Are Passive Skills Boring?

[Doctornull]

but not having played even close to all the classes yet, I'm not aware what many of the skills might be.

Ah, I see.

Well, how about you go play the game, and then we can talk when you've got an educated opinion?

[Red]

Doctornull, if there are no more boring skills to discuss, then I'll be glad to hear at least one person is happy with the vast majority of skills.

Until that point, though, it might help if you mentioned what other skills you do find boring, since you said there were more than just Thick Skin and Combat Veteran.

In addition, judge my words on their own merit. I've never pretended to be any kind of experienced or even all that good player, but that doesn't mean my thoughts are worthless.

[Doctornull]

Doctornull, if there are no more boring skills to discuss, then I'll be glad to hear at least one person is happy with the vast majority of skills.

Is this that thing where you pretend to misunderstand what I said in order to pretend you scored a rhetorical point?

Does that ever have a positive result on the conversation?

In addition, judge my words on their own merit. I've never pretended to be any kind of experienced or even all that good player, but that doesn't mean my thoughts are worthless.

Look, the kindest thing I can tell you is to go play the game. When you get more experience with more of the content, your opinions will be better informed.

Being ignorant isn't a personal insult, and it's easily fixed by spending time playing the game -- or reading the code, or developing content for the game -- instead of trying to argue opinions about stuff you haven't even seen yet.

[Red]

I am asking you to name more skills. I'm not a mind reader, I can make good guesses but I can't tell for certain what you consider boring. Is Radiance boring? Is Illumination boring? Is Sun's Vengeance? What about Indiscernible Anatomy? Or Blood Red Moon? I'm just asking you to name a few more skills that could be discussed. If you aren't able to do that, I don't know what you want me to contribute. I'm arguing for passive skills, and so far, you've only brought up a few you think are worth discussing here.

And once again, I am aware my thoughts are not perfect. To anyone who reads something I say, please think hard before you accept it. I'm not the most experienced, only about 130 hours according to Steam, so I might say something dead wrong that a more experienced player would know. But I can still play the game, and I can still think about the game. Feel free to try to find better words than mine, since I'm sure they're out there, but that isn't going to make my words bad.

[Faeryan]

Doctornull, if there are no more boring skills to discuss, then I'll be glad to hear at least one person is happy with the vast majority of skills.

Is this that thing where you pretend to misunderstand what I said in order to pretend you scored a rhetorical point?

Does that ever have a positive result on the conversation?

Does THIS?

In addition, judge my words on their own merit. I've never pretended to be any kind of experienced or even all that good player, but that doesn't mean my thoughts are worthless.

Look, the kindest thing I can tell you is to go play the game. When you get more experience with more of the content, your opinions will be better informed.

Being ignorant isn't a personal insult, and it's easily fixed by spending time playing the game -- or reading the code, or developing content for the game -- instead of trying to argue opinions about stuff you haven't even seen yet.[/quote]
What stuff would that be cause I can't think of any boring passives though I've played the game a few times til the end.
Since I believe I've experienced pretty near all the vanilla content I'm pretty sure this "boring passives" needs some clarification. Is it some of the passives that are boring or all passives with no exceptions are boring?

I can't really think of any boring passives. Sure there are some less desirable skills I never use but there are actives and sustains as well, not just passives.

I'm pretty sure Red is playing the game all the time and learning about these top secret boring passives, but until then, if we want to carry on with the conversation Doctornull could name some more of those passives. Naming them would have taken a lot less time than slandering other forumers.

From now on I urge you guys to play it civil else I'm forced to do stuff.

Back on topic, so far from reading these threads I fear the game might get too simplistic. I like seeing variation in skills, even though I wouldn't ever spec for some of them.
Just think of Diablo3 talents/skills compared to Diablo2 and World Of Warcraft pre Pandaria and post Pandaria. Too simplistic and casual.

Sure the suggestions might work better than current approach but since there's nothing solid yet I just gotta fear for the worst.

[Effigy]

Talents should mainly be things that are exceptional, i.e. the opposite of generic. "Take X% less damage from everything, all the time" doesn't feel like a talent. It feels like an attribute. In my opinion, anything that's not class-specific, active use, sustained, or directly supporting one of the above should be rolled into an attribute. Attributes are the part of character creation that should govern general bonuses and passive effects.

For instance, why do we need talents like Weapons Mastery when we already have Strength as an attribute? Furthermore, why do we need separate talents for Weapons Mastery and Dagger Mastery? It's redundant and reduces flexibility when building a character. The whole point of separating out talents from attributes is that they have (or should have) different purposes. If talents can do the job of attributes, why do attributes exist?

[Faeryan]

Everyone will get the same amount of attributes (ie. Stats)
Weapon Mastery talents (Berserker is more adept at weapons) further show some characters' specialization in that area.

Effectively the game now tells you "You have enough Strength to specialize in big weapons. Do you want to do that? If you do you will lose this much (1 generic) expertise on other stuff" while with your suggestion it says: "You are strong enough. You are now this much more proficient in big weapons."

Like said before, I like more options just for the sake of not making it too simple and straightforward, though if new meaningful options to keep the complexity appears I'm all for new way.

[Fhtagn]

Talents should mainly be things that are exceptional, i.e. the opposite of generic. "Take X% less damage from everything, all the time" doesn't feel like a talent.

Generic. As in generic talents. Which is exactly what they are supposed to be, as opposed to class talents. So the "Take X% less damage"-talent is in a generic category. The more exceptional stuff usually in class talents. To me at least that seems to be all right.

For instance, why do we need talents like Weapons Mastery when we already have Strength as an attribute? Furthermore, why do we need separate talents for Weapons Mastery and Dagger Mastery? It's redundant and reduces flexibility when building a character. The whole point of separating out talents from attributes is that they have (or should have) different purposes. If talents can do the job of attributes, why do attributes exist?

That's a slippery slope. Once you start thinking like that and acting on it, you start mainstreaming the game. Why do attributes exist if weapons have difference damage values and so have spells? Let's take attributes out as well. We could reduce the game to just four stats: Offense, Defense, Health and Ressource™.
That would avoid redundancy! Irony aside, I see your point, but I would urge you to look at it from a different perspective.

Flexibility when building is not limited by having two different masteries. To the contrary. You have to make choices. Making choices creates variety. Variety is what makes building characters interesting. Do I play with dual daggers because the stats fit better and because I only need one mastery for both weapons? Or do I go for 1h and dagger? Do I take dagger mastery if I do? Do I max it if I take it? Those are meaningful choices. They enrich the game. They do not reduce flexibility, they add variety.
The World of Warcraft example is a good one. Once you could change skills at a whim, once classes lost most of the effects that made them unique, and once equipment and skills became streamlined and standardized because they were too complicated, not clear and/or partially redundant, the game lost most of its appeal.
It's similar with Diablo III. Much of Diablo II's replay value came from trying out new builds. The game was highly inflexible, in that choices could not be altered and builds were relatively unforgiving, but that was part of what made the game interesting. Diablo III changed that. I couldn't keep me for long.
I love ToME, I wouldn't want it to deteriorate in that way.

Edit: Looking at what I wrote, it appears I am still somewhat pissed at what Blizzard did to those games...

[Effigy]

It's a pseudo-option. Anyone who actually invests in Strength is also going to invest in a relevant weapon mastery, typically the one that governs swords/axes/maces. If you're always going to invest in both, why should they be separate? Clicking more buttons during level-up doesn't equate to more meaningful choices.

It's probably a moot point because I doubt the game will be redesigned in such a fundamental way at this point.

[Fhtagn]

It's a pseudo-option. Anyone who actually invests in Strength is also going to invest in a relevant weapon mastery

It's not, and no, not necessarily. It's likely they will at some point, yes. But one thing about skill choices in ToME is that ToME is not build for endgame like, say, WoW or Diablo II/III are. When you skill something is about as important as whether you do so in the first place.
There were several cases where I did not push strength more than I needed, because I wanted my stat points elsewhere, yet took the weapon mastery as high as I could.
There were other cases where I did push strength, but only maxed weapon mastery relatively late in the game, because other skills had priority. Both can and will happen.

There is a Wyrmic build in the forums that takes Strength for breath damage only. I had a Cursed that took strength for two reasons: to wear heavier armour, and to increase Mindpower through the Superpower prodigy. I did use mindstars. No weapon mastery making use of strength there.

[Faeryan]

It's a pseudo-option. Anyone who actually invests in Strength is also going to invest in a relevant weapon mastery, typically the one that governs swords/axes/maces. If you're always going to invest in both, why should they be separate? Clicking more buttons during level-up doesn't equate to more meaningful choices.

It's probably a moot point because I doubt the game will be redesigned in such a fundamental way at this point.

I love it how these conversations can swing in all directions.
The thread is about streamlining the experience by making all strong characters also be proficient with all weapons and having a separate talent for swinging weapons effectively is seen as a bad thing.

I on the other hand would love to split it further; instead of mace/sword/axe skill I want three skills, one for axes, one for maces and one for swords. Are you strong? Well, you still don't know how to swing a sword, learn it!

[Red]

It seems to me something that would satisfy a lot of people who are dissatisfied with Weapon Mastery would be much much happier if new generics were added, which I would wholly support. Like Fhtagn said, a good deal of the game is when you invest and not just what you invest, but it does still leave a lot of warrior builds looking very similar in the generics department late in the game.

Perhaps offer some way to gain generic categories elsehwere? Some kind of magical category from Angolwen in addition to the anitmagic option? Or just new generic trees that provide enough of an incentive to never invest in Masteries, or only put one or two points. Instead of removing passives because they take away choices by feeling too vital, add in more skills that become valuable so Mastery skills suddenly aren't so vital anymore.

[Fhtagn]

I on the other hand would love to split it further; instead of mace/sword/axe skill I want three skills, one for axes, one for maces and one for swords. Are you strong? Well, you still don't know how to swing a sword, learn it!

I totally agree with that However, I realise that might make finding decent equipment difficult.
Still, I'd love to see different weapon masteries behave differently. That would make chosing which weapon to use that much more interesting!

Edit: Having more useful non-mastery generic options would be nice.
Having different masteries for different weapon types, or different combat style masteries that might use the same weapons but offer different benefits would be an excellent solution as well. Two Berserkers might have 5/5 in a weapon mastery, but if, say, one has 5/5 in "Brütal Combat" (please note the Metal Umlaut), offering him increased armour penetration and critical hit damage, and the other has 5/5 in "Duelist", which gives him a chance to parry attacks in addition to both adding damage the would feel (and play) different.

Basically, you would not only decide "I want to bash heads in", but also how you want to do it. I really like the idea.

[Doctornull]

Edit: Having more useful non-mastery generic options would be nice.
Having different masteries for different weapon types, or different combat style masteries that might use the same weapons but offer different benefits would be an excellent solution as well. Two Berserkers might have 5/5 in a weapon mastery, but if, say, one has 5/5 in "Brütal Combat" (please note the Metal Umlaut), offering him increased armour penetration and critical hit damage, and the other has 5/5 in "Duelist", which gives him a chance to parry attacks in addition to both adding damage the would feel (and play) different.

Basically, you would not only decide "I want to bash heads in", but also how you want to do it. I really like the idea.

Yeah absolutely, having Combat Styles instead of weapon-specific Mastery would be an improvement. As someone clever said elsewhere:

The current mastery talents are awful because they basically ask the player: "Can you guess what weapon you're holding?"
[_] A Knife
[_] Not A Knife

... and that's neither a strategic choice nor a tactical option.

Combat Styles could be so much more interesting. You could have stuff like:

Warden Style: +Daggers, +Longswords and +Bows (it ignores the existence of axes and maces). It gives you higher Accuracy, Defense and Armor Hardiness against foes with a higher global speed.

Thug Style: +Daggers and +Unarmed, bonus Accuracy, Physpower and APR vs. confused or stunned foes.

Gladiatorial Style: +Axes, Maces, Swords, Tridents and Unarmed. When you score a crit, showboat and demoralize nearby enemies (a Fear effect).

Those could even sit alongside a couple of more boring options (like my relatively boring "Agile Mastery").

[Effigy]

Let me make an analogy. If the Archmage class had a generic category with options for Fire Mastery, Ice Mastery, etc. and each one gave you more Spellpower for spells of the relevant type, do you think that would make the game more interesting? I would say no.

The reason I say no is that this new "spell mastery" system just restricts the player's options during actual gameplay if they want to optimize their character. You don't have enough points to level all the masteries, so you just pick one and ignore everything that doesn't fall under that umbrella. Instead of having lots of interesting options available from all the elements, you just have Fire/Wildfire or whatever. This is sort of an issue already with Wildfire being the one-stop-shop elemental tree, but having a "Fire Mastery" would just exacerbate the problem. To me, the Archmage class is more interesting if you can fully utilize its arsenal of whizbang tricks rather than just picking one element and throwing a few extra points in the others for utility. Choosing to attack with an element your target is weak against is more interesting that just debuffing their resist and spamming one element.

In contrast, I consider the Wyrmic class to be well-designed because it actually encourages the player to dabble in lots of different skill trees rather than just picking a narrow focus and running with it. The Wyrmic class may have some weak skills that need buffing, but overall it's beneficial to diversify your build rather than pigeonholing yourself. Having more diverse skills gives you more tactical options during actual gameplay.

Choosing to specialize in maces or swords isn't meaningful to me, unless maces and swords play very differently, such as having different active skills. In ToME4, most melee weapons play the same. If I have to specialize in 2-handed hammers instead of just 2-handed weapons, the amount of meaningful loot in the game just shrunk from my character's perspective. Swords and axes might as well not even drop for that character past the first 5 levels.