Hiro Protagonist II

Traveller is also a great game with fantastic character creation system which can take hours as well. You start as an 18 year old and develop your skills, abilities, experience. Also up to you if want to stay in a certain field or change careers every four years in a sort of 'mini-game', where the player makes career choices (including going up in rank) that determine the character's life up to the point right before adventuring begins. So when you start adventuring, you could be around age 30, 34, 38 or 42 by the time you start your character while other players could stop at age 30. There can be drawbacks when continuing with career/age progression so most players stop at age 30 or 34. Definitely the best character creation system I've played.

I did answer to what you written. You just didn't like what I responded with. And considering it was off topic, you still want me to answer your off topic dribble. Only the uneducated would use words that are not official like bonii considering there is already an official word for the plural of bonus. Just because people don't know the correct word doesn't lend weight to your argument. The word even looks like a made up word which it is. Good to see you admit for scaling down encounters. And as I've shown, scaling down an encounter, not having the boss buffed will trigger spells/potions he would normally not use at a certain time in an encounter, which will make him use spells/potions and put him in a defensive position and not attacking you. He's using spells defensive spells instead of offensive spells. That's also changing his spell selection through exploits. You want me to point out what parts in your definition. No, I'll use the Collins English Dictionary. And taking advantage for one's owns ends is using exploits for your own ends and not as intended which includes exploits. You're trying to play semantics and it won't work. So you admit the boss wouldn't be relocated. Good. And your army doesn't count as a small army of tanks? So why quote the post if they don't? Oh that's right to lend weight to your argument. Also, you're changing what you're saying. tsk tsk. You said, "all his important minions and lieutenants." You're taking away some of his important minions and lieutenants. When you take away important enemies, the encounter is scaled down. These are not basic enemies, but are important enemies you would face. I also don't appreciate you consistently not taking the effort to read the things I'm writing and linking. And you are lying based on what you continue to write. Really classy, there. Hyprocrite and lying as well. Moving the goal posts again.? LMAO. Enemies in a lab now? Oh dear. And this is why I choose not to refute and acknowledge these stupid points you make. And yet, by causing havoc to the enemy, the boss encounter is scaled down because while causing havoc with spells and abilities you normally wouldn't use, you then change your spells and abilities to get a scaled down boss encounter without all his all important minions and lieutenants. Using low level spells/abilities is what has been discussed to deceive the game though. Because I was using spells that he wasn't expecting by exploiting the game. So yes, perhaps reading my posts carefully would help. Ah, the old do I have to point this out without actually pointing it out tactic. Nice work there. Actually it was you who was scolding me first with usage of the English language as I stated previously. And when I throw it back at you with made up words you get all defensive and try to defend those made up words. Seriously, defending made up words? Made up words by you are worse than a grammatical error with has or have on my part. It really is laughable. Well, you should be directing this last quote all at yourself since you are not only a hypocrite, but you also come with some of the most ludicrous, goal post moving, idiotic fallacies I've ever seen. Enjoy your exploits with your game system. Perhaps some unsuspecting developer will see the merits of your highly exploitive system.

It's funny that you admit this is not really relevant to the discussion and yet feel compelled to give a retort. And if according to you, the other person has no points then that's okay to make personal attacks? After you telling others not to attack person but the point. Here's a tip, if the person doesn't have a point, ignore them. But it seems you want to win an internet debate, even resorting to personal insults just to get the last word in. An unofficial plural of bonus? LMAO. And where did you get this from? Not from any official dictionary. Just keep using those made up words. Or how about using actual real words? And was it not you that used the is English not your first language tactic and go away and try and learn it first to me? What was the point of that? To discredit me? You're willing to throw this at me and when I throw it back at you, you get defensive. And you are advocating scaling down the boss encounters. I have quoted you multiple times. This can not be denied and it's not a strawman tactic. Perhaps looking up strawman tactic because: If we're going to use definitions, wouldn't it be better to keep it in context? Instead of selective quoting of definitions? Here's a definition for you: Collins English Dictionary: 1. To take advantage of (person, situation, etc)... for one's own ends. You are taking advantage of the games mechanics in a manner not intended by the games developers. When you're exploiting the game to scale down a boss encounter through spells and abilities you would normally not use, knowingly to have the encounter scaled down for your own ends, that is exploiting the game. Because you would normally not use those spells and abilities. You're only doing it to get an easier boss encounter. So yeah, I do know what the word means. It seems you don't. You seem to be in full agreement with this statement, which is basically a rephrased version of what I have said earlier. No, you want a scaled down encounter due to strategy which I call exploiting. And it's not a rephrased version of what you said. So stop lying. The boss in a crpg wouldn't be relocated. You never said that. And Silent Winter said the General would keep bodyguards with him. You said you wanted a scaled down encounter with not all the lieutenants and minions. Totally different. Also, I recall selecting the relevant points from Silent Winter's post and highlighting them. But you seem to not quote that at all, probably because it's easier to quote Silent Winter's quote than what I quoted, presumably to give weight to your own argument. tsk tsk. So you want me to refute your other examples? And you're keeping score? ROFLMAO. How petty are you? I can refute them if you wish. I just didn't see the need to waste time on your other shoddy examples. Refuting one was enough. Also, just because I didn't refute your other examples doesn't mean they're valid. It's just that they were so stupid, I didn't acknowledge them. And as I said earlier and established for you, the enemy would most likely be on high alert to find you because you're causing havoc to their operations. And you continue to move the goal posts with the enemy now sleeping? Nice shifting of the goal posts there. But you want to discount all I've said and scale down encounters through exploits. For someone who accuses others of strawmen tactics and putting words in other people mouths, you've just done a stellar job here. How about actually quoting what I said? I said, "So in effect, you're pre-buffing your own party. That's what it boils down to". The effect of debuffing the enemy before you even enter the encounter has made you a more powerful party. So in effect, you have buffed your party. You've changed the encounter (made your party stronger against a now weaker boss encounter) prior to entering the encounter. So in effect you have pre-buffed your party by making it stronger. And I'm saying crpgs may be able to do some things in real life but just because it's okay in real life doesn't mean it translates well to crpgs. And this system your proposing is so full of exploits, that you don't even see it. It truly baffles me. Also, it hasn't stopped you from bringing in various points that has no relevance to the discussion. I was answering your illogical post with an example of mine.

No need to be sorry. Also I'm just showing your hypocrisy. If you're going to preach and tell others to attack points and not the person, then people like me will call you out when you resort to insults like you have in this thread, which you've done many times and not just to me. The fact is the boss isn't as protected as he would be with all his lieutenants and minions. And you wanted this very outcome. To deceive the game into thinking you're not a threat, which boils down to gaming and exploiting the system. And you're ignoring your post where you said, "only this time he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks". And it's always come down to this. Exploiting the game to have the boss encounter easier than what it should be. Great for solo players. Okay. So you would say that to people in real life in social cirlces. Aunts, uncles, parents, teachers, total strangers, friends, etc. Instead of asking what are they talking about, you would say what the hell are you talking about. For some reason I very much doubt you would say that in real life and then turn around and say "I don't really think tha question "what the hell are you talking about" can be considered especially insulting". Great manners and decorum you have there. Here's the quote for you. "It's more like you fight the same powerful boss, only this time he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks". Bold emphasis. Exploit the game by using low level spells and abilities and then just prior to the encounter, change those spells to more powerful spells so he's not prepared and unbuffed for it. Those weren't your favourite spells and abilities that you were using beforehand. You were only using them so he wouldn't use buffs on spells which are your favourite spells and abilities. That's an outright exploit and gaming the system. And you are all for that. I sense an unwillingness to accept these logical reasons I've given to you. I've give you logical reasons why a boss would be prepared for an attack by a party of adventurers. The fact is in a lot of crpg's, the stronghold is also the home of the boss. The stronghold does have minions and lieutenants. Nice try though to use real life and say Generals are at home. Yeah, this is a crpg, not real life. And it shows verisimilitude is clouding your judgement on this issue. And the critical point you're missing is that when a party of adventurers is wreaking havoc on the enemies plans, they would be prepared to deal with those adventurers. They wouldn't be letting down their defences because they can't find them. However, the boss without minions, all his important lieutenants and no buffs to your favourite spells would provide an easier encounter. And if he has no buffs and you're attacking him in the first couple of rounds unprepared, he'll be using spells (and likely healing spells and potions) in a different order compared to an encounter with all his minions, lieutenants and being buffed. That order will no doubt be different with a full complement of minions and lieutenants. Using a healing spell or potion in a round that he wouldn't normally use because he isn't buffed has turned the boss into a defensive position. And it's safe to say if you're pounding on him in the first couple of rounds, that will trigger him using a healing potion or spell. Nice exploit there. Again changing exploit into strategy. You call it strategy and I call it exploit. It's an exploit to game the system by using abilities and spells you normally wouldn't use because you know you can go back to your favourite abilities and spells later for the boss encounter and have an easier time to overcome it. Exploiting the game by any other name is still exploiting the game. Also, I've already addressed your quote. The boss isn't as protected as he would be if he had his minions, all his lieutenants and was also buffed. Not a good system if you can exploit it so easily. As I said in a previous quote, this would be great for solo players because you've made it easier for them. And you are all for scaling down boss encounters through what you call strategy. It's an exploit. Also, if you're going to use made up words like bonii, then it's easy for people to misunderstand you. I'm guessing English isn't your first language? Perhaps you should again practice what you preach and the message to take away for you is "work on your English". If you want me to point out examples of personal attacks by you, then here's a few: one, two, three, oh and there's one at me, and they were just some I found in about 10 or so seconds. So don't try and deny that you haven't been throwing personal attacks at people. As you said, Could we please try arguing the points, not the people who made them for a change? But that didn't stop you from throwing mud at people later in the thread. So yes, you are a hypocrite. The facts speak for themselves. Also, I'm not the one who's staying up at 1.00am in the morning to try and win an internet debate. You're the one showing us who really is trying to win an internet debate by staying up all night and morning and then whining about staying up so late. What's even more funny is not happy with making one quote, you had to break it up into two parts to get every last word in. Oh and you're trying to refrain from pointing out the fallacies in my arguments. So why bring up TV shows, comics and all sorts of material in a crpg discussion if those things cannot be implemented in a satisfactory way. Just because something is shown in a movie doesn't mean you can do or even translate it in a crpg. This is what I'm talking about with you moving the goal posts and getting lost in verisimilitude. You're so lost in it that you forget what the discussion is all about and point to things like the Silmarillion. Just because it's written in a book doesn't mean it can work in a crpg. So you bring up something, I then answer, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then decide all of a sudden it's not relevant to the discussion. Then why bring it up in the first place if it has no relevance to begin with? Stop with moving the goal posts and you won't have to drag this out for pages.

These are the relevant points I was trying to get across.

Ah, the 'x but y' tactic used by people who really mean the opposite to what they say before the 'but'. Your true colours are showing. And yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you want gimped boss fights due to exploits. I'm not putting words in your mouth when I quote your words. You want a boss to be unbuffed and not have his lieutenants or minions with him if you, in your words deceive the game, and in my words exploit the game. This would be a great thing for solo players. I'll just take my solo player through the game, deceiving the game that I'm a low level mage and not have to worry about lieutenants and minions in boss fights. You've now made it easier to solo this game. That's exploiting the game that the designers didn't intend to happen. But apparently, you think that's what was intended. And it's your prerogative to waste your time at 1:00am in the morning. Don't put the blame onto me because you're staying up all night debating on an internet forum. Seriously, that's LOL stuff and shows the type of person you are. You're actually the very definition of the internet caricature of people trying to win debates on the internet and staying up all night/morning. Must win debate against internet person at 1.00am because... ??? Verisimilitude is not having a boss send away his minions and lieutenants and be unbuffed to face a party of 6 adventurers on his own. Also, if you're citing verisimilitude then Generals in the military don't have lieutenants and minions with him? Seems like a stupid thing for an army to do to have a General be all alone and not having any protection to protect one of the most important people in their army. Yep, if I go to a military base that's sending out spies to look for people that pose a threat to that base and the general in question, the general will think it's quite all right to be alone with no lieutenants or minions around him. Just sitting alone. Quite the opposite. The General will have his lieutenants and soldiers with him and would be foolish not to prepare for some type of attack. Have you tried looking at NPCs from a standpoint where they are more intelligent than just plain dumb? So you didn't comment on boss fights without minions and lieutenants because you were able to deceive the game. Your original post I quoted says otherwise. Adaptive A.I. is easily exploitable in games like this. It would be even more exploitable in my 'solo example' above. You can make the game easier by exploiting the A.I. That is not good game design. And rewarding players for exploits truly baffles me. There's nothing strategic about exploits. And for the nth time, you are now changing what you said. This is what you said, "he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks". Now you're saying, "the boss will still be prepared, have his lieutenants and minions..." Backtracking and changing what you said isn't helping your argument. I totally mean this in a non-insulting manner but, what we have here is you are a hypocrite, likes to preach to others about don't attack the person, attack the points and when you engage in debate, you do the opposite by attacking the person and continue to attack the person. Well done. I think you should feel a bit embarrassed. This kind of made you look like a fool, and that's really the nicest way I can phrase it. See what I did there. At least we both know who the hypocrite is and it's not me. Well it's really simple. Comparing TV shows, movies, comics to crpg is like comparing apples to oranges. If you're going to use analogies, then try and keep it in context and not red herrings. You haven't torn apart my argument at all. If anything, you've been moving the goal posts all over the place that your argument falls down. One thing is hilarious is that you think crpgs are capable of doing the same things as in real life. Oh, you're one of the promancers are you not? I bet you think romances in crpgs are just like real life. I know you might want to play your game as the Village idiot with your unintelligent drone companions and don't let me stop you. I'm sure tactically and strategically, you can play as an idiot and deceive the boss encounters by having the boss unbuffed with no minions and lieutenants to help him out. Yes, I can see how to some people that might be tactical and strategic and offering diversity. For me, I'd rather not have those sort of exploits in games.

For someone who is asking not to move the goalposts, you're doing a stellar job at it with nearly every point you bring up. And not having his lieutenants and minions and not buffed was due to scrying and his spies. An easy exploitable way for the player to exploit the boss battle by playing dumb, purposefully using low level spells and abilities to make the boss encounter easier than it should be. This is something you don't want to accept. And there's no logical reason from you why a boss would decide to not be buffed and not have his minions and lieutenants with him in the boss fight. A totally ridiculous boss encounter for him to be alone and unbuffed. Well what we can get from this is that you're changing the encounter and as a player, you're finding the easiest and most efficient way to get past it by exploiting the game to make it easier for you. And there is no logic why a boss in a boss fight wouldn't have his minions and lieutenants and is not buffed. Now you're moving the goalposts. The system is exploitable because you can make the encounters easier by knowing what spells/abilities not to use and to get an outcome from the game that shouldn't be intended. If you have a boss with minions and lieutenants compared to a boss without minions and lieutenants, the xp rewards is the same. Because PoE is quest based, not xp kill based. If the high level loot is the same in both examples because the high level loot is with the boss and not his companions, then there's no reason to go into the fight with his minions/lieutenants. Also, if you game the system by using low level spells and abilities, the boss isn't going to be buffed. So now you've found the optimal and easiest way of gaming the encounter. That's exploiting the system. And I hardly think that was what was intended and designed for! I wasn't nitpicking at all. I honestly think you have no idea and don't know or unsure what you're rambling about. You say words like, "I'm not really sure". That tells me you don't really know. I'm calling you out and not only are you getting defensive, you've did a complete opposite of what you preached by attacking me. I'm not playing the victim, I'm showing the hypocrisy of your stance. And when I say perhaps practice what you preach to keep this on topic, you still want to take this off topic. It does seem strange you want to keep going off topic and talk about the people and not the points now. tsk tsk. And refer to my example above with the boss fight and having and not having his minions and lieutenants. This is not about literature where you the reader or as a viewer of TV shows cannot change the story. This is a crpg where you as the player can change the outcome by exploiting the game. As I said previously, you're comparing apples to oranges. So heroes in a crpg can do anything that people can do in real life? Oh god, this is hilarious.

It depends on the context. You're comparing apples to oranges. A movie and a crpg are two different things.

Were you not for changing the encounter by "he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks".? That's a substantial change to the encounter. You've effectively scaled down the encounter by not having his lieutenants and minions with him. And when you change the encounter so much, especially with him not having any buffs, the encounter will not be the same as the same party who was using high level spells and abilities beforehand. It's a pretty big assumption to think he will use the same tactics against you as he would with a high level party. Even if he does use the same spells as he would against a party that did use high level spells and abilities beforehand, it's still an underpowered boss fight which he has no buffs and no help. That's not strategy or diversity at all, it's exploiting the game. No, not when you can exploit the system. You just don't want to accept that this system is highly exploitable. To you it's strategy and diversity when really it's just exploits. Ah yes, the old name calling. I'm not playing the victim at all. Nice try anyway. Was it not you that said in this very thread Could we please try arguing the points, not the people who made them for a change? Apparently not by the look of it. Perhaps practicing what you preach? Again, you don't actually cite specific examples. Oh look Silmarillion. It's in there somewhere. Go read it. And comic books and manga? I've been reading and collecting comics and Manga for over 20 years. What comics and manga are you referring to? And this is a crpg, not real life or comic books where you can do, write or draw anything and make it believable. This is a crpg which is far more limited in what it can do compared to real life, books and manga. Moving the goal posts to defend exploits in a crpg.

They may have more powerful spells to access but because the enemy thinks you're a low level party they'll be using low level spells. Because you tricked the game into thinking you're a low level party. Just because they have access to more powerful spells doesn't mean they'll use them at the start because your intention was to fool the enemy into you're a low level party. That's an exploit. Not when you're changing the encounter, changing the boss to be less prepared and less minions and lieutenants to make it think you're a low level party which is what you want. That's an outright exploit. Exploiting the game is now diversity. It was strategy a few pages back but now it's changed to diversity. I'm just waiting for the next word for you to come up with now for exploit. Ah, the age old changing of the topic and accusing me of trying to win an argument over the internet at all costs tactic. Deflecting and accusatory accusations of trying to win a debate. tsk tsk. You should look at yourself before trying to accuse others. You've been trying to defend exploiting a game for pages now and calling it everything but exploiting. Strategy, Diversity. What next? The burden is on you. Don't shift the burden onto me, considering you stated these so called stories. So it's you who should be pointing out what stories these are. Not to link some internet address and tell me to read it. An exploit is an exploit no matter how much you wrap it up. No it's not. If the boss has buffs and I can debuff him before I even enter the room by using low level spells so he thinks I'm not a threat, that's not strategy. That's gaming and exploiting the encounter. If the boss has buffs for a high level party, he should have those buffs regardless of what I've been using prior to the encounter because he has no idea what to expect. He has no idea that I might have high level spells so a boss should be prepared for anything instead of deciding to not to buff and use low level spells first, because his spies said we look like a low level party. That's just insane. Boss: My spies tell me this party has been using low level spells. I know, instead of buffing myself and using high level spells and having my lieutenants to join in and to wipe them out as fast as possible, I'm not going to call on my reinforcements and use magic missile because... I have no idea why a Boss would think like that. However, I can understand why he would want to use high level spells on a low level party. He wouldn't want to waste time and will want to wipe them out as fast as possible. Well he'll probably won't be using offensive spells. He'll probably be using healing spells since my party took a fair chunk out of him in the first couple of rounds when he wasn't expecting it. And if he's using healing spells or drinking potions, then he's not attacking which makes the encounter even easier. See Sensuki's post about healing and how it's weighted as an example of how enemies can change from attacking to being on the defensive. I know it's not gospel but it gives an idea how enemies can change from being offensive to defensive. And that can change a challenging fight into an easier fight by gaming the system. See above with taking a fair chunk out of an enemy in the first couple of rounds when I exploited the game by making out I was a low level party. It has a domino effect.

It's not strategic deception. It's exploiting the game knowing that if you use low level spells/combat abilities and the game changes the enemies so they're not as buffed, not having more powerful spells ready and generally less powerful than if the game noticed you were using high powered spells/abilities. That's what it comes down to it. You're exploiting the mechanics of the game through the A.I. and encounters. The enemies and the game shouldn't be going by the highest or in this case the lowest spells and abilities if you're purposefully using those low level spells and abilities to exploit the game. The only deception is fooling yourself into thinking this is strategic when in fact it's exploiting the game's mechanics, encounter design and A.I. If those other lieutenants are in the same room with him, I don't see a problem. If the boss notices you breaking into his compound, then while you're breaking in, he can call those lieutenants to him. So when you eventually get to him, he's got his full party with him. I don't understand why he would have half a party and be unprepared because the game decided to leave half his party in another room because the game noticed you had been using low level spells and abilities. On the contrary, the boss would want his full party because while his spies noticed you using low level spells and abilities, he would rather be prepared just in case you did have high level spells. a) You're not really sure? So you don't know? Well that kind of confirms that you don't know what you're talking about with your rambling. And I have no idea what stories you're talking about that inspired the game. Can you be any more vague? And if you're going to purposefully hardcode the game with downsides that are exploitable then it's exploitable. b) All that designing you've done is thrown out the window because I can use other spells and abilities prior to the boss battle knowing the game has been monitoring my spell/abilities progress and he won't be prepared when I do finally pull out my big spells. You even said this is a trade off you're willing to accept. Now that's bad design. Bad design is knowingly implementing a system you know players can exploit and willing to accept it as a trade off for the first couple of rounds before the boss realises what you're doing and then tries to counter your party. But by that time, the fight will be half over.

So in effect, you're pre-buffing your own party. That's what it boils down to. Having the boss without lieutenants in his compound sounds like a boss who has no idea about defences. And as I said before it's not binary. It's not either send his lieutenants out or keep lieutenants in his compound. You can send some out and keep some for base defence. So now you're base lining the difficulty at players who will exploit the system because you've implemented a system that can be easily exploited. Here's a solution, don't implement a system that can be easily exploited and you won't have to base line the difficulty at the exploiters.

No, you've missed the point of what I said. You want scaling based on what you do during the game. That's easily exploitable leading up to a boss fight and changing the encounter to make it easier. And using low level spells for the simple fact to gimp the boss fight is exploiting the A.I. and the system. They're not mutually exclusive. Why would it be binary with a boss have only a few minions and lieutenants being a) with him or b) going out there and working towards his goals? How about a third option, c) he has minions and lieutenants doing both? That's a much, much better question, I think. But what you've done is changed the encounter from the boss putting up protections to having no protections at all. Yes, he can put them up during the fight, but you've changed the encounter to make it easier for you. That's gaming the system.

But you are scaling. You're encounter scaling. And this is an invitation of exploiting and gaming the system. If you know the boss will be either be a) crushie, b) shootie and c) zappie based on what you've been doing and your party is best at one of those tactics, then you can play dumb with one of those tactics leading up to the encounter to make it easier for you. That's the whole point of exploiting the system. The encounter is hard with zappies and not crushies due to my party make up, so I'll change the encounter to more crushies and get through it easier. You've just changed the boss battle to make it easier for you due to knowing the system. The player shouldn't be able to change the boss encounter to make it less effective against your party due to knowing the system. Again, this is easily exploitable. And what's worse is if the loot is different in different examples, I imagine most people will game the system to get the best loot from whichever encounter. I know I would.

So, not knowing before would make it strategy? Or if you'd do the same thing against a human opponent? What exactly does "exploiting the enemy AI" mean? Guilty as charged. I do have trouble grasping the concept that strategic deception is not strategy if it produces the desired result. Especially as this strategy involves a meaningful trade-off -- you're making things harder for yourself now in order to gain an advantage later. Same thing as, oh, dual-classing in BG2. You commit to a stretch of seriously underpowered play in order to get major advantages later. Do you consider that exploiting a flaw in the AD&D character system, or playing strategically? If the latter, how is it different from playing against our hypothetical strategic AI? Hilarious. The case for level scaling taken to it's absurd extreme. These guys want level scaling based on what combat abilities you do in the game. Not what you have access to. So if I'm a level 10 Mage acting like a level 1-3 Mage using level 1-3 spells, then the boss fight should be around level 1-3 because that's the spells and abilities I've been using? No minions for the boss, no protection spells. Because I'm using strategic deception! You even said you were for a boss encounter without spell protections and without the bosses minions and lieutenants based on what you've been doing, not your characters level or what you have access to. Seriously, why would a boss have all these minions and lieutenants and protection spells and abilities and then decides, "you know, I have all this at my disposal but I'm not going to use them." Sends away his minions and lieutenants, doesn't use any spell protections and then goes into battle and dies. And this is not exploiting the A.I. at all. No! This is strategy.

Now this is the assumption where you are mistaken. It's more like "you fight the same powerful boss, only this time he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks". This is where you're mistaken. It's not the same powerful boss if he doesn't have his minions and spell protections. It's a boss with no important minions and lieutenants and no spell protections. In other words, the encounter has been scaled down but you're still the same awesome party with good spells. Keeping your most powerful weapons secret until they're needed is not strategy. OK, glad we got that cleared up. It's not when you're taking advantage of the A.I. and know the encounter will be scaled down due to exploiting it. But you seem to have difficulty grasping this concept.

:sigh: Playing a system designed to be played is not degenerate. It's called "playing the game." What we're discussing here is a gameplay system -- a layer of strategic intelligence to the enemy AI, with associated intelligence-gathering subsystems. It is designed to introduce a new element into the game. It is intended to be played. A strategy is only degenerate if it involves exploiting a flaw in a system in a way to gain a massive and unintended advantage. For example, in the IE games, setting a trap and then luring the enemy into it is not degenerate. It's tactics. However, exploiting a flaw in pathfinding which stops the enemy from reaching you so you can plink it to death with arrows is degenerate. Whether the layer of strategic AI allows degenerate strategies or not depends on how well it is designed and implemented. And what I'm saying is if you know the enemy A.I will counter your party by watching your combat abilities and so you decide to play dumb because of it to get an advantage down the track, that's not strategy. That's exploiting the A.I. You will always save your best spells for later so you can rip through that hard enemy encounter that's not expecting it. For instance, if you're travelling through an area and fireballing, chain lightning everything, the enemy AI is not taking notice and then get to the boss at the end of the dungeon, the game will probably have a powerful enemy to overcome. That's what we have in the IE games. What you're proposing is the A.I. changes to your combat abilities. So now we have two possible scenarios: 1) You're travelling through an area and fireballing, chain lightning everything, the enemy AI is taking notice and then get to the boss at the end of that area, the game will probably have a powerful enemy to overcome. Because you were using powerful spells, the boss has scaled to your abilities. Lets call it a form of level scaling. 2) If you know the game's A.I. is taking notice, you won't be using those spells and using low powered stuff. You get to the boss and then rip through him because he's not expecting fireballs and chain lightning. He's an underpowered boss. The A.I. has scaled down the boss to those low level spells and abilities that your party was using, in effect scaled down the difficulty. And when you're doing this intentionally, that's exploiting the A.I. and you're all for it?

Which would be a way cool strategy. Also something entirely believable -- keeping your best stuff in reserve and not letting the enemy find out about it makes total sense. Seriously, I want this feature. It would introduce a whole new gameplay element without all that much effort. Of course you can game it -- that's the point. To make it fun the intelligence-gathering methods would have to be believable, and it would have to be possible to interfere with them in many of the ways listed here -- not using your most powerful abilities until they're really needed, not allowing enemies to escape the battlefield, identifying and squishing spies, dealing with recon... perhaps undercover enemy spies would actually try to recruit you to do stuff for them, posing as your usual questgivers, mixed among the other sidequests. Damn, this has possibilities... and it would fit great into an IE-style game. ROFL. I didn't realise so many people were in favour of gaming the system, exploiting the game's A.I. We see people say on these forums, BG2 is broken by exploiting the game's A.I., using exploits, but now want to do it in PoE? And now it's called strategy.

I can see a lot of exploiting of the A.I. with this. Play as dumb adventurers, using underpowered spells and then when you encounter an enemy that is familiar with your combat abilities, pull out the big spells.

Don't games like WoW have a never ending cycle of tweaks and nerfs to balance the classes from the developers because players find something that unbalances the class and then developers like Blizzard nerf that skill/abilitiy/item and then someone finds something else, and then that gets nerfed, ad infinitum. I've noticed that with games like World of Tanks and Diablo 3. After years of tweaking, it's still not balanced as more tweaks come through with later patches and hotfixes. That doesn't come across as a balanced game. Quite the opposite.

I wasn't really pointing to once class. I was merely commenting on these types of comments which we see all the time on these boards: Kjaamor says all other classes are utterly pointless by the end of the game. That means, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, etc are utterly pointless. I don't know how someone could come to that conclusion when those classes are quite powerful by the end of the game. eg. Sarevok, Minsc, Keldorn, etc

I don't understand the whole 'Mages are better in BG2 and any other class is pointless' argument. If that was the case, then a party of magic users such as PC (Magic user), Aerie, Nalia, Imoen, Jan and Edwin would absolutely roflstomp through the game compared to a party that had two or three tank/melee type characters. It would be easier for me to play through the game by swapping out two or three magic users for some melee (eg. Paladin/Fighter/Ranger) type characters like Keldorn, Korgan, Mazzy, Minsc, etc. But going from some comments, these characters were all but useless near the end of the game.

In a lot of bull fights, the Matador isn't standing still. They're using the cape in front or to the side of them whilst moving backwards. In some examples, yes, they're standing still but to suggest they're standing still all the time is not true. They're using the cape to misdirect the bull and kite the bull around them while at times also moving. Other times the Matador will be standing still. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP5Oqr1giQ4 Also, we're talking about kiting in real life. Not sure why you're bringing up fantasy stuff. Or are you one of these people that think kiting doesn't exist in real life?

I hope they go with the style of the old WoT tank tech trees. I really dislike the new ones they're using in the game, not that I play WoT anymore. The old ones were so easy to view and follow.

Geez. I was patiently waiting and wondering what absurd response Lephys could come up with. I thought Lephys couldn't possibly counter this and now I see Lephys has no clue on what kiting is. Of course the act of kiting was invented around 15 years ago from a computer game.