Schyzm
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Schyzm
-
-
You mean no consumables or no consumables and naked? I think wizard can do no consumables, but I doubt anyone can do no consumables and naked
.just no consumables(or figurines), you think wizard could do it?
-
My guess is you might be able to pull something off with a chanter running around while preparing his summons. I could never find half the patience to actually try it out, though.
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?
-
It depends with what you mean by no items? As I interpritate no items then you are talking about going stark naked through the game. No weapons and no armour whatsoever. Then no I could not do it with 2 characters. If you are taking about items in your item slot, like figurines, potions,scrolls and consumables then I don't know. I've never done a solo run and don't have much interest in it.
oh I thought of that as gear, so I didnt think of being naked, though going naked would certainly be amusing too.
-
very impressive. I'm usually pretty cynical but I believe you.
-
Maybe with casters and monks?
how many? could u do it w/ 1 caster and 1 monk?
-
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.
-
I dont see the fun in making the higher phrases take longer, woulda preferred balance around 4 second phrases.
-
PoE's difficulty is low enough that the racials are not that important. Only when running PotD is accuracy really an issue. The racial power reinforces what the devs want the flavor of the race to be. Looking at it from the perspective of "what would this bring to the game and do I want the devs to address this over other things" I don't feel that removing/adjusting the racial bonus would enhance the game as I play it. That answer informs that I'd prefer the devs to spend time addressing other issues or work on new content.
All in all it seems like a tempest in a teapot. My two cents.
the thing I would like to be worked on the most is ai pathing, encounter diversity and more disruptive abilities for bad guys.
-
except its massively inferior to moon godlike, but yah accuracy is pretty crucial and wood elves deliver it so its a reliably quality racial.
-
My front line just doesn't take damage?The pet gets you a disposable per encounter damage sponge.
Send it in first to take the alpha strike, use it as a focus for AoE attacks. If the pet is still alive at the end of the fight you are not using it right
Even when the pet dies your ranger with vicious aim and higher base accuracy is still as accurate as a ranged rogue and has higher base endurance and deflection to survive any ranged attacks that target your backline.
All of the damage that the pet soaks up is damage that your frontline does not need to endure, it reduces the attrition style losses to health that forces rests and risks perma death (if playing without maimed).
For my playstyle I like to have a ranger in the party. I like per encounter, steady state type groups that are heavy on durable melee that can dish out damage while outlasting the enemy rather than a massive nuke fest with five glass cannons and one super-tank. For me the ranger dishes out dependable, accurate ranged damage and gives you a disposable suicide soldier that bounces back fresh every fight.
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.
-
I seem to remember finding an exceptional arbalest before an exceptional warbow, and there's a fine arbalest (in the first town's shop) way before the first fine warbow.
However I still find warbow much more fun to play since reloads are boring and reloading weapons are hard to use for kiting. But the damage on arbalests is just so
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.
-
I don't want to be that guy who compares POE mechanics to D&D/IE games...but things like this are why critical rolls always hit in D&D. There may need to be an adjustment where rolling within a certain range is a guaranteed hit no matter how much deflection you have. Also, better AI that knows when to disengage and go after a weaker target.
I'm hoping the expansion has a wider range of enemies that do damage by targeting more than just deflection.
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.
-
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.
-
So anyone else surprised recent patch notes show absolutely zero improvements for Paladins and instead tons for Wizards?
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.
-
I do not understand this one? You cannot load while playing trial of Iron anyway & they cant mean quitting. If you quit during combat it still wont save?
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.
-
So anyone else surprised recent patch notes show absolutely zero improvements for Paladins and instead tons for Wizards?
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Unless you are literally unable to progress in the game at all due to dying the results are the same. Given the chance of that, for most people the difference between dying and backtracking is negligible except that, if anything, backtracking may waste less of your time since if you had forgotten to save in a large area you could lose a fair amount of progress.
Your exasperation is irrelevant when you have not proved your point. If anything you have exasperated me because your points almost all boil down to effectively: no you're wrong, I'm right. Without making any progress at explaining why what I'm saying is wrong other than to handwave it away as: that's not the same and you're stupid to think that.
You're a poor debater who relies on pointless personal attacks because of your lack of ability to argue effectively and inability to critically consider the role of punishment and reward in the context of a game system. You can't effectively make a point because you're incapable of understanding and making logical arguments and your arguments fail to withstand even the most basic scrutiny. Now was any of that needed? I could just as well have simply made my points without attacking you; we're discussing a game system here, we're not even debating politics, if you can't keep civil in this context what do you do in arguments about things which actually matter?
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.
-
Unless you are literally unable to progress in the game at all due to dying the results are the same. Given the chance of that, for most people the difference between dying and backtracking is negligible except that, if anything, backtracking may waste less of your time since if you had forgotten to save in a large area you could lose a fair amount of progress.
Your exasperation is irrelevant when you have not proved your point. If anything you have exasperated me because your points almost all boil down to effectively: no you're wrong, I'm right. Without making any progress at explaining why what I'm saying is wrong other than to handwave it away as: that's not the same and you're stupid to think that.
You're a poor debater who relies on pointless personal attacks because of your lack of ability to argue effectively and inability to critically consider the role of punishment and reward in the context of a game system. You can't effectively make a point because you're incapable of understanding and making logical arguments and your arguments fail to withstand even the most basic scrutiny. Now was any of that needed? I could just as well have simply made my points without attacking you; we're discussing a game system here, we're not even debating politics, if you can't keep civil in this context what do you do in arguments about things which actually matter?
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.
-
Dying and backtracking both temporarily halt progression. They functionally have the same goal. You died, now if you don't want that to happen again do better, either leave and get more experience or try better tactics. You had to leave in the middle of the dungeon because you used up your resources, now if you don't want that to happen again do better, either get more experience or manage your resources better,
Also insults have no place in a discussion or debate. If you cannot argue a point without resorting to insults, you would be best to simply cease trying.
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.
-
If you're running back because of your wizard that is failure (and I consider the wizard's early game quite poorly balanced, so problems with resting early mostly have to do with the fact that wizard starts off with a small pool of per encounter spells and a just as small pool of per day spells, as they grow in levels, their number of per day spells increase rapidly, to the point where by around level 7/8 they have so many spells it's exceedingly rare to need even most of them). If you don't put 3 in athletics and have to keep running back because of fatigue that is also failure (that's the game telling you, put points in athletics! although i don't necessarily think its a good idea to have a requirement of 3 in athletics to reach reasonable fatigue levels). If you're managing your wizard/druid/priest's spells appropriately you will rest just often enough that at the point in a dungeon where you would find more camping supplies or would naturally return to town (end of dungeon/quest or grand staircase in caed nua) you will have exhausted your resources. If you are able to reach this point you will have optimized the value of both the resources of your per rest spells and of your camping supplies as you will not have wasted time by overconserving or wasted time by spending too freely and being forced to backtrack.
Resting and dying are not equivalent. Backtracking and dying are equivalent. Both of these indicate you are doing something incorrectly, in this case not spending your resource at the appropriate rate.
You keep saying resting is not a limited resource, but it is limited in the exact same fashion that inventory in the IE/Diablo/pretty much any other RPG ever is limited. The limit is a soft limit, it is completely possible to negate the limit (by returning to town early) but in all cases the cost of negating the limit is the same, time and loading screens (some more than others).
The game is clearly designed with an idea of how often you should return to town (hint: it's when the quest/dungeon is done or when you see a master staircase in Od Nua) and the placed supplies are clearly intended as a way to insure you make it to these points by extending the amount of time you can remain without returning.
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.
-
If you're running back because of your wizard that is failure (and I consider the wizard's early game quite poorly balanced, so problems with resting early mostly have to do with the fact that wizard starts off with a small pool of per encounter spells and a just as small pool of per day spells, as they grow in levels, their number of per day spells increase rapidly, to the point where by around level 7/8 they have so many spells it's exceedingly rare to need even most of them). If you don't put 3 in athletics and have to keep running back because of fatigue that is also failure (that's the game telling you, put points in athletics! although i don't necessarily think its a good idea to have a requirement of 3 in athletics to reach reasonable fatigue levels). If you're managing your wizard/druid/priest's spells appropriately you will rest just often enough that at the point in a dungeon where you would find more camping supplies or would naturally return to town (end of dungeon/quest or grand staircase in caed nua) you will have exhausted your resources. If you are able to reach this point you will have optimized the value of both the resources of your per rest spells and of your camping supplies as you will not have wasted time by overconserving or wasted time by spending too freely and being forced to backtrack.
Resting and dying are not equivalent. Backtracking and dying are equivalent. Both of these indicate you are doing something incorrectly, in this case not spending your resource at the appropriate rate.
You keep saying resting is not a limited resource, but it is limited in the exact same fashion that inventory in the IE/Diablo/pretty much any other RPG ever is limited. The limit is a soft limit, it is completely possible to negate the limit (by returning to town early) but in all cases the cost of negating the limit is the same, time and loading screens (some more than others).
The game is clearly designed with an idea of how often you should return to town (hint: it's when the quest/dungeon is done or when you see a master staircase in Od Nua) and the placed supplies are clearly intended as a way to insure you make it to these points by extending the amount of time you can remain without returning.
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.
-
What does failure do except cause you to reload and run back to try a fight again? The rest system just institutes a soft, rather than hard, failure system, where failure is when you choose to run back early, rather than being forced to enter load screens and run back (possibly with the added tedium of losing additional progress if you failed to make a recent save game). In increasing difficulty, instead of resting more often, I would make use of better tactics, better utilization of my abilities. If I'm forced to rest more often than there are camping resources when playing 100% optimally, then there's a problem with the balance. Given that it is never the case in the game for a 6 party group that it is impossible to complete the content without trekking back to town early, this is a non-issue as other harder configurations are exclusively not being balanced towards.
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.
.
[MONK BUILD] - Let's start buildin some hurtin bombs - POTD, TOI, Blind
in Pillars of Eternity: Characters Builds, Strategies & the Unity Engine (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted · Edited by Schyzm
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.