Go Back   Grim Dawn Forums > Grim Dawn Gameplay > Classes, Skills and Builds

View Poll Results: Watcha ya think?
Yes 18 54.55%
No 4 12.12%
Maybe 7 21.21%
Indifferent 4 12.12%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-31-2010, 06:28 PM
Renevent's Avatar
Renevent Renevent is offline
Lord Advocate
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 4,644
Default

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

So basically I'll just relegate again to what I previously said (last paragraph of my previous post).
  #12  
Old 03-31-2010, 06:34 PM
Scryer's Avatar
Scryer Scryer is offline
Herald
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1,001
Post

This is my favorite part of what Bashiok said -

Quote:
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.
  #13  
Old 03-31-2010, 06:39 PM
Renevent's Avatar
Renevent Renevent is offline
Lord Advocate
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 4,644
Default

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



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
  #14  
Old 03-31-2010, 06:44 PM
Scryer's Avatar
Scryer Scryer is offline
Herald
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1,001
Smile

I agree it is a poopy system, lol
  #15  
Old 03-31-2010, 06:47 PM
Renevent's Avatar
Renevent Renevent is offline
Lord Advocate
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 4,644
Default

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
  #16  
Old 03-31-2010, 06:52 PM
Scryer's Avatar
Scryer Scryer is offline
Herald
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1,001
Smile

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.
  #17  
Old 03-31-2010, 07:09 PM
cel's Avatar
cel cel is offline
Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renevent View Post
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:


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)

Last edited by cel; 03-31-2010 at 07:21 PM.
  #18  
Old 03-31-2010, 07:28 PM
Renevent's Avatar
Renevent Renevent is offline
Lord Advocate
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 4,644
Default

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.
  #19  
Old 03-31-2010, 08:59 PM
cel's Avatar
cel cel is offline
Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 139
Default

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 would also make the designing process less painful; It would allow the implementation of different ideas for the same skills that were interesting but couldn't be implemented simultaneously but would still be too similar to have as different skills.
  #20  
Old 03-31-2010, 09:26 PM
Malpheas's Avatar
Malpheas Malpheas is offline
Champion
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cel View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by medierra View Post
It may also be surprising to know that some players prefer different play-styles.
Closed Thread

Tags
balancing, builds, game design, masteries, skill trees, synergies, user interface

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


Grim Dawn ©2017 Crate Entertainment, LLC.
vBulletin® 3.8.4 ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.