Difficulty after 1.1 - Game is still too easy

[Shadenuat]

It makes sense that if you have 8 eotens they will have some variations in defences, instead of being identical. I'd actually like a little more fluctuation.

Well I think white tigers are probably similar. They should be tigers. But some tigers are not like others sometimes even in same location. Sometimes same with undead. Maybe it's about their class, but I think we expect some sort of consistency and unique features in monsters. Otherwise, there is little difference between undead rogue, xaurip rogue & human rogue. They both shoot bows with hobble shot and it hurts. Eotens, I mean, make some Eoten shamans, and Eoten fighters then. It would make more sense. It's just sometimes (but not always) it's all same eoten, figuratively speaking. Even if stats oddly fluctuate from poor reflex to will to fortitude and same with armor.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Shadenuat

[dunehunter]

Yeah most RPGs I have played cannot handle level scale well. The enemy’s power always scales slower than player party, which result in the game is very hard at beginning, but becomes easier and easier as u lvl up.

 

But I think it is intended because most players are not hardcorer, they wanna feel powerful when lvl up or get new gears. So the designer gives them such satisfaction. A real difficulty will only exist in fans made mod I guess.

Edited June 16, 2018 by dunehunter

[hilfazer]

 

And there are still some fire nagas in the game with 3 fire armor. Cause they're fire nagas. So you use fire to kill them. Getit.

 

Fight fire with fire

[Gregorovitch]

 

The idea that "per rest systems simply cannot be made to work"? CRPG's have had per rest systems from at least Pool of Radiance to Pillars of Eternity, dude. That's about 30 years of consistent design, with several award-winning, greatest of all time titles in there. How can anyone say this system "cannot be made to work" is to simply ignore facts.

 

Yes, the camping supply thing wasn't ideal in PoE, but it was a good iteration on the previous resting=random encounter chance system. And for all its flaws, it DID work. The game got great reviews and sales on launch and enough of a following for expansions and a sequel. And it's basically the flagship title for Obsidian right now. I'll never understand people complaining about the tedium of having to go back for camping supplies on here. That's the whole point! The system doesn't work, i.e. rest-spamming would be easy, if you didn't have some punishment for over-using camping.

 

IMO the rest system in PoE was without doubt the best ever implemented. Far better than the IE games for example becasue:

 

a) it killed rest spamming to farm XP

b) it removed radom arbitrary rest restrictions based on random interruptions

c) it succeded in limiting rests on pain of whimping off the dungeon to get supplies

d) it provided an additional fail condition, i.e. whimping off the dungeon, to enhance gameplay and add depth, difficulty and exitement

e) it enables genuine full on fail conditions by allowing player to get trapped with insufficient resources to escape for even more depth, difficulty and exitement

 

The Deafire system does not even come close to it. Having finished Deadfire now I find it impossible to understand why it replaced PoE's state of the art system. It was a collossal mistake responsible for maybe 50% of what's wrong with Deafire, the difficulty problem especially.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Gregorovitch

[ThacoBell]

 

 

The idea that "per rest systems simply cannot be made to work"? CRPG's have had per rest systems from at least Pool of Radiance to Pillars of Eternity, dude. That's about 30 years of consistent design, with several award-winning, greatest of all time titles in there. How can anyone say this system "cannot be made to work" is to simply ignore facts.

 

Yes, the camping supply thing wasn't ideal in PoE, but it was a good iteration on the previous resting=random encounter chance system. And for all its flaws, it DID work. The game got great reviews and sales on launch and enough of a following for expansions and a sequel. And it's basically the flagship title for Obsidian right now. I'll never understand people complaining about the tedium of having to go back for camping supplies on here. That's the whole point! The system doesn't work, i.e. rest-spamming would be easy, if you didn't have some punishment for over-using camping.

 

IMO the rest system in PoE was without doubt the best ever implemented. Far better than the IE games for example becasue:

 

a) it killed rest spamming to farm XP

b) it removed radom arbitrary rest restrictions based on random interruptions

c) it succeded in limiting rests on pain of whimping off the dungeon to get supplies

d) it provided an additional fail condition, i.e. whimping off the dungeon, to enhance gameplay and add depth, difficulty and exitement

e) it enables genuine full on fail conditions by allowing player to get trapped with insufficient resources to escape for even more depth, difficulty and exitement

 

The Deafire system does not even come close to it. Having finished Deadfire now I find it impossible to understand why it replaced PoE's state of the art system. It was a collossal mistake responsible for maybe 50% of what's wrong with Deafire, the difficulty problem especially.

 

I'm sorry, what? If I'm interpreting your point "e" correctly, are you actually stating that softlocking your game and making it completely unwinnable is a good thing? On a game that can conceivably take over 100 hours to beat at that.

[Shadenuat]

Only time I remember potentially being trapped somewhere was White March cave where you could drop into deeper part of it.

[thelee]

Only time I remember potentially being trapped somewhere was White March cave where you could drop into deeper part of it.

 

While prior poster seemed to think limited rest supplies was a constraint (I personally played it as such), aside from this example (the only one I can also think of), most players treated limited rest supplies as "time to go through some load screens to travel back to town" which is why Obsidian decided to ditch it.

 

Deadfire is actually closer to state of the art, imo, with its heavily per-encounter system. Because when designers know that players have full resources for every fight, they can balance for that, instead of assuming that a player is at like ~80% or less, and thus rest-spamming becomes incredibly powerful (rest-spam and turn on "fully heal on rest" for most IE games and you'll obliterate most encounters). BG2 was only notable because a lot of its wizard fights "cheat" because wizards are expending all their resources as if that's the only fight they'll have to deal with (which is true, from an AI perspective) and theoretically your own casters were a bit more constrained. Up until a certain point in 1.1 PotD, every fight is like a BG2 fight because everyone is spending all their resources possible.

 

Again, I maintain that the main thing missing from 1.1 PotD isn't encounter difficulty, just a lack of a significant amount of encounters tuned specifically for e.g. levels 14-20, and not just ones that are level-scaled to tha tlevel.

[Shadenuat]

Rest spam is still powerful though, due to Empower, and grows more powerful with levels. As for expending everything, it feels good up until particular level, but if game will be balanced around expending everything, then fights would just become longer and longer as you level up. It happens, as you rotate all your abilities twice before enemy goes down, when you're up against some big skull encounter (like Yseyr). Fighting against ~1000 hp enemies sometimes even makes game feel like an MMO. You're not just getting new stuff, you're getting more and more power points, so while on level 3 those 2 special abilities were important, when you can use 10 same abilities later it doesn't feel as good.

 

You shouldn't use all resources, you should use the correct ones in the context of the encounter.

 

And for that, combat in Deadfire should be Deadlier, and less skewed towards high defence values. Classes should also have a bit less power points as they level up, as now it's a bit crazy (not to mention classes that have unlimited points and can easily outlast the enemy - having a Chanter in party with summons breaks combat bad as no enemy can handle unlimited summons with in-built heals to the boot).

 

In theory, yeah, designer can make encounter based around full range of abilities, but a) there's still a problem of open world and b) that's theory, as you know we did not get this, or not exactly.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Shadenuat

[Zelse]

POTD

 

The difficulty in the reworked encounters is good (Gorecchi street is the 1 encounter ive found that i couldnt do straight up). But not all encounters are reworked (even though there is quite a number of them, kudos for that).

 

Just expand on the things that have been done in the mid and latergame and its perfect.

 

I also like the concept of designing every encounter like the player has full resources. It does make it more interesting and limiting resting really doesnt do all that much except waste time for travel. If you REALLY want to rest you will always be able to rest. Only punishment is wasting time.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Zelse

[KentDA]

The problem with per rest abilities is actually rather simple.

 

Access to "powers" affects the "staying power" of a character, and thus affects the group.

 

If your powers come from building resources and spending them, you have massive amounts of staying power. The need to rest, on your own is usually dictated by injuries and health.

 

If your powers come from a set amount per encounter, whether a per level or total pool, you likewise have a lot of staying power. The need to rest is pretty much dictated by injuries and health.

 

If your powers come from per rest, then you suck once you run out of powers. You're dead weight until the group stops to REST.

 

And nobody likes to be held back by "the load".

 

Every class should have some means to be useful, all the time. A class that is exclusively Per Rest will eventually become The Load if you don't Rest regularly. And if you have restrictions on the ability to Rest (whether its resources, being ambushed, or simply an actual time limit to the game), then any group with such Classes will hold the player back and create frustrations.

 

Which is why, though it is more complex what you need is for every class to have a MIXTURE of abilities, with most being either via Resource Generation, a static "pool" of points, or Per Encounter and a small number of "Big Gun" abilities being Per Rest. That way Resting is important for Everyone and every Class can remain useful even if they've expended their Per Rest powers.

Edited June 16, 2018 by KentDA

[cokane]

 

Only time I remember potentially being trapped somewhere was White March cave where you could drop into deeper part of it.

 

While prior poster seemed to think limited rest supplies was a constraint (I personally played it as such), aside from this example (the only one I can also think of), most players treated limited rest supplies as "time to go through some load screens to travel back to town" which is why Obsidian decided to ditch it.

 

Deadfire is actually closer to state of the art, imo, with its heavily per-encounter system. Because when designers know that players have full resources for every fight, they can balance for that, instead of assuming that a player is at like ~80% or less, and thus rest-spamming becomes incredibly powerful (rest-spam and turn on "fully heal on rest" for most IE games and you'll obliterate most encounters). BG2 was only notable because a lot of its wizard fights "cheat" because wizards are expending all their resources as if that's the only fight they'll have to deal with (which is true, from an AI perspective) and theoretically your own casters were a bit more constrained. Up until a certain point in 1.1 PotD, every fight is like a BG2 fight because everyone is spending all their resources possible.

 

Again, I maintain that the main thing missing from 1.1 PotD isn't encounter difficulty, just a lack of a significant amount of encounters tuned specifically for e.g. levels 14-20, and not just ones that are level-scaled to tha tlevel.

 

 

Except it didn't work out this way at all. It's funny that some people on here assert certain things: "it was easier for designers to balance combat in Deadfire" when the reality is the complete opposite.

[AeonsLegend]

On Veteran mode and I'm picking fights 5 levels above me now. Feels about right. Some are still too easy.

[Tigranes]

You shouldn't use all resources, you should use the correct ones in the context of the encounter.

 

This is, more or less, at the heart of everything.

 

I don't care if it's per-rest, per-enc, per-squirrel chirp, whatever. The core meaningful difference is: does the system involve throwing the same stuff at the enemies again and again and again? Or does the system involve thinking and making choices about what to do this time - whether because of the enemy, or because of your own expenditure of resources, or something else?

 

At the end of the day, Deadfire too often involves your guys doing the same thing again and again every single battle. To some extent, that is inevitable; POE1 or BG2 also had some degree of that. The point is that most of the changes they made for Deadfire actually exacerbate the issue instead of helping.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Tigranes

[InsaneCommander]

On Veteran mode and I'm picking fights 5 levels above me now. Feels about right. Some are still too easy.

 

They should just give the players a +x levels slider for PotD.

[the streaker]

The problem with per rest abilities is actually rather simple.

 

Access to "powers" affects the "staying power" of a character, and thus affects the group.

 

If your powers come from building resources and spending them, you have massive amounts of staying power. The need to rest, on your own is usually dictated by injuries and health.

 

If your powers come from a set amount per encounter, whether a per level or total pool, you likewise have a lot of staying power. The need to rest is pretty much dictated by injuries and health.

 

If your powers come from per rest, then you suck once you run out of powers. You're dead weight until the group stops to REST.

 

And nobody likes to be held back by "the load".

 

Every class should have some means to be useful, all the time. A class that is exclusively Per Rest will eventually become The Load if you don't Rest regularly. And if you have restrictions on the ability to Rest (whether its resources, being ambushed, or simply an actual time limit to the game), then any group with such Classes will hold the player back and create frustrations.

 

Which is why, though it is more complex what you need is for every class to have a MIXTURE of abilities, with most being either via Resource Generation, a static "pool" of points, or Per Encounter and a small number of "Big Gun" abilities being Per Rest. That way Resting is important for Everyone and every Class can remain useful even if they've expended their Per Rest powers.

 

Why is that a problem and since when does nobody like a rest-heavy character? D&D became famous partly on the back of powerful wizards, sorcerers and priests with a limited number of uses before resting. The balance was the DM, which would equate to the game designer in cRPGs. There's nothing wrong with having diversity between the classes. How boring is it that every class in PoE2 has all per-encounter spells, an arbitrary expendable resource (rogues run out of "guile" as the battle goes on? barbs run out of rage? what??), an an arbitrary "empower" button that magically makes everything stronger?

[Loren Tyr]

Why is that a problem and since when does nobody like a rest-heavy character? D&D became famous partly on the back of powerful wizards, sorcerers and priests with a limited number of uses before resting. The balance was the DM, which would equate to the game designer in cRPGs. There's nothing wrong with having diversity between the classes. How boring is it that every class in PoE2 has all per-encounter spells, an arbitrary expendable resource (rogues run out of "guile" as the battle goes on? barbs run out of rage? what??), an an arbitrary "empower" button that magically makes everything stronger?

 

But I would say that DM is the crucial difference there. I have never done any P&P roleplaying but I have no doubt a per-rest system can work very well in that context, because you have the DM there who's probably not going to have you take a nap after every fight (and presumably, in that sort of setting the roleplaying component will be much more pronounced so most people wouldn't want to either). But of course P&P also offers much more flexibility in getting around a fight and such. If your party is exhausted and your casters low on spells, and they spot some unfriendly ogres on their path, they can maybe just go around, or prepare an ambush, or attempt to scare them away / convince them to leave (using an illusion spell maybe, or just a really convincing / intimidating character). Hell, they could set fire to the surrounding forest and drive them off that way. And I should imagine that in P&P gaming, beating a tactical retreat is actually possible as well (realistically, having seen you off the ogres are probably not overly interested in chasing you to the ends of the earth). I would love for this to be actually possible in computer games as well. But you'd need an equivalent of a DM in the game to be able to do that, and in general an engine that allows for vastly more flexibility. That is very hard to actually do, of course.

 

I seem to have side-tracked somewhat, but yeah... per-rest systems work just fine in that context. To me, it never felt it translated at all well to cRPG. The cost of resting and time elapsing is just too ambiguous for it to balance very well. Which isn't to say that per-encounter doesn't have flaws, it clearly does. Having longer-term tactical aspects and being incentivised not to use the same abilities every fight are certainly things I would like to see very much as well (and in general, more organic design than discrete resource pools and spell levels and power levels and such). I don't thing 'per-rest' can properly accomplish that though.

[Shadenuat]

Any thread about design eventually gets hijacked by vancian spellcasting, no exceptions.

[cokane]

 

Why is that a problem and since when does nobody like a rest-heavy character? D&D became famous partly on the back of powerful wizards, sorcerers and priests with a limited number of uses before resting. The balance was the DM, which would equate to the game designer in cRPGs. There's nothing wrong with having diversity between the classes. How boring is it that every class in PoE2 has all per-encounter spells, an arbitrary expendable resource (rogues run out of "guile" as the battle goes on? barbs run out of rage? what??), an an arbitrary "empower" button that magically makes everything stronger?

 

But I would say that DM is the crucial difference there. I have never done any P&P roleplaying but I have no doubt a per-rest system can work very well in that context, because you have the DM there who's probably not going to have you take a nap after every fight (and presumably, in that sort of setting the roleplaying component will be much more pronounced so most people wouldn't want to either). But of course P&P also offers much more flexibility in getting around a fight and such. If your party is exhausted and your casters low on spells, and they spot some unfriendly ogres on their path, they can maybe just go around, or prepare an ambush, or attempt to scare them away / convince them to leave (using an illusion spell maybe, or just a really convincing / intimidating character). Hell, they could set fire to the surrounding forest and drive them off that way. And I should imagine that in P&P gaming, beating a tactical retreat is actually possible as well (realistically, having seen you off the ogres are probably not overly interested in chasing you to the ends of the earth). I would love for this to be actually possible in computer games as well. But you'd need an equivalent of a DM in the game to be able to do that, and in general an engine that allows for vastly more flexibility. That is very hard to actually do, of course.

 

I seem to have side-tracked somewhat, but yeah... per-rest systems work just fine in that context. To me, it never felt it translated at all well to cRPG. The cost of resting and time elapsing is just too ambiguous for it to balance very well. Which isn't to say that per-encounter doesn't have flaws, it clearly does. Having longer-term tactical aspects and being incentivised not to use the same abilities every fight are certainly things I would like to see very much as well (and in general, more organic design than discrete resource pools and spell levels and power levels and such). I don't thing 'per-rest' can properly accomplish that though.

 

 

Again, assertions. Ones that fly in the face of the history of the genre. How come cRPG's from Pool of Radiance, to Baldur's Gate, to even the original Pillars, all had these systems, all were praised at their time for delivering interesting, strategic combat, and some are considered among the best RPG's and video games ever made. Obviously their resting systems weren't that bad!

[Loren Tyr]

Again, assertions. Ones that fly in the face of the history of the genre. How come cRPG's from Pool of Radiance, to Baldur's Gate, to even the original Pillars, all had these systems, all were praised at their time for delivering interesting, strategic combat, and some are considered among the best RPG's and video games ever made. Obviously their resting systems weren't that bad!

 

Assertion which you have conspiciously failed to address. There are plenty of examples of game mechanics and designs that were praised in their original games that have not remotely stood the test of time (I remember the likes of Quake and Goldeneye being highly praised as well, just to name two examples), so the fact that things were done in a certain way before doesn't mean it's a good idea now. Or, for that matter, that it was a particularly good idea at the time; it may just have been the best they had thought of, or could technically achieve. 

[giftmefood]

 

 

Why is that a problem and since when does nobody like a rest-heavy character? D&D became famous partly on the back of powerful wizards, sorcerers and priests with a limited number of uses before resting. The balance was the DM, which would equate to the game designer in cRPGs. There's nothing wrong with having diversity between the classes. How boring is it that every class in PoE2 has all per-encounter spells, an arbitrary expendable resource (rogues run out of "guile" as the battle goes on? barbs run out of rage? what??), an an arbitrary "empower" button that magically makes everything stronger?

 

But I would say that DM is the crucial difference there. I have never done any P&P roleplaying but I have no doubt a per-rest system can work very well in that context, because you have the DM there who's probably not going to have you take a nap after every fight (and presumably, in that sort of setting the roleplaying component will be much more pronounced so most people wouldn't want to either). But of course P&P also offers much more flexibility in getting around a fight and such. If your party is exhausted and your casters low on spells, and they spot some unfriendly ogres on their path, they can maybe just go around, or prepare an ambush, or attempt to scare them away / convince them to leave (using an illusion spell maybe, or just a really convincing / intimidating character). Hell, they could set fire to the surrounding forest and drive them off that way. And I should imagine that in P&P gaming, beating a tactical retreat is actually possible as well (realistically, having seen you off the ogres are probably not overly interested in chasing you to the ends of the earth). I would love for this to be actually possible in computer games as well. But you'd need an equivalent of a DM in the game to be able to do that, and in general an engine that allows for vastly more flexibility. That is very hard to actually do, of course.

 

I seem to have side-tracked somewhat, but yeah... per-rest systems work just fine in that context. To me, it never felt it translated at all well to cRPG. The cost of resting and time elapsing is just too ambiguous for it to balance very well. Which isn't to say that per-encounter doesn't have flaws, it clearly does. Having longer-term tactical aspects and being incentivised not to use the same abilities every fight are certainly things I would like to see very much as well (and in general, more organic design than discrete resource pools and spell levels and power levels and such). I don't thing 'per-rest' can properly accomplish that though.

 

 

Again, assertions. Ones that fly in the face of the history of the genre. How come cRPG's from Pool of Radiance, to Baldur's Gate, to even the original Pillars, all had these systems, all were praised at their time for delivering interesting, strategic combat, and some are considered among the best RPG's and video games ever made. Obviously their resting systems weren't that bad!

 

 

The resting system of POE 1 was tedious as heck. That's why they changed it for POE2, and that was for the better IMO.

 

Resting in POE1 is not strategic. It's just tedious. Nothing is stopping the player from just going back to the inn and back to the battles again. Many people did that in POE 1 and they found it tedious hence why Obsidian changed it what we now have for POE2. 

 

Also since Obsidian knows that we'll always be at max hp and max spell allowance, they can tune the game for that. Whereas in POE1, the resting system screws up the balance. There are plenty of combat which are very easy if you go back to an inn but are hard if you keep continuing with low resources. That's not strategic as well. It's just tedious work and a waste of player's time. 

 

Having an option is a good thing. So for POE2, you can limit yourself and play it like POE1. Problem Solved. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by giftmefood

[the streaker]

 

Why is that a problem and since when does nobody like a rest-heavy character? D&D became famous partly on the back of powerful wizards, sorcerers and priests with a limited number of uses before resting. The balance was the DM, which would equate to the game designer in cRPGs. There's nothing wrong with having diversity between the classes. How boring is it that every class in PoE2 has all per-encounter spells, an arbitrary expendable resource (rogues run out of "guile" as the battle goes on? barbs run out of rage? what??), an an arbitrary "empower" button that magically makes everything stronger?

 

But I would say that DM is the crucial difference there. I have never done any P&P roleplaying but I have no doubt a per-rest system can work very well in that context, because you have the DM there who's probably not going to have you take a nap after every fight (and presumably, in that sort of setting the roleplaying component will be much more pronounced so most people wouldn't want to either). But of course P&P also offers much more flexibility in getting around a fight and such. If your party is exhausted and your casters low on spells, and they spot some unfriendly ogres on their path, they can maybe just go around, or prepare an ambush, or attempt to scare them away / convince them to leave (using an illusion spell maybe, or just a really convincing / intimidating character). Hell, they could set fire to the surrounding forest and drive them off that way. And I should imagine that in P&P gaming, beating a tactical retreat is actually possible as well (realistically, having seen you off the ogres are probably not overly interested in chasing you to the ends of the earth). I would love for this to be actually possible in computer games as well. But you'd need an equivalent of a DM in the game to be able to do that, and in general an engine that allows for vastly more flexibility. That is very hard to actually do, of course.

 

I seem to have side-tracked somewhat, but yeah... per-rest systems work just fine in that context. To me, it never felt it translated at all well to cRPG. The cost of resting and time elapsing is just too ambiguous for it to balance very well. Which isn't to say that per-encounter doesn't have flaws, it clearly does. Having longer-term tactical aspects and being incentivised not to use the same abilities every fight are certainly things I would like to see very much as well (and in general, more organic design than discrete resource pools and spell levels and power levels and such). I don't thing 'per-rest' can properly accomplish that though.

 

 

Have you tried the Baldur's Gates and the Icewind Dales? You can get ambushed while resting in dangerous areas, or while traveling through dangerous areas. I'm not saying the balance was immaculate, but there are better ways of limiting rest than gold/expendable resources.

[thelee]

 

 

Why is that a problem and since when does nobody like a rest-heavy character? D&D became famous partly on the back of powerful wizards, sorcerers and priests with a limited number of uses before resting. The balance was the DM, which would equate to the game designer in cRPGs. There's nothing wrong with having diversity between the classes. How boring is it that every class in PoE2 has all per-encounter spells, an arbitrary expendable resource (rogues run out of "guile" as the battle goes on? barbs run out of rage? what??), an an arbitrary "empower" button that magically makes everything stronger?

 

But I would say that DM is the crucial difference there. I have never done any P&P roleplaying but I have no doubt a per-rest system can work very well in that context, because you have the DM there who's probably not going to have you take a nap after every fight (and presumably, in that sort of setting the roleplaying component will be much more pronounced so most people wouldn't want to either). But of course P&P also offers much more flexibility in getting around a fight and such. If your party is exhausted and your casters low on spells, and they spot some unfriendly ogres on their path, they can maybe just go around, or prepare an ambush, or attempt to scare them away / convince them to leave (using an illusion spell maybe, or just a really convincing / intimidating character). Hell, they could set fire to the surrounding forest and drive them off that way. And I should imagine that in P&P gaming, beating a tactical retreat is actually possible as well (realistically, having seen you off the ogres are probably not overly interested in chasing you to the ends of the earth). I would love for this to be actually possible in computer games as well. But you'd need an equivalent of a DM in the game to be able to do that, and in general an engine that allows for vastly more flexibility. That is very hard to actually do, of course.

 

I seem to have side-tracked somewhat, but yeah... per-rest systems work just fine in that context. To me, it never felt it translated at all well to cRPG. The cost of resting and time elapsing is just too ambiguous for it to balance very well. Which isn't to say that per-encounter doesn't have flaws, it clearly does. Having longer-term tactical aspects and being incentivised not to use the same abilities every fight are certainly things I would like to see very much as well (and in general, more organic design than discrete resource pools and spell levels and power levels and such). I don't thing 'per-rest' can properly accomplish that though.

 

 

Have you tried the Baldur's Gates and the Icewind Dales? You can get ambushed while resting in dangerous areas, or while traveling through dangerous areas. I'm not saying the balance was immaculate, but there are better ways of limiting rest than gold/expendable resources.

 

 

All that meant was that you quick-saved before every rest and reloaded if you got ambushed. It was dumb.

 

It was doubly dumb in BG and IWD (versus BG2 and IWD2) because many ambushes were nowhere near balanced for even a partially resource-expended level 1-2 party so if you didn't reload you would probably be game over-ed anyway. (Same thing with ambushes when going from map to map.)

Edited June 18, 2018 by thelee

[Tigranes]

The ambushes.... really weren't a good way of limiting resources at all. It was better than nothing, but it was pretty dumb and clearly didn't work outside the P&P context.

[cokane]

 

 

Again, assertions. Ones that fly in the face of the history of the genre. How come cRPG's from Pool of Radiance, to Baldur's Gate, to even the original Pillars, all had these systems, all were praised at their time for delivering interesting, strategic combat, and some are considered among the best RPG's and video games ever made. Obviously their resting systems weren't that bad!

 

 

....

 

Resting in POE1 is not strategic. It's just tedious. Nothing is stopping the player from just going back to the inn and back to the battles again. Many people did that in POE 1 and they found it tedious hence why Obsidian changed it what we now have for POE2. 

 

Also since Obsidian knows that we'll always be at max hp and max spell allowance, they can tune the game for that. Whereas in POE1, the resting system screws up the balance. There are plenty of combat which are very easy if you go back to an inn but are hard if you keep continuing with low resources. That's not strategic as well. It's just tedious work and a waste of player's time. 

 

Having an option is a good thing. So for POE2, you can limit yourself and play it like POE1. Problem Solved. 

 

 

"And Since Obsidian knows that we'll always be at max hp and max spell allowance, they can tune the game for that."

 

Again, just assertion. Because the evidence suggests it's been much harder to balance difficulty.

[giftmefood]

 

 

 

Again, assertions. Ones that fly in the face of the history of the genre. How come cRPG's from Pool of Radiance, to Baldur's Gate, to even the original Pillars, all had these systems, all were praised at their time for delivering interesting, strategic combat, and some are considered among the best RPG's and video games ever made. Obviously their resting systems weren't that bad!

 

 

....

 

Resting in POE1 is not strategic. It's just tedious. Nothing is stopping the player from just going back to the inn and back to the battles again. Many people did that in POE 1 and they found it tedious hence why Obsidian changed it what we now have for POE2. 

 

Also since Obsidian knows that we'll always be at max hp and max spell allowance, they can tune the game for that. Whereas in POE1, the resting system screws up the balance. There are plenty of combat which are very easy if you go back to an inn but are hard if you keep continuing with low resources. That's not strategic as well. It's just tedious work and a waste of player's time. 

 

Having an option is a good thing. So for POE2, you can limit yourself and play it like POE1. Problem Solved. 

 

 

"And Since Obsidian knows that we'll always be at max hp and max spell allowance, they can tune the game for that."

 

Again, just assertion. Because the evidence suggests it's been much harder to balance difficulty.

 

 

It's basic maths. The less variables involved, the easier to balance things. 

ie. if Obsidian knows that the player is going to be at full hp and has max resources for that encounter, then they will have the knowledge to balance the game based on that information whereas let's say if they didn't know, it would be much harder to balance the game because there is no starting point to rely on. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by giftmefood