Skill Tree & Multiple Paths [Archive]

Renevent

03-31-2010, 03:45 PM

So it's basically been confirmed that the skill system will basically stay the same (with improvements of course!) so instead of trying to suggest drastic changes, let's try and come up with ideas to improve the existing system.

With that said I was thinking about the current system and one idea that popped into mind was having branching paths on the skill tree.

For example in TQ skills only progress down a single path:

Call of the Wild -> Maul -> Survival Instinct -> Strength of the Pack

What I suggest is certain skill lines actually have branching paths ex:

--> Survival Instinct --> Wolf health arua
Wolves -> Maul --
--> Strength of the Pack --> Wolf attack skill

Now this is a crude example as it's not taking into account balancing/fun/ect...but you get the idea. It would give the player choices in how to augment their skills and focus on a "theme" for the skills that had this. Each end of the branching path could have drastic results to further distinguish it from the other path.

cel

03-31-2010, 04:35 PM

As long as traversing the tree requires nothing more than a single point to unlock the next skill, I don't think that structure such as this would change anything; You're still not going to use the skills you spent only a single point on as they will be useless - if you wanted that active attack skill past Strength of the pack, would you use the wolf summon skill @ 1 skill point? I doubt it, as it would be next to useless. The only difference to a TQ-style "skill-tree" is that you will end up with less skill points in the end (if having too many of those was a problem, this wouldn't be the first thing I'd go for to fix it).

One thing that comes to mind that could fix this would be to make the trees relatively shallow and the "extra" skills past the regular [skill + synergies] would require that you spent at least X points in the skills that came before them; For example, getting that active attack skill could require you to spend a total of X points into [Wolves, Maul or Strength or the Pack], while the aura required you to spend points into [Wolves, Maul or Survival Instinct].

This would not only fix it, but also add a new aspect into picking skills; The player has the choice of spending points only into [Wolves or Maul] in order to get the necessary points required for both the aura and the attack skill (if he definetly wants both), but would then (by using the same amount of points) have lower levels in Survival Instinct and Strength of the Pack than if he focused only on getting one of the extra skills.

Renevent

03-31-2010, 04:42 PM

cel

03-31-2010, 05:22 PM

I don't see what 1 point wonder skills has to do with this idea...this is just giving players the option to go down more focused paths in order to customize skills even further. It's not supposed to address the 1 point wonder thing at all. Personally I don't even consider 1 point wonder skills a problem anyways, but that is a different discussion.

You missed the point, lets use that tree you provided as an example, if you were to go for that active attack skill but didn't want to use wolves:

The difference of 3 points is quite miniscule (the skills along the way will be next to useless, so the point aspect is all we even have to consider); even if you did choises such as this multiple times, it wouldn't have much of an effect at the end - consider any of your TQ builds, lower the points you have in all skills by 1 (which would be what you had to do in the worst case scenario where you picked a huge load of skills in this way) and tell me, does it make a significant difference in anything? I don't think it does (and we're talking about the worst case scenario, which most players won't even go for), you would still pick the same skills you did before, so this would not lead to the player further customizing his build, but rather having to spread his points thinner.

There's nothing wrong with the idea itself, but I don't see how it makes much of a difference in the long run. I also suggested a small change that would create the difference that you most likely wanted to achieve: The player being able to specialize further in different ways, making it possible to have a larger number of different kind of builds, no comments for that? Don't get me wrong, I don't condone forcing the player into picking useless skills (one point or not) or skills that he's not going to enjoy using, personally I would just limit the intial amount of points the player had if I wanted him to be able to pick less skills in a tree in order to promote specializing. Whatever I say here only answers the questions: Why / why not this system? How could it be changed in order to make it fulfill it's supposed purpose better?

This of course all changes if the amount of skill points available is low and the maximum points you can spend on a skill are not too far away from that 1 point, somewhere around 4-6, then it would start making a difference that actually made the player make different kind of choises in picking the skills even with the single point requirements.

Other than that, funneling people down a specific path does not make them feel bad as long as they have a choice in how to progress through it - there has to be multiple, significantly different ways of getting to the same destination.

Renevent

03-31-2010, 05:24 PM

Scryer

03-31-2010, 05:41 PM

Well, if you've been following Diablo 3, they have a type of skill pool / path system. All skills are supposed to be pretty well balanced, but there are no skill trees in Diablo 3. You pick the skills you want to use as you level.

They did this mostly to increase player customization. Don't want to be forced into a theme? Play the game the way you want and if you want a theme, pick thematic skills, if not, free-style all you like.

Skill trees are okay, if they're done right, I, for one, can't see the benefit of "1 skill wonders" because if the player doesn't want to use them, then why even make them have that skill?

I've essentially made a thread describing a very free-form customization type skill system, I just don't see what's wrong with playing how ever you want.

Renevent

03-31-2010, 05:53 PM

As far as I know (unless something has changed), Diablo 3 does have skill trees. It's not as many paths as lets say TQ has though...

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1/10004/1143752-skill_tree_blizzcon09_barb_muldric_super.jpg

Regarding playing however you want, that's not always a good idea. The designer of a game should create a system that's fun and deep, but with choices and decisions to make. Having things so open runs the risk of becoming unfocused to the point where things are uninteresting. Making things too focused and restrictive runs the risk of boring player by not giving them enough options.

So in regards to Grim Dawn, we have a skill system that had a lot of freedom to customize, while still presenting the player with interesting choices and giving them the feeling of progression. With that I gotta agree with Medierra and say why change it fundamentally? It's one of the best skill systems in the genre imo.

Scryer

03-31-2010, 06:16 PM

The picture you posted above is out of date a bit, and I'm sure has changed a lot.

The new iteration is much different, I'm sure. Read here -

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=16903518463&postId=171109013768&sid=3000#3

And here.

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=16137707438&postId=161356375740&sid=3000#48

Some very good reasons to scrutinize skill trees right there.

Renevent

03-31-2010, 06:20 PM

I think the downward arrows still exist in the new trees...

1. "They look similar." Yes, they do. They're both downward expanding trees, they both have icons that you can spend points in, they both have arrows that determine expansion into other skills.

So it does seem like a more open system, although it doesn't appear they are totally removing the skill paths all together. Although maybe I am reading this all wrong...if they in fact are removing all these paths I will accept that fact.

Regardless, what TQ should do shouldn't be determined by what D3 does...it should be determined by what worked well in TQ and what didn't. And when you look at things I think it's pretty clear it's skill system was one of it's strongest features.

Scryer

03-31-2010, 06:27 PM

They haven't shown us the newest changes to the system, but I could see how certain skills require a path, just because they make sense.

However many of the paths have been drastically reduced to just 2 skills per path, at least in the picture you show. We'll have to wait and see if they've changed that.

Renevent

03-31-2010, 06:28 PM

Yeah, I don't want to jump to conclusions regarding what D3 will do. Heck, it could change again in the coming months anyways :p

So basically I'll just relegate again to what I previously said (last paragraph of my previous post).

Scryer

03-31-2010, 06:34 PM

This is my favorite part of what Bashiok said -

2. "It's unoriginal." I agree. It's only after 10 (?) or so working concepts of various other skill tree designs that we were able to arrive at the conclusion that this is a system that works and achieves the goals that we want to achieve (we showed those failed designs at BlizzCon btw). There's no point in trying to put in something new and complex just for the sake of originality. When people play the game will they remember that it's not new, or that it's not fun?

3. "Point requirements to advance down the tree is lame." One of the main problems with the Diablo II trees was point hoarding, which was the act of holding on to all of your points until you are able to reach a skill you want to put points into. This may not be an issue to some players just because it's so easily dismissed as 'part of the game', but from a designer perspective it's a huge failure. You are giving the player a reward and they are hoarding those rewards because they have nothing enticing to spend them on. This was attempted to be remedied through a patch by introducing synergies, unfortunately they caused their own issues. World of Warcraft looking at the Diablo II trees for inspiration saw this flaw but took a different approach in solving it, instead implementing a point requirement to advance down the tree. The player now has to spend points to advance, and with that comes the ability to provide more impacting and meaningful places to spend them.

But I still think skill trees can be done right, WoW did them right in my opinion.

Renevent

03-31-2010, 06:39 PM

I think he is right but in the context of Diablo 2. Look at the D2 skill trees:

http://nick.gladius.org/projects/planner/amabow.jpg

It was a lot more restrictive than TQ, as in TQ many skill were completely independent, or had their tree start higher up. In D2, they started from the top and followed all the way down.

Heck, some skills required *two* higher skills from two different paths invested in before being able to take the next skill!

So I think in D2 the chances for point hoarding and getting skills you don't want is far greater and therefore what he says makes a lot of sense.

I think TQ struck a good balance in this regard. You only had to invest in skills that you actually liked, and those skills improved that skill. I remember on my Paladin in D2 I had to take all sorts of skills I would never use just to gain access to the ones I wanted. That's a poopy system :D

Scryer

03-31-2010, 06:44 PM

I agree it is a poopy system, lol

Renevent

03-31-2010, 06:47 PM

You know, talking about these systems in depth and looking at what D3 is doing, I can't help but think that based on the picture (and what Bashoik said) that D3's skill system is heavily influenced by TQ's skill system.

If that's the case I think that's a testament to how good it was :D

Scryer

03-31-2010, 06:52 PM

I see some similarities, but TQ's system is pretty unique with 2 sets of skills and masteries.

I still don't like 1 skill wonders, as it has been put, or synergies, unless you can choose the synergy you want.

cel

03-31-2010, 07:09 PM

The active attack is *for* the wolves.

Maybe I didn't make that clear enough, but that's typically how skills trees work. There wouldn't be unrelated skills down a particular skill line that didn't have to do with the base skill or skill concept itself.

Anyways, I modified the OP to make it a bit more clear...

So it's basically single branch vs multiple branches. The change would be welcome, as it potentially lowers the amount of single point skills that the player had to take but didn't want, but:

If you want to "give the player choices in how to augment their skills and focus on a 'theme' for the skills", then this idea needs to be refined further in some way, because the requirement of 1 point spent in a skill to get access to skills deeper in the branch doesn't make the player "focus on a theme" just as it didn't in TQ, they will spend that 1 point without a second thought if they want the skill that comes next, people who want the skills will still have to spend points on things they potentially don't want to, this only lessens the effect in those cases where the player completely ignores at least one branch - and even then, only by a very slight amount -, otherwise the end result is exactly the same as with the old system.

How about making the synergies of each skill directly under the skill itself in the "tree" and only make synergies require other synergies if the synergy was directly a "descendant" of the other one: In the wolf example, instead of the only synergies that would be in the same branch would be the Maul and the new attack skill (both are active attack skills) and the auras would be in one branch (it is debateable wether health aura should be with the defense skill, as they both augment defense, or with the aura skill, as they both augment all allies). Then the follow up skill could even be made to require points (somewhere around 40%-50% of the maximum points that one could invest in it - maximum, not ultimate level) in the previous skill, so that it would be possible to specialize in some aspect of the skill, without making it so that people only spent 1 point in the previous synergy to get the "good stuff" that came next.

Like so:
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/9463/treem.png

Getting the health aura would require spending a few points in Strength of the Pack (with TQ values, that could be 5-6 points out of 12 before it became available) and the same with Maul if they wanted the additional attack, making it possible for the players to specialize whichever way they wanted, but still restricted them slightly from cherry picking only the best - we want to promote specialization, not generalization. You might even add a synergy to help the wolves keep monsters away from the player to the single-skill branch to make it complete; That way the player couldn't make super-wolves that keep monsters away and have two skills to deal damage while having a health aura without spending points in the earlier synergies as well (the later synergies are kinda like "tier 2" synergies, further enhancing the aspect that the first synergy was based on)

Renevent

03-31-2010, 07:28 PM

I like your diagram, and think the ideas you added were reasonable.

Personally I am not too concerned with this 1 point thing as I rarely ever put a single point into a skill...and even if I did chances are I would come back to that skill some point later on (after taking a few other skills I wanted more).

But if this is something the designers think is an issue I don't see too much harm putting slightly stricter requirements in.

cel

03-31-2010, 08:59 PM

Malpheas

03-31-2010, 09:26 PM

One more thing I'd like to see in the skill system: Synergy paths that you had to pick between that would make the skill slightly different, you could only pick one route, the other one would then be grayed out. It would further increase the amount of different builds without the need for a kazillion different skills in the tree.

This could be used for diametrically opposed trees within a single build or for themes. I like the idea, but it could arguably be counted as "forcing a player down a path"... regardless of the theme (or whatever justification for the limiter).

As well, with the skill requirements point you have, cel, you could have multiple paths at decision points. So that each choice would lock down the other choice. This would make for really loaded up skill trees, but would allow you to get to the unique path you wanted without a lot of the fluff.

Roros

03-31-2010, 09:34 PM

I didn't mind Diablo2's skill system at all. Remember that most of them received synergy bonuses from eachother, so even though you needed a level of Warmth to get Enchant, the Enchant would get +x% damage bonus per level of warmth.
It prevented the level of warmth from feeling 'wasted', and you still got an extra skill to play around with.

I don't really think I have a preference for the type of skill tree/panel and how it's structured. The only thing that matters to me in the end is whether it's balanced and allows for experimentation.

Scryer

03-31-2010, 10:03 PM

I just wonder what's wrong with customization, even if there's thematic skills, you could easily bunch them up in a way so the player knows about it, but why limit customization and player creativity with a tree?

Malpheas

03-31-2010, 10:11 PM

If one is necessary to be learned in order to know the proceeding skill, I would like to see how it is justified.

Scryer

03-31-2010, 11:01 PM

That makes sense if the skills help each other in some symbiotic way, but, otherwise, I still can't see the harm in limiting player customization.

Oh well, maybe it's just beyond my understanding right now, I'm not a game designer. lol

Malpheas

04-01-2010, 03:33 AM

That was my point, beyond that, neither could I.

I guess, as a skill pane, could you spend points to open up a "specific themed pane" for X points? Go that way for themed skills. Depends on what you do and what points you spend where.

Instead of looking in a purely vertical pane relation.

Agouti

04-02-2010, 01:27 AM

Just found the site, gogo the iron lore phoenix! can't wait for grim dawn :D

... back on topic

I agree with Cel - just merely adding branches to skill trees won't change much at all, with the exception of making (or not making) players spend a point to unlock a skill they want. A way to limit this would be to have prerequisites like "X points in Y" but there are better ways of doing this, I feel.

In reply to Scryer, infinite player choice/customization etc isn't, in my mind, a good thing - there should be compromises. That's part of what makes it a more strategic game.

The best example for this would be Torchlight. It's a good engine, while gameplay wise it lacks direction it's still fun, but I just can't get really interested in it. I played through to level 30-something, but just got sick of it.

The skill trees in Torchlight aren't trees, just a mismatch of skills with no prerequisites past level, no real synergies, and no direction when choosing skills. I 100% approve of the way TQ does it.

I like the idea of branching trees, which force you to pick one route or the other with boosts to a skill (like OP's example, building tank wolves or DPS).

This would also mean that each branch could be made more powerful in it's own right, without the need to balance for people choosing both branches.

I'm not sure if it would be a good thing to follow the "forcing choice" too far, and (taking another nature example) making players choose between wolves or nymph, but adding more skills to each particular tree (ie, more wolf skills) with forced choices would be interesting.

Adding some direction would also make it a bit easier to choose your skills. When I first picked up TQ, I sort of scratched at my head trying to choose skill builds. Which skills were good now, which scaled well? Volcanic orb or flame surge? Ended up just google'ing to see what the good builds were, and if a RPG vet like myself feels the need to do this what will normal players do?

If you were to add more skills (yay!), with the same style, it would get even trickier for your first time in a class. Adding branches and more direction to the paths, without breaking the complete cross class synergies, would make it easier to find direction and make your choices more strategic.

Anyway, just my 2 cents ^_^

*edit* A thought, would skills (or whole trees) unlocked from specific combination's of classes be a good thing? Like, a pet that only Druids could summon, or a weapon/skill only conquerors could use. I'm pretty doubtful, but just to throw it in there.

Oh, and I think it could be good to see some skill/class weapon prerequisites like in D2 (like assassins and claws) instead of just purely stats. Bags not being in charge of balancing.

cel

04-02-2010, 02:53 AM

[SIZE="1"]A way to limit this would be to have prerequisites like "X points in Y" but there are better ways of doing this, I feel.

...

I like the idea of branching trees, which force you to pick one route or the other with boosts to a skill (like OP's example, building tank wolves or DPS).

I can see that such prerequisites can lead to flattening the build just the same as without them and simply having branches locking other branches out does have the first-impression of being an even better solution.

There are also many variations between these systems (point prequisites vs locked branches vs ffa tree structure) that should be further analyzed - even if only for the sole reason of excluding them as viable solutions -, such as simply limiting the maximum amount of points one could spend in a single tree-structure or the amount of different skills one could choose to invest points into in that structure (a single tree-structure in this context being for example the wolf summon and all its synergies).

For those still arguing that limiting the choices is somehow evil: It's equivalent to having to pick only 2 out of 5 classes and choosing the trees you're going to be using from those 2 classes; it is what allows us to have many different interesting builds that are still equivalent in terms of power instead of just the having "good builds" and "bad builds".

*edit* A thought, would skills (or whole trees) unlocked from specific combination's of classes be a good thing? Like, a pet that only Druids could summon, or a weapon/skill only conquerors could use. I'm pretty doubtful, but just to throw it in there.

These would be interesting indeed, but the amount of things that needed to be added is kinda scary; just to get one unique skill for each class combination, we would have to add a whopping 10 skills to the game (5 classes = 10 unique combinations), slap in the synergies for each and you've got a tree worth of skills just for the sake of 1 extra skill per character.

medierra

04-02-2010, 04:32 AM

I think we could easily add branching skill trees with existing tech just by making the art a little differently. I am intrigued by the idea of having a choice to go down one path close off the other. I don't think we would do it though. The problem is that there is barely enough space in the UI pane to cram in enough skills to make a mastery interesting. If we started closing off branches of a skill tree, I think we'd need a greater number of total skills in each mastery to offset this and we don't really have the room or time to make this happen.

This may sound funny, but one of the biggest challenges and limitations of skill design on TQ was just figuring out how to fit all of the skills / skill trees into the window.

Agouti

04-02-2010, 05:29 AM

medierra

04-02-2010, 06:52 AM

Hmm, hadn't considered space might be an issue... on my 24" monitor there seems to be plenty of space in TQ, but I'm guessing there is a lot less real estate available on say 800x600. Could be complication for complications sake, without really having much potential to add gameplay :confused:

Yeah you'd be amazed when you actually get down to implementing something, how much of design is dictated by inane things like screen-space and language (limited number of suitable or synonymous words to describe item affixes and such). It can be quite frustrating.

Another thought to throw into the mix, stat requirements on some skills (or at least particular levels of skills)? Like, for instance, if someone is building a low int tank with some storm or earth thrown in for AOE, an int requirement to hit high levels of volcanic eruption makes sense... or STR requirements on warefare/defense skills... but again smacks of needless complication without actually furthering the game mechanics. Just something else for the pot :)

*edit* just realized this is already partly implemented in terms of damage modifiers from str/dex and energy from int. Seems a even more silly suggestion but I'll leave it there just in case ;)

Generally when it comes to limiting or promoting certain decisions / behavior, I like to do it in a "soft" way that just pushes a player in a direction instead of imposing a hard rule. I think it feels less arbitrary and restrictive to the player and more like a natural, "organic" aspect of the game-world. That INT increases elemental damage just seems like a law of nature in TQ vs. "you must have 300INT to put a point in this skill" seems like an arbitrary designer rule.

I always think about the difference between EQ and WoW when it comes to this sort of thing. Each game has its own merits and I can't say that I really like one more than the other. I played both for about 6 months but never really got hooked on either. However, one thing that really turned me off WoW was the "hard" balancing. In EQ you were free to try crazy things like employing creative strategies to defeat enemies many levels above you - outside what should normally have been possible. Was it an exploit? It sort of felt like one in that it was exciting and satisfying feeling like I was getting away with something I shouldn't have been able to do. However, in reality, the amount of time it took to defeat an enemy far beyond your own level more than balanced it out. In reality, it really wasn't worth the time. You could much more efficiently gain XP with much lower risk killing enemies your own level. It wasn't any efficient way to farm high-level items either. However, it was fun to do once just to say you did it. It also just made that aspect of the game feel better - less like a game full of arbitrary human rules. In WoW, when you try to push the limits of your character by fighting higher-level enemies, eventually you just constantly wiff and your spells are 100% resisted. If you try to kite enemies too far, they just turn and run back and become 100% immune to your attacks while they regenerate back up to 100% health. Whats fun about that? Seems like lazy designing to me... Of course, I've never worked on a game that sold over 10 million copies, so what do I know. ;)

Renevent

04-02-2010, 12:35 PM

Generally when it comes to limiting or promoting certain decisions / behavior, I like to do it in a "soft" way that just pushes a player in a direction instead of imposing a hard rule. I think it feels less arbitrary and restrictive to the player and more like a natural, "organic" aspect of the game-world. That INT increases elemental damage just seems like a law of nature in TQ vs. "you must have 300INT to put a point in this skill" seems like an arbitrary designer rule.

I personally appreciate that direction in design...I don't know why people care about things like other people putting 1 point into something or things like that.

Give the players a well designed framework, and let us make the choices.

As for not including it the branching paths...boo to you! :p

Scryer

04-02-2010, 04:27 PM

I still like freedom and customization. I also liked WoW's skill tree system, but for an ARPG, you don't need to be as strict, because every class should be DPS, with some flavour skills, like healing/buffs.

eisprinzessin

04-02-2010, 06:16 PM

I don't think we would do it though. [...] If we started closing off branches of a skill tree, I think we'd need a greater number of total skills in each masteryFine with me. More skills (especially if you have to close off some of them) just make it more difficult to choose. Eventually we end up with a bunch of skills with cryptic effects nobody understands ... or worse with useless skills.

Of course, I've never worked on a game that sold over 10 million copies, so what do I know. ;)You've proven more than often that you do know. At least you worked on TQ, which I still play, whereas I've renouced to ever start playing WoW again. Or in other words, you know how to make my game. :D

Scryer

04-02-2010, 06:39 PM

I still play WoW, it gets a lot of flake, but mostly, it's an MMORPG, it's supposed to take your time, it's still one of the most casual high quality MMO's out there right now.

People rip on WoW all the time, but that doesn't mean it's not a fun game, if you're not the type of gamer that wants to take many hours to level a character, gear him up, then of course you won't like it.

ARPG's are ultra-casual, you don't need to sit there for hours, you're immediately into the action and just killing stuff left and right. ARPG's are my favorite genre, and I just want to see them grow and evolve into better games.

cel

04-02-2010, 06:50 PM

I personally appreciate that direction in design...I don't know why people care about things like other people putting 1 point into something or things like that.

It's not about caring wether or not people like to put one point into each skill, it's about the way that synergies force that without no good reason - the few points you are forced to spend this way are like a drop in the ocean in the long run. I don't necessarily want certain kind of behaviour to my skills, regardless of wether or not other people think it's worth the single point in terms of bang per buck, I'd rather just outright lose that one point.

eisprinzessin

04-02-2010, 06:51 PM

I don't mind playing a lot ;) But WoW did not reward me for the time I invested.

Scryer

04-02-2010, 06:55 PM

Well, that's the main reason I proposed the full gamut skill system idea.

(Read here = http://www.grimdawn.com/forums/showthread.php?t=498 )

But, you could remove those constraints entirely and just give the player a sort of free-form pick your skills how you like, thematic or free-style.

I think you had some good ideas about how to reduce this also Cel.

Edit:

I don't mind playing a lot But WoW did not reward me for the time I invested.

Well, reward is different for every player, you can't really quantify it well.

Agouti

04-03-2010, 04:19 AM

I think it's a question of balance, as always. Too much freestyle/freedom just takes away direction, and means you have to have more independant skills, meaning a lot of overlap and duplicate/reduntant skills; Torchlight is an example.

The way TQ does it is good, there are not a huge number of actual skills but there are a number of boosts/synergies for most. There are few seperate skills which require another seemingly unrelated skill, which is good.

I think you could have sort of sub-trees for major skills, like pets or such, but would need to be careful of then having so many skills/complications in these that the rest of the class became to thin, or reduntant, or those skills became mandatory.

Scryer

04-03-2010, 04:59 AM

If you look at TQ's skill system, I think where they got it right was the thematic experience of the specific skill set that each class had.

You could just as easily take TQ's skill sets, unlink each skill that was linked, remove synergies and just make skills scale better, and you'd have the same great TQ skills, the same great mastery system, but you'd be able to select the skills you wanted as you progressed down the mastery line.

You wouldn't have 1 skill wonders, and you would be able to spend those points where ever you pleased. You'd also have some pretty good freedom to develop your character how you like.

Synergies are to me useful if you decide not to put a ton of skills into each class mastery. But what I would prefer for them is if they allowed you to pick which 2 skills you want to synergize, then at least you wouldn't be forced into skills you wouldn't like to have, or ever use.

medierra

04-03-2010, 08:18 AM

You could just as easily take TQ's skill sets, unlink each skill that was linked, remove synergies and just make skills scale better, and you'd have the same great TQ skills, the same great mastery system, but you'd be able to select the skills you wanted as you progressed down the mastery line.

The point of synergies is to attempt to help maintain the power and effectiveness of early skills as the player reaches higher levels and do it in a way that is paced out so that the player cannot unlock too much of this power too early in the game. Removing this dynamic would pose a serious balancing issue. It would also be incredibly boring.

Scryer

04-03-2010, 09:25 AM

medierra

04-03-2010, 09:26 AM

The only thing I don't understand about synergies and skill lines (like in TQ) is, why are the necessary? I don't find it interesting to put 1 skill point into abilities I'll never use.

What exactly do you mean by this? If you have 3 skills in a tree you don't need to put a point into the second to unlock the 3rd... at least, if I remember correctly. If you don't want an ability, why do you need to put a point into it? I don't remember anything in the system that forces you to do this.

I (as a player) especially when it came to Diablo 2, hated being forced into synergies, it's a lot of points I'd of rather spent on skill's I'd rather be using. If skills scaled well, then synergies would be eliminated, and I could spend my points in more meaningful areas.

If they scaled well how? The synergies ARE how they scale. The only other means I can see for making individual skills scale better by themselves is to give them 3-4 times more levels. Would one skill with 100 levels be more fun and interesting than 1 skill and 2-3 modifiers? Even in such a case, I'd have less flexibility in balancing the skill. If a skill has stun damage - you can't pace that out over 100 levels unless you're raising by hundredths of a point each level or only incrementing it every 10-20 levels.

When I played Torchlight, I felt like the developer's were on the right track - increase customization. But they failed because they over-did the skills. They didn't make each class unique and thematic, they blended too much because so many skills overlapped.

I felt like I was just presented with a selection of random individual skills. I also felt forced to invest points in early skills that became totally obsolete as they were replaced by more powerful versions at higher levels. Certain skills also felt very over-powered when I got them and I think part of that was that, in a system with only individual skills, there wasn't much flexibility in the way the designers could distribute and pace out the power-curve.

To some extent, so far as the presentation goes, I think it may come down to personal preference. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

As far as balancing goes, I'm pretty convinced that the current system allows for more flexibility in balancing and scaling of skills. I think the alternative would be to move to a system more like WoW or D3. A system with just individual skills and no synergies or other gating mechanism doesn't seem like it will achieve very good results.

Scryer

04-03-2010, 09:31 AM

Sorry, Medierra! I deleted that post, not to be mean, but I didn't think you'd reply so fast!

If they scaled well how? The synergies ARE how they scale. The only other means I can see for making individual skills scale better by themselves is to give them 3-4 times more levels. Would one skill with 100 levels be more fun and interesting than 1 skill and 2-3 modifiers? Even in such a case, I'd have less flexibility in balancing the skill. If a skill has stun damage - you can't pace that out over 100 levels unless you're raising by hundredths of a point each level or only incrementing it every 10-20 levels.

My idea of making most attack abilities scale well is by using a % of the weapon's damage as a modifier. Also using character's attributes as a way to scale the abilities modifiers (like stun duration).

So instead of having a skill with 100 levels, you could max it off at 20 levels or lower, and say that damage is increased by 200% weapon damage (just an example) and duration is increased by, say, strength, strength will have a modifier that says (increases duration of abilities by x). Or whatever the common attribute happens to be.

This would be how the skill itself would scale along with the player. As the player got better items, the skill would get better. I can see this kind of skill scaling being pretty fun in legendary mode.

medierra

04-03-2010, 09:59 AM

When you have time Medierra, read this post I made, it rewards player's for spending points (Like WoW's system) but it also increases customization 3-fold. I almost feel it would be easier to balance, if every skill scaled well enough. You could still add randomness to it by giving different max-skill levels. You could block off skills the same way you did in TQ. I hope you can understand my wording, I hope it's not too blurry.

http://www.grimdawn.com/forums/showthread.php?t=498

I did read this a couple days ago. I don't know that I fully understand your concept but, assuming I do, it seems overly complicated and also incredibly difficult to balance.

I don't think customization is boring though.

To me the most interesting class / skill systems are ones that offer a lot of freedom but not complete freedom. With complete freedom you have no difficult choices to make, no interesting trade-offs or relationships. I also feel that thematically they offer no feeling of structure or purpose. You just end up with a bunch of individual skills that feel random and generic. There is also nothing to guide players in their decision-making. Most players want to feel like they are progressing in a skill tree, not just amassing a collection of individual skills. Thematically trees also give the feeling of growing as a character and honing skills that are central to your class.

If you take Ice Shard from TQ - how should that work as an individual skill? At what point would it start passing through enemies and gaining additional shards? How is it more interesting to have this all wrapped into one skill then paced out as a skill with two modifiers? To me it seems that being able to individually modify different aspects of the way a skill functions offers greater customization than having it all wrapped into one skill where the additional functionality just automatically happens as you dump more points into it.

Finally, if we merge all of the modifiers in a skill tree into one skill - will skill mastery now only have 5-6 skills? I don't think I can come up with 15-20 skills per mastery that all have the same sort of built in functionality of Ice Shard with all it's modifiers or the Liche King with all his skills or the Bow tree in hunting.

But, I understand what you're saying. I hope I don't come off as too debate-y. You have much more experience then most of us, especially me, I'm sure, but it's really cool that you participate in these discussions. Thank you. :)

Though, I feel like our feedback has helped you guys a lot. ^_^

Nah, I don't mind at all. Gives me something to think about while I'm waiting for the latest code to build. It is good to have people challenging design decisions in the game and forcing me to weigh other options and ensure that we're heading down the right path.

I'm bound to fuck something up but, with the help of the community, hopefully a lot of the game systems will be improved and come out even better than TQ.

Scryer

04-03-2010, 10:19 AM

If you take Ice Shard from TQ - how should that work as an individual skill? At what point would it start passing through enemies and gaining additional shards? How is it more interesting to have this all wrapped into one skill then paced out as a skill with two modifiers? To me it seems that being able to individually modify different aspects of the way a skill functions offers greater customization than having it all wrapped into one skill where the additional functionality just automatically happens as you dump more points into it.

What you said there interests me pretty greatly. I think there could be cool ways to change the functionality of a skill beyond their just dumping points. I think dumping points in a skill should just make it scale better. Scale off of the players weapon / attributes.

I think you could make a pretty unique skill system where the player chooses the type of effect he/she wants on their skills. What I'm thinking is, most skills have say, 2-4 effects tied to them, each effect having a max level of 5 skill points. Now, if you block the player, at 5 points max, in all of the effects, then they have to make a choice as to how the skill works and how well the effect(s) will scale.

just an idea, but it sounds pretty cool.

Llama8

04-03-2010, 04:18 PM

I quite like the idea of caster-skills (Ice shards, for example) being somehow based on the weapon damage, though I think I'd probably prefer someone like Blizzard to do the experiment rather than Crate (& IIRC D3 is going to be something like that).

Scryer

04-03-2010, 09:52 PM

mamba

04-04-2010, 01:41 AM

I don't think it's too experimental to have skills scale based on a player's weapon damage or even just scale off their attributes better. It does solve the problem of requiring synergies though.

It also makes the player want to have the most powerful weapons, so it would fuel the player to look for better items/weapons.

We already had both of them in TQ, granted, skills that scaled with weapon damage were usually 'weapon skills' like Dual Wield or Phantom Strike, but even so, they did.

Spells (Lightning, Ice Shards, essentially anything with elemental damage) also scaled with player int.

I certainly expect to see something along those lines in GD as well, that has no relation to synergies vs single skills however. In both cases it can be done.

I certainly prefer skills with synergies over single skills, it just gives more flexibility in how you scale your skills (like the bonus of one synergy better ? invest more in that, instead of having a fixed progression you cannot influence at all).

Oh, and show me the player who does not want the most powerful weapon in any case ;)

Scryer

04-04-2010, 08:06 AM

I still think synergies are just another way for you to be forced into an ability you may never use.

I think, rather then have skill synergies that change the way a skill acts, the player could easily be presented with skill effect choices that link to the specific skill.

Then once the player has chosen the effect(s) they want, the other effects are grayed out, so you choose which effect modifies the skill.

If you add more effects to 1 base skill, you could give the player a choice of 2 or more effects rather then just one.

The skill itself, I still feel should scale well on it's own, without the need of unrelated skills.

Here's a mock up of what I think -

- Ice Shard (As a base skill)

Select one -

-----Effect 1 = Multi-shot
-----Effect 2 = Piercing
-----Effect 3 = Explosion (explodes and does AoE Ice damage)
Etc.

Once the player selects one (or more) the other effects are grayed out.
Also, you could have the player invest points into these effects to increase their potency. (with a 5 point cap please, or a very small point cap.)

I find this a better solution, rather then telling the player to spend points on an arbitrary skill they may never use.

eisprinzessin

04-04-2010, 08:57 AM

If you have 3 skills in a tree you don't need to put a point into the second to unlock the 3rd... at least, if I remember correctly. If you don't want an ability, why do you need to put a point into it? I don't remember anything in the system that forces you to do this.

You have to put 1 point in Wildfire before you can get Metamorphosis for your Core Dweller. The same goes for some other skill lines, but not for all. Do I understand you correctly that there won't be such requirements in GD? Would be appreciated!

To me the most interesting class / skill systems are ones that offer a lot of freedom but not complete freedom. With complete freedom you have no difficult choices to make, no interesting trade-offs or relationships. I also feel that thematically they offer no feeling of structure or purpose. You just end up with a bunch of individual skills that feel random and generic. There is also nothing to guide players in their decision-making. Most players want to feel like they are progressing in a skill tree, not just amassing a collection of individual skills. Thematically trees also give the feeling of growing as a character and honing skills that are central to your class.

Agreed :)

Scryer, I'm not always able to follow your posts. Can you point out for me in 2-3 SHORT SENTENCES, where TQ's skill system has failed and disappointed you?

You also seem to contradict yourself - correct me if I'm wrong, please. At one point you want to freely choose from all of your masteries' skills. But in you last post, you suggest to grey out alternative effects, once you have opted for one. What if I want Multi-shot-Piercing-Explosion-Ice-Shards?

Scryer

04-04-2010, 09:17 AM

You have to put 1 point in Wildfire before you can get Metamorphosis for your Core Dweller. The same goes for some other skill lines, but not for all. Do I understand you correctly that there won't be such requirements in GD? Would be appreciated!

^ Is basically what I'm talking about (1 point wonders that have been mentioned before)

You also seem to contradict yourself - correct me if I'm wrong, please. At one point you want to freely choose from all of your masteries' skills. But in you last post, you suggest to grey out alternative effects, once you have opted for one. What if I want Multi-shot-Piercing-Explosion-Ice-Shards?

As for this, I suggest giving the player choices of effects. I know it's hard for me to describe things at times, sorry about that. But, I do believe that making choices shouldn't be easy all the time, also, if effects are limited, you could party with players that would have different effect set-ups.

What I mean is, lets say again for Ice Shard - Instead of being forced into just 1 effect, if enough effect modifiers exist, then the developer could allow the player to choose Multi-shot, and explosion.

This would increase skill diversity of even the same class. So, for 2 players, one could have Ice Shard + Piercing, the other could have Ice Shard + Multi-Shot. Or if you're allowed to pick 1 more modifier, then you could have, a player with Ice Shard + Pierce + Multi-Shot, and another player with Ice Shard + Multi-Shot + Explosion.

That's why effect modifiers the player doesn't choose should be grayed out, they increase skill diversity of the same class, and the player has to make choices as to which effect modifiers they want.

Sorry that I couldn't make it short, lol I have a horrible time doing that, any suggestions as to how I could do that though?

eisprinzessin

04-04-2010, 12:12 PM

A lot of people mostly play SP. Then there is no need to enforce diversity in such a way. If someone is fed up with Multi-shot-Piercing-Explosion-Ice-Shards, then he is free to re-spec.

Couples and friends probably have one (or more) dedicated MP chars, too. They might share a mastery, but isn't it more likely, that they pick different masteries to have maximum diversity and benefit from as many synergies as possible?

One thing that mildly annoyed me in WoW was, that some interesting skills were locked away, as I could not spend enough points in my class's other skill trees.

Also consider: I think we could easily add branching skill trees with existing tech just by making the art a little differently. I am intrigued by the idea of having a choice to go down one path close off the other. I don't think we would do it though. The problem is that there is barely enough space in the UI pane to cram in enough skills to make a mastery interesting. If we started closing off branches of a skill tree, I think we'd need a greater number of total skills in each mastery to offset this and we don't really have the room or time to make this happen.

You did not point out "where TQ's skill system has failed and disappointed you" ... you aren't submitting requests for the sake of change, are you? :p

Scryer

04-04-2010, 01:19 PM

You did not point out "where TQ's skill system has failed and disappointed you" ... you aren't submitting requests for the sake of change, are you? :p

I've pointed that out in other posts I've already made.

I think giving skills different effects independent of a separate skills is better then putting skills together and requiring synergy to make them powerful.

Also, while it's true most people play SP, it's still better to give the player a decision to make. It would be rather boring if all the skills the player wanted he could just upgrade them with the best possible skill effects. So, limiting skill effects causes the player to make tough choices as to which way they prefer to play the game.

Much like what D3 is doing, they have skill runes that drop, each skill rune can change the way a skill works (Multi-shot, explosion, pierce, etc.) but also in D3, you can only have 1 skill rune in a single skill at a time, it requires you to make a decision about how you want to play the game. That is more interesting for the player.

I wouldn't say these are requests either, more like open discussions to help the development team wager all their options.

eisprinzessin

04-04-2010, 02:21 PM

Your point still eludes me. :confused: Do you want to have global effects, which you can skill without any base skill? If yes, what would Effect: Explosion (http://www.grimdawn.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7664) do without Ice Shards?

Or do you want to limit players in the amount of synergies, they can activate for any base skill (e.g. Ice Shards).

Shinrou

04-04-2010, 02:37 PM

Hmm, I'm actually pretty intrigued of that Scryer's idea. Though for me, more compelling idea would be to let player have able to spend, lets say ie. 10 skill-points max FREELY to skill-enchancing per main skill.

So for example, you could have a grenade-skill that has 3 different boosting-options in addition to the main skill. You could freely distribute 10 points for 3 attributes. Each attribute could have like 6 levels. I'll try to make it a bit graphical, with all of ten points distributed.

Grenade (Main Skill)

-> [ ] [ ] [X] [X] [X] [X] Explosion Radius Boost
-> [ ] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] Cluster Count
-> [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Incendiary Effect

In this instance, the grenade would be quite big in blast radius, would have quite many additional clusters and just slightly burn damage in addition to normal damage. It's just a quick example really, but I think it explains it pretty clearly.

So, you would need to sacrifice something to make that skill work the way you want it mostly. I don't know, maybe it would do good to actually think about HOW do you want your skill mostly to work out as, instead of just putting all your points to every possible enchancement to make it super-powerful, at the same time rendering most of the other skills useless.

It's just the way I see it... I'd love some deeper thinking involved when making choices, and I love seeing how you can actually differentiate yourself from others by limiting your choices in THIS regard. It could also make quite a bit of replay-value. So basically even when you would play the exact same class. You could still be quite a bit different with the choices you make.

I see it as an easy'ish way to add replay-value and take customization to a new level. I'd personally would like to see something like this.

eisprinzessin

04-04-2010, 03:09 PM

Shinrou, where is the benefit in the limitation you suggest? If you want to encourage players to spend points in other skills but e. g. Grenade, then the game and level design should demand, that you have more but one maxed skill, to survive and slay the enemies. If a maxed Granade was sufficient, then the game would be poorly balanced/designed.

Shinrou

04-04-2010, 04:04 PM

Shinrou, where is the benefit in the limitation you suggest? If you want to encourage players to spend point in other skills but e. g. Grenade, then the game and level design should demand, that you have more but one maxed skill, to survive and slay the enemies. If a maxed Granade was sufficient, then the game would be poorly balanced/designed.

Well. That system would just do that, force players to spend points in other skills? You couldn't spend all your points in that grenade-skill because you are restricted to spend shitloads of points in it. You'd actually need to spend them elsewhere as well. The system with only one sufficient skill to survive is flawed.

mamba

04-04-2010, 04:26 PM

I still think synergies are just another way for you to be forced into an ability you may never use.

This were only true if you had to invest points in the synergy to make a higher level synergy accessible. If you can simply not invest in that synergy at all and still invest in the higher one, there is no forcing whatsoever.

I think, rather then have skill synergies that change the way a skill acts, the player could easily be presented with skill effect choices that link to the specific skill.

That is how the synergies work

Then once the player has chosen the effect(s) they want, the other effects are grayed out, so you choose which effect modifies the skill.

The only difference here is that you would have exclusive synergies, i.e. you can choose one or the other but not both. Other than that, there is no difference between what you propose and the TQ synergies.

If you add more effects to 1 base skill, you could give the player a choice of 2 or more effects rather then just one.

The skill itself, I still feel should scale well on it's own, without the need of unrelated skills.

What do you consider unrelated ? And what do you consider well ? If the synergy is not needed as the base skill handles everything just fine, no one would invest in it. So by its very existence, the synergy has to improve upon the base skill, regardless of whether it is tied to it via a tree or simply a completely separate skill.

Here's a mock up of what I think -

- Ice Shard (As a base skill)

Select one -

-----Effect 1 = Multi-shot
-----Effect 2 = Piercing
-----Effect 3 = Explosion (explodes and does AoE Ice damage)
Etc.

Once the player selects one (or more) the other effects are grayed out.
Also, you could have the player invest points into these effects to increase their potency. (with a 5 point cap please, or a very small point cap.)

Why gray anything out instead of being able to invest later ?

This seems to be the only part where your system differs from TQs, you cannot reallocated or select synergies after you have made your decision, other than that they are just as useful and optional as the TQ ones.

I find this a better solution, rather then telling the player to spend points on an arbitrary skill they may never use.

I still have no idea where you get the 'arbitrary skill' idea from, what you are describing here is 95% the way TQ skills and synergies work (the only thing missing is the graying out).

eisprinzessin

04-04-2010, 04:40 PM

So, Shinrou, do you agree that your "10 skill-points max" limit is redundant? I mean, if anybody wants to sink points into maxing, why not let him?

medierra already confirmed that skills will have higher caps (http://www.titanquest.net/forums/grim-dawn-suggestions/32738-skill-limits.html#post365012) than TQ has. I haven't read any news on this. So, they haven't made a final decision yet or want to hold back details.

Edit: I previously missed medierra's update (http://www.grimdawn.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7321).

mamba

04-04-2010, 04:40 PM

^ Is basically what I'm talking about (1 point wonders that have been mentioned before)

1 point wonders are skills which have a very big effect by being selected (i.e. have invested one skill point in it) while the additional bonus gained by adding another point is not really worth the additional investment. That does not mean they have to be synergies, they could be any skill.

This to me has nothing to do with synergy vs. free skills but everything with bad scalability of that skill.

There are synergies in TQ which are not needed at all to invest in higher-level synergies and there are ones in which you have to invest one point to 'unlock' the higher level synergy. I am not sure I always agree with which ones are required, and doing away with that requirement is fine with my, other than that I do not see any difference between your proposal and what TQ already has - except for your idea to limit the number of synergies to pick, which I think is a bad idea. It allows for less flexibility and does not allow for a greater variety in builds either, it takes away without adding anything.

eisprinzessin

04-04-2010, 04:53 PM

Thank you mamba - you have come to the same conclusions as I have.

Shinrou

04-04-2010, 04:53 PM

So, Shinrou, do you agree that your "10 skill-points max" limit is redundant? I mean, if anybody wants to sink points into maxing, why not let him?

Because it would create just that, an insanely powerful skill that renders others useless. Maybe not totally useless, but you know you'll be "forced" to use mostly your skill that you have spent all your skillpoints into, thus making the gaming experience pretty much monotonic.

I'd love to see a lot more variety in skill-usage, and customizing/invidualizing the same skills to work on different levels is in my vision one way to do it. It shouldn't really be just excactly like I proposed, it's more like a guildeline how I'd love to see it.

Scryer

04-04-2010, 06:38 PM

To me the most interesting class / skill systems are ones that offer a lot of freedom but not complete freedom. With complete freedom you have no difficult choices to make, no interesting trade-offs or relationships. ...

Essentially this is why you should limit the player one way or another, it would provide interesting choices for the player to make.

I also think Shinrou's conception of this system is a pretty good one also. It limits the player, but provides tools for customization.

eisprinzessin

04-04-2010, 10:33 PM

Scryer, I'd appreciate your response (http://www.grimdawn.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7672) before we move on.

Scryer

04-04-2010, 11:08 PM

Lol, some how I thought I answered that but I guess not, sorry about that, Eisprinzessin.

No - Not global, each set of effects is specific to a base skill.

So -

(Base Skill) Ice Shards - (Has these effects) - Multi-Shot, Explosion, Pierce, Guided, Etc.

(Base Skill) Batter - (Has These Effects) - Stun Duration, Multi-Strike, Knock Back, Etc.

Obviously the more modifiers the more decisions and customization is given to the player.

It's like a within the skill synergy that the player gets to decide how it works.

medierra

04-04-2010, 11:33 PM

You have to put 1 point in Wildfire before you can get Metamorphosis for your Core Dweller. The same goes for some other skill lines, but not for all. Do I understand you correctly that there won't be such requirements in GD? Would be appreciated!

To be perfectly honest, this was probably a complete accident on my part. I think when I first started implementing the TQ skill system, based on my experience playing d2, my first assumption was that you'd need to put 1 point into a preceding skill to unlock the next in the tree. Then later I questioned why that was necessary and decided it really wasn't.

Unfortunately, the development of TQ was complete and utter pandemonium. The scope of the game was too large for the amount of time and people we had working on it - especially for the engineering and design teams. At the end of the project some of us were regularly working 100+ hour weeks just trying to make sure everything came together. We were allowed barely any time in post production for testing and balancing, so some things slipped through the cracks. I don't actually remember what happened with Wildfire / Metamorphosis but my guess is that I just never removed the requirement and neither me nor anyone else ever noticed it or realized it shouldn't be there.

Ok, so, long story short, unless there is some reason why a player would absolutely have to have one modifier before they could get the next, you won't see that kind of requirement. The only reason I could see it being necessary was if say your pet got a ranged attack skill and then there was a modifier to add stun damage to the ranged attack... obviously the latter would be useless without the base skill.

eisprinzessin

04-04-2010, 11:38 PM

Thank you for clarifying your idea, Scryer. Your suggestion is to take options away, but not to give more freedom, which has been your claim (http://www.grimdawn.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7396).

Isn't it restrictive enough, that you won't get sufficient points to max every skill? Well, unless you wear sufficient "+x to all skills" items ... Which is not very viable, as it will make you vulnerable in many other respects.

Re-reading this thread I found:
You could just as easily take TQ's skill sets, unlink each skill that was linked [...]

So, if an effect shall not be global but still be linked to one designated skill, why do you want to unlink them in the first place? The visual presentation of a skill line (or tree) tells you, which skills depend on a base skill.

eisprinzessin

04-04-2010, 11:42 PM

Ok, so, long story short, unless there is some reason why a player would absolutely have to have one modifier before they could get the next, you won't see that kind of requirement. The only reason I could see it being necessary was if say your pet got a ranged attack skill and then there was a modifier to add stun damage to the ranged attack... obviously the latter would be useless without the base skill.Perfect - I wonder if this can be taken into account for the next TQ fan patch ...

Scryer

04-04-2010, 11:48 PM

eisprinzessin

04-05-2010, 12:00 AM

Obviously you have to limit the player, so that they can be free to make interesting decisions.You would just limit us in our freedom to make interesting decisions. :rolleyes:

Scryer

04-05-2010, 12:03 AM

You would just limit us in our freedom to make interesting decisions. :rolleyes:

You have to limit the player, it does increase thought decisions, if you're just allowed to gorge on every skill, that doesn't really provide any interesting choices.

eisprinzessin

04-05-2010, 12:14 AM

Virtually I'd allow to pick all skills ... but you don't have enough skills points to make a viable build. This alone does increase thought decisions The basic choices are made, when you select your masteries. I do not see any need to impose sub-masteries on us.

Scryer

04-05-2010, 12:20 AM

You pick 2 mastery classes.

Then from those you upgrade your masteries so that you can select skills.

If instead of just selecting and increasing a base skill's level you were given a choice as to how that skill functioned, while at the same time increasing it's power, you would be giving the player more interesting customization options.

If you take my previous example, but instead of also placing points into the base skill, you make the skill more powerful and function differently as you level the various effects.

eisprinzessin

04-05-2010, 12:35 AM

But that's like in TQ.

I'm fine with one regulating method (limited amount of skill points) ... you see the need for another regulating method (disabling to learn multiple/all synergies of every base skill). That's where I think you overshoot.

Scryer

04-05-2010, 12:56 AM

I understand this isn't D3, but to draw a parallel, in D3, you can place skill runes into an ability in order to modify how it works. You can only use 1 skill rune per base skill. (I.E. Multi-strike, explosion, etc.)

Limiting skill effects is a way to give the player interesting choices.

It's just a suggestion, obviously it probably won't be put into GD, but it's nice to have discussion about design.

I'm pretty exhausted talking about this particular suggestion though, but feel free to inquire on it more if you think there's more to be said about it. I might make a different post about it though is it's kind of off topic for this particular thread.

Unless Medierra says "awesome idea" I really don't think he's ready to change a design. I think Medierra's right to be cautious, but it's cool that he reads these boards pretty adamantly in order to get feedback and ideas. Our contributions here today will make for a much better and much more fun Grim Dawn in the future, I'm sure.

eisprinzessin

04-05-2010, 01:19 AM

in D3, you can place skill runes into an ability in order to modify how it works. You can only use 1 skill rune per base skill. (I.E. Multi-strike, explosion, etc.)Aha - this way around it feels different. D3's runes GIVE you an additional modifier to an existing skill line/tree. That's a nice way of customisation. We've been discussing to disable some synergy skills ... which is actually quite on topic. ;) At least it was added to this thread (http://www.grimdawn.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7418) quite early.

Scryer

04-05-2010, 01:29 AM

Well, if it's on topic, then awesome, lol, I don't like getting in trouble with the moderators. Hahaha. :p

mamba

04-05-2010, 01:41 AM

Well, the way I imagine it is closer (yet different) from the D3 skill rune system - you give the player the choice of how to modify their skill. Obviously you have to limit the player, so that they can be free to make interesting decisions.

Lets say you could only pick 3 effects from the base skill Ice Shard, but you could max them out -

- Multi-Shot - [X] [X] [X] [X] [X]
- Piercing - [X] [X] [X] [X] [X]
- Explosion - [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] - Grayed out.
- Guided - [X] [X] [X] [X] [X]

I don't see how you can say this doesn't provide interesting choices for the player, and I still don't see how you can say that this doesn't improve customization.

If you could just max out every effect it would be boring, plain and simple. The player should be challenged sometimes as to what they want to do.

Since I also said this is taking away choices rather than adding them, here goes my reply :)

If you can always max all skills you are right, this introduces choice. If you have fewer skill points than you can invest then you always have to make choices.

Maybe I choose to max this skill and all its synergies, but then I miss 5 points I could otherwise have invested in another skill.

Not giving me the option to max this skill takes away that choice and 'forces' me to invest in another skill instead.

Regardless of what my decision is, the variety is bigger if I can do either.

mamba

04-05-2010, 01:43 AM

Scryer

04-05-2010, 01:56 AM

It's just a suggestion, I probably can't explain it well enough, but that's all.

I think I've exacerbated all forms of explanation by now, and either you "get it" or you don't, or you like it or you don't, but in either case, it's there for people to read if they want to see a different approach to the same system.

That's all.

medierra

04-05-2010, 07:25 AM

I've got to commend you guys on keeping cool while also having a rather spirited debate about this. I don't think I've ever seen a group of people so intensely debate something on a forum, especially with that something being another forum member's idea, without someone getting their feathers ruffled.

Well played gentlemen!

I think this is a good example though of where "soft balancing" comes into play. If properly balanced, the limitation of skill points vs. places to allocate them should force some of the type of decision-making you're talking about in terms closing off some choices in favor of others. There are some skills that it makes sense to get even if you just put one or a couple points in them. However, if a player got every skill in both masteries, they'd likely end up with a vast array of underpowered skills by the time they reached high-levels. Because you only have so many points to allocate, there comes a time when you need to choose what you're primary skills are going to be and then focus on heavily investing in those along with their modifiers to ensure that they will be at peak power when you reach the end-game. In this case, the choice isn't as binary and distinct as graying out the path unchosen. However, there is that "soft" restriction of not having enough points to raise all skills to a sufficient level of power and I believe this forces a choice in a more free feeling, "organic" way instead of coming across as being arbitrarily imposed by evil designers who want to limit your fun.

I think there is a problem of perception with hard restrictions. When you impose them, even if they make the game more fun for players, many players will still perceive these hard rules as the designer arbitrarily limiting what they can do and possibly even feel like they are being prevented from having more fun with the game. Just look at the limitation of choosing two masteries. I've heard lots of people complain that they should be allowed to pick 3 masteries but I've never heard anyone complain that they should have enough points to max out every skill.

A lot of game design doesn't necessarily make sense because people don't necessarily make sense. ; )

Just take stashes. When we were making TQ we should "hey, instead of a stash why not just make the player inventory larger - then they don't have to go back to town". Well, turns out that there is more to a stash then just storage space. Psychologically it seems people like to have a separate area to store things. Even if they could put the objects in an equal-sized, separate compartment in their character's inventory, people don't want to feel like they are .. physically?... carrying stuff around that they have no immediate need for. A lot of people also complained that we had less inventory space than D2 because we had no stash even though the character's inventory was significantly larger in TQ than both the player inventory and stash put together in D2.... go figure. The system that makes sense and seems philosophically better from a pure design perspective is not necessarily what is going to most please the audience. You have to be able to get inside people's heads and understand how features / mechanics will be perceived.

I feel like I've said what I wanted to say but I can't resist sharing this one last story on the subject. When we were developing TQ and first started play-testing the game an artist complained to me that a particular skill felt really underpowered. I looked at the damage and it seemed like it was at an appropriate level so I didn't make any immediate change. The skill didn't have any particle effect at the time. A week later the particle effect for it was put in and, after another play-testing sessions, the artist came back to me and said "Man that skill feels a lot more powerful now! I was using it in combination with this other skill and the combo was really awesome". The next day one of the programmers came to me and mentioned that, due to a bug, that particular skill hadn't actually been doing any damage... I've actually had that sort of thing happen more than once where someone doesn't feel like a skill is very powerful or complains that it isn't fun or interesting and then the effect goes in and suddenly everyone loves it. I found it to be a sort of depressing realization at the time that design was often more about smoke and mirrors than substance. I've come to accept that though and now I try to always think about both sides of the coin. In a way I guess it makes game design a little more interesting since it isn't purely about numbers and function, you also have to take human psychology into account.

Welcome to the world of game design! :p

Roros

04-05-2010, 07:49 AM

I see that stuff quite a bit when it comes to game updates whether it's expansions or just patches. One of the recent examples was in Dawn of War 2 when a balance update hit, and the devs released a video detailing the changes. There was an outrage at one of the hero abilities having been buffed for no apparent reason, and after much analysis it turns out that the volume had been raised while he was casting it as it was between dev commentary. Even after this was pointed out, when devs came in the thread and insisted no changes had been made, people were still angry about it and wanted it nerfed back to how it was. Once the patch was released and people got their hands on it, people were content as it had been nerfed again - even though no change had ever been made.

Chameleon

04-05-2010, 08:37 AM

I've heard lots of people complain that they should be allowed to pick 3 masteries but I've never heard anyone complain that they should have enough points to max out every skill.

You have now! :D I always want to max out all my skills.

I think you havent come across it because most games have at least a few skills that are perceived as "useless".

I'd like to see a "Skill Sphere" or something where no skill is dependent on any other skill and you can max anything and everything whenever you want. ;)

medierra

04-05-2010, 08:42 AM

You have now! :D I always want to max out all my skills.

I think you havent come across it because most games have at least a few skills that are perceived as "useless".

I'd like to see a "Skill Sphere" or something where no skill is dependent on any other skill and you can max anything and everything whenever you want. ;)

I bite my tongue... :p

We'll put that on the list of considerations right below the "auto-win" button

eisprinzessin

04-05-2010, 08:50 AM

Chameleon, you might want to install TQ Defiler (http://www.tqdefiler.com/), if you require more skill point ... or are you just teasing us? :p

I bite my tongue... :p

We'll put that on the list of considerations right below the "auto-win" button... and next to the "Stop playing video games in 10 days" PDF download link ...

cel

04-05-2010, 08:29 PM

We'll put that on the list of considerations right below the "auto-win" button

Well, this idea (of an ultimately max'able "skill sphere") isn't completely out in the woods... it all depends on everything.

Something like that could be considered to be added - as a completely separate system from the skillpoint-skilltree system - if you wanted classes to have skills / stat "power ups" or class specific abilities or boosts that the player would get regardless of what trees he chose to specialize in the class he chose and rather than having limitations that ultimately forced the player to choose what he wanted to become, the player would be able to choose the way he got there, being able to make the character traits that he personally felt were lacking at the time to grow a bit faster or picking something that suited his playstyle to make gameplay smoother.

That being said, I don't know if we need something like this, but it would be a possible addition without breaking any existing systems and would definetly have the potential of making character growth more flexible and enjoyable.

medierra

04-05-2010, 11:40 PM

That being said, I don't know if we need something like this.

I'm pretty sure we don't. ;)

OneEyeRed

04-08-2010, 02:12 PM

I really like the way TQ was designed in regard to IT. Giving me the ability to respec is a huge WIN. About the only thing I hated in the Diablo series was the idea of being stuck and having to restart. In fact, take several games that block you into this format and its a frustrating disaster. If I choose to try and build hybrids and steer away from cookie cutters then the option to consistently respec (if the cash flow is available) works wonderfully.

DAOC at one point introduced respec stones that was a great idea. I understand that there has to be a flow and plan set in place. As you mentioned in a wonderful reply Medierra, no matter how you try to arrange it, you can never please everyone. There will always be a group out there that claims you should have done it differently. So there needs to be some sense of restriction in your design.

Us gamers are fickle, opinionated, and we think we all have the answers. However, none of us are rushing to learn the trade and design the ultimate game we think there should be. This is not in reference to this thread or anyone in particular but a generalized statement. I have had the opportunity over my 35+ years of gaming to be a part of some great developments as a tester and you developers really work hard for what little recognition you receive.

One imbalance or "nerf" and you are deemed useless and your game is considered shit. This is what I mean about us fickle gamers. I have faith in what you decide in GD as I love and still play TQ. The only thing I can suggest is giving us the options as I stated to not get boxed in. That is one of the most important features in my opinion.

Szetsubou

04-11-2010, 07:03 AM

I wouldn't mind seeing hybrid skills?
Like in TQ, skills only a harbinger could use or skills only a slayer could use?

Kardiophylax

04-26-2010, 11:41 PM

I wouldn't mind seeing hybrid skills?
Like in TQ, skills only a harbinger could use or skills only a slayer could use?

One hybrid skill per class would be interesting, but with all the different classes that can be made out of two mastery choices, it would introduce a lot of excess work.

I'm staying pretty quiet at this point because TQ was fantastic and I have a lot of faith in medierra and Crate to produce a highly replayable and fun to play game based on their reputation. It it definately true about the bells and whistles. I've spent months modding in cool features, behind the scenes elements, and other really interesting scenarios into a game before. Know what got the biggest reaction? Some new abilities that were pretty far from complex and used nifty particle effects. *shrug* I guess when developing a lot of the sweet stuff that goes under the hood has to be done for your own enjoyment.

Caillou

09-06-2010, 04:12 PM

I like the way cel Want to build trees skills.

I think a good idea should be to separate the first and secondary effect of a same skill.

Something like this :

Lightning bolt
/ | \
[Electricity damage] [Damage on time] [% Slow ennemy]

or

Fire bolt
/ | \
[Fire damage] [Damage on time] [% armor destruction]

or

Warrior attack
/ | \
[direct damage] [multi damage ] [stun]

Etc.

It can run also with the passive aura

Glacial aura
/ | \
[ice resistance] [Slow hostiles attack] [upgrade ice damage.]

With that sorts of tree it will be very easy to build differents characters and do exactly what we want to :

I want a mage that control hostiles to kill them from range : skills points on the lightning bolt freeze ennemy and on ice damage.
I want a warrior that degrade armor first then kick their ass with a sword : skills point on % destruction armor and on warrior attack direct damage.

You can easily do a mass DOT character or a mass direct damage character with that sort of tree.

i hope I was clear enough