So, according to these forums I should make the following assumptions.

The following skills are OP:
Vampirism
Unarmed
Artful Dodger(for leap)
Mathemagic
Promethean
Blood Magic
Fungal Arts
Archaeology

So....25% of all the available skills are OP? I'm pretty sure that's not how the term "OP" was meant to be used. It's called a bell curve.

I think people need to chill out, if you find the game so easy, start randoming your skills on Going Rogue+Perma. If you beat it like that, purposely pick bad ones. You DO realize that in games there is no such thing as 100% balance and that some skills will be better(above) and some will be worse(axe, deadshot, etc), right?

 

Welcome to the internet, where people whine about everything they can possibly think of. Just ignore it and contribute to the things that are truly a problem.

 

I guess I just make wrong assumptions about indie-game communities being superior to large scale games.

I just worry that the devs(who actually are involved and read this stuff), will listen to these people.

 

Good post. I'm getting a bit tired of people yelling "OP" at anything they personally found useful.

 

here is my way of thinking about it. most of the things on those skills are just "good" in the grand scheme, and work like they should (maybe a few bugs in them though). While a few may need tweaking here and there, theres not a lot to the game that needs changing.. other than a few skills being almost pointless

 

Most of those skills are only overpowered in certain context. The real question we should be asking ourselves is, "Does a skill have to be perfectly balanced at every stage of the game?" The answer should probably be "No".

Vampirism is only OP from 10% to 60% of your gaming experience.
Unarmed is only OP from 1% to 50% of your gaming experience.
Artful Dodger is not really OP but constantly useful.
Mathemagic is not really OP but some abilities are too inexpensive.
Promethean is only OP against groups with Blood Magic.
Fungal Arts is only OP if you spend eternity farming fungus.
Archaeology is only OP if you spend eternity rerolling.

 

The vast majority of posts seem to be related to underpowered skills (see the Useless Skills thread). I don't think there have been many calls for large nerfs aside from fixing obvious bugs (e.g. Archaeology).

 

Some of us expect ascension in a roguelike to be an accomplishment.

 

@jhffmn So then do it with random, or pick bad ones, like I suggested. How many hours did it take you to beat it on rogue permadeath?(from purchase til you did it)

Edit: Would you prefer it that all the skills were balanced 100%? AKA the same skills?

 

Good post. Nothing wrong with having a little bit of cheese in a single-player game, that way people who want easy going get it, and the people who want some challenge can just avoid some stuff.

 

Personally I "whine" because I find games that are both challenging and balanced to be much more fun than games that are not.

I don't really understand your "bell curve" argument - I can't think of an obvious reason why the powers of skills in a roguelike should be normally distributed. If you mean that it's impossible and unnecessary to make every skill (or skill tree) absolutely equally useful and powerful, then I agree, but at the moment the disparities are great enough to make the game much less interesting than it could be.

Why do you worry that the devs will listen? If you're worried that every skill that's currently powerful and fun will be nerfed to oblivion, I'm sure that's not going to happen; that's also not what the many insightful balance-related suggestions that I've read on this forum (and elsewhere) are calling for. Personally I prefer the kind of balance where any skill feels powerful in the right kind of build, and there are many powerful builds, but every build still has weaknesses that actually matter and keep you on your toes.

I disagree with your assessment of the community: I haven't seen a lot of whiners, but I have seen many people who put a lot of thought into making the game more fun than it already is. Just look at Incendax's Six Skill Project thread, for instance.

 

"it's impossible and unnecessary to make every skill (or skill tree) absolutely equally useful and powerful, then I agree,"

Yes, thats what I was saying.

And my assessment of the community was based on Patch's response.

 

Oathbreaker, People who want easy can always pick the easy difficult level; there's no reason why the game should be easy on the hardest difficulty. I agree that a single player game doesn't need to be completely balanced, but I still enjoy balanced games much more than unbalanced games. I realize that people are different in this respect - there are many ways to enjoy a game*. I tend to handicap myself by avoiding cheese as you suggested, but that's less fun than not having cheese in the first place.

killington, "Would you prefer it that all the skills were balanced 100%? AKA the same skills?" I share and understand your concern: that kind of balancing would make for a very boring game. That being said, I honestly don't believe this is the kind of balance that most people are looking for. Rock-paper-scissors is more like it. Ideally every skill would be powerful and fun (in the right build at least), but every build has weaknesses that matter. (This is on Going Rogue, of course; easier difficulty levels should be more forgiving.)

*This discussion reminds me about some interesting research on how people play games. I don't remember the details, but basically the researcher(s) identified a few "gamer personality archetypes". One of the archetypes was something like "the optimizer", whose enjoyment derives mainly from understanding the rules of the game and finding optimal strategies. The other archetypes included characters like "the builder", who likes creating content (mods etc.), and "the socializer", who mainly likes interacting with other people. There was also something like "the explorer", who just wants to have fun, enjoy the experience and try different things without worrying too much about which skills to use. Of course, most gamers are mixtures of the different archetypes; "the optimizer" is strong in me and other balance-obsessed people.

Of course even treating people as mixtures of a small set of archetypes is a gross simplification, but clearly people play games for different reasons. In my opinion it's possible for a good game to cater to very different crowds by using difficulty levels etc.

 

It's basically what J-Factor said, the problem isn't that a lot of skills are overpowered, the problem is more in the bugged, broken skills and the contrasting useless skills.

Patch 1.04 looks promising, we should wait so the skills are fixed, then we'll have a much clearer perspective on what's OP and what's not.

Since exploiting bugs isn't really what i consider OP, it's just bugs that need fixing.

 

Maybe we should focus on making the other skills good instead of making what's currently useful suck? Like most of those stuff on the list are barely usable on Rogue difficulty and any weaker will make them useless.

I think most people are complaining before they even beat the game on Rogue. I mean Unarmed? It doesn't even deal damage later on. Vampirism? I still find it hard to believe that beating hard mode with dual sword vampire is even possible. Blood Magic is what makes some other magic usable at this point. I don't think it can afford a nerf without making a good chunk of magic useless.

Personally I think Unarm need a base nerf but a buff base on character level, so it doesn't dominate early game so much and doesn't suck as bad late game. Not sure if this is possible to implement though.

The only 3 that needs fixing are probably Archeology (bug), minor nerf on Promethean, and mana up for mathemagic teleport.

 

I think calling Going Rogue+Perma "easy" is quite overboard. Maybe, good sir, you found a game that you're just REALLY GOOD AT.

I consider myself a really good gamer, I 100%'ed super meat boy, I make a habit of playing games on the hardest difficulties, and I still havent beaten it on Going Rogue. Perhaps you are in the very slight minority. Devs shouldnt cater to the minority.

EDIT: For the record, .2% of people who bought the game have beaten it on Going Rogue+Perma. I think their difficulties are appropriate.

 

I can't find anyone here who talked about Rogue difficulty easy, care to explain?

Personally I only got 1 character to beat Rogue, with many many deaths (vast majority of which are from traps).

 

"kryft 2:24AM
Oathbreaker, People who want easy can always pick the easy difficult level; there's no reason why the game should be easy on the hardest difficulty."

EDIT: and I JUST NOW finally beat dwarven with permadeath, 36 hrs gametime. Now I can move on to Going Rogue.

 

@killington I agree with your general statements, but you have to keep in mind that compared to real roguelikes this game is a walk in the park. People who are accustomed to the difficulty level in, say, Nethack are pretty much never going to be satisfied with the difficulty level in this game (I mean, in Nethack permadeath isn't even an option - it's always on (though of course you can still copy your save files)).

However, I really have to call you out on this comment:
<blockquote>
I consider myself a really good gamer, I 100%'ed super meat boy, I make a habit of playing games on the hardest difficulties, and I still havent beaten it on Going Rogue.
</blockquote>

Really. You're comparing this game to Super Meat Boy.

Totally different skill-sets, man. Totally not transferable. SMB is a twitch platformer, this is a game where twitching is entirely unnecessary. If you play Dungeons of Dredmor the same way you play SMB, no wonder it's taken you so long to beat Dwarven Permadeath.

 

"in Nethack permadeath isn't even an option"
I know, I've played "real" roguelikes, as you like to call them.

"If you play Dungeons of Dredmor the same way you play SMB,"
How could you possibly play this game like you do SMB? My point wasnt to say I 100% SMB thus I will be amazing at this game, no, It was merely an example of an extremely hard game that I have beaten, through adversity. Theres no real mainstream game to compare this to, because RPGs and RTSes arent hard, and theyre the only thing kind of like this.

"no wonder it's taken you so long to beat Dwarven Permadeath. "
I learned everything through trial and error. I didnt come to forums and wikis to find the best skills in the game or print out potion/fungus info. I wouldve beaten it on permadeath about 10-15 hrs ago if I hadnt died to Dredmor the first time I ever saw him (didnt know which resistances to buff and he spammed me to death with spells). [I wouldve beat this game much quicker had I made a mage faster, waited til 15th life]

I still submit that only .2% of people have beaten the game on the hardest mode. I assume I will eventually, but since I beat it on Med-PD, the flame has kind of died, at least for a little while. I'm not so sure why these people who HAVE beat it on hard-PD are so intent on dragging out a 4.50$ game for 40 more hours. I can only kill the same monsters on the same levels so many times, but maybe that's just me.

Great game, though. I'd give it a 9/10.