Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


71 Excellent

About mostundesired

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer
    (3) Conjurer


  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  1. Hey all, was trying my hand at modding for the first time and I can't quite get it to work. I'm trying to make Debonaire's Roguish Charm work on all enemies. I figured all I had to do was remove the conditional under AffectedTargetConditional, but the game doesn't seem to recognize any changes and I'm not sure why. Here's the original { "$type": "Game.GameData.AttackMeleeGameData, Assembly-CSharp", "DebugName": "Roguish_Charm_Melee", "ID": "6d5e0938-1ad8-4b14-b977-c1170fb370ef", "Components": [ { "$type": "Game.GameData.AttackBaseComponent, Assembly-CSharp", "KeywordsIDs": [ "f5842f97-b963-40b5-adc2-d69330adcf96" ], "AttackDistance": 2, "MinAttackDistance": 0, "AttackVariationID": "dd5934cf-0e6f-4f4a-8f92-3d3102090e8f", "UseParentEquippableHand": "false", "CastSpeedID": "eacb53e3-6eb5-422a-92ca-99cc883ae4a9", "RecoveryTimeID": "566840d9-1561-4243-8ca7-889df9869847", "OverrideTacticalActionType": "None", "ImpactDelay": 0, "ForcedTarget": "None", "AffectedTargetType": "Hostile", "AffectedTargetConditional": { "Conditional": { "Operator": 0, "Components": [ { "$type": "OEIFormats.FlowCharts.ConditionalCall, OEIFormats", "Data": { "FullName": "Boolean IsKith(Guid)", "Parameters": [ "1a26e100-0000-0000-0000-000000000000" ], "Flags": "", "UnrealCall": "", "FunctionHash": 244467078, "ParameterHash": 1541628044 }, "Not": false, "Operator": 0 } ] } }, "AffectedTargetDeathState": "Alive", "HostilityOverride": "Default", "PushDistance": 0, "FaceTarget": "true", "AccuracyBonus": 0, "PenetrationRating": 7, "DamageData": { "DamageType": "None", "AlternateDamageType": "None", "Minimum": 0, "Maximum": 0, "TacticalMinimumOverride": 0, "TacticalMaximumOverride": 0, "DamageProcs": [] }, "Require****Object": "true", "StatusEffectKeywordsIDs": [], "StatusEffectsIDs": [ "3f0b936a-ce4f-49e7-ad9f-eb193e9cdb99", "000bcede-42ca-4275-a1ee-ddd0d8210803", "a24eb026-29f8-4d71-999e-58a2c6714a89", "27ad5bc6-5722-4248-a21c-60d3560ee9c5" ], "RandomizeStatusEffect": "false", "CanGraze": "false", "CanCrit": "true", "DefendedBy": "Will", "AfflictionsDefendedBy": "None", "AfflictionApplicationModifier": "None", "SubstituteHitVisualEffect": "", "VisualEffects": [], "AttackOnImpactID": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000", "ExtraAttackID": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000", "LaunchBone": "RightWeapon", "HitBone": "Chest", "OnHitShakeDuration": "None", "OnHitShakeStrength": "None", "NoiseLevelID": "15743f94-1026-40b0-8e13-a667b3f66f63", "AllReactNoise": "false", "InterruptsOn": "None", "InterruptType": "Normal", "TargetAngle": 0, "ApplyOnceOnly": "false", "PathsToTarget": "true", "HideFromCombatLog": "false", "AdditionalAttackOnTooltip": "false", "DoesNotApplyDamage": "false", "TreatAsWeapon": "false", "BounceData": { "Bounces": 0, "Multiplier": 0.5, "Range": 10, "InRangeOrder": "false", "NoRepeatTargets": "false", "AlwaysBounceAtEnemies": "false", "Delay": 0, "NeverBounce": "false" }, "AttackValidityConditional": { "Conditional": { "Operator": 0, "Components": [] } } }, { "$type": "Game.GameData.AttackMeleeComponent, Assembly-CSharp", "EngagementRadius": 1, "IsUnarmed": "false" } ] }, And here's what I changed it to { "$type": "Game.GameData.AttackMeleeGameData, Assembly-CSharp", "DebugName": "Roguish_Charm_Melee", "ID": "6d5e0938-1ad8-4b14-b977-c1170fb370ef", "Components": [ { "$type": "Game.GameData.AttackBaseComponent, Assembly-CSharp", "KeywordsIDs": [ "f5842f97-b963-40b5-adc2-d69330adcf96" ], "AttackDistance": 2, "MinAttackDistance": 0, "AttackVariationID": "dd5934cf-0e6f-4f4a-8f92-3d3102090e8f", "UseParentEquippableHand": "false", "CastSpeedID": "eacb53e3-6eb5-422a-92ca-99cc883ae4a9", "RecoveryTimeID": "566840d9-1561-4243-8ca7-889df9869847", "OverrideTacticalActionType": "None", "ImpactDelay": 0, "ForcedTarget": "None", "AffectedTargetType": "Hostile", "AffectedTargetConditional": { "Conditional": { "Operator": 0, "Components": [ ] } }, "AffectedTargetDeathState": "Alive", "HostilityOverride": "Default", "PushDistance": 0, "FaceTarget": "true", "AccuracyBonus": 0, "PenetrationRating": 7, "DamageData": { "DamageType": "None", "AlternateDamageType": "None", "Minimum": 0, "Maximum": 0, "TacticalMinimumOverride": 0, "TacticalMaximumOverride": 0, "DamageProcs": [] }, "Require****Object": "true", "StatusEffectKeywordsIDs": [], "StatusEffectsIDs": [ "3f0b936a-ce4f-49e7-ad9f-eb193e9cdb99", "000bcede-42ca-4275-a1ee-ddd0d8210803", "a24eb026-29f8-4d71-999e-58a2c6714a89", "27ad5bc6-5722-4248-a21c-60d3560ee9c5" ], "RandomizeStatusEffect": "false", "CanGraze": "false", "CanCrit": "true", "DefendedBy": "Will", "AfflictionsDefendedBy": "None", "AfflictionApplicationModifier": "None", "SubstituteHitVisualEffect": "", "VisualEffects": [], "AttackOnImpactID": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000", "ExtraAttackID": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000", "LaunchBone": "RightWeapon", "HitBone": "Chest", "OnHitShakeDuration": "None", "OnHitShakeStrength": "None", "NoiseLevelID": "15743f94-1026-40b0-8e13-a667b3f66f63", "AllReactNoise": "false", "InterruptsOn": "None", "InterruptType": "Normal", "TargetAngle": 0, "ApplyOnceOnly": "false", "PathsToTarget": "true", "HideFromCombatLog": "false", "AdditionalAttackOnTooltip": "false", "DoesNotApplyDamage": "false", "TreatAsWeapon": "false", "BounceData": { "Bounces": 0, "Multiplier": 0.5, "Range": 10, "InRangeOrder": "false", "NoRepeatTargets": "false", "AlwaysBounceAtEnemies": "false", "Delay": 0, "NeverBounce": "false" }, "AttackValidityConditional": { "Conditional": { "Operator": 0, "Components": [] } } }, { "$type": "Game.GameData.AttackMeleeComponent, Assembly-CSharp", "EngagementRadius": 1, "IsUnarmed": "false" } ] }, Getting the feeling that it's something obvious and I'm just dumb and/or making a rookie mistake
  2. This might be a hard nerf for rogues, their interrupt on most of their abilities has saved my hide plenty of times. It wouldn't be the same in TB, of course, but something worth mentioning.
  3. Fair point. Personally, though, I'd rather if be done that way. I remember a specific encounter in Divinity OS 2 where about 12 or more blob enemies were summoned all at once. I would take my actions, then have to wait while each and every one of them took their turn. Rather than tedious, it filled me with dread--the good, video gamey kind where you feel great when you win. Although to be fair, action points meant my characters could do more than one thing per turn, but the way it played out, it didn't feel like I was doing a whole lot at once. Two or three attacks, maybe, and it still took me quite a few turns to kill just one of them. Point being, swarms won't be that bad so long as they feel like a legitimate threat and/or achievement, and they figure out the damage to turn ratio. I said in another thread that low level accuracy might be a huge contributor to the tedium, and IIRC someone said that once you start having enough accuracy to hit regularly, it feels better. So I think multiple actions per turn or multiple reoccurring turns could both fix the tedium issue. The former for reasons said before, and the latter because you'll be doing something more frequently (at least the high dex characters). Take that with a grain of salt, though.
  4. I agree that misses do slow down combat considerably, but hesitated to mention it because how much of that is due to low level jank? In the base game I always noticed when I missed which rather irked me, but I could live with it because when I did hit, it felt worth the time invested. And then in mid to late game, I would hit consistently because of weapons, level, etc. If it evens out in turnbased that same way, then it's more early game that needs some tweaking than every single fight (at least in regards to missing/hitting). A certain % miss to graze modifier, maybe?
  5. I'm calm, I'm just running out of ways to say it. Apologies if my bluntness seems aggressive. I'll try to explain better: You said earlier that ATB and dynamic turns are the same but inversed. That's only true of the mechanic to determine turn order, ATB doesn't pause everyone else. Dynamic/FFX does. Important distinction. Then after that, you asked what would be the point of doing ATB since that would just be the same as the base game. I guess I got confused, since no one suggested changing the game to ATB, so sorry about that. But the important thing I meant to respond to was you said you'd rather they change the system to a new thing instead of playing just a slower Deadfire, and I guess I assumed the conversation regressed back to having to explain that FFX-like turnbased wouldn't just be slower Deadfire. So were you just speaking in hyperbole and it flew over my head? Because otherwise, I was reading it as "FFX=Inversed ATB, and ATB=RTWP, therefore FFX=RTWP." Words are hard. Anyway, the big explanations and nitpicking aren't because people aren't realizing the similarity, it's because the small differences could screw up the game and mechanics on a fundamental level, which we're trying to avoid obviously. I suppose expectations are the issue here, since some are expecting only the very minor but game-altering change of "everyone takes turns," and others expect an entire overhaul (rounds, actions per turn, etc). And personally, the more I think about it, the less an overhaul in that manner makes sense. Like taking the pieces of a table and putting them together into a chair. Everything's connected awkwardly and you have too many leftover pieces.
  6. You seem to not be understanding something. ATB and the FFX-like system people are suggesting are not the same. To say they are is, for lack of better word, ignorant. ATB has everyone taking their turn independent of each other, thus why I compared it to RTWP. The FFX-like system does not have that. You don't act whenever you feel like it independent of the actions of others. You have to wait. To say that RTWP is the same system but without automatic pause is to dismiss all the critical nuances of having everyone act indepedent of each other. It makes a huge difference. If you just outright ignore it, I don't know how you expect to have a serious conversation on the topic.
  7. Running into you everywhere, huh? It's not the same, for reasons explained above and in every other thread that's discussed this. If anything, RTWP is closer to an ATB system than "dynamic" turn based. Combat would take longer, though.
  8. You misinterpret me, the issue is lack of recovery time means the dagger user has the same amount of options as the sword user, when part of the balance between the two was the dagger user could finish their attack quickly, and then go do something else. But yes, we're basically arguing the same idea. I'm not strawmanning you, I'm making my own suggestions and attempting to falsify them to make sure they stand. I wasn't directly responding to your ideas because they weren't 100% clear to me. I was asking how multiple strike the bells in one turn compares to one spell in terms of damage. And the point was, are damage spells worth casting under these circumstances? If they are, then they are, but my point stands because I'm drawing attention to the balancing factor itself to make sure it works. I'll respond to your idea now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying the way it should work is one standard action, and then bonus attacks based on weapon type? I hope you include dex into that because the point is to make that stat useful to every class. But, as you said, that means high dex equates to attacking first and the ability to alpha strike and take out enemies in turn one. Ignoring for a second that you can do that with RTWP regardless of dex, the glaring issue I can see is, what if I WANT to immediately spam all my abilities turn one? That was also one of the benefits of dex, using as many abilities as possible in a small amount of time. It gave you flexibility. What's the proportional equivalent if dex only allows me to go first? I suppose setting up positioning first or applying a quick single target (de)buff is nice, but that's literally what we have now that makes dex undervalued. Attacking all at once before the enemy gets to respond and hopefully taking them out? Well, possibly. That does become more valuable with higher damage per turn. But then small weapons are still undervalued. Instead, I would just pump dex and use the strongest single hit weapon I have. The only reason to use a small weapon is if I was going to do something with those extra attacks. Say, use multiple abilities. Circle back to the other concerns I have. Different types of actions could fix that problem. What goes into which category and why, though? Do damage only attacks go into once per turn, and (de)buffs go into the "extra actions" slots that are based on your weapon? Are pure buffs still free actions? Because between buffing myself and damaging/debuffing the enemy, I think most would choose the latter for efficiency's sake alone. Should we limit those free actions (we should), and by how much, and does dex influence that too? What about consumables and movement? Personally, I'd put extra movements and consumable use in the "extra action based on weapon type" category. But, if those extra actions HAVE to be basic attacks, small weapons just aren't worth using, even if they do the same amount of damage. Too much RNG involved compared to medium or large weapons. Plus, you'd have to figure out how to separate weapon speed from dex/initiative in a balanced way. Seems doable but I'm trepidatious. And that's before we get into things like the weird interaction between ability duration and int, and the problems with guns, and the problem with chapters, three problems I only just started to consider and are a direct result of implementing rounds. EDIT: On top of that, what about dual wielding weapons of different speeds? And one ranged and one melee? I'm partial to dagger and pistol myself and the current system doesn't mesh well with it.
  9. I think you kind of missed my point. Of course the balance is going to be different, but they have an entire mechanic to adjust for. This did not only switch around what options are better than others. They can't JUST increase damage, or JUST add more attacks. Incoming wall of text. How do they account for a dagger user and a sword user using the same ability (strike the bell, let's say)? The sword user's will now always be better because it does more damage 9/10 times. What made you want to use daggers over swords, if ever, was action speed AND recovery (both affected by dex). That allowed a quicker reaction to potential dangers, shutting down an ability I don't want used/casted or delaying a big hitter until I can get that one last bit of damage in. Of course, that doesn't translate to turn based, you have to anticipate, not react. Well, my dagger helps me anticipate a little bit, because I can go first, but rounds ensure that everyone gets a turn unless I have one of the few abilities that let's me paralyze (or whatever) the enemy. If I'm lucky, or I planned right, I can delay them until the rest of my party takes them out. A good move, but one that won't come up often. Going first will almost never matter. At best, you'll delay a caster's spell so you can interrupt it before it finishes being casted next turn. That's good! Or, I could just dump my dex and interrupt it on the same turn. Swords also have two damage types, and without being able to attack more often, swords will always be better in that regard, too. So if going first isn't too effective, we have to concentrate on the other thing sex does, allow more actions. Logically, more dex would mean more actions per turn. Well, that evens out the damage, but there's still other things to account for. Let's look at concentration. I can get rid of it, then use another interrupting attack to delay their turn. Two problems, if they have concentration, they probably already went this round. And even if they didn't, it doesn't matter, because delaying their turn doesn't help me. And hell, what do I even need concentration for, if I'm not casting? Even if I get delayed, I still get my turn. The only way I can see that being worthwhile (and correct me if I'm wrong but I'm going to go on anyway) is if interrupt skips your turn. We can't just have flat out turn skipping, though. That can be exploited something fierce in this game in particular because of the many sources of interrupts. So what then? Does interrupt instead deny the character an action? Now that, actually, sounds like a good idea. Makes interrupt and concentration stacks relevant without being overpowering. Maybe prone takes two actions, and flying up into the air takes three. Who knows. Well, let's look at multiple actions per turn now. Multiple free actions is already stupid strong. I don't think multiple standard actions would be AS strong, but how does that balance against spells? In one turn, my dagger character can now wreak havoc instantly. Why is my caster waiting so long to do the same amount of damage? Or possibly less damage. In RTWP you could interrupt what in turn based is a standard action (though it required very careful timing). That doesn't have to translate perfectly, but we have to make sure whatever is being casted is proportionally worth waiting and having your resource wasted. Is it then worth it to have to wait to cast the spell, forgoing your other actions? Does using one action deny me a spell? Would it instead be better to make spells cost a proportional number of actions? What if I don't have that many actions because my dex is so low? What if I have more than enough actions to cast two or more devestating spells? Etc, etc. We also have to make sure those standard action attacks are balanced so they're not just spammed immediately and entirely. Maybe the resource cost we have now is enough to balance that, I don't know. Let's also look at other things besides attacking. Movement? I will probably never have to move that much, but what if I want the option to move around and attack multiple targets? Does my dex/initiative affect that? Does each movement take up an action? Does it work like dash in D&D 5e? How about potion/item use? What if I want to do nothing? If I end m turn without doing anything, should I get more actions? How much more? Why can't I control where my turn gets delayed to? And finally, in general, they would have to balance everything with consideration to both it's action time and and recovery time, and I have no idea how much work would have to go into that. The stamina idea seems appropriate for it at first glance, although one glaring problem I just noticed is it doesn't account for concentration/interrupt. Now, that's a whole lot of balancing, bug checking, and miscellaneous work to be done. If done right, I think it could be really cool, but hoo boy would our dev bois and gurls have their work cut our for them. Or, they could get rid of rounds and have dex determine turn frequency and balance around that. Honestly, I'm fine with either, but I really think one is more realistic than the other for a free game mode.
  10. Casters aren't the only class. The stats are supposed to be good for everyone, that's core to the design philosophy of the game. Besides them, not going first has very minimal disadvantages right now. Especially because the only way to deny someone a turn is by casting, interrupting a cast, or being one of the few non-caster classes that has paralysis or the like. Inventiveness for its own sake doesn't make for a fun combat system. It is counterproductive to a round system, but rounds are not the only way to have a turn-based system. More actions per turn would break the game faster than more turns in general. More attacks could work, but that still doesn't fix the problem with all the other things action speed affected. I don't know how a percentage increase would make initiative better if anyone who doesn't have to cast doesn't care about it. I get that you like rounds, but the game can't turn into 5e-lite. There's just too much built into the game that doesn't work that way, and some things that have to not work that way. If they keep rounds, and if they include multiple actions per turn, so be it, but the basis of those decisions should prioritize balance, not an adherence to a newly introduced mechanic that breaks another one and, more importantly, makes entire builds obsolete.
  11. Well, I'm glad you understand the problem, but the point I was actually making was that if it is done that way, it needs to be done carefully. It can still totally be done that way imo. You still have "can kill before they have a chance to do anything to you or even defensively buff themselves" in RtWP, it just works differently and is balanced differently. So if they get rid of rounds and have consistent running initiative, they have to balance it differently. Which is the same problem we have with rounds (can work but needs balancing) but rounds seem to require much more work to... work. Rounds do seem mostly balanced except for one mechanic, but that one mechanic doesn't just buff some builds and nerf others, it nerfs them into the ground. Not to speak in hyberbole. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
  12. For argument's sake, we can't forget that there needs to be balancing towards the fact that players can't react to things like the enemy switching targets or trying to sneak over to your backline. If they manage to slip through your plan and do something you don't want them to do, you have to just sit there and take it. Characters with high initiative acting more often than other characters would be more dangerous because of that alone, so it can't be a perfect 1:1 of action speed to initiative.
  13. You keep saying this but I don't understand why this is a bad thing. "It's just deadfire, but turnbased" is exactly what they told us we'd be getting. And besides that, it wouldn't be the same. Changing it to turnbased still makes a huge difference. You have to stand still and wait for enemies to move before you take your (next) turn, you have to anticipate enemies actions rather than respond, you have to commit to an action you take, everything becomes prediction based rather than timing based and you have to rethink synergies and builds with all of that taken into consideration. "It's just the same" is more your complaint than a criticism, and while there's value in your feedback that way, it's not reflective of a problem with "dynamic" turns, it's just your preference. That dex, light weapons, and light armor are inherently worse than other options is a problem. Granted, you can fix that while staying within the limitation of rounds, but by no means is it imperative.
  14. If they wanted to go this way, they'd have to remove automatic full-attacks when dual-wielding. They'd have to go back to alternating attacks, with individual initiative (recovery) times for each. That would mimic the base game. Otherwise dual-wielding would be comically overpowered. I'm open to this suggestion (getting rid of rounds). But they'd have to change "durations" of all abilities completely -- instead of counting in rounds, they'd have to count in initiative value (which would basically amount to units of time). A big part of me likes the idea that action speed is less valuable. I share the annoyance of another poster that this is the king stat in the base game. I thought about alternate attacks per turn too and I don't think it would be worth it. Say I wanted to attack with one weapon in particular, I now no longer have agency over it, and having to wait until everyone else attacks is more of an issue on turn based than having to wait for your recovery in real time. Granted, my impression could be wrong, but I think they'd be better off just lowering dual wield damage in exchange for full attacks every turn. Or hell, reverse how dual wield works for turn based: you have lower initiative instead, but full damage two weapon full attacks to make up for it. Again, this is just my impression, but I think the turnbased system itself inherently devalues action speed. Not by much, but enough. Between your turns, any number of enemies are acting, including using free action abilities, interrupting your casters, etc. The change from reacting to anticipating makes you have to pick and choose your actions more carefully, so even if you can potentially act more often, it's not as immediately necessary. One well timed action becomes much more valuable. Although now I'm wondering where delaying your turn would fit into all this, if we got rid of rounds. It might not work at all. Or maybe delaying puts you down at half the initiative value It would have been if you chose to move. Just spitballing at this point.
  15. I agree, I don't think people are used to thinking about CC as something you want to cast ASAP instead of "at the right moment." Also, I'll respond to you here about rounds. I don't doubt they CAN tweak it to make it work, but why would you want that? I considered things like multiple actions per turn, but it just didn't make much sense when there's already an entire stat and mechanic dedicated to how often you can act which they chose not to translate into turns for reasons that are so far unclear. It just seems like the path of least resistance to get rid of rounds. Off the top of my head, you'd want to account for dual wield being both full attacks and higher initiative, but that could be as easily fixed as modifying damage per hit to be lower when dual wielding.
  • Create New...