.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Captain Shrek
-
Posts
578 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Captain Shrek
-
-
Shrek:
-I don't think the Barb's Carnage attacks interrupt that much. I take interrupting blows and accurate carnage but I don't see what many interrupts happening.
-I don't think the Barb can tank very well since his deflection is so extremely poor and he doesnt have a defensive modal like the Fighter. I think he makes a good dps/offtank though thanks to his endurance regen clicky.
That was my feeling too. Somehow I can't grasp how the interrupt system works. If I can pump that I am sure the barbarians would be amazing tanks by the virtue of disrupting enemy actions.
Captain Shrek: I certainly agree with that. In fact, with a few tweaks, we would have a combat system that's playable and decently enjoyable.
I also agree with your point that Josh somehow dropped the goal of very flexible builds.
And personally, battle fainting is weird and very gamey, but still, I truly loved the NWN2 series anyways, including parts of its combat. For me, the character building was the part that was most fun in that series, aside from the obvious, the great story and companions in MotB.
I just don't want to settle on builds and classes and spell selections that are too barebone and simplistic. If we have a chance to voice the opinion that we want more ofit, we may get it. Look at what happened with all of the specialisations we got from Josh. That was thanks to the community!
Yeah. Builds was my favorite part of NWN2. I am sorry that it is gone. I also lament the simplistic spell system, the amazement of D&D casting is no longer there somehow
. -
1
-
-
Still, I remain adamant on (and I sorta heard in your tone while playing it that you do agree to some degree), that this kind of combat isn't much fun.
Why?
-For it to work, you need to repeat the same tank(s) at front, and ranged char(s) at back system all the way
-Baddies move too fast
-You get jumbled melee messes, and with the bright spell FX on top, you can hardly see what's going on
-Imagine playing a wizard with almost no armour, dual-wielding stilettos at the front, and then a fighter with a bow at the back. Well, PoE isn't very kind to those kind of set-ups, especially not when you level up and pick abilities and skills.
Well, I see your points Indira, but I agree with Shevek. The game is pretty much "doable" with his builds without much micro. And that is GREAT!
What you are asking for is what Josh was initially proposing, with the flexible builds. I think that was never a very reasonable view. You CAN build wizards that can melee and can take damage, but that makes the game too much micro and you lose a lot of time simply pausing to get things right.
I just felt that battle fainting was a bit too gamey for my taste (as it was in NWN and NWN2 and DA games) but I think we can all pass that as a quirk.
@Shevek.
Nicely done. That was one of the better uses of tanks I have seen in a while.
What would you say about a barbarian build focused not on damage but rather on AOE + interrupt? Would that be even better as a tank than a Fighter? You could then use the fighter to keep the enemy bosses down.
-
1
-
-
It definitely could have been made more interesting. It's not like the current spell list is totally original. The D&D roots are right at the back of it. Considering the spell list for D&D, there is no dearth of inspiration.
-
As for "IE games had no dedicated healer".... Are you guys joking? If I wanted buffs I could take any number of characters. Bards, Mages, Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, Druids.... any I might have missed? Yet I never made a party that had a Bard.... but no Cleric. Why? Bards can probably buff better than Clerics. But they can't raise dead. They cant cast cure serious wounds. You can make all the arguments about "Clerics had buffs too" but tons of classes had buffs, only two could be viable healers. Cleric and Druid. Strangely I never made a party that didn't at least include one, the other, or both. I have plenty of parties without Bards.
You misunderstood. The argument was if clerics were healers first buffers second.
-
Oh. Nothing's controversial. That's like saying Mages are healers. I would say that you just have a very unique opinion, that is all.
-
As I found out the difficulty of Easy is actually ok; it's the amount of party management that makes it difficult if you are not playing a with a party that has primarily passive combat abilities.
I'm not thrilled with the way engagement currently works, but I assume with some tweaking it can be made to work better. I'm by no means a programmer so I can't be sure, but it doesn't seem so bad it can't be made to function more effectively.
My overall verdict is: Slowdown movement and animation speed. Remove some of the superfluous mechanics. And bingo! The game is good to go. I think it is playable right now as it is. But requires some annoying micro which is really not tactical, unless you build a party on Shevek's suggestions.
-
1
-
-
Removing status effects and buffing against them is a form of healing, you know. And I think you're understating the importance of Heal and Raise Dead.
Not even close.
Debuff and Buff is a totally different thing compared to healing. Compare Chanter to priest in this game for example.
-
Then that is where we differ and I can live with that
. -
Is streamlining something you are advocating? Haven't we had enough streamlined crpgs in the past 14 years?
yeah. Too true. But there is "good" streamlining and "bad" streamlining. PoE removing skills = bad streamlining. PoE removing mechanics that is anyway passive and superficial == Good streamlining.
That is why quoted the word. I feel that this nice concept has been forever and ever tainted by Bathesda and Bioware who used it to cut active content instead of building on unimplemented mechanical elements.
-
Well, a few points: Easier or simpler systems are not always better. Necessary rest is not a bad thing. Dependencies are not bad either. I am also not entirely convinced that your suggestions would make the game any more tactical but thats a nonissue for me since I find the game to be tactical enough for my liking.
As to the point of the dual health system: it allows players to track attrition while still being able to move from encounter to encounter at "full endurance" without needing to rest spam. I understand what you are saying but this implementation works. It works well. Other implementations may or may not work better but this is good. So, in my mind, this is all a moot point. Changing the system this late in the game would undoubtedly lead to a poor implementation of something else no matter how simple it is. Also changing implementation is just not needed. The system is fine.
Shevek man, I am not denying that the current system works. In fact, I recently realized that if they did not change anything at this point, I would be okay with the game. It is easy for me and I feel that I understand the mechanics enough to take down anything without much hassle.
Right now, all I am saying, is that there are elements there which to appear really not playing any role in the game beyond interacting with each other. Removing them would only make the game more "streamline" in the good sense of the word. Would it be necessary? Maybe not. Would it improve the game? I think it will. How hard would that be? I have no real idea, but as I see it, this just boils down to switching off some flags. Healing is already in the game. It just needs to be called as such.
-
I think you feel that double health is unneccessary because of the amount of effort you are placing on keeping the endurance bar up. If you approach endurance as expendendable and only cast endurance heals when absolutely necessary (when you MUST keep a guy up), then the system clicks.
I really like the dual health system it makes healing an optional thing that is still nice to have but popping potions and funneling heals is no longer as necessary as it was. This reduces rest spam and overall IMPROVES pacing in my view.
But this is my exact point. Why have two health bars then? Making healing magic rarer would be easier and an elegant solution to the dilemma, I think. Right now, resting is made necessary due to seep in attrition from the mechanics. This as I see it creates a lot of dependencies.
Ideally I would see it as: Damaged character -> Healing/Rest. No graze or DT necessary. No endurance necessary. Gameplay remains almost exactly as it is, except that economics of healing changes as it becomes, let's say a per rest or ever better a per resource ability.
This also is true about potions abuse in games. One has to think why that happened in IE games in the first place. It had a broken "potions" economy. A simpler method would be to have these potions as extremely rare elixirs that are just too valuable to quashed often.
This will not only make the game simpler (as in without unnecessary elements) but also more tactical.
-
Sharp_one:
You must be confused. None of my characters were maimed and died.
yeah. Your builds do make sense. But just saying, I never even get one down on my playthroughs. In fact, I get minimum damage. But I admit that this is beside the point and only highlights the min-max mentality I employ while playing.
I am also a bit miffed that you can lose all "endurance" and just fall unconscious, only to be awoken after the battle with no consequence. In an IE game, you would be dead. But that too is a personal qualification.
My biggest problems are pacing. In the current build, it is almost impossible to see what is attacking what during the combat. I have a feeling that this is going to be a serious detriment for most players outside of the "hardcore" (I dislike the word, but I understand what it entails) audience in the forums. Also, I dislike a lot of unnecessary mechanical jumble thrown into the game ; such as the double health bar, grazes and DT, global cooldowns. At the same time, I am at a loss to understand several gameplay choices such as not introducing healing, while making resting so obviously overpowered. This, by the way, also makes "endurance" healing weird.
As I see it there are coupled superfluous mechanisms:
1) Graze is superfluous coupled to DT
2) Endurance is superfluous coupled to "no healing."
3) Super mobility of enemies is a result of bad AI
-
Look, I pause when I kill stuff and switch targets. I also cast stuff on REALLY tough enemies like Adra beetles. I lead with my tank as well. This is exactly how I played the IE games when I fought trash (and didnt want to cheese things with web and stinking cloud). The game plays fine.
Hell, we dont even have all our tools yet and I can play it just fine. Wait till we get traps, and usable items, and enchanted crap, and weapons that leech, and etc etc etc.
It's not just pausing. I have to use actives all the time to keep the mobs busy and stop them from using their full potential. Also, auto attacks whittle them down too slow. I have to use all the Rogue abilities against enemies like the beetles (which are trash mobs btw).
-
I play passively on trash and active on named/tough mobs. Works very well. Love the system. It is quite fun. If you choose active builds and complain about pausing you are causing your own problems.
I doubt that this is true. There is NO way that you can play passively in PoE. It's just not a solution. Even against trash. You are either very good at the game and have super human reflexes or are very lucky.
-
Mr. Josh recently wrote
"Max default damage for most weapons/attacks will likely be lowered (in part because of increased Might, but mostly to normalize out the range), min dam through DT will likely be set to 20% (like F:NV) to make it woefully inefficient but less hopeless (it should also mostly eliminate sub-1 damage Grazes)."
Im not a big numbers guy but would not increasing armor %DR value while quite drastically lower the DT values and the quality gains (Fine, Superior etc) work in a similar way? Not a fan of getting rid of DT as i have seen some other post suggest.
What do you guys think?!?
That it will turn out increasing might bonus from 2% to 3% changes nothing.
I am wondering if the Devs are even reading the forums. The real damage iis coming from crits, which is 50% increase.
-
I did. Makes classes pretty much useless. Fighters with Res and Dex max with might added practically made them fodder. Wizards with per and Dex maxed made them weakish wannabe nukers etc.
I'm sincerely asking this, but do you mean "I tried a RES & DEX Fighter and didn't like him, and I tried a PER & DEX Wizard and didn't like him?", or do you mean that you actually took a Fighter, maxed out 2 stats, played for a bit, recorded hard data on various different things, then repeated that process with any other stat-maxing build you could think of for a Fighter, then compared the results at the end? Because that's what I'm talking about.
If I can ever get some free time NOT-at-work, I might give that a shot. And I'm also not talking about changing the build and trying to do the same thing, like just changing a Wizard build and trying to nuke with every single build. I'm more concerned with the capabilities of the class as a whole that may be boosted by any given stat.
Just for what it's worth... I'm not claiming you've done these things that I'm simply noting don't really produce productive data.
Of course I did not record *hard data*. That would be retarded. I just played and I checked how the fighters were holding up under these stats. You asked for that, I told you what I felt.
-
Take that bold step my friend and enter the gates of Despair. The developers could do with some love and they really care.
But take heed; that path on which you mean to set thyself is filled with many strifes. So I give thee this token of friendship: Use F5+F9 in abundance for ye shall find that is free to do so,
The game is damned hard to learn but amazingly rewarding. There are a lot of guides for newcomers and I must admit that reading a couple is how I became the champion of the arena.
Good luck.
-
Reading this discussion makes it hard to believe it is about an IE-inspired game
Seems PoE combat/class builds is growing very MMOish. It will be fun, but definetely not the best outcome for me. I wonder if it's what the devs intented from the start.
Agreed. When I kickstarted, I wasn't aware that Mr. Sawyer loves 4th Edition D&D (See: MMO tropes). I also wasn't aware he hated spell casting. I get a strong vibe that the game he wanted to create is Age of Decadence. I was gritting my teeth the entire kickstarter once they began rolling out classes beyond the "core four". To me, almost every mechanic and design problem is attributable to the class concepts. I still have hope that these concepts can be overcome, but the taste of MMO is impossible to ignore.
I doubt Josh will like AoD. AoD is hard. And not hard as in clumsy. It requires dedicated builds to win and has no soft checks. There are failure states which can make your character completely feel useless forcing you to start over. Also, it is extremely judgemental. It will openly criticize you for making silly character assessments of enemy 'talkers'.
And you know what?
It is amazing fun.
Probably, no, scratch that, the best game I ever played. -
Guys. I have had a revelation. Just leave the game mechanics as it is. Just. LEAVE. IT. ALONE. Remove two HP bars maybe and remove graze ad DT. LEAVE. THE. REST. ALONE.
You will not believe how much you will appreciate this one day in your dotage, as you lay thinking in your comfy armchair inside old people's home: "Captain Shrek said leave the combat mechanics alone and I listened. Now I know I did not fail in my life."
At this point, combat is just exactly the hassle free simplified ENGAGEMENT that I expect from RTwP. I am willing to forgive all, yeah, even the global cooldowns and no healing magic and horrible stealth and ridiculously named attributes and the utter lack of skills for being able to peacefully exploring the story.
-
BTW.
I tried out your no engagement mod.
It quickly devolved into having to micro more than in the vanilla, as I had to rearrange every so often. Thankfully the AI is too dumb to take advantage of the lack of engagement and behaves stupidly as it refuses to follow up on DPS chars.
So in short summary:
The good: The combat with the mod feels more like IWD. Kudos for that.
The bad: The AI is not made for this mod. Which means that only the PC benefits.
-
2
-
-
I was talking about the spell Noxious Burst (that's the spell I open with), it is not persistent and sickens enemies for 15 seconds by default. Every encounter I have played in the game is usually over before 10-12 seconds of in game time, so +Durations to that spell don't do anything.
The combat being too fast has a negative effect on +Durations and +Speed at the moment because you don't get to utilize their benefits properly over time.
I see. You are not using the engagement right then. lol.
Just trap everyone with Fighters and then watch as your wizards lower their attack speed down to nothing.
Your play style also works I guess, but I would say that you would be pausing a lot. I never need to do that. And I hate that ****, if I have to do it too often.
-
No, DT is not the issue. DT makes attack speed flat out worse than pure damage though.
It's just that enemies now have higher defenses than they did in previous versions of the beta. Stone Beetles were given +50 to Defelection (yep) and they now have 63 Deflection instead of 13.
So you can see how where you previously might have been at ACC-DEF +30 where Might was better, you're now in the range where Perception is better.
Well, you must be wrong somewhere as the game is definitely more rewarding towards Per investment than a balance of Per and Might.
Now this may be a perception effect, but as I said, Guts don't agree with you.
-
Additionally, AoE spells do not require Per investment.
What? Are you sure you understand the rules correctly?
In order for an AoE to even hit (even if it 'hit's the units in it) the Attack Roll has to score a hit. More Perception means more Critical Hits from AoE spells. Rolls verses each target in the AoE are independent of one another, it's not one attack roll like in D&D. You can miss, crit, hit and graze four different targets with one AoE.
For non-damaging spells, Durations are more important - yes.
Maybe we are talking about different things? I am talking about area control AoE like fogs, which are best kept in a place longer. Ofcourse they do more damage with more Per. but why bother? That's the job of the rogue anyway. The Wizard is there to keep enemies in constant checks.
-
You're kidding right? The large spike in the center of the graph represents the portions of ACC-DEF where +1 to ACC removes a miss and adds a crit. The sharp incline of Might on the right side of the graph is because you're critting more often, the might 2% bonus is more effective.
Feel free to check the math yourself, his spreadsheet is readily available.
Hmm. Maybe then the DT is the issue? Is that in the calculation? My memory is now hazy as to what was included in the stats. But I had made the argument about Per then, which seems to have justified itself perfectly well empirically. Maybe your theory crafting is incomplete somewhere.
. 
.
Combat Vid - Hard with a Custom Party
in Backer Beta Discussion
Posted
There is nothing and never was anything wrong about sub optimal builds. Same holds for min maxed overpowered builds.
Finding out optimal builds, theory crafting and munchkining NWN2 was totally the real fun aspect of "mechanics". Earlier IE games were too restrictive in that sense. But they skill had multi and dual classing which allowed a small measure of variability.
I just want to make clear right here, that this is not a justification of broken design; i.e. inherently bad or inherently OP classes/feats etc. It is a justification of a distribution of builds that can go from bad when build badly (wizards as tanks) and builds built well (wizards that are spell focused). Every single classed build should lie in the centre of it.