Liav said:You're right Kilsin, it was Constitution, not Vitality. Whoops.
Even so, I still believe that you're misusing the term "base stat". You can't have two bases for one stat, it's an oxymoron, as in fundamentally violates the definition of "base" in this context. Let's talk about Shrek. HP is like onions, which are like Ogres. The innermost part of HP that every other source of HP is layered on top of would be base HP. Your 100% naked, unbuffed, unaffected by AAs, etc. HP is your base. The most fundamental, lowest level of HP a character of X class/level can possibly have.
If your base HP (HP before gear or anything else) is what % based HP buffs are designed to affect, then adding hit points to gear will not have the effect that you're implying. If % based HP buffs affect HP after HP from gear is added, then that is a design flaw in the buff itself that would indeed lend to creating the problem you describe. Simultaneously, if HP from gear is not modified by % based HP buffs, then the power of the buffs will actually diminish over time because base HP, by definition, can not scale.
The logical conclusion is to avoid % based modifications to hit points altogether to avoid issues without scaling throughout the game.
Lastly but more importantly, this has nothing to do with set bonuses. We're so far off the rails that I think we're in outer space.
The base stat refers to a character's base attributes, they are what gets modified, the base stat of an item multiplies that character's base stat and together they can be increased by other in-game effects like pots, buffs etc., it is completely relevant to set pieces as they are a multiplying factor for any base or buffed stat but as I said to Philo, I will leave you guys to discuss it, I just wanted to make the point that there are some pretty big cons to implementing them that not a lot of players think about, hopefully, I have done that, if not I apologise, I don't mean to be confusing but I also cannot speak directly about Pantheon without getting into areas that we have not released yet, so I have to use other games and other examples which are probably confusing to a lot of people reading this.
I'm willing to admit that there are cons to set bonuses. For starters, it does potentially distill itemization by reducing the number of potential decent gear combinations.
This will be the third time so far in this thread that I have stated that I don't care if set bonuses are included or excluded, and that I'm just here because I enjoy deeper discussions about the game.
It's kind of dismissive to state that there are nebulous developmental concerns regarding set bonuses and not make an effort to talk about what they are. If you're going to refer to your aforementioned qualms with set bonuses in this thread then I'll just say that I don't consider them to be valid criticisms of set bonuses specifically as a mechanic, and instead are criticism of the specific (poor) implementation of set bonuses in Vanguard that were exacerbated by a specific (poor) implementation of % based buffs.
Don't take any of this personally. I'm glad you're here talking about it with us, just take not that I'm specifically saying that I don't think your arguments sufficiently support your underlying message (that set bonuses are intrinsically bad or particularly difficult to manage developmentally).
Kilsin said:The base stat refers to a character's base attributes, they are what gets modified, the base stat of an item multiplies that character's base stat and together they can be increased by other in-game effects like pots, buffs etc., it is completely relevant to set pieces as they are a multiplying factor for any base or buffed stat but as I said to Philo, I will leave you guys to discuss it, I just wanted to make the point that there are some pretty big cons to implementing them that not a lot of players think about, hopefully, I have done that, if not I apologise, I don't mean to be confusing but I also cannot speak directly about Pantheon without getting into areas that we have not released yet, so I have to use other games and other examples which are probably confusing to a lot of people reading this.
I believe you're incorrect and that it's relatively simple to prove mathematically. Set bonuses do not necessarily have to be multiplied by % based effects unless you specifically engineer the game to do so. The developers have complete control over the math; if that's how the equations work then the fault is on them. I would love for an actual engineer behind the scenes to tell me I'm an idiot and that I'm wrong, because I don't like being wrong. Somehow I doubt that the devs don't have precise control over the order in which various statistics and bonuses are applied.
If you're not convinced at this point then c'est la vie.
Once again, it's not a personal slight. I just don't believe that referring to a poor implementation of something supports your underlying message.
That said, this thread has about run its course for me.
Liav said:I'm willing to admit that there are cons to set bonuses. For starters, it does potentially distill itemization by reducing the number of potential decent gear combinations.
This will be the third time so far in this thread that I have stated that I don't care if set bonuses are included or excluded, and that I'm just here because I enjoy deeper discussions about the game.
It's kind of dismissive to state that there are nebulous developmental concerns regarding set bonuses and not make an effort to talk about what they are. If you're going to refer to your aforementioned qualms with set bonuses in this thread then I'll just say that I don't consider them to be valid criticisms of set bonuses specifically as a mechanic, and instead are criticism of the specific (poor) implementation of set bonuses in Vanguard that were exacerbated by a specific (poor) implementation of % based buffs.
Don't take any of this personally. I'm glad you're here talking about it with us, just take not that I'm specifically saying that I don't think your arguments sufficiently support your underlying message (that set bonuses are intrinsically bad or particularly difficult to manage developmentally).
I certainly don't take any of this personally man, if I was still a community member I would go into great detail and carry this discussion on until we reached some common ground but unfortunately I just cannot go to those lengths anymore, which is probably the only downside to this role lol, I used to love discussing all things EQ, VG and now Pantheon in as much detail as possible on each of the dedicated forums, which is why I love reading everyone's thoughts and ideas on these forums, sometimes it gets the better of me and I jump in with an official correction or reference or provide some information to keep topics/discussion on track but I stayed longer than I intended too in this thread as it is something I have quite a bit of experience with, but as I said, I will leave you folks to carry on with the discussion, I just wanted to point out that there are some big cons to set pieces, I did that and probably used a biased example in doing so, but it was still a reasonable one to use, I just didn't word it very well initially.
Set bonuses can be a great way to add more progression opportunities. Rather than having an end game set of gear that becomes BiS for ALL content when the set bonus is achieved, I would like to see a bunch of environmental set bonuses. This ensures that no other gear becomes trivialized because each set bonus is entirely situational. Having a full set of ice elemental plate armor could very well end up being the best possible gear set up for an ice boss, but that same set of gear wouldn't work against other types of resist encounters, or even "general" physical damage encounters.
This removes the linear type of progression that we have grown so tired of. When the first 100 people get to max level, instead of them all grinding out the same daily faction quests to get the same sets of gear, their options are much more diverse and can have them spread all over the world. This can also level the playing field a little bit regarding contested overworld bosses. Let's say Group 1 achieves level 50 1 full week before group 2 does. Group 1 decides to work on their fire sets so that they can focus on a volcano zone that happens to be pretty close to their home city. Acquiring the set of fire gear takes them 1 full week. Meanwhile, as group 1 finishes their fire sets, group 2 is just now hitting level 50 and gets to work on their poison sets. Despite being a full week behind on getting max level, they are on a level playing field with group 1 in regards to how fast they would be able to acquire their poison sets.
Another way to add even more progression is with resistance jewelry. Instead of having set bonuses on the jewelry, make each individaul piece a rare drop from different regions of the world. This makes it so where you can't just dominate the entire fire zone when you get a full set of fire armor. It allows you to maybe be able to kill the first boss in an area, but for further advancement, you're going to need even more resistance that can only be achieved from jewelry. There should be a ring for example that is a rare drop that could be BiS on tanks for fire encounters. On the other side of the world there could be a necklace, and so on, and so forth. Again, this is to prevent a stagnant and linear approach to gear progression. There is no set path on which type of resistance you should start working on because there is content for ALL resistances, and acquiring a full set of both armor and jewelry for any specific resist is going to be quite an accomplishment.
What I don't want to see is a poison zone being introduced in a patch where suddenly everybody is grinding out the same area so that they can advance in the newest zone. It's imperative that there are dungeons/zones/bosses of ALL resistance types at the beginning of the game and every expansion. I hate linear grinding and progression, and seeing everybody advance at the same rate. I also wouldn't mind seeing some sort of elemental boon for each class. For example, warriors have a general AC buff. Through questing though, they would have an option to toggle that buff so that it also provides some poison resistance, or fire resistance, etc. It's another level of progression that can be achieved. I also like the idea of some encounters having mixed damage types. A tank may want to wear a full set of his fire armor to achieve the set bonus, but then also need to wear as much poison resist jewelry as possible.
Also, there should be more than just 2 important stats for each class. I really liked how agility was used for tanks in EQOA. Instead of just stacking STR/STA, AGI was also a stat that could help them dodge more attacks. This allows tanks to choose, at times, between STR or AGI, depending on what is needed most. They wouldn't be able to purely stack STA/AGI though because the lack of STR could have an impact on their aggro potential. Gear that has all 3 stats is obviously ideal but shouldn't be present on every single piece. I would like to see a ring that has AGI/Poison resist that would be great for poison encounters but not so much for anything else because of the lack of STR/STA. A rarer, better piece, would have STA/AGI and Poison Resist.
It really depends on how they would do bonuses. If the bonuses are minor stat boosts then it's not hard to balance or to keep semi relevant into the next tier. However, if the set bonus provides something like mana regen or haste, that can create some problems. Losing 10 stats to keep 25% haste could easily make an old set bonus better than current tier gear. Especially when we are talking early game where we will likely not reach caps.
So really, there is no answer that is right or wrong because we have no clue how the game is going to be made. Even the people in right now couldn't answer this question.
Forgot about this thread. After catching back up on it, I still like the idea of set bonuses if they are implemented the right way. It was mentioned that set bonuses can lead to issues with balance but why couldn't they be considered a solution to balance (and progression)? You can design encounters to require X amount of poison resistance and then have sets of gear or jewelery that provide a bonus to poison resistance when worn together. If "Content is King" then there should be enough different encounters available in the game to justify a wide array of set bonuses where each resistance is represented. In a nutshell ... set bonuses could be a positive thing as far as "situational gear" is concerned and I hope that this will at least be considered for Pantheon. Even with something like mana regen ... I could still see that being considered "situational gear." There will be times where you might want the mana regen, or there could be times where you would want the extra resistance or raw damage ... or sometimes you just want a combination of everything. Mana regen sounds naturally more powerful than something like poison resistance so ideally if something with mana regen were to exist it would be really rare. You wouldn't need a full set either ... maybe it's an earring/ring combo and both drop on opposite sides of the world.
Resistances are a bad way to handle set bonuses in my opinion. They can result in undesired outcomes. If they have bosses that require resistances then it should be a balance between losing too many stats and building enough resistance. That's part of what makes them difficult. If you can wear stat gear that also boosts resists, then that level of difficulty disappears.
Also 2 set bonuses is not a good idea. It offers too many available bonuses. If a set bonus gets put in it needs to be 3 and 5 piece sets. That way the bonuses are also a sacrifice. The balance has to exist.
+1 to not wanting to see set bonuses. I just don't see the point, either put the stats directly on the items or don't have them? Bonuses to resists (or most any stats) makes me think the individual items themselves don't have any or much and so you aren't sacrificing anything to really get that bonus resist by wearing the pieces.
Kilsin said:Gragorie said:
Kilsin said:
You would have been familiar with buff stacking in VG as with the damage exploits, bug stacking RoRRs etc. and players using level 30-40 orange gear with bonuses on max level raiding characters for their set bonuses over the top end equivalent pieces, if so you should know what I am talking about and that is just one example of how it can go wrong.
Alot of that orange gear came from when F2P went live and they put in all those equipped effects with massive amount of energy and hp regen. The 15 energy regen a second effect was the equiv of 30 mana regen augs, which were best in game at the time. Those completely changed the way people played there classes, especially healers and bards.
Yes, exactly, they were added later but that was my example of how items that are added later on can impact the overall itemization and how it can be abused without the dev team realising, it is always a constant struggle to manage these things.
LOL, I think it's important to get one thing straight...
The VG dev team was largely a terrible group. That game was poorly implemented from day 1. I played that game through the bitter end, and main tanked every raid encounter as a DK...including the awful Bridge of Destiny "content" designed by the forum moderator because they didn't have any real devs left to make decent content.
Basing views about anything because it didn't work in VG is not the most sound logic.
There is nothing complicated about balancing armor set bonuses, and it certainly isn't any more complicated than balancing any other items. If the math behind multiplying several bonuses together is too much to handle, then the devs need another line of work.
My biggest fear with PoA is that many people (including a lot of devs) are mis-remembering what made EQ great, and what made VG fail. Folks seem to think EQ was great because we stood around watching our characters auto attack mobs for 2 minutes then sat there staring at a spell book medding for 2 minutes, as if those menial tasks qualified as "challenge". They think VG failed because of design decisions, when it actually failed due to horrid implementation of excellent game design.
If the devs can't tackle armor set bonuses....PoA is already doomed, and I wasted $250.
I'm really sitting on the fence about this. While on one hand I do think the idea of a set bonus is neat, on the other I can see it being a scenario where I choose not upgrade to a better piece because it will break the set bonus. First world problems, right?
Maybe if a bonus is added, it can be cumulative. That is, as you add more pieces the bonus grows. That way you can remove a piece or two and not completely lose the bonus.
But if it's not added, my feelings won't be hurt. I don't have a strong enough opinion about it.
Again it really just depends on how the bonuses are implemented. Personally I think set bonuses could be a good thing as far as "progression" is concerned -- it would give players one more thing to strive for, and ideally be something that takes time. I agree with @Celandor that aesthetics are very important as it was a primary draw to the Rubicite plate armor from EQOA. That said, EQOA also put a high emphasis on the value of resistances, moreso than I have seen in any other MMO.
Anyway, why couldn't bonuses be used as a form of "situational" gear that is also tied into progression? I see it mentioned that there has to be a trade-off ... but why couldn't part of the "trade-off" be the amount of time you have to dedicate to acquire a full set that ultimately only fulfills a situational purpose? I have seen 2 piece set bonuses used in a few games and I always enjoyed them. There is nothing wrong with having more combinations to consider as it pertains to situational gear. To be honest, if it were up to me, I would purposely use set bonuses for armor as a "bridge" of sorts.
What I mean by that is this ... rather than designing set bonuses to purposely be the absolute best gear for a variety of situational scenarios, tone them down a bit so they can be used as more of an entry-level type gear for certain resistance thresholds. You could get your resistances high enough to do battle in the Volcano zone if you manage to acquire the magma set, but there would be other combinations of gear that would be better if you managed to get your hands on the really rare pieces that aren't a part of a set.
Here is a rough example:
Magma-Forged Breastplate: 100 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Spaulders: 80 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Legplates: 90 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Gloves: 75 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Boots: 70 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Set Bonuses: If you have 3 pieces, extra 10 Fire Resistance. If you have 5 pieces, extra 25 Fire Resistance. (They do not stack)
Net Gain for full set = 415 AC, 50 STA, 75 Fire Resistance
Using the above example, it would be possible to attain a total of 75 Fire Resistance by acquiring a full set of Magma-Forged Plate. Now let's look at an example of other pieces that aren't necessarily a part of a set bonus but are still designed to function primarily as situational fire resistance gear:
Volcanic Cuirass: 115 AC, 12 STA, 10 AGI, 20 Fire Resistance
Lava Blaze Pauldrons: 95 AC, 12 STA, 5 AGI, 20 Fire Resistance
Sun Scorched Greaves: 105 AC, 10 STA, 4 AGI, 4 DEX, 20 Fire Resistance
Hellfire Gauntlets: 90 AC, 10 STA, 4 AGI, 4 DEX, 20 Fire Resistance
Amberfaet Sabatons: 85 AC, 12 STA, 5 AGI, 20 Fire Resistance
Net Gain for full set (although not an actual "set"): 490 AC, 56 STA, 28 AGI, 8 DEX, 100 Fire Resistance.
Looking at the above examples, the second set is clearly better than the first set even though there is no "set bonus." The magma-forged set would be "rare" plate pieces that could be obtained in the same zone whereas the second set would be "very rare" plate pieces that drop from a variety of locations throughout the world. This would allow players to have a chance to acquire a more attainable set of gear that would allow them to satisfy (at a cost) the fire resistance threshold to participate in certain content, but it is by no means "ideal" in the sense that there are other even rarer pieces scattered throughout the world that accomplish the same thing and more.
Things get really interesting when you gate other "situational" gear drops behind the content that requires the initial fire resistance threshold to be met. Acquiring that set of magma-forged gear could allow you to do battle with something that might drop an extremely nice piece of Ice Resistance gear. Or, maybe that area drops two rings that have a "set bonus" to Poison Resistance but also have really nice stats. If it were up to me, I would use set bonuses on "armor" as "bridge" resistance gear, whereas jewlery could be "situational end" gear. Something like this:
Cobra Venom Ring: 12 STA, 10 AGI, 5 DEX, 10 Poison Resistance
Scorpion Venom Ring: 10 STA, 15 AGI, 5 DEX, 10 Poison Resistance
Set Bonus (If you have both): Extra 15 Poison Resistance
Obviously if you are fighting something that deals poison damage, having both of these rings would be really nice. But that doesn't mean that they invalidate other gear because at the end of the day, the are truly situational and designed to be high-end specifically for poison-based encounters. If you aren't fighting something that deals poison damage, you would be better off using:
Ring of Valor: 15 STA, 12 AGI, 5 DEX
Ring of Justice: 12 STA, 15 AGI, 8 DEX
The trade-off exists in the sense that you would be sacrificing base stats for the poison resistance available from the Venom Rings. Applying a set bonus to them is entirely situational -- if you aren't fighting something that deals poison damage, there is no point in using them. If you are, though, then it would be worth considering using at lease one of the venom rings if you have it, but if you have both, then it starts to make a lot of sense. Progression is key and I think creating these kind of set bonuses could be situationally desirable while still having a trade-off to consider in the process.
Eh. I am against set bonuses that give combat stats. However you slice it, combat bonuses funnel the player base towards a more limited set of items.
If you wanted to have set bonus give a non-combat effect, I am cool with that.
For example; set bonus that increases out of combat movement speed, or gives you the appearance of another race.
nscheffel said:There is nothing complicated about balancing armor set bonuses, and it certainly isn't any more complicated than balancing any other items.
I wonder how many games this guy developed. The way he talks it must be tons.
There are some seriously salty dudes in this thread. I kind of wish it would have stayed dead lol.
oneADseven said:I don't like twinkies. Just thought you should know. They cause me to be a little bit more sluggish than normal and since I am looking forward to reactive gameplay to some degree, the cost to performance outweighs the reward.
Exactly thanks for agreeing with me that set bonuses offer no benfits.
Xbachs said:nscheffel said:There is nothing complicated about balancing armor set bonuses, and it certainly isn't any more complicated than balancing any other items.
I wonder how many games this guy developed. The way he talks it must be tons.
There are some seriously salty dudes in this thread. I kind of wish it would have stayed dead lol.
I have never written a book but I am quite comfortable reading them and interpreting them. I don't think anybody is being salty. I agree with @Liav and @Philo that set bonuses can be utilized without throwing the game out of whack. Just because the Titanic sank doesn't mean that all giant ships are doomed for failure. It's good to reference that experience as an opportunity to mitigate risk with similar ventures but people don't stop swimming/surfing just because there are sharks in the water. You know what, though? You're right, I have never successfully developed a game so any input that has been contributed should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't really care if set bonuses are included or not but I do see merit in debunking the theory that they are intrinsically a bad thing. I like to think that they could be implemented safely, and successfully, and that if enough care and consideration is used in the process, mistakes that have been made in games of the past can be avoided this time around. Isn't that how you evolve something in the first place? Pantheon is evolving the genre ... if set-bonuses are considered too risky an endeavor then I would feel a bit disappointed. I like to think the bar could be set much higher than that but who cares what plebs think anyway.
The only way I can think of to make set bonuses worthwhile but not game breaking is to have set bonuses bring low level items up to be on par with the highest level item in the set worn.
An example would be that each class has an optional item quest at level 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50. When you get the level 10 item it is good for that level but not broken. When you get the second item at level 20 it is also good but by this point the level 10 item is looking long in the tooth. By equipping both the level 10 and level 20 item the pair gets a set bonus equal to the difference between the level 10 item and an equivalent level 20 item. If you had the level 40 item and the 10 and 20 equipped then they all become equivalent to level 40 items.
This could be used to encourage gear diversity by catching up old gear to higher level gear increasing the number of options you have to wear at individual levels.
Another type of set bonus could be non-combat social status effects. If you wear all the pieces of the Holy Knight of the Elderberries set then you can get into their special hall with its special cough syrup and odd wine. A set bonus like that could be added without having a combat effect but could drive more horizontal progression.
Zeem said:oneADseven said:I don't like twinkies. Just thought you should know. They cause me to be a little bit more sluggish than normal and since I am looking forward to reactive gameplay to some degree, the cost to performance outweighs the reward.
Exactly thanks for agreeing with me that set bonuses offer no benfits.
I'm not sure how you came to any sort of conclusion that I was agreeing with you on anything. Perhaps you should read my post that actually touches on set bonuses before making this kind of assumption. To be clear, I disagree with you. I tried to provide examples that reinforce my train of thought but maybe you just skipped past all of that to selectively misread into something that justifies your position.
Xbachs said:nscheffel said:There is nothing complicated about balancing armor set bonuses, and it certainly isn't any more complicated than balancing any other items.
I wonder how many games this guy developed. The way he talks it must be tons.
There are some seriously salty dudes in this thread. I kind of wish it would have stayed dead lol.
I write tools our game designers use to validate, alter and store eletronic wager game math models. I recently coded support for a Markov chain calculation. Does that count?
Again, if these devs can't handle multiplying a few bonuses togather, PoA is in trouble.
oneADseven said:Xbachs said:nscheffel said:There is nothing complicated about balancing armor set bonuses, and it certainly isn't any more complicated than balancing any other items.
I wonder how many games this guy developed. The way he talks it must be tons.
There are some seriously salty dudes in this thread. I kind of wish it would have stayed dead lol.
I have never written a book but I am quite comfortable reading them and interpreting them. I don't think anybody is being salty. I agree with @Liav and @Philo that set bonuses can be utilized without throwing the game out of whack. Just because the Titanic sank doesn't mean that all giant ships are doomed for failure. It's good to reference that experience as an opportunity to mitigate risk with similar ventures but people don't stop swimming/surfing just because there are sharks in the water. You know what, though? You're right, I have never successfully developed a game so any input that has been contributed should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't really care if set bonuses are included or not but I do see merit in debunking the theory that they are intrinsically a bad thing. I like to think that they could be implemented safely, and successfully, and that if enough care and consideration is used in the process, mistakes that have been made in games of the past can be avoided this time around. Isn't that how you evolve something in the first place? Pantheon is evolving the genre ... if set-bonuses are considered too risky an endeavor then I would feel a bit disappointed. I like to think the bar could be set much higher than that but who cares what plebs think anyway.
I don't really care either way qabout set bonuses.
My issue was with Kilsin coming in and saying, "set bonuses are too complicated to bother with".
That excuse is...silly.
oneADseven said:Zeem said:oneADseven said:I don't like twinkies. Just thought you should know. They cause me to be a little bit more sluggish than normal and since I am looking forward to reactive gameplay to some degree, the cost to performance outweighs the reward.
Exactly thanks for agreeing with me that set bonuses offer no benfits.
I'm not sure how you came to any sort of conclusion that I was agreeing with you on anything. Perhaps you should read my post that actually touches on set bonuses before making this kind of assumption. To be clear, I disagree with you. I tried to provide examples that reinforce my train of thought but maybe you just skipped past all of that to selectively misread into something that justifies your position.
I made a post saying I don't like them, as I don't and I don't have to explain myself a to why. You replied said something about twinkies trying to troll me so, yeah.
@Zeem -- Whatever floats your boat. It wasn't an attempt to troll you, but rather demonstrate how relevant a point is when there is no context provided behind your shared assessment. Saying you do not like something contributes nothing to the discussion other than letting everybody know that someone, for some reason, doesn't like something. I gained nothing from that. I love how you edited your comment about me being a shared set bonus with twinkies. (I really don't like them, yuck.) Anyway, you are more than welcome to share your opinion. If you would like to elaborate on why you feel the way you do, it might be easier for people to relate to your position and possibly learn something. That's the purpose of a forum by the way. If "yes" or "no" answers were considered valuable you would see a bunch of polls being utilized and last I checked we don't see those around here. At the end of the day, you are right. You don't have to explain anything. I will make a better attempt at managing my expectations with you moving forward.