Sorry for multi posting but i wanted to respond to multiple posts.
You lost me there, what is your point exactly? And how are you disagreeing with me here? When you say stat, do you mean attribute or perk or weapon damage?
If it is that strength is less combat heavy than Fortitude, well, might be, but the difference is much less than between those two and all other attributes. A STR player on horde night will usually have it as easy as a FOR player because he may be much weaker on mid-range damage but he has a massive resource advantage. More blocks means more blocks between you and any zombies.
Sorry I should’ve clarified, when i’ve previously said stat I’m referring to grand stats but i’ll use attributes from here on.
my point was that FORT’s combat monster status was based in balance issues with its weapons of choice as opposed to the actual design intention for the attribute, which given its perks are solely focused on survival would say to me that FORT’s design was intended to be somewhat like a more well-rounded version of INT but swapping out accelerated progression for high resilience against most ways of dying.
Why should the INT player not invest in the turret perk when we assume the strength player invests in the shotgun perk in a comparison? Where is the hefty investment, there is only one turret perk?
I was thinking of the point investment for the baton as well, but thinking about that more it’s not actually necessary so i’ll drop that point.
The INT player should absolutely max out the turret perk but it seems like the turret starts out with a slow enough rate of fire that the INT player would need to push for the higher ranks faster to get to a comfortable place with the turret. The junk sledge hits about as fast as a club with better range and knockback to make up for the low damage but the club is much more mobile under most circumstances so a higher rate of fire would make up for the lack of mobility, which is added via the perk. The reason i say shift some of the RoF into the weapon baseline is to help lower ranked INT players and non-INT players, but i’d be fine with just shifting it into the earlier ranks as an alternative.
low skill floor? Whats is that?
A Skill Floor is a design term that refers to the ease or difficulty of use of something, a low floor is easy for anyone to use effectively (e.g. a shotgun: high damage, fires in a wide area, gets more powerful as enemies get closer.) a high floor is harder to use effectively, not to say it’s less useful, oftentimes something with a high floor is extremely powerful but requires more knowledge to put to use. The other part is a Skill Ceiling which is the point at which skill caps out for something, high ceilings have a lot of room for growth and mastery whereas low ceilings are simple to master but don’t get a ton better with that mastery.
As non-INT player I sometimes use turrets and in horde nights very often use the robotic sledge. But why does that matter, I thought we were discussing what value the INT tree is for INT players?
There were even complaints by at least one forum user that the turrets were so mighty and easy to use by non-INT players and that would diminish the value of the turrets for the INT player. I don't subscribe to that view, but it shows the range of opinions here.
From what i recall, the conversation started with talking about INT’s weapons and their value to the INT tree, so the perks were a part of that but it was more about the actual gear.
There are no doubt a wide range of opinions and expectations when discussing these topics, we each have our own experiences and preferences which is why i try to keep to the numbers because i’m focused on the balance of weapons and perks regardless of whether or not I personally favor that playstyle (STR+FORT Doomguy is my go to and i think it could use some nerfs honestly).
While I think guns are perfectly usable by all attributes (to make the most of the ammo you find for example) I don't see much value in using the melee weapon of an attribute you are not investing in.
I suppose that’s fair, though i think that the unique elements of the stun baton could be fun with other builds but maybe those should just spec into INT.
I would have no problems with that point. INT being special is one of the best things in the game. Variety is good, and variety can be balanced. It is just more difficult to balance (but luckily WE players don't need to balance it).
Agi (because of stealth) and INT (because of the turret as a mechanical companion) are very important for the replayability of the game. Because generally STR, FOR and even PER play very similar if you look at the combat part alone.
I like the idea of INT being able to effectively use its tools while also using whatever other weapons it picks up (kind of works with the quick witted concept) but INT’s weapons not being desirable to other perks outside of just grabbing a sledge for horde night seems like a waste of unique weapons. Other perks mixing in INT weapons would add more variety via indirect damage (turrets) and consistent disabling (stun baton) and would help keep weapon choice from just going for “more damage, faster RoF, bigger area of effect”.
I have no desire to make INT less unique or to change its focus, i want its unique approach to combat to be a serious contender for builds across the spectrum, i really think a disable oriented fighting style is fun especially in the context of 7d2d’s tower/base defense gameplay.
