Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General Feedback on Memory

Hurt feelings do not constitute an argument in a meritorical discussion, nor do feelings in genera shield from criticism.

My only sin would be an arguable degree of exaggeration, which in no way detracts from the merit of what I say.

That is good because he didn't argue anything. An argument has a premise and a supporting statement.

He was telling you... Stop being a jerk.

Not everything someone says directly relates to the argument at hand.

I've assumed that Stabbey is right about things like spell-crafting, which obviously doesn't work yet, so we'll see.

My point is essentially that Stabbey's realism doesn't justify the outcome of that realism. Sure, some things are hard to achieve. But if you know they're hard, then you should think hard before you start making promises you can't live up to.

I mean, what does Stabbey's version of spell-crafting actually add to the game?

I think the word you are looking for is symetry, not elegance.
Symetry does not automatically mean elegance. Also your proposed row of numbers is broken up as soon as you even begin to create your character.
So the other guys moment is less symetrical for a brief moment during character creation.
To make a big deal about having a symetrical character sheet before you start putting points in it is really autistic, and no sensible definition of elegant game design.

Among the qualities of elegance are simplicity and neatness.

It is also important to note that what I speak of is specifically the baseline values, which in turn also define the value any increase of one point has thereafter.
In that sense, the base value of each stat is 10, and the racial talent and starting points are what alters it(and each point is 10% of that base value, etc.).

So no, there is no mistake here, what I say is exactly what I mean, and exactly what it is.

Allow me to correct you there.
What you say is what you exactly what you mean, and exactly what you think it is.
Obviously since people are not agreeing with you there are multiple opinons on what makes a game elegant on the table.
Now surely you are not going to go full retard and claim that only your opinions are the objective truth?

Honestly... Just keep the Memory stat at 10... Give the player only 5 memory slots to start.

And every 1 memory point from then on = 1 memory slot

It might be ugly but I honestly don't think people will mind.

And in that scenario, what is the function of the other 5 points you start with?



Objective, means that it is true without bias for feelings or an individual perspective.

It is objectively true, that a pattern is more elegant in it's presentation than random numbers(chaos).

10 is race baseline. At the baseline you have 5 memory points.

Done.

It is far more important that the game works then for it to be elegant.

If a blunt force solution is required then it is required...

You can also lose points.

How many slots do you lose if you lose 1 memory? 5 memory? 9 memory?

And why would you brute force it when I have provided the best solution so far?
-1:1 granularity, which solves the complaint about Memory being only worth investing in increments of two.
-Tree specific bonus based on skill-tree invested, solving the common complaint of investing in a tree doing nothing to let you use more skills from it.

That's only a very late-game issue and imo it's not a real issue at all. That's exactly how magic functioned in DOS1. For once, you need both a high score in magic schools and you need a high score in memory. That's very unlikely to have in the early game.

What my suggestion actually does is that you have more possibilities the better you become in one school. I think that it is ok to be able to cast a lot of pyro spells when you have skilled pyro to 5. But at the same time it's unlikely until the very end game that you will have one or even two other schools on the same level. So high-level spells of other schools will still require multiple memory spots if you want to use them. My system gives the player more freedom and flexibility in the late game. I'm not that fond of the vision that even a very high class mage for example isn't able to cast more than 4-5 spells, especially since high-class spells still have high AP costs to cast and high cooldown costs (I strongly urge to have very high AP and cooldown costs for these spells/skills). We shouldn't forget that memory isn't the only mechanic that limits the skills you could actually use in combat. More than that, your deck is limited by AP costs and cooldown. It's very likely that you can't use most high-class spells more than once in combat due to these costs. So in the end the low memory spot requirements for high-class spells in schools you have a high score in won't erase the choice whether you want more spells with high AP/high cooldown costs or more spells with low AP/low cooldown costs. My suggestion gives you only more choice because the range of spells and skills you can use in combat would be extended. I personally played DOS1 a lot and one of the best things in character developement was the fact that you had that wide range of spells and skills you could use in combat. That made you flexible in encounters, especially in the late game.

So what I think memory should do is focusing a character's range of possiblities to the abilities the character's good in. It shouldn't serve as a rigid limit to only have a very small amount of spells at hand, especially in late game. I think that Larian should give the player more freedom not less. Memory is good to balance the game, but again it works together with AP costs and cooldown costs for skills. Less memory requirements don't give you a free pass on spamming high class spells. It gives you the chance to make full use of the possibilites a high score in certain skill class or magic schools should give you and it makes the game more fun by giviny you a greater range of spells you can actually use in combat encounters.

2 points lost = 1 memory point for below 10.

Done... It is never a factor except in that RARE situation... (In fact... How do you lose memory?)

I agree that a 1:1 approach feels best for the player/game.

I feel the base should be 10 to be in line with all of the other starting attributes, although if it were to be 5 I don't think it would negatively affect anyone.

From a back end, if 10 is the base and it is a 1:1 system, it could just have the base be 5 behind the scenes and add 5 for the player. (Calculate base 5 display base 10)

But all that is semantics if the general agreement is a 1:1

I will conceed that what you write makes some sense.
However, in it's raw form, your idea provides multiplicative benefits, which would quickly make all skills only ever cost 1 memory for characters who choose the corresponding skilltrees, and put a severe toll on hybridization.

Operating on the player's capacity is much safer in that regard, because your primary means of expanding the number of skills is already to expand the number of slots.
Adding to that is precisely that, 'adding to' not multiplying.





That's an inconsistency of rules, inconsistency is bad design.

IIRC you lose memory from the Ring of Braccus Rex(-1), and there are hopefully going to be other items with similar trade-offs.

Not necessarily. The ONLY times it comes up is a single item.

It completely and utterly doesn't matter... AND isn't the only game to do this.

Better yet the ring retains the rules either way. -1 to memory at 10... = 1 less memory stat.

Just a comment on your suggestion, Lord Crash - there's two things you might not have fully considered with how the ability point mechanics work in D:OS 2.

The split of Combat and Civil points means that I can worry less about whether I should invest all my points into Combat or boost a Utility skill instead because the points are separate. Additionally, ability points now seem to work on a 1:1 level instead of D:OS 1 where the amount of points needed went up by 1 per level of the ability.

Not to mention that the numbers on many of the Combat abilities - particularly the defensive ones - are so unimpressive that for lack of any other great ideas, pumping points directly into the skill school is where I'm spending most of them. I'm level 6 and some of my characters have 5 points skill schools like Warfare and Huntsman already, and Scoundrel isn't far behind. But it could be that the ability points cap is now higher than it was in D:OS 1.

I'm mixed about the new system. I realize this thread is focused on memory but there is also talk about the abilities and source. I'm at the point of the game where I have one painful fight left and have yet to figure out how to deal with the one shot kills and insta blinding (which should describe well where I am). My characters are all level 6 a few exp shy of level 7.
-
It took me very late in the game to realize about source points (a mechanic which I'm not overjoyed with but abstractly makes a lot of sense). I'm also concern that the combination of memory and source points is overly restrictive. I realize that one is attempting to limit diversity while the other is limiting more powerful spells in a single battle. However, combined they are somewhat painful.
-
Also skills points are radically changed; instead of focusing on which spells/skills you can learn they impact the strength of the spells/skills.

While I like this change (you can learn anything you just might not be very effective in usage). However, you now have memory which discourage the usage of being able to consider using ineffective spells/skills since for the most part you would want to make more effective spells/skills available given the limitations (esp as higher level skills/spells will suck up memory slots). So in the end flexibility is severely limited because you can only use a powerful spell a few times in combat (source points); you can only have a couple of spells available in combat (memory) and only a few of them will be maximize (skill points).
-
Some of what I said above presumes a certain scaling as spells become higher level (use more memory slots) but this scaling has not yet been shown. I would rather reduce the suffocating impact of memory in favor of strong attention to spells/skill behavior if not well known (few skill points) and expand on the concept of source (which needs greater emphasis during the game's introduction).
-

In general I like the new system even if I wouldn't mind a tweak.
In the first game a mage that really focused on picking up all the mastery skills could really trivialize every encounter by chaining mastery skills back to back, while still having the full repetoar of regular skills.
It was so easy to kill things that even honor mode felt like a cake walk.

just make source abilities cost no memory, u have already a pretty rare resource needed to use them, no reason to waste memory there.

Also make that every 2 points in one shool add 1 spell slot for that kind of spells. if u do so u can have an average spell pool with a for example full pyro mage. and at the same time if u wanna do a jack of all trades type u still have to sacrifice intelligence to amplify ur memory.

I agree that Memory should be changed to a 1:1 ratio. I understand that the developers are trying to force you to make the decision of either utility or damage/defense and that decision should have weight. But in it's current form you find some stupid situations -- specifically on level ups and finding gear with +/- Memory on it. I would like to add that I still don't think that Memory is the worst stat.

At the moment I prioritize:

Primary Stat (to cap) > Memory (to fit my build) > Constitution (all other points) > Secondary Stats

When talent points are so precious I don't even give a consideration to secondary stats.