Songcaller wrote: » Yeah mate, you highlight the best as usual but I stated I am not focussed on phenomena much like the usage. All you need right now is a basic fire wand or a basic wind wand at the relevant level and simply stat stuff your other items equipped. There is a complete demarcation between tool and utility. The weapons do provide utility but what is the urge to upgrade the tool? A perfect example comes from Rogue in bg3. My weapons only do 1-9 damage offhand and 1 - 11 damage main hand but stealth attack and stealthed ranged attack does 20-40 damage plus crit.
Dolyem wrote: » If I'm able to backstab someone with a spellbook as a rogue, that's just silly.
Songcaller wrote: » I feel people do not grasp the thread. So far, people talk about skills like skills are based on weapon tier and not weapon usage. I still do not see the point in boosting a weapon. I have discussed stats a few times even to the degree of discussing what a stat is. Nikr's screenshot proves the point. The weapons are simple stat sticks at the moment. The fault lies with the current stat suite and the fact anyone can use any weapon. Weapon skills use mana much akin to spells except basic attack right now. Q spam was prevalent before and seems to be prevalent again. The main issue remains the hidden calculations and the shown calculations. What is rating? How does 8 + 375 * k only equal 40 odd? What base is referenced? What does k represent? What tier weapon was used to make the calculation? Why does the mace in nikr's screenshot seem to be rubbish for physical use and rubbish for magical use? Do some spells require physical accuracy on top of magical accuracy? Right now, I'd take the basic mace for 75 gold because the npc merchant seems much more capable of a unified stat suite than the crafter who made the epic mace.
Kilion wrote: » Not sure if you are including me when you are saying "people" but assuming you are: The point of talking about skills and mana is that player damage can come from different sources like: Weapon attacks (press Q) Skills Passive effects If mana runs out by only relying on skills, that means player will inevitably be required to use weapon attacks and passives. Weapon attacks only require 2 things: The target being in range and the time to attack. Players do not need mana to perform weapon attacks. A mage can apply their elemental stacks with weapon attacks rather than spending mana on abilities that build it up, which ensures more mana for big combo spells - this makes weapon attacks a viable choice especially in longer battles against elite mobs or drawn out battles with little resting time like a siege. Does that mean weapons need sufficient damage stats to hit harder with increased quality? Yes. Is that already the case? Dunno, I would guess to some rudimental degree it is. Is it a system already done? Most likely not. "I still don't see the point in boosting a weapon." Simple: Higher weapon damage and additional stats. Again the current soft cap is a lot of things, but not balanced. For now that may mean that stat boosts on weapons are pointless, but they wont remain that way. How any of that makes the combat design team not understand combat at all really is beyond me.
While I can't say that it's a fair or 'concrete' way of looking at it, for some people, myself included, there's a specific order that you need to do certain design aspects in, to see success and not just muddy chaos. Certain changes we've seen from one state to another, in the past, implies to people like me that these designs are not being done in any of the 'correct' sequence/orders that would lead to a good combat experience. Not gonna claim that 'thinking it can only be done well X way' is right, but will definitely claim that 'seeing certain changes implies that they're not doing it in Y way'. If you're a person who believes in certain 'best practices' for design of certain things, signs that those aren't being followed could lead to OP's conclusion. Hell, even the 'we're just gonna do a bit of something for now and balance it later when we have time' is a red flag for some.
"Oh we finally had to turn on the CC Diminishing Returns lol" gets an 'excuse me what?' from me. That said, it's probably better not to get caught up in our armchair dev opinions, just assume it's people blowing off steam.
The real point of this thread comes down to this: "Why should I feel attached to, or boost, any specific weapon or even weapon type?" with the implication that one of two things is likely to be true in the end: Either Legendary gear will be very similar with lots of stat blocks and lots to pay attention to in tiny ways, meaning the differences between using them (other than skilltree) will be small (and this has some serious issues depending on how the Physical Power calculation for skills is done, in ways that are likely to be extremely dissatisfying for certain Fighters like George and the ones I know)... Or despite saying we can use every weapon, there will be much less flexibility than the game claims and certain choices will be noob traps.
P0GG0 wrote: » being able to use any weapons just because you like the appearance is not a bad concept.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Well, the power stat doesn't come directly from the main attribute, so the weapon's own stat values are still really important. The same was true in the bard showcase. 61int, but the rating is at 234. And considering that in both cases the characters were wearing the same type of jewels from this set There's 2 possibilities: difference between magic and physic weapons is huge (i.e. 334phys power vs 39 phys power) Steven went out of his way to give himself super precise jewels with magic atk power for the bard showcase, in order to boost his m.a.p. To me this implies that difference between weapons is big enough to not make them redundant. And this would also imply that vertical increase of the weapon's main attacking stat would also mean only a 1/10 (even slightly less) of that increase in pure dmg output, cause the "raiting" part of the attack power equation is always 1/10ed to make the numbers smaller.
