Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Expedition: general discussions.Auto-translated
Okay, thanks for the clarification!
But another thing becomes apparent here:
"Tank" (20 endurance) has 475 HP.
"base"*4.75
20 strength - +100% damage with all weapons.
"base"*2 In my opinion, the stats in the draft are not balanced, meaning that the tank build is more effective than the damage build. Personally, I would (considering that characteristics like strength are only needed for certain builds, while characteristics like endurance are needed by almost everyone, and not just tanks) do the opposite. That is, strength (perception, etc.) should give larger bonuses, and not smaller ones, compared to endurance. But okay, this is not really related to the stat system itself, and can be easily balanced if necessary by making small changes to the values.
From my point of view, the stats in the draft are not balanced, meaning that a tank build is more effective than a damage build.
Just a reminder, Ment, that a character focusing on strength will also acquire skills for their weapon. And there, they might get additional damage, a chance for a critical hit, and extra attacks. Besides, sometimes systems are intentionally designed using a "rock-paper-scissors" approach.
Just a reminder, friend, that a character focusing on strength will also gain skills for their weapon. And that can include additional damage, a chance for a critical hit, and extra attacks. Furthermore, sometimes systems are specifically designed around a "rock-paper-scissors" mechanic.
And a character focusing on vitality will definitely take heavy armor, a shield, and so on. Although in this system, there's a limit on heavy armor depending on strength, but nevertheless, investing in the shield skill tree (and similar skills that reduce damage, both statistically and with each hit) is worthwhile. So, it's a double-edged sword...
I'm more interested in the question of playability in terms of interest/convenience than the question of balance.
I think it's quite possible. Wisdom is a very interesting stat, and it would be interesting to try something like that.
Someone who invests in vitality will definitely choose heavy armor, a shield, and so on. Although in this system, there is a strength requirement for heavy armor, but nevertheless, it is worth investing in the shield skill tree (and similar skills that reduce damage, both statistically and with each hit). So, it's a double-edged sword...
The point is, Ment, that someone who invests in strength will also likely choose plate armor. And shields will probably not be tied to endurance, or even if they are, they will be tied to stats. Well, and finally, even if he can defeat a damage dealer in PvP, we will have more PvE here.
Added 5 minutes later
I am more interested in the question of playability in terms of interest/convenience than the question of balance.
Well, for me personally, balance is one of the elements of convenience. And the first draft is definitely more interesting. ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW WISDOM HELPS TO DEAL MORE DEVASTATING BLOWS WITH A MAUL.
Options one and two. Which one is more convenient/interesting? One of these, or the Shabet/Sylvan one? I don't like the second one because it feels too much like an MMORPG, but it's much more flexible (in this regard, the hybrid/Sylvan one is somewhat of a middle ground, which is what I actually like).
The second one is better because the first option really has poor possibilities for creating a well-rounded character, due to the extremely strong bonuses on the highest development level of agility/accuracy/wisdom. You pump one stat, and almost ignore the others. And in general, the tried-and-true Shabet is the best. But again, playing it might not be very interesting, so I personally vote for the second one.
E si sui vius, er mi grans benananza, e si ieu muoir, er mi grans deliuriers
The point is, Ment, that a character with high strength will also likely equip armor. And shields will probably not be tied to stamina, even if they are tied to stats. Also, even if he can defeat a damage dealer in PvP, we will mostly have PvE here.
The effectiveness of armor and shields is directly proportional to the amount of HP and does not depend on strength (except for direct limitations). Although this is the case with percentage-based armor and shields, yes, in the case of absolute values, it's a different story. In PvE, a "tanky" character who can hold enemies for almost unlimited time while the others attack them is extremely useful. Although it can be replaced by summons.
The second option is better because the first one offers poor opportunities for creating a well-rounded character due to the extremely strong bonuses for maximum Dexterity/Accuracy/Wisdom. You focus on one stat and almost ignore the others.
The point is, Alex, that well-rounded characters, whether in one system or another, will be weak. They will always be worse than specialized characters. Yes, in the second system, specialized characters will likely be slightly stronger than hybrids, but can you remember any effective hybrid characters in the expansion?
Actually, I think that at least half of our characters are hybrids. And considering that we don't always use a full party, creating versatile characters is quite justified.
E si sui vius, er mi grans benananza, e si ieu muoir, er mi grans deliuriers
The effectiveness of armor and shields is directly proportional to the amount of hit points and does not depend on strength (except for direct limitations).
What are you talking about strength for? I'm saying that a damage dealer with high strength will also have armor, so the shield-bearer's advantage over him won't be that significant. Especially considering that his damage (and most likely, accuracy) will suffer, which raises the question: "who will take down the other faster?" Shields have a chance to block, which can be tied to some stat, such as dexterity. This means that the tank will also have to invest in dexterity to effectively block. Considering that he has already invested 20 points in vitality and 13 in strength, I don't think he will have many points left. Therefore, the chance to block will probably not be that high.
In PvE, a "tanky" character who can hold enemies for almost unlimited time while the others attack is extremely useful. Although it can be replaced by summons.
The problem is that this tanky character is designed to hold melee fighters. He has less chance against mages and archers. Also, in the game, monsters don't always target the fattest and strongest characters. This is not an MMORPG.
Added 3 minutes later
In fact, probably at least half of our characters were hybrids.
Exactly. And they weren't very effective compared to specialized characters.
And considering that we don't always go with a full party, creating versatile characters is quite justified.
To be honest, a pure character usually has a better chance in solo play. Do you think that Raveling or Alaina have a better chance in solo play than Acteon or Kaeldrin?
Why are you talking about strength? I'm saying that a damage dealer with high strength will also have armor, so the advantage of a shield-user over him won't be that significant. Especially considering that his damage (and probably accuracy) will be significantly reduced, which raises the question: "who will take down the other faster?" Shields have a chance to block, which can be tied to some stat, such as dexterity. This means that the tank will also have to invest in dexterity to effectively block. Considering that he has already invested 20 points in vitality and 13 in strength, I don't think he will have many points left. And therefore, the chance to block will probably not be that great.
It's not a given that blocking will be tied to dexterity. For shields in Shabet, for example, this was not the case, which is logical in its own way. I mentioned strength because percentage-based armor increases effectiveness as vitality increases, as I said. In other words, 400 HP and 50% armor mean that the character will have to take 800 damage before dying. And 200 and 50% means 400 damage before dying. Although the same applies to increasing weapon strength, but, as we have seen, increasing weapon damage by two times is not the same as increasing HP by two times. That's all the math.
The problem is that this "tanky" character is designed to withstand melee attacks. He has less chance against mages and archers. Also, in the game, monsters don't always target the fattest and strongest characters. This isn't an MMORPG.
It all depends on what abilities there will be and how they are implemented. I personally believe that the stats should be balanced against each other, so that the abilities can also be balanced relative to each other. Otherwise, it will turn out like this: "well, vitality is over-buffed, so we need to make more double attacks and stuff like that, and fewer focus-holding and defensive abilities." I think this is a bad approach. Permissive, but difficult.
Basically, he concentrates and delivers a special attack that requires certain knowledge or experience.
Added after 7 minutes
It's not necessarily true that blocking will be tied to dexterity. For shields in Shabet, for example, this wasn't the case, which is logical in its own way.
If it isn't tied to dexterity, then it will be tied to strength. What else could it be tied to? And it definitely will be tied to stats; I asked about it.
I mentioned strength because percentage-based armor increases effectiveness as survivability grows, as I said. Conditionally speaking, 400 HP and 50% armor mean that a character has to take 800 damage before dying. But 200 and 50% means 400 damage before death. Although the same thing happens with increasing weapon power, but, as we saw, increasing weapon damage by two times is not the same as increasing HP by two times. That's all the math there is.
Ment, at least try to remember what you are being told. You point out armor as a countermeasure to skills that give additional attack(s), and maybe even two attacks. This means that the damage increases fourfold, if not more. We can also ignore the fact that attacks from a warrior with maximum strength will deal 100% x2 damage, while attacks from a warrior with maximum constitution and 13 strength will deal 65% damage. In addition, one hand will be occupied by the shield, which means that the damage will be even higher due to the use of a two-handed weapon/second weapon. But even under equal conditions, the damage will be three times higher than that of a tank. The HP will be three times less, yes. But there are higher chances of critical hits and other bonuses from weapon skills. There you have it – all the math, Ment.
If not based on agility, then it will be based on strength. What else could it be based on? And it definitely depends on stats, I asked about it.
Really? Okay.
You're mentioning armor as a countermeasure to skills that grant additional attack, possibly even two.
No. It's not a countermeasure to skills, but simply one of many countermeasures to numerous ways of increasing damage. Because beforehand, I personally can't say how much and in what direction everything will be compensated. I'm saying that there could be defensive skills and anything else. And ideally, stats should compensate each other on their own, independently of skills and everything else. Otherwise, it will be difficult to balance, if possible at all. And why would we even need that?
I'm telling you, there can be defensive skills and anything else. Ideally, the stats should compensate for each other.
You're not taking into account the simple fact that the damage from an attack changes depending on many variables: skills, weapons, critical hits, other stats. And hit points are more or less static. Strength is intertwined with other stats, while endurance stands alone. So, the stats should be balanced taking into account the system. This is not even mentioning that you took the minimum value out of thin air, based on 10 units of stats. But the actual minimum value of a characteristic is unknown to either of us.
Added 1 minute ago
Because beforehand, I personally can't say how much and in what direction everything will be compensated.
But at the same time, you're saying that strength is worse than endurance.
Ment
Ple-Sen