whiskiz

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. Plot points being tied around resting is a simple problem - don't tie plot points around resting, haha. A waiting penalty is never a good thing imo, you don't want to have to sit in a time-out for hitting traps or lose your favorite characters, you will indeed just reload or wait etc. Making mostly traps have any sort of impact? Not so easily solvable, true. Maybe the good ol equipment durability/gold sink - they damage gear, make it so it isn't cheap so it's a bit of a meaningful setback - though the economy is never balanced for very long in these kinds of games, before long you're drowning in currency and supplies and whatever else. Maybe when your gear is damaged you lose some stats and maybe the bonus effects like "fine" etc - enchantments don't work very well on damaged gear. A sword isn't "fine" when it was just doused in an acid trap. That's a meaningful stat impact, without just being able to rest almost anywhere anytime to reset - that would mean having to go alll the way back to town for a blacksmith to repair your stuff as well as tying in the gold sink and supplies an stuff used to sail back there. I guess that's similar to resting, though the current resting iteration is much more casual and pointless. That was one of my main points, nicely expanded on. Per encounter isn't easier and/or per rest isn't more challenging - per encounter is only easier in PoE 2 atm because apparently the difficulty is being balanced post release and so hasn't been done yet, especially on PotD and Vet. It's not the combat system, but the balance around it that affects challenge. Good examples of other systems. I personally love the cd-based mmo type system - it's a much friendlier (again not necessarily easier, but more enjoyable and much less restrictive) attrition-based system. You're still able to completely engage with the combat. And you know what? Here's a perfect example of an oldschool-type, isometric, tactical turn-based RPG with cds done right - Balrum. So it's definitely possible. Check out the pics on steam.

Some good discussion on the topic. It definitely seems odd the way it's been implemented, so casually, so pointless. I'd be down for having the rest/attrition system more fleshed out, more enforced, more meaningufl if we had to have it at all - or else again, remove it entirely. It's an archaic and pointless system and adds no value whatsoever in its current state. Because companies in this day and age are all about the bottom line - a properly enforced, meaningful attrition system is not very mainstream friendly (maybe just making the fights much easier on lower difficulties will thereby circumvent it appropriately there.) so in the end the only option left is to remove it. Either that or leave it in half-baked and mostly as a traditional and archaic gimmick and for "roleplay" i guess.

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). The design of the specific dungeon is irrelevant. The strategy, system, outcome and so problem is always the same. Get through any trash as quickly and efficiently as possible, use bigger stuff here or there on any bigger fights, blow everything on any boss fights. Try to get through stuff as quickly, efficiently and minimally as possible, and much progression such wow i saved the **** out of my abilities in that dungeon, best gameplay evar! I wasn't missing any points made, i went off the only example you provided, if anything you basically replied with the one thing which is of no real consequence - while disregarding very valid points and examples i happened to make, in turn. You're trying to sound like you have a valid point, without having a valid point

I do not feel like this is an accurate characterization of how combats went down in PoE1 at all. I also think it might hint at why some of the same players on this board seem to rely on two criticisms of the original game. 1. "80% of the game" was auto attack fights. 2. Limited camping meant you had to go back to town alot. These things are related, and I think they demonstrate that certain players are simply not interested in exploring the wealth of options for optimizing your gameplay in the original. It's simply not true that 80% of the fights in PoE1 were just attack-move fights. It's likely not even 50%. Most fights and most areas actually wanted you to use SOME spells and SOME per encounter abilities in nearly every single fight. Yes there were a few lone trolls or lone shadows, but those were there to introduce monsters to the player. The Temple of Eothas below the first town is a perfect example of this. It doesn't actually have "the big fight where you blow all your abilities" instead it has a series of fights that, if done strategically and with SOME spell usage in EACH fight, allow the player to coast through the dungeon without needing to go back to town. Instead of just casting the same max abilities you use in every fight, you are judicious and focus on specific casts, i.e. fire damage for the spirits. But, if you just attack-moved every fight, yeah, you would run out of health very quickly. If folks were just auto-attacking for 80% of the fights in the original game, it's no wonder that those same folks had to go back to town regularly due to limited resting supplies. The majority of combat is definitely "trash mobs" and the majority of those trash mobs is definitely auto attacking. While i don't have hard stats, the majority would mean 50% of combat at the very least. Sure some of it is a spell or 2 here or spell or 2 there, but i'm talking majorities. Ok sure your Eothas example - no big fights - need to keep using your stuff but sparingly. That early you can what, use first level spells twice and second level twice? Maybe. You can have maybe 3 diff spellcasters with that use (priest druid wizard) and in one go on PotD, before needing to rest, maybe 5 fights or so due to health/endurance if nothing else. The thing is though, in those 5 fights you used a couple spells from each character here or there. This isn't to point out the majority auto attacking still, this is to say you then barely used your characters, barely engaged with the combat each fight and for what, some amazing and fulfilling system of saving your stuff, like it's some big achievement or some great challenge that no other system could rival? Death by 1000 (boring) cuts? Is engaging with each fight minimally really that rewarding? You see it as "man, i cleared that dungeon with only needing to rest once or twice, i saved the **** out of my abilities" while i see it as "Ok, i barely did anything most fights cause i had to stretch my stuff out and i still got through it all pretty easily, lol, kinda boring but what's next" You see the potential disconnect of a restrictive attrition system? You aren't thinking "how can i engage with this combat best? Take advantage of all the depth and diversity and strengths and weaknesses of friend and foe alike, what kinda fun can i have?" Instead you're being left to think "How can i end this fight as quickly and efficiently as i can, because i have another 10 - 15 before i clear this dungeon" Unless of course, you were brought up on said systems and it's all you know and want to know.... Edit: When the challenge is "how much can i not play the game, not engage with the depth, variety and strategy of combat to make sure i can go the mile" then you know there is a big design flaw, oldschool fan favorite system or not.

Please speak only for yourself. Actually i guess i do speak for most people, according to both common sense when comparing combat systems and the second comment in this thread: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/100420-admirable-design-decisions/ And you know, the devs too, having been the ones that changed the combat system. "Where every fight is a big fight" put another way "where every fight is the same" Yeah because auto attacking 80% of the game and having "trash mobs" for the majority of combat totally didn't make most fights the same. Using mostly low stuff then the same big things on the same big fights was totally not the same either. But you're right - it would make every fight the same - except for you know, the different offense/defense stats you need to work with each fight (reflex/deflection/resolve/will), the different phys damage and armor types, different mag damage and armor types, target priority (melee/ranged/caster) and positioning as well as the awesome depth and variety of subclass + multiclass and extended pure class and debuffs/buffs/DoTs/healing, concentration/interruption and priorities of whatever else, that varies from fight to fight. But aside from those minor things, every fight would totally be the same just because they're all challenging. More of the afore mentioned "willfully ignorant die-hard fans of attrition based gameplay" from my original post. Too nostalgia-driven and stuck in the past, having been brought up on IE and DnD, if we're being honest. And if you can't handle proper challenge, if you need to resort to an archaic system where you can just save your big stuff to blow on anything with a semblance of challenge that comes along once in awhile, instead of being challenged every fight - maybe you should just play on lower difficulties. That's what they're there for. "the game system caters to the lazy" You call it lazy, i call it not wanting the challenge to come from being restricted from the gameplay, which also makes it harder to balance and just being able to save big stuff for big fights to faceroll. Wanting more than just 80% of the game be AFK "trash mobs" then "blow everything and win" then rest, rinse and repeat. I guess we're weird like that.

Ah so it is mainly "cause tradition" or "cause this is what they do" i figured as much. You would think they would then flesh it out more, make it more than just some pointless tedium, if they have to have it because "unwritten dnd RPG rule" "I think that per encounter reduces the challenge of limiting your spell use properly so that you can go as far as possible on one rest." It does do that, it removes that challenge entirely - replacing it with a challenge that's easier/better to balance, not needlessly restrictive, not pointless and/or tedious and so a much healthier and fun game design - per encounter. The actual combat becomes the challenge (when they get round to balancing it post-release..) where every fight is a big fight, instead of it just being about how well you can hoard and restrict yourself from the gameplay (lol) auto-attacking the majority of combat on "trash mobs" while saving and using the big stuff to roll the big fights, before resting and repeating. It's going to be great.

We all get how per encounter is much better than per rest, as per rest makes it hard to balance the combat and creates challenge via severely restricting your gameplay needlessly. So the game shifted to per encounter but there still appears to remnants of per rest, but just as pointless and tedious as PoE 1 from what i've gathered so far, while waiting to get the game when it's been finished properly (mostly balancing.) Apparently you just get a few rando injuries and then you go and rest. I don't see what this adds to gameplay - the mechanic seems to be made as casual as in 1, so again just making it nothing more than pointless tedium. So why wasn't this weird, half-done thing removed entirely? Was the shell of the mechanic left in for the few willfully ignorant die-hard fans of attrition based gameplay? If so, i doubt it's casual implementation does anything at all for them and certainly nothing for anyone else, so i wonder why else they'd still have it. The only other reason i can think of is "because nod to oldschool RPG games" and that's not a very good reason either. I get attrition based gameplay, i just didn't like the PoE casual implementation of it - again making it nothing more than pointless tedium, so i'm just wondering why if they aren't willing to expand on it, why they leave a ghost of the mechanic in instead of removing it entirely. Why they didn't either expand upon it or remove it entirely. Anyone else able to lend some insight as to their thought process when it comes to the rest mechanic?

But, like, severely restricting your gameplay and auto attacking 80% of the games combat, is much better and the only way to make it challenging. Now to wait for the balancing to go with it - to make it some of the most awesome combat that the RPG genre will have seen in awhile.

Edited: Um the consequence for playing combat poorly, on a higher difficulty - is losing that combat. (On a lower difficulty - there should be no consequence/penalty and/or the combat should be more and more forgiving, making the failure start of losing/dying harder to achieve.) You know, like almost every other game in every genre ever made, ever. End of story. A half-assed attrition system is hard to balance around, and imposes it's challenge by (severely) restricting gameplay - both very unhealthy game designs. Just need to wait until Obsidian finish working on the balance post-release, cause you know, combat balance/challenge isn't all that important...

It isn't just 'cause of lore', other than that what really matters for a company, the commercial, business side of the choices were right as well. It just happens that this time the lore and market opportunity overlap. True, the casual majority market does seem to not care and still enjoy it, so the marketing and general business direction were a success. It's nothing to be proud of though - relying on people to help fund your projects and keep you going, like kickstarting PoE 1, then once you release the game and are no longer financially dependent, going mainstream and leaving those kickstarters behind, because they aren't the majority market for the biggest potential profits. Get them to help you get started, then leave them in the dust while selling out to chase even more money. Nice 1.

Because in the Deadfire region it makes much more sense to have a ship than a castle, and this IS the pirate spot like the Caribbeans are /were on Earth. I don't see how this differs from classic/traditional RPG to begin with, and I actually like that you don't have to travel for days back and forth between your stronghold and your active location. I honestly hope the next game will also have a mobile stronghold like a wagon/caravan (think Banner Saga) or maybe an airship. You can change your ship and its style/colors too, which is a bonus as you couldn't change PoE1 stronghold's architectural style or even place flags and such to make it prettier. (THe only thing I AM annoyed about is that PoE2 ignores whatever ending you had for the stronghold, as it just gets destroyed no matter what) Well, the Caribbeans also had a lot of smaller islands which were often barely visited, had nothing on them, and sometimes were picked by pirates exactly because of that to become a pirate den. It seems not many people here ever played the Age of Pirates or Mount & Blade series or Risen 2. PoE2 has a lot in common with these just in isometric view. That the main character doesn't have to go to every merchant, craftsman, or tavern directly to fix the ship, improve it or to hire crew after talking to all of them one by one makes PoE2 already have a simplified system, although I wish we could buy extra treasure/island location maps from merchants. I'm also surprised we aren't allowed to design our own flag ingame, to pick colors and symbol/pattern for it. I'm personally pretty happy with the outcome, sure it could be further improved, but I hope PoE3 will have even more options for designing/expanding your home base (be it a castle or something else). At the very least PoE2 already addressed the weakest parts of PoE1, which were to always having to walk a lot to return to your base and it being pretty empty and lifeless. To those who really dislike the game or the pirate ship theme: The game gained a lot of positive reviews and praise, currently no other notable pirate themed game is released either which should make profits even better, from a business perspective the choice of location, style, theme, and methods of the game were a very good decision by the devs. You know what I really do miss? It is the minor banter/reaction from your char/companions if you madly click on them, like in Baldur's Gate or PoE1 this was the first thing I tried arriving in the game. Them being annoyed by your pestering was fun and Pallegina's orgasm-like reaction was hilarious. I might use a voice pack mod just to get some of those back. I like how your reasoning and arguments are "Cause lore" Wish i could close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears and live content in a nice and simple lore bubble, haha.

I think the decision came from wanting to keep the feeling of exploration, while not wasting resources on prerendered locations with no content to them. Bg1 and PoE1 have lots of prerendered maps with little content in them. Most of wilderness areas lack meaningful content beyond couple bushes to loot, some trashmobs and maybe a single nod of a larger quest. They used the world map to export loot to over world map, and those key encounters (be it bounties or such) are made in instances. I would hope that the world map allowed for more content per cost than a handful of prerendered wilderness maps. However, I still saw many complaints about the lack of prerendered large wilderness maps. WM still remains to me as the best PoE content to be had. It might be an advantage of smaller scope story. The maps had little content in them in PoE 1? I mean, the game is an RPG - it's about exploration, combat and story. Saying there was little content is saying you want to do more of a variety of things than what this genre is about or maybe even what can be expected of a single game (this size and budget) that is properly fleshed out - either that or the problem was it wasn't done well enough. Can't help you with the former, to solve the latter - encounters should be more than just "trashmobs" the fact that it's all people saw as the majority of combat of PoE 1 was the biggest design flaw. Each fight should be more meaningful, more varied, alot more challenging, more fun and making things per-encounter as well as level scaling is a great start for all of that - now it just actually needs to be balanced (and not classed as a low priority to Obsidian, /facepalm) so people aren't facerolling and the ignorant players don't blame the new per-encounter system for it being so easy and ruining it for half the playerbase. (Yes i said half the playerbase and not just the 10% that play PotD, fite me.) Secondly, loot could definitely have had a little more variety to it in PoE 1. Trash mobs, trash loot. When you fight the same stuff over again, need to save half your characters abilities and auto attack 80% of fights or tediously and needlessly go rest every so often, when you get the same loot over and over and over and over, then yeah i agree. Thirdly the exploration could have been a bit better - bigger maps mostly, not these little 2x2 with sprinkled fights. But me? Give me 20 diff fights in a big rando map, but let me actually use all the awesomeness of my characters in each and every fight and balance it so each one is an epic battle still and somewhat varied - In terms of enemies, strategy to win the fight and loot and i'm happy. I could do that all day, with deep and meaningful story sprinkled all over. Or you know, instead of expanding on the first game with the great experience and knowledge you got form it, to make the next one even better - throw it all out the window and throw in pirates and ships an stuff!

Is that another topic entirely, though? I feel like the whole naval gimmick is half the reason why the islands/playable areas are small, boring and whatever else. I feel like the time and resources they put into the whole naval thing, is one of the big reasons the rest of the game isn't fleshed out. People complaining of no dungeons and boring and small/empty islands - you really think the playable areas would still be the same without it? If this was a completely land based adventure with all time and resources dedicated to it instead?

"I mean how would you do it differently before it turns into some Sea of Thieves pirate simulator? " That's what i meant when i said "Yeah i'm not sure why they felt the need to turn the classic/traditional RPG into Pirates of the Carribean" Because if not done fully, it will be imbalanced, off-putting, simple, not fun etc for the majority. And if done properly, it costs alot more time and resources - and doing so on that one random system/theme, makes it detract even further from the rest of the game. It's a lose-lose situation. You said how else would you do it differently, without it turning into something else entirely and detracting from the base game/genre? That's easy - you don't do it. I get it, apparently people wanted an interactive stronghold and it's a cool idea being able to travel with your stronghold and adventure with it, combat with it, upgrade it, buy crew for it - but once the novelty of those wear off and it's seen for what it is - unless enough time and energy is put in that it becomes it's own thing - it's going to be too shallow, too gimmicky, too different and generally off-putting. This is as an RPG that tried to be something else entirely and unless you have the triple-A budget for it, it's not going to end well. People are saying they love most of the rest of the game (besides balance, bugs and all the other problems) the story, combat, graphics etc - they should have stuck to what they know - what this genre is all about and what makes it great. They should have put all the time and resources used to make rando pirate naval combat into the rest of it to add that much more - that much more variety, that much more depth and that much more length.

Yeah i'm not sure why they felt the need to turn the classic/traditional RPG into Pirates of the Carribean and why they are still casually implementing the attrition systems, which makes them a pointless and tedious gimmick and nothing more. (You either enforce strict and meaningful attrition systems, or you remove them entirely. You don't have half of one willy-nilly thrown in that is mostly pointless. I'm talking about both supplies and injuries/resting. If you're trying to go too mainstream and appease the casual crowd for biggest profits, then man-up and remove the mechanic entirely, since the casual crowd won't be able to handle nor enjoy a properly/strict implemented attrition system. That's on you guys. Don't leave an archaic system in done half-assed, just because the oldschool predecessors had it and a couple of nostalgia-ridden oldschoolers will be unhappy.)

finished version*

Erm, you do realize the game hasn't been balanced yet, right? It's not easy because of the new combat system (per encounter) or whatever. Especially PotD and Vet. This was announced before even release. Apparently they had to choose either between bugfixing or harder difficulty balancing before release - guess which they went with. Even though it released both imbalanced and with plenty of bugs. They said balance will be done post-release and is being worked on as we speak, that's why im waitiing to get the game, wait until they actually finish it so i don't spoil it for myself by facerolling - or rather so they don't spoil it for me having released it half finished. It didn't help level scaling wasn't working on release, either. Apparently balancing the game was a low priority because apparently not many people play harder difficulties, so if you are wanting more of a challenge you're going to have to wait. I can wait a couple months as long as they do it properly.

I think you should wait until they actually finish the game, actually balance it, before worrying about the difficulty. They apparently either had to choose between bugfixing or balancing PotD/Vet before release, even with a whole month delay of release for bugfixing. Guess what they went with. Balancing will apparently be done post release - im personally waiting to get the game until its finished properly, you may wanna do the same so as not to ruin it for you, beforehand. Level scaling apparently wasn't working on release too, so there's that. Was still buggy as well. Gone are the days of actually finishing a game before releasing it. So if you're wanting challenge, you may want to hold off altogether.

They can take all the time to get PotD right that they need, as long as they are dedicating a decent amount of time and resources to it, to do so. It'll understandably be tricky with per encounter, multiclass and subclass and for some reason apparently per rest still of OP "empower." Not impossible by any stretch, it'll just take some time and dedication. If it ever gets done properly, added with PoE combat depth and strategy - it should make some of the best gameplay we've ever had. Glad im waiting. Edit: As a bonus, the rest of the game should actually be finished by then too - the enemy level scaling system not working, companion interaction, multiclass/subclass balance, naval combat, quests not firing properly depending on the order they're done in and a whole host of other problems. Wish games were still finished properly on release. First we could pay for and play games that aren't even finished nor released (early access) where devs could use the safe word "alpha" or "beta" to defend against any scrutiny. Now even when games are released - they still aren't actually finished and working properly. And that's without even going into the cesspit of loot boxes, pay2win and everything else. The gaming industry is getting worse and worse. I can't wait until it starts getting regulated, like almost every other industry in the world. Wish politicians weren't so ignorant and uncaring towards it, just because they obviously weren't brought up in a gaming environment (as well as the big payouts they receive from gaming corps to make sure things stay that way, but still.)

That's fair, and true - most RPGs do suck at encounter difficulty, haha, so i can see why some people may not understand just how much better per encounter will be, once it's balanced properly. Hard to know any better when you've never known any better. Fingers crossed they get it right this time. Edit: Also wasn't just addressing you in that post, but everyone who has argued against per encounter and blindly want per rest, because nostalgia and ignorance.

Encounter difficulty is a big part of it, yes, and I'm all for shoring up the lamentable difficulty we have for POTD at the moment. A properly challenging encounter brings out the best of every system. But this was never about "attrition difficulty vs. encounter difficulty" in my mind. I think it's always important to have a good blend of both. IE games & Pillars were never really about very strict and hardcore attrition anyway - POE1 wasn't either. I simply don't see the benefit of getting rid of the attrition side entirely, apart from pleasing a subset of players who enjoy casting 3 fireballs every single fight and healing up to full health every fight (and you could do that in POE1 anyway, especially with a bit of help from the console). I don't necessarily think per-rest is always the answer, but I think if you're going to make big changes to the system, the onus is on you (Obsidian) to come up with an improved blend of mild attrition & strong encounter difficulty, instead of just dropping the ball on both. "But this was never about "attrition difficulty vs. encounter difficulty" in my mind" This was exactly about attrition vs encounter - per rest vs per encounter. It's not to say we couldn't have both, but it's not needed and definitely not healthy game design, whether a couple of oldschool people like it or not. People enjoy drugs - it doesn't mean they're good for you. "I simply don't see the benefit of getting rid of the attrition side entirely, apart from pleasing a subset of players who enjoy casting 3 fireballs every single fight and healing up to full health every fight" This is unrealstic, exaggerated and just plain inane. As Flamesium said: "Tactical variety doesn't have to be forced on the player by attrition, it can (and imo should) come from different encounters requiring the player to choose different tactics to overcome. Each encounter should be a puzzle to be solved in its own right. There should be no one tactic or character build which dominates every fight" And with having different offense and defense strengths and weaknesses (reflex, deflection, will and resolve attacks, different physical damage types, different magical damage types, concentration/interruption, cc, different armor types and amounts etc) as well as unique subclass twists and multiclass variety as well as multiple higher difficulty settings - this is the perfect game to have that. So saying "pleasing a subset of players who enjoy casting 3 fireballs every single fight" is again just silly. You're just running out of actual arguments to lend weight to the per rest system. That is because it really is an inferior and archaic system. As for the "healing up to full health every fight" that would be completely fine at higher difficulties with the appropriate balance - where either you need to be able to heal full mid combat just to be able to survive in the end, or you actually don't get the chance to heal full because of increased incoming damage, or healing is no longer that powerful, etc. If you are able to just easy heal full in a fight - again, the balance is the problem not the combat system. The only arguments for per rest so far, is: It adds strategy/skill/challenge - It doesn't, because you could go rest anytime, almost anywhere. All it did was make it harder to account for and so balance, combat. Per encounter is easy/OP - it's clearly the balance that is the issue there and is being worked on post-release. Spamming same skills would become boring - something you won't be able to do on higher difficulties, with the afore mentioned different defenses/offenses strengths/weaknesses etc, so you can't just "cast 3 fireballs every single fight" - There's a little more to it, including variance. Does this just about sum it up?

It doesn't matter - they said they had to choose between bugfixes and balancing difficulty, especially the harder difficulties, before release. Even though they apparently already delayed the release a month for bugfixes. Guess which option they chose. People are saying even PotD is easy because of it, so it doesn't matter either way currently. I'm personally waiting to get this until they balance it - i don't want to faceroll ruin it. Maybe play PoE 1 again while waiting or something else. Apparently the people wanting to play on a harder difficulty are only a minority though and so it's not as important. (other people on the forums, not the devs this time)

"Moreover, when you have a level of difficulty called Path of the Damned, well it's supposed to be very hard and challenging and ***restrictive in some ways*** god damnit" Who said a harder difficulty has to be restrictive? If you need to restrict the gameplay in your game, to make it challenging, you're doing it wrong imo. There is absolutely 0 reason why we can't still have challenging fights, with per encounter. (See Flamesiums post above, for how per encounter can still be challenging and tactical if you need it explained. As well as the downsides and comparisons to per rest.) Does that mean you also have to jack the balance up more than normal to compensate? Well obviously, but that is not hard to do. They're going to have to anyway, with the addition of subclasses and multiclassing. Again i'm waiting to get this until balance/PotD is done, because of the awesome new per encounter system where we actually get to use our characters and not have to auto attack 80% of the game and i don't want to ruin it beforehand - and i'm fully expecting and wanting to *have* to use everything every fight, just to even have a chance at winning. per encounter does not make it easy mode or make you OP, it only does that when it isn't balanced properly (or at all, let's be honest) "The big issue here is that Obsidian changed that without changing how the combat works very much. They did half the work with so that we have to say "PoE 1 system was better". But that's not the point. The point is that the new system doesn't provide any challenge. If it did people here wouldn't have regret about the changes." You even acknowledge it wasn't the new system, (per encounter) that is the problem, but the ****ty excuse of balance you got with it on release. I'm all for extra difficulty, but gameplay restriction is the worst, laziest way to do that. Especially when you can turn back anytime, almost anywhere and spam rest as needed/wanted like you could in PoE 1. It then became just a tedious and pointless mechanic and hard to balance for. Because of that you didn't have to "use your skills wisely" and so it didn't add any "skill" or "strategy" (let's be real here....) and the notion that it's not possible to have challenging fights with per encounter, that only per rest provides challenge is simply ignorant. Again - the mess up here was not the new combat system, it was completely dropping the ball on balance until post-release, to go along with it. Edit: Also - what Flamesium above me said. More very good points that i did touch on, but maybe should have gone into more detail about.

"I honestly don't see how POE 2 can be made challenging as no limits mean having to make really massive changes to game already out. Adding in more bad guys or other things not really going to make game of tactical choices and if we fudge it with bad idea we could make it unplayable for casual players and possibly kill franchise." Um, this is what multiple difficulties are for. There are 5 difficulty settings in Pillars. "Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person." I think that's neither a realistic thing, nor something that should be supported - sacrificing the entire rest of the playerbase and quality and depth of the game because: "Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person." The entire gaming industry is centered around them. Let us at least have one thing. Just one difficulty.

"And again, I think you should trust me on this. The "fun" of seeing "all the awesomeness of your characters" in *every single* fight is not going to be a sustainable kind of fun, at least imo." If you end up finding the combat boring and need to severely restrict yourself and your characters arbitrarily, to find enjoyment from the combat, that's on you. I can guarantee that wouldn't be the majority opinion, as evidenced by the devs changing it. Hell the hack 'n slash genre is already a testament to per encounter combat, that not being arbitrarily restricted on your character is much better and more fun gameplay. As well as almost any other game and genre ever made, for that matter. "Yup, absolutely. When you do "awesome stuff" every battle it stops being awesome, it becomes pointless and boring. No matter how good a fireball looks I'm not going to be entranced by it 800 times." TIL that nevermind about multiclasses, subclasses, skill trees containing both active abilities and passives, multiple attack and defense stats that you need target as well as other combat depth - you will just be spamming fireball the entire game. *rolls eyes* "What you really remember, what really has you on the edge of your seat, is when only your wizard is left standing in BG1 and out of arrows, you're firing off every consumable you ever found in your inventory at the hulking enemy hoping your stoneskin won't run out" Since it's already been said as good as it could be: "No reason you can’t have this ‘scraping the barrel’ scenario with a ‘per encounter’ system once it’s balanced correctly. Actually it should be more likely to happen with ‘per encounter’ because you can’t save 10 fights worth of top abilities to spam on the ‘hard’ fight even if you want to, plus you should be able to end up running on fumes in any given fight, not only the last one or two in an area." Imagine playing a properly balanced PotD difficulty and having a bottom-of-the-barrel epic last-stand, where it took using everything in your power just to have a chance, every encounter. Perfect. Apparently only the per rest system can be challenging, have you scraping the bottom of the barrel and generally make for some epic stories. Restriction = great gameplay. You guys are just too set in your way, just plain refusing to see the logic of how not only is everything of per rest attainable with per encounter (when the game has actually been balanced) but that it's much less restrictive, fun and just flat out better. Which is unfortunate.