Why Is Resting/Injuries and Maybe Even Supplies, Still In At All?

[Boeroer]

If you want to achieve something you can be direct - but acting like a douchebag will only get you so far (not saying that you are a douchebag).

 

Using a term like "We all know/agree that..." while knowing exactly that it's not the case or using stuff like "Are you blind? Have reading problems?" will not get you anywhere - if it's really the improvement of the game you're after.

 

It will just lead to repulsion on the side you wish to convince. You don't have to convince the people who think the same - you want to convince the people who do not. But you won't achieve that with arrogance, insults or insinuations. If you'd present your arguments in a reasonable way (and I'm sure you have some good arguments) the chance of success and agreement would be a lot higher.

 

So I wonder if it's really the improvement of the quality of the game what's driving you or if you just want to rant...?

 

Your discussion style has been awful so far. If you ask yourself why a lot of people oppose you: that's the only reason.

 

That's a pity because I think that the thoughts behind your reasoning are decent - even if I may not agree.

[JFutral]

 

 

 

Pillars has been balanced just fine for its opening salvo. I know I don't like being wiped my first play through.

 

 

It really hasn't and that's what having multiple different difficulty levels is for. The difficulty of each level shouldn't need to be raised dramatically after release in line with people getting better at the game; they should be pitched somewhere close to where they're meant to be in the first place and people can select accordingly.

 

There are three difficulty levels below the one you're playing on if you don't want the risk of wiping on a first playthrough.

 

 

No, it's just fine, thank you, though.

 

Joe

 

 

It's fine for you, who wants to be able to play Veteran without the risk of dying on the first playthrough (sounds like an ego protection thing). That doesn't describe what most people think Veteran difficulty should be, or how the difficulty level describes itself at the beginning of the game, hence why the devs themselves have acknowledged they missed the mark and are addressing it.

 

 

No, I'm pretty clear on what Veteran difficulty is and so are the developers. I'm pretty experienced in IE games, I've been through PoE 1 at all difficulties and even got half way through PotD solo until I just wasn't interested anymore. I played the beta for the last 6 months, so I'm already familiar with the mechanics at all levels. Veteran is just right before I really want a battle challenge so I get a good sense of the story and enough of a challenge when they are supposed to be challenging at my level of experience, both as a player and with the game itself.

 

Have you even played the game yet? Or are you one of those who complain on here say only? I can't remember. There are a bunch of gripers and whiners here that haven't even played the game yet wasting bandwidth.

 

Look, if you're really unhappy, just don't play the game. Go play something else. I really don't care. It's just a game. One of many. Come back when you're ready. Or don't.

 

Joe

[Guest Blutwurstritter]

I played the old IE games (BGI,BGII, IWD, IWD2, PS:T) and the resting system was already pointless back then, in my opinion. It's only usefulness was to initiate dream sequences... You could rest almost anywhere/anytime and i can't remember a single occasion where you actually were forced to watch your resources. The same goes for Pillars 1, resting supplies or opportunity cost for resting were no hindrance and added no meaningful layer of strategy for that reason.I can agree that resource management can add something to a game if it is done right, but it certainly wasn't in any of the aforementioned games.

In PoE 1 i simply used my Cipher and Chanter most of the time and the per encounter abilities of the other classes. On normal and hard this was more than sufficient to finish the majority of fights in the game. In PoE 2 i can at least play around with all spells/abilities at each encounter, which makes combat more varied in my opinion. It is usually not necessary since combat is rather easy but it i am certainly enjoying combat in PoE 2 more in comparison to PoE 1 where i usually did always the same except for the few boss fights.

The resting system simply introduced a small psychological barrier to avoid using high level spells, for me at least since i dislike "wasting" spells on weak enemies, and thus i rarely ever used them which led to rather boring encounters most of the times. With per encounter abilities i am actually using the whole range of abilities which made combat a lot more enjoyable.

[whiskiz]

If you want to achieve something you can be direct - but acting like a douchebag will only get you so far (not saying that you are a douchebag).

 

Using a term like "We all know/agree that..." while knowing exactly that it's not the case or using stuff like "Are you blind? Have reading problems?" will not get you anywhere - if it's really the improvement of the game you're after.

 

It will just lead to repulsion on the side you wish to convince. You don't have to convince the people who think the same - you want to convince the people who do not. But you won't achieve that with arrogance, insults or insinuations. If you'd present your arguments in a reasonable way (and I'm sure you have some good arguments) the chance of success and agreement would be a lot higher.

 

So I wonder if it's really the improvement of the quality of the game what's driving you or if you just want to rant...?

 

Your discussion style has been awful so far. If you ask yourself why a lot of people oppose you: that's the only reason.

 

That's a pity because I think that the thoughts behind your reasoning are decent - even if I may not agree.

 

It's your problem if you choose to focus on and get triggered over the words used, instead of the good points and issues raised with those words.

 

You've spent 3 or 4 posts now mostly whining about how i post.

 

I'm not the one with the problem. 

 

Show me on the figurine where i touched you. (see what i did there?)

 

I'm a bit of a ****, but i'm fine with it haha.

 

Anyway, i guess the whole resting gimmick is kind of hard-baked into the game now, so here's to hoping that at least it gets a better revision in the next game - either removed or more fleshed out.

Edited May 24, 2018 by whiskiz

[Boeroer]

I can't see where I came over as whining. In contrast to some of your posts mine seem to be worded in a relatively reasonable fashion so far.

 

You are exactly the one with certain problems, else you woudn't have started numerous threads about them. And that's fine because it's one of the reasons this forums exist.

 

You can be as douchy as you want - I just explained to you why you won't achieve anything fruitful for you and your cause with that approach. You can ignore that advice or consider it - it doesn't matter that much to me, but I will keep opposing such things because I think they are toxic and harmful.

 

It's just a bit sad that somebody who can obviously think straight wastes his time with unprovoked, counterproductive and (passive) aggressive nonsense.

 

I agree that the resting system is kind of meh by the way. It's quite meaningless besides the food buffs (which I personally can totally do without). It's just too easy to rest so injuries as well make not too much sense other than determining at which point you die permanently.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Boeroer

[Guest 4ward]

i‘ll throw out something (as a thought for an eventual pillars 3), before you go off on me, i‘m aware that i‘m likely overlooking things:

 

- no rest, no injuries, no food (supplies)

- dying as in BG2 (resurrection possible)

- how much a character's health regenerates after battle depends on constitution

- no per-encounter, but ‚per-empower‘ to replenish abilities

- how often you are allowed to empower depends on e.g. difficulty level or as an option to choose

 

thoughts?

[Silent Winter]

i‘ll throw out something (as a thought for an eventual pillars 3), before you go off on me, i‘m aware that i‘m likely overlooking things:

 

- no rest, no injuries, no food (supplies)

- dying as in BG2 (resurrection possible)

- how much a character's health regenerates after battle depends on constitution

- no per-encounter, but ‚per-empower‘ to replenish abilities

- how often you are allowed to empower depends on e.g. difficulty level or as an option to choose

 

thoughts?

 - no rest/injuries (as currently implemented) would work - but I'd still like the option (tie it to 'wait' as it is now - it's only the animation that's different)

- resurrection might go against the lore a bit - but having characters stay KO'd until 'revived' might be kosher (and mechanically the same) (though possibly leading to a character being unconscious for weeks depending on how you play LOL)

- interesting tying it to CON - I assume we can still heal (but maybe only in combat?) - would probably annoy some gamers but place an interesting challenge for others.

-how would  empowers replenish in this system? (no resting so...?) - from your next point it'd be per game-hour/day?  Again, I'd find that interesting (akin to my earlier comment about health+endurance making for interesting choices on ability use for any given fight).  Some people would no doubt hate it because they want all their spells/abilities for every fight.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

Personally I think as stated in another thread on combat and mechanics that we need both per rest and per encounter systems implanted at start game by making choice.

 

The poster that started this thread tried argue same things in that thread too.

 

I see per encounter been limited dragon fight has be at same level as every other fight per level of players watcher, you got simple system that throw best buffs and spells and use best abilities no thought no challenge rinse and repeat. System needs improving. I don't like this per encounter myself but some people do. If you don't level fights correctly you get few tough fights and a lot of underwhelming trash fights that do nothing.

 

Per rest need to be improved as resting hold no real dangers and you can spam rest. At least per rest has the ability make fights more varied and things like dragons really stand out as fight. Managing resources and per rest abilities makes combat more thought out and engrossing. Fights in per rest even underwhelming fights if your not careful can lead to not having right resources so actually don't feel like trash fights. Group of xaurip's don't need be made as challenging as dragon

 

I played both POE1 and POE 2 and 2 feels watered down not so much fun as POE 1 and yes think some this will change as the bugs removed and system gets improvements but think removing all management not direction to go especially if only 1 style of mechanics going be used. Game was a spiritual successor of IE games they all have management in them to, completely removing management move pillars away from those games to much and will destroy what these games are meant to be.

[Guest 4ward]

 

i‘ll throw out something (as a thought for an eventual pillars 3), before you go off on me, i‘m aware that i‘m likely overlooking things:

 

- no rest, no injuries, no food (supplies)

- dying as in BG2 (resurrection possible)

- how much a character's health regenerates after battle depends on constitution

- no per-encounter, but ‚per-empower‘ to replenish abilities

- how often you are allowed to empower depends on e.g. difficulty level or as an option to choose

 

thoughts?

 - no rest/injuries (as currently implemented) would work - but I'd still like the option (tie it to 'wait' as it is now - it's only the animation that's different)

- resurrection might go against the lore a bit - but having characters stay KO'd until 'revived' might be kosher (and mechanically the same) (though possibly leading to a character being unconscious for weeks depending on how you play LOL)

- interesting tying it to CON - I assume we can still heal (but maybe only in combat?) - would probably annoy some gamers but place an interesting challenge for others.

-how would  empowers replenish in this system? (no resting so...?) - from your next point it'd be per game-hour/day?  Again, I'd find that interesting (akin to my earlier comment about health+endurance making for interesting choices on ability use for any given fight).  Some people would no doubt hate it because they want all their spells/abilities for every fight.

 

you‘re right, it should be revive lorewise and perhaps then would be a watcher ability getting guys back from the in-between, tied to empower (so you used it up, you need to have empower to get the ability back). When you‘re revived you get also full health back and you heal also outside of combat through spells, potions for example. Empower could also replenish like gaining xp. You solve quests, you win battles and your empower refills, once it‘s full again you can replenish and revive.

[E.RedMark]

I like the resting mechanic , and I for one don't care if it seem pointless or useless .

 

I also like crafting (why not cooking?) food and use it . 

[whiskiz]

Personally I think as stated in another thread on combat and mechanics that we need both per rest and per encounter systems implanted at start game by making choice.

 

The poster that started this thread tried argue same things in that thread too.

 

I see per encounter been limited dragon fight has be at same level as every other fight per level of players watcher, you got simple system that throw best buffs and spells and use best abilities no thought no challenge rinse and repeat. System needs improving. I don't like this per encounter myself but some people do. If you don't level fights correctly you get few tough fights and a lot of underwhelming trash fights that do nothing.

 

Per rest need to be improved as resting hold no real dangers and you can spam rest. At least per rest has the ability make fights more varied and things like dragons really stand out as fight. Managing resources and per rest abilities makes combat more thought out and engrossing. Fights in per rest even underwhelming fights if your not careful can lead to not having right resources so actually don't feel like trash fights. Group of xaurip's don't need be made as challenging as dragon

 

I played both POE1 and POE 2 and 2 feels watered down not so much fun as POE 1 and yes think some this will change as the bugs removed and system gets improvements but think removing all management not direction to go especially if only 1 style of mechanics going be used. Game was a spiritual successor of IE games they all have management in them to, completely removing management move pillars away from those games to much and will destroy what these games are meant to be.

 

"you got simple system that throw best buffs and spells and use best abilities no thought no challenge rinse and repeat"

 

You say there's no challenge, then say "Group of xaurip's don't need be made as challenging as dragon" so which is it? Is it challenging or is it not?

 

You mention i've made the same arguments elsewhere - yet you make the same ignorant arguments from those places. As i've already said multiple times - There is no "use best stuff" every fight and "no challenge" there is plenty you have to take into account during a fight and that changes from fight to fight. When they actually get round to balancing the harder difficulties....

 

I'd love to see you use your awesome, high-level, pretty looking fireball that's a reflex-based aoe spell, on a group of enemies with a high reflex defense - or your aoe against less but bigger enemies. You fight a group of bandits and fireball aoe them down, then you fight 2 big trolls and fireball aoe them down? You fight some fire elementals and fireball them down too? An enemy debuffs your reflex attack and you continue to try fireballing the fight away? Lmao.

 

I'd love to see you not worry about the interrupt/concentration mechanics on some fights - not interrupting enemy spellcasters on a harder difficulty and watch you get obliterated from high level enemy spells, that usually have a slower cast time to try interrupt, to compensate.

 

I'd love to see you try to cast all the same stuff every fight, in fights where the enemies leap to your back-line or the rogues apparently shadow-dash back there, interrupting your spellcasting and attacking your squishies. 

 

I'd love to see you play every fight out the same way, when some enemies can heal themselves, some can severely debuff you and hamper your attacks/stats/strategies, when there are different types of enemies, different numbers of enemies, different positioning of enemies etc.

 

Would love to see you use your super mega awesome, OP melee attack, on a giant (high deflection defense, hurts in melee if not trying to blind or otherwise incapacitate etc)

 

And yadayadayada..

 

One of the dumbest and most ignorant arguments i've seen made, repeatedly.

 

"If you don't level fights correctly you get few tough fights and a lot of underwhelming trash fights that do nothing."

 

And if they are levelled correctly? What-ifs and hypotheticals aren't helpful.

 

"At least per rest has the ability make fights more varied and things like dragons really stand out as fight."

 

Fair point - but are you then wanting the rest of the game to be easy and/or keep an archaic and obsolete system in, just to make like 5 fights in the game stand out? (dragons and the other rare big fights) Instead of making the entire game stand out? You want epic fights, but only 5% of the game? Don't mind me for wanting an epic fight every fight, I guess i'm weird like that.

 

"Group of xaurip's don't need be made as challenging as dragon"

 

So you're wanting to pick what fights have difficulty and which don't? Or you want the majority of the game to be easy and it be mostly "trash mobs" Before taking on the cool looking big baddies? That's where the lower difficulties come in. Stick to normal/hard maybe veteran. Problem solved - most of the game is easy, boss fights are harder and stand-out.

 

You can't have it (especially on higher difficulties) so it's only difficult in very specific places you want it to be - where else do you see that in the gaming industry?

 

You want a challenge - you pick a higher difficulty, you don't? You pick a lower difficulty. There is no picking and choosing difficulty throughout the game.

 

 

i‘ll throw out something (as a thought for an eventual pillars 3), before you go off on me, i‘m aware that i‘m likely overlooking things:

 

- no rest, no injuries, no food (supplies)

- dying as in BG2 (resurrection possible)

- how much a character's health regenerates after battle depends on constitution

- no per-encounter, but ‚per-empower‘ to replenish abilities

- how often you are allowed to empower depends on e.g. difficulty level or as an option to choose

 

thoughts?

 

That could work, with some tweaks if/as needed.

 

Nice one.

 

What about the penalty for being hit by traps, while removing injuries - to keep them impactful?

Edited May 24, 2018 by whiskiz

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

whiskiz

My points are valid. Honest answer is didn't really cover all my comments.

 

I said that both systems have there issues weaknesses, but I am not trying change things so it way I want it. I like see both systems improved and given option at beginning of the game so each person choose what they want.

 

I see having more options enables game to be played at level difficulty and with as much management or non as each want.

 

Limiting game in any way is removing some of the fans, if to many fans are gone then the franchise is dead. Non of us here really want franchise die when has lot potential for the future. 

 

I not answer your points because your trying push one system is better then another. Yes maybe it is for you but your not every person. You don't hold any more value then any other person. I not for removing per encounter. Unless you open your eye you'll destroy franchise with your ideas. Franchise can only keep going while it can make enough money limiting player base removes money. If your truly fan of Pillars franchise then join in say what's wrong but think about other people and how they might like different to you how more people can be made happy.

 

No I not attacking you encase misunderstand my purpose in writing this. We don't need have us and them mentality we need all people keep this franchise going.

[cokane]

whiskiz

My points are valid. Honest answer is didn't really cover all my comments.

 

I said that both systems have there issues weaknesses, but I am not trying change things so it way I want it. I like see both systems improved and given option at beginning of the game so each person choose what they want.

 

I see having more options enables game to be played at level difficulty and with as much management or non as each want.

 

Limiting game in any way is removing some of the fans, if to many fans are gone then the franchise is dead. Non of us here really want franchise die when has lot potential for the future. 

 

I not answer your points because your trying push one system is better then another. Yes maybe it is for you but your not every person. You don't hold any more value then any other person. I not for removing per encounter. Unless you open your eye you'll destroy franchise with your ideas. Franchise can only keep going while it can make enough money limiting player base removes money. If your truly fan of Pillars franchise then join in say what's wrong but think about other people and how they might like different to you how more people can be made happy.

 

No I not attacking you encase misunderstand my purpose in writing this. We don't need have us and them mentality we need all people keep this franchise going.

 

IIRC Whiskiz hasn't even played Deadfire yet, said as much on the forum. He seemed like he was trying to engage, but just badly. However, I'm now convinced he's just a full on troll though. He should be ignored.

Edited May 24, 2018 by cokane

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

cokane 

 

I tried deadfire and currently wouldn't judge it. I came late to the first pillars. So I know I judge them both currently bit bias as first game was in better place due to changes and balancing that been made. I will replay deadfire and I write review of both when deadfire is in better place.

 

Maybe he hasn't played yet as he waiting balances, so not going judge I hope he read my reply and see it for what it is and not a personal attack on him.

 

I hope to community can learn to come together rather then trying push onesided ways change game. 

 

POE 3 really could be great game learning from mistakes. If community come together try be more open to all opinions obsidian will listen and make great franchise. As for POE 2 we got 3 dlc and lots improvements look forward to hope is great thing.

[cokane]

cokane 

 

I tried deadfire and currently wouldn't judge it. I came late to the first pillars. So I know I judge them both currently bit bias as first game was in better place due to changes and balancing that been made. I will replay deadfire and I write review of both when deadfire is in better place.

 

Maybe he hasn't played yet as he waiting balances, so not going judge I hope he read my reply and see it for what it is and not a personal attack on him.

 

I hope to community can learn to come together rather then trying push onesided ways change game. 

 

POE 3 really could be great game learning from mistakes. If community come together try be more open to all opinions obsidian will listen and make great franchise. As for POE 2 we got 3 dlc and lots improvements look forward to hope is great thing.

 

I'm with you, I'm super optimistic that changes can add more depth to the game. The original PoE went thru some significant changes after launch + WM expansions, and those immensely improved the game. So ya, whatever knocks I've had on the game, I have faith in this company to shape the game into something better.

[Boeroer]

One of the dumbest and most ignorant arguments i've seen made, repeatedly.

One of the most counterproductive and self-defeating statements I've seen made, repeatedly.

[whiskiz]

whiskiz

My points are valid. Honest answer is didn't really cover all my comments.

 

I said that both systems have there issues weaknesses, but I am not trying change things so it way I want it. I like see both systems improved and given option at beginning of the game so each person choose what they want.

 

I see having more options enables game to be played at level difficulty and with as much management or non as each want.

 

Limiting game in any way is removing some of the fans, if to many fans are gone then the franchise is dead. Non of us here really want franchise die when has lot potential for the future. 

 

I not answer your points because your trying push one system is better then another. Yes maybe it is for you but your not every person. You don't hold any more value then any other person. I not for removing per encounter. Unless you open your eye you'll destroy franchise with your ideas. Franchise can only keep going while it can make enough money limiting player base removes money. If your truly fan of Pillars franchise then join in say what's wrong but think about other people and how they might like different to you how more people can be made happy.

 

No I not attacking you encase misunderstand my purpose in writing this. We don't need have us and them mentality we need all people keep this franchise going.

 

It's cool man i get it.

 

I'm not pushing the per encounter system because i personally prefer it, i'm pushing objectively the better combat system - the one that is healthier, much more consistent and easier to balance, much less tedious, much less pointless and when balanced properly - much more consistently challenging throughout every fight, on higher difficulties. 

 

Where the challenge comes from actually playing the combat - not from how well you can save your stuff while engaging with the combat as minimally as possible.

 

Instead of the only challenge being your meta knowledge, knowing what fights are coming up and just using only what is needed. Just trying to get through fights as quickly and efficiently as possible. That isn't challenging after the first playthrough (even then - i jumped straight into PoE 1 on PotD and was fine, even with the pre-made story characters.) and that isn't fun (for anyone not running on nostalgia and traditional RPG/DnD rules.) 

 

Instead of being given the freedom to engage with each and every fight completely and use your characters to the fullest. (and needing to on higher difficulties, just to get by, not no imagined easy mode because of it. Again when actually balanced.) Which also does not mean just using the same OP things over and over, but having the entire repertoire of your characters abilities at your fingertips every battle, to solve the puzzle that is the current fight.

 

That's where it's at.

 

Instead of at the very least the current iteration of per rest, where it's hard to account for what you have each fight to balance consistently, is pointless when you can rest anywhere anytime, is tedious and everything else that's already been gone over many times.

 

I personally don't see any weaknesses to the per encounter system, myself, but plenty with the per rest. I know oldschoolers and long-time fans prefer per-rest, because that's what you were brought up on. Because it's all you/they know, but it doesn't mean it's a good design nor the best design we could have.

 

As i've said before - people enjoy taking drugs - it doesn't mean they're good for you.

 

As also already gone over - i'd even take a more fleshed out per rest system, a more enforced/meaningful one, but if we're having to appeal to the mainstream casual market and it's too risky to enforce/fleshed-out attrition mechanics properly, then the only other decent option again objectively - is removing them entirely. Much better than keeping in a half-done pointless/tedious version of it. 

 

Like it or hate it, the per encounter system is objectively better than the current iteration of per rest, from a game design point of view.

 

Am i wrong? Is any of my reasoning or arguments wrong? If so, how.

Edited May 25, 2018 by whiskiz

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

I think its possible to have both per rest and per encounter systems in game.

 

If you had them as tick boxes at game start you could even add harder settings like your example of per rest been more strict.

 

I think honestly make much better game having both systems and also having choices of how far each person wants take the system for there play through as it adds in much more replay ability. I think more choices also will help people find new ideas for both systems and can lead better game that way to.

 

Most important point is keeping franchise open to as many people as possible, more there are more chance we have of POE 3 and beyond. 

 

I really enjoyed Tyranny has its issues like all games but has great potential but tyranny 2 may never happen and its total shame currently questionable if tyranny 2 will happen as didn't do well. I don't want see that happen with pillars.

[whiskiz]

I think its possible to have both per rest and per encounter systems in game.

 

If you had them as tick boxes at game start you could even add harder settings like your example of per rest been more strict.

 

I think honestly make much better game having both systems and also having choices of how far each person wants take the system for there play through as it adds in much more replay ability. I think more choices also will help people find new ideas for both systems and can lead better game that way to.

 

Most important point is keeping franchise open to as many people as possible, more there are more chance we have of POE 3 and beyond. 

 

I really enjoyed Tyranny has its issues like all games but has great potential but tyranny 2 may never happen and its total shame currently questionable if tyranny 2 will happen as didn't do well. I don't want see that happen with pillars.

 

It would be cool having both systems (with per rest more fleshed out) but that would be impossible to balance - especially if you can choose between them or how far you want to go with either/both.

 

Picking and choosing core combat systems and the depth of them, just wouldn't work from a balance point of view. There would be no set standard to balance off.

 

I believe shifting to fully supported (and balanced) per encounter will draw in alot more people, than trying to have multiple combat systems and per-rest thrown in just for the oldschool nostalgic minority. (yes, minority)

 

As evidenced by the comment i linked i from someone else in another thread, about preferring the new per encounter system with 20+ likes on the comment.

 

(https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/100420-admirable-design-decisions/ - second comment.)

[vanyel54]

I believe shifting to fully supported (and balanced) per encounter will draw in alot more people, than trying to have multiple combat systems and per-rest thrown in just for the oldschool nostalgic minority. (yes, minority)

 

As evidenced by the comment i linked i from someone else in another thread, about preferring the new per encounter system with 20+ likes on the comment.

 

(https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/100420-admirable-design-decisions/ - second comment.)

 

 

Please could you stop thinking that per rest has only disadvantages and that we (and i don't say i represent the majority) love it only because we are used to it (being old school, nostalgic etc...)

For me it adds tension and strategic layer (remember the pit in caed nua with the drake behind ?). I like to take the risk of making one more fight knowing that my character is wounded or that I do not have the good spells in reserve.

I have done many POTD runs and yes, sometimes, i have to go back in town for camping supplies. And yes, sometimes, it annoyed me to do it.

But i still prefer it over the DF system. It's another step away from the type of game I prefer. My point of view.

 

That being said, seeing that you can kill a dragon without even a scratch, it seems complicated to judge the game actually. Another problem is there is no big dungeon.

 

I could be convinced by the per encounter system IF :

- each fight became interesting (boosting IA and giving more possibilities to the opponents, diversify fights in terms of quantity and quality, perhaps adding randomize elements in there).

- the injury system is changed (actually it is meaningless).

I saw good suggestions on this thread (having to go to a specific place to treat wounds or make them more costly to remove, put the characters on the bench of substitutes etc...)

 

I agree with you that obsidian should decide. The half-baked actual state is just plainly bad.

 

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

I like per rest better because very few games are tactically challenging why because most companies scared make game to hard and destroy fan base.

 

I like per rest can be as tactical as you wish to make it, risk and reward if your willing risk it and win then wow memories are made, yeah if you push to far to hard probably going back for camping supply or worst back to main hub.

 

That been said there lot people probably like it harder then even I like. I not into microing the numbers make perfect builds.

 

Do I want be made to micro numbers like they no but don't want spoil it for them either. I understand those people that want less annoyance or for there own reasons want less management. 

 

I think only way is to have both systems and have it so choose at start those choices load script for that style you choose. Once that script loaded then can ask other options so game can be as tactically challenging or not as each player wants. Will it take more work yes but reward is bigger fan base which means more money, more fans means more games and again more revenue.

 

Sad when people push there own agenda with no thought to others or franchise. 

[whiskiz]

 

I believe shifting to fully supported (and balanced) per encounter will draw in alot more people, than trying to have multiple combat systems and per-rest thrown in just for the oldschool nostalgic minority. (yes, minority)

 

As evidenced by the comment i linked i from someone else in another thread, about preferring the new per encounter system with 20+ likes on the comment.

 

(https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/100420-admirable-design-decisions/ - second comment.)

 

 

Please could you stop thinking that per rest has only disadvantages and that we (and i don't say i represent the majority) love it only because we are used to it (being old school, nostalgic etc...)

For me it adds tension and strategic layer (remember the pit in caed nua with the drake behind ?). I like to take the risk of making one more fight knowing that my character is wounded or that I do not have the good spells in reserve.

I have done many POTD runs and yes, sometimes, i have to go back in town for camping supplies. And yes, sometimes, it annoyed me to do it.

But i still prefer it over the DF system. It's another step away from the type of game I prefer. My point of view.

 

That being said, seeing that you can kill a dragon without even a scratch, it seems complicated to judge the game actually. Another problem is there is no big dungeon.

 

I could be convinced by the per encounter system IF :

- each fight became interesting (boosting IA and giving more possibilities to the opponents, diversify fights in terms of quantity and quality, perhaps adding randomize elements in there).

- the injury system is changed (actually it is meaningless).

I saw good suggestions on this thread (having to go to a specific place to treat wounds or make them more costly to remove, put the characters on the bench of substitutes etc...)

 

I agree with you that obsidian should decide. The half-baked actual state is just plainly bad.

 

 

 

The per rest doesn't only have disadvantages, i do agree it has one advantage - the attrition system of seeing how far you can go with your kit before you reset it.

 

That's it. Not very exciting - seeing how far you can go with using as little as possible - engaging with the combat as little as possible, as efficiently and quickly as possible. Awesome gameplay

 

What i said was it has plenty of disadvantages, which outweigh the few-and-far-between advantages - unlike a properly balanced per encounter system. 

 

It does add a layer of tension and strategy but you make it sound like that is the only system that can provide tension and strategy, or that it's in any way better than the strategy and tension that would be provided from a properly balanced per encounter. There is ten-fold more tension and strategy when it comes from every single fight - the combat itself - using anything and everything in your arsenal just to beat each fight, instead of a long and drawn-out tension and strategy, over many average fights, from trying to turn the RPG into some survival-like weird thing.

 

And if you can't handle actual, proper challenge? Where you can't choose the difficulty yourself by just using nothing on easy fights and bigger stuff on any semblance of challenging fights to make those easy too? That's where the difficulty settings come in.

 

Yes - one of the things you can't do with per encounter is abuse the difficulty of balancing it, by saving stuff for harder fights or repeatedly reseting your entire kit as you need/want to, or just using the knowledge of having played the game to know what you'll face and to know how much to save for each fight - but that's a good thing.

 

Per rest fixes the disadvantages, is much better to balance and puts the focus, challenge, tension and strategy on you know, actually playing the combat - not seeing how little of it you can do for as long as you can do it...

 

The pit in Caued Nua with the drake, where if you jump down you can't get back up and have to fight through multiple levels on what you have, making the per rest actually meaningful for once? Actually challenging and strategic? You mention probably the one place in the game that does that.

 

Devs should take note that the only place people seem able to mention and remember where the per rest system actually shines where per encounter can't - *is when it's either fleshed out or enforced*

 

I'm counting on each fight becoming interesting, when/if balanced properly. There's so many different details and general depth to combat, the details of which having been mentioned a couple times already, that each fight should definitely be interesting. Maybe not every single fight a completely unique experience, but definitely varied enough. There are so many variables to consider, that can change from fight to fight.

 

The injury system definitely needs something done to it.

Edited May 25, 2018 by whiskiz

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

both systems have one massive flaw balancing is done to make majority happy, therefore no game will ever be perfect balance yes we are lucky POE games have more range of difficulty levels then lot of games. 

 

That places a limit on people that want very big challenge from ever having that challenge. 

 

Also there big issue of combat going from difficult at beginning of game to been complete walk in park part way through.

 

Games you have to remember lot of the fan base are children teens who are more competative in general then adults so they want to have every achievement and want to finish game on hardest level and boast about it with friends, this limits balancing to point. Young also have tendecy for wanting feel like gods, this also can effect games and difficulties.

 

Before say I wrong think about fact POTD challenge of using single character to complete, if game designed for party 5 can be completed with party 1 its not truly balanced.

 

People talk about injury in per encounter which is attrition and if changed to be more meaningful will at some point force player to go find supplies or do something sort the injury, which is funny as they asking for what was removed from first game because people didn't like going places in middle of dungeon crawl.

 

Per encounter how do you make zurip fight meaningful throw 1000 at you when your level 20? Issue islands what if don't visit that island till level 20? Ok so we don't use zurip when someone level 20 well how's that going make for variety when each level of character going only have few enemies. Yes some enemies can be tweaked for more then single level but system does have lot limits.

 

Yes I waiting see how they balance the per encounter and if they decide to make injuries more punishing. I truly judge when they say they finished balancing. I not going sit here pretend per encounter isn't flawed will be perfect once balanced.

 

Yes I want per encounter stay, not sure if injuries become more meaningful it won't get same complaints as per rest did concerning it forcing players back track and kill the per encounter system. The problem is any attrition system will force you go places if you make mistakes. If you don't need go places then your going find system going have way to be abused.

 

The problem is person that finds way to abuse then does it normally finds they spoil game for themselves unfortunately they then complain and/or leave that franchise.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

Game screen so get idea what I mean

 

tick box Per encounter                                                                                          tick box Per rest

tick box attrition Injuries                                                                                        tick box attrition based rest Dungeon over time fills up with enemies if you leave the dungeon

tick box 3 injuries result in death                                                                          tick box attrition injuries

                                                                                                                             tick box 3 injuries result in death

 

 

tick box Story mode

tick box easy

tick box normal

tick box veteran

tick box POTD

 

Game generates game file based on user inputs and sets enemy's and character settings

 

game then runs character generation 

 

 

Add in things like beraths blessings and some there other ideas we got so much replay ability and we can scale it more to our liking everyone should be happy.

 

Game should sit at number 1 for long time. 

 

As everyone be so happy word of mouth should make a cult classic game.

[vanyel54]

@whiskiz
The problem i have with per encounter is that you play all the fights to the max. With this system, we always apply the same 2 or 3 strategy (depending on the circumstances).
If Obs want this to remain viable, they must force us to improvise more.

Anyway i don't think they will re-introduce per rest. Let's see how they handle useless injuries... If they force us to go anywhere for remove them, it will a per-rest-if-you-fail system

Lets resume : we agree that the current injury system is useless and that fights must be more interesting. We agree then !

Again, the difficulty is so low now that it is difficult to form an opinion. Lets see how they balance everything and we'll talk again.