endolex

In PoE, all buffs fade after combat ends, and even if this were to change (because otherwise buffs would probably fade immediately when cast out of combat), inside combat their duration is measured in seconds, not hours. The whole comparison to BG2 is therefore irrelevant. This also applies to the assumption that enemies would have to be pre-buffed as well. Buff durations in PoE are just too short for this to make any sense.

If you haven't seen people argue that Path of the Damned is too easy, which is hardest difficulty currently in the game. And only ways to make game even harder is to gimp yourself like trying to soloing the game, not using foods, not resting, etc. And this is already before any changes in game balance that probably make encounters even easier. So it is not issue that developers can/want ignore even if it don't matter to you. There are a zillion easy ways of making encounters harder at hardest difficulty that do NOT involve taking choice away from players by labeling spells as 'combat only'. When I want 'combat only spells', I play Diablo and the like, not a game that claims to be a successor to IE games. You probably didn't understood what I said in my post. So I would recommend reading it again couple times. I made a reply to your argument that many find the game already too easy at hardest difficulty level. Your "only ways to make game even harder is to gimp yourself" is a statement of the current situation, which does not make suddenly untrue the fact that there are several ways of inreasing difficulty exists, and being able to cast all spells always should put no limit on difficulty design *in general*. So I'm not arguing that you're wrong and the game is not too easy for many, I'm saying there are several ways to remedy this, even if casting of all spells all the time is enabled. I made just before you comment that I quoted first post about issues that Obsidian would need to address to make sure that pre-buffing don't cause issues in the game https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/75811-no-buffing-outside-of-combat-why/page-16?do=findComment&comment=1664853 As you can see I didn't any point say that pre-buffing can't be done or that blocking it prevents adding difficulty in the game, but that those are issues that need addressing if such feature is added in the game. But you post seemed to me implicating that difficulty issue is solved just by rising difficulty level from settings which I commented that some already find hardest difficulty in the game too easy and there aren't currently any other way for players to make game harder than by gimping themselves. My point was only address your claim that players can make game harder for themselves by changing the settings, by pointing out that there are those whom that is not possibility currently and Obsidian needs to take that account when they make feature changes in the game. Yep, and to that post I also added that "if either easy is too hard or hardest is too easy, we have a problem" - so you say we have a problem because of the things you said about PotD, and I see no reason to disagree.

If you haven't seen people argue that Path of the Damned is too easy, which is hardest difficulty currently in the game. And only ways to make game even harder is to gimp yourself like trying to soloing the game, not using foods, not resting, etc. And this is already before any changes in game balance that probably make encounters even easier. So it is not issue that developers can/want ignore even if it don't matter to you. There are a zillion easy ways of making encounters harder at hardest difficulty that do NOT involve taking choice away from players by labeling spells as 'combat only'. When I want 'combat only spells', I play Diablo and the like, not a game that claims to be a successor to IE games. You probably didn't understood what I said in my post. So I would recommend reading it again couple times. I made a reply to your argument that many find the game already too easy at hardest difficulty level. Your "only ways to make game even harder is to gimp yourself" is a statement of the current situation, which does not make suddenly untrue the fact that there are several ways of inreasing difficulty exists, and being able to cast all spells always should put no limit on difficulty design *in general*. So I'm not arguing that you're wrong and the game is not too easy for many, I'm saying there are several ways to remedy this, even if casting of all spells all the time is enabled.

Low = good for one (1) encounter, especially since all buffs fade after combat ends. And spell slots are limited. So if you buff yourself up as much as you can before every fight, your priest will run dry pretty fast.

If you haven't seen people argue that Path of the Damned is too easy, which is hardest difficulty currently in the game. And only ways to make game even harder is to gimp yourself like trying to soloing the game, not using foods, not resting, etc. And this is already before any changes in game balance that probably make encounters even easier. So it is not issue that developers can/want ignore even if it don't matter to you. There are a zillion easy ways of making encounters harder at hardest difficulty that do NOT involve taking choice away from players by labeling spells as 'combat only'. When I want 'combat only spells', I play Diablo and the like, not a game that claims to be a successor to IE games.

Nope. And it has been explained in this thread quite a lot why this is nonsense. Low buff durations, wasting spell slots for encounters that don't need buffs, making ubiquitous buffing quite costly, etc. etc.

'Being able to cast all spells I have whenever the hell I want to would make the game too easy': Use the difficulty slider. The only way there could be a problem is either when easy is too hard for many, or when Path of the Damned / Trial of Iron with all QoL options turned off is still too easy for most. Otherwise: use the difficulty slider. Change some options. They are there for a reason.

I never cease to be amazed by this strange assumption that being able to cast all spells anytime would somehow immediately need to be 'balanced' by having enemies always buff themselves before combat (how would that even work, buff durations being what they are, and the enemy not knowing when you are going to attack them).Nothing needs to be balanced there. It should be a player's choice, much like whether to bother using traps or not, when to use potions and when not, and so on. The whole notion that there is 'one true way of playing the game (even just combat-wise) and doing anything else means gimping yourself' in terms of how much you are going to enjoy the game is ridiculous in general. There is no optimal party composition for a good experiencr. If you don't like buffing much, having a priest in the party is not optimal for you. If you don't like summoning, better get rid of that Chanter. But some people seem to be deadbent on viewing PoE (or maybe any game for that matter) as a 'kill stuff, and kill stuff always in a way you kill stuff the fastest, because this is what this game is all about, killing stuff!'-fest.

There's nothing absurd in the notion that more choice doesn't necessarily = better, as has been argued several times in this thread. It's the same thing as with the narrow doorways. It's just an option to block the corridor with your tank, but the fact that it's clearly the optimal strategy, makes not taking advantage of it, the same as deliberately gimping oneself. The same can be argued with regards to pre-buffing. Exactly. Buffing in general, be it combat only or not, is NOT MANDATORY. You can play a party without Paladins or Priests or Chanter and do fine.

If anyone's main argument against being able to cast all spells anytime is 'I hate buffing' -> just don't take classes in your party whose main strength is all about buffs. Problem solved.

It's probably for the best if it gets moved, thank you.

I don't mind things like these per se. But in this case it's just...I don't know, usually in this case it's spelled out a little better, exactly what you're going to sacrifice. Some clear indication that you won't be able to finish the ritual if you don't have the thingy.

Ah, alright...mistook the 'Spoiler warning' for 'no spoilers'...will do that next time. Well I could easily give the artifact to a party member, no?

I'll try and keep this rather vague and spoiler-free: Let's say there's an item which is needed for a ritual that lets you craft a powerful artifact. But this item is needed by an NPC to survive. You could kill them for no reason and complete the ritual, or you can decide not to do it - and get nothing at all. Having played Paladins and Priests a lot, I know a lot of times you can / should tell people to keep their money or trinkets after having done a good deed. In this case however I feel a little stupefied, especially when seeing that every guide recommends to kill said NPC exactly for the reason stated. The strange thing is that this artifact even allows for different 'personalities' - I would have appreciated if that artefact developed different powers based on your choice with the NPC, or rather, that you cannot give it a certain 'ruthless' property without killing the NPC. But nothing? Meh. Yes, I realize that ethical choice need not always be rewarded by gameplay mechanics. I just find it strange considering that in the rest of the game, keeping your dispositions matter a lot gameplay-wise when playing Priests or Paladins, and no matter how you decide, you usually get *something*...

I really don't know how to reproduce this, but I'm currently at Pearlwood Bluff, just encountered some Wind Blights who did nothing but stand around and let themselves get hit. Then I roped down to that cave, same thing: They do nothing. oO

Yeah I thought about doing that, too, but in my case once the front lines stabilize they're just too darn irregular to hit anything without hitting my people. Never mind, I won't worry about it that much anymore.

Pretty sure there is more variety between those two worlds of either playing "geometry-dance revolution" or just diablo-esque durr-dumbclicking. But like I replied to another post, I seem to have already found my preferred way of resolving combat: Lots of charms, control and the like. Don't have to position much to use those!

Detailed decision making - to some degree. Detailed positioning - not so much. It just seems to me once combat starts, every carefully laid tactic flies out of the window anyway and I react instead of planning much ahead. I find control spells (Hold, Charm, etc.) to be very helpful, though! Luckily, PoE accomodates that playstyle just as well - I can even mindcontrol dragons, it seems...x)

I couldn't even get enemies to stand where I want them, and moving out of engagement is risky as well. It usually goes like this: I enter combat, some enemies attack my melees up front, but others walk past them and flank them from behind (can't move back and out of engagement without risking disengagement attacks) - therefore I can't fire anything sensibly without hitting my melees. But thanks for the feedback so far - I guess those spells just aren't for me then. Microing of that depth (or worrying over tradeoffs) is nothing I want to spend much time on in this game. I will just pick spells or cipher powers that are Foe AoE or 'jump to enemies' only, and that's enough for Normal Difficulty anyway...

I really am at a loss here: A lof of spells (Cipher, Wizard, etc.) damage 'anyone' in the line of fire / in AoE range. But very rare is the case enemies will line up nicely or let themselves be controlled in such a way that these spells can be fired without hitting someone from my party as well. So the question is: Should I just fire them anyway and don't mind the damage I do to my own guys, or is there some scenario where wizards, ciphers etc. are suddenly front line material and have only enemies in front of them and nobody in-between? I guess in large battlefields, you could build one front line and then position your casters to flank the enemy, but that hardly ever works in practice. Usually some enemies always break formation and attack my casters if they're too close. Casting something like Mind Lance really seems impossible without hitting your own. And it's almost never worth the hassle of positioning: If I can't even seriously damage enemies with a fireball in a way the fight is over that much quicker, I really don't know if I should take wizards of ciphers and the like at all into my party...

Hm, it's really just one track (at least in my ears) and for throwback purposes I adore it. Otherwise PoE has pretty much its own musical style.

I agree! I haven't noticed so far, but now I've encountered my first dragon..a special 'intense' combat music for this kind of encounter would be great, and of course one unique theme for the final fight.

Ouch. That bad? I think the Divinity games have a very quirky, unfettered style - when the devs at Larian think something could be fun, they just do it, and the same goes for the composer of all the music in those games, I feel. While they rarely seem to bother with overall consistency or setting a certain 'mood' and sticking with it, somehow all the elements always seem to come together to make an entertaining, if unusual game, and unusual music as well. But I do realize this approach may not be everyone's cup of tea.

Yes, I'm pleasantly surprised as well at how 'weird' PoE got, story-wise. The whole thing with soul fragments, earlier lifes and the like reminds me of PS:T in some regards. So in a way, I understand how you would like to have that reflected in the music as well. Good news however! Torment: Tides of Numenera will release this year, and with Mark Morgan who also did PS:T back for more music of the 'weirder' type. So I'm looking forward to a lot of this: https://www.youtube.com/embed/qBc842j4vpU

Definitely agree with this point. One of my regrets for this project for sure. We've discussed solutions but they are pretty risky to try right now. We'll continue to investigate though. I believe good old Michael Hoenig (and Mark Morgan in PS: Torment) did a lot of small 'transitional' ending segments to their combat music, so the music could stop at certain points in the track, with the 'correct' ending instead of just stopping or fading out. Takes a lot of work I guess, and boy, do I know the composers lament: It is always a small minority of players who ever notices consciously. (Takes me back to iMUSE days - Peter McConnell and Michael Land invested so much effort into that interactive music system, which added or removed layers depending on what was hapenning in the game and transitioned between tracks smoothly. It was absolutey great - and hardly anyone noticed or talked about it. ) Taking the opportunity for a small music review of Justin Bell's work in PoE: - Very good quality overall. This music does its job well, while still having some disctinctive 'motifs', not just background chords like some lazy Hollywood composers these days like to do (maybe out of fear of being sued if they hit a melody that already exists - I've heard an industry insider talk about this kind of thing) - While I do think that the Title Theme (start menu) in itself is a great piece of music and I immensely enjoy hearing it, I would have probably taken this for the character generation screen instead of the first thing players hear when entering the game. I may be biased of course by the way BG and IWD sounded in that regard - you started the game and you instantly felt like 'Yeah, I'm entering a world of epic action, I wanna jump and fight, let's do this!!1" - and while the Title Theme becomes somewhat epic later on, at first it sounds rather contemplative and deep. And while PoE is both these things at many points in the game, I don't believe this is the general mood most players expect to be put in when entering the game. This has a lot of impact on me, anyway. - Speaking of BG: I greatly enjoy how "Combat C" is reminiscent of Hoenig's stuff (and good choice placing it at the first combat theme players hear ^^), especially in instrumentation (strings and brasses stacked with choirs plus at 0:24 the first three notes (minor chord 1,2,3) of BG's signature theme = instant nostalgia). Other themes (not just in combat) remind me of great music of J-RPGs, especially from the FinalFantasy and Secret of Mana variety. - I admit I would have wished for some character-specific themes, so you can hear those when one of them initiates dialogue with the player character. I remember this from BG2 (though only for romanceable characters there, omg Jaheira's theme was great... but I digress. Anyway, they had a lot more NPCs than PoE does, so composing a theme for all of them would have been a lot of work) and PS:T also had character themes (though in that game, character motifs were largely just variations of the PS:T main theme). NWN also comes to mind, though there you had themes for NPCs that weren't your own but talked to a lot ("Nice" Aribeth, "Evil" Aribeth, Aarin Gend etc.) Anyway, having themes for playable or non-playable NPCs increases familiarity and 'care' for their stories and trials, at least I feel that way. But I imagine there were constraints of time and resouce (there always are). So long story short: Very good music, very good work, and my only two complains / wishes would have been: 1. Title Theme should be taken for char-generation and something more action-y and dramatic should be taken for Title 2. characters / companions should have their signature theme