Stun

Do you miss points for a living Lephys? Here, lets try this again. I personally would rather enjoy reading someone's perfect example of an adaptive scouting system, as I believe such a system would make everything it touches, whether it be quests or combat, so much better. But, of course, leave it to YOU to find the ONE example where it wouldn't work at all: Sending assassins against a high profile Land owner HERO. LOL What sort of adaptive scouting is required here, exactly? Don't answer. I'll show you. Assassin: Yo, Bartender! Bartender: What? Assassin: I saw you serve a small group of heavily armed adventurers here last night. Bartender: Yep. Assassin: Tell me about their leader. Bartender: Um.... have you been living under a rock? That's Lord ___CharName___. You know that giant fortress stronghold to the east? It's his. He lives there. Assassin: Thanks for the very useful information (damn, am I a good adaptive scouter or what!!!) Later... at the stronghold. Assassin: Yo, Gate keeper, We are Businessmen from Dyrwood. We have a proposal for Lord _____CharName____. Gate Keeper: Very well, come on in. Please see the steward to schedule an appointment with Lord ___CharName___. ^sound familiar? It should. Almost Every RPG in history that has had Assassins come after the protagonist has done it this way. It's a 3 step process. Step 1: protagonist does something to piss off a group/individual. Step 2: Assassins are sent. step 3: Assassin locates the protagonist based on some in-game trigger point (either time, footprint, or central location that Protagonist is bound to pass through). Problem: There's nothing particularly adaptive or creative about this.

Yes, I imagine it would sensibly take extremely intelligent (and time consuming) surveillance, high level scouting and sophisticatedly coordinated reconnaissance for a faction to locate their target, who in this case happens to be the proud and famous lord of a large and significant Stronghold. That is, if they want to take the pointlessly complicated route. For everyone else, I imagine the plan can't be any more difficult than walking up to the front gate and yelling: "My Lord, we have a Business proposition for you! Open up!" Then, when they're let in, they....attack.

LOL True story about one of my earlier playthroughs of BG2. I was romancing Viconia. Everything was going fine. OK, we enter Firkraag's lair. At that moment I'm collecting my thoughts, and mapping out in my mind how I'm going to handle a Dragon with my low level party. Suddenly Viconia chimes in with a romance dialogue: Viconia: I'm wondering this. Have you ever entertained the notion of marriage? WTF... I'm currently entertaining the notion of surviving a dragon battle; I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to protect My party from a 20d8 Fire breath. But hey, on the Bright side, Firkraag was reasonable. He patiently allowed us to finish our flirt session. Classy guy.

I've got a better idea. Why don't you show me a game that doesn't. Show me a game that managed to perfectly implement class balance. Then the rest of us can discuss whether multiple playthroughs of that game felt "samey" or not. Because honestly? The only games I can think of that truly balanced their classes all ended up suffering from DA2's soulless class rigidity. Ever played Dungeon Siege 1 and 2? Same phenomenon! I don't recall advocating preposterous disparity. Trust me lephys, building a glass cannon Warrior will yield the same results. Sure, you'll do 1000000000 damage per swing, but you'll die in 30 seconds as enemies shatter your 'glass'

Yes. I can. Dragon Age 2. <---- There's your different but equal class balance in all its shameless glory. Warriors, Rogues and Mages are different. They have utterly different skill sets. But they play so similarly that there's really no real point to playing as a Warrior after you've played as a Rogue. Not a single encounter in the game will feel different. All three classes are so rigidly balanced that it feels as if the devs used some super-complicated computer program to insure, mathamically, that your rogue will not feel any more or less powerful than your warrior or mage...from beginning to end. Consequently, DA2's replay value is zero.

I'm more worried about the replayability. 'Different but equal' still translates to "equal" when its all said and done, which means your 2nd play through of the game using a different class will still *feel* the same as your first, since everything was perfectly balanced to insure that every class is just as viable as the other. you just get to use different tools. Call me crazy, but I *like* it when some classes are weak and some are over powered. Unlike some people, I have gaming moods. Sometimes I feel like playing a tragically weak class/party and see if I can weather the game's challenges with it. While other times I feel compelled to utterly power-play and see if I can break the game. "Balance" takes that all away, and gives you a game with an invisible referee looking over your shoulder, making sure that Mages don't ever overstep their bounds and outshine Fighters, at any level, or vise versa. I find that remarkably dull as far as game design goes.

I can't think of one. The problem with "balanced" mages is that in order to make them "equal" or force some linear progression on them like a fighter class you have to suck all the "magic" out of their magic. Especially at higher levels. You can no longer have dynamic AOE nukes, or save-or-die spells, or dominate effects, or mass charms because they're all way too powerful by comparison. After all, there's no way that +3 sword will ever cause as much instant carnage to everyone on the field as a fireball will. Consequently, games that offer perfect class balance tend to have dull spells that resemble weapons. Like those Pew-pew beams of fire from a mage's fingertips that do exactly as much damage as the arrows from an archer's bow. (same hit and miss chance too!) Or that Protection spell that, coincidently enough, functions exactly the same as the plain suit of plate mail that the fighter is wearing. <yawn>

Except for high level Paladins with Dispel Magic, True Seeing and Carsomyr, which will make any mage in Bg2 just as weak and squishy and effortless as they were in Bg1. Edit: Or Rogues, who also become "quadratic" in BG2. (it's hard to even graph the sudden spike in Rogue power once he gets UAI, and the HLA traps)

Ok then, graphically speaking, I'd say mage progression in BG2 would take the shape of a smoking hot woman with skinny legs, a small ass and gigantic bouncy t*ts. Of course, BG2 allowed for countless combinations of multi and dual classing, so you could, if you wanted, play a Fighter-Mage. Or in graphic terms, a smoking hot woman with a nice rounded ass and slightly larger than normal t*ts. Or you could be a Fighter-Mage-Cleric. Which would be the equivilant of a hot and perfectly proportioned woman with a cool personality. But lets not forget that this is BG2 we're talking about here. The undisputed Madam of all Loot-heavy games. In Bg2, you could take a plain fighter and by chapter 7, via items alone, win just about any battle using only the magic items you've hoarded. Thus, You begin as an ugly flat-chested guy, and get a sex change, a boob job, a face job, liposuction, and a professional makeup job...just in time for your assault on Suldanessalar

There isn't an English explanation for the OP's use of the term "quadratic". Quadratic simply means "square". Are mages Square in Bg2? That makes no sense at all. I'm betting the Op wanted to avoid using the term he really meant (BALANCED...or Unbalanced) for fear that it'd just end up being another one of those pointless discussions. And sure, mages are unbalanced in Bg2. Big deal. Lets all cry for 14 f*cking years about that.

I'm sorry, and here I thought Imoen gets her soul Back in chapter six.... and that you're already the embodiment of the Slayer by then. My bad.

Well, lets remember that Chapter 5 is also a major Hub. You're in the Underdark. It's massive. There are dungeons within dungeons. There's an open area, And a town, and a little village, and a bajillion side quests that will take you in and out of all of these places for hours and hours and hours. And then there's chapter 6, where you return to the world map. (just like chapter 2, 3) So lets recap: The, open, non-linear chapters in BG2 are: Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 5, and chapter 6. That's practically the whole game. What's the gripe again? Side note: We see a lot of people complaining about how BG2 starts off so breathtakingly open and free and then suddenly funnels you into a linear main quest for the second half of the game....almost as if they dropped the ball or quit being creative or something. And then, at the same time we see these same people complaining about how illogical the main quest is (you gotta rescue Imoen. It's Urgent! But....But.... Lets do Athkatla first, and the sewers under it. Lets do Kangaxx, and the planar sphere, lets get our stronghold and focus on it until all its quests have been completed. Lets save trademeet, and explore the Umar hills. And Kill Fiirkrag. Hell, lets even do Watcher's keep! Then lets go after Imoen (hopefully she's not dead yet!) Which I find bizarre. People, BG2 is an RPG, remember? It's supposed to be up to YOU to act on this Urgency or not (depending on your motivations). And, interestingly enough, the entire game's progression and pacing begins making SO much more sense if you DO role play the game. Here, next time you play Bg2 try this: 1) Raise 15,000gp as fast as you can. As if it's an emergency. You can do this in the Copper Coronet alone (ie. without even leaving the slums) 2) Do Lindvail's (or Bodhi's) quests 3) Go to spellhold and rescue imoen. 4) Do chapter 5 5) Take your time and Explore the world in chapter 6. 6) Take care of Irenicus. ^If you do that, you'll find that there's nothing wrong with the narrative structure at all, or the quest volume pacing (or whatever Josh's strange gripes are)

Interesting. Just a few posts ago you were flat out condemning the notion of viable solo play in a party based RPG as pro that the gameplay mechanics were simply broken. Or was it a different Mor who said this: If you want to now amend that to say: "well alright, it should be viable but not the design goal", Or "viable but hard" then just say so. I certainly won't disagree. After all, that's how the IE games were. Soloing Baldurs Gate was not only totally viable, but after a couple of hours, it wasn't even that difficult.

You can't have both of these. They are mutually exclusive desires. A Game with a combat system robust enough to allow for party composition experimentation, like for example a party of 6 monks.... or a party of 5 mages, Or even a party of just a single lone Fighter....cannot at the same time force role-requirements on the player. So that leaves you with a choice. Do you want the game to give you the freedom to choose your party makeup? Or do you want a game to be so Rock-paper-scissors-demanding that only a specific (developer defined) combination of roles can beat it? Me, I'll take the first one. And so will everyone in the world who loved the IE games. Oh, and so will the Developers of PoE, btw (note Sawyer's explanation on this thread ) We're crazy like that. We like our role playing choices to go beyond the game's narratives and quests. We want to be able to choose who our protagonist(s) are as well. There are no cookie cutters in this club house.

Ok, lets back up here. I'm assuming, (since this is the PoE boards, and PoE is being influenced by the infinity engine games), that we may discuss Party based RPGs in terms of how the infinity engine did it. Now, before we go any further, I need your opinion on something: Were the class roles in the IE games too watered down? Was the Difficulty too low? Was the AI piss poor across the board?

But back on topic.... Each one of those games could be soloed by any class. In fact, that's one of the reasons why each of those games are all time classics and endlessly replayable.

That's not kiting. That's just killing stuff while you're running away. If that's kiting, then so is driving away in a humvee and slaughtering people on foot with a 50-calibur mounted atop it while you do so. It is if it's a combat situation and those people are chasing you. WTF. You really don't know what kiting is.

...By saying that Kiting isn't a tactic (it is) because it can't be done in real life (It can). Right. LOL Enough already. Everyone here knows what kiting is. Well, everyone but you, apparently. The rest of us have moved on to discussing examples of kiting. But you can't cast spells in real life, therefore, according to your stated perameters, casting spells at enemies is not a tactic in an RPG.

Guess who's staying a hundred miles away from this post of yours? Guess who won't touch it or look at it because it demonstrably shatters his ridiculous claim that actual *Literal* kiting doesn't exist in the real world?

So... stamina-based attrition is now kiting? Is that what you interpreted from that passage? Actually, wearing down the Kiter down is in fact, another tactic, and the counter to kiting. But, as described above, Kiting is one method used to deal with a powerful, aggressive meleer. Therefore, it is a tactic. Not a great one. Not even a fair one. But we were not discussing the greatness or fairness of a specific tactic...just whether it IS one. I give up. You're right. Casting spells is an entity then. I just remembered that in most RPGs you may purchase Spell Casting, in quantities of 5 or 10 or 99, from any merchant. Derp.

No one here is asking for the classes to be 'watered down' so that we can solo. A good player can solo a party based game regardless of how strictly the devs decided to define the class roles. If he can't then the game has an options deficit problem.... the rock-paper-scissors kind, to be specific. And just in case the goal posts are being moved here... lets reiterate. Giving a class the ability to Kite is not "watering down" any roles. Especially not a mage's Role. Why do you think time honored mage spells like Invisibility, Haste, Dimension door, Slow, Fumble, Grease and Sleep have existed since Josh Sawyer was in kindergarten? Here let me answer that. Because dealing with Bull-rushing battle field goons IS the mage's role.

Actually, most of the time boxers do it when they're hurt, or when their opponent is vastly more powerful than they are. For example, look at the old Mike Tyson fights... the ones from from the 80s. His opponents couldn't handle a stand up fight with him, nor were they skilled enough to classically box him....so, they'd Kite. They'd jab then they'd run. Then when he'd catch up with them....they'd jab...then they'd run.... Since Tyson is a short, stocky guy who never had a reach advantage over anyone he fought, The tactic worked against him...NOT because of the opponent's skill, but because of....Genetics. Of course, such hit and run tactics against a high-pressure fighter like Tyson takes a ton out of you, and when you run out of gas, that's when you get knocked out. Except magic isn't a tactic. Using spells to kill an enemy is a tactic, and it was the example I gave. The point remains. Lethal magic does not exist in the real world, nor does spell slinging. So does that mean, then, that using spells to kill an enemy in a video game is not a tactic?

kiting does not automatically necessitate ranged combat, does it. And countering (counter punching) is a completely different subject. Once you start countering (even in a video game), you're no longer kiting. Stick-and-Move is literally the definition of Kiting. You hit someone, then you back away so he can't hit you. Then you hit him again, then you back away so he can't hit you. etc. That's.... silly. Magic doesn't exist in real life either. Therefore, using spells to kill someone isn't a legitimate tactic in a video game?

Oh, I don't know about that. I see Kiting as sorta like how some Boxers fight in the ring in real life. The old expression "stick-and-move" comes to mind - Where you fire off a jab or a quick combination, then...you back-pedal away...and as the opponent follows you around the ring, you jab and move again...etc. Ultimately it's a rather boring way to fight (and some would say cowardly), but whether it's exciting, boring, cowardly or silly is not a commentary on whether it's a legitimate tactic. It IS legitimate, and the fact that many great RPGs even give you tools/skills to make your kiting more effective is just further proof.

Icewind Dale 2 was developed using a pre-existing engine. It also had a limited scope compared to the Baldur's Gate games, being more focused on combat. RPG's take a lot more time to develop than other genres (Dragon Age Origins was apparently revealed at E3 2004 and didn't come out until 2009). Oh, more than that. IWD2 not only already had a pre-existing engine, but it also had many many pre-existing assets. Almost the entire bestiary, and all the creature animations were simply lifted from the other IE games. Just about all the spells were copied from the previous game. The UI wasn't new either...just tweaked. Even some of the areas were copied from IWD1 (Severed Hand, Kuldahar, Dragon's eye), although again, they were tweaked. Still, Icewind Dale 2 was an industry miracle. A LARGE, virtually bug free game that used D&D 3.0's rule set and managed to be close to perfectly balanced and it had the best Chargen of any RPG in history.... and they did it in 10 months. It is probably the exception to the rule, not an example of it.