Captain Shrek
-
Posts
578 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Captain Shrek
-
-
-
I think per-encounter actually trivializes ability use in general, because if you have more per-encounter things, those things are always going to be more advantageous to use over your normal actions.
Take the Fighter's Knock Down for instance. You can use it twice per encounter. If you do not use it twice per encounter, that is essentially playing bad/not playing optimally. I don't really like that to be honest. I like having to manage strategical resources rather than being pidgeonholed into using the same stuff over and over again to play optimally.
The less per-encounter stuff - the better IMO.
Granted I haven't had a real look at class functionality yet, I've been mostly focusing on testing / critiquing the basics, because Obsidian haven't got the basics right yet, I think over the next few months class design and ability design should come under a lot of scrutiny.
Then why have a per encounter /per rest ability distinction at all? Lets make them all per rest.. like vancian magic! Also making knowckdown per anything sounds pretty dumb. That makes no sense.
-
The point is that stamina can be restored(healed) while health cannot, due to lore reasons I think.
Yeah. That is why I mentioned that HP should be renamed to stamina to satisfy the lore fiends.
-
Why have stamina at all? At this point it has absolutely no meaning. The only graceful thing to do is now to drop two health bars to one and name it stamina. Take penalties when it drops below certain value, if you really want. Even then it would be unnecessary.
-
More than agreed. NWN was practically the best RTwP D&D game because of no-party gameplay. Just had **** encounters.
-
Current reward system for fighting:
Here, here PC char: Have this shiny magic item for going through another boring round with wolves/beetles/rats/dragons.
-
That sounds pretty counter-intuitive. What flaws are you talking about? I personally liked IE games for how they told the story and how awesome the spellcasting was. For me the other classes sucked hard. Not because they were ineffective but rather because they were boring outright and repetitive.
I don't know, but people here and there leave posts in different topics where they say IE games were good despite D&D flaws, but never go into much details.
Other classes were boring because the game is faster that way and because they mimicked PnP where you played a fighter if you wanted a less complex play.
I personally don't like that PoE has so many abilities to manage and RTwP system. It would be perfect for a Turn Based game.
D&D would be way better than PoE in TB. PoE will only be better in TB than its current RTwP analogue, that much is true. But it has a lot more problems which are not only related to having a lot of options.
As for other classes: Monks and Fighters can be fun if you choose to play tactically in D&D. And not simple at all. Try getting some of the tactical feats and using them on the combat map; I assure you it feels awesome if you pull it off. But my perspective is, that no matter what you do, Clerics are always better fighters than fighters and Druids can easily beat off even the High SR Golem you mentioned, faster than a fighter can.
-
That sounds pretty counter-intuitive. What flaws are you talking about? I personally liked IE games for how they told the story and how awesome the spellcasting was. For me the other classes sucked hard. Not because they were ineffective but rather because they were boring outright and repetitive.
-
I am not sure if D&D intended to have MMO-like combat at all. It was a flaw in the design where the rule-makers did not think through the resource cost of casting spells or invocations. If the spell casters were not so free with their abilities (vancian day casting) the game would be way better. You may be right that MMOs took from there though. Who can tell?
I don't have a clue what you are about. D&D is fine as it is witnessed by 5e having Vancian casting again, and witnessed by Pathfinder overtaking D&D 4e in sales after 4e took out Vancian casting. And witnessed by D&D 5e PHB being a best seller online.
If you don't like D&D and how it plays, there are other systems out there that do it different.
Well. If you feel that spellcasters (primary) aren't broken in D&D post level 8 then bully for you. Me, I have severe problems with them as soon as they get level 3 spells with vancian magic. I feel that the Vancian system is not itself to blame. But rather the fact the resources needed to cast spells are the trouble. Which is what I mentioned and you missed out.
-
I am not sure if D&D intended to have MMO-like combat at all. It was a flaw in the design where the rule-makers did not think through the resource cost of casting spells or invocations. If the spell casters were not so free with their abilities (vancian day casting) the game would be way better. You may be right that MMOs took from there though. Who can tell?
It would be hard for D&D to intend to have MMO-like combat when the first edition was released decades before the first MMO was ever made.
Yup, You showed me. Good going!
-
I am not sure if D&D intended to have MMO-like combat at all. It was a flaw in the design where the rule-makers did not think through the resource cost of casting spells or invocations. If the spell casters were not so free with their abilities (vancian day casting) the game would be way better. You may be right that MMOs took from there though. Who can tell?
-
Hi OP.
Right now the HP/Stamina is being handled with the bloat solution. The Stamina for the Tank classes has now been made 4 times that of the HP instead of a smaller multiple. All the while the HP is now tied to a class, thus further pigeonholing them into MMO roles.
D&D from the start had Martial classes with more Health and spellcasters and rogues with less.
That would imply me saying it was a good thing in D&D. Personally I dislike level 8+ gameplay in D&D. It sucks. period.
Still, in the defense of D&D the difference was not that prominent until high levels (8+), where the bonuses from constitution were completely meaningless. A wizard with HD 4 and CON 14 would have a max HP of 48. While the fighter with the same CON would have an HP of 96. At this point fighters could not really use their tactics effectively in the party and were relegated to the "Tank" role. The wizards were just too efficient. The druids and Clerics were basically master of all-s.
Same problem in D&D with skills. Eventually the attribute bonuses to skills became irrelevant. One of the reasons why D&D high level is crap. Looks like this game will take that approach early on. Which could result into gameplay that is pretty much narrowed to MMOness.
-
Hi OP.
Right now the HP/Stamina is being handled with the bloat solution. The Stamina for the Tank classes has now been made 4 times that of the HP instead of a smaller multiple. All the while the HP is now tied to a class, thus further pigeonholing them into MMO roles.
-
This is due to the base reason that RTwP is potentially counter-productive to heavy micromanagement. A good RTwP game demands fewer options that allow you to actually consider between them in the RT part of RTwP. If you are pausing more often than not, then the best mechanics is TB.
Believe it or not, I am a big fan of spell battles in IE games. I feel that it was the only redeeming feature of the combat however. The solo is way better for a good reason. Because it automatically solved the problem of RTwP, unnecessary micro that did not suit it in the first place. By bringing the number of actions down to ONE char you actually make a great RTwP game. Something that NWN could have been but wasn't due to terrible encounter design. Try and play the Conant modules for NWN2 and see how good the game could have been.
-
1) What is IAS?
Increased Action Speed, as stated in our paper.
2) NWNS variety: Than itself. It was too repetitive.
Sorry I don't follow. I do agree that NWN2 was too repetitive though.
3) Hmm. I did not like the RTS feeling for RPGs in the first place. Neither do I think that IE games played like RTS games either. You yourself pointed out that the animation speeds there were slower. IE was a hybrid if anything between an action RPG (you push a button, something awesome happens) and a RTS (you push a button something awesome might happen, if you played right). PoE right now is more on the action category.
The IE games were built on an engine that was an RTS engine in the first place, the most recent info on that was the Matt Chat with Feargus Urquhart but it's been a known thing for a long time. Movement and commanding units in the IE games does feel like an RTS, especially an RTS from around the same era. The camera is isometric, units have selection circles, movement is responsive and movement and non-movement actions are separated. NONE of the IE games feel like an ARPG at all, if anything the single character Aurora engine games veer towards that style more.
ARPG means constant input required from the player - holding down mouse = continuous attack, let go of mouse = no attack. Hold down move = move, let go of move = no move. The IE games have a click to move and click to auto attack, therefore they feel nothing like an ARPG at all.
Josh also recently stated that he'd prefer to make a turn-based classless game. I think he'd be more comfortable doing that to be honest, as you can clearly see those design preferences bleeding into this game a little bit with the way that attributes, advancement and the class system works and some of the decisions regarding combat. Some of the decisions have been very good though - such as having increased IAS slow recovery time first before the action animation frames.
1) If you really think that the view angle and formations is all there to RTS then I have nothing to say about this issue. As for NWN the combat there was much more tactical than in IE games just that the encounters were worse. So you could potentially use all those spells and abilities in NWN much more strategically but the enemies were stupid and repetitive. So you did not have to. NWN could potentially have been a much better game.
2) ARPGs can have auto attack. Period. It has nothing to do with clicking continuously. I am not going to go into a detailed debate. ARPGs just mean quick short and highly rewarding if shallow combat in my opinion. How you do it is your (developer's) problem. In PoE the combat right now very formulaic. Every class has a set tactic which is pigeon holed into it. You stick to that and win. Except it is not rewarding and feels like a chore.
-
My objection would be that PoE is NOT Dota and it should not try to be Dota in the first place.
Which bit are you talking about here specifically? Adding IAS into the Attribute system? That's something the developers agree on btw.
I have a feeling that the micromanagement in PoE is also not so much more than IE games. In fact I would contend that potentially NWN2 (not an IE game, I know, but a similar game made by obsidian nonetheless) had more need for micromanagement and more variety.
Than PE or IE?
But that is a foregone issue. RTwP is here to stay. The only way that this problem could be resolved now is to make combat hard and I mean really hard, all the while slowing down the combat animations. There would be two ways to do that:
That would feel really, really terrible IMO
Whether you like it or not the unique thing about the Infinity Engine games combat was that it felt like an RTS game. I compare the action speed system in Pillars of Eternity to Warcraft 3 (and DotA because DotA was a Warcraft 3 mod) because the mechanics that govern them are 95% the same. There are only like two differences and that's it.
I actually do think that at the moment PE plays more like NWN2. NWN2 had absolutely shockingly bad combat, much like all of the aurora games - NWN1, Jade Empire and the Star Wars KOTOR games. This ship of failure needs to be turned around so it feels more like an RTS again. Then combat will actually feel remotely infinity engine like. One of the first steps there is removing the recovery time pause from movement.
1) What is IAS?
2) NWNS variety: Than itself. It was too repetitive.
3) Hmm. I did not like the RTS feeling for RPGs in the first place. Neither do I think that IE games played like RTS games either. You yourself pointed out that the animation speeds there were slower. IE was a hybrid if anything between an action RPG (you push a button, something awesome happens) and a RTS (you push a button something awesome might happen, if you played right). PoE right now is more on the action category.
-
Sensuki, I disagree slightly with your opinion on the speed issue. You are completely right about the speed, but not about how to address it, as *I* see it. I play dota, although not professionally. SO I understand your comparison with that game. But I think that such a comparison is ill founded. My objection would be that PoE is NOT Dota and it should not try to be Dota in the first place. Dota is a COMPETITIVE game where skill is a requirement to win. You do not play it for the same reason as you play PoE. Maybe those who do want to play IE like games in Dota style would be better off playing Dota or other mobas, instead of trying to shape PoE into Dota. PoE is a single player game and that means that it ought to be played with the restraints of the player skill. If the default setup for skill requirement is too demanding then combat is sure to become a cluster-fark, especially considering that you control a party of 6 unlike in Dota (meepo anyone?). In my opinion, this issue, the combat speed, is right now the worst problem plaguing the gameplay.
I have a feeling that the micromanagement in PoE is also not so much more than IE games. In fact I would contend that potentially NWN2 (not an IE game, I know, but a similar game made by obsidian nonetheless) had more need for micromanagement and more variety. The problem there as is here is that most of the available options were useless asin most encounters you could cheese your way out. The encounters were themselves bland, undead and orcs everywhere (omfg). In this game the general speed of the game enforces certain kinds of repetitive tactics (read "degenerate"). This is due to the base reason that RTwP is potentially counter-productive to heavy micromanagement. A good RTwP game demands fewer options that allow you to actually consider between them in the RT part of RTwP. If you are pausing more often than not, then the best mechanics is TB.
But that is a foregone issue. RTwP is here to stay. The only way that this problem could be resolved now is to make combat hard and I mean really hard, all the while slowing down the combat animations. There would be two ways to do that:
1) The banal HP laden way with high armor (Which is what the beetles represent)
2) Designing tactical situations and making use of the maps or special abilities of the creeps (like the poisoning from the wood bugs, which is good)
The latter is sorely lacking. Instead the game is hard because the fine control over the options is absent. I suggest that the designers should concentrate on the encounter design more than balancing the attributes to resolve it. I suggest better locations and map design; taking a leaf out of the Blackguards book is still an option.
-
Maybe if I put it simply - the idea doesn't work well because it's neither a tactical nor strategic advantage to expend XP or emeralds.
In IE games, you could rest outside or rest at an inn - resting outside was free but came with the danger of random attacks (AFAIK, PoE won't have those so resting isn't a risk). Inns cost money but the amount is so small as to make it a no-brainer to use an inn when in a city. Deciding to rest or not in the field carries risk v. reward.
PoE will have more costly inns and more costly camping supplies. To make your choice an actual choice, you'd need to give an advantage to each choice. Inns grant bonuses, camping supplies heal ... and losing XP heals...or emeralds ... both of which are more valuable than the camping supplies -> no brainer.
Then our understading of what is Tactical differs. As I see it is a clear tactical choice (not advantage) to heal by magic or rest. Rest takes time/resting supplies and heal saves time/resting supplies but uses emeralds. Sounds like tactics to me.
Infinite resting was what was wrong in the first place in IE games.
Funny you should mention resting equipment. That was actually my idea way before it was introduced. Not saying that they got an inspiration from there, but rather that this new idea is in the same spirit. Resource allocation.
-
It's not hard at all. It is just too fussy and feels kind of pointless.
-
Indeed. Why take damage at all. Even better, why combat?
Because that's a fun game - seriously though, why would someone give up something as limited as XP for something unlimited like resting?
That is what I am asking. Why take damage? Just allow us to spam them fireballs while in god mod. As some might say, HA! Great fun!
There's a huge difference between a fun, challenging game and a convoluted, challenging game with no-brainer choices.
You suggested using emeralds and XP to heal health - I'm questioning whether 90% of players would consider that a real choice.
Do you have an answer?
Sure. The answer is yes.
-
Indeed. Why take damage at all. Even better, why combat?
Because that's a fun game - seriously though, why would someone give up something as limited as XP for something unlimited like resting?
That is what I am asking. Why take damage? Just allow us to spam them fireballs while in god mod. As some might say, HA! Great fun!
-
Probably not.
-
Indeed. Why take damage at all. Even better, why combat?
-
Huh. I actually just posted a simple solution in the "tedious combat" thread. To restate it more succinctly here:
1. Health should represent health and Stamina should represent stamina (currently Health represents stamina and Stamina represents health).
2. Only Health should be "damaged" by enemy attacks. Stamina should be an independent variable.
3. Stamina should decay at a constant rate: while in normal gameplay, it should decay slowly; while in combat, it should decay faster.
4. When Stamina hits 0, the character should become "exhausted" and receive a number of negative status effects that remain until resting/camping.
....
There is no reason to have two different abstractions for "HP." That just makes the system needlessly complicated and unintuitive.
I like this except the idea that stamina decrease automatically. That puts an artificial limit on the combat encounter. Rather I would spend stamina until it is exausted.
Per-rest vs. Per-encounter
in Backer Beta Discussion
Posted
Do you guys actually have fun auto attacking all the time?