Loren Tyr

Just to clarify, I very much don't mean to ridicule or anything in any way. It's just a rather alien way of thinking to me, and I'm genuinely just curious about it. My examples and illustrations sometimes just tend to take on a life of their own.

Apparently for some anyway. I can't say I suffer from this particular affliction, but everyone has their foibles (I suffer from Chronic Restarter Syndrome myself, a curious malady in its own right). It's quite difficult to wrap my head around though, hence my continued inquiry. Psychology is rather fascinating, after all.

Nothing, if you enjoy it. But that seems to be the rub, the thrust of this thread seems to be "I would like to make builds not based on Alchemy/Arcana, but I can't". Clearly, not it's a competition not everyone is enjoying. And if they don't, why compete in it? Especially since it's not a formal competition anyway, so you can just change the rules a bit to suit yourself. And since this issue is apparently more widely felt, it's not like others wouldn't follow suit anyway. Honestly, if someone today posted a new PotD solo build on the forum saying "See what I made. I wanted to challenge myself more and wanted to try something different, so I decided not to put any skill points in Alchemy and Arcana. Look at the cool new combo I came up with!", do you think that wouldn't be respected? That people wouldn't enjoy seeing what they came up with, or that they wouldn't understand self-imposed restrictions to get more creative? (for all I know this has already been posted btw, I don't follow those that closely). That they would dismiss it because maybe it doesn't plow through enemies quite as efficiently as some other builds? Frankly, I would think that something like this would garner much more positive response than someone coming up with yet another boring, bog-standard, spam it with scrolls until dead kind of build. That's been done plenty already, to get recognition for an idea someone would have to come up with something somewhat original first that hasn't been posted already. Can't very well do that if you go the same old Archemical route, I'd think.

Because what you want is the optimization process itself? Or that's what I thought anyway, but clearly not. It's like trying to solve minor variations of the same puzzle over and over and over. If you enjoy the process of solving puzzles itself, I'd expect you to just move on to another puzzle once you've solved one instead. And enjoying tackling that particular puzzle as a challenge on its own (which in this particular context would also be harder, Arcana/Alchemy being as potent as they are), rather than pining about the one you did before. So let's presume for simplicity in the next patch Obsidian just removed Arcana and Alchemy altogether (and changed nothing else). In this case, I gather, you would move on to making another build; I assume you would enjoy doing so. But this exact build you could make now already, but you wouldn't enjoy it because of the mere presence of other skills in the game that you were never going to use for this build in the first place. So somehow your enjoyment of making this build depends on the absence of skills that are not part of that build. It's like you have a really nice cake. You have had this cake before and immensely enjoyed it. But now a new cake shop has opened in town, that has a cake that's even better. And so there you sit with your cake, a cake of the sort that has given you great pleasure many times in the past. But now the possibility of a better cake has somehow changed that? Nothing about the cake has changed, it's still the same great recipe, the same fine ingrediënts, the same skilled baker. Nothing about you has changed, you're still partial to the same particular flavours and textures and whatnot. But now the mere realisable possibility of a better cake removes all enjoyment of eating this actual cake right in front of you. Except now a friend calls you and tells you that the new cake shop was destroyed in a freak flour explosion, disintegrating the baker and all his cakes in an inferno of powdery fire. And you rejoice, and weep tears of joy! For with the possibility of the other cake forever removed, your present cake has regained its exquisite flavour, and you can now enjoy it once more. And yes, the prior enjoyment of the original cake is an additional element that does not quite match the original scenario, I added it to set up the dramatic act three twist. The underlying principle however, is quite the same.

To be honest, I was perhaps naively assuming that people tinker with builds and look for complicated synergies because they inherently enjoy doing so. That the fulfillment of the activity is its own incentive. That it is about solving a puzzle, about being creative, about discovering new things and figuring out how stuff interlocks. But this sounds like, it's just about ego. About getting the biggest numbers, about getting bigger numbers than others. I probably should have taking better note when @knownastherat suggested that this is just about some (essentially imaginary) competition. Because if it's not, if it's about the fun of the build itself, then why would it matter what other builds are possible? People keep repeating "what is the point?". If you enjoy the process, then THAT is the point. If you enjoy playing the game in new and different ways, then THAT is the point. So maybe what I should be asking is, what precisely is it that you enjoy about playing games like these?

Balance could indeed be harder, true. Though on the other hand, if everything comes with some range of pros and cons, there''d be more dials to tweak in that regard as well. Although I do think perhaps, with regard to stuff like this, one major advance that we probably need is something like more automated testing. Using proper machine learning techniques and such to help properly tune and balance systems of this kind of complexity. Not as a replacement for human judgement of course, but there's a lot of very useful computationally demanding evaluation that could be done to really significantly aid in this. Not sure if any gaming company has even considered this sort of thing though, probably not the most commercially interesting investment (unless it helps them make more addictive loot boxes perhaps). And perhaps if there are more and more varied abilities in general of various types, some of them being more situational is less of a problem (though of course you'll always have some people complaining that X is useless no matter what; can only improve the game, not human nature ;-) ). Especially if it's acquired differently, ie. you didn't spend a valuable ability point on it or something.

If the aim is to create clever builds, then what are you using Arcana and Alchemy for? Clearly, given the consensus in here on how overpowered those are, any build that relies on those isn't particularly clever.

It makes perfect sense to me. I would think the neatness of the trick stems from finding creative and imaginative ways of combining different mechanics and items and abilities to make an effective character. Clearly, spamming scroll and poison with the relevant skill maximized doesn't particularly qualify, however powerful it may be. I would think that there are plenty of other ways of building characters that are creative and imaginative, that do not involve scroll or poison spam. Why would finding those draw *less* satisfication just because there is giant wheel of cheese in plain view as well? Yes, you could help yourself to a slice of that and post it here, to what I would expect the typical level of awe and admiration that stating the blindingly obvious tends to get. If there is more interesting stuff to be found, why not find joy and satisfaction in trying to find those? And surely, again, there must be more interesting stuff out there; it can't just be a dichotomy of "straightforward standard stuff" and "solidified dairy". Because if that's the only two flavours we've got (which I simply don't buy, but let's assume), then if and when Obsidian takes away the latter than straightforward and standard would be all you'd have left. In that case there'd be no joy and satisfaction to be gained from removing the cheese, and they might as well just leave it there.

If there's something wrong with the juice, then yes. Whereas you, it seems, are intent on downing the juice all the while complaining about how awful it tastes and how it'll probably make you sick.

One way to achieve that would be to not use cooldowns as such, but to accrue a kind of negative resource, eg. 'exhaustion', which gradually decreases again over time and carry a penalty that scales with your exhaustion level (making you more vulnerable, less effective, etc.). So in principle you could repeatedly use a particular special ability quickly in succession (or different ones, of course), but at the cost of any number of possibly quite severe penalties afterwards; or you could pace yourself more and never really suffer any. This also gives you more options and more tactical considerations, because the number of times you can use an ability isn't limited by an arbitrary class resource pool but the tradeoff of risk vs rewards. So backed into a corner you could try hammering out three Barbaric Blows in quick succession and gamble that that will be enough to defeat the enemies facing you, but knowing that if it isn't you will be left very vulnerable and exhausted. I think in general it would be good for there to be more tradeoff to things. As it stands, most weapon abilities are purely better than just standard attacks, except for the fact that they are resource limited. It might be much more interesting for there to be more distinct downsides to such abilities as well (which also lessens the need for making them resource limited in the first place), such that it isn't so much about using your special abilities as often as you can but rather using them specifically when their benefits best outweight their downsides. And simultaneously you could add a much wider variety to fighting styles and stances that characters have innately available to them (general, class specific, weapon specific, etc.), each with their own pros and cons (akin to the current weapon proficiency modals, but much more extensive). This would give classes like fighters (and any class) a much more interesting range, without it having to be magical abilities or such (this may be quite similar to DA:O as described above, I don't know). Which would also be easy to vary somewhat across classes, such that how a fighter uses a greatsword actually feels somewhat distinct from how a rogue does, say (or Aumaua vs Dwarf as well).

The fact that soloing doesn't feel like gimping yourself doesn't change the fact that it is exactly the same principle: you are deliberately restricting yourself in order to improve your gameplay experience. There is no grand difference between leaving out party members and leaving out certain skills or consumables. The "I get all the loot and money" argument is just hogwash. There is plenty of good loot and money to go around so that's hardly much of a difference, and in any case: you control the entire party, if you want to give all the best loot to your own character and distribute whatever remains among the party. Secondly, I have at no point in this thread disputed that Arcana and Alchemy are powerful (though "completely failed to deliver" is just nonsensical hyperbole). I have in fact quite explicitly not disputed this. But that is not the point. The question is not whether Obsidian screwed up or not, nor whether they will fix this at some point or not. The question is how players bothered by these issues are responding to it, and why. Because let's assume as a hypothetical that the officially released game as it stands at the current 1.1 version is it: there will be no more updates, and the option for modding doesn't exist. There are balance issues that some people, such as yourself, are clearly bothered by. As the game is it its fixed and final state, there are therefore two main options: - make some relatively simple changes to how you play (eg. putting no points in the Alchemy skill, using poisons and potions as is) to create a more balanced and enjoyable game play experience for yourself - whine about how the game is broken, bemoan the evil fate that has befallen you, curse the Obsidian Gods, and generally take no responsibility whatsoever for improving your own lot It baffles me that anyone would go for the second option, unless a game is broken beyond fixing (which it clearly is not). Why wallow in your own victimhood if you can so easily do something about it yourself?

Congrats! Quite a contrast to our own, who's remained happily single for ages. There is some more though, here and there. Canada wised up and legalized weed for one, and Brexit is always good for a laugh (well, Schadenfreude anway; gotta love the German language sometimes). And not even tiny-hands-guy will ever ruin my affection for the color orange. Among all the global cacophony, there's still a lot of bright spots to be found. Cause you know: having a female prime minister, and giving birth as well? That's not a headline we could possibly have seen not even that long ago.

And again though, if that's the type of character you like playing, what's stopping you from doing so? A compulsive need for excessive optimization at the expense of enjoyment? That's certainly the sense I'm getting from some people in this thread. If Alchemy + poison is too overpowered for your taste but you still want to use poisons, why not leave out the Alchemy and just use the poisons without it? Or only take some points in Alchemy, just enough to make the poison feel the right level of potent to you?

I don't know why people keep bringing up actual combat. I was using fencing as an example of a sport, in response to: In other words, this is in reference to an argument about language and semantics, and I was mostly trying to refute his supposition that the concept of "cheese" only exists within of the realm of games by equating it to a term with a similar connotation: "cheap". @knownastherat gave football as an example, which last I checked is still a sport and not gladiatorial combat (though to be fair, I've not checked in quite some time), so I responded with a personal anecdote about fencing. If you'd prefer a less personal example, look up Hack-a-shaq, or Shaquille O'neill in general, because he contributed to a number of changes to the rules of basketball due to his exceptional dominance on the court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq You don't know why people bring up actual combat when talking about foil fencing? An activity originally designed as a way to practice smallsword fighting? Seems like a fairly obvious connection to make. And while my comment may be somewhat tangential to your point in raising the example, it does also rather nicely dovetail with the more general discussion of broken rules systems. Because clearly, due to the rules it uses (as illustrated by your example strategy being even remotely feasible at any level) it has ceased to be the martial art it originally was; I'm assuming it's still the game of tag style 'first hit gets the point' rule being used? And given those kinds of rules, I would argue that there isn't anything particularly cheesy about charging in head first. Clearly it is a viable strategy against some more novice opponents, but straightforward to counter by more skilled ones (or indifferent ones, who might be inclined to just grab the blade and counter; I'm assuming there is some strange rule against grabbing blades as well, but therein lies the beauty of indifference). That very much doesn't smell like cheese to me, there's nothing overpowered about it for one; if you're able to size up your opponent well enough to predict whether it'll work or not, it's just good strategy.

It's quite bizarre that in foil fencing a strategy of "running towards the opponent with the pointy end" could be a viable strategy at any level of skill, anyway. If those were actual smallswords, that'd be an excellent way to get yourself run through regardless of any size advantage you might have.

I'm definitely not disputing that though, I'm all for good balance in single player games. I just don't think that not having that balance (yet) shouldn't stop people from enjoying the game, by just circumventing the problem until it's fixed (if it is ever fixed, though in this case I imagine some nerfing is on the horizon). Whereas my impression from this thread is that for some people this somehow isn't an option, which puzzles me.

Hmm, how odd. Still, you'd think: if a competition is only in your mind, should be easy to change the rules.

I do get that, I'm not sure why you'd let that limit you. You are essentially saying: for an optimal build, I have to take either Arcana or Alchemy. My question is, then why not go for a suboptimal build instead, one that uses neither? You may be quite right in saying that you are forced to take one of those in order to get an optimal build, but there is nothing forcing you to go for (complete) optimization in the first place. And if much of your enjoyment of games like these comes from optimization, I would think that constrained optimization (in this case, say, the optimal non-Alchemy, non-Arcana build) would be similarly enjoyable; and would fairly easily address the dissatisfaction from using the same two skills as a core component from build to build. If that increases your enjoyment of the game, opens up a greater diversity of (constrained) optimal strategies for you to find, and increases the challenge, then why not? Playing solo is also a self-imposed constraint, and doing so and playing on PotD suggests a desire to be challenged. It seems a bit like arguing that you cannot take the stairs because there is also an elevator going to the same floor. Sure, the elevator is (likely) the optimal means of getting to that floor, but that doesn't mean you have to use it. If you want more challenge (or exercise, in this case), there is nothing stopping you from taking the stairs anyway.

No, active effects (stuff from activated abilities including modals, spells, scrolls, potions, etc.) don't stack with each other. The highest bonus counts (and the highest penalty). It's not always entirely intuitive though, sometimes you do get stack anyway. This applies I think to all "probability for X to happen" stuff, so eg. two 20% hit-to-crit chance bonuses from active effects would stack (to a combined 36%, rather than 40%), and similar with for example "X% chance to interrupt on hit" effects. Similar but different effects also stack: the "+20 deflection against melee" from quarterstaff modal does stack (against melee attacks) with general "+X deflection" from other active sources.

I don't know, maybe 'cause she's smart, and funny, and likes playing computer games? In my experience, people tend to be multi-dimensional. So why focus on just a single quality? Surely the people who's company you enjoy most are people who have many different qualities that you enjoy? Or to bring it back to character builds: why is it that optimization is so important, that it is not possible to enjoy anything that isn't (close to) optimal? Why is that the overriding concern? Builds aren't competing against each other, they cannot beat each other in any relevant sense. One can be more efficient than another at defeating enemies, certainly. But unless you're in a rush to be somewhere, is 'efficiency' really that important when playing a game? It also makes me wonder: clearly, you don't mind self-imposed limits, given that playing solo is just that; you're opting not to use all the resources available to you. So then why is that different when it comes to restricting your use of for example Alchemy (or using less of it)? I can definitely get frustration about feeling you cannot use certain things because it would be too overpowered. But feeling you cannot play with a certain build because an entirely different build would be better, that I find difficult to grasp. Which I'll readily admit could just be a difference in playstyle. I happily potter about with cooky builds with a full party on veteran mode, the thought of either PotD or solo has never really been a consideration for me. But even with that I'd think: if I really wanted more challenge and enjoyed the highest difficulty solo experience, wouldn't trying to make a less conventional build work in that context fit into that aim as well?

Even if it is the most optimal choice, that doesn't make it the most meaningful. If you enjoy coming up with fun and interesting builds and parties, why not just do that? Use alchemy and arcana and whatever if you enjoy them, don't if you don't. Certainly, them being better balanced will give more options for people who don't want their characters to be too overpowered, and I hope that happens. But it's not as if you're somehow forced to use them in the meantime.

That is sadly happening for my Animal Companion all of the times, especially in boarding battles where the player starts out directly in front of all the enemies and both the Ranger and his Animal Companion take all the hits from enemy archers. That also happens to caster main characters who usually die seconds after the battle starts. Well yeah, the annoying positioning in boarding situations and map transition ambushes and such is definitely an issue that needs to get fixed. That's nothing particular to Animal Companions though, as you say this is a problem for any squishy main character (and makes no sense at all, it's not as if the character can't see a frickin' boarding attack coming and, you know, move to the other side of the boat *sigh*). Can't really hold that against the Ranger / Sharpshooter class specifically.

I also don't get this logic. If you think certain parts of the game are overpowered and using them ruin the difficulty for you, why not choose not to use them / use them sparingly / use only some of them / don't increase the corresponding skill / et cetera? There are plenty of legitimate arguments to be made that the game needs more balancing in various ways, and hopefully Obsidian will get to doing so. But it seems odd to let that diminish your enjoyment of the game in the meantime. It's not multiplayer, you don't have to compete against other players, so you can challenge yourself however you see fit, choose to impose whatever additional restrictions that improve the experience for you (either by yourself or via mods / console; and the reverse as well, if you want to make yourself a Death / Fire godlike hybrid, why not?). It's hardly like it's unprecendent either, a solo playthrough is essentially nothing more than imposing a restriction of not using companions on yourself after all; plenty of people doing that too.

While I think it'd be very nice to have, to be honest I don't expect them to be adding any ranged pets. It would make them a rather obvious pick because it removes almost all drawbacks from them (being rather squishy and causing grief if killed). So I second (and third) the idea, but am not holding my breath. And same with having the animals having their own (smaller) ability tree, that would be great too. Also, a giant tortoise as pet.

While I think the Sharpshooter could do with some more pronounced bonuses, you make it sound as if the animal companions die the instant combat starts. If yours are dying that quickly, I would suggest that you're probably using them wrong.