480 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
If you gained less points with every level-up in DA:O, you'd have less opportunity to focus on a single attribute. Or less opportunity to balance your attributes. In DA:O, you can go all STR with Sten, you can go 50 STR/50 DEX, you can go 30 STR/30 DEX/30 CON, you can put some in WIL...you can get closer to the balance you have in mind. Compared to the system where you get one point every four levels. Good for you or bad for you. It's the developer's preference.

No you wouldn't. In fact, you could start focusing earlier, since the initial stats would have a greater imapct. Your choices have a great impact. And there's still balancing.

With each point having so little influence, the difference between 45STR/42 DEX Sten and 42 STR/45 DEX Sten is barely noticable.

In comparison, assuming a attribute progression similar to D&D (let's assume 20 is hte max), the difference between STR 18/DEX 16 Sten and STR 16/DEX 18 Sten is more pronounced.

Okay, so you're one of those who doesn't give a damn whether a game offers you comparable levels of challenge throughout. But don't expect game designers to stop worrying about providing players with a consistent difficulty level just because you don't care about it.

No. You misunderstand everything (as usual).
Comparabel levels of challange would be maintained, if not done better.

Not much to say about the definition of capability. A level x character is more powerful than a level x-1 character. And less powerful than a level x+1 character. A level x character can go toe-to-toe with a level x enemy but will have a harder time fighting a level x+1 enemy or an easier time fighting a level x-1 enemy. A level x character will kill an enemy with less hassle than a level x-1 character would have.

How much mroe capable. How muhc easier? When facing 1 enemy? What about when facing 2...or 3..or 10?

See above, and see DragonOfWhiteThunder's explanation below. And if that's not enough for you, let me know so I can reword it in a fashion you can understand more easily.

Already adressed that issue. Quality > quantity.

Maybe someday it will occur to you that some others didn't go *yawn* with 3 attribute points per level. That they appreciated the degree of variety it offered.

Yes, and there are epopel who are easiyl entertained by dangling car keys in front of their eyes.
Variety? HAH. Variety is meaningless wihout impact.

Again, to you. You're by all means free to advocate a different level/skill/point etc. system altogether. That doesn't justify your saying it was "wrong" for BioWare to prefer the system they used in their game, however.

Wrong? Not really.
Not the best solution? Yes.

And yet you assume that those "subtle" increases will sufficiently satisfy players and give enough reason to implement a level-based system. The game has linear (before Lothering and after Landsmeet) and non-linear segments (after Lothering and before Landsmeet). You need to make difference between each level prominent enough to make leveling matter for non-linear parts. All the while, you need to find a way to keep the difficulty consistent for linear parts. BioWare decided to go for 3-points-per-level system for the former and scaling enemies system for the latter. These are systems that can be no doubt improved or even replaced altogether, but it isn't fair to say they didn't do the job. It's one thing to say that you'd prefer other systems (like I did; again, I personally don't like enemies leveling up as my character does), but when you say the system you propose is "right" and theirs is "wrong"...that's not the way to go.

Yes. Those "subtle" increases worked in many other games. Heck, player becoming a walking avatar of death from a humble dirt farmer is not at all required for people to have fun in games. I have enjoyed games wihout levels, Wihout any rise in power. Or with different amounts of rise in power. Other people have too.  So yeah..power being more focuse and subtle..why not?

And no. I didn't say Bio's system doesn't do the job. I say that another system can do it better.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

I don't know what you mean by focused/generic power distinction.

That normall with each level you get better in every possibel way. More HP. Mote ATT. More DEF.
Becoming "tougher" instead of becoming more skilled. That at lvl 10 you will wade trough lvl1 enemies like a hot knife trough butter, even if there's dozens of them sorounding you.

Insted, I'd want it to be about skill. You're no tougher at lvl10 then you were at lvl1 (uless you dumped a poitn into CON). You cannot magicly take 10 sword hits. That lvl1 bandit might not be a big threat, but there's dozens of them and alone against them, you will probably go down unless you use every skill at your disposal to the best effect.

Skills and special abilities should be absolutely critical.

[Vaeliorin]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
If you gained less points with every level-up in DA:O, you'd have less opportunity to focus on a single attribute. Or less opportunity to balance your attributes. In DA:O, you can go all STR with Sten, you can go 50 STR/50 DEX, you can go 30 STR/30 DEX/30 CON, you can put some in WIL...you can get closer to the balance you have in mind. Compared to the system where you get one point every four levels. Good for you or bad for you. It's the developer's preference.

No you wouldn't. In fact, you could start focusing earlier, since the initial stats would have a greater imapct. Your choices have a great impact. And there's still balancing.

With each point having so little influence, the difference between 45STR/42 DEX Sten and 42 STR/45 DEX Sten is barely noticable.

In comparison, assuming a attribute progression similar to D&D (let's assume 20 is hte max), the difference between STR 18/DEX 16 Sten and STR 16/DEX 18 Sten is more pronounced.

If we're talking 3.X D&D, the difference is almost meaningless.  It's +/- a modifier of 1 on hit/damage/armor class, and some carrying capacity.  If we're talking 2E, then the difference is huge.  That's part of what makes 2E so terrible, is that each single stat point matters so much that unless you roll incredibly well, you end up with a character that just plain sucks (in that they can't even begin to survive a straight fight.)  With this type of system, you're basically locked into what your character is any good at when you create them.  Given that you don't get to create the NPCs, it means you're locked into whatever role the devs meant for them to play, and if you want a remotely balanced party, you're going to have to bring certain characters to fill certain roles.

Also, comparing 45 STR/42 DEX Sten and 42 STR/45 DEX Sten isn't really a worthwhile comparison.  Comparing 80 STR/20 DEX Sten with 42 STR/58 DEX Sten, however, is pretty meaningful.  80 STR/ 20 DEX Sten is going to get his backside handed to him if he's getting attacked by a mob.  He's pretty much pure DPS, and generally incapable of tanking anything.  42 STR/58 DEX Sten, on the other hand, is a moderate DPS character with pretty decent tanking abilities, enough so that he could manage being the party's main tank.  As the total number of stat points grow, the difference becomes more marked.  This allows you to alter an NPC's focus so as to make them fit better within your party.  You don't have to bring Shale/Alistair to tank in DA, for example, as both Sten and Oghren can be turned into perfectly viable tanks (Oghren less so if you pick him up late, admittedly.)  This gives you better options in creating a balanced party while still being able to take along the characters you want to take along.

Honestly, in a game without party NPC's, either system works fine.  But when you have a system with party NPC's, the one that makes those NPC's more moldable by the player is, to me, the better system.

Personally, my favorite systems are classless and levelless, and having a stat at 5 or 6 is incredibly powerful, but I doubt we'll get to see any systems like that in a cRPG any time in the near future.

[Ortaya Alevli]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No you wouldn't. In fact, you could start focusing earlier, since the initial stats would have a greater imapct. Your choices have a great impact. And there's still balancing.

With each point having so little influence, the difference between 45STR/42 DEX Sten and 42 STR/45 DEX Sten is barely noticable.

In comparison, assuming a attribute progression similar to D&D (let's assume 20 is hte max), the difference between STR 18/DEX 16 Sten and STR 16/DEX 18 Sten is more pronounced.[/quote]
What kind of "great impact" is this? I'm sorry, I honestly can't see it. What's this "more pronounced" difference between STR 18/DEX 16 Sten and STR 16/DEX 18 Sten?

Not a rhetorical question, mind you.

Starting to focus at the beginning has no bearing on level progression. You're pulling the discussion away from its course. There's no sense in saying a system which rewards you with one attribute point per four levels allows more variety than DA:O's system does. It's against math.

[quote]No. You misunderstand everything (as usual).
Comparabel levels of challange would be maintained, if not done better.[/quote]
As usual, is it? Let's quote you again.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Bottom line is, each new level in a RPG gives you a sense of increased overall capability. All the while providing you with more capable enemies so that difficulty doesn't drop and the game doesn't lose your interest as you keep leveling.[/quote]

I certanly wouldn't loose interest.[/quote]
So what exactly am I supposed to understand from this? It's right there. You tell me.

If you can maintain comparable levels of challenge via another method, that means you have another method to maintain it. For better or worse. Not necessarily for better. Again, check your definition of objectivity.

[quote]How much mroe capable. How muhc easier? When facing 1 enemy? What about when facing 2...or 3..or 10?[/quote]
What is that supposed to mean? Would it matter? It's a challenge, numbers notwithstanding. If it's a fight you can win at level 8 and you're level 15 now, they need to catch up somehow so the game doesn't turn into sandbox. One monster to kill or twenty at once. It's completely beside the point.

[quote]Already adressed that issue. Quality > quantity.[/quote]
You didn't. You merely think you did. There's nothing to address anyway. You've got one cake and six people to eat it. Names of the fellows are STR, DEX, CON, MAG, WIL, CUN. One of them wants 30% of the cake. Another wants 12%. Yet another wants 3.25%. And so forth. You can divide the cake into six slices and give each person a piece. Or you can divide it by twelve, allowing more variety. Getting closer to the build you have in mind, if you know what I mean.

I've got more examples similar to this one. You just need to ask.

[quote][quote]
Maybe someday it will occur to you that some others didn't go *yawn* with 3 attribute points per level. That they appreciated the degree of variety it offered.[/quote]

Yes, and there are epopel who are easiyl entertained by dangling car keys in front of their eyes.
Variety? HAH. Variety is meaningless wihout impact.[/quote]
...

[quote][quote]
Again, to you. You're by all means free to advocate a different level/skill/point etc. system altogether. That doesn't justify your saying it was "wrong" for BioWare to prefer the system they used in their game, however.[/quote]

Wrong? Not really.
Not the best solution? Yes.[/quote]
Much better now. It wouldn't be wise to argue that there's a best solution around anyhow. That said, no matter how intensely you hate the system, your hate doesn't make it unusable. It's already been used and did the job. One way or another, we all played the game using the same system.

[quote]Yes. Those "subtle" increases worked in many other games. Heck, player becoming a walking avatar of death from a humble dirt farmer is not at all required for people to have fun in games. I have enjoyed games wihout levels, Wihout any rise in power. Or with different amounts of rise in power. Other people have too.  So yeah..power being more focuse and subtle..why not?

And no. I didn't say Bio's system doesn't do the job. I say that another system can do it better.[/quote]Not in the way you describe. RPGs tend to give you enough things to create the illusion of difference with every level you gain. Even Baldur's Gate gave you hitpoints and saving throw bonuses each level. Casters gained access to new spells, rogues got skill points. Each level.

I have enjoyed games without levels, too. Not that it's related to the discussion at all. And the plot? I have no intention of going there, either.

[quote]That normall with each level you get better in every possibel way. More HP. Mote ATT. More DEF.
Becoming "tougher" instead of becoming more skilled. That at lvl 10 you will wade trough lvl1 enemies like a hot knife trough butter, even if there's dozens of them sorounding you.

Insted, I'd want it to be about skill. You're no tougher at lvl10 then you were at lvl1 (uless you dumped a poitn into CON). You cannot magicly take 10 sword hits. That lvl1 bandit might not be a big threat, but there's dozens of them and alone against them, you will probably go down unless you use every skill at your disposal to the best effect.

Skills and special abilities should be absolutely critical.[/quote]

Okay, thanks for your explanation. But what does it change? If it will make you stronger, it will make the same battle easier, so the enemy has to catch up when you level up and come back. If it will not make you stronger, then leveling is pointless anyway.

You've been proposing new systems for two pages now. Not to mention the other instances of derailment from the debate. The point still stands. Dragon Age gave you three points per level and allowed you a range of 10 to, say, 90 for stats. It's a convenient system, not a realistic system but the developers don't have to care about that kind of realism. It did the trick, one way or another. As for enemy leveling, a considerable part of the game is non-linear and battles in this non-linear section can be fought at a level as low as 7 or as high as 22. Adjusting enemy levels according to yours helped maintain a consistent difficulty throughout this part. If you think I'm wrong, make your case with relevant arguments, otherwise we'll keep discussing alternative systems for pages after pages and get nowhere.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Vaeliorin wrote...
If we're talking 3.X D&D, the difference is almost meaningless.  It's +/- a modifier of 1 on hit/damage/armor class, and some carrying capacity.  If we're talking 2E, then the difference is huge.  That's part of what makes 2E so terrible, is that each single stat point matters so much that unless you roll incredibly well, you end up with a character that just plain sucks (in that they can't even begin to survive a straight fight.)  With this type of system, you're basically locked into what your character is any good at when you create them.  Given that you don't get to create the NPCs, it means you're locked into whatever role the devs meant for them to play, and if you want a remotely balanced party, you're going to have to bring certain characters to fill certain roles.

Who said I want 2'ED D&D or D&D at all? Some elements, maybe.

Not to mention that later edition don't have rolling, but a fixed point distribution.
And, with a total of 20, you get more room for modification.

The NPC isse can easily be fixed by not giving the player a lvl10 NPC, but rather a lvl2 NPC + 8 levelups for him...some mods for DAO do that too. Altough having NPC focused to a role is not something I have a big problem with. You work with what you get, and it makes sense from the narrative perspective. (Blood Mage Wynne???)

Also, comparing 45 STR/42 DEX Sten and 42 STR/45 DEX Sten isn't really a worthwhile comparison.  Comparing 80 STR/20 DEX Sten with 42 STR/58 DEX Sten, however, is pretty meaningful.  80 STR/ 20 DEX Sten is going to get his backside handed to him if he's getting attacked by a mob.  He's pretty much pure DPS, and generally incapable of tanking anything.  42 STR/58 DEX Sten, on the other hand, is a moderate DPS character with pretty decent tanking abilities, enough so that he could manage being the party's main tank.  As the total number of stat points grow, the difference becomes more marked.  This allows you to alter an NPC's focus so as to make them fit better within your party.  You don't have to bring Shale/Alistair to tank in DA, for example, as both Sten and Oghren can be turned into perfectly viable tanks (Oghren less so if you pick him up late, admittedly.)  This gives you better options in creating a balanced party while still being able to take along the characters you want to take along.

And meanwhile you spent a total of 80 points in tweaking Sten, when the same could have been accomplished with 10 points in the other system..with the same results. Since, you said it yourself, a +3 increase (that you get for a single level) is practicly meaningless. It's simply superflous, useless.
Bigger numbers don't mean anything. They just give you the illusion of something bigger.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Ortaya Alevli wrote...

What kind of "great impact" is this? I'm sorry, I honestly can't see it. What's this "more pronounced" difference between STR 18/DEX 16 Sten and STR 16/DEX 18 Sten?

Not a rhetorical question, mind you.

Starting to focus at the beginning has no bearing on level progression. You're pulling the discussion away from its course. There's no sense in saying a system which rewards you with one attribute point per four levels allows more variety than DA:O's system does. It's against math.[/quote]

Each point has a greater impact. More with less. Teh 3 point difference in the mentioned system is as big as a 30 point difference in the DA:O system. Same result. Less klicking. More impact per point.

Also, useless variety is useless. Again, differene between 40 STR and 41 STR and 43 STR is not even noticable.




[quote]
What is that supposed to mean? Would it matter? It's a challenge, numbers notwithstanding. If it's a fight you can win at level 8 and you're level 15 now, they need to catch up somehow so the game doesn't turn into sandbox. One monster to kill or twenty at once. It's completely beside the point.[/qutoe]

How can it NOT matter? How much pwoer a PC gains with each level plays a HUGE role in how the levels are balanced, how hte game is balanced and how the enemies/loot is balanced.
How cna it NOT matter?


[quote]
You didn't. You merely think you did. There's nothing to address anyway. You've got one cake and six people to eat it. Names of the fellows are STR, DEX, CON, MAG, WIL, CUN. One of them wants 30% of the cake. Another wants 12%. Yet another wants 3.25%. And so forth. You can divide the cake into six slices and give each person a piece. Or you can divide it by twelve, allowing more variety. Getting closer to the build you have in mind, if you know what I mean.[/quote]

If each "piece" is so insignificant that it couldn't feed a mouse, then it's useless.
Putting 3 points (total) in STR from the start of hte game till the end will not have a noticable effect. Which is why player tend to max out stats that are of most use.

Which is why 100 point to accomplish the same thing taht 10 points could acomplish faster and easier, is unecessary.




[quote]
Much better now. It wouldn't be wise to argue that there's a best solution around anyhow. That said, no matter how intensely you hate the system, your hate doesn't make it unusable. It's already been used and did the job. One way or another, we all played the game using the same system.[/qutoe]

So? I played a lot of games who systems sucked. That the game can be payaed with the system sez nothing, only that it's palyable with that system. Not that that it wouldn't be better with another system.

I stopped playing DA:O. I want to play it, I want to finish all of hte originas I started, but the whole leveling/loot/material system is such an eyesore I can't brign myself. It killing the enjoment out of the game.


[quote]
Not in the way you describe. RPGs tend to give you enough things to create the illusion of difference with every level you gain. Even Baldur's Gate gave you hitpoints and saving throw bonuses each level. Casters gained access to new spells, rogues got skill points. Each level.[/qutoe]

You do not even understand what I described, because then you wouldn't be saying that. Of course there is a difference with levels!



[quote]
Okay, thanks for your explanation. But what does it change? If it will make you stronger, it will make the same battle easier, so the enemy has to catch up when you level up and come back. If it will not make you stronger, then leveling is pointless anyway.
[/quote]

*sigh*

I don't know how to explain this ...AGAIN....levels DO makes you stronger, but they make you stronger in a different way. The power increase is more subtle. You get stronger because you get more skills and abiliteis/spells. You get stronger because you get a substantial (but rarer) increase in attributes.

You become more versatile and more efficient tacticly, not just pure power.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Each point has a greater impact. More with less. Teh 3 point difference in the mentioned system is as big as a 30 point difference in the DA:O system. Same result. Less klicking. More impact per point.

Also, useless variety is useless. Again, differene between 40 STR and 41 STR and 43 STR is not even noticable.

Alright, obviously we'll keep running in circles.

You're a level 1 rogue. All your stats are base 10 and you have 3 extra to allocate. You get 3 points per level. By the time you hit 25, you'll have 3 x 25 = 75 points to distribute. Add to that race/class/gear bonuses (say, 45 points extra), we've got 120 points in total.

If you want to use two dragonbone swords and equip dragonbone medium armor, you put 24 points into STR for a total of 34. But you'll also need 36 DEX for Dual-Weapon Mastery, so you should put 26 points into DEX. This will be enough for a dragonthorn bow as well. You've got 70 points left. If you also want to be able to unlock everything in the game, you'll need a minimum of 30 CUN with four ranks of Deft Hands. 20 points into CUN and we've got 50 points to spare.

Here you can put 16 points into DEX to evade Archdemon's basic attacks half the time, 12 extra DEX/STR to accurately hit him half the time, 7 WIL to activate four sustainables and still have enough stamina for Arrow of Slaying and Scattershot, 19 WIL/MAG/CUN for enough mental resistance to resist his spirit attacks half the time, 11 STR/DEX/CON to resist his knockdowns half the time, or 38 more CUN to fully penetrate his hide. Subtracting four points from WIL in favor of CUN will let you pierce his armor fully but you won't have enough stamina for Aim. Subtracting three points from STR in favor of CON will allow you to withstand Spirit Breath for fifteen seconds without healing but you will have to hit him for 76.2 average damage instead of 78 and to connect five more regular hits in order to bring his 4180 HP down. Numbers will no doubt vary slightly, but this will be enough to get the point across.

Now do the exact same precise tweaks with ten points and we'll start talking.

How much mroe capable. How muhc easier? When facing 1 enemy? What about when facing 2...or 3..or 10?

What is that supposed to mean? Would it matter? It's a challenge, numbers notwithstanding. If it's a fight you can win at level 8 and you're level 15 now, they need to catch up somehow so the game doesn't turn into sandbox. One monster to kill or twenty at once. It's completely beside the point.

How can it NOT matter? How much pwoer a PC gains with each level plays a HUGE role in how the levels are balanced, how hte game is balanced and how the enemies/loot is balanced.
How cna it NOT matter?

Are you aware of the fact that what you say here serves no purpose other than drama? The number of enemies you face doesn't change anything if the point is that ENEMIES YOU CAN KİLL AT LEVEL 8 NEED TO CATCH UP WHEN YOU HIT LEVEL 15 SO THAT A GOOD HALF OF THE GAME DOESN'T TURN INTO A THIRTY-HOUR DENERIM CITY GATES SCENE. Get it? Why do I care how many monsters I killed if I can kill them at level 8 and am worried about them being a joke when I reach level 15 because they weren't getting stronger as I was?

You do not even understand what I described, because then you wouldn't be saying that. Of course there is a difference with levels!

I *do* understand what you're saying. Problem arose when you started talking about "subtle" level differences where the character doesn't get hitpoints or better damage rolls when they level up AND said they were implemented and worked well in many games. Even Mass Effect gives you more HP each time.

I don't know how to explain this ...AGAIN....levels DO makes you stronger, but they make you stronger in a different way. The power increase is more subtle. You get stronger because you get more skills and abiliteis/spells. You get stronger because you get a substantial (but rarer) increase in attributes.

You become more versatile and more efficient tacticly, not just pure power.

Did I mention we're running in circles?

Doesn't. Matter. How. You. Define. Strength. One way or the other, are you stronger now? Yes. Can you kill this band of shrieks easier now? Yes. They were challenging at level 8, but now they're a little -even if "subtly"- less challenging at level 9 now that you have more versatility and tactical advantage. Even less challenging at level 10. Even less at level 11. Even less at level...20. The game becomes easier and easier and easier.

Now, pretty please, can we get back to the point? It was the DA:O level system being convenient and sufficient, if not realistic, and the enemy scaling helping enemies catch up in non-linear parts of the game, remember?

[shootist70]

You know, the more I read of this retentive obsession with skills and stats the more I'm convinced the genre needs to shrug off these archaic, mechanical systems. The last thing it all sounds like is fun.

[Darkbreed7]

I think BG or BG2 should be left alone as they are. I must say, I am a little obsessive about the old Black Isle; I wouldn't like to see them as a "toolset" or "working area" for the new RPGs.

[Pygmali0n]

shootist70 wrote...

You know, the more I read of this retentive obsession with skills and stats the more I'm convinced the genre needs to shrug off these archaic, mechanical systems. The last thing it all sounds like is fun.

A good point, but an appropriate comment from someone named shootist - so slightly dubious - do ME2 and Modern Warfare cater for you? If so why borg everything to be the same? There must be mods for shooters that let one prance around in medieval armour while blasting things, if that's what you want.

Archaic is a compliment as far as I'm concerned - though mechanical is not.

[shootist70]

Pygmali0n wrote...


A good point, but an appropriate comment from someone named shootist - so slightly dubious - do ME2 and Modern Warfare cater for you?

And you don't see the irony here? Hoisted by your own petard. Or, in other words, don't try to imply stupidity with a stupid comment. It makes you look...well, you can see where this is going.

Archaic is a compliment as far as I'm concerned - though mechanical is not.

That's a logical fallacy know as an argumentum ad antiquitatum, I'm afraid. Just because it's old doesn't make it good.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't quite see how that would be workable in a gameworld where a large majority of combatants are melee fighters, though.

Resistances.

Different melee styles.

Different damage and armour types.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
 But if you've got enough foresight to prepare at least one companion for one specific subset of enemies... now that would make you overpowered. 

Well, the designers could just assume that everyone would be smart enough to do that.

Exactly.

Our choises are supposed to have consequences, aren't they?

A poorly developed party should produce suboptimal results.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Resistances.

Different melee styles.

Different damage and armour types.

Hmm.. Resistances I get, but that's mostly for wizard types, isn't it -- unless you want to bring back 3.5's golf bag syndrome?

For physical combat, we've got defense rating and armor rating. I suppose one could add a Deflection stat like GURPS  (or FO? It's been a while), but I'm not quite clear how that would differ from Armor in practice . And there's a distinction between good against many targets and good against a single target. Also, I suppose you could distinguish between doing pure damage and inflicting status effects too (didn't happen in DAO since in practice you take everything).

DAO honked the armor rating distinction because the tradeoff was 1-for-1, so you might as well just go for damage (I believe this was acknowledged in the gameplay mechanics thread). This will supposedly be different in DA2. But to make this work as a character-defining mechanic, you'd need separate trees for maces and swords. Can't make 2-Handers the anti-armor type if we want to reserve that for the AOE specialization.

Is this the way you were thinking?

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 septembre 2010 - 05:34 .

[AlanC9]

shootist70 wrote...

You know, the more I read of this retentive obsession with skills and stats the more I'm convinced the genre needs to shrug off these archaic, mechanical systems. The last thing it all sounds like is fun.

But a designer has to think about this stuff even if the player doesn't have to interact with it. In the end a character really is just a set of numbers and procedures operating according to those numbers, with the player having some choice as to which procedures are used. The question is whether those numbers and procedures produce the kind of gameplay you want, or not.

I'm not at all certain DAO plays the way Bio intended it to. Did they really intend CON to be a dump stat? For Arcane Warriors to be invincible?

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 septembre 2010 - 05:42 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Hmm.. Resistances I get, but that's mostly for wizard types, isn't it -- unless you want to bring back 3.5's golf bag syndrome?

Even DAO-style physical resistance.  Let's say one dungeon is inhabited by creatures with high physical resistance but fewer HP, while another dungeon is inhabited by creatures with low physical resistance but more HP.

If your melee fighters focus on DPS, the second dungeon will be easier.  If your melee fighters focus on knockdowns, the first dungeon will be easier.  And if you have both kinds of melee fighters, both dungeons will be accessible (but neither will be a cakewalk).

And this all assumes you play in a way that suits your characters' skills.

As for the golf bag (because I really like the idea that crushing, piercing, and slashing weapons are deflected differently by different types of armour), realistic carry limits solve that problem.

For physical combat, we've got defense rating and armor rating. I suppose one could add a Deflection stat like GURPS  (or FO? It's been a while), but I'm not quite clear how that would differ from Armor in practice.

It wouldn't be subject to armour-penetration.  That's one difference.

DAO honked the armor rating distinction because in practice the tradeoff was 1-for-1, so you might as well just go for damage (I believe this was acknowledged in the gameplay mechanics thread). This will supposedly be different in DA2. But to make this work as a character-defining mechanic, you'd need separate trees for maces and swords. Can't make 2-Handers the anti-armor type if we want to reserve that for the AOE specialization.

Is this the way you were thinking?

That's certainly a way to do it.

Though I'd suggest three talent trees rather than two.  Have one tree applicable to both weapon types, and then have one tree for each of the weapon types.  There's no reason not to allow a jack-of-all trades, plus those talents would provide a sort of diminishing return at high levels for characters who specialise overly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

shootist70 wrote...

That's a logical fallacy know as an argumentum ad antiquitatum, I'm afraid. Just because it's old doesn't make it good.

Nor does it make it bad.  It just makes it old.

And thus the age of a mechanic is irrelevant when judging its quality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

shootist70 wrote...

You know, the more I read of this retentive obsession with skills and stats the more I'm convinced the genre needs to shrug off these archaic, mechanical systems.

And replace it with what?

How would you suggest the game determine whether a particular character is likely to hit a particular target with this particular weapon under these particular circumstances.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


As for the golf bag (because I really like the idea that crushing, piercing, and slashing weapons are deflected differently by different types of armour), realistic carry limits solve that problem.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of physical resistances that require the right kind of magic weapon to overcome -- holy weapons, etc. But I figure you don't want that stuff any more than I do. Two or three weapons for a combatant is fine with me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of physical resistances that require the right kind of magic weapon to overcome -- holy weapons, etc. But I figure you don't want that stuff any more than I do. Two or three weapons for a combatant is fine with me.

I'm not a big fan of a monty haul campaign.  I don't think any one character should have access to more than two magic weapons.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
 But if you've got enough foresight to prepare at least one companion for one specific subset of enemies... now that would make you overpowered. 

Well, the designers could just assume that everyone would be smart enough to do that.

Exactly.

Our choises are supposed to have consequences, aren't they?

A poorly developed party should produce suboptimal results.

Exactly.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

*SNIP*

Now do the exact same precise tweaks with ten points and we'll start talking.

Easily done. The requirements/tresholds change, the basic principle is the same.
Instead of 24 to STR, 32 to SEX, 16 to CUN, you go 3 to STR, 4 to DEX, 2 to CUN or somesuch.

And ..120 poitns??? IIRC, you can't get that much (and equipment poitns don't count)


And I still don't see how anything you said invalidates the 50-100 model (sicne it has the smae amount od points as DA:O)

Are you aware of the fact that what you say here serves no purpose other than drama? The number of enemies you face doesn't change anything if the point is that ENEMIES YOU CAN KİLL AT LEVEL 8 NEED TO CATCH UP WHEN YOU HIT LEVEL 15 SO THAT A GOOD HALF OF THE GAME DOESN'T TURN INTO A THIRTY-HOUR DENERIM CITY GATES SCENE. Get it? Why do I care how many monsters I killed if I can kill them at level 8 and am worried about them being a joke when I reach level 15 because they weren't getting stronger as I was?

No, you dont' get it. The enemies you kill at lvl 8 are STILL dangerous at lvl15 (if you're not carefull).
No enemy is basicly canon fodder tha you can just click "attack" on and go have a snack while the PC takes him out with nothing but auto-attack while getting no damage.
The enemies still have levels b.t.w.

I *do* understand what you're saying. Problem arose when you started talking about "subtle" level differences where the character doesn't get hitpoints or better damage rolls when they level up AND said they were implemented and worked well in many games. Even Mass Effect gives you more HP each time.

Why should I care abotu what Mass Effect does? Again, you seem to think that HP increase is NECESSARY. They are not. I played mods of both DA:O and BG2 with NO HP increase (adn tweaked balance) and both games were perfectly fun and playable.

Doesn't. Matter. How. You. Define. Strength.

It. Matters. Because. It. Chagnes. Gameplay. And. Atmosphere.

Quite simply, the game plays differently. It's like saying regular D&D and a mod where armors don't give a THAC0 bonus, but rather have damage reduction, play the same. You might argue it boils down to the same thing in the end. Well, it doesn't.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Now do the exact same precise tweaks with ten points and we'll start talking.

Easily done. The requirements/tresholds change, the basic principle is the same.
Instead of 24 to STR, 32 to SEX, 16 to CUN, you go 3 to STR, 4 to DEX, 2 to CUN or somesuch.

Easily done? Try it, and you'll see it won't come close. Dividing a quantity into smaller numbers will not net you the same precision. It's math. Say, you've got four sustainables and two active talents you wish to use regularly. Sustainables require 20 stamina each, while talents require 30 and 40, respectively. You have 100 stamina. You don't have 10 points (10 WIL = 50 stamina) to spare, so you decide to forgo one or two talents. You got six points, you give up two sustainables. You got seven points, you give up one of the actives instead. Examples are infinite. What you call "easily done" defies logic. You can try and see...well, judging by the last three pages, maybe you can't.

And ..120 poitns??? IIRC, you can't get that much (and equipment poitns don't count)

Equipment points do count. Take a look at my example again. It says "add to that race/class/gear bonuses".

And I still don't see how anything you said invalidates the 50-100 model (sicne it has the smae amount od points as DA:O)

So? Why should I care? I'm not here to invalidate other models. I said DA:O model allows more variety than systems which give you one attribute point every four levels.

No, you dont' get it. The enemies you kill at lvl 8 are STILL dangerous at lvl15 (if you're not carefull).
No enemy is basicly canon fodder tha you can just click "attack" on and go have a snack while the PC takes him out with nothing but auto-attack while getting no damage.
The enemies still have levels b.t.w.

And how dangerous are they? Are they still as challenging? Is winning the battle easier when you're level 15? If not, why would I value XP now that my extra seven levels won't help?

Why should I care abotu what Mass Effect does? Again, you seem to think that HP increase is NECESSARY. They are not. I played mods of both DA:O and BG2 with NO HP increase (adn tweaked balance) and both games were perfectly fun and playable.

HP increase necessary? Not really. HP increase is just another incentive. And the sum of such incentives (including OR not including HP increase) is what makes you want to level up.

We could play both games with mods which do away with the concept of leveling entirely and still find them perfectly fun and playable. I'm not here to discuss the validity of other systems or leveling altogether.

It. Matters. Because. It. Chagnes. Gameplay. And. Atmosphere.

Quite simply, the game plays differently. It's like saying regular D&D and a mod where armors don't give a THAC0 bonus, but rather have damage reduction, play the same. You might argue it boils down to the same thing in the end. Well, it doesn't.

I'll explain it once more. Once more. No matter how different the gameplay. No matter how different the atmosphere. No matter how your definition of strength affects the game. If you keep growing stronger while the enemy stays the same, the battle will become relatively easier. The gap will become more noticeable as you develop your character level after level. Difficulty will reduce. In case of Dragon Age, enemy scaling helps them catch up. The sky is blue. That you think the sky would look better if it were red doesn't mean the sky isn't blue.

I'm getting off this Ferris wheel. Excuse me.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Double post

Modifié par Ortaya Alevli, 24 septembre 2010 - 09:08 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Easily done? Try it, and you'll see it won't come close. Dividing a quantity into smaller numbers will not net you the same precision. It's math. Say, you've got four sustainables and two active talents you wish to use regularly. Sustainables require 20 stamina each, while talents require 30 and 40, respectively. You have 100 stamina. You don't have 10 points (10 WIL = 50 stamina) to spare, so you decide to forgo one or two talents. You got six points, you give up two sustainables. You got seven points, you give up one of the actives instead. Examples are infinite. What you call "easily done" defies logic. You can try and see...well, judging by the last three pages, maybe you can't.[/quote]

You don't need the same precision in the first place. That's the point



[quote]
So? Why should I care? I'm not here to invalidate other models. I said DA:O model allows more variety than systems which give you one attribute point every four levels.[/quote]

Or every 3 levels..or every 2 levels..or 5 levels. VAriations exist so one cna find an optimal balance. 4 was just an example.

and no, it doesn't allow more variety the way it is.


[quote]No, you dont' get it. The enemies you kill at lvl 8 are STILL dangerous at lvl15 (if you're not
And how dangerous are they? Are they still as challenging? Is winning the battle easier when you're level 15? If not, why would I value XP now that my extra seven levels won't help?


[quote]
HP increase necessary? Not really. HP increase is just another incentive. And the sum of such incentives (including OR not including HP increase) is what makes you want to level up.[/quote]

Story, and progression are not incentives enough for you? Skill? Abilities?



Whatever...let's agree to diasagree and move on.