PDA

View Full Version : Points spent in tree: More carrot, less stick.



Scraap
04-16-2013, 11:57 AM
Mentioned this offhand in one of the general over-arching discussions, but figured it deserved it's own back and forth:

I think the system would benefit greatly from standardizing the core T0's to incorporate benefit +X for Y points spent in tree rather than fixed spent-value unlocks to encourage flexibility. While the net result of getting back to a given live value by spending discretionary AP in a given tree would likely remain the same result as on present lam, it seems to me that would both naturally augment focus, and lend weight to diversification in a more organic manner while still remaining in a predictable range you can target content around.

Antheal
04-16-2013, 10:54 PM
English please.

Phemt81
04-16-2013, 11:06 PM
English please.

I think he said he'd like to see core enhancements giving some more benefit (taken from the enhancements themselves) and to give players more freedom to spend AP in whatever they like without pre-requisite spent points.

Did i guess something? :D

blerkington
04-17-2013, 12:03 AM
Hi,

Oh, we're getting plenty of carrot. Just not in the traditional place.

Thanks.

Phemt81
04-17-2013, 06:49 AM
Hi,

Oh, we're getting plenty of carrot. Just not in the traditional place.

Thanks.

lol +1 for making me start the day with a laughter :D

Forzah
04-17-2013, 09:24 AM
While the net result of getting back to a given live value by spending discretionary AP in a given tree would likely remain the same result as on present lam, it seems to me that would both naturally augment focus, and lend weight to diversification in a more organic manner while still remaining in a predictable range you can target content around.

A vital aspect of writing is being clear. This sentence is very unclear. You have a nice vocabulary; I give you that, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

HastyPudding
04-17-2013, 11:01 AM
A vital aspect of writing is being clear. This sentence is very unclear. You have a nice vocabulary; I give you that, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Sounds more like they deliberately used larger and more expressive words in order to make themselves sound smarter. The funny thing is, not even geniuses talk like this. You don't see flowery, expressive language like this unless you read Hemingway or Melville.

Or it could just be sarcasm from some private joke we are not privy to.

Scraap
04-17-2013, 01:53 PM
Or just a misspent youth with too much book-time. Perils of trying to communicate when I haven't quite gotten out of coder-mode yet. (Definitely not a genius, or I wouldn't get so many 'wat?'s from the guildies when I do actually talk like that on occasion :p)

Trying again:

Rather than the arbitrary 5,10,20,30,40 vertical gating, adding weight to each point spent in a tree through a secondary benefit, as seen in the HP benefit for SD, or the spellpower benefit for clerics and arties, as a standard design practice, instead of a selective one tacked on to a few trees, would encourage folks to stick to one or two things voluntarily, to the degree that they find important.

With the prevailing mentality being 'max out or go home' for any given benefit, we'd likely see the lions share of builds still focusing on one, maybe two trees max, with the same end result as enforcing a rigid unlock structure like we see for the tier 5s, and 'wasting points' on AP expenditures outside of a given unlock-chain they're interested in, in order to maximize those secondary benefits provided they're all as desirable as the ones used so far.

Hope that's a bit clearer. Not sure I can uncompress the notion any further without ending up in crit-wall-of-text territory.

Forzah
04-17-2013, 02:15 PM
Rather than the arbitrary 5,10,20,30,40 vertical gating, adding weight to each point spent in a tree through a secondary benefit, as seen in the HP benefit for SD, or the spellpower benefit for clerics and arties, as a standard design practice, instead of a selective one tacked on to a few trees, would encourage folks to stick to one or two things voluntarily, to the degree that they find important.

With the prevailing mentality being 'max out or go home' for any given benefit, we'd likely see the lions share of builds still focusing on one, maybe two trees max, with the same end result as enforcing a rigid unlock structure like we see for the tier 5s, and 'wasting points' on AP expenditures outside of a given unlock-chain they're interested in, in order to maximize those secondary benefits provided they're all as desirable as the ones used so far.

Hope that's a bit clearer. Not sure I can uncompress the notion any further without ending up in crit-wall-of-text territory.

Seven commas in that first sentence; it's bound to go wrong!

What you said is the following
-Remove all requirements on AP spent (this is implied by "rather than")
-For each tree, give a bonus to a certain stat for each AP spent

But you probably mean:
-In addition to the AP spent requirements, give a bonus to a certain stat for each AP spent in the tree.

Scraap
04-17-2013, 02:27 PM
Seven commas in that first sentence; it's bound to go wrong!

What you said is the following
-Remove all requirements on AP spent (this is implied by "rather than")
-For each tree, give a bonus to a certain stat for each AP spent

But you probably mean:
-In addition to the AP spent requirements, give a bonus to a certain stat for each AP spent

Nope. Did in fact mean 'instead of', not 'in addition to'
Usually loath to use examples since that's what folks tend to overfocus on, but say:
1 point of PRR per 'forged racial.
1 point of heal amp per point spent in the human tree.
1 point of SR per point spent for drow.
ect.

Forzah
04-18-2013, 02:17 AM
Nope. Did in fact mean 'instead of', not 'in addition to'
Usually loath to use examples since that's what folks tend to overfocus on, but say:
1 point of PRR per 'forged racial.
1 point of heal amp per point spent in the human tree.
1 point of SR per point spent for drow.
ect.

While I like this suggestion, the "instead of" part doesn't sound right to me. I don't think you should have access to high tier abilities without spending points on lower tier abilities. Introducing just the bonus per AP spent would probably be better. It gives at least some use to less attractive enhancements, without giving access to tier 5 abilities of several trees.