76 réponses à ce sujet

[RampantBeaver]

Muse011 wrote...
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.

Damnit i wondered why my 10str 10dex 10will 10mag 63cun 10con warrior was doing so badly!

Modifié par RampantBeaver, 16 décembre 2009 - 09:09 .

[Timortis]

Is there a rule that says spread out attribute points are better gameplay or more fun? Personally, I like it when I can max out one of my characters' attributes, rather than make them a jack of all trades, master of none.

[RampantBeaver]

.. [this post does not exist, you cannot see me]

Modifié par RampantBeaver, 16 décembre 2009 - 09:08 .

[Bibdy]

You guys know there's a mod for showing detailed tooltip info, right? And that I made it?

http://social.biowar...m/project/1117/

[Derrek Cousland]

And thanks again for that Bibdy. I love it!



But diminishing returns, nein pls. Just make some attrubutes more usefull. Then there is a better reason to spreak the points.

[Basher of Glory]

I can comprehend the argument to min/max a mage, because there seems to be enough Lyrium to compensate mana losses quickly.

But I cannot understand those, who plead for STR-only fighters, especially 2-handed fighters. In my game-experience these fighters would have a very low defence and there is no armour strong enough to soak up all the incomming damage. This would force the player to add an additional fighter to his party who serves as tank, whereas a good balanced 2-handed fighter could cover both roles, dps AND tank and thus free up the slot for something more useful, dps-wise or RPG-wise.

I agree that the way the attributes are currently implemented is far away from anything I learnt in the past, but that does not necessarily mean that DA:O's attribute setting is bad.
Perhaps we are all a bit overinfluenced by dps- and min/max-nerds. :innocent:

Modifié par Baher of Glory, 16 décembre 2009 - 10:36 .

[Faerell Gustani]

SheffSteel wrote...

Diminishing returns won't stop mix/maxers, it will just slow them down a little. Even if it costs all three attribute points to increase magic from 50 to 51, a lot of players are still going to think it's better value - it still gets all the benefits of a point of Magic - than putting all three points into Willpower and being able to cast Arcane Bolt one more time.

That is distinctly not true, especially in regards to Tanking and survival.
You need to balance Threat generation (Str and Dex) versus avoidance (Dex) and HP pool (Constitution).

Previously, you just dex pumped with enough Strength to maintain aggro long enough to kill the target.
If we apply diminishing returns to everything, at some point it will be too difficult to attain that "Unhittable" rating that dex pumping would normally achieve and you will have to strike a balance between Dex and Con.
Likewise, with Strength, if we apply diminishing returns on damage, eventually the Armor penetration bonuses from Cunning will be more worthwhile.

That is the goal of diminishing returns.  Thus min maxers will actually have to "think" rather than just go "Dex is better than Con...all Dex."

[Faerell Gustani]

Darpaek wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Incorrect.  Diminishing returns would mean that at some point the stat ceases to be a viable way to contribute.
Take Dex for a dual wielding rogue for example.
Dex adds Attack, Damage, Defense, and phys resist for this rogue.
If it starts giving diminishing returns, eventually it will be more efficient to put points into Cunning for Armor Pennetration or Strength for damage, attack rating, and physical resist.
Currently, Strength is a base stat you get to 20 so you can use the armors, you just use Lethality and go pure Dex/Cunning...or pure Dex for superior defenses and hit rating.

Another example would be Mages and Magic.  Currently, Magic is the only stat to invest in.  You get plenty of mana from level-ups such that Willpower is negligible.  There is literally no benefit to other stats.  However, if you add diminishing returns, eventually investing in Magic for additional spellpower will not be as effective as having the extra mana to cast the spell twice.  Willpower will suddenly be valuable at a certain point. (Excluding any Lyrium chugging cheese).

Likewise the Sword/Board warrior focuses on Dex/Strength.
Diminishing returns would lower the chances of an "unhittable" tank by way of Dex focusing, thus making Constitution important to soak the blows where as previously it was a purely inferior stat mechanically.

That's quite an essay when you could've just written...

"No."

Yes, well.  I prefer to back up my assertions with logic and content unlike many of the trolls on this board.  I suppose I feel I should not sink to their level.

[metatrans]

no.

[Bibdy]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Yes, well.  I prefer to back up my assertions with logic and content unlike many of the trolls on this board.  I suppose I feel I should not sink to their level.

That's preposterous. Everyone knows that being mono-syllabic is a sign of enormous testicles and immense brainpower.

[EvilIguana966]

I am against diminishing returns on stat investment. It's a system designed to cover up a problem rather than fix it. The problem, properly understood, is that some stats are so useful that everyone who wants a good character build uses those stats exclusively. When you add diminishing returns all you do is add a point at which the person stops raising the most powerful stat and then goes and raises the next most powerful one. It does nothing to fix the underlying problem and everyone still ends up building the exact same character.



Solving the problem here means making more of these attributes good choices. If there were some reason to want willpower or constitution then you would see people designing builds around them, but there just isn't right now because dexterity is a far better option for tanking and magic does everything a mage needs and more.

[Original182]

I don't like diminishing returns. It makes things hard to calculate. I think it's better to "cap" an attribute if you don't want stats to be too high and encourage people to diversify.

[Bibdy]

EvilIguana966 wrote...

I am against diminishing returns on stat investment. It's a system designed to cover up a problem rather than fix it. The problem, properly understood, is that some stats are so useful that everyone who wants a good character build uses those stats exclusively. When you add diminishing returns all you do is add a point at which the person stops raising the most powerful stat and then goes and raises the next most powerful one. It does nothing to fix the underlying problem and everyone still ends up building the exact same character.

Solving the problem here means making more of these attributes good choices. If there were some reason to want willpower or constitution then you would see people designing builds around them, but there just isn't right now because dexterity is a far better option for tanking and magic does everything a mage needs and more.

But, even if you managed to buff some stats, and nerf others, to get things equal, how do you ensure that the player isn't just going to stack the stat which is always just a tiny bit better than the rest and ensure that THAT stat doesn't end up always being the most powerful? Creating a system where all stats are equal at all times is insane. There's not an RPG system in existence like that, and how long have RPGs been on the market?

I think diminishing returns fixes that admirably. Its not covering up for anything, its applying a dynamic cost/benefit change as a player focusses too much on a given stat. The more a player tries to stack one stat, the more beneficial other stats become. I think that's a LOT more interesting from a min/max mathnerd point of view. Finding the most powerful stat and stacking the bejeesus out of it isn't fun at all.  Only when there are multiple stats to choose from does it get interesting, and when the cost/benefit changes as time goes on, you add another element of intrigue.

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 décembre 2009 - 06:17 .

[Loc'n'lol]

Baher of Glory wrote...

But I cannot understand those, who plead for STR-only fighters, especially 2-handed fighters. In my game-experience these fighters would have a very low defence and there is no armour strong enough to soak up all the incomming damage. This would force the player to add an additional fighter to his party who serves as tank, whereas a good balanced 2-handed fighter could cover both roles, dps AND tank and thus free up the slot for something more useful, dps-wise or RPG-wise.

And in MY experience, two-handed warriors who invest in DEX are terrible at both damage and defense, whereas pure strength 2handers are at least good at dealing massive damage.

Also, the game mechanics kinda force you to invest heavily into your primary stat (at least for mages and warriors) since most of the resistance checks are made against strength for weapon talents (there are a few that are made against cunning) and magic for spells. So, if you don't stack enough, your talents get resisted all the time, and it's kinda not fun. Well, that's for the talents that allow a resistance anyway, most high level spells don't even bother with it.

EDIT : oh and also, what Bidby said. He makes a good point.

Modifié par _Loc_N_lol_, 17 décembre 2009 - 06:19 .

[Scars Unseen]

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?

Diminishing returns does not encourage players to diversify.  It merely punishes people who do not.  Not the same thing.

Making builds that benefit from more diversified attribute assignment would encourage players to diversify.

[Bibdy]

Scars Unseen wrote...

Diminishing returns does not encourage players to diversify.  It merely punishes people who do not.  Not the same thing.

Making builds that benefit from more diversified attribute assignment would encourage players to diversify.

I'm not seeing the distinction between the two. Would it make you feel better about a system where other stats get CHEAPER the more you stack into another stat? Would that be encouraging diversity, instead of punishing those who don't? Because, mathematically that's exactly the same thing.

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 décembre 2009 - 07:09 .

[SheffSteel]

I just think the solution is to make the effect of attributes nonlinear, rather than the cost.

[Bibdy]

SheffSteel wrote...

I just think the solution is to make the effect of attributes nonlinear, rather than the cost.

That's another flavour on the same principle, yeah. I guess it depends how many people the system can trick into believing its a benefit or a punishment

[deathwing200]

Original182 wrote...

I don't like diminishing returns. It makes things hard to calculate. I think it's better to "cap" an attribute if you don't want stats to be too high and encourage people to diversify.

Yeah, allow melee to scale from better weapons forever, while mages stop as soon as they reach magic cap. You should totally be a developer.

[F-C]

i think too many try to directly compare mages and melee classes when their combat systems work differently.



in short ill just say - no, its a bad idea.

[Mikey_205]

No! If people want to min/max fine by me. Its good to be allowed to specialise your party members or keep them jack of all trades. The reqs already demand you distribute some points elsewhere so if Bioware is being mean and whats less optimised characters they should just raise the ability stat requirements.

[Scars Unseen]

Bibdy wrote...

Scars Unseen wrote...

Diminishing returns does not encourage players to diversify.  It merely punishes people who do not.  Not the same thing.

Making builds that benefit from more diversified attribute assignment would encourage players to diversify.

I'm not seeing the distinction between the two. Would it make you feel better about a system where other stats get CHEAPER the more you stack into another stat? Would that be encouraging diversity, instead of punishing those who don't? Because, mathematically that's exactly the same thing.

Distinction:  A system of encouragement adds a valid form of play that would serve as an alternative to dumping everything into one stat.  A system of discouragement takes away from an established form of play, leaving other lesser options as the only choices.

More options good.  Less options bad.  See?

[Bibdy]

Scars Unseen wrote...

Distinction:  A system of encouragement adds a valid form of play that would serve as an alternative to dumping everything into one stat.  A system of discouragement takes away from an established form of play, leaving other lesser options as the only choices.

More options good.  Less options bad.  See?

I like your description of systems of encouragement and discouragement, but the first doesn't imply more options and the second doesn't imply less options. Your final statement there is utterly false as it relates to the first. Lesser options doesn't mean they're the only choices, nor does it mean there are less choices, in basic fact it gives you MORE choices, because there's 5 other stats to look at instead of always sticking with one. Now you're considering more options than you would have before. There's nothing stopping you putting all 3 attribute points in to Magic every level, but the system ENCOURAGES you to think of other options. Which is identical to DISCOURAGING you to not use the same one over and over. Encouragement, discouragement, benefit, penalty, tah-may-toe, toe-mah-toe, they're all essentially synonymous in this context.

The importance should be in HOW you diversify. You can't honestly enjoy a system where players can stack a Mage character with stats like 10/10/10/80/10/10, can you? If not, then you must understand that there should always be SOME diversity in there. Buffing/nerfing stats isn't going to achieve that at all points as a character progresses. Diversity is always good. "Variety is the spice of life". It makes things more dynamic and interesting. Following the same pattern for developing a character all the time is tedious and doesn't lend itself to the replayability factor.

Idealism or not, you don't honestly expect Bioware to come up with a system that gives you complete diversity AND complete specialisation as completely equal, viable options from level 1 to 100...do you?

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 décembre 2009 - 08:22 .

[NetBeansAndJava]

Diminishing returns has been used in a lot of rpgs, but it would not be wise here. The reason is that attribute pts scale linearly in "power". In other words, the difference in power from 1 str to 2 str is the same from 9 str to 10 str. In other rpgs, if you raised your str from 9 to 10, it made a much greater difference than raising it from 1 to 2.

[rmp]

Mikey_205 wrote...

No! If people want to min/max fine by me. Its good to be allowed to specialise your party members or keep them jack of all trades. The reqs already demand you distribute some points elsewhere so if Bioware is being mean and whats less optimised characters they should just raise the ability stat requirements.

You're the 2nd person to mention jack of all trades. In what I presented as a possibility, you still get to put a ton of points into your favorite attribute. Then eventually you'd have to choose between +1 to your favorite, or +2 to your 2nd favorite. The focus would still be on just two attributes, not several as jack of all trades implies.