Jump to content

endolex

Members
  • Content Count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by endolex

  1. Oh, I wouldn't say that. Pre-buffing can be a LOT more meaningful than simply "making you stronger". And I'll give you a very common example. Invisibility. Invisibility is an IE game pre-buff. But it doesn't make you stronger. Instead, it simply opens up new tactical avenues. It allows for optimal positioning. It sets up your Thief. It places your Fighter in front of the Enemy's mage so that when the fight begins, that mage is instantly put into a melee situation. And no, PoE's pathetic excuse for Stealth is not a valid substitute, because it doesn't work that way at all. And then there'
  2. I am talking about an argument pro-pre-buffer sympathist made to prove that no-pre-buffs in PoE are wrong: because in PnP (in DnD setting) the GM couldn't forbid players to pre-buff themselves. Truth is, you don't pre-buff yourself prior to each encounter - or prior opening every single door - because you can't predict or spot all encounters before they happen and if you do pre-buff youselves like that you're going to run out of pre-buffs and end up being in a worse situation overall, because the GM won't allow you to sleep that often. That's the point I am making. Yes, but how where d
  3. No, they wouldn't be "balanced" around it. Read the previous posts maybe. If you don't take a priest with you at all, you couldn't win any of those fights you seem to imagine, and that is simply not the case.
  4. Another solution perhaps: If devs want to give less incentive to players to use buffs before combat, just make base durations somewhat shorter (someone may have already suggested that here). That would make stacking of too many buffs pointless, and is a much more elegant thing to do than flagging spells with 'combat only'. Another clue perhaps that this decision was not simply for imposing the dev's idea of 'fun' on players in this single question, but maybe indeed more for technical reasons.
  5. I am not talking about "flawed assumptions". I am talking about combat being balanced under pre-buffing and about people who argument: "Does in PnP [in DnD setting] the GM forbids his players to buff?". To which my answer is: you can't know that combat is going to happen unless you know about it, so can just as well spend all your spells on nothing and fight without them, because a GM will not allow you to rest per each door. Or you'll cast your buffs in combat, like in PoE. In both cases having pre-buffs is flawed in itself. You'd have to come up with different system altogether. People
  6. I will say it again: if the primary reason that the mechanic (pre-buffing with long-duration buffs) is clunky is "because it is tedious and time-consuming" then a macro system is not kludgy because it is an efficient and sensible solution to the problem: with such a macro system, pre-buffing with long-duration buffs is no longer tedious and time-consuming, so the mechanic is no longer clunky, and so the solution is efficient and elegant. On the other hand, if the mechanic (pre-buffing with long duration buffs) is clunky because of other reasons then a macro system is not a solution so cann
  7. I see Well, I prefer the first argument - it's not tedious, because no one forces you to do it just because it's possible. This would be true if they just, say, allowed pre-buffing in PoEt but didn't change the balance. As a "global" argument for games of this type it's going to be a bit more controversial, because it depends on how the game has been made. For instance, if I made a game of this type, I'd be balancing my final-boss encounter in a dungeon on the assumption of significant pre-buffing, so in a game I made you'd typically be obliged to do some, and so I'd be obliged to create s
  8. I see Well, I prefer the first argument - it's not tedious, because no one forces you to do it just because it's possible.
  9. I think this is a poor argument. If one's only dislike for pre-buffing is "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" then pre-buffing convenience functions are possible and address this dislike. Thus, the argument "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" is removed from the discussion. Progress is made. If you believe pre-buffing is a problem for other reasons, then you simply use those arguments instead. But you don't try to use the "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" argument to help you, because it has been demonstrated that there is no need for this. I'm actually wi
  10. ^ this, exactly. BG/BG2 fights were "cast all prebuff spells, attack, move to next encounter, repeat" Nope, never played that way. Because if I had, I'd have run out of buff spells after three or four encounters. Less at earlier levels. The point is to be able to prepare when you know you're gonna need it, not do it for every of the millions of fights in this kind of game.
  11. "balance" is a null term anyway in PoE. This has been established several times in this thread already.
  12. @manageri, I feel this will be my final reply, we're going in circles here, and I get the impression there's little chance of any side convincing the other here. But let's go nonetheless, one final round: "The only way casting buffs can be a waste is if those buffs are really bad. I already explained this. If that's the case, then it's a moot point whether precasting is allowed because you wouldn't ever do it then with those crappy buffs." / "Ignoring the impact of opportunity cost is absurd..." -- Final word, just to repeat: A buff is a waste if it is NOT NEEDED for a quick victory with
  13. This is pretty much the OP's arguments right now. Pre-buffing is terrible for the game and the game is much better now tactically with without it. I still fail to see any argument proving otherwise besides the above quote. And I don't see any argument proving pre-buffing should be prohibited. From Sawyers statement to the pro-prohibition posts here: They all depend on false assumptions about what players do, what players find fun and what players would be 'forced' to do if this was an option.
  14. Gee, yeah, I really can't figure out whether it's better to be buffed than not. Oh, yeah, I also really can't figure out whether the devs might ever expect me to be using all those big buffs they gave me for the hardest fights. Such difficult questions. It's not a valid TACTICALLY SOUND option not to show up buffed for a fight when that's permitted. Theoretically it could be that all buffs are so ****ty that it's better to save spell slots for offensive spells, but in that case the ability to prebuff would be pointless, duh. The fact is that IF buff spells are worth casting then it is
  15. Not one of the assumptions you put into this have any basis. Since you put so much work into this, let me try a final time to explain: "you can cast them before combat, or during it" -- you can also simply cast less of them, or none at all, which is perhaps advisable in the majority of encounters (give or take according to difficulty settings) Option 1: Again you seem to assume that for every time, having all the buffs up is a must. It isn't. Option 2: see above. "So why would I then, given these "more options", ever not buff before the fight?" -- Because you cannot know before
  16. Or, perhaps more a little more practical, a feature that cannot be turned off without starting a new game, like Path of the Damned or Trial of Iron.
  17. I won't tire of pointing out that in PoE buffs are *not* mandatory nor would they suddenly become mandatory if you could cast them before combat. Therefore: no valid point.
  18. That's just your assumption unless you can source it to a developer saying so. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66073-new-pc-gamer-interview-with-josh/ So there we have it. The same silly argument, right from Sawyer: "Enabling players to pre-buff = they HAVE TO DO IT omg". Utter nonsense. And because of this one nonsensical argument, I will always feel like I'm the one getting ambushed, no matter how hard I try to get 'the drop' on an enemy in any encounter. Poor way of implementing more choice for usage of 'combat opportunity'.
  19. Mage the Ascension ( a part of World of Darkness PnP) had similiar mechanics. Maintaining one buff per character or one buff per party would be great and it would make buffing a real tactical decision instead of no brainer. Pre buffing wouldn't be an issue if you cannot stack buffs and if buffs would be more versatile. Going slightly off-topic here, but yeah: Shadowrun has a similar mechanic for every kind of buff, with a talent / perk to gain bonus concentration so you can maintain more spells without losing dice for spellcasting. I also liked Dragon Age's system of cutting mana
  20. Nope, you can decide not to do the pre-buffing, save time and start offensively even if pre-buffing is possible. That is obvious but pointless -- sure, some fights might be so easy that buffing doesn't matter because you're going to faceroll them anyway. That doesn't change the fact that pre-combat buffing is never a negative. In-combat buffing is always both a negative and a positive -- you must decide how to use the scarce resource of combat action. That's what makes it an interesting part of tactics, rather than just busywork you have to go through before every fight. Buff
  21. I still haven't heard a sound reason why buffing the party before combat starts is 'clearly the superior strategy' when at the same time you limit your offensive potential once combat starts, by way of having less spell slots left for 'nukes'. A more or less interesting game to whom exactly? And who is willing or unwilling to gimp themselves? There are players who will restrict their stash, who will disable the 'maim' feature and deal with character deaths, on Path of Iron / the Damned to boot. What gives you the position to judge what kind of playstyle if more or less 'interesting', as i
  22. Who forces you? How? Who forces players to pre-buff just because it is possible? If they prefer a challenge, they still can go in there without pre-buffing. I still haven't heard any precise reason of this 'no brainer' limiting tactical choice. If pre-buffing was allowed right now, without any other changes, what exactly would force you to go through this, and how it would it be a different tedium from buffing everything after combat has started, if you feel it is that necessary in an encounter? I haven't heard a single argument.
  23. And that is something I wish players had a choice to do. If they don't like using player knowledge, they could just not do it, or tick an option to not being able to pre-buff.
×
×
  • Create New...