Stun

The former. Of course he's right. Take Randomness, for example. In some games, if degrees of success and failure are based on a dice roll (ie. luck), then some gamers will simply re-load until they get an optimal result. That is degenerate game play. Josh is *right* when he says that this should never have to happen -that all success and failure should be based 100% on the player's skill, and not luck. His argument is 100% logical. But Logic and fun are not related. People ENJOY randomness. People LOVE the luck game. Go to Las Vegas and look around if you don't believe me. Personally, I'd like a little of both in my games. But really, this all kinda misses the point. I'm more concerned about what we're losing in order to achieve this perfectly logical, perfectly degenerate-free game. Death spells is one thing we're losing. Spell pre-buffing is another. Those things were FUN for me, but I guess my definition of fun isn't in line with Josh's gaming philosophies.

Ahh, the hilarity. Josh uses the word "degenerate" like one time, One time? Have you lost your mind? It's the core of his entire gaming philosophy. He's Ahab and Degenerate Gameplay is his white whale. The phrase litters his mindspring posts. He has specifically cited it in discussions about 1) randomness; 2)death spells; 3) healing spells; 4) Resting; 5) Prebuffing; 6)The Vancian casting system; 7) Min-maxing, and a score of other subjects that are too numerous to mention. And yes, yes, I know, he sees Degenerate gameplay as the developer's fault, not the player's. So it's not meant to be a criticism against us degenerates or whatever. But the impenetrable bottom line remains: There are dozens of mechanics that gamers consider FUN but he considers flaws that need to removed. This is a potential Dev vs. Player impasse that, if not balanced correctly, could cause a game to sell poorly even though it was brilliantly produced and even though its mechanics are logically flawless. It's sorta like a little kid. He wants Ice cream, but mom gives him carrots and celery sticks instead because its more healthy. Well, she's right, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that ice cream is more appealing. But this discussion is moot anyway. Summoning is In.

Bravo, sir. You win the Degenerate of the Year award! Anyway, There is one type of spell I'm not seeing on the Wizard and Druid lists we've been given: Summons. Are there none in this game? Were they too "exploitable" in the IE games and therefore the concept had to be scrapped in the same way pre-buffing has?

First, I'm not worried at all. The IE games did not cost much more than 4-5 million to make. Second, For once we're looking at a nice long development time. When it's all said and done, Obsidian will have had 2 years to develop this game. Third, and I think most important: Experience. I don't think it's all that fair to compare Obsidian with the guys who made Shadowrun Returns or Broken Age. Obsidian is far, far more seasoned at this kind of stuff than those guys are. As for the Kickstarter track record fear that we're gonna get a small game that feels like the devs had big dreams and not enough funding to implement them.... Well, I would *hope* that IF they sensed that they needed more money that they'd swallow their "pride" or "professionalism" or whatever and just Publically Request It. I don't know about anyone else, but for me, if Feargus came here and said: "hey guys, I know we've already asked a lot from you, but I'm looking at the game and I feel that another $500,000 - $1,000,000 would really make a huge difference in its vastness, reactivity and overall size and feel", I would grab my wallet, my friends, and donate all over again.

Reading this post of yours just gave me shivers. And I *hope* PoE doesn't do this. One of my biggest pet peeves is when games have "combat modes" and "non-combat modes", and all gameplay details hinge on these modes. For example: Non-combat mode - Characters have specific 'liesure' walks. Magic items don't glow. Characters have their weapons sheathed and cannot unsheathe them. Characters can't cast any spells. Combat mode- Characters are in an eternal 'fighting stance'. Magic items suddenly show their enchantment graphics. Weapons suddenly become unsheathed. The spell casting icon suddenly turns on and characters are free to cast spells. I dislike games that have this system. If you can even call it a system. All it is, is a developer's hamfisted attempt to corral gameplay so that the player doesn't do something considered "wrong". Like attack non-hostiles. Or initiate combat before it's meant to be initiated. The dragon age games did this. Its a really *rotten* design.

... is quite encouraging in that regard. After having watched some of these very same Obsidian devs play the old classics like Icewind Dale 2 (Adam) and Arcanum (Avellone), and get their asses kicked in easy encounters. this statement from Sawyer does not have quite the awe inspiring impact it he probably meant it to have. Besides, Gamers have always been 10000 times better at Games than the devs who created them. We're the ones who discover loopholes, exploits and cheese tactics.

If buffing is so powerful, won't that encourage save scumming? Like Encounter Quick load Buff the hell out of your party Lazily obliterate enemies As opposed to: 1) encounter 2) Buff the hell out of the party with Weak buffs that do virtually nothing 3) Party gets obliterated because they sat there and buffed themselves pointlessly while the enemy destroyed them with offense. 4) Player reloads and just scraps the buffing. No thanks. They already took spell pre-buffing away and there's already a spell interruption mechanic during combat. Making mage spells weaker on top of all of this will not reduce "save scumming", it will just make mages not worth playing.

Is fireball still a 3rd level spell?

He also said "Gish-type characters" (a reference to Githyanki fighter-mages). And Gish are very much warriors first, mages second. In fact they mostly only use magic to augment their melee effectiveness. ie. combat buffs. Personally, I'm thrilled. This excites me, because those are the types of builds that for me are the most fun to play. Well, D&D imposed spell 'cost functions' in other ways. Sorcerers for example had a spell level pool. If you were a 17th level sorcerer, you could decide to pre-buff everyone in your party with Mind Blank, but then that meant that you wouldn't be able to cast your Horrid Wilting once combat began.. As it stands, PoE will be adopting this Sorcerer model in addition to the cost function you mentioned. I just hope this doesn't all add up to casters being..... weaker than non-casters.

Uh...No. "Lasts for 3 attacks" would not be a time measurement. It would be an instance measurement. And, your limitation of "Short term vs. Long term" definitely wouldn't apply. Would it. Correct. It can be NEITHER. The nature of the buff can be such that it is not effected by time. It can be a spell that, once cast, stays in effect until it fulfills its function. For example: a buff that Absorbs x levels of spells directed at the wizard, and then expires once its absorption limit has been reached. Or a Melee-shielding type spell that will block x number of melee hits and then expire only when it reaches its limit. I'll ask again, how does that fit into your Either/Or world of limitations? You guessed it! It doesn't. It renders your all your incessant rambling on this topic completely moot.

We're getting this from You? YOU, the guy who's posts on any given thread are always at least 3 times longer than everyone else's? LOL By the way... Just to tie up a one loose end, and to illustrate just how lacking your knowledge of buffs has been in this discussion: Or.... you can have a Buff with a very significant, almost absolute, factor adjustment, but who's duration is not measured by time at all. So tell us, Lephys, how would such buffs fit into your constrictive, "either/or" gaming theories?

It's interesting. That's exactly the vibe I got when I was reading the list. Many of these spells sound like they'd compliment a multi-class Mage-warrior build marvelously. Like Mage's Double, for example. Imagine casting that on yourself then wading in and engaging in melee brawl... But alas. There's no Multi-classing in PoE. Of course, you can still do the above, but you'll be doing it as a pure wizard.

Really? By talking about their coding? Interesting. By all means then, please share more of your insider information with us. Specifically, give us a list of Wizard buffs (all versions) that are going to be in the game that haven't yet been revealed, then take some time to tell us about the various changes to the higher level buffs that were made during the coding process, both minor and major, that you personally witnessed.

Strip away all the press-conference spin and one is left with a single question, which was neither asked nor answered. Ok, we've been assured that Paradox will be handling all the distribution and marketing In the meantime: 1)all game design decisions remain with Obsidian 2)all backer funding remains allotted to the game's development So.... what's in it for Paradox? They're certainly not going to be handling all the marketing and distribution for free. All those media guys in the audience and not a single one of them bothered to ask for any meaningful details. Typical. So, we're back to square one: where gamers are stuck having to speculate. *I'm* guessing Paradox is going to get a share of the profits. How big of a percentage though?

^this is another subject change attempt. And I'm not going to indulge in these antics of yours any more. I'll just say that We were NOT discussing the state of buff spells during the coding development process before a game has been released. We were discussing Buff spells as they exist in a game that has been already delivered to us. In that case, there is no such thing as a different version of the same spell. It's either the same spell or it's a different spell. Lephys, If you want people to understand you instead of dismissing your arguments as long winded drivel, I'd suggest you try to be a little less.... erroneous with your terminology use. For example, if you mean RUN, don't say Walk. Oh and in case that went over your head: stop blaming others for your own faulty use of language. Not following. According to the damage and health numbers, B was the result of the Buffing from both sides that occurred in A. So....What is your point? Just stop. I'll post my OWN responses. Thanks. Quit trying to burn a straw man in my face by shooting down arguments that I would never make. Excuse me, but from a tactical point of view, I'd much rather those Fire elementals waste their attacks trying to debuff me, instead of actually trying to, you know... kill me. Look, let me help you out here. And let me do it in plain English. Pre-buffing can limit your combat options in ONE way: By diminishing your spell pool. There can be situations where you "over-anticipate" and start casting buffs that turn out to be not needed. For example: You cast Protection from Arrows, then wade into battle, only to discover that the enemy does not consist of a single archer. Oops. Now you're out one 3rd level spell. One 3rd level spell that could have been used in the form a Fireball, or some other very useful non-buff that actually hurts the enemy directly. Because.... tactics? Cover your ass? Anticipate everything? Be prepared? Get a head start? Grab every advantage you can get? Because.... you can? Because.... a good game allows it? Because...a game with Rigid Lephys-advocated Restrictions isn't as good as a game without Lephys-advocated Restrictions?

Fix? Fix suggests that it was something broken. It wasn't.

LOL Back for more are we? Good. Lets continue. Really? It was "versions" just a page ago. Now it's "potentialities". What's it gonna be next page? Names? You're just throwing thoughts out here wildly because none of your arguments are sticking. Spell versions suggests that they're... different spell effects. Spell potentialities suggests that the spell can have a different utility use depending on the situation. I will give you an example of both. Note: these will be hypothetical. Different versions: Monster summoning. The 1st level version of this spell summons goblins. The 9th level version of this spell summons Umberhulks. Spell Potentialities: Invisibility. When cast outside of combat, this spell can be used to scout areas. When cast in-combat, this spell can be used to set up sneak attacks. What is? Creating versions of a spell or creating potentialities of a spell? Because most spells only have 1 version. In fact, the vast majority only have one version. And I cannot recall more than 1 or 2 buffs in all my years of gaming that have had more than one version of themselves. But potentialities... well, that's another beast all together. The player's imagination is the limit on that. Haste is an example of a spell with a bajillion potentialities. It can be used as a standard buff to give you extra attacks. It can be used to dispel the Slow affliction. It can be used outside of combat to quicken travel speed. It can be used as a solution to a terrain puzzle (like if there's a lava pool that you must cross that causes 10 points of damage per second. By using Haste, you can cross that pool faster, thus taking less damage) Well, there might be a time and funding restriction, if they have to make multiple versions of every single spell in the game.

No, I'm pretty sure I was saying that a blank-slate protagonist can be the best vehicle for an RPG story, since 1) you're not being corralled into roleplaying a dev-created personality that you may not relate to, and 2) there are a billion different ways to tell a good story in a video game and most of those ways work best if the protagonist(s) that the player is controlling do not come already frontloaded with narrative baggage. But this is probably a discussion for another thread. Then you must have thought TOEE was a big waste of your money. No wait. You've been praising it since page 1.

If by "We", you mean "some people" I won't argue. But maybe we shouldn't forget that we also asked for, and got, the Adventurer's hall for PoE, a feature where we can create a whole party of "Hp Bags with swords", so as to re-live that total party customization magic that the Icewind Dales were all about.

What does this even mean? In Icewind Dale, The PLAYER is the one who creates those characters, remember? If they're boring then blame falls on the lazy player who 1) didn't try to role play those characters, 2) didn't take some time to write anything in the Biography section of those characters. But I get it. We've been seduced by Bioware-drama. Where characters aren't interesting unless you can romance them. And plots suck unless they're delivered via long cinematic cut scenes <gag>

There's no such thing as a party based RPG with decent path-finding. So this is a pointless argument. But I can say this. If we have to deal with bad path-finding, I'd MUCH rather deal with it in a RTwP system than in a turn based system. Because at least with RTwP, you can... you know. Pause the game when you see a character run off in the wrong direction, and guide him back. But with turn based, you can do nothing but sit there and watch that character derp his way to catastrophy.

Neither do I. In BG2, If a battle seemed to be so potentially deadly that you risked "losing a few characters", then basic gamer instinct usually took over and you tended to 1) pause the game and issue specific commands, and 2) re-think your tactics (see #1) But since this debate is a comparison, lets take a look at your options in a turn based system. Ok, you're in a particularly tough battle and you fear the potential of "losing a few characters". what do you do? Well, for one, you can't do a party retreat. Each character must wait for his turn. This means that you might be able to get a couple of characters out of harms way, but of course it's very rare when everyone in your entire party gets a turn before an enemy does. So lets see... party member #1 and #2 get their turns. You order them to fall back to a safer position. Now it's enemy #1's turn. He activates a nasty attack against Party member #3, who was just standing there, waiting, because it wasn't his turn. He dies as a result. Now it's Enemy #2's turn. he does the same thing to Party member #4. Party member #4 is now down to 1 hitpoint. But, good news. It's Party member #5's turn now. And he's a cleric! So you order him to move to Party member #4's side and cast heal. Problem: Enemy #3 is in the way, and gets an attack of opportunity. He nails party member #5 with his axe. Party member #5 thus gets his heal spell interrupted. It's now Enemy #5's turn. He's the sorcerer in the back. He's casts Dominate on party member #1 and orders him to attack party member #2. Ahem. No thanks. I'll take Real time with pause.

Yes. You can. Pause your game. Grab your wizard and select your spell. Then grab your fighter and click where you want him to retreat. Then unpause your game. Your wizard will then cast the spell you selected, and at the same time, your fighter will retreat. Are You sure you've played the IE games?

It didn't have a plot. It had an amazing plot. And each dungeon had its own rich story. Then you don't remember much about Icewind Dale. The influence of Crenshinibon. (there's a whole book devoted to it in the Drizzt series btw. It's called the Crystal Shard) Belhifet's forces vs. Yxonnemai's forces, and the mystery of who's doing what to whom; who's causing the disturbances in the pass and why. Then there's the Elven and Dwarven alliance and its breakdown, and who's responsible for the betrayal. Malavon and Ginnafae. Maiden Ilmadia's story. Presio's journal. Kresselak's story. And then we've got the expansions. Personally, I rank the Story of Trials of the Luremaster higher than anything from any of the infinity engine games, save for maybe PS:T's plot.

As Rustypup just pointed out, that's... not how it works. And your comparison here is a bit wonky. The only management difference between TB and RTwP is that with TB, micromanagement is forced upon you...for every action, of every character, every round. In RTwP, as its name suggests, you have a choice. If you want to micromanage each of your party members actions each round then....that's what the Pause is for. Combat starts. You pause the game, issue orders to every party member, then you unpause the game and everyone carries out your commands. But if you don't want to micro-manage, then... you don't have to. when combat begins, simply click "select all" then point at an enemy and everyone will start attacking that enemy. You can then micromanage one or more party members from there if you want (pause the game; issue commands) or not.