cokane

I'd really prefer to see an Eora-set game that wasn't a continuation of the PoE plot. Similar to Icewind Dale's relationship to Baldur's Gate, or New Vegas's relationship to the Fallout series. I think churning the same plot and same themes is already starting to show diminishing returns in Deadfire's story. But the good thing is, Obsidian has done an excellent job world building and creating interesting gameplay systems.

I agree with much of this. While I don't think the current system can hit the heights of combat complexity that the White March did, due to removing per rest spells, all is not lost. I think more encounters that risk wounding characters + making resting more expensive + making more diverse empower usage could result in a significantly improved combat experience. One other thing I wanted to add, is that not only are monster encounters forced to fit into a more narrow window, but now, so are skills. We're seeing the beginnings of this in the upcoming patch notes. But because wizard/priest/druid spellcasting ability has been greatly inflated, now their spells are going to have to be less powerful. Again, severely downsizing the per encounter options means that you are going to have a narrower range of skills in your party, in addition to dungeons having to offer a narrower range of types of combat. That's just how it has to be when almost every skill is refreshed after every single combat.

This isn't true. It's actually harder to balance the monsters in a per encounter focused system specifically because the developers have a narrower scope to work with. Any failure outside of that scope creates encounters that either 1. do absolutely nothing to challenge the player, i.e. wasting their time, or 2. are virtually impossible at their current level. The second problem, of course, exists equally in both systems. The first problem doesn't, as a chain of weaker encounters can still hold significance in the previous system, but not in Deadfire.

Ya, I think some folks take their obsession with certain kinds of roleplays and want that to trump effective game systems. Might is perhaps flawed, but it's a pretty elegant solution to the dump stat problem. Moreover, you don't even NEED high might to be a great Wizard in either the original nor Deadfire. Ya, if you're obsessed with fireballs and magic missiles, sure. But you can do fine just maxing Intelligence and Perception, and cursing your opponents into oblivion for the rest of the party.

But you could cast super-cool fireballs every battle in PoE1. You can still recreate PoE1 gameplay feel, by simply not using your abilities. Even though Deadfire balance was way too easy, it was still more consistent than PoE1 which is an autoattack snooze fest for majority of the game. This isn't an accurate description of PotD. If you doubt me, I encourage you to reboot the original and see how far you get just attack-moving in more than half your combats.

It's going to be nearly impossible to balance the combat so that most encounters are actual challenges. The only encounters that are going to be engaging exist in a tiny window: Between being able to knock down at least one character on a full-strength, full-spellcast party or threatening to wipe the entire party. The combat plays badly *precisely* because they removed camping/health/per rest. A game more focused around per rest *options* is actually more elastic in its ability to create engaging combat sequences. It's not as difficult to balance. I hope people are happy being able to cast their super-cool fireballs every battle. Because the only way that's going to end up working via balancing is if those fireballs do middling damage.

This is all very well said, especially the scarcity point, a word I hadn't used but one that gets at what I was trying to say. The good thing about PoE1 is that it allowed the player to create their own scarcity during dungeon/wilderness crawls. Basically it gave every player the freedom to calibrate the game's difficulty -- at any given moment -- to whatever level they wanted. Players who pushed their parties to extreme lengths could make use of virtually every single tool the game had to offer -- charged items, scrolls, potions, carefully equipping and enchanting gear, smart tactics in *every* fight. And these players were rewarded by being able to burn through a section more quickly -- the same reward games have had pretty much since they left arcades. War is also a well stated analogy. People talk about the old IE games as if they invented the wheel but they didn't. Even the pen and paper DnD lifted its combat system from strategy war games. Even the first DnD video games, such as Pool of Radiance, were built by strategy developers, who made a strategy-focused combat, that was the root idea in the BG games. Even PoE1's engagement system is a harken back to Pool of Radiance more than the IE games, which didn't have it. The combat for an RPG with relatively large parties and where positioning is important is more akin to CRPG war/strategy games and not just pen and paper RPG's. It's a shame that these roots have been extricated in Deadfire. And it goes a long way to explaining why the combat balancing seems so radically off on release. Because of the way the systems work, Obsidian has hit a very narrow target in order to make an individual combat interesting. And in an open-world game, that's impossible to calibrate. Ironically, an open-world game would do much better focusing on the attrition systems of combat, as I've said previously. Because EVEN an over-leveled party can put themselves in a challenging circumstance given lengthy enough sections of dungeons or wilderness, as I stated above with the individual's ability to calibrate the difficulty in real time. I really hope the team considers this in any future party-based, strategic combat RPGs.

I think being motivated enough to complete four playthroughs speaks for itself.

Very well said. I think some folks may enjoy Deadfire on their first playthrough or for its first dozen hours, but the game, as constituted, lacks the depth of the original in its combat/dungeon crawling experience. There is a lot to like about Deadfire outside of the combat, don't get me wrong. But, so much of the game and the character building revolves around how you perform in combat and dungeon crawls. And, that stuff just doesn't exist at the level of previous classics of the genre. I think as players attempt second playthroughs and witness how the game plays after the DLC's and likely increased levels, more and more folks will come around to seeing that the combat and the dungeons are just a shallow experience in Deadfire. I really hope Obsidian learns from this in a possible PoE3 (or, my ideal, a separate Eora set RPG).

People should get away from arguing whether certain systems are "artificial". It's a game, it's all artificial. There's nothing artificial about having spells per rest versus spells per encounter. The spells and the levels they sit on are all artificially generated. Nothing in this fantasy role-playing game is natural. The question is whether certain systems make the game more fun. I understand that some people did not like some of the work you had to do in the original or in the BG games if you did not manage your party correctly. But I think the evidence is in. Giving the players too few restraints has ended up creating an incredibly easy game.

I voted not enough. I think the main problem ties in with another topic about the lack of true dungeons in the game. Probably the best part of the original was when you first arrive in Defiance Bay, and the choice of quests to pursue is varied -- many talk heavy quests in the city, bounties, clearing out wilderness, and a few decent dungeon crawls, including the option to chip away at Endless Paths. All those things exist in Deadfire once you leave the first island, except the lengthy dungeons. As others have noted, there isn't much on offer that even matches the experience of the catacombs in Copperlane.

Well said. One problem with dumping almost all of the consequences of combat, is that the game now has to have a stricter balance in order to actually provide a challenge. Previously, players could challenge themselves by simply pushing their party further and further without resting. I think in the long run, the decision to focus the combat mechanics on per encounter abilities will come to be seen as a mistake. The designers have essentially backed themselves into a corner. Combat encounters are now basically either the save/reload risk from the most difficult battles or... just a chore that players, once they have experience with the systems, can solve in rote fashion, again and again and again. Secondly, refreshing every characters' skills after every combat has resulted in a sort of economic inflation where it's simply not worth exploring much of the other options in the game. Why bother with crafting potions, scrolls, and explosives when your guys have more than a dozen per combat core abilities available in every fight? There's a finite number of actions in every fight, and as you level up, you simply do not need to every touch any of the ancillary systems and skills available. It's a deeply unfortunate design, and I think as the game ages, more and more players will realize that this system actually results in a lack of good options for the player, even though it initially provided the illusion of fewer restrictions.

Sigh. I've no doubt people dislike the resting system. I didn't say otherwise. I said I doubt any significant number of people actually went back to town regularly during dungeons to resupply in PoE1. I'm also tired of people complaining about going back to town to pick up more resting supplies. Even is some players *DID* have this problem, why weren't they solution-oriented in solving it? There's two points on this. One: No matter how good you are, you were supposed to go back to town regularly and even revisit hostile map areas more than once. That's why things like the bounties exist. That's why there's new encounters in some areas you revisit, that's why there's sometimes monsters of very different level in some areas, that's why there were secret containers at higher level mechanics in areas. The game rewarded you for visiting areas more than once! Two: Why can't some players take personal responsibility here? If you were very very regularly abandoning dungeons, trekking across empty maps and then trekking back with new camping supplies... why didn't you change something yourself? Lower the difficulty? Try being more judicious in your spell casts? Try doing a better job of protecting your casters? Upgrading you gear? This is akin to someone screaming that Mario games suck because every time you fall down the pit you restart at the beginning of the level. I mean, this is how video games are supposed to work. If you don't try an improve, expect to have to deal with some unenjoyable moments.

Agreed so much with the sentiments here. People who say Per Rest is just nostalgia simply do not know what they're talking about. As I've said before, the combat system of realtime with pause is in reality just a form of turn-based combat. It's a more enjoyable form, imo. But the only thing combat is testing you on these games is the same thing any turn-based game tests: good tactical/strategic decision-making. It's testing the same skills as a game like chess. This isn't testing the fast reflexes or quick decision making of games like the Diablo series. And without a meaningful strategic layer that carries between the combats -- even the deeply flawed ones of BG and PoE1 -- little of your combat decision-making ends up mattering. And so much flows out of the supposed combat challenge: more than half your character build is exclusively about combat, your gear is entirely about its effect on combat, most of the consumables and most of the crafting. None of these systems are actually worth exploring in depth given the current non-challenge of combat.

I'm with you, I'm super optimistic that changes can add more depth to the game. The original PoE went thru some significant changes after launch + WM expansions, and those immensely improved the game. So ya, whatever knocks I've had on the game, I have faith in this company to shape the game into something better.

IIRC Whiskiz hasn't even played Deadfire yet, said as much on the forum. He seemed like he was trying to engage, but just badly. However, I'm now convinced he's just a full on troll though. He should be ignored.

I'm not sure they can really remove it though. Wounds are a core part of the game, they're a consequence in many of the text encounters. They're the only things traps do now that there isn't a health system. They're even used in other dungeon puzzles, such as in the fire room in one of the game's very early dungeons. And they're the only consequence right now for fighting poorly, other than total party wipe. I'm not aware of how you could redesign all these elements without them. So, I think wounds are here to stay. The alternative would be to have a much harsher penalty for these things. I suppose you could redesign curing wounds. So you could possibly eliminate resting and replace it with a waiting period or some kind of item/gold-draining cure. I think the problem with a waiting period, is many players would be motivated to just reload rather than lose their favorite companions for a stretch. The sweet spot for wounds should be that it costs the player enough to motivate them to play the battles well but not so much that theyll just reload after every mistake. Some other item could work in lieu of resting+food, but I think the food crafting system is actually really well done, and a great upgrade over the original's. I just think these resources need to cost players much more gold (at least on the top two difficulties?), so that my decision to rest isn't the no-brainer that it is now. I'll also add on resting, that I think a few plot, companion stories are tied around it, so again, like wounds, I'm just not sure you can eliminate this without causing serious downstream problems.

I'd argue that the combat in these kinds of games is never going to be enough on its own. The player has such a huge advantage with being able to pause and being able to use the easy sneak mechanic to prepare for most fights. Not to mention being able to craft items for specific encounters. And, imo, people aren't going to enjoy a super punishing combat system where every single fight is an epic life or death battle. It kind of kills the effect of fighting the big dragon if he was just as tough as the xaurip mob, no? And making weak mobs in this game is just making things that the player will, once they get the hang of it, mindlessly click through. What it adds to the game is a richer diversity of combat experiences and thus gives designers a richer toolset to create dungeons and wilderness areas. A dungeon with a series of medium sized fights can test players' decision making in a different kind of way than having, say, one really big dragon fight. It adds a separate dimension of player decision making, and that's what these games are all about no? Just as the player agonizes over quest decisions, so too, it's nice to agonize over whether to, for example, burn expensive resting supplies or push on with your injured party. Having a strategic layer gives the game greater breadth.

I'm not asking anyone to give me some in-depth calculation. Again this a strawman. As you can read in this very thread, I've replied to thoughtful posts about frequency and had no problems with others. You haven't spoken about frequency except in a very vague, impossible to decipher sense. You seem committed to attacking me personally and are putting a great deal of effort into repeatedly posting these attacks while you could have spent that same amount time ticking off a short list of dungeons you had to leave midway completed.

Appreciate the thought out reply. On the question of why backtrack? I can't say for sure why the designers wanted this, but it's clearly their intention. My personal experience is that it allowed the game to have more depth without having to create a ton of new art assets? You could pack low-level and high level content into the same area. My experience is that this helped with immersion, areas felt more real and less like dungeon level 1 -> dungeon level 2 -> 3, etc. I even forgot in the White March that you literally can't enter the Battery without going back to town after visiting Galvino. So clearly this was a core design principle. I dunno, I personally thought it added something to the game, encouraging players to have a cycle of: gear up in town, rest at inn, adventure to your limit, return to town, gear up again, rest at inn and head out again. You know, like people would actually do in a medieval-ish fantasy world? Just my experience. I have a problem with your logic here: "The motivation? Save bunch of time on loading screens...and like 300 cp for the supplies if you went back to pick up ones you left behind instead of buying new ones. That is an illusion of a motivation." One, of course, it's all an illusion. Second, this very same logic could apply to something that I think is completely uncontroversial: gear. What's the motivation to equip better gear? You can actually beat the game, lower difficulties at least, without top end gear. It's more of a grind, it requires a heckuva lot more resting and/or backtracking. Why have gear? All equipping good gear does is let you rest less or die less. All it does is help you beat the game faster. This can apply to other things as well, why focus on making a better build? Why use potions or scrolls or any items for that matter? Again, you can technically beat the game just using spells and class abilities. But that's always been the reward/punishment systems at the heart of every video game. You beat the game faster.

It isn't a large group of people though. It's literally only you and one other poster. Also you're questioning my motives and calling me a liar. I guess it's okay when you do it. I repeat, bringing up something that could happen in the original game and then refusing to talk about how *frequently* it happened, repeatedly, is suspect. By the way, if you go back through the thread, one poster did answer my question thoughtfully and, I think, a constructive discussion emerged. The rest of your post is just swearing and ad hominem, so I'll ignore it. You can do better. Edit to add: I even just went back and missed another poster, who did mention the frequency of this issue, and said it only happened a few times, and not enough to effect the experience.

I don't think we should look just at tabletop RPG's when talking about combat/strategy systems. The combat mechanics in Pillars and BG type games has always been based on STRATEGY games. Even the original DnD combat rules were, in part, ripped from older tabletop strategy war games. This is why the original DnD games like Pool of Radiance focused on a turn-based, strategic combat. Just as the new isometric RPG's have a spiritual ancestor in BG, so too, BG's spiritual ancestor was Pool of Radiance and its spinoffs. And these games depended upon a strategic layer that the player is responsible for maintaining. Ultimately the only "reward" players got for doing a good job on that strategic layer was clearing out dungeons faster, i.e. beating the game faster. But that's essentially the core reward for any game. Play some twitch-reliant first person shooter, and guess what your ultimate reward is for having fast reflexes? Not dying as much and beating the game faster. What's your reward in an RPG for buying better gear? Beating the next dungeon more easily than you would have without it. It's no different. And to remove this strategic layer is to give the player fewer things to play with, fewer knobs to mess with to beat the game faster. This makes for more limited game play. I don't think the changes have to be complicated. Make resting more expensive and make wounds pop up more frequently. So players' punishment for playing poorly is less gold to spend on goodies, and thus less chance to beat the game faster. Your reward is more gold and thus more chance to buy more goodies. The same reward system every video game has ever had. This doesn't even require a big overhaul and doesn't even have to exist in lower difficulties.

If we're going to talk about the original game honestly, I think it's important to pay attention to our language here. Engaging a fight "minimally" AND using one or two spells per fight are mutually exclusive descriptions of fights in the original game. This is doubly true for the low level fights we're talking about where your casters only have about five spells per rest. I would agree with you if the original's dungeon design was always similar to the temple. But it wasn't. This is the important point you and some other folks are missing or choosing to ignore. The original game allowed for DIVERSITY. Dungeons with a series of medium-sized fights, dungeons with trash mobs leading up to one big baddie, dungeons with nearly max fights at every step! I think Raedric's Hold is a good example of this last one. There's nearly zero "trash mobs" in there for a party at levels 3-4. Almost all of the fights require significant spell use, or you're going to run out of health fast. By the way, this strongly encourages the player to consider non-violent solutions for at least some of it. Because you have to pay a price for fighting. (This is an additional weakness of Deadfire, there isn't much of a price for just slashing your way thru everything).

Again, talking about a problem without also measuring it isn't a helpful addition to a discussion. I don't think this is hard.

What I don't see here is an intellectually honest question worthy of a serous response. You sure showed those game-hating liars, though. Where did I say anyone hated the game? I just don't think people should complain about a problem without also taking the measure of it. This is why the frequency question is important. If you had to abandon non-Endless Path dungeons only 2-3 times in a completionist playthrough, is that really a problem worth talking about? Much less redesigning the game around?