're playing with non-munchkins, you don't want to be a dick that outshines everybody with your grossly overpowered build.

In a singleplayer video game? Fucking nothing is wrong with it, you're just playing the game.

 

[Late Bloomer]

If there is only one clear way to spend points / talents / perks / skills, that is best, then there is no real choice. And that sucks. If there is some that would add to your character in regards to fun / flavour but you choose to keep min maxing, that makes you a cuck. While you are busy looking up the perfect character build and letting someone else decide what is best for your playthrough, I will be making my own choices based on criteria I set out for my characters. And if that is less than optimal, well so be it. Sometimes it is fun to struggle.

 

[Skinwalker]

looking up the perfect character build

Ok, playing with walkthroughs is pathetic and sucks the joy out of the game, I can 100% agree with that.

But what if I came up with my build all by myself, without looking anything up? Am I still under the fun police order to level stats that I don't think I'll ever need, or no?

I will be making my own choices based on criteria I set out for my characters. And if that is less than optimal

But why would you set criteria that result in suboptimal characters? Is it some kind of masochistic fetish that I'm just not into?

 

[Late Bloomer]

But what if I came up with my build all by myself, without looking anything up? Am I still under the fun police order to level stats that I don't think I'll ever need, or no?

No. If you are having fun and you didn't let someone else decide what is fun for you, then nope, not a cuck.

But why would you set criteria that result in suboptimal characters? Is it some kind of masochistic fetish that I'm just not into?

I most likely didn't explain myself clear enough. The criteria I sometimes set for my characters, has more to do with their story, their personality. I have a large group of characters that I have been playing for many years, and some of them, not all, aren't the brightest, or the most skillful. It creates a more interesting character for me to play. No masochistic fetish here, just a full nerd who like playing different characters, and not all of them need to be the best at what they do.

Bottom line is, play however makes you happy. I am just saying that if what makes you happy is playing how someone else tells you to play, that is cuck like behaviour, a bitch really. It doesn't sound like that is what you are doing though.

 

[ropetight]

But why would you set criteria that result in suboptimal characters? Is it some kind of masochistic fetish that I'm just not into?

Like playing retarded character in Fallout?
It is far from optimal, but it is funnest murderhobo playthrough ever.

Arcanum has possibly most intricate background/flaws system.
Played Arcanum with perk Nietzsche Poster Child, which gives you extra experience, but lots of critical fails.
Did it without save scumming (except in fatal cases), and after all the pistols exploding in my hands and blades that cut me after fumbling, character become ugly, and NPC's had negative reaction to him and avoided him.

It was sometimes masochistic, but still worthy playthrough because developers added something extra to the experience.

Nothing wrong with min maxing, but if you play single player game that values alternative solutions with different paths, it can be restrictive and missing on lots of content.

 

[Litmanen]

I literally don't understand why some people use this term disparagingly. What's wrong with putting all of your available points into the stats that you need, while completely avoiding the stats that you don't need, for your class/build/role/whatever? Is it, like, some kind of violation of the equity thought police that mandates gender quotas and affirmative action for all stats, to make sure the useless ones don't feel left out? What's the downside of min-maxing?

Make it make sense to me. Also, what does it mean when you put 1eyedking as a tag for your thread?

I think the problem is not min-maxing "per se", but the reasons behind it.

If you, as other said, do it "by chance", just because your character felt like it when you created it: I think it's fair.

If you do it because you spent your whole life reading manuals, handbooks, forums just because you KNOW that you WANT to exploit some bugged/bad-balanced game mechanics just to be in God-mode from level 3 and then come on the forum and say "This game is easy also on "Dominating"", you're a sad, lonely, loser who needs recognition by others to feel good.

I'm one who always likes to create is character just following feelings of the moment and I never "enchain" talents/skills/whatever because I never know what will happen to my character on the next level.

Others, and here there are a lot, even before a game comes out, already know how to exploit it and will min-max their party in order to end the game in two days without shower, dinner, launch and obviously sex. And then they come here to say "this game is shit".

Sad losers.

 

[Kev Inkline]

But what if I came up with my build all by myself, without looking anything up? Am I still under the fun police order to level stats that I don't think I'll ever need, or no?

No. If you are having fun and you didn't let someone else decide what is fun for you, then nope, not a cuck.

But why would you set criteria that result in suboptimal characters? Is it some kind of masochistic fetish that I'm just not into?

I most likely didn't explain myself clear enough. The criteria I sometimes set for my characters, has more to do with their story, their personality. I have a large group of characters that I have been playing for many years, and some of them, not all, aren't the brightest, or the most skillful. It creates a more interesting character for me to play. No masochistic fetish here, just a full nerd who like playing different characters, and not all of them need to be the best at what they do.

So you're the guy who leaves his shoes by the doorstep in Oblivion?

J/K, play whatever you find fun, and don't anyone else tell you otherwise.

 

[Skinwalker]

So when people say "min-maxing", they really mean "playing with walkthroughs"?

Should have just said that, no objections here.

 

[Litmanen]

So when people say "min-maxing", they really mean "playing with walkthroughs"?

Should have just said that, no objections here.

For me, min-maxing is not simply "playing with walkthroughs".

If you start a game with your personal build and you struggle or completely succeed until a certain point and then when you face a BIG problem you don't know how to overcome, you maybe check HALF of the solution on a walkthrough, trying not to spoil a lot about the quest/problem/thing you're addressing: yeah, I think is still ok/fair.

If you look for walkthroughs BEFORE you start a game just with the idea of exploiting, that's min-maxing for me. And that's shit.

 

[Skinwalker]

If you start a game with your personal build and you struggle or completely succeed until a certain point and then when you face a BIG problem you don't know how to overcome, you maybe check HALF of the solution on a walkthrough, trying not to spoil a lot about the quest/problem/thing you're addressing: yeah, I think is still ok/fair.

Only if the big problem is a result of bad game design. A good game that is being played by a competent gamer should never have a point when it gets so disproportionately difficult/obtuse that you have to look up the answer on google.

 

[Litmanen]

If you start a game with your personal build and you struggle or completely succeed until a certain point and then when you face a BIG problem you don't know how to overcome, you maybe check HALF of the solution on a walkthrough, trying not to spoil a lot about the quest/problem/thing you're addressing: yeah, I think is still ok/fair.

Only if the big problem is a result of bad game design. A good game that is being played by a competent gamer should never have a point when it gets so disproportionately difficult/obtuse that you have to look up the answer on google.

I'm being an RPG player for 24 years now and, honestly, I'm terrible at playing. I always build characters with tragic combination of skills, perks and abilities, because maybe I change idea during the game and, really important, I play every game just ONCE. So, I start the game and if my character sucks I will face the consequences of my incompetence all over the game.

And for me it's ABSOLUTE FUN to face difficult/unseen situations. But, all in all, it can happen that I'm struggling maybe to solve a quest because I haven't understood how to do it. And when I fail to find the solution (in game) for hours, it can happen that I rapidly check a walkthrough just for the quest I'm struggling with and trying to avoid any spoiler on anything.

That, for me, is not min-maxing. It's just that I'm really a weak player who enjoys his faults and mistakes and sometimes is too much unable to proceed to need help.

I don't use my ability in gaming to make friends or find a girlfriend, then I feel no urge to be perfect.

Edit: I play a game just ONCE because I don't want to already know the solution to any quest, which skill/ability/perk can be better or worse, what will happen next. I love chaos, uncertainity and discovering. That's why I hate "conscious min-maxers".

 

[King Crispy]

The only thing that's "wrong" with it is the affront to the honesty behind the gaming experience that some people, like me, find relatively sacred.

Let me explain: in a single-player computer roleplaying game, in my view, the entire purpose of the exercise is to simulate or recreate the experience of playing a tabletop pen-and-paper RPG among players (you) and their DM/GM (also you, or technically maybe the game's developer). The very concept of "cheating", of which some would consider min/maxing to be a part, defeats the entire purpose of that exercise. It would be like playing a computerized version of Monopoly by yourself and just giving yourself money from the bank whenever you felt like it.

That is not to say, however, that optimizing your character/characters in an RPG is the same thing. On the contrary, building an efficient character or party is often paramount to the enjoyment, even among purists, but that "optimization" can go too far. If, in the scope of the game, a character's statistics deviate so radically from what would normally be considered to be some sort of a standard range for that game world's universe -- for example, a fighter with 20 Strength but only 6 Constitution -- that's where things just no longer "feel right". It really boils down to self-policing. A good general rule for the non-min-maxer to ask himself (which he wouldn't, but this is a hypothetical situation) is, "Would the DM allow this character?"

In summary, min-maxing isn't "wrong" in any kind of moral sense, nor even necessarily in an intellectual sense. But it is antithetical to the purist's sense of belonging and balance.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

If you're not roleplaying in an RPG, you're doing something wrong.

I think that games that are designed around min/maxing are usually ass in terms of gameplay. Especially when the ruleset is a spreadsheet build abomination like 3E or Pathfinder. Ultimately, the "gameplay" ends up with you looking up some broken build online and using that. And if you don't, you either math it out yourself (what fun) or just suck at the game because the dev designed it for the worst kind of player.

5e has gay builds like Sorcadin (Sorcerer/Paladin) that abandon roleplaying for big numbers. This is the death of the genre if it's allowed to continue.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

in crpgs nothing. in tabletop you're kinda fucking over the DM's campaign. It's shitty because in tabletop the fun comes from interacting with your bros.

 

[luj1]

I literally don't understand why some people use this term disparagingly.

Because they're idiots...

Here is what people don't understand

min-maxing, asymmetry, bad skills, good skills, 1pt wonder skills, all should exist

Dont overanalize like Soyer

 

[Sigourn]

Do with your ass a dick if that's what pleases you.

 

[Daemongar]

I say - min/maxing is for lazy slobs! After your first save in any game, edit your save game and give yourself everything - max stats, skills, money! Maxing is for the pros! I wouldn't be the 8 parts avatar you see before you today if I didn't cheat to get it!

 

[Funposter]

There's nothing wrong with min-maxing but it does mean that you're less likely to be engaging in mechanical storytelling or actually saying something about your character. Maybe I want my Fighter to have a decent INT score or whatever to represent him not being a mouthbreather. Valerie in Pathfinder: Kingmaker has 15 CHA, despite being a Fighter, because she's meant to be supernaturally beautiful. Cool. This sort of thing can be fun as long as the game isn't too difficult so as to discourage it, or in the case of tabletop, if you have a DM that expects people to be min-maxed or everyone else at the table has characters who are.

 

[Lhynn]

Nothing wrong with minmaxing. If you are the type of player that cant play anything but "The best build" tm in a single player game, then you are either based or retarded. If you are based you see nothing wrong with it, if you are retarded you should stop browsing this thread and check on your wife, Jamal and Tyrone are visiting.

 

[S.torch]

Min-maxing is contrary to the spirit of role-playing.

The fun thing about RPGs is discovering new stuff: items, locations, story, characters and mechanics. The whole concept of min-maxing is preparing from everything beforehand by dumping or maxing numbers with knowledge of what is ahead from previous backgrounds.

Min-maxing is cheating. Because you can ONLY min-max after playing the game. Is an anti-adventure, anti-deportive, anti-fun spirit.

I think Mix-maxing belongs in the realm of MMOs, MOBAs, gacha and other borderline gambling-systems, but not proper RPGs.

 

[Tweed]

NOOO! You can't be a strong hero in a fantasy setting! You must be a limp-wristed peasant who wastes all his money on ale! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

 

[Lhynn]

Min-maxing is contrary to the spirit of role-playing.

No, its not, its contrary to the hippy spirit of larping.

The whole concept of min-maxing is preparing

Being prepared for whatever the game throws at me is what I find fun about rpgs.

Min-maxing is cheating

Stop being cringe.

Is an anti-adventure, anti-deportive, anti-fun spirit.

Its a single player game nigger.

 

[Percy]

I blame the games, if you are a low INT or WIS character bad things should happen and it should affect party dynamics.

As it currently stands you are dumb for not maxing out important stats based on your characters build or what's powerful in game.