76 réponses à ce sujet

[rmp]

Anyone else think it's dumb you can keep raising an attribute without any kind of limitation? Take strength for example. You can weight train and get stronger and keep doing that, but eventually your strength gains are going to get smaller and smaller. For every attribute there is a peak and as you get closer to it, it should get incrementally more difficult to approach it.

What they should have done is set a soft cap on how high an attribute can go.. let's say it's 50. If you want to go to 51, you need to spend two points instead of one getting there. This would mostly affect mages, since they're the only ones that can concentrate on one, maybe two attributes, but that's perfect. I'm always seeing comments like 'put all your points in magic and don't worry about anything else, there are lyrium potions a plenty'..

DnD has this kind of mechanic when you create a character and put points in attributes; it costs more to raise them to higher levels. Bioware should have also done this. It would encourage people to diversify their points and it would also just make more sense.

[deathwing200]

No.

[Darpaek]

No.

[Denhvide]

No.

[Bibdy]

That's one way to push the player into more variety in stats, but I think the core problem is with the relative strength of the stats themselves. A Warrior tank can put every point in Str and Dex, forgetting completely about Will and Con, and be the best potential tank in the game. A Warrior tank trying to spread points around gets penalised heavily for it. He'll find his higher health pool being much less effective than a higher Defense from Dex, he'll find he can't spread points around and still be able to wear the heaviest armour, which would protect him more than being able to use a few more abilities every combat due to a higher Willpower, or some more HP.

Main problem is Will and Con aren't valued enough. Put more emphasis on them, and a little less on the other stats, and players will naturally begin to spread their points around.

And to you guys just saying "No.", say why...you're not making any kind of point whatsoever other than "I'm a sheep and I'm just going to copy-paste the first response".

Modifié par Bibdy, 16 décembre 2009 - 06:58 .

[rmp]

What's wrong with the idea? You don't like that it's more realistic? It would mess with those uber powerful mage builds? What?

Edit: Thanks Bidby for an intelligent response.

Modifié par rmp, 16 décembre 2009 - 07:01 .

[Faerell Gustani]

Yes but for an entirely different reason than "realism".

The current problem with many stat choices is that its binary. You can easily make an unhittable rogue with just pure dex. He'll be great to solo the game as his physical resistance, attack rating, and damage will all be insanely good and unmitigated. The ease in which you can stack attributes is problematic to game play as it provides a very obvious avenue to the overpowering of characters and thusly a lack of game balance.

Diminishing returns and soft-caps would encourage a more diverse attribute allocation as well as a more well rounded set of numbers for attack/defense/damage/resistances and the likes. Thusly it will make becoming "unhittable" much more difficult.

[thegreateski]

No.

[Bibdy]

thegreateski wrote...

No.

Baa-aa-aa.

[deathwing200]

rmp wrote...

What's wrong with the idea? You don't like that it's more realistic? It would mess with those uber powerful mage builds? What?

Edit: Thanks Bidby for an intelligent response.

People don't like the idea because it's retarded, not because it's realistic.

[Elwyn]

No.

[thegreateski]

Bibdy wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

No.

Baa-aa-aa.

Put all your points in Strength.

now go get a 2-hander and try to hit something.

Diminishing returns is silly.

[Bibdy]

Why is diminishing returns silly? Am I missing something blatantly obvious about a system that encourages players to diversify, not stack a single stat and have a character record that looks like 10/10/10/9000/10?



Or do you just hate having to make decisions?

[Bibdy]

deathwing200 wrote...

rmp wrote...

What's wrong with the idea? You don't like that it's more realistic? It would mess with those uber powerful mage builds? What?

Edit: Thanks Bidby for an intelligent response.

People don't like the idea because it's retarded, not because it's realistic.

The only thing retarded here is your demeanor in a sensible post trying to invoke a discussion, and your responses to it.

[thegreateski]

Bibdy wrote...
Why is diminishing returns silly? Am I missing something blatantly obvious about a system

Yes.

Yes you are.

[thegreateski]

Bibdy wrote...

deathwing200 wrote...

rmp wrote...

What's wrong with the idea? You don't like that it's more realistic? It would mess with those uber powerful mage builds? What?

Edit: Thanks Bidby for an intelligent response.

People don't like the idea because it's retarded, not because it's realistic.

The only thing retarded here is your demeanor in a sensible post trying to invoke a discussion, and your responses to it.

Pot > kettle

[Bibdy]

thegreateski wrote...

Bibdy wrote...
Why is diminishing returns silly? Am I missing something blatantly obvious about a system

Yes.

Yes you are.

So explain it then. Or is it just too difficult from up there on your pedestal?

[deathwing200]

Bibdy wrote...

Why is diminishing returns silly? Am I missing something blatantly obvious about a system that encourages players to diversify, not stack a single stat and have a character record that looks like 10/10/10/9000/10?

Or do you just hate having to make decisions?

The point you're missing is that attributes should all be attractive and balanced options. Adding diminishing returns to a current system is just trying to conceal bad game design. (like worthless willpower and con). In other words, all attributes should be viable. They're not now. Diminishing returns on stats encourages diversity through punishment rather than actual viability.

Edit: comparing DA stats to DnD stats is also pretty dumb. in DND the diminishing returns on stats are only there in the beginning, simply because you get so many of them, people would start with something like 40 STR or 40 INT - way to difficult to balance. in DA, you only get a few stat points, which makes adding DRs pointless.

Modifié par deathwing200, 16 décembre 2009 - 07:18 .

[Darpaek]

Bibdy wrote...

So explain it then. Or is it just too difficult from up there on your pedestal?

Yes.

[Muse011]

Bibdy wrote...

Why is diminishing returns silly? Am I missing something blatantly obvious about a system that encourages players to diversify, not stack a single stat and have a character record that looks like 10/10/10/9000/10?

Or do you just hate having to make decisions?

So are you one of those people who like to make fun of 'sheep'? Doesn't that technically make you one as well, just a different kind?

Stacking one stat only is a bad idea anyway, so anyone who does it just because they 'can' is only hurting themselves in the end. Unless they like Easy difficulty.

A good example is the Strength one mentioned above.

[Bibdy]

thegreateski wrote...

Pot > kettle

How do you figure?

I see a sensible post by this guy, I see a bunch of children jumping in saying "No." as their only response to this sensible subject, and then getting hostile when the poster asks why people feel that way.

So no, I'm not seeing a pot/kettle argument here. I'm seeing people acting like children on a forum.

[Bibdy]

deathwing200 wrote...

The point you're missing is that attributes should all be attractive and balanced options. Adding diminishing returns to a current system is just trying to conceal bad game design. (like worthless willpower and con). In other words, all attributes should be viable. They're not now. Diminishing returns on stats encourages diversity through punishment rather than actual viability.

See, was that so hard?

[Darpaek]

If they nerf my 60 CUN rogue because of you, I swear to the Maker I'll cut you! I'll cut you good and deep!

[Bibdy]

Muse011 wrote...


So are you one of those people who like to make fun of 'sheep'? Doesn't that technically make you one as well, just a different kind?

Herr herr you're so smert.

Stacking one stat only is a bad idea anyway, so anyone who does it just because they 'can' is only hurting themselves in the end. Unless they like Easy difficulty.

A good example is the Strength one mentioned above.

Not in this game it isn't. Tanks aren't penalised for stacking Dex any more than Mages are penalised for stacking Magic. What do they need anything else for? A tank that gets 1 defense per Dex vs opponents that get 0.5 Attack per Str, and Mages that get continually better damage/mana efficiency and being more than capable of chain-chugging cheap lesser mana potions all day...

None of that sounds like a bad idea. It sounds like players making the best out of the system and it needs some fixes to get players to diversify.

Modifié par Bibdy, 16 décembre 2009 - 07:16 .

[Damar Stiehl]

No.