Jump to content

Schyzm

Members
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Schyzm

  1. yah I don't think you people are using the word blind correctly. it doesn't even make sense, the game is complicated enough are we suppose to believe you intuited all the optimal solutions first time through while eating nachos? yah, no.
  2. yah maybe but there's a lot of issues. like how do you split up the thaos fight w/o summons, or how do you kill the phantoms in caed nua w/o summons or scrolls?
  3. oh I thought of that as gear, so I didnt think of being naked, though going naked would certainly be amusing too.
  4. has someone done this solo? could any char(I guess chanter) do this all the way through? if its too much for one char could 2 chars do it? or even what combination of chars does anyone think would be clever and good at it. for clarification no items means no items, no food, no figurines, no potions, no scrolls, and none of anything I'm forgetting.
  5. I dont see the fun in making the higher phrases take longer, woulda preferred balance around 4 second phrases.
  6. the thing I would like to be worked on the most is ai pathing, encounter diversity and more disruptive abilities for bad guys.
  7. except its massively inferior to moon godlike, but yah accuracy is pretty crucial and wood elves deliver it so its a reliably quality racial.
  8. My front line just doesn't take damage? That is a much larger problem with AI, and combat mechanics. If you design a super-tank that through stacking skills, attributes and equipment achieves near unhittable defense, and then combine that with abusing the AI mechanic of the enemy bunching around instead of disengaging and going after your backline, you will have in effect broken the game. If that is your playstyle then a ranger is useless for you, in fact anything other than a super-tank and a team of ranged glass cannons would be useless for you. To fix that they'd have to: 1.) Have monsters disengage from your non-damaging super-tank, eat a disengagement attack and then mob your glass cannons. 2.) Have more monsters have a teleport ability to get past your super-tank and hit the glass cannons. 3.) Give monsters an ability to teleport your backline into melee range like the high level fighter ability can. 4.) Give monsters an alternate ranged weapon set and have them focus fire down your backline. 5.) Players could self regulate and not use builds and tactics that trivialize encounters. Since, I believe, that someone has soloed the game with every class on PotD, the tools are in the game to overcome all challenges posed by the AI if the player goes all out to win, even without using a full party. Based on this the only sure way to address the problems are option 5 and self regulate. self-regulation has a long history in these types of games and I practice it to some extent, but to propose it as a solution is an inferior way to conceptualize things. games should (and are mostly) getting better at becoming more balanced and shaving off things that are really abusable, and people should demand games be even more balanced in the future (like say poe 2). I think there are a number of ways to cut down pretty massively on the current nature of the abuses, not to say there won't be some left, but fewer is still better.
  9. yah I once had found 4 fine arbalests by the time I finished raedric, there's also a 1.2 attack speed for sale and a fine arbalest that will continuously refresh for sale, it feels like the easiest weapon to get in quality early by a mile. I wonder if that was intentional kinda poking people to use arbalests so they dont' get mad at their min damage hunting bows.
  10. I think a nice system might be something like <50 graze, 50 or more hit, and then do miss/crit on the rolls of the attacker, so like <10 attack roll miss, >90 attack roll crit or wutever. it would devalue accuracy some but that's kind of the point.
  11. I agree that like DR. the other defenses should have a way to grant them diminishing returns as it is now the marginal value you get from 1 point of deflection increases as you get more deflection. so 20-21 deflection is ok 120-121 deflection is many times better to the point of course where some portions of the game you can become unhittable. I also like the way of doing it basically the way DR does it in that you always allow something to get through. completely missing is kinda lame anyway.
  12. Marked Prey and Sworn Enemy have been set to 0 recovery actions, so they can be used and the Ranger/Paladin can immediately act again. A slight buff, nothing major, I dont think they will ever buff Paladins. That's crazy to me. It's hands down the most in-demand class for seeing improvements. Wizard was a popular one too but I think it carried more of a tone of "Wizard is amazing when you fully utilize it but it often feels lackluster for the average fight" and had a tone of "why not bring a Cipher" (which falls flat in practice) similar to Ranger vs. Rogue, but the class itself was still solid. Don't get me wrong, improvements for Wizards sounds cool, it's just kinda weird to see so much focus on them and next to nothing for Ranger and Paladin. Ranger just needs some simple pet improvements and they're good to go, Paladin needs a world of help. I will say this, at the bleeding edge of optimization paladins are the best tanks. once your defenses get truly absurd you really do have no equal.
  13. You can load a different party's save, and then load the ToI save again. It's not a huge setback since ToI still autosaves upon area transitions. However, I think this is a rather hopeless battle for Obsidian to fight. Is it still going to force-save if I quit the game? Okay, what if I force close the game? Even then? What if I flick my computer's power switch? Surely the only real solution is to save every second, and that would probably be unplayable on most systems. And even then, you can just backup the save file yourself and put it back when the original gets deleted because you lost. So the next step would be to camouflage the ToI saves, which still can only get them so far because they're still on our hard drives, of which we are the kings and queens. There would be anger, and someone would figure out how to access the save files anyway. Wait, why anger? Because... well, partly because some people can't cheat their achievement, I suppose. But remember also that a reload (or save-game-edit) can often fix a bug. For example, on one ToI run, after the spore fight in Anslög's Compass, my tank was permanently knocked down. I couldn't move him around at all. Perhaps there's a fix, but a reload was one I didn't have to search for, and after a re-enactment of some glorious sporestomping, I could proceed with my adventures... only to have them ended an hour later by a volatile combination of shades and hubris, but still. Reloading just got a little harder. Now I'm certain they won't really take any hefty steps to prevent ToI cheating, because these little hacks, while enabling us to cheat, also let us undo the harm of bugs when we're quick to notice them. And in the end, we have the ultimate power over our saves, not Obsidian. I actually backup ToI saves myself, right after reaching Gilded Vale and recruiting the custom party I intend to use. It's cheating to a degree, I won't argue it, but without it I probably wouldn't play much at all. Unless someone makes a Dungeon-Be-Gone mod for PoE, perhaps. In other news, formatting quotes is annoying on these forums and my signature will need a replacement when the patch hits. I actually like this, I agree there will always be ways around it, and the ways probably will never get too convoluted, but this works more on a gradient than people think. the harder it is the better people will naturally feel when they do it, and the more legitimate it will become, even if ultimately you can sly your way around it. as of right now I simply assume no one does trial of iron(not to say it hasn't been done), and therefore my perception of difficulty to some extent ends at potd/expert mode.
  14. no, honestly to make paladin desirable for me would require some pretty insane changes, I find their abilities really dull, they just happen to be both dull and kinda bad.
  15. I think that the issue with letting AC's get "too good" is that it would effectively let you get an additional significant member of the party for free. one of my dreams in the future is that the ai gets more "disruptive" abilities like clear out and is smarter about who is a threat and who isnt (like disengaging from my super tank can't possibly matter). then having "beefy" things wouldn't be so good.
  16. yah, I'm not a fan of the animal companion thing in general, but if you're going to have them let them get beefy so rangers can use them in fights more. or I thought it'd be nice if they could just keep coming back from being "knocked out" after a certain amount of time.
  17. even if your lack of progression is not infinite the results and the impact on the player are not the same. the player treats dying as a hurdle, in fact dying is the basic way to enforce difficulty. backtracking is, again, just tedium, it is not a measure of the game. and to the extent you make the tedium necessary as "punishment" its a bad design. it should also be pointed out that lots of these tedious mechanics have been removed from games over the last 10 years, and that lots of people have pointed out that the rest mechanic in poe is basically just obnoxious tedium. your arguments are nothing but poor conflations with errant reasoning. you basically say, "dying and backtracking are the same because they both take time." but that is not the only relevant factor and you are being ignorant and obtuse if you think I haven't pointed out numerous other factors. btw its curious that you chose to insult me in the same post you say this, "if you can't keep civil in this context what do you do in arguments about things which actually matter?" your lack of self awareness is impressive. Did you read what i wrote? The insult was intentional, I was giving an example of why it was unnecessary and that I could just as well do it and it would have the same effect, to be annoying and fail to convey anything useful. I specifically said, "was that needed?", after saying it. In other words I was flipping the shoe to the other foot and asking: does it fit? As to the rest of the argument, I ask that if you wish to continue it to take it to private message, if you would cease with the insults or just agree to disagree as well, both would be great. yes you insulted me intentionally, that is how I took it, as an intentional insult. all communication is useful on some level, even exasperation and insults. and sure insulting "fits" me I don't expect to never be insulted.
  18. even if your lack of progression is not infinite the results and the impact on the player are not the same. the player treats dying as a hurdle, in fact dying is the basic way to enforce difficulty. backtracking is, again, just tedium, it is not a measure of the game. and to the extent you make the tedium necessary as "punishment" its a bad design. it should also be pointed out that lots of these tedious mechanics have been removed from games over the last 10 years, and that lots of people have pointed out that the rest mechanic in poe is basically just obnoxious tedium. your arguments are nothing but poor conflations with errant reasoning. you basically say, "dying and backtracking are the same because they both take time." but that is not the only relevant factor and you are being ignorant and obtuse if you think I haven't pointed out numerous other factors. btw its curious that you chose to insult me in the same post you say this, "if you can't keep civil in this context what do you do in arguments about things which actually matter?" your lack of self awareness is impressive.
  19. backtracking doesn't halt progression and even if u imagine some theoretically amount of "time added" dying is still not the same, you are not guaranteed to progress when you die, backtracking just adds a tiny bit of tedium to your progression. sure insults do, they signal to you my exasperation with your poor arguments. insults serve as communication:). for example like the argument that backtracking and dying are the same when I've already shown multiple meaningful differences. your arguments are consistently built off poorly thought out connections between things that do not bear the relation you think they do.
  20. I see no such clear design. I see a lazy haphazard unlimited resource that enforces tedium, not some subtle brilliance. running back is still not equivalent to dying, the main mechanic in the game is defeating the game, dying hinders that goal, running back doesn't. you're still wrong. parties that are inferior at "going longer w/o resting" are not worse than parties that aren't. they are in most ways equivalent, just one takes slightly longer due to load screens and other tedium. your whole house in built on incorrect, lazy and wrong assumptions about huge numbers of aspects of the game. How does dying hinder your goal other than to force you to reload? What is the consequence of not going back and instead pushing on despite not having enough resources? If the answer isn't death, then clearly you were not required to go back at that point. Your arguments are fallacious and built on poor understanding of game mechanics and game design. See? we can both throw pointless insults at each other. You have yet to demonstrate that the points you are making are true, nor to adequately demonstrate that my points are false. You keep falling back to simply declaring me wrong and yourself right without adequately explaining nor defending your position. Would you prefer if going back to town was instead of a soft failure, a hard failure? You could simply have every mob respawn without dropping any loot. Now that would be a tedious system, but perhaps it would better illustrate that the idea is that the goal of completing the content is to do so in such a way that trekking back is a failure of yours to adequately conserve resources. @Sanctuary Honestly ranged weapon based damage dealers are pretty poor at the moment, their single target at best slightly outshines casters, but loses out vastly in terms of total damage done and utility, and is completely inferior to melee weapon wielders in single target damage, making up for that only in ease of play and lack of risk. how dying hinder your goal? it means you literally can't progress, how did that question even come to you? how does dying hinder your ability to complete the game? thats a silly question. and I take offense, my insults were pointed.
  21. I see no such clear design. I see a lazy haphazard unlimited resource that enforces tedium, not some subtle brilliance. running back is still not equivalent to dying, the main mechanic in the game is defeating the game, dying hinders that goal, running back doesn't. you're still wrong. parties that are inferior at "going longer w/o resting" are not worse than parties that aren't. they are in most ways equivalent, just one takes slightly longer due to load screens and other tedium. your whole house in built on incorrect, lazy and wrong assumptions about huge numbers of aspects of the game.
  22. running back is not failure, if that was true then getting athletics and picking ciphers would cause less failure then picking wizard, which is not only untrue but also a little absurd. as to your question as to why is failure different then running back (since both take time). they are different in numerous ways, the most obvious is that you will have to rest (suffer failure under your paradigm) whereas you don't have to die. I agree that if you think resting and dying are equivalent then you have a point, I unfortunately do not, and I think its a little goofy that someone would think that resting and dying in a game are equivalent. you continually make poor connections (dying and resting are the same), assume things about game mechanics that don't exist (resting is a limited resource) and even make pretty tenuous assumptions about game design (that all levels should be completable w/ the "natural" number of looted campfires). you need to pull back some mate.
×
×
  • Create New...