91 réponses à ce sujet

[Anomaly-]

philippe willaume wrote...
About basing attack or any game stat to level.

That is the points of perks/talent instead of attribute ( or parks/tallend depend of a given attribute)
The difference in performaces comes from the talents you choose.

ideally the talent/perks should contain the bonuses and the cost.

phil

Yes, I understand that, but after playing Skyrim I don't feel that perks by themselves can adequately replace attributes. I can spend every attribute point from level 1 to 20 in strength, if I choose, and have a unique character who's limited and focused skillset is well represented in the game mechanics. That's an extreme example, but the point is, the same freedom is not provided by perks alone.

[DarthLaxian]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I thought DA:O did it rather well.

I don't 'ave too much experience with type 1, other than a tactical "RPG" called Hammer & Sickle, and while I certainly enjoyed it (though I always played the same type of character--generally roguish with mid to high intelligence), I don't really feel this is best for the DA series. it just doesn't feel right for a true RPG: There is no progression, and this is really really bad if it's considered an "RPG."

3 is just bad, just awful. And Skyrim is barely an RPG (imo), so I have trouble seeing IT'S use of that system as a benefit.


I think what I would like is something like type two but with some of the bygone attributes, things like intelligence or charisma.

Gosh, I think KotOR actually did something right.

That is exactly what i would have said (in other words of course)

so yes, the DA:O system was good (tying the stats to the spells/skills is bad IMHO (it's bad enough that taking some skills requires certain stats))

greetings LAX

[DPSSOC]

I always liked the 3e D&D system of largely set attributes with the odd boost. Admittedly this doesn't work great for DA as is because each single attribute point is rather meaningless, where as in D&D every two attributes grants a measurable gain. In that vein I'd actually like to see fewer attribute points.

In DA:O & DA:2 you start out with stats around about 15 and can easily end up with them in the 50-60 range, which seems like it should be a big difference, but that's not really reflected in game because it only amounts to a 35-45% increase, so while you've tripled your attribute you're not even half again as powerful as you were when you started. If you're going to go with a system that lets you increase attributes as you progress make each increase count. I shouldn't be able to just shrug off misplacing an attribute point.

[Fast Jimmy]

I really appreciate the feedback here, lots of good insight and discussion.

I know people have stated they do not like the suggestion of the artificial limit to setting only one Attribute point to each Attribute per Level Up. And I can understand that - arbitrary math or limitations to make a system "work" always bothered me as well.

How about a middle ground? What if for an Attributes range, say 1-20, it only takes one Attribute point to increase Strength. But from 21-30, it takes 2 points. From 31-40, it takes 3, etc. In a system like that, it would get to the point where spending three points just to get the next level of damage bonus in your class' given attribute may be better spent putting that in a different trait. This could lead "hardcore" builds that focus on the one Attribute alone to reach the highest damage possible, but at the expense of more economic builds that allow for more skills/spells to be used.

Any discussion on this idea?

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I really appreciate the feedback here, lots of good insight and discussion.

I know people have stated they do not like the suggestion of the artificial limit to setting only one Attribute point to each Attribute per Level Up. And I can understand that - arbitrary math or limitations to make a system "work" always bothered me as well.

How about a middle ground? What if for an Attributes range, say 1-20, it only takes one Attribute point to increase Strength. But from 21-30, it takes 2 points. From 31-40, it takes 3, etc. In a system like that, it would get to the point where spending three points just to get the next level of damage bonus in your class' given attribute may be better spent putting that in a different trait. This could lead "hardcore" builds that focus on the one Attribute alone to reach the highest damage possible, but at the expense of more economic builds that allow for more skills/spells to be used.

Any discussion on this idea?

I think you'd need to make the point at which an attribute starts to cost more scale with level.  Otherwise the limit would risk being irrelevant in the early game, and frustrating in the late game, where you'd be obliged to eat the double cost just to keep a decent hit rate.

Assuming that is you didn't do a more comprehensive change of the system.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Simply this:
- Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, Constitution, Agility, Luck, Intelligence
- Will, Fortitude, Reflex
- Armor, Resistances, Attack etc.

Eh.. it ended up a mixture between Fallout, NWN and KOTOR!

[nightscrawl]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I really appreciate the feedback here, lots of good insight and discussion.

I know people have stated they do not like the suggestion of the artificial limit to setting only one Attribute point to each Attribute per Level Up. And I can understand that - arbitrary math or limitations to make a system "work" always bothered me as well.

How about a middle ground? What if for an Attributes range, say 1-20, it only takes one Attribute point to increase Strength. But from 21-30, it takes 2 points. From 31-40, it takes 3, etc. In a system like that, it would get to the point where spending three points just to get the next level of damage bonus in your class' given attribute may be better spent putting that in a different trait. This could lead "hardcore" builds that focus on the one Attribute alone to reach the highest damage possible, but at the expense of more economic builds that allow for more skills/spells to be used.

Any discussion on this idea?

I've used that system before and didn't mind it. It never seemed like a sacrifice to me to still dump everything in the one attribute, just the way the system was.

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
How about a middle ground? What if for an Attributes range, say 1-20, it only takes one Attribute point to increase Strength. But from 21-30, it takes 2 points. From 31-40, it takes 3, etc. In a system like that, it would get to the point where spending three points just to get the next level of damage bonus in your class' given attribute may be better spent putting that in a different trait. This could lead "hardcore" builds that focus on the one Attribute alone to reach the highest damage possible, but at the expense of more economic builds that allow for more skills/spells to be used.

Any discussion on this idea?

I'm not sure about that suggestion. I think we're at risk of either depositing points for very little gain (increasing the attribute between 10 and 20 for instance) or that it requires you to chase the highest numbers. Both of those risks creating the impression that the attributes does very little.

The former is basically the issue that ME1's skillpoints had. It creates "dead" levels, in which the only thing you get happens behind the scenes. Either you reach a milepost, or you get "nothing". Spending the points takes on aspects of the Grind (monotonous repetition common to rpg mechanics). And even fully built, there's actually not a lot of difference between max or min. The attributes themselves risks coming across as very weak. Their only visible purpose is demand certain arbitrary requirements to unlock certain pieces of equipment. A limiting gateway mechanic that provides very little reward but demands quite a bit of work.

The other extreme is equally troublesome. You get a lot of bang for high attributes. But it also implies an expectation at which value you're supposed to be at on a certain level. Anything above that, and you overwhelm your enemies, Anything below and you underwhelm them. So here it instead becomes a requirement for you to spend X points every other level in said attribute. "You have to be this good at this point". They could set the challenge at the low point, but this means that high output builds will trivialise normal opponents. They could put it at the mid point but require several attributes, but that will lead to the frustrating situation were there's never enough points. Or they could put it at the high expenditure level, at which point every single bonus matters and you really have to find everything to remain at par, chasing the numbers as it were. In all cases, increases become less of a reward than a requirement.

There's more issues too... since attributes are basically irreversible their expenditure is a very serious matter. But the effect of them is delayed. You won't actually get to experience what impact their expenditure has until the next combat. So is raising a low attribute 3 increments better than raising a high attribute 1 increment? Can you gauge that on the fly? What happens if you spread my points too wide? Can I reach the point where I've made all attributes too expensive to raise that I can't benefit from diversity and cannot benefit from specialisation.
There's a great possibility of majorly screwing your build up with this idea, probably irreversibly.

I supppose one could solve the problem by having the game automatically raise your primary attributes at the proper pace and then grant you a number of points to spend on whatever you please. Some MMOs does it that way (the volountary points being loot). But it'd likely feel somewhat lackluster.

[In Exile]

I've never found that stats systems made much sense. People talk about arbitrariness .... but what is the substantive difference between 16 intelligence points and 18? What does that mean for your character? Where do you see that difference in the world? It feels no less like a gameplay/story demarcation to me than the DA system, except you don't have to worry about b0rking your build every level.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Tying Attributes to something outside of combat would be, for me, fantastic. Opening up special conversation lines if you are Cunning enough, or being able to drink someone under the table if you have a high enough Constitution, etc., etc., would all be cool.

Unfortunately, the non-combat skills in DA:O were shallow in DA:O and went the way of the Dodo in DA2, and neither game had any real impact based on Attributes.

I hate to keep using Fallout, but the SPECIAL system in New Vegas shows a title that conveys how your score corresponds to the real world. I thought it was a nice touch. But in a game series like DA, where you constantly increase your Attributes, it's hard to keep this sense of progression and also make some type of reference to these Attributes with in-game acknowledgement.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Tying Attributes to something outside of combat would be, for me, fantastic. Opening up special conversation lines if you are Cunning enough, or being able to drink someone under the table if you have a high enough Constitution, etc., etc., would all be cool.

I agree, but that kind of unidimensionality bothers me. Take the drinking example - why is it that it wouldn't be willpower that lets you get through the nausaea?

Unfortunately, the non-combat skills in DA:O were shallow in DA:O and went the way of the Dodo in DA2, and neither game had any real impact based on Attributes. 

Non-combat skills were irrelenvant in DA:O.

I hate to keep using Fallout, but the SPECIAL system in New Vegas shows a title that conveys how your score corresponds to the real world. 

SPECIAL continues to be (IMO) the best system.

I thought it was a nice touch. But in a game series like DA, where you constantly increase your Attributes, it's hard to keep this sense of progression and also make some type of reference to these Attributes with in-game acknowledgement.

I think that it's no different when you can very rarely increase attributes.

[Gebert]

I agree with In Exile, the SPECIAL is probably the best type attribute system. Let the Attributes define your character's innate ability, while the Skills w/Upgrades represent what he's/she's learned. Maybe even have something like Mount&Blade's or WoW's Profiencies to represent the increased basic skill with weapons.

[Fast Jimmy]

The non-combat skills weren't COMPLETELY irrelevant... there were some quests tied to herbalism or Survival. But by and large, they weren't incorporated well.

What I meant by the difficulty in using Attirbutes for non-combat reasons in DA could best be given with an example. If you had a Level 3 PC, having a Cunning requirement of 20 would be a good way of limiting if they can use an exclusive dialogue/action. However, if they are Level 25, this number would need to be different. However, if the game is like DA:O, where you could play The Deep Roads first or last, this number becomes really hard to set right. Make it too low, and it becomes a no-brainer that at least one of your NPCs will have the requisite skill, which makes it kind of shallow. Make it too high and then people will complain they have to meta game to complete that action. And if you make it so only the PC's attributes matter for the chance, then people will call gameplay/story segregation that their suitably skilled companions can't do the same thing the appropriately leveled PC would do.

[Wulfram]

SPECIAL has a big issue with INT being god and CHA being kind of useless, I believe.

And personally I tend to dislike systems that don't "silo" combat and out of combat abilities seperately. Admittedly this is probably because I like to think of myself as a proper roleplayer, and thus like taking some out of character skills to make my character a bit rounded, but am actually too much of a power gamer at heart not to hate losing combat effectiveness.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I can dig that.

I, personally, would be incredibly interested in a game where I didn't have to enter combat once AND didn't have to sneak. If I could use a combination of Speech, Intelligence, Trap Making, or other Skills/Attributes to defuse every situation, then that would be possibly the most interesting RPG I had ever seen.

Many games recently have offered non-combat solutions in the form of sneaking, which I like, but get bored of quickly. Once you've sneaked in one game, you've snuck in them all. I feel likenI'm playing Thief back in the 90's every time I fire up DE:HR or Dishonored. But... that is getting quite off topic on my own topic.

Regardless, I have a feeling we will see a change to the Attributes for DA3. Whether it is a strong departure from the old system or not will be interesting to see.

[philippe willaume]

Anomaly- wrote...

philippe willaume wrote...
About basing attack or any game stat to level.

That is the points of perks/talent instead of attribute ( or parks/tallend depend of a given attribute)
The difference in performaces comes from the talents you choose.

ideally the talent/perks should contain the bonuses and the cost.

phil

Yes, I understand that, but after playing Skyrim I don't feel that perks by themselves can adequately replace attributes. I can spend every attribute point from level 1 to 20 in strength, if I choose, and have a unique character who's limited and focused skillset is well represented in the game mechanics. That's an extreme example, but the point is, the same freedom is not provided by perks alone.

yes i think we all agree that  for the persks /alent-attribute replacement to work you need to relate the parks to the attribute and not to a particular skillset

phil

[General Malor]

 I think attributes as they are don't make much sense in terms of impact on the game. So I agree with a lot of what has been said. It would be refreshing to see them revamped and moved away from archaic systems that dictate your gaming experience instead of enhancing it.

I wonder if there could be a way to work in stats where they directly impact the game. I'm going to suggest something not too popular I'd wager but I don't know why people don't look at the Fable system and try to improve on it. The way it directly altered your game experience was impressive for its time and if it's refined it could be a great system.

Think of building up your character's physical abilities and what that would mean. They would be tougher, stronger, and faster. And given that the character is a fighter they would be more agile and dexterous by way of simply exercising and training. While you could alter your training to emphasize power over speed or vice versa no matter what you wouldn't be completely deficient in either catagory.

Now think of that improved physique having an impact on your interactions with the world. Say you are having a conversation with a possible hostile and talks aren't going so great. As he's about to initiate combat you have the ability to quickly close the distance and intimidate him a little more or break his neck. The choice is yours and the prompt would be similar to the Renegade and Paragon prompts in Mass Effect.

It would be an interesting way of instituting the system so they have actual effects. It could alter your appereance to a certain degree, making you more ripped or buff. Or if it's magic it could let you burn with magical power or crackle with it in certain scenarios. And then cunning... obviously it would make you seem more dashing to the other characters.

Anyway, not saing it's a perfect system or that I even conveyed my idea well at all, but I think it would be interesting to say the least.

[wsandista]

SPECIAL is probably the best CRPG attribute system I have seen. If luck was removed then it would be much better IMO. The biggest problem I had with the attributes in DA is that the numbers were too large. I would prefer getting 1 attribute point every 1-4 levels instead of 3 every level and having each point have a large contribution. I would also like a system where every class can benefit from any attribute to some degree.

[Fast Jimmy]

General Malor,

Fable is a intuitive enough system, but it is a little difficult for a few reasons. For one, Mages. In Fable, anyone can use magic. In DA, Mages are born, not made. This means that classes are almost required, which means your Speed builds are going to be Rogues and your Power builds would be warriors. And your Mages would be, of course, magic users. This is a balancing issue found between single character games and games that feature parties. While I know you could have companions in the later Fable games, the weren't a huge focus like they would be in DA.

If classes are nearly required (or, at the least, the designation between Mage and non-Mage), then you run into some pretty limited experiences in a Fable system, just like you do in instances of the DA system.

But I could be missing something, a feature about the Fable games I haven't identified that you were thinking of?

[Fast Jimmy]

wsandista wrote...

SPECIAL is probably the best CRPG attribute system I have seen. If luck was removed then it would be much better IMO. The biggest problem I had with the attributes in DA is that the numbers were too large. I would prefer getting 1 attribute point every 1-4 levels instead of 3 every level and having each point have a large contribution. I would also like a system where every class can benefit from any attribute to some degree.

i think the DA2 system tried this in its attempt, but missed the mark. For instance, having Cunning tied to Defense made every class benefit (and even in some cases, requied) to put points in it. This have Rogues some of the highest defense scores and left many warrior tanks wholly dependent on their armor for defense. 

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
There were a few times when I would have the chance to say something clever with [Cunning]. I liked that very very much. ANd didn't a mage use [Willpower] a few times?

Not often, but it happened.

Those aren't non-combat skills, though. Persuade, traps, posions, etc. where the non-combat ones.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The non-combat skills weren't
COMPLETELY irrelevant... there were some quests tied to herbalism or
Survival. But by and large, they weren't incorporated well.

They were isolated to those quests, though, and those quests were rare. Saying that they weren't incorporated well is a big understatement, IMO.

If you had a Level 3 PC, having a Cunning requirement of 20 would be a
good way of limiting if they can use an exclusive dialogue/action.
However, if they are Level 25, this number would need to be different.

Why should it be different?

Make it too low, and it becomes a no-brainer that at least one of your
NPCs will have the requisite skill, which makes it kind of shallow.

Why should the NPC attribute count?

And if you make it so only the PC's attributes matter for the chance,
then people will call gameplay/story segregation that their suitably
skilled companions can't do the same thing the appropriately leveled PC
would do.

DA2 already dealt with that: there would be appropriate in characte NPC reactions at the behest of the PC, and this was a brilliant addition to DA2 that no one really praised enough.

I, personally, would be incredibly interested in a game where I didn't
have to enter combat once AND didn't have to sneak. If I could use a
combination of Speech, Intelligence, Trap Making, or other
Skills/Attributes to defuse every situation, then that would be possibly
the most interesting RPG I had ever seen.

I think that RPG would be called bankrupt - the story, if it had to be done today. It's something I think you could get away with more in the past when designing gameplay was the major cost and there were no cinematics, but outside of Kickstarer-escue games I don't think you'll ever see this.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
 For instance, having Cunning tied to Defense made every class benefit (and even in some cases, requied) to put points in it. This have Rogues some of the highest defense scores and left many warrior tanks wholly dependent on their armor for defense.

I've never once felt the need to have warriors in DA2 have cunning above 10. But, at the same time, I don't think I've ever used a tank as intended, so I suppose there is that.

[philippe willaume]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I really appreciate the feedback here, lots of good insight and discussion.

I know people have stated they do not like the suggestion of the artificial limit to setting only one Attribute point to each Attribute per Level Up. And I can understand that - arbitrary math or limitations to make a system "work" always bothered me as well.

How about a middle ground? What if for an Attributes range, say 1-20, it only takes one Attribute point to increase Strength. But from 21-30, it takes 2 points. From 31-40, it takes 3, etc. In a system like that, it would get to the point where spending three points just to get the next level of damage bonus in your class' given attribute may be better spent putting that in a different trait. This could lead "hardcore" builds that focus on the one Attribute alone to reach the highest damage possible, but at the expense of more economic builds that allow for more skills/spells to be used.

Any discussion on this idea?

I would say that if we are speaking in a level based game, it does not really change from a constant increase cost. 
As long as attributes are used directly to determin the value of the base score, the 1 in each will lag in terms of relative perfomance for a given level.

phil