No point in making builds right now when consumables are more op than the whole build itself

[AndreaColombo]

I would like that scrolls are not just lesser versions of actual spells, but something completely different (albeit useful). Something that can even add depth and tactical value to a spellcaster. No second Kalakoth's Minor Blights scroll or a Fireball scroll that competes directly with class abilities. Instead something that complements class abilities.

 

I don't mind having scrolls that mimic spells like we do, but I do miss unique scrolls like we had in PoE (e.g. Scroll of Valor, Scroll of Defense, Scroll of Missile Barrage.) Unique stuff always feels special and adds some tactical depth, and having scrolls do stuff that would otherwise be unavailable is a good way to encourage putting ranks in Arcana to expand your options.

Edited June 20, 2018 by AndreaColombo

[knownastherat]

 

Compared to any build .. 

 

You see, Loren Tyr, some people compete even in single player games. Either they compete against others in virtual achievements or they compete in imaginary competition existing only in their mind. 

 

Hmm, how odd.

 

Still, you'd think: if a competition is only in your mind, should be easy to change the rules.

 

 

I'd think, but maybe Homo Sapiens is not as sapiens as we like to be. After all Homo Erectus was our ancestor. Oh, that was a slip! So I am beginning to think that it is perhaps not easy indeed to change the rules in our heads, which is hard for me to accept, but perhaps its the reality and insisting on the rational course of action is unrealistic. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by knownastherat

[knownastherat]

Na - it's always frustrating if a game's balance is utterly broken. Sure you can circumvent it (like I do) and not use alchemy or arcana - but that doesn't change the fact that some mechanics are not properly balanced. If there would be a chess figurine that allowed the player to reach every field and beat every other figurine with one move you could either remove it from the game or just not move it. I guess most people would say: "If it feels cheesy and makes the game boring and we don't use it because of that - why not remove it entirely from our game?"

 

I doubt very much that most people would say that simply because to my knowledge "cheese" is not used outside of gaming: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21867/origins-of-the-gaming-term-cheese-strategy, which is interesting to me by itself. Why gaming, why not I dunno .. football? Also, let's note that the etymology points to human-against-human competition, which brings me to the scrub: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

[Franknstein]

A good balance can't be done without trial and error, and PoE I went all the long way to version 3.07 so i'm quite optimistic for the future of Deadfire. =)

 

A good balance makes an OK game a great one. Even for a single-player game it is much needed for replayability – for why bother playing with another build, or class, or watever if you already found the most optimal path to victory. Yes you can chage your behaviour in the game, choice and consequence and stuff, but it is just so much more fun to do it with a complete change of play-style as well. It was done good in PoE I, it killed Tyrany for me (as much Lore as possible and you are well packed). Like, well, as much Alchemy or Arcana... You get the drift.

 

For the problem of consumables duplicating class abilities – it would be fun if classes and sub-classes had unique interactions with the skills and consumables. Poisons and Assassins, Bombs and Black jackets, Wizards and their scrolls, Corpse-Eaters and some very special foods... they all should have some powerful perks for kinda doing what they are supposed to do.

 

And Sleight of Hand is usless. As an "active" skill anyways. Just saying.

[Lokithecat]

Saying theres no points to any builds, because there are bugs in the game is pretty silly.  Sure, you can ignore any sort of build, and just exploit the bugs, until they're patched.  Doesn't really seem like a smart idea long term.

[Franknstein]

Saying theres no points to any builds, because there are bugs in the game is pretty silly.  Sure, you can ignore any sort of build, and just exploit the bugs, until they're patched.  Doesn't really seem like a smart idea long term.

 

The bonus from Alchemy to the Insect Plague might be a bug (should't there be the "poison" keyword on the spells that get affected?). The bonuses from Arcana, Alchemy and Explosives to their consumables ain't a bug, it's a prominent feature, which should be usable and powerful, yet shouldn't undermine classes. I do think so.

[Neckbitbasket]

 

Na - it's always frustrating if a game's balance is utterly broken. Sure you can circumvent it (like I do) and not use alchemy or arcana - but that doesn't change the fact that some mechanics are not properly balanced. If there would be a chess figurine that allowed the player to reach every field and beat every other figurine with one move you could either remove it from the game or just not move it. I guess most people would say: "If it feels cheesy and makes the game boring and we don't use it because of that - why not remove it entirely from our game?"

 

I doubt very much that most people would say that simply because to my knowledge "cheese" is not used outside of gaming: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21867/origins-of-the-gaming-term-cheese-strategy, which is interesting to me by itself. Why gaming, why not I dunno .. football? Also, let's note that the etymology points to human-against-human competition, which brings me to the scrub: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

 

 

The term cheesing certainly originated in gaming, but that doesn't mean the concept exists exclusively within that framework. When I first started fencing, a strategy employed by one of the taller students in our class was to simply hold his foil straight out in front of him and advance incredibly quickly towards his opponent; practically running using the crossover technique. Because we were all just starting out, we had no idea how to counter this, and because the person was significantly bigger than almost everyone else, we couldn't do the same thing to him because his arms were just longer. 

 

While this is counterable, it was almost impossible to handle at the level of experience we were all at. Had I known the word, I would certainly have described it as "cheese": something that requires significantly more skill or effort to counter than it does to execute. I think at the time I called it "cheap", which is very similar.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Neckbitbasket

[knownastherat]

If you were fighting for your lives, the taller students using "cheese" would probably be seen as great fighters. When Alexander the Great used phalanx against Persians, they probably went like .. cheese!

 

This debate is for me an academic one. It's, of course, ridiculous that the mechanics in question made it to the release of the game while the lead designer talks at conferences about game design, balance, and proper tuning. I do not doubt that they are powerful, so powerful that any build can use them to "beat" the game. I am doubting, if it's not clear already, the notion that they prevent players from playing the game the way they want.

 

The only thing I care about, because I use consumables, just like Empower, when there is no other way to beat an encounter, is that I will be able to continue to play the game the way I want - solo. I do not care about any TCS achievement, recognition among peers (well..), how others play the game. I am selfish, I guess.

Edited June 20, 2018 by knownastherat

[Neckbitbasket]

If you were fighting for your lives, the taller students using "cheese" would probably be seen as great fighters. When Alexander the Great used phalanx against Persians, they probably went like .. cheese!

Great fighter? Uh... cute sentiment, but no. As I said, the technique is quite counterable (and we were also in 3rd grade at the time), and I don't think you understand the historic definitions of "great fighters". Life or death combat does not mean people didn't have an appreciation for skill, or were incapable differentiating it from other advantages such as size or weaponry. Lastly, this is a tangent and not even relevant to the point of my post (so let's move on).

This debate is for me an academic one. It's, of course, ridiculous that the mechanics in question made it to the release of the game while the lead designer talks at conferences about game design, balance, and proper tuning. I do not doubt that they are powerful, so powerful that any build can use them to "beat" the game. I am doubting, if it's not clear already, the notion that they prevent players from playing the game the way they want.

In my last post I mentioned the term "cheap", as in something that cheapens the experience of something or the significance one's accomplishments. To the OP, it seems that the overwhelming power of consumables cheapens their experience of creating builds because nothing they create could possibly rival the power of arcana, alchemy, and explosives simply due to their scaling. It is not so much that they prevent players from playing the game the way that they want, as it is that they prevent players from enjoying the game the way that they want.

 

Let's actually use a different example, and suppose that I want to play a character that uses scrolls, potions, and bombs like a D&D-style artificer (which incidentally enough, suffered from being similarly overpowered in 3.5E, and was often banned by any sensible DM). But let's say I want to do that, and still feel challenged by this game. Now we have the same problem people were experiencing in 1.0 with classes like Paladin, in that if you played a Paladin you were just immortal, so people who wanted to play Paladins (myself included), not hold the idiot-ball, and still be challenged by the game were S.O.L.

 

The only thing I care about, because I use consumables, just like Empower, when there is no other way to beat an encounter, is that I will be able to continue to play the game the way I want - solo. I do not care about any TCS achievement, recognition among peers (well..), how others play the game. I am selfish, I guess.

Nerfing consumables should not prevent you from beating the game solo. It may make it significantly harder to do so on PotD, and require you to build a character in a specific way, but I don't see how asking you to play on a lower difficulty is any different then you asking other players to ignore the existence of unbalanced consumables. The purpose of multiple difficulties is to accommodate many different types of players. PotD is more geared towards the people who do care about a TCS achievement, or recognition, or build creation. If you want to fly solo and not worry about getting stuck, that's kinda what the lower difficulties are for.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Neckbitbasket

[Kaylon]

When all it matters is life or death - cheese, cheap tricks are considered winning strategies/skills. A guy using a cheap tactic isn't necessarily unskilled, he's just using the most effective strategy. 

[knownastherat]

If its counter-able, I fail to see how can it be called cheap. They were bigger you were smaller, you lost and were probably salty. I understand the historic definitions of "great fighters" about as you do. 

 

As far as OP goes, I commented on the notion presented by her/him already. I cant take anything of it even remotely seriously simply because I see little intellectual integrity in claims and actions presented by her/him. 

 

I am not sure you actually read what I posted but:

 

1. I have never said I want to fly anywhere, solo. I play solo exactly because in a group it's too easy for me and will be too easy for me regardless of any changes the developers will realistically make.

2. You have no evidence for the claim that PotD is geared towards the people who do care about a TCS achievement, or recognition, or build creation. What does it mean "its geared" btw?

3. Asking me to play on lower difficulty is about as valid as asking you not to use scrolls with 20 Arcana. You can, of course, play an artificer and still feel challenged with or without changes to consumables. That is unless 1 Arcana and scroll of Minoletta's Minor Missles one-shots the last boss. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by knownastherat

[Loren Tyr]

It's quite bizarre that in foil fencing a strategy of "running towards the opponent with the pointy end" could be a viable strategy at any level of skill, anyway. If those were actual smallswords, that'd be an excellent way to get yourself run through regardless of any size advantage you might have.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Loren Tyr

[giftmefood]

When all it matters is life or death - cheese, cheap tricks are considered winning strategies/skills. A guy using a cheap tactic isn't necessarily unskilled, he's just using the most effective strategy. 

 

Amen. And as of now, the most optimal strategy is to go for maxed out Arcana or Alchemy. I guess I won't think about other builds for now until they nerf this. 

 

Such is the crux of having a min-max mentality. 

[Neckbitbasket]

1. I have never said I want to fly anywhere, solo. I play solo exactly because in a group it's too easy for me and will be too easy for me regardless of any changes the developers will realistically make.

This implies that you play the game solo because you find it too easy otherwise.

The only thing I care about, because I use consumables, just like Empower, when there is no other way to beat an encounter, is that I will be able to continue to play the game the way I want - solo.

This implies that you want to play the game solo, but rely on consumables as crutches to get through certain encounters, and if they were to be removed/nerfed you would no longer be able to play the game the way you want - solo. 

 

Care to clear this up for me?

Edited June 21, 2018 by Neckbitbasket

[Boeroer]

Ach - again a thread about game mechanics and its flaws turns into some philosophical debate about <whatever RL topic is slightly connected to the original problem>.

[Neckbitbasket]

It's quite bizarre that in foil fencing a strategy of "running towards the opponent with the pointy end" could be a viable strategy at any level of skill, anyway. If those were actual smallswords, that'd be an excellent way to get yourself run through regardless of any size advantage you might have.

I don't know why people keep bringing up actual combat. I was using fencing as an example of a sport, in response to:

I doubt very much that most people would say that simply because to my knowledge "cheese" is not used outside of gaming: https://english.stac...cheese-strategy, which is interesting to me by itself. Why gaming, why not I dunno .. football?

In other words, this is in reference to an argument about language and semantics, and I was mostly trying to refute his supposition that the concept of "cheese" only exists within of the realm of games by equating it to a term with a similar connotation: "cheap". @knownastherat gave football as an example, which last I checked is still a sport and not gladiatorial combat (though to be fair, I've not checked in quite some time), so I responded with a personal anecdote about fencing.

 

If you'd prefer a less personal example, look up Hack-a-shaq, or Shaquille O'neill in general, because he contributed to a number of changes to the rules of basketball due to his exceptional dominance on the court. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq

Edited June 21, 2018 by Neckbitbasket

[Dorftek]

I like consumables too but they are currently brokenly strong. I too fear that obsidian will overnerf them like they did with most gear already. But they need to tune it a bit and I hope they don't over-do it like they did with gear.

 

Arcana for example, I can't make myself play a singleclass wizard or a single class fury or even a priest because I sit there at character creation looking at their spells and skills and I think to myself "nope, nothing unique here, I can be a better spell nuker with a fighter+assassin".

The casters suffer because their best nukes wich they get very late can already be used by any class regardless of multiclassing and they will be even more lethal then if they were used by their specific caster class as a chosen spell, wich also means ud have spent a precious ability point on it (if u aren't a wizard).

To add more salt to the wounds casters have really crappy passive skills.

The most potent scrolls aren't even expensive to craft, they use very common materials that can be bought from 2 merchants in perikis.

 

Poisons kill anything unless they are immune, nothing in the game is strong enough to outlive it by far. This is sad because it cheapens the experience and I am someone who always loved playing glasscannon assassin type characters who poison their weapons. Not fun in this game at all.

[giftmefood]

I like consumables too but they are currently brokenly strong. I too fear that obsidian will overnerf them like they did with most gear already. But they need to tune it a bit and I hope they don't over-do it like they did with gear.

 

Arcana for example, I can't make myself play a singleclass wizard or a single class fury or even a priest because I sit there at character creation looking at their spells and skills and I think to myself "nope, nothing unique here, I can be a better spell nuker with a fighter+assassin".

The casters suffer because their best nukes wich they get very late can already be used by any class regardless of multiclassing and they will be even more lethal then if they were used by their specific caster class as a chosen spell, wich also means ud have spent a precious ability point on it (if u aren't a wizard).

To add more salt to the wounds casters have really crappy passive skills.

The most potent scrolls aren't even expensive to craft, they use very common materials that can be bought from 2 merchants in perikis.

 

Poisons kill anything unless they are immune, nothing in the game is strong enough to outlive it by far. This is sad because it cheapens the experience and I am someone who always loved playing glasscannon assassin type characters who poison their weapons. Not fun in this game at all.

 

You took the words off my mouth. This is so spot-on!

[Loren Tyr]

 

It's quite bizarre that in foil fencing a strategy of "running towards the opponent with the pointy end" could be a viable strategy at any level of skill, anyway. If those were actual smallswords, that'd be an excellent way to get yourself run through regardless of any size advantage you might have.

I don't know why people keep bringing up actual combat. I was using fencing as an example of a sport, in response to:

I doubt very much that most people would say that simply because to my knowledge "cheese" is not used outside of gaming: https://english.stac...cheese-strategy, which is interesting to me by itself. Why gaming, why not I dunno .. football?

In other words, this is in reference to an argument about language and semantics, and I was mostly trying to refute his supposition that the concept of "cheese" only exists within of the realm of games by equating it to a term with a similar connotation: "cheap". @knownastherat gave football as an example, which last I checked is still a sport and not gladiatorial combat (though to be fair, I've not checked in quite some time), so I responded with a personal anecdote about fencing.

 

If you'd prefer a less personal example, look up Hack-a-shaq, or Shaquille O'neill in general, because he contributed to a number of changes to the rules of basketball due to his exceptional dominance on the court. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq

 

 

You don't know why people bring up actual combat when talking about foil fencing? An activity originally designed as a way to practice smallsword fighting? Seems like a fairly obvious connection to make. 

 

And while my comment may be somewhat tangential to your point in raising the example, it does also rather nicely dovetail with the more general discussion of broken rules systems. Because clearly, due to the rules it uses (as illustrated by your example strategy being even remotely feasible at any level) it has ceased to be the martial art it originally was; I'm assuming it's still the game of tag style 'first hit gets the point' rule being used?

 

And given those kinds of rules, I would argue that there isn't anything particularly cheesy about charging in head first. Clearly it is a viable strategy against some more novice opponents, but straightforward to counter by more skilled ones (or indifferent ones, who might be inclined to just grab the blade and counter; I'm assuming there is some strange rule against grabbing blades as well, but therein lies the beauty of indifference). That very much doesn't smell like cheese to me, there's nothing overpowered about it for one; if you're able to size up your opponent well enough to predict whether it'll work or not, it's just good strategy. 

[Loren Tyr]

Poisons kill anything unless they are immune, nothing in the game is strong enough to outlive it by far. This is sad because it cheapens the experience and I am someone who always loved playing glasscannon assassin type characters who poison their weapons. Not fun in this game at all.

 

And again though, if that's the type of character you like playing, what's stopping you from doing so? A compulsive need for excessive optimization at the expense of enjoyment? That's certainly the sense I'm getting from some people in this thread. If Alchemy + poison is too overpowered for your taste but you still want to use poisons, why not leave out the Alchemy and just use the poisons without it? Or only take some points in Alchemy, just enough to make the poison feel the right level of potent to you? 

[knownastherat]

Ach - again a thread about game mechanics and its flaws turns into some philosophical debate about <whatever RL topic is slightly connected to the original problem>.

 

How else? The debate about game mechanics is a philosophical debate since there is no truth to be found. Once philosophy is settled, the rest are just (technical) details. Personally, I do not care for details, I care about concepts.

 

In similar fashion, the debate about taxing, for example, is a political debate.  There is also no truth to be found, there is no such a thing as "pure" economics there is only political-economics. If taxing was subject to science, if "ideal" tax rates could be decided by scientific models, there would be no need for politics, open society and debate. There is no such a thing as "ideal" tax rate as there is no such a thing as "ideal" game balance.

 

This said, I am lead to believe that the developers have their philosophy settled, so in this sense we are not making any progress here.

[Dorftek]

 

Poisons kill anything unless they are immune, nothing in the game is strong enough to outlive it by far. This is sad because it cheapens the experience and I am someone who always loved playing glasscannon assassin type characters who poison their weapons. Not fun in this game at all.

And again though, if that's the type of character you like playing, what's stopping you from doing so? A compulsive need for excessive optimization at the expense of enjoyment? That's certainly the sense I'm getting from some people in this thread. If Alchemy + poison is too overpowered for your taste but you still want to use poisons, why not leave out the Alchemy and just use the poisons without it? Or only take some points in Alchemy, just enough to make the poison feel the right level of potent to you?

If I have to do that to be able to enjoy the game on the highest difficulty using only one character I'd dare saying that obsidian have completely failed to deliver a difficulty setting for the ppl who enjoy playing the game for its combat and mechanics rather then just the story of it, how can you not see that? Deliberately gimping yourself is the very opposite of fun. I might as well play on story mode and just never lvl up or use any unique gear, same thing just a more extreme example.

 

And before u say it I don't feel gimped just because I play one character. I feel like I play one character who get all the good loot and all the money to himself. The character I made is my character, the others are only companions and not my own.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Dorftek

[Loren Tyr]

If I have to do that to be able to enjoy the game on the highest difficulty using only one character I'd dare saying that obsidian have completely failed to deliver a difficulty setting for the ppl who enjoy playing the game for its combat and mechanics rather then just the story of it, how can you not see that? Deliberately gimping yourself is the very opposite of fun. I might as well play on story mode and just never lvl up or use any unique gear, same thing just a more extreme example.

And before u say it I don't feel gimped just because I play one character. I feel like I play one character who get all the good loot and all the money to himself. The character I made is my character, the others are only companions and not my own.

 

The fact that soloing doesn't feel like gimping yourself doesn't change the fact that it is exactly the same principle: you are deliberately restricting yourself in order to improve your gameplay experience. There is no grand difference between leaving out party members and leaving out certain skills or consumables. The "I get all the loot and money" argument is just hogwash. There is plenty of good loot and money to go around so that's hardly much of a difference, and in any case: you control the entire party, if you want to give all the best loot to your own character and distribute whatever remains among the party. 

 

Secondly, I have at no point in this thread disputed that Arcana and Alchemy are powerful (though "completely failed to deliver" is just nonsensical hyperbole). I have in fact quite explicitly not disputed this. But that is not the point. The question is not whether Obsidian screwed up or not, nor whether they will fix this at some point or not. The question is how players bothered by these issues are responding to it, and why. Because let's assume as a hypothetical that the officially released game as it stands at the current 1.1 version is it: there will be no more updates, and the option for modding doesn't exist. There are balance issues that some people, such as yourself, are clearly bothered by. As the game is it its fixed and final state, there are therefore two main options:

- make some relatively simple changes to how you play (eg. putting no points in the Alchemy skill, using poisons and potions as is) to create a more balanced and enjoyable game play experience for yourself

- whine about how the game is broken, bemoan the evil fate that has befallen you, curse the Obsidian Gods, and generally take no responsibility whatsoever for improving your own lot

 

It baffles me that anyone would go for the second option, unless a game is broken beyond fixing (which it clearly is not). Why wallow in your own victimhood if you can so easily do something about it yourself?

Edited June 21, 2018 by Loren Tyr

[giftmefood]

 

If I have to do that to be able to enjoy the game on the highest difficulty using only one character I'd dare saying that obsidian have completely failed to deliver a difficulty setting for the ppl who enjoy playing the game for its combat and mechanics rather then just the story of it, how can you not see that? Deliberately gimping yourself is the very opposite of fun. I might as well play on story mode and just never lvl up or use any unique gear, same thing just a more extreme example.

And before u say it I don't feel gimped just because I play one character. I feel like I play one character who get all the good loot and all the money to himself. The character I made is my character, the others are only companions and not my own.

 

The fact that soloing doesn't feel like gimping yourself doesn't change the fact that it is exactly the same principle: you are deliberately restricting yourself in order to improve your gameplay experience. There is no grand difference between leaving out party members and leaving out certain skills or consumables. The "I get all the loot and money" argument is just hogwash. There is plenty of good loot and money to go around so that's hardly much of a difference, and in any case: you control the entire party, if you want to give all the best loot to your own character and distribute whatever remains among the party. 

 

Secondly, I have at no point in this thread disputed that Arcana and Alchemy are powerful (though "completely failed to deliver" is just nonsensical hyperbole). I have in fact quite explicitly not disputed this. But that is not the point. The question is not whether Obsidian screwed up or not, nor whether they will fix this at some point or not. The question is how players bothered by these issues are responding to it, and why. Because let's assume as a hypothetical that the officially released game as it stands at the current 1.1 version is it: there will be no more updates, and the option for modding doesn't exist. There are balance issues that some people, such as yourself, are clearly bothered by. As the game is it its fixed and final state, there are therefore two main options:

- make some relatively simple changes to how you play (eg. putting no points in the Alchemy skill, using poisons and potions as is) to create a more balanced and enjoyable game play experience for yourself

- whine about how the game is broken, bemoan the evil fate that has befallen you, curse the Obsidian Gods, and generally take no responsibility whatsoever for improving your own lot

 

It baffles me that anyone would go for the second option, unless a game is broken beyond fixing (which it clearly is not). Why wallow in your own victimhood if you can so easily do something about it yourself?

 

 

Someone offers you either a glass of water or a glass of juice. And you expect us to choose the glass of water? I just can't seem to get your logic. 

[Boeroer]

Eh, but the initial statement was that it doesn't make much sense to post - or make - class builds while some mechanics of the game are very unbalanced or even break the balance (alchemy boosting decay spells for example). And so can agree to that. Posting builds usually means you show the forum some neat tricks and powerful combos or whatever clever stuff you could come up with. Very few people draw Joy or even satisfaction from posting straightforward standard stuff. But those things will change eventually and also even the cleverest idea pales when you compare it to Plague of Insects with +22 PL or a poison that does tremendous damage per tick. That takes some fun out of it. Whining or not - it's a fair point to make.