EvilRoy said:
Okay, lets do this. I hope you'll forgive my fatigue here, but in addition to a full working day I'm on to explanation of my complaints number three or four. And with yet work to go tonight, I'm afraid I'll be typing quickly so don't mind the odd typo, and mention specifically if I word something in a way that you don't get. As much as I feel you deserve an earnest and respectful response for being good about this, its already going to be a late night.
My primary complaints with the UI has to do with very poor inventory organization both on character and in the upgrade screen, an irritating habit of the game of auto equipping consumables to quick-use, un-intuitive item storage that had very limited use, plus complaints on item comparisons ect., and the stat screen which I believe you are referring to specifically.
Using END as an example I'll go into my issues with levelling up. Speaking from my experience as a first time player, the END bar was great. Tick marks make it immediately visually obvious how much each attack or roll or block takes off the bar, so its easy to gauge on the fly how much I can afford for a given manure.
The issue I found with the level up screen was twofold, though they came in phases. The item you noted with capping the bar came as phase two, and since you noted the issue there I won't go into it.
The first phase was the simple, straightforward question of 'how many tick marks do I get per level I invest in END'. This was a large issue for me early on in the game thanks in dual parts to having very few souls to expend on levelling due to consistent death, and having little concept what individual stats are worth levelling up, as every stat appeared to uniformly increase the stats on the right with two single exceptions (HP/END). Simply levelling up once and looking closely at the stamina bar wasn't helpful as the increase was small enough I couldn't visually distinguish the improvement, but I lacked the ability to level in bulk to make the distinction more obvious. Additionally I had heard there are diminishing returns on levelling, but without a concept of the stat maximum this is a largely unhelpful and potentially misleading statement.
Simply having the health/stamina bars on screen when levelling and visually demonstrating the increase would have completely alleviated the issue, but the problem existed and I noted it along with my general UI complaints.
Ok, this is the most you've articulated that issue in this thread from what I've seen (not a criticism, just a statement), and now that you've made it really clear, I understand exactly what you're complaining about. If I'm reading this right, and correct me if I'm wrong, for end/vit you would like to see how the number on the stat screen would directly translate into the tick marks in the main game UI? Correct?
Alright, before I wasn't sure if you were talking about about just general increase, but now that you've talked about translating to tick marks, I think I understand this better. Does 5 vit = 1 visible tick of actual health? Does 10 = 1? What is the translation from stat to visible health? Look I realize you've said something before, but bear with me, I'm not being obtuse. Visible "health" is a bit obscure, because the bar movement as a % of your screen can be a bit hard to gauge. Visible tick marks from stat numbers is an objective to objective conversion.
I call "fair enough" on your point. I have already stated that I am not a fanboy of the UI and I agree that it can be improved. I can see that a more objective conversion from number to the very visible tick marks on the screen would be visibly
more intuitive that the current system. For those who are unclear on what we're talking about, you can see the tick marks in the top left.
Also no argument on stat capping. If the in-game tooltips said that there were diminishing returns after 50 (possibly with some after 40, I can't remember), that would be useful.
On weapon scaling:
The matter in this case was that I found it inconsistent with the rest of the stat system. Certainly spending the souls and time to work through a guess and check to see was an option, however, two weapons - a spear that scales B and a short sword that scales C (I'm just guessing, no time to look it up) - can't be meaningfully compared side by side, making the scaling system difficult to use in weapon choice for a first time player. Surely a B is better than a C, but is it better by enough to justify changing weapons and accepting the different moveset and attack speed?
Perhaps the fact that scaling was expressed as a letter rather than a number, like all other weapon stats, should have been a solid indication that it was a non-critical aspect of the game, but at the time it seemed to indicate just the opposite.
I can see the complaint, but I am going to start with counter that you might very well hate. I apologize, but I think we're going to need to accept one thing before we start, like it or not: this is a Japanese game. "Well, no shit Sherlock" most of you probably just said, but Japanese games have long used the letter system to attempt to categorize levels of quality with S oddly being highest. That's not necessarily important here, but for those who aren't aware of that already, it's one of those things to just be aware of.
Can two weapons of different quality be compared side by side? Basic answer is "yes, and no." Ugh. Everyone just groaned again.
Ok, so, let's go from here.
First, the stat screen UI: There is a R1 and R2 attack rating for your currently equipped weapon and offhand. If you change weapons, you can immediately see the difference in your current attack rating for that weapon. You can also look at the weapon to see the stat scaling (s through e) rating, if it has it, for str/dex/int/faith. You can also see how it splits physical/magic/light/dark damage.
So, why then, do some weapons have higher attack rating even though they "scale" better (i.e. A vs B) and my level in that stat may actually be higher? (aka, 150 attack rating with a C scaling Claymore vs 225 attack rating with a D scaling Black Knight Halberd) Well, each weapon has a base damage, and it scales from there. Some weapons just plain hit harder than others, even in the same weapon class. Obviously, different weapon classes also hit very differently with light fast weapons hitting for low base damage and big heavy weapons hitting for higher base damage.
For newer players, this can take a bit of getting used to, because you often don't see the benefit of higher scaling weapons until higher level. For example, at base requirement 32 str/18 dex a BK Halberd with D/E str/dex scaling will single hit MUCH harder than a Claymore with C/C scaling. That's because the base damage of the BK Halberd hits like a truck. The Claymore, on the other hand, will eventually outdamage it, when your character's str/dex get closer to 50/40. The D/E scaling of the BKH cannot keep up with the C/C of the claymore.
The big problem here, and I can concede the problem, is that there is no clear "base damage" stat that you can easily see, unless you have a level 1 character with no stats but all the items to just look at. However, I will offer that there is a really reasonable way to simply test it out and that's to just go to Firelink and smack some hollows around with each weapon.
Should a new player have to do that? If you say no, I can understand it, but I would also say that, considering how deep the weapon/upgrade/stat system is, combined with movesets, I would counter that it's completely reasonable to do so.
Is it intuitive? Not really, but it's not so opaque that it creates actual problems. It could be improved, but I can't really agree that it's a failure in the design.
On visual representations and weapon move-sets:
My complaint here was a matter of visual clarity in how the character handles weapons of different weight classes, and how that breaks down as the game progresses.
At an early stage the game clearly demonstrates that being overburdened results in the famous and loved 'fat roll', and lacking required stats for wielding a weapon results in swinging the weapon as though it is made of solid lead. It proceeds to demonstrate that being less burdened translates to various improved speeds, and having the proper stats to use a weapon results in visually normal wielding of the weapon.
The problem with this is that when wielding weapons such as the Zweihander, or the black knight sword, we see the character having a bit of trouble throwing the blade around. My complaint here is that at one point or another the character becomes able to lift and attack with weapons with much higher minimum stats - Smough's Hammer being a particularly extreme example of this requiring STR of 50 (off the top of my head, correct if necessary). Visually, however, I found that it no longer makes sense for the character to wield the Zweihander as though it is very heavy (it is, I'm sure) when that same character can lift and attack with weapons requiring strength on the level of Smough's Hammer.
While I appreciate that the game must maintain balance, why can scaling not be translated into a visually coherent image? A slow moving heavy attack makes sense early on in the game, where presumably the character is only at the brink of lifting and striking with a given weapon, but later at the mentioned levels, why is that same character having so much difficulty striking with a weapon that must weigh less than half of another he was just holding? It seems arbitrary and silly to me, given the games earlier lessons that stats and burden weight definitely translate into obvious visual cues.
Okay, okay, got it. So if a weapon requires 32/18 (I love the BKH, can you tell?) then it being a bit cumbersome (it always is a little wild with the opening of the R1) makes sense at that bare minimum, but at 50/50 it should represent differently?
Visually? Fair enough.
Design problem or flaw? I say no, for the same reason you brought up. It's a balance issue, and here what the devs are balancing is very much NOT the stats. It's the moveset for the weapon.
Each weapons un-encumbered moveset is designed very specifically to balance the use of the weapon vs. the use of other heavier or faster weapons. There's obviously a risk/reward issue. I understand that you know this already. If this were entirely a PVE game, I would completely agree with you. However, please be sure to consider the PVP aspect. Dark Souls is very much a PVP game, just as much as it is PVE, and the moveset of weapons is
extremely important in PVP match ups. Timing an attack vs. a boss mob is about you and a digital representation of code. Timing against a person is your game and your time vs. their game and their time. Having the moveset change between 32str and 50str presents an unreasonable balance change in a game that attempts to pit players of vastly different soul level against each other (VASTLY. I'm Darkmoon and I invade people 100+ SL below me all the time, because that's my job as an avenger. They still have a chance, believe it or not, because of weapon/moveset balancing).
Calculating your chance to hit someone in PVP is not about stats, but about understanding movesets and weapon strengths and weaknesses (your own and theirs). The higher SL player will get the benefit of their scaling, but not of a moveset change, because, if that were the case, then that would eliminate any chance the lower SL player has.
You might also argue that the moveset's timing and effectiveness doesn't have to change, but, fairly, is it reasonable to ask the Dev's to program a higher level moveset that looks less cumbersome? It might be cool, but it seems a bit much to ask.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject, now that we're talking openly and evenly. I apologize if I came off a bit passive aggressive, I personally hate passive-aggressives, but that's probably because my post wasn't actually directed at you. It's what I see as the opposite side of the "smug community" argument, in that there is a huge community of people who hate the game unreasonably or ignorantly. Clearly, that's not you, but I would argue that your arguments get mirrored a LOT and with a lot less discussion and knowledge.
I don't get on people for not liking Dark Souls or having intelligent reasons for not liking it (you've sold me that you actually enjoy it, anyway). I have a problem with people showing up in every Dark Souls forum and thread and declaring the game "objectively" bad, when they can do nothing of the sort.
