Attribute points

Has it been said anywhere if players will get control on how to allocate attribute points (Str, dex, int, etc)?

It seems like the skill trees are going to allow a lot of freedom with creative builds however if we're not able to also adjust our own attributes it seems like we're only getting half the ability to create characters.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Damokles

Well, our starting stats will depend on our race for one. An orc or dwarf will start out stronger then an elf for example.
The primary Archetype is supposed to "grow" your attributes after a template after that, but it could be that they revised that into a personal distribution system which i would appreciate more.

ServNiQ

Short answer is, no, we dont, not that I know at least.

Yuyukoyay

I would like the ability to see all of my active abilities, a small description of what they do, and any possible stat scaling at level 1. So I can plan my char and have an idea of what stats to put points into without having to test it all first. Even if respeccing is a thing it would be nice if the game could guide me into knowing what decisions to make. Then I can tweak it with a respecs later. Kind of how Diablo 2 works.

Kind of like if I see an ability I want to base my entire build around. I want to know how to make it good ahead of time without knowing what is necessarily the best way to build the character.

daxiongmao87

I'm in favor of stat allocation. Some will not like the permanency of your choices, but I've always been a fan of experimentation, and stat allocation is another way to accomplish that.

Beeper

Yuyukoyay wrote: »

Even if respeccing is a thing it would be nice if the game could guide me into knowing what decisions to make. Then I can tweak it with a respecs later.

Something similar came up in a thread earlier today. Fingers crossed that the game educates you about your primary and secondary archetypes.

I think Archeage did a good job of this.. if I remember correctly. It's been a while. When you click on an ability, it pops up with a little explanation of the ability, then a short 10 second clip that shows you the ability in action - so you can see exactly what it does.

(Internal Monologue) That's Archeage..? Right? Yeah, it has to be.

Dicdonya

Count me in the pro manual stat allocation camp.

Or at the very least if they had your primary class determine like 80% of your stats and you get a few to personalize your character a bit.

That way as an opposing player you still have a general understanding of what each class will have, but the personalization will allow for a touch of uncertainty and interesting dynamics

Magic Man

Previously they were planning on allowing players to allocate stat points as they leveled up. They moved away from that. You can do that through obtaining/crafting gear tho. Especially crafters can allocate points to gear + lots of customization options etc.

Whiskiz

Allocating attribute points has been one of, if the least impactful ways of progression a character, lol.

What was the last RPG or mmo that really mattered where you spent attribute points.

ShroudedFox

I'd side with whiskiz on this, I think its more a burden for most players and most people would just choose the meta option. There is more then enough ways to customise your character/playstyle and it would just bring a swath of balancing issues.

Tyrantor

How do you know how much of a difference it's going to make? Also why should we be pigeon holed into a general character build? Since the game appears to let people use any weapon they want it seems that allowing players to allocate their own stats so they can then gain a benefit from using different weapon types (I.E. Weapons that require STR on a class that typically builds Dex) For example maybe a rogue or ranger wants to build their character using an Axe instead of a Bow/Dagger/Sword.

If we're unable to allocate our own attributes there will be little reason to try and play any character with a different weapon set.

Lastly they do not need to balance for abnormal adjustments to characters since the weapons will likely deal damage based on a % from each attribute and skill abilities.

Steven has said that "not everyone is going to be a winner" I personally think that should include character building. I do not want the game to hold my hand and tell me what my character is supposed to play like. If I want to build some wacky character let me.. it's my money and if it sucks that will just generate further money sinks in the games economy as I spent the time leveling, gearing etc etc.

ServNiQ

They've said that your initial stats are going to based on the race you choose, so if I'm an orc, I'll have a higher initial strength stat of that of an elf, and your stat growth dependent on the base class you choose, so if I'm a mage my INT stat will grow more than the others. This makes sense, because as they've said, your base class is supposed to reflect so many things about how you play the game. If I choose the ranger class, I'm choosing it because I want to use skills that have to do with a bow and arrow and maybe some daggers. I choose the ranger class because I want to experience what it's like to embody a ranger. I'm not choosing the ranger class so that I can go around whacking people with an axe, in that case choose the fighter.

If you think you're being restricted, then you obviously have it all wrong, because your character is made up so much more than what your stats are. In fact, your build is dependent on what gear you have and the weapons you have, including the enchantments you put on them, which range from granting a bit more armor or inflicting fire damage, and where you put your skill points, whether it be into your skills so that you can blast people with ice spikes or so that your daggers have a chance to inflict bleed. And that's not even including the 4 different augmentations you can choose for each of your skills from whatever secondary archetype you choose.

In the long run, not having stat allocation just adds that level of realism, cause if you were a dwarven tank you should not have the same DEX as an elvish rogue. I should be able to make basic assumptions like my mage has higher INT then your fighter, and so on. Plus, compared to the amount of experimentation you'll get to do with gear customization and this whole plethora of skill point allotment you get to do for ONE class, it doesn't feel like it will make a difference anyways. Not saying that you can't make wacky character builds, because again, you have ALL of these skills to experiment with, but there needs to be some sort of base line of common sense in a game like AoC, where it's literally another world.

In terms of educating the player base, I assume that as they come out with these skills it will appear somewhere like on the wiki, as some of them already have, and even the different ranks for some of those skills. In game, it would only make sense for there to be skill descriptions that include how it scales, I couldn't imagine it being not like that. And even if it wasn't, you could probably use your common sense and say, 'Oh, leveling up my Fireball spell will increase its damage and possibly its AoE', things like that. And yes, they've already said that you would be able to change your second archetype, so there's no reason for you not to be able to respec your stat points.

I highly recommend y'all go read stuff on the wiki, tends to answer questions you may have...

ShroudedFox

"Steven has said that "not everyone is going to be a winner" I personally think that should include character building."

Steven has also said he wants the race you choose to make a difference in how your class plays, and part of that being the starting values of your characters stats, if you control how your stats are distributed it kinda defeats the purpose of having a racial stat bonus once you reach a certain level.

I feel like character building is more about how you choose to interact with the social structures of the game.

I think he also stated that using specific weapons on specific classes will have an advantage, but I think it will be bit more like paper, scissor, rock like say maces are good against plate armour because they have armour reduction and daggers not so much (but without any real information that's just pure speculation).

I think the idea is to make player choice of play style matter but also to contain how far you can break the mould, like I understand people wanting to make a zany unique character but in my opinion that needs to be kept within certain boundaries to maintain the thematic atmosphere of the game.

For example you may want to be a warlock who wears plate and carries a 2 handed sword, and sure you'll be able to do that but should it be incentivised?
I feel like the key idea is to be able to bend the traditional roles of classes not to rewrite them.

in regards to having little reason to diversify I would think specialisation will be a thing, for example if you have a bunch of clerics in a siege sitting in the back line and a group of rogues sneaks in there, having a couple of those clerics in plate armour might be a good idea so they don't all get insta bursted

I don't think its being "pigeon holed" so much as making a choice on what do I want my character to be good at
this is just my humble opinion on the matter.

ServNiQ

ShroudedFox wrote: »

"Steven has said that "not everyone is going to be a winner" I personally think that should include character building."

Steven has also said he wants the race you choose to make a difference in how your class plays, and part of that being the starting values of your characters stats, if you control how your stats are distributed it kinda defeats the purpose of having a racial stat bonus once you reach a certain level.

I feel like character building is more about how you choose to interact with the social structures of the game.

I think he also stated that using specific weapons on specific classes will have an advantage, but I think it will be bit more like paper, scissor, rock like say maces are good against plate armour because they have armour reduction and daggers not so much (but without any real information that's just pure speculation).

I think the idea is to make player choice of play style matter but also to contain how far you can break the mould, like I understand people wanting to make a zany unique character but in my opinion that needs to be kept within certain boundaries to maintain the thematic atmosphere of the game.

For example you may want to be a warlock who wears plate and carries a 2 handed sword, and sure you'll be able to do that but should it be incentivised?
I feel like the key idea is to be able to bend the traditional roles of classes not to rewrite them.

in regards to having little reason to diversify I would think specialisation will be a thing, for example if you have a bunch of clerics in a siege sitting in the back line and a group of rogues sneaks in there, having a couple of those clerics in plate armour might be a good idea so they don't all get insta bursted

I don't think its being "pigeon holed" so much as making a choice on what do I want my character to be good at
this is just my humble opinion on the matter.

Yeah I liked how you put it. It's the difference between a mage who can specialize in plate armor to survive a rogue backstab and a mage who can 1v1 a fighter with a greatsword and a loincloth.

Tyrantor

Perfect you both responded relatively similar so hopefully my response can encompass both of your replies without having to quote each of you.

Yes the base stats will be impacted by the race (very typical in games that orcs have higher str than elves). However allowing players to adjust their points past this initial base line I'm not certain how it defeats anything? Can you actually elaborate on that?

Allowing freedom to customize a character through equipment does not by reason, does not mean it's restricting by not allowing the ability to apply our own attributes. They are different topics all together.

How are you talking about Realism in a RPG? This is not CoD where I want my bullet trajectory to be based on bullet calibers. This is a fantasy game realism should play a very little role in this.

Frankly I think the point being missed here is that none of you see the point in allowing someone to become a Warlock in plate armor wielding a 2h Axe, or the rogue using axes. You have a personal image of what a warlock is supposed to be and your personal judgement is saying "they can't do that". Again in a role playing game if someone wants to do that and the game allows for it why not further that experince by letting someone adjust their own attribute points. The person making the choices to build their characters this way are going to have weaknesses because of it, if they are actually efficient in the Axe skill because they added to their STR attribute it would likely mean their ability/spell damage is going to suffer from lack of INT or Dex because they had to build out Str and/or Con for the weapon and armor choices. See how this works that's an automatic game balance without the developers having to test anything.

The other examples you gave for example - the Dwarf the with dex = to the elvish rogue (first of all if the base line stats for the elvish rogue is higher than the dwarf wouldn't be able to achieve this if they both allocated the same # of attribute points into dex since the elvish rogue starts with a higher total dex) Furthermore why do you need the "basic assumption" your mage has higher int than my fighter? What exactly does that do for you? See you're trying to limit things so you don't have to know anymore than basic game knowledge of "every warrior I fight has X, Y and Z if I do this and that I win" however maybe this warrior has a high INT allocation (this would then have a negative affect on his constitution you see since he can't spend as many points on that) however maybe his weapons proc harder but he's a really squishy target now.

Is it likely both of those builds might suck at the end of the day of course however if that's someone's idea and they want to role play that character why is the game going to limit their ability to create it the way they choose?

Steven has also said that he doesn't want the races to create an end game meta for the class system. The class system should not create an end game meta for the weapon system either. Just simply allowing characters to use different weapons won't change that unless we're actually given the freedom to build our characters with the correct attribute allocation for those weapons/play styles etc.

All I'm really hearing here is people don't want there to be concepts outside of the norm - if that is the case why even allow characters to use weapons not designated specific to their class. Why give us the ability to min-max abilities in the first place if they'll all have the same general damage as the next person, the same health, the same etc.

So you're suggestion is limited, by forcing characters to wear a specific armor to try and counter specific classes. Plate armor on the cleric logically makes a ton of sense to avoid the sneak attack of a rogue as you point out. However why should this be the only possible solution? Why not allow someone to spend their points on constitution instead of wisdom (or other attribute(s)) to increase their ability to ward off rogue attacks allowing the cleric to then keep the general weapons/armor appropriate for their class "Weapons and armor are not class locked, but certain classes are more efficient with certain types of weapons or armor.[21][22] Certain abilities require certain items to be equipped.[23]" If they no longer have the items required for their class certain abilities may not work? So now because he has to wear plate instead of building the character a different way and just being less efficient with his abilities, the cleric now no longer has access to certain abilities. - This sounds like being pigeon holed no?

ServNiQ

To the large amount of what you're saying, it's a design decision, the decision being that they want a large amount of your playstyle and how you experience the gameplay to be based on your class. In general, I don't think having stat allocation is bad, not at all. Just not for a game like AoC, where they want to have those stereotypes. They want things to make sense. In general, it doesn't make sense for a mage to outduel a rogue that has snuck up on him, and it doesn't make sense for a rogue to have more health than a tank. If everyone creates wacky characters, which I don't have a problem with, then it destroys what makes sense. In any world, be it real life or a videogame, things need to make sense and have some sort of order. Fortunately or not, they're not making AoC to be a wacky game, it's supposed to be a game where you can experience what it feels like to be in another world of medieval fantasy, which is honestly off put by random mages who are able to beat a fighter in a 1v1 because they power leveled their STR and END and put all their stat points into their greatsword.

Which isn't to say that they don't want people to people to build their character in a unique way, in fact I'm sure they want to encourage that. However, they don't want people to have a wacky experience where things can happen that don't make sense, they want a classic feel. Like you said, there's nothing that's going to stop you from being a mage wielding a greatsword, but it will probably hurt your DPS in the long run. And if you could just stop rogues from beating you just from raising your constitution instead of your wisdom, then that takes away from your conscious decision that they want you to have by, for example, specing into plate armor. But then the dynamic is taken further where a rogue understands that the cleric might be using plate armor and brings a mace to the battle instead, which, while though it hurts his overall DPS, helps him to defeat those kinds of clerics. This is just one example of a possible situation you might have, which will simply add to the experience of players, and while it 'could' be 'solved' with just letting someone allocate their stat points differently, that dynamic suddenly no longer exists and, while I don't want to say it would take away from the combat, it would definitely make it less interesting than wacky people going at it.

When you take away the ability to allocate stat points, you suddenly introduce this new idea of 'should I take away from my overall effectiveness so that I don't lose in the rock-paper-scissors battle, or do I just suck it up?' So yes, while you may think it would be more freeing and fun to make incredible wacky and stereotype breaking characters, where everyone is able to, but I think it's infinitely more fun to instead bend these stereotypes and create interesting dynamics as like before. As they said, they want to keep the holy trinity of Tank-DPS-Heal/Support, with augmentations and specializations blurring the lines between these roles, not destroying these lines.

If you are looking for a game where you can create mind bending characters then this is not the game for you. There will be many ways to personalize your character the way you want it, but just not in the way you describe. Not trying to offend anyone FYI, but this is going to be a game where you will have the stereotypical mage types and ranger types and whatnot, not a game where 'you are limited only by your imagination'. I hope this helps clarify.

ShroudedFox

I understand the sentiment that your trying to get across (or at least I think I do), all im saying is you need to draw a line at a certain point, for example lets say you have a fighter/mage I think that's a spellsword and you want to increase your intellect so you fit the role of mage more (I don't know if spellsword would even benefit from higher intellect but lets say their abilities scale with it for the sake of the discussion) , I just don't see why going to a craftsman and getting them to make you intellect specific gear doesn't fufill that need?

I just don't think its a massive deal about needing to select those stats through character level up because, like lets say I get to top level and decide I chose the wrong stats all the way through the level up phrase, does that mean:
a) I have to make a new character
b) I have to go respec my character (this destroys the point of even having stat allocation)

In the end if the stats come from gear or picking stats its the same your gonna have to pick a trade off have int or having str. Having the stat adjustment happen through gear just makes more sense to me personally as its more hassle free and leads to being able to experiment more with what I want to be, roleplaying is a seperate thing to me and has more to do with social interaction then stat points

As for racial stats now that I think about it your right on the front that have allocation doesn't an affect on racial identity, as the upper limit of an elves Dex would always be higher then that of an orc.

also as for weapon skills and class skills, I might just ask how you plan to use an ability like arrow volley with an axe or shield bash with an axe. If the class skill doesn't correlate to your weapon choice just don't level up that specific skill put the points into something else.

and of course a plate wearing tank is going to be better at his role then a cloth wearing one, he need to get close to do damage ie he needs to take more damage.

its less about pigeon holing and more about what you want to do

ServNiQ

@ShroudedFox my man give me some!

ShroudedFox

It just comes back to the dynamic that we have control of these things through gear choice, class choice, religion choice, augment choice and whatever else they decided to chuck in there so I don't think its "limiting" in fact im more on the side of thinking AOC might be out of its scope in how much flexibility their trying to bring and whether they can deliver on that in a meaningful way.

As said ServNiQ its largely just a design choice and I trust that the Intrepid Studios staff will make good decisions as in all honesty I think they've nailed all their design philosophies so far. All that remains to be seen is whether they have the technological and design skill to make it a reality (which is starting to seem quite likely).

Tyrantor

ServNiQ wrote: »

1) To the large amount of what you're saying, it's a design decision, the decision being that they want a large amount of your playstyle and how you experience the gameplay to be based on your class. In general, I don't think having stat allocation is bad, not at all. Just not for a game like AoC, where they want to have those stereotypes. They want things to make sense. In general, it doesn't make sense for a mage to outduel a rogue that has snuck up on him, and it doesn't make sense for a rogue to have more health than a tank.

2) When you take away the ability to allocate stat points, you suddenly introduce this new idea of 'should I take away from my overall effectiveness so that I don't lose in the rock-paper-scissors battle, or do I just suck it up?' So yes, while you may think it would be more freeing and fun to make incredible wacky and stereotype breaking characters, where everyone is able to, but I think it's infinitely more fun to instead bend these stereotypes and create interesting dynamics as like before. As they said, they want to keep the holy trinity of Tank-DPS-Heal/Support, with augmentations and specializations blurring the lines between these roles, not destroying these lines.

3) If you are looking for a game where you can create mind bending characters then this is not the game for you. There will be many ways to personalize your character the way you want it, but just not in the way you describe. Not trying to offend anyone FYI, but this is going to be a game where you will have the stereotypical mage types and ranger types and whatnot, not a game where 'you are limited only by your imagination'. I hope this helps clarify.

I'm going to comment on these three points you raised.

1) How are you assuming that giving players the freedom to grant stat allocation is going to then let the mage best the rogue who snuck up on him or allow a rogue to have more health than a tank? - Again the "tank" would get their base race/class stats and would likely be applying their attributes accordingly if their goal was to be a "tank". The rogue on the other hand would have less attribute points and should never exceed the tanks health if both characters downed the same HP items etc. In theory what it would allow is a rogue to build additional health into his class than is the "standard" which would be the case should specific weapons/armor etc be customary for classes - which again if we're unable to adjust our character attributes outside of equipment I'm not sure why they wouldn't be.

2) While it's true a character may be able to attribute their stats and weapons/armor in a way to change the rock-paper-scissor dynamic it would likely leave them open to a new counter to their build. For example lets just say a high INT warrior is now able to defeat the high INT mage BUT that warrior's HPs would suffer from this build strategy and now instead of the Warrior>Rogue it becomes Warrior<Rogue (for that sepcific build) the rock paper scissor process would still play out but it wouldn't be as defined as games like WoW make it to be.

3) Can you quote something that proves your accuracy on the fact the game isn't going to allow attribute allocation? While it has not been stated one way or another yet that I'm aware of I find it troubling you seem so confident in the matter. With all of the creative customization allowed in the game with ability skill depth, weapon augmentation/powers and the multi class system it seems like the game would lean heavily toward allowing characters to designate their own attribute points.

p.s. Lastly I just want to leave you with the understanding that MOST people are not going to create as you say "Wacky" builds. Most people would choose to advance their attributes towards their ideal build(s). Though some may choose health is more important to them than a bit more damage, mana, or other attribute. To that end all it would change is that some characters have slightly varying attribute lines. Removing the ability to adjust our own attribute's really is just a developers way of saying "the masses are too stupid not to screw this up". Look at a game like ESO that does allow attribute allocation but they've dumbed it down so far as you only have 3 options. In all probability the people that go off the rails with the stat allocation would likely get destroyed in 1v1 scenarios that you seem so concerned with, I'm just hoping they give us the choice to be winners or losers based on attribute allocation as well.

ShroudedFox

Its old but seeing as they haven't updated us since id say its still accurate

https://youtu.be/G4-Sb3dN2hQ?t=35m58s

Child Item