source taken from Developers' Corner


Mr.Tact


I have been growing increasingly leery about the complexity of the proposed combat changes. The biggest concern from the community has been that it was too hard to understand. It's also directly contrary to one of my stated ancillary goals, to wit: "Don't make the game harder. Wherever possible, make it *easier*." Still, I've been plugging away at the original design, because I didn't have anything better.

Today, maybe I do.

I have spent considerable time this week pounding my head against the wall, trying to find a solution that does what I want while being simpler than diminishing returns et al. Eventually, I went back to the drawing board and asked myself what *exactly* it was I was trying to accomplish.

Me: Trying to impose limits on the benefits you can derive from items.
Other me: Why would you want to do that?
Me: Well, right now it's a nightmare to balance the game because it's impossible to ascertain what the real limits are. Ostensibly, there are "soft caps" based on the number of equipment slots an effect can apply to, and the amount you can get per item. But practically speaking, with artifacts that have higher than normal values, and sometimes can apply effects they normally shouldn't be allowed to, it knocks the soft caps into a ****ed hat.
Other me: So what? It's an item-based game.
Me: Yes, but right now you can derive too much benefit from equipment relative to what you can get from character abilities. It's possible to equip characters to swing at the fastest rate, do massive damage, leech mana so they can chain special moves nonstop and can heal completely with two bandages. Also, there's no cost to acquire equipment, aside from money, which is pretty easy to come by.
Other me: So you're trying to make it so players have to make choices & tradeoffs between the types of benefits they can get using equipment?
Me: Exactly.
Other, smarter me: Well, why not just DO that, then?
Me: . . .

In a nutshell, here's the idea: we impose hard caps on all the item properties in the game. We already have this for some of them; I would want to be conservative with the new caps (e.g. FC limit might be reduced to 1). Then, we give each character a number of "slots". I've been calling these "proficiencies," so I'll stick with that term. The number of proficiencies available to you would be based on your skill point total (for instance, 1 per 100 skill points). Each proficiency would modify one cap for the character.

"Can you give me an example?" you say. OK, consider this. Let's say we make the base cap on WDI 25%. Anyone can pick up up to +25% worth of damage increase items and use them. But if you want to be able to be able to use more WDI, you take "weapon damage proficiency" and your personal cap on WDI is increased to 50%.

This would also give us a framework for little one-off benefits. So, for example, I could get over my obsession with requiring a skill in order to be able to wear heavier armor, and just have "leather proficiency" and "plate proficiency".

Obviously, this opens up a multitude of questions. What I really need to know is, would this be an improvement over what was previously presented?


################

Okay....then how about....hmmm....

I know, if you want to add proficienies to the game, then how about giving us 100, 200, or 300 PROFICIENCY points (these points differ from skill points in that you can ONLY use these points for Proficiencies, NOT skills). Even if you just allow 100 proficiency points, but allowed people to spread them across (IE: leather proficiency +10 to leather defence, lplate proficiency +10 to lplate defence etc, until the 100 total). This way people wouldn't have to use 100 of thier much loved skill points. You get what you want, and we get to keep what we love.

################


I think that this is very likely to do one of two things:
1. Keeps the gap between the haves and the have-nots at rediculous levels.
2. Makes the gap between the haves and have-nots 0.

Both of which I think are equally bad.

I'd really need to get more details before I could say if I would like it more than DR or not...
I rather like DR though.

################

This could be viable but it has other concerns for me. I'm not certain of how it would be implemented by attaining proficiencies and managing them.

Also this would make the high end items still as wanted/needed as they are now because I am assuming (I know terrible of me )that these proficiency only mean that you have the allowability to have up to 50%WDI, not that you do -have- it. Meaning you'd need the artis/special gear toget that 50% WDI. Meaning gimp templates could possibley still form. (Depends on how thorough the balance is done).

But also by forcing folks to Spec out in something that means they can't get max speed and max damage with max armor. But during combat people might swap proficiencies.... depends on really how that is setup to be done.

This idea raises some concerns for me, perhaps no more than the other idea presented but, I'd have to see it in practice to understand it better. I'm just not sure this would make combat less complex as you stated. The way items are now is causing the complexity imho. I'm not sure theres a good way to undo that without making it, not an item based game.

Anyway its good to know that your really taking the concerned crowd to heart, and thinking of how to do things alternatively.

Hasn't this already been beaten into the ground?

The first reply here obviously doesn't get it, it doesn't USE skills points, your total skill points = how many proficiencies you get.

The second reply is shooting with their eyes closed. You can't say it will be A or Z and there are no letters in between.

The third reply brings up interesting points, albeit, already brought up points, but still. They just need to implement a plan and stick with it (in regards to how/when you pick your proficiencies).

Once a finalized plan is made there will be tons of questions and wrinkles to iron out, but it's going to need to happen no matter what, just make it so!

When it comes to "haves" and "have nots", its a difference about who goes out and tries to better their situation. The "haves" go out and change and improve their situation. The "have nots", go around and whine about it, till the Developers decide to take pity on them.

I'll be glad when they start tweaking the "crafters", they are way too over powered with their ability to make things. I cant wait to see what proficienticies they get for crafting.

Thats a good description of the haves/have nots. I used to be a have-not. But I went out and made gold and saved up enough to finally adapt and either make or buy the stuff I needed. The people who complain about not having stuff are the ones that dont do anything about their situation. Save up, hunt to get your wealth, and then get what you need.

Even Mr.Tact understands that items are far too powerful. However, imposing more "caps" on the game simply isn't the answer, because the game shouldn't need caps. The only real way to fix the problem is to nerf item properties back into the stone age. That way it's not possible to get "all 70s", and then you'd really have to make a choice about what resist you want to be strong and weak in. It shouldn't be possible to achieve as many caps as we are capable of achieving, because it throws the whole strength/weakness concept into the crapper.

Unfortunately, I'm certain most players wouldn't go for the idea, because the amount of time and gold (and in many cases, real cash) that have been put into these "suits". Well, I survived one mass-item nerf (AOS launch) and I have no problem doing it again if it meant restoring some balance to the game.

I like it Deraj. It really does make sense if you think about it.

You can either:

A. Create hard caps across the board so everyone can reach them ALL and be clones.

or

B. Have no caps, but take away massive amounts of mods on pieces to limit the possibilities while leaving it wide open to choose which you want to have strengths in.