I may be about to say some very silly things, but so far I am under the impression it all makes sense, so if you'll indulge me...
Have you ever considered having your attributes ranking work the opposite way?
If I understood correctly, your attributes system was supposed to finally free us from the issue affecting most, if not all, stats allowance systems: namely going exclusively "put [required minimum] points in [mandatory stat (Toughness...)], then dump EVERYTHING in [main stat of choice]".
Now I won't pretend to have researched every current build in depth, but every single one I came across is built EXACTLY this way!
And it makes sense. Why would anyone put a single point into an attribute that not only isn't what they're aiming for mechanically (be it crit, attack speed or ailment chances), but also has less impact on damage than their main one anyways? Would you choose (or even care bout) 30% of 300 over 50% of 1000? Of course not!
Giving each of your attributes such a clear, single, focused purpose, and then coming up with your primary/secondary/... system giving an obviously universal benefit was a truly brilliant idea; but you may just have played the right cards in the wrong order.
Consider the impact of having your lesser attributes actually adding more to your damage than your major ones.
Now you want a crit-based build, so it's natural you'll put a lot of points in Ferocity.
But then, your secondary attribute gives you a better damage buff. So you may start thinking "OK, how much crit do I actually want? If I'm around X%, it should be enough, and then I can dump much more into Agility, which will actually add more to the base damage of my crits than Ferocity does, and even make them occur more often... But I have to be careful not to let it grow bigger than my Ferocity. Well I can always use more Ferocity if it comes to this anyways!" (notice there's some wiggle room in the choice of your Ferocity ceiling, more than with the "mandatory stat at X then literally everything there" approach), or even "Maybe I could have Toughness as a Primary, Agility as Secondary, and try to go as high as I can with my crit while keeping Ferocity as Tertiary... That way Ferocity will give me the best possible damage buff to compensate for my crit chances not going through the roof although I'm based around them being decent, and they'll still benefit from my attack speed being actually bigger (and not without flat damage benefit!) because hey, more attacks means more crits!". The fourth attribute may be left neglected, but that's probably fine, we're now in a world where you're interested in 3 attributes out of 4!
While it may sound less intuitive at first, the already focused single purpose of every element of the equation keeps it simple enough to grasp; yet now it actually offers you more than 3-4 choices for the whole game, it presents you with interesting dilemma, it encourages thinking, balancing, branching out in different ways, aiming for different side benefits, and thus playstyles...
There may end up being math experts giving us handy spreadsheets or optimal solutions soon enough, as is always the case with games nowadays, but I feel like it would bring the game closer to elegantly handling stats allowance, as it was supposed to do where most others kinda fail, yet it doesn't really seem to as of now.
TL;DR: You came up with the (commendable) idea of inciting players to put points into attributes that aren't their main, and what you did was actually give secondary attributes something LESS desirable than your main one. Right intent, wrong move. Simply swapping the numbers might actually fix that!
Once again, I'm no full-time game designer, and I may be missing something absurdly obvious here.
But if there's the slightest chance this idea can bring Wolcen closer to being as good as it's been promising, I'd rather risk looking like a fool in hopes we get to play the new most unforgettable game of the genre!
Created: 2 years, 6 months ago
Category: Feedback & Suggestions