Few In-Game Suggestions
-
@spoletta said in Few In-Game Suggestions:
Yes, players want some sort of vertical progression, and that's what talents are for. You need to find the balance on those.
Previously they were excessively poweful. Now I feel that they are still a bit too powerful, but others have different opinions, so we are probably near the right compromise.sorry i just do not agree, i think its so weak now, that even when i had KP, i didn't know on what to use, all seemed weak and out of synergy in my eyes.
i will take it even further, maybe the last test talents was ok, but i would put even stronger talents to see their effect.
-
I will elaborate a bit.
I do feel that SOME of them are too powerful, while others are spot on and some are indeed a bit on weak side.
The STR talent and the DEX talent which give accuracy with 2 h or evasion with 1 h are probably at the right level. They give you a total of 300 accuracy and 18% bonus damage. This is a very significant advantage over someone who has no talents. But it still in the realm of not deciding the fight by itself.Same for the bow talents which in total give you 12% damage and 6% critical chance. Again, quite significant but still manageable.
What really matters here is that those 3 talents cannot interact with each other, since they cover very different setups.
The bad ones are Fortunate and True Striker. Those provide a very very good bonus (12% modifer on saves) and can stack with each other and with the other ones. Now you are making the difference between having and not having talents really overbearing. Similar for the cooldown reduction talent.
So, someone at 60 talents can technically have 18% more damage, 300 more accuracy, 30% CD reduction non MEM 1 skills, 12% more likely to pass saves and 12% less likely to be resisted.
The fight is set right there. You can't win.All of this to say that talents can be good, but they shouldn't provide effects that stack with each other. If they are of the stacking type, they must have marginal effects, like all the talents that provide a duration reduction on effects. Those are the correct level of effect.
So, your toon has just a dozen talents, while mine has 40. In a fight between each other, and the difference between you and me is that debuffs on me last 36% less. That's good, it is an advantage that you feel during the fight, and rewards you for having progressed your char, but it isn't enough to put the other guy out of the competition. That should be the correct level of vertical progress in this game in my opinion.
-
@spoletta ok since you gave example, i will show why i think your wrong:
for example lets take the skill you talked about, the evasion talent, this one:
some one that would read your post might fought its a good skill (and it might be for a single build only) since you wroteevasion with 1 h are probably at the right level.
but reading this skill you get more info on that... you need MELEE weapon and KEPING YOUR OFF HAND FREE
so anyone that do not meet this explicit condition in his build can't use this.... it force to a single build path and do not synergy with nothing that a mage might want... maybe you feel its good since you build this specific build, but for the rest this is shit.
-
I don't use that talent, but I find it good specifically because it applies only to 1 build.
I can't use the advantages of that talent and of the accuracy talent from strenght at the same time, so the power level of the char can't get out of hand,
Now, there are some concepts of build that don't have a lot of support from the talent tree right now, but a lot of the talent tree is not implemented.
-
@spoletta do you really do not see the issue with what you just said ?
if talents will not be able to be use by the same build, then no one will get them... people will take only 10 talent that help them and the rest will be worthless.... this is bad design and sorry i do not agree with you at all.
-
Read my previous point.
Talents with powerful effects like the one we are discussing, should be restricted in the application.
Talents with less powerful effects like reduction in debuff duration, should be more broadly applicable and will represent the advantage between a new player and a seasoned player.
-
@spoletta i read and still do not agree with you.
-
We just have different expectations on the vertical component I guess.
-
I totally see what @spoletta is saying:
At its current level, Single Weapon Style is powerful, however, it is not made overpowered by the ability to stack with several other abilities out there. It is just powerful enough (maybe slightly on the high side) to stand alone. Also, its restrictions aren't exactly game breakingly difficult:
1-Handed Melee Weapon Required: Stops you from adding it to the much more powerful 2-H Melee Weapons, AND it prevents Mages from exploiting it when it is obviously meant to be a Melee talent.
Only weapon equipped (nothing in the 2 reserve weapon slots) just means you cannot hot-swap weapons and use this talent. Nothing prevents you from going with different styles, but you would have to take an extra moment or two to draw your alternate weapon setup.For this, you get 25 bonus evasion(role play reason, you are not 'equipped' with a lot of other weapons to hold you down and prevent ease of movement. Extra weapons are stored away out of the way) and you get 50% damage increase, so every 2 hits are the equivalent to 3, not bad at all!
As @spoletta said, that falls right in line with, if slightly more powerful than what this game should be looking for, Talent-wise. To be able to stack those bonuses with increased accuracy, more damage adds, and then apply them to Mage weapons, when it is obviously more of a melee fighting technique that cannot channel magic would make them go way overboard.
[Edit]I am not ignoring what @grofire is saying either, by the way. YES, it is nice when there is some synergy within Talents so they work well together. It is nice to stack a few Talents to edge up the difference, the problem here is as @spoletta said, the person with the 10 stacking talents should not automatically decide the fight before the first blow is swung just because they are good at synergy. Their opponent should have a chance (and not just because they also min/maxed the synergies of their Talents). One thing this game is focused on is diversity and parity. By diversity, in this case, I mean that they want to encourage a wide range of talent choices, and by parity I mean that they want the diversified player to be on relative par with the specialist. Yes, the specialist can have some advantage, but it shouldn't get to the point that there ends up being only 3 or 4 optimum build choices out there that every mook who's played for awhile has gravitated towards.[/Edit]
-
@GamerSeuss said in Few In-Game Suggestions:
the problem here is as @spoletta said, the person with the 10 stacking talents should not automatically decide the fight before the first blow is swung just because they are good at synergy.
and that why we balance the game, so no one build will be stronger from other....
but saying: "since this way its not balance then we just remove the skills/talent/enchantment" is a bad practice that would make sure we all stay in the same build all the time we play, and it will be very little time, since we all will get bored.
-
@grofire We're not saying remove the talent. We're saying let them experiment with the balance. Be that experiment limiting it with what it might synergize with, lowering its bonuses, raising the bonuses of other powers, etc... They have a lot of work to still do here.
Now, for instance, if they took the Melee Talent, and dropped the +25 Evasion, they could probably make it more accessible by removing the alternate weapon slot restriction.
If they wanted to allow it to those using Mage Weapons as well, they could drop the damage from 150% to 125%, and maybe make it one of those talents you buy multiple ticks in to increase, so the first tick gives you the lowest value, and the last tick gives you the best your gonna get. As it is right now, it is a multi-tick but the stats given are for just one tick.
Let them play with the sliders and the talent make ups. Experiment with what synergies to include and what is not going to work for them. Sure, express your opinion, that is valuable feedback. Just don't automatically assume your opinion is the right answer and that they should throw other opinions out, or worse, muddy the water by just making the Talent Tree bigger, ,thus diffusing the test results.
-
@GamerSeuss look, im all forward for testing different skill, and balancing all, so nothing will be too strong.
but that is not what @spoletta saying, he do not want synergy between talents, so there will not be vertical differences, his fine with talents being one build thing, in that case you can probably get 10 out of the 60 talents, like in this test, and that is shallow and boring.i want vertical achievement, i want that there will be difference between old player and new player, and i want new player to be able to do all on the day they log in the game for the first time, doesn't matter if its pve or pvp or crafting. and most important i do not think this 2 are opposing to each other.
-
@grofire and like @spoletta and many others out there, I signed on to this game specifically because I want the main difference between an old and new character to not be vertical achievement, but rather, more options on how they approach a battle.
This is WHY I backed this game in the first place. This, above all other things is the main reason I thought Fractured would set itself apart from the rank and file and truly inspire a gaming experience I could sink my teeth into.
Why would anyone back a game, then immediately try to change a core concept? You and others might think there needs to be appreciable vertical growth, but then, why Fractured? That would make it a whole different game from what was pitched. Were you counting on the fact that most Devs give up on the whole horizontal progression dedication eventually? I mean, I know there are a few other Core concepts out there, besides this, but this was the main one for so many, its crazy to try to just turn it into every other game out there in our minds.
-
@GamerSeuss your wrong, from the first day i joined this game, pre kickstarter, the main focus from the dev was NO GRIND, no body talked about no vertical achievement (and i showed this in the skill image i shared on this thread), the first time the vertical achievement was addressed and changed was after the kickstarter and it raised a storm, by me and others that left since then, seen this game going very different place from what that was promised, you can see this on this post.
so no im not the one that "back a game, then immediately try to change a core concept" as you said, the no vertical achievement people are the one who do.
-
Guess that we have different expectations depending on when we joined the travel. For me, what I saw and what made me back the game was the very first image presented on the website:
So yes, for me the no vertical progressions is quite a main feature of the game. I do agree that fully horizontal is impossible and that there must be a little bit of verticality, but point stands that this is first and foremost an horizontal progression game. So I expect from the talent tree a mostly horizontal progressions.
I can accept that the equipment is very hardly going to be an horizontal thing, and with this test it really became evident, but the equip is by its nature something not permanent, so I can accept it.
-
@spoletta well as i said to @GamerSeuss, i do not know when you joined, but from the start the game didn't been no vertical achievement, it was changed only after people paid for the kickstarter, like i did!
and now after testing its very obvious i was right then, its crystal clear that with no vertical achievement this game is boring and not fun.
-
We agree on the necessity of some amount of verticality. We disagree on the amount.
For me the right amount is few enough that a new player can beat an old player by outplaying him. The mechanical advantage must not be oppressing enough that that fight becomes onesided. A difference in resistances, hp, damage or whatever within a +10/15% of the base value is probably acceptable. More than that, you are making it a onesided fight.
-
@spoletta i understand where you coming from, but it can't be in the real world for 2 reasons:
- players will not stay 2 years to play a game when they are the same as they started, with no vertical progression.
- the skill system is already broken the horizontal progression, a new player start the game with a few skills, lets say fire bolt, and old player got the fire resistance skill, and there you go the new player will not be able to win the old player, he will lose 99% of the times, do you suggest to remove the fire resistance skill?
-
By new player I don't mean literally a char that was just created. We have a young protection in place afterall. Someone who has played for 1 week has that minimum amount of talents and a few sets of skills already.
Also, vertical progression and longevity are not strictly related. While there aren't many games without any progression, there are a lot where you reach the cap quite fast and then you play for different reason than progress. As long as there's some kind of content in game to keep you in it (and for sandboxes that content kind of creates itself), you don't need a continous vertical progress.
-
@spoletta said in Few In-Game Suggestions:
By new player I don't mean literally a char that was just created. We have a young protection in place afterall. Someone who has played for 1 week has that minimum amount of talents and a few sets of skills already.
so you say 1 week, now that you put a number lets play with this number why 1 week and not 1 day ? or 1 month?
since you decided a 1 week character should be able to play against 2 years players ?Also, vertical progression and longevity are not strictly related. While there aren't many games without any progression, there are a lot where you reach the cap quite fast and then you play for different reason than progress. As long as there's some kind of content in game to keep you in it (and for sandboxes that content kind of creates itself), you don't need a continous vertical progress.
please give examples, i never seen this, maybe they max level but not the strength levels.
