134 réponses à ce sujet

[philippe willaume]

eroeru wrote...

 @Phil

What does making every attribute meaningful have to do with the skill/talent system? I can't link the first two paragraphs with the rest of the text...

@eroeru
Sorry... I could have been clearer.
It is not really about making attribute meaningful and talents/skills. It is about the effect of making attribute directly meaningful has on talent and skill.
 
In DA attributes are the main driver for performance.
For example high cunning = increase in crit % or high dex= increase in crit damage
Or main attribute for damage
 
So let say that you want to play a warrior that is good with a bow or that is good at fencing.
In DA you will require con, strength, dex, cunning as opposed to tank warrior con strength.
Because the characteristics are directly effect and the archer or fencer warrior is much less viable than the tank warrior as strength is the main driver in the damage calculation and to hit chances. Basically diverting points from the driving attributes is counter productive because of the link between the base line calculation and the effects like critical)
 
In DA the way around it is to obtain the same effect of a fencer-warrior by choosing talent that increase the speed of attack or increase the % crit damage and damage chance. (http://social.biowar...5/index/6616406) or http://social.biowar...1/index/6090138
 
So de-facto you can concentrate on optimum warrior build and get some sort dex cunning related benefits. That being said Vanguard berserker is not necessarily the obvious choice for playing a dex base warrior but mechanically the effect are quite similar.
 
Now there are no missiles talents open to warrior but the same could be done. So you can have the effect you want via talents that trumps attribute.
So we might as well use attributes to open access talents or giving caped/limited bonus
 
The hit point, stamina, mana, defence% and to hit % would be determined by the level and the class/archetype you choose.
 
The attribute could have that type of effect
 
Strength
Weapon you can use,(one handed weapon and shield, axe and mace, two handed-swords, two handed axes and mace
Weapon speed increase -25% THS -25 % THW -50% THS, -50% THW
Open a fortitude talents/skill tree (resistance, stun, slam, indomitable)
 
Constitution
Armour (heavy clothing, mail/scale/ plate /heavy plate) (i.e. light, medium heavy, ultra heavy)
Hit point recovery speed (+10% - 15% +20% +25%)
Bonus to damage resistance (+10% - 25% +33% +50%)
 
Dexterity=
Ranged weapon usage (medium bow, medium crossbow, heavy bow, heavy crossbow)
% to defence (+10% - 15% +20% +25%)
Open dual wielding (hafted weapons, two knifes, one handed light sword+ knife, one handed weapon +knife, two one handed weapons
 
Cunning
Open stealth talent/skills (move silently, distract, backstab (bonus to hit and armour penetration)  backstab II (bonus to hit, critical and armour penetration)
Tactics (increase to critical chance, damage baseline not linked to another attribute, should be capped according the weapon type. A dagger in the eyes has quite different result that a dagger on the skull, however a two handed maul does break the skull all the same regardless where it lands.
+10% - 15% +20% +25% for heavy two handed weapons
(+10% - 25% +33% +50%) for two handed swords or on handed weapons
(+10% - 25% +33% +50%) and damage *2 rather than 1.5 for knife
Open flanking talent/skills (bonus on flanking attack angle, +10% - 15% +20% +25%)
 
Willpower
Open talent tree like talent/skill, (bolster, second wind, etc);
% resistance to mind affecting spells (+10% - 25% +33% +50%)
% stamina/mana recuperation rate  (+10% - 15% +20% +25%)
 
Magic
Access alchemy talent/skills (4 type of potions)
Access to runcrafing talent/skills   (4 types of runes)
% spell resistance caped (+10% - 25% +33% +50%)
 
That should let you play either a monolithic characters (just does one thing well) or a more versatile character, Giving more game play options.
But since there are no direct relation with the attributes and how intrinsically effective the character is no build is being sup-obtimal.
 

[eroeru]

Yup, those are good ideas, Phil...

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Modifié par CrustyBot, 14 novembre 2012 - 06:01 .

[alex90c]

wtf tl;dr nerd!

that was frickin awful!

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

alex90c wrote...

wtf tl;dr nerd!

that was frickin awful!

[uberdowzen]

I've been skimming over this thread and I like a lot of the ideas you have mrcrusty. I have a question though, why do you think skills are necessary? I've been thinking about this a lot recently (triggered mostly by DA2 and playing the Baldur's Gate series for the first time) and I've come to the conclusion that they're completely pointless. They don't add anything to the game that couldn't be derived from attributes (why do I need a skill that says how good my character is with, say, two handed weapons when this could be derived from the characters strength attribute) and at worst they produce a symbiosis between skills and attributes which is hard for you to wrap your head around. I suppose it could be argued that just because someone is strong it doesn't mean they know how to swing a sword effectively but can't this dealt with by talents? e.g. a strong character is able to learn talents that make them better at using a sword?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

uberdowzen wrote...

I've been skimming over this thread and I like a lot of the ideas you have mrcrusty. I have a question though, why do you think skills are necessary? I've been thinking about this a lot recently (triggered mostly by DA2 and playing the Baldur's Gate series for the first time) and I've come to the conclusion that they're completely pointless. They don't add anything to the game that couldn't be derived from attributes (why do I need a skill that says how good my character is with, say, two handed weapons when this could be derived from the characters strength attribute) and at worst they produce a symbiosis between skills and attributes which is hard for you to wrap your head around. I suppose it could be argued that just because someone is strong it doesn't mean they know how to swing a sword effectively but can't this dealt with by talents? e.g. a strong character is able to learn talents that make them better at using a sword?

In the context of a Dragon Age system, I don't. I posted my "realistic" suggestions without mention of a Skill System, just a redesigned Talent System. But it's still stupid.

In a broader context, I like Skills because it makes sense. As you said, simply being Strong won't make you the best Swordsman, or Blacksmith and being Dexterous won't make you the best Archer, or Thief. Not inherently.

Skills are a way to make the link between an instrinsic mental/physical capability (Attribute) to an actual, tangible... well... Skill.

Sure you could derive stats from Attributes, cut skills out and use Talents as Dragon Age 2 has, but that enforces a form of backwards logic on the issue.

Under Dragon Age's no Skills system, you are a Master Swordman because you can do flashy moves.

What makes logical sense is that you can do flashy moves because you are a Master Swordsman. Which is represented by Skills.

To add to that, having no skills also puts an un-natural burden on Attributes and Equipment to enforce character progression. If you keep Attributes static, but remove Skills, how is your character going to get stronger? Through on-level bonuses determined on Creation. That means you're basically screwed for the whole game if you mess up Character Creation by a couple of points. Then you have to enforce player driven progression through Talents and Equipment... but both Equipment and Talents have Attribute requirements. So that would still be a problem.

The solution would then be to allow you to build Attributes or remove them (Attributes) entirely and hinge everything on Talents. The third option would be to loose or remove Attribute requirements. Which then leads to redundancy.

Allowing players to build Attribute points leads to the problems that freche and Joy bring up - Why do I need to keep stacking STR just to use a new Sword? Which is in effect, the path that Dragon Age 2 has taken.

Or you get Dragon Effect. Barely an RPG at all.

As for it being confusing, if it is properly explained and executed, I fail to see how. You have Attributes which are your basic Physical/Mental Capabilities, you have Skills which are is how good you are at carrying out a specific kind of task and Abilities which are the actual things that you can do as a result.

It's a three tiered system which makes logical sense. /InExile

It's really not a difficult concept to grasp. Fallout and Elder Scrolls for example, are heavily rooted in Skill Systems, even more than my suggested system I'd wager.

While it can be argued they aren't necessary depending on the game, they are ideal to properly and logically represent characters. Plus I like them. Which I think is the main part. If I like Skills, they are going to be apart of any suggestions that I make.

Also, I'd probably like to add Traits on Character Creation as well as Reputational, Achievement and Skill Mastery Perks ala Innate Talents. That would be really nice imo. But it won't happen. Not anytime soon.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 13 novembre 2011 - 01:29 .

[uberdowzen]

Well, thanks for the in depth explanation of your view. You've definitely given me some food for thought in regards to my view on skills and I'm going to have to reconsider it.

[Sepewrath]

mrcrusty wrote...
Respect measures how a companion views your beliefs and moral stance. Disposition measures how a companion views your personality. For example, being an angry dickwad pisses off Aveline to no need, but she respects you because when push comes to shove, you make righteous decisions. In Dragon Age 2, that'd either funnel to Rivalry or you'd get some weird in the middle stance, same with Origins. Which is not exactly accurate.

I can agree with that, but the problem with subtlety is no matter how much of an illusion they present, they can never actually achieve that. In fact a system like that runs the risk of people becoming seemingly bipolar or something as they try and follow both meters. So I think the one meter, at least at this point in time is the better choice, but there can still be more of a focus on characterization. In my opinion, they were really close in DA2, just a few steps forward and they'll nail it.

I think things like saying what Isabela needed to hear vs saying what she wanted to hear, after the romance scene is a good example and probably as subtle as it can get.

[eroeru]

But how about choosing a tone for the voice of the character in the character-creation screen, like we choose the voice for shouts and such in DA:O? I know it would be a lot more dialogue to put into the game - but if done by the same voice-actor and if the script itself were almost identical, it shouldn't be a problem.

Though if it'd work is another question...

Edit: I'm thinking more in terms of "character attitude" rather than "tone" though.

Modifié par eroeru, 14 novembre 2011 - 03:31 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

eroeru wrote...

But how about choosing a tone for the voice of the character in the character-creation screen, like we choose the voice for shouts and such in DA:O? I know it would be a lot more dialogue to put into the game - but if done by the same voice-actor and if the script itself were almost identical, it shouldn't be a problem.

Though if it'd work is another question...

Edit: I'm thinking more in terms of "character attitude" rather than "tone" though.

It actually is though. The voice acting itself may not be too much of a problem, because BioWare can just lock up their VA's inside the Studio, chains and all.



The problem would lie in the implementation of it into the game and the impact it has on game size, scripting the right tone for conversations, etc. Also you'd get the epic problem of having a static tone for the entire game. What if you wanted to RP/LARP your character undergoing a personality change after specific, traumatic events.

I remember doing so with my City Elf playthrough in Origins and it was probably my favourite character I played.

In any case, this is just an elaborate bump, so I don't feel particularly strongly about this one way or the other. I just don't want my thread and all my ideas to be sucked into the Abyss.

[eroeru]

@lemarcheur
Following the example of TES is a bad idea *because* DA is a story-driven RPG. The simplified stuff isn't what's alluring in Skyrim, it's the open-world genre that's alluring, in exactly the established direction/brand Bethesda's perfected. The D&D role-playing complex stuff is not expected there because TES has different focuses. But it *is* indeed expected from a Bioware game (and the market sure has a niche for this).

Edit: but if their sole purpose is indeed to sell as many games as possible and *nothing* else, then fine by me, I just won't buy anything from them as soon as that's clear (though they'd try to not make it clear if this is the case - which would eventually leave the many fans insulted).

Modifié par eroeru, 18 novembre 2011 - 12:49 .

[Nope Dot Avi]

Bio, listen to this guy.

[philippe willaume]

It is not such a clear dichotomy

I like skyrim because, in the combat, I can do what I want, how I want it.
And people in town do remember what you did to them or the town they live in.
On the other hand I, and in all probability you as well, have decapitated Lydia a few times because stuka-ed in on my target.
Not to mention that she is crap at sneaking so she keeps walking on every bloody pressure plate, even when I avoid them, just in case she might follow my steps. So I really whish I could tell her don’t step on that, you will set us on fire like the 238481544 times before.
And if she says I am supposed to carry your burden one more time, her decapitation is not going to be an accident.

The perks system is quite good but in all honesty I would say that it is quite close to what I described in my reply to Eroeru at the top of this page and the general idea of what Mrcrusty is talking about.

The system in itself does not need to be complex to be accurate enough and enjoyable.
As well from a logical stand point, if the game mechanics uses skill/talent the same was way attributes are used, the net result end up being the same thing.

Now in TES, we are mostly a kind of a war-rog-age, with either a good smithing and/or alchemy and/or enchanting.
In DA, those function are kind of split between the 3 classes and in TW2 the function are split between signs, bombs and potion. So both in TW2 and TES the class concept is not existent or not to that extend.

Really call then skills/talent or perks is not the problem the critical issue are to avoid rail roading and promote play diversity.

Philippe

[eroeru]

Yup, diversity might be a better word, though in my eyes that's almost the same as complexity, or at least they have noticeable common ground, so to say. Though I did misunderstand a bit with @lamarcheur, the basic idea's the same - making things less detailed in favor of bringing "new" stuff in is a no-no, imho...

[maxernst]

I'm not a fan of the endless attribute increasing either for two reasons:

1) In a system with a hard maximum for human strength like 18/00 in D&D or 100 in Rolemaster, for example, you knew how strong a character was relative to most other people.

2) The fact that better armor and better swords require more strength to use implies that basically, heavier is always better. Purely in terms of damage, this might make sense if the materials were always the same, but you would think that some of these exotic materials might simply be stronger or able to hold a sharper edge, without actually being heavier, or perhaps even being lighter.

3) As others have noted, I would think your skill with your weapons would increase more with experience than your actual physical strength.

Modifié par maxernst, 19 novembre 2011 - 12:15 .

[philippe willaume]

maxernst wrote...

I'm not a fan of the endless attribute increasing either for two reasons:

1) In a system with a hard maximum for human strength like 18/00 in D&D or 100 in Rolemaster, for example, you knew how strong a character was relative to most other people.

2) The fact that better armor and better swords require more strength to use implies that basically, heavier is always better. Purely in terms of damage, this might make sense if the materials were always the same, but you would think that some of these exotic materials might simply be stronger or able to hold a sharper edge, without actually being heavier, or perhaps even being lighter.

3) As others have noted, I would think your skill with your weapons would increase more with experience than your actual physical strength.

First I totally agree.
In the RPG I have created, you can play about anything provided that it would fit in a door and don’t have to crawl in corridors (and really because it is limiting locations) and you can play high-tech or fantasy char. (Basically kind of ME meets DA).

So to be able to play something big and not unbalance the game; I.e. be a minotaur or an android/bio -droid with implants to the wazou, if you want to play a warrior because it can be twice to 4 times the volume of a man.
You must have a system that disconnects attributes and how effective you are. Of course the system in itself must gives you means to be effective if you want to play a warrior type  big thing with big weapon or warrior type not that big weapon but  precise and quick.
I.e. you need some kind of mechanism for power attack and aiming (i.e. targeting high value parts which implies some sort of wound severity and localisation)
 
That being said what you gain on char creation front, you are paying somewhere else.
In the case of skill based system it is the character progression.
 
And in a level based game it is a bit of a snag, increasing char have the benefits of an easier control of relative efficiency at a given level by having char requirements but then controlling becomes a tad trickier as it equates to a skill “cap” per level and an increase of the skill/talents point as you level up.
That is a kind of railroading as well.
 
A way around it is to have skills talent that depends of the attribute and skill/talents that depends of your class.
 
phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 19 novembre 2011 - 12:28 .

[Sidney]

lemarcheur wrote...

If I was an EA/BW exec, and I looked at this “other” rpg game just released last week (which should sell around 6M copies), I would see that:
• People are happy with combat animation consisting in 2 floating arms in the air
• People are happy with a Left –Right button combat choice, with little other tactics
• People are happy with easy to understand leveling system without having to read complicated textbook

Yeah the funny thing is listening to RPG types defend the TES system when it is basically Bioshock style combat. TES sells a ton because is it s alot more accessible to the FPS fans than the 3rd person pausable party stuff Bioware does. 

Also, easy to understand leveling system? Ummm, no not hardly. TES has always had a more "aracne" leveling system because it is a total mask. You tell me how many levels in skills you need to gain to add a level, now tell me how many times you need to do X in order to level a skill. It is opaque plus with the TES games it is insanely easy to get a "bad" build that you can't continue on with as the game levels with you. It has choices but it viciously punishes an awful lot of choices.

In the end what drives a lot of TES stuff is that you can basically kill without reason and "play" the game. All that slowing the game down talky- talky stuff with your character....don't need it. You get past Helgen and from that point on you can play the game for hours on end and never talk to a single NPC but just killing your way MW3 style through Skyrim.

[Chaos Lord Malek]

There seems to be everyone saying its own. So i personally would prefer Character system in style of combination between Witcher 2 and Fallout SPECIAL.

Where you would distribute points to stats at the character creation, and they would further determine your health, stamina/mana, magic resistances etc... This stats would also be used during story cinematic/dialogues - like high enough Intelligence gives you knowledge of *something*. And finally - the stats would stay, you would no longer be spending 3 points every level on attributes, thus every point would matter more in defining your character.

The Witcher 2 part should cover both talents and skills. The way the talents work in Witcher with 3 different trees and a lots of options should be given to each of the classes(Warrior/Mage/Rogue - though i would prefer a completely new set of classes, possibly tied to the origins - like Templar origin, Mage origin, Hunter, Druid, ...) and even every single NPC Companion should have his/her own talent trees. And i mean their OWN - that Isabella would have talents like Swashbuckler/Trickster/Duelist, but no one else, not even main character would have access to this.

The skill part - where skills that you use becomes better is simply the best way to make skills. that has being done so far. The types like BG/Fallout where you kill 20 insects and your speech improves just dose`t make sense. Also skills should be further improved by basic stats - like Cunning would improve speech/lying/bluffing skill , Willpower could improve some medical/healing/alchemy skill, Intelligence would improve Runeforging ,etc... But all this skills would only get better by practicing.

[maxernst]

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

The skill part - where skills that you use becomes better is simply the best way to make skills. that has being done so far. The types like BG/Fallout where you kill 20 insects and your speech improves just dose`t make sense. Also skills should be further improved by basic stats - like Cunning would improve speech/lying/bluffing skill , Willpower could improve some medical/healing/alchemy skill, Intelligence would improve Runeforging ,etc... But all this skills would only get better by practicing.

I don't care for the skill improvement by use systems for a number of reasons.  One is that they take character development largely out of your hands--you can't improve the skills if the game doesn't give you opportunities to use them.  I also think it promotes tedium in gameplay because it encourages the player to repeatedly use skills, unnecessarily. 

And I'm not swayed by the skills can only get better by practicing, because thre's a difference between practicing and using skills.  I have a friend who is a musician and at one point she had the opportunity to play for a long-running musical (she was filling in occasionally for them as it was) and she declined, because she wouldn't have time to practice and improve her skill if she were performing every night.  Similarly, when Novak Djokovic decided he needed to improve his slice backhand, he didn't start by trying to hit it against Roger Federer in the Wimbledon final--he drilled it endlessly on the practice courts.  Because when you're actually performing, you have to do what you know is going to work, you can't afford to tinker.  If you're fighting for your life in combat, you're going to stick with techniques you know, not experiment, so you aren't going to learn to do anything new.

That's not to say you wouldn't become a better fighter through combat experience, but what you gain is not technique, it's confidence, the knowledge that you can apply your skills under pressure.  And so all the skills that you regularly practice benefit, not just the ones you happen to have been using the most often in that situation.

Modifié par maxernst, 19 novembre 2011 - 10:37 .

[Sidney]

maxernst wrote...

I'm not a fan of the endless attribute increasing either for two reasons:

1) In a system with a hard maximum for human strength like 18/00 in D&D or 100 in Rolemaster, for example, you knew how strong a character was relative to most other people.

2) The fact that better armor and better swords require more strength to use implies that basically, heavier is always better. Purely in terms of damage, this might make sense if the materials were always the same, but you would think that some of these exotic materials might simply be stronger or able to hold a sharper edge, without actually being heavier, or perhaps even being lighter.

3) As others have noted, I would think your skill with your weapons would increase more with experience than your actual physical strength.

Well and you figure your increase in any physical attribute is something of the order of 3-4x in your core skills and there's just no way. Maybe my desk-bound self could double his lift ability with heavy training but 3-4x for  afit person ain't happening for example.

In the end to me the single biggest thing for the DA series to do is to fix the mage advanatge where they can pour skills into 2 things - Willpower and Magic while anyone else has to dump into their two main attributes PLUS Willppower in order to use their powers. To me it is why mages just run away and hide in terms of power.

[philippe willaume]

maxernst wrote...

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

The skill part - where skills that you use becomes better is simply the best way to make skills. that has being done so far. The types like BG/Fallout where you kill 20 insects and your speech improves just dose`t make sense. Also skills should be further improved by basic stats - like Cunning would improve speech/lying/bluffing skill , Willpower could improve some medical/healing/alchemy skill, Intelligence would improve Runeforging ,etc... But all this skills would only get better by practicing.

I don't care for the skill improvement by use systems for a number of reasons.  One is that they take character development largely out of your hands--you can't improve the skills if the game doesn't give you opportunities to use them.  I also think it promotes tedium in gameplay because it encourages the player to repeatedly use skills, unnecessarily. 

And I'm not swayed by the skills can only get better by practicing, because thre's a difference between practicing and using skills.  I have a friend who is a musician and at one point she had the opportunity to play for a long-running musical (she was filling in occasionally for them as it was) and she declined, because she wouldn't have time to practice and improve her skill if she were performing every night.  Similarly, when Novak Djokovic decided he needed to improve his slice backhand, he didn't start by trying to hit it against Roger Federer in the Wimbledon final--he drilled it endlessly on the practice courts.  Because when you're actually performing, you have to do what you know is going to work, you can't afford to tinker.  If you're fighting for your life in combat, you're going to stick with techniques you know, not experiment, so you aren't going to learn to do anything new.

That's not to say you wouldn't become a better fighter through combat experience, but what you gain is not technique, it's confidence, the knowledge that you can apply your skills under pressure.  And so all the skills that you regularly practice benefit, not just the ones you happen to have been using the most often in that situation.

Well I would say you are mixing the technical part and the tactical part of using any martial skills.
 
Just have a look at that video,

 
the actual moves are not that complicated and anyone with a modicum of comprehension and physical abilities will get in an afternoon.
The difficult part is not doing the difficult part is knowing when to do what and what are the tactical consequences of your actions. You understand the words very quickly, but translating it into what are the core component and the early sings of success or failure takes time and practice (as in pressure testing) basically techniques are just a tool, and getting technically better is quick and relatively easy.
The soft skill (ie tactical limitation and pertinence of techniques and what your opponent is offering) are the critical part of the actual application of the skill.
 
 
phil