34 replies to this topic

[nevill]

Maybe balance isn't exactly the right term. But looking at the original stats, each version already has a different strong point. The balance is out of whack because a permanent 3 AC bonus beats a measly 3rd level spell any day of the week, but the core idea is there.

Exactly. This is something I'd definitely want to keep. Well, I could always change it back myself, but I would rather prefer not to. It's just not a Fixpack material, as nothing was really broken in the first place. It would be fine as a separate component, though, but I just downloaded a fixpack and it seems to me that's not the case.

Personally, I find all 3 options in the poll lacking. If anything, I'd go for:

Low level
Low morale (Kinstealer): 3-10 damage, no AC bonus, one 1st level spell
Mid morale (Chained): 2-9 damage, +2 AC bonus, one 1st level spell
High morale (Streaming): 2-9 damage, +1 AC bonus, two 1st level spells

Mid level:
Low morale (Kinstealer): 4-16 damage, +1 AC bonus, one 1st level spell
Mid morale (Chained): 3-12 damage, +3 AC (or +4, based on what you think the idea behind the progression is) bonus, two 1st level spells, one 2nd level spell
High morale (Streaming): 3-12 damage, +2 AC bonus, double 1st level spell, one 2nd level spell

High level:
Low morale (Kinstealer): 6-24 damage, +2 AC bonus, double 1st level spells
Mid morale (Chained): 5-20 damage, +6 AC bonus, double 1st and 2nd level spells
High morale (Streaming): 5-20 damage, +4 AC (or +3, based on what you think the idea behind the progression is) bonus, double 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells

But what Hannibal suggested seems plausible too.

Edited by nevill, 30 June 2009 - 08:29 AM.

[Qwinn]

Tell you guys what. In accordance with your arguments (for which I do see merit), for version 4.0, I will lower the damage on the high morale blades back down to what they are in the vanilla game. So the "evil" blade will once again have higher damage than all the other versions. I'm cool with that, I probably did go overboard in making the high morale blade too uber with that detail.

As for the rest, I think I'll leave as implemented in version 3.0. I do still think the best AC bonus belongs on the streaming blade, because storyline wise it -should- be the most effective blade and quite frankly nothing else available is as valuable gameplay wise (unless we just start making stuff up).

Perhaps MCA in the future can judge if the changes are good or not, and get some idea of what the intent was.

I do want to stress...

It's just not a Fixpack material, as nothing was really broken in the first place.

Yes, something very much -was- broken. Unless you basically got a lucky 1 in 1000 chance coincidence of doing the circle at -just- the right time (and nobody as far as I know figured this out before this Fixpack's existence) you couldn't -get- anything other than the chained variant. So, the streaming and the kinstealer blades simply weren't ever tested by the design team. It's extremely plausible that at the last minute they gave the chained blades the stats they did and didn't bother to tweak the other variants because they knew that's all anyone was going to get.

By fixing morale, we reintroduced the variant blades back into the game. What was there, therefore, can't be considered part of the "vanilla game". It's not something that can be reintroduced just in UB either, cause morale clearly was bugged and that needs to be dealt with in the Fixpack, but the morale fix effectively restored material (the variant blades) that wasn't there before. When that happens, the effectively new material does have to be judged for balance, because it was clearly never tested. In this case, what I think didn't get addressed via testing was that the player was effectively being severely punished for success. Punishing success is never a good thing, at least in a game. Success gets more than enough punishment from government, no need to add that "feature" of life into our favorite games.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 30 June 2009 - 03:08 AM.

[Qwinn]

I just went ahead and lowered the Streaming Blade damages down to what they are in the vanilla game. Have to note that by doing that, the only thing that my Fixpack alters now is flipping the AC bonuses around between the chained and streaming versions. That's pretty minimal, I'd say.

Qwinn

[nevill]

Well, I hate discouraging changes, I really do. And I don't want to sound as if I'm too concerned with this. It's just that is one change I would like to see as optional content, much like BG2's Fixpack "Cool but optional" tweaks.

Yes, moral was indeed broken. My sincere thanks for fixing that up. But balancing out the consequenses of player's choices that became more apparent with this fix is in my opinion far from mandatory. It might have been a different story if they weren't there originally, but they were, even if the chance to see them was slim.

Balance- and gameplay-wise, you ARE rewarded for the good approach and the whole affair involving Zertimon's Circle. Tons of exp, exotic spells, even stat points (frankly, I don't remember this well). The requirements are high (actually, no, they aren't ), but the reward is well worth it as it is and giving an uber-blade to boot really would be overdoing it.

Story-wise... well, making myself clear in a foreign language might be tricky, but I'll try. I think that every time Dak'kon (or any other gith) says that they *know* something, it has nothing to do with knowledge or being true. It's more about belief than anything else (not *knowing* would therefore be lack of faith, or doubt). Surely, though, if you believe in something that is not true, you are likely to come to a contradiction, so these concepts are connected in a way. And these *are* Planes - if your belief is firm enough, it might come true.

What I was saying, that when Dak'kon talks about *knowing* oneself, it's all about one's take on himself, or what one believes himself to be. From this perspective, you really shouldn't be "rewarded" for changing Dak'kon view on things because in any given moment his belief in what he is is firm enough. I do not remember the details of the story, but AFAIK he *was* a traitor to his people. There are plenty of facts to support that, and it almost became a lore among the other githzerai. So he might *know* himself a traitor and think about his contract with TNO as a retribution of some sort. And his mistreatment by TNO might reinforce that belief. That is how he might be able to get a Kinstealer, a powerful blade, and yet not know the whole deal. There is just no place for doubt.

You might want to change how he feels about it and let him know (yes, without asterisk's attached ) about TNO's involvement with his downfall. His take on the situation changes, as well as his blade, but there is no evidence he came to *know* himself better, in a sense I established above. His beliefs may change, but he never doubts. Therefore, the blade may change, but it's power remains relatively the same.

Does what I just wrote make sense?

Besides, in the game Zertimon's Circle is mostly about spells (you get some scrolls as a reward), so it is understandable that a blade that you receive after going through Zertimon's Teachings has additional spell slots as a bonus. You found it fitting that a Kinstealer had a higher base damage. Seing that 3 blades have 3 different bonuses it is easy to find out what is a 'feature' of a 'neutral' blade.

What was a problem, anyway? The Streaming blade was not powerful enough? Well then, make it stronger, but do not make it *more* powerful than the other two. Balance in all things and all.

Edited by nevill, 30 June 2009 - 05:39 AM.

[Qwinn]

Your argument for why it's okay for the "evil" blade to have a bonus is sound. You'll note that I responded to it by allowing it to have the highest base damage again, by nerfing the streaming blade.

But I see no analogous argument for why the "neutral", mid morale blade should be, by a TREMENDOUS amount, the far far far far far better blade to have. You can keep Dak'kon's morale neutral by ignoring him as much as possible. Why should the least effort and least involvement in the story have by far the best reward?

I mean, I noted earlier that I'd rather have 1AC than even -doubling- 3rd level spells, much less just one 3rd level spell. Hannibal, who seems to agree with your concept overall, agreed also that 1AC is better than even doubling 3rd level spells. And yet here you are arguing that the neutral blade should have THREE better AC, and the only perk of the streaming blade is one 3rd level spell. It's not even close. Not even -remotely- close.

You can talk about getting xp and some spells (and you can still get most of them, you only have to not do the very last step to avoid the morale boost). It doesn't compare. I absolutely positively would NEVER EVER EVER want to do the last step of the circle with Dak'kon with the original, unmodded swords. It'd be insanely stupid to. Not even the stat bonuses he gets on that last step come anywhere near being worth the permanent 3AC.

And then there's the difference in the description of the streaming blade:

If so, Dak'kon's mind must be clear, indeed, for his blade has become a brilliant silver. It seems as if the blade has become longer than when you first saw it, and there is no trace of the strange shimmering surface it once had. The edge of the blade tapers almost to a paper-thin line - despite its flimsy appearance, it looks like it could cut through chain armor with ease.

I think the first bolded portion clearly contradicts your argument that, well, basically that Dak'kon *knows* himself equally well regardless of his morale and thus the blades should be balanced. The second bolded portion is why I decided to give the streaming blade the damage boost as well. You're not giving me any valid reason to ignore both the gameplay reason that success should not be heavily punished, and this descriptive text. Or, well, I'm willing to bend as far as ignoring the second half of the descriptive text and giving the streaming blade no damage boost whatsoever despite the clear description making it plain it should be more damaging, but I'm not willing to ignore it so far as to leave the streaming blade actually really horribly terribly astonishingly crappy compared to the neutral blade.

As I said, you've talked me into restoring the original damage of the streaming blade, but my original reasons for not leaving the game in its original state where you are heavily punished for finishing the circle with Dak'kon, and where the description just quoted is completely contradicted, hasn't really changed.

Understand: these blades were pretty much ungettable in the original game (or at least it required -huge- metagaming knowledge that as far as we know -no- one knew about until late last year). The original game does NOT punish you severely for completing the circle with Dak'kon. Fixing morale -creates- the crappy situation of punishing you severely for finishing the circle. I do believe I am sticking closer to the original design by -not- punishing the player for completing the circle, as I see such punishment as a more severe deviation from the way the vanilla game plays than I do simply switching a couple of AC points on the blades around. (emphasis added, because this is really the best summary of my position)

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 30 June 2009 - 05:47 AM.

[nevill]

But I see no analogous argument for why the "neutral", mid morale blade should be, by a TREMENDOUS amount, the far far far far far better blade to have.

No, there is no reason. But did I even argue with that?

And yet here you are arguing that the neutral blade should have THREE better AC, and the only perk of the streaming blade is one 3rd level spell. It's not even close. Not even -remotely- close.

No, I am not. I am for making all 3 blades equal in terms of power. If it could be done with reducing the bonus on 'neutral', or raising the bonus for 'good' version of the blade, then it's fine. But the way you made it work, the good version is superior to neutral, plain and simple.

I think the bolded portion clearly contradicts your argument that, well, basically that Dak'kon *knows* himself equally well regardless of his morale and thus the blades should be balanced.

I think that just meant that he is content with the way thing are. Nothing to do with *knowledge*.

I'm not willing to ignore it so far as to leave the streaming blade actually really horribly terribly astonishingly crappy compared to the neutral blade.

As you might have noticed, I didn't vote. That means I do not think that 'do nothing' would be the best option. And I like changes. Just not this one.

Edited by nevill, 30 June 2009 - 05:52 AM.

[Qwinn]

I added a whole bunch of edits there, nevill, sorry. I bolded other parts in the description, and summarized my argument at the end as well. Please see last post again for what are essentially my responses.

But the way you made it work, the good version is superior to neutral, plain and simple.

Yes. I think it clearly should be from the description.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 30 June 2009 - 05:49 AM.

[Qwinn]

No, I am not. I am for making all 3 blades equal in terms of power. If it could be done with reducing the bonus on 'neutral', or raising the bonus for 'good' version of the blade, then it's fine. But the way you made it work, the good version is superior to neutral, plain and simple.

So you are okay with me changing the stats around, you just want me to make them balanced?

If so, well, then the purist argument is out the window - that being your argument that "it isn't broken and therefore doesn't belong in the fixpack". If you're willing to make any changes to the stats of the blades at all, then you're agreeing that the stats as they are are broken. Beyond that point, we're just disagreeing on what the stats -should- be. I think the descriptions and dialogue support the notion that the streaming blade -should- be superior to the neutral blade. You don't. That's perfectly fine. But let's not play the "This doesn't belong in the Fixpack" card if we're just disagreeing on -how- to fix it, not whether it needs to be fixed. Fair enough?

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 30 June 2009 - 06:01 AM.

[nevill]

Maybe balance isn't exactly the right term. But looking at the original stats, each version already has a different strong point. The balance is out of whack because a permanent 3 AC bonus beats a measly 3rd level spell any day of the week, but the core idea is there.

I have nothing to add to the statement that is not even made by me.

Your reasonings come from the fact that a player should not be punished for being active. I wholeheartily agree with them. However, you are shifting this in another direction, where one option is still superior to another. I think this is not the best way to handle this situation.

If you're willing to make any changes to the stats of the blades at all, then you're agreeing that the stats as they are are broken.

But let's not play the "This doesn't belong in the Fixpack" card if we're just disagreeing on -how- to fix it, not whether it needs to be fixed. Fair enough?

You might say that a thing is broken when it clearly doesn't work as intended. That is, bugged. Morale issues, strenght, missing checks - that kind of stuff. This is another matter completely. We are not fixing it, we are altering it so that the choices player make would not harm him (and 'harm' is not even the right word). But other than that, there is nothing to suggest that this is not intended behavior - certainly you can't determine exact statistics of an item from a text description.

There is a whole lot of things that could be done better. Randomising or raising certain checks, for example. The difference between Fixpack material and a Tweak or Mod is a subtle difference betweet "it should be that way" and "it would be cool if". I believe this topic belongs to the latter.

Edited by nevill, 30 June 2009 - 06:32 AM.

[Qwinn]

certainly you can't determine exact statistics of an item from a text description.

Course not. A judgment call is often required, because we don't have perfect guidance on how the game should be. But we can tell when something isn't right, and make it -better- based on judgment and available evidence. Scient wasn't handed a design spec on how morale should work, we can't say definitively that morale wasn't -intended- to reset every 8 hours, we just know that's stupid and makes no sense. Scient devised a new system on his own that is clearly far superior, isn't stupid, and makes sense. Therefore, it's a fix. Also, 90% of the locks in the game were set to trivial difficulties, I made them have sane values so that the open locks skill wasn't effectively broken. Do we know for a fact that those values weren't intended to be trivial? No. No designer of the game has commented on that. But we do know that those values being so trivial is stupid, makes no sense, and -effectively- makes the open locks skill pretty much useless. Therefore, it's a fix. The same logic holds here. We're adjusting the values in this restored content because the values as they are are basically stupid and make no sense. But every single lock skill I raised did require a judgment call on my part. Judgment calls are a good thing. Without it, we couldn't be arguing about this because morale would never have been fixed and the alternate blades would never have been in game in the first place.

I'm not saying that the description is telling me what the exact stats should be. But I do think the description indicates which blade should be superior, and it's the precise opposite of what they actually are. The description strongly suggests that the streaming blade should be better, and it is in fact much much much much worse. So my minimal change is to just flip the AC bonus between the medium and high morale blades. It's -possible- that that was intended and the values really were just erroneously switched. What you're suggesting is for me to really really get into a balancing game, throw out what's there completely and rebuild it from scratch doing what I think is best (well, actually, what you think is best). I think I'm taking the more minimalist approach here, just flipping the existing AC values.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 30 June 2009 - 06:41 AM.

[nevill]

OK, so I wasn't convincing enough. It's fine.

Last bit though. You say that your fix is minimalistic though it involves fixing 6 itm files, while mine is about fixing only 1 - the last version of the Streaming blade. You didn't find the low level versions horribly wrong, did you? So why are you fixing them as well?

Edited by nevill, 30 June 2009 - 07:04 AM.

[Qwinn]

Actually, I only tweaked 5 item files, and your post indicated a willingness to tweak 2, for the same reason - to smooth out the progression

Your main change was to double third level spells instead of adding just one. I don't think this helps at all. The problem with the existing streaming blades isn't that one more third level spell isn't -enough-. The problem is that there's no good use for even the single third level spell slot you get, let alone a bunch of them. Adding even more of useless doesn't make it suddenly not useless.

It just doesn't compensate for the huge loss of AC. Believe me, I -wish it did-. If it could, then I'd be all with you guys on this, and we'd just do that and the issue could be settled to most everyone's satisfaction. But, I can't even think of one spell I'd be happy a whole lot more of at that level. There's more useful 1st and 2nd level spells, frankly (but doubling those yet again isn't an option).

Qwinn

[nevill]

Your main change was to double third level spells instead of adding just one.

Decreasing the difference of AC is not that minor of a change, seeing how it is the reason behind this whole thread.

The problem is that there's no good use for even the single third level spell slot you get, let alone a bunch of them. Adding even more of useless doesn't make it suddenly not useless.

It just doesn't compensate for the huge loss of AC. Believe me, I -wish it did-. If it could, then I'd be all with you guys on this, and we'd just do that and the issue could be settled to most everyone's satisfaction.

A-ha! Let my try one more time, then. Out of all 3rd level spells that are available to Dak'kon (at 10+ level, of course) at least three are of great use to the very end.

If you described 1d4 damage as "nothing to sneeze at" then surely 10d2 raw + 10d4 fire is even more so! And Elysium Tears is one of those few spells that actually work on TTO himself! A good deal of raw damage that does not require physical contact is always welcome. 10 extra point of fire damage to target's neighbours is just a pleasant bonus.

Same goes for Vampiric Touch. 5d6 damage while healing yourself, and you are not required to land an actual hit for it to work.

And my absolute favorite of them all... yes, you guessed it, Balance In All Things. I fought TTO a very long time ago and do not remember if it works on him, but if it does, it would be The Ultimate Spell, more devastating than two Meteors combined. And you don't need a high AC to make this useful, in fact, you'd like to have it as low as possible. If there are lots of melee enemies, they would be decimating themselves in no time. I'd definitely take the ability to cast this spell 3 times for a minute each over +3 AC bonus. Besides, it fits Dak'kon very well. I wouldn't be surprised if Streaming blade was supposed to be 'cast Balance spell at lvl 10 once per day'.

And spells are all about variety. If you need damage, you can get it, both physical and magical, and it would be much more than a Kinstealer could do in a single fight. If you need defence, you can absorb 9d4 + 30 (~55 on avg) points of damage. You can go for something entirely different like Tasha's Unbearable Derisive Laughter or take your chances with Ax Of Torment. And I think that such flexibility is a bonus in itself.

Add two extra possible casts of 'Balance' and I'd take Streaming blade over Chained anytime even without AC difference being smoothed out. But at least there would be a few situations when I might regret this decision. I like it when there is no best option.

Edited by nevill, 01 July 2009 - 08:50 AM.

[Hannibal]

Let me chime in again.

There's one point where all three of us who're discuss this can easily agree, and another where me and nevill disagree with you.

1) The Streaming Blade should have the overall best stats of the three variants. Easy agreement here, since otherwise, you're penallized instead of rewarded for doing Dak'kon's quest.

2) Each of the blades should have its unique strong point, that isn't completely superceded by any other.

2 seems to be pretty clear design intent. Otherwise, there would have been a simple progression from worst to best in the item stats, kinstealer > chained > streaming. To stay consistent with that, the chained blade should keep having the best AC bonus when the tweaks are said and done, while the streaming blade should nevertheless come out superior overall. This is also very much in keeping with the theme of Dak'kon character progression. AS Zerthimon says, 'Balance in All Things.' The streaming blade should be the most balanced one in its powers, while the other two reflect different aspects of imbalance; one offensive, the other defensive.

How to achieve that, preferably with the least changes, is what I'd much rather dicuss.

• To stay consistent, either the chained, or the streaming blade's AC bonus needs changing, otherwise the difference is absurdly great.
  
  So the first proposal is to either increase the SB bonus to 4, or decrease the CB bonus to 4. Either of these keeps the progression intact, but I prefer the latter, as buffing the SB overall to make up for 1 AC is easier than buffing it to make up for 2. That much is the easy part.
  
  
  
• Next, one additional level 3 spell just isn't significant to make up for a 1-2 AC difference. Most obviously would be a further increase in spell slots. After all, Dak'kon's a fighter/mage not just a fighter. The balanced blade should reflect this a bit more strongly.
  
  I understand your point that you'd rather have +1 AC than any (reasonable) number of further spell slots, but IMHO, that's more because P:T's combats are not challenging enough to require using spells to the fullest. If you're breezing through the game with auto-attacks, sure, a permanent AC bonus is more convenient. Personally, I'm favoring 2 3rd and 1 4th level spells at the moment.
  
  
  
• Nevertheless, the concern that the SB's passive boni should be better, or at least, shouldn't be weaker, than the CB's is valid. A way to further differentiate them would be introducing a damage difference between them, without making the SB better in that regard than the KB. Two relatively low key ways to do that would be to either nerf the CB by 1d4, i. e. 4-16, or to give the SB a +1 damage bonus, i. e. 6-21.

Edited by Hannibal, 01 July 2009 - 10:12 AM.

[nevill]

The streaming blade should be the most balanced one in its powers, while the other two reflect different aspects of imbalance; one offensive, the other defensive.

Heh, I never thought about that. +1d2 to the SB would then seem perfectly reasonable. But somehow I am uncomfortable with this. I am more into altering bonuses that were already there.

So the first proposal is to either increase the SB bonus to 4, or decrease the CB bonus to 4.

If you go for the latter you'd need to decrease the 2nd version of CB to 3 to keep things smooth. I like the idea of a minimalistic change. Really minimalistic change, that is.

And I still think that two additional 3rd lvl spells (up to 3 total) more than make up for 2-3 AC points.