The Problem With Turn-Based: Not in POE

[Wormerine]

I tend to be flexible with styles of games I play. I grew up with infinity games and I found Deadfire's turn based system more intuitive. While in its beta form I think it is inferior, due to stay and balance issues which don't exist in real time. But a stat based game system, which wants you to analysing defences and choose the best course of action works better when those breaks for decision making are build into the game. 

Sure there are players which will ignore the system, and power through on lower difficulty levels, and there are those who have a grasp on the gameplay without the need for mandated think-breaks. But for majority of players TurnBased might offer a more intuitive experience.

If PoE3 happens, to be honest I wish it was designed using turn based system with real time alternative - playing turn based really highlight interesting fights and really boooooring fights. Make game interesting in turn-based, and it should work well in real time as well... ...right?

 

[gloomseeker]

Interesting question Wormerine. 

 

If we go back to Arcanum we may have some elements of answer (although to be honest it seems the idea in Arcanum was catering to the turn based Fallout crowd and the real time Diablo crowd rather than BG fans). 

 

In any case Deadfire is a very interesting experiment and if they can sort things out and make it work nicely in both modes then there is no reason they can't take advantage of this expertise with the next Pillars game. 

 

Another side effect of going turn based games is that it takes away the concerns you may have about pathfinding (plus it's been mentioned before in this thread it also makes working with a controller a lot easier). 

 

Turn based games tend to be slower paced but the real problem with DIvinity Original Sin 2 doesn't have anything to do with its turn based nature, it is the simple fact that the game is based on two different types of damage and protection and that just narrows the way you're going to tackle the game. If you want to be effective you will have to choose early on between one or the other and there's no way around this (unless you drop the difficulty). 

[Novem]

6 hours ago, bringingyouthefuture said:

I mean I don't want to get in an argument over the mechanic, and you make a strong argument for your opinion on it, but you said "buff" - okay sure but I play often with a dagger in one hand and a sword in the other on a character - and the dagger always does less damage - and often becomes useless unless I buff, even though it should have a higher penetration ... so I still disagree.  I don't want to pull up screenshots :(...  I think I enjoy it because it makes me use the correct weapon for the correct job, makes me have various weapons for various characters and scenarios, and accomplishes this very well with the under penetration mechanic - or better than other games I have played.  Over penetration often involves my characters using up resources in a battle - so it makes me micro manage which I like.  You make it sound like simpler is bad ... but often it is the better way to go.  The other thing is it plays into Abydon's challenge if I understood how the challenge correctly works.   So I think your statement about meaningful equipment choices is wrong - I would say you are making an argument for other games that don't use such a system of attrition.

Anyway - I enjoy POE2 combat more than POE1 so I would prefer to keep the PEN system rather than go backwards.

EDIT:

I think they should always make it both TB and RTwP going forward just to stay on topic ... lol

The dagger does less damage per hit because it has a lower initial damage value through spread, it does more damage over time because it has a lower attack time and recovery.  In fact, daggers have much higher damage potential because that ability to repeatedly attack works nicely with builds that pump up your ability to snag critical hits more regularly (not sure how effective it is because I've never done such a build, but that is my understanding of the weapon's intended niche). Also, while daggers tend to have a bit lower penetration, they aren't that far off from most other weapons in terms of the value of the stat as far as I'm aware. Regardless, as long as you can get the dagger over the target's pen value, the damage between it and other weapons is overall normalized in any builds that can utilize the dagger's potential damage effectively.

By the way, speaking of, you seem to categorize much of this as my "opinion". It is not, these are objective facts about how the game functions and how it was designed. In POE1, a dagger does much lower damage, and thus would struggle in every situation against a heavily armored target because the damage flatly reduced. In POE2, as long as your dagger can clear the penetration requirement, it has a higher overall damage potential than a sword assuming you have the build for it.

PS: I never made any argument that simple was bad, in fact I complimented the simplicity of the damage profile multiple times, only that compromising on meaningful choice, on the depth of what the player is allowed to do, is antithetical to good RPG design. Because it is, and that's what this system does, because it inherently creates situations where switching your equipment to something with higher Penetration or Armor values is completely meaningless (or actually worse, in that it makes your character objectively worse in combat), which is particularly problematic for Armor since it incurs nasty recovery speed penalties. It makes Heavy Armor in particular a generally worse investment than it should be. < This scenario right here is an example about how my statement about meaningful equipment choices is objectively true, and has absolutely nothing at all to do with systems of attrition (neither does the penetration system for that matter, I don't know what relation you think that has with Abydon's Challenge beyond maybe like... you have to hit things less and so your weapons degrade slower?).

PSS: POE2's combat is better than POE1's for a great number of reasons. The Penetration system is not one of them. Even if you just directly rolled the Penetration system back to DR, that would not magically make POE2's combat as "bad" as POE1's. Overfocusing on one mechanic like this is doing a dramatic disservice to the frankly insane amount of design work that went into overhauling the combat for Deadfire.

[Novem]

3 hours ago, gloomseeker said:

Turn based games tend to be slower paced but the real problem with DIvinity Original Sin 2 doesn't have anything to do with its turn based nature, it is the simple fact that the game is based on two different types of damage and protection and that just narrows the way you're going to tackle the game. If you want to be effective you will have to choose early on between one or the other and there's no way around this (unless you drop the difficulty). 

And that's really only one of it's problems. Don't forget it's hilariously awful buildcraft, complete lack of character diversity, and the great overemphasis on level gating.

[kanisatha]

6 hours ago, Wormerine said:

If PoE3 happens, to be honest I wish it was designed using turn based system with real time alternative - playing turn based really highlight interesting fights and really boooooring fights. Make game interesting in turn-based, and it should work well in real time as well... ...right?

Well this is what horrifies me. I can live with a PoE3 built as a RTwP game with a TB option, but would hate and be, as an early backer of PoE1, angry with a decision to go TB as the default. If Obs wants to make a TB game in the PoE world, then they should go and do that with a completely new game and not alienate and throw under the bus the original PoE fans by fundamentally changing the core characteristics of the PoE games - isometric, party-based, and RTwP.

[Novem]

4 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

Well this is what horrifies me. I can live with a PoE3 built as a RTwP game with a TB option, but would hate and be, as an early backer of PoE1, angry with a decision to go TB as the default. If Obs wants to make a TB game in the PoE world, then they should go and do that with a completely new game and not alienate and throw under the bus the original PoE fans by fundamentally changing the core characteristics of the PoE games - isometric, party-based, and RTwP.

I think it's rather questionable whether or not it would be reasonable to get mad about it. A Pillars of Eternity tactics game has been floating around as an idea for a long time, and by any measure Pillars of Eternity II was a massive financial failure in comparison to the first game. If the third game is built around Turn-Based and proves to be a more financially reliable format for the game, then I'd rather Obsidian do what they need to do and keep making games with the kind of quality and polish that Deadfire has regardless of what format they use.

[kanisatha]

13 minutes ago, Novem said:

I think it's rather questionable whether or not it would be reasonable to get mad about it. A Pillars of Eternity tactics game has been floating around as an idea for a long time, and by any measure Pillars of Eternity II was a massive financial failure in comparison to the first game. If the third game is built around Turn-Based and proves to be a more financially reliable format for the game, then I'd rather Obsidian do what they need to do and keep making games with the kind of quality and polish that Deadfire has regardless of what format they use.

That's your opinion. I'm entitled to mine, as I am also entitled to my feelings. I despice TB combat and find it to be vastly inferior to RTwP in every conceivable way, and will not play and be very angry with a TB PoE3. A TB PoE Tactics game I won't care about, so long as it is not represented as PoE3.

[Novem]

32 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

That's your opinion. I'm entitled to mine, as I am also entitled to my feelings. I despice TB combat and find it to be vastly inferior to RTwP in every conceivable way, and will not play and be very angry with a TB PoE3. A TB PoE Tactics game I won't care about, so long as it is not represented as PoE3.

I'm just saying that seems like an extremely unreasonable anger to have. You can't really expect a business to keep making products you enjoy just because you enjoy them. They have to be able to turn a profit somehow, and especially now they need to be able to create something that will move Xbox's. If a RTWP game can't make money, then it doesn't matter what your personal opinion on turn-based is because that may be the only way for the series to continue at all. Would you rather just have no POE games rather than having the series built around turn-based? Because I'd prefer to keep getting POE games regardless of what format they need to embody in order to generate revenue, and I honestly don't really see the purpose in getting invested in any particular combat system as long as they don't compromise on the game's mechanical depth. And in order to make real-time accessible, you need to make it more shallow. I'd be a lot more concerned seeing Pillars of Eternity move in Dragon Age's direction than it committing to a turn-based format, that's for sure.

And what do you define as something representing Pillars of Eternity III anyways? Would it be because The Watcher is in it as the player character, or that it has to answer the questions left over from Pillars of Eternity II's ending? Would it be because the same characters returned, or you got to import your narrative decisions from the previous game? DOS has a tactics spin-off coming out soon that does most of those things with it's own player character/storyline and it isn't considered a direct sequel. I'm just saying that a POE tactics game could essentially be a POE3 in just about everything other than the name and style of gameplay, and so it makes your justification for being angry about it kind of thin.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Novem

[Wormerine]

1 hour ago, kanisatha said:

Well this is what horrifies me. I can live with a PoE3 built as a RTwP game with a TB option, but would hate and be, as an early backer of PoE1, angry with a decision to go TB as the default.

That is not what I have been suggesting (I think I clarified it further in my later post, that I don’t think ditching RTwP would be good). Rather, the turned based system well amplifies the best and worst elements of the design. Ideally I would like to see both modes at launch for PoE3, considering they both seem to rely more or less on similar ruleset. There is some things to figure out, but hopefully, if Obsidian figures how to translate PoE combat system into turn based system now, it might be much easier and cheaper to launch with both for PoE3.

What I meant was, that in RTwP it is easier to ignore problems - speeding through dull encounters, completely ignoring key mechanics, playing improperly due to inability to properly manage the party and taking it for difficulty. Turned based, encourages to properly engage with mechanics but at the same time it showcases how repetitive or shallow some encounters can be, as player input is necessary. When player hasto make a move and realises there is no real decision to make, it sticks out far more in turn based mode, then in RTwP, where fast forward and auto AI will do the job. Therefore, my suggestion that designing with turn based in mind and testing from the get go, might result in better experience overall for both modes.

[kanisatha]

54 minutes ago, Novem said:

I'm just saying that seems like an extremely unreasonable anger to have. You can't really expect a business to keep making products you enjoy just because you enjoy them. They have to be able to turn a profit somehow, and especially now they need to be able to create something that will move Xbox's. If a RTWP game can't make money, then it doesn't matter what your personal opinion on turn-based is because that may be the only way for the series to continue at all. Would you rather just have no POE games rather than having the series built around turn-based?

Ah, so I'm supposed to be happy about a game that I will hate and not play just because it will be a game you will like? Yeah no. I'd rather have the PoE series end up dead than turned into a D:OS clone. Besides, why stop at making it TB because it will be more popular? By that logic Obs should go even further and turn the game into an MMO shooter, because that will surely make it a whole heck of a lot more popular.

Also, show me the evidence that RTwP games "don't make money." PoE1 made a good amount of money for Obs. And furthermore, there is no evidence that TB is what made the D:OS games popular. My reading of those games tells me that cooperative multiplayer is what made those games popular, and having TB combat was merely a necessary artifact of having coop multiplayer.

[kanisatha]

@Wormerine, thanks for the clarification. Though I'm not sure I completely agree, I can certainly appreciate your argument and agree with a lot of it.

[Gromnir]

the problem with tb in crpgs is that combat, particularly if is a party-based game, will become prohibitive tedious if you increase the number o' adversaries beyond a certain point... a point which is gonna vary slight from player-to-player. get a dozen intelligent designed enemies facing a party o' four or more heroes and even minor encounters may become, as feargus once observed, "soul numbing."

the problem with poe2 tb were more simple. the rules were designed to perform like

and then nine months later, the developers decided they need rules to also be 

so predictable we end up with

who does that? after years o' development and months after release, then they decide to retool the engine so it works as a saw and a drill. the post-release hybridization went 'bout as smooth as one might expect, but apparent different than obsidian expected.

is not gonna come anywhere close to displacing black isle's torn miscalculations with lithtech as the benchmark for bad design choices, but perhaps this were a desperation choice as 'posed to a calculated one. dunno.  regardless am hardly surprised by the results, and am not seeing how anybody else could be mystified by problems which arose from trying to make a game designed to perform with rtwp mechanics also work well as tb, with the change occurring after considerable development and post-release time.

predictable.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[Novem]

50 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

Ah, so I'm supposed to be happy about a game that I will hate and not play just because it will be a game you will like? Yeah no. I'd rather have the PoE series end up dead than turned into a D:OS clone.

Also, show me the evidence that RTwP games "don't make money." PoE1 made a good amount of money for Obs. And furthermore, there is no evidence that TB is what made the D:OS games popular. My reading of those games tells me that cooperative multiplayer is what made those games popular, and having TB combat was merely a necessary artifact of having coop multiplayer.

Well you shouldn't be happy about it, but you certainly shouldn't be actively hostile about the idea. What you've just said is essentially "I can't have what I want, so you don't get to have what you want either, wahhh". Me, I'm an actual fan of Obsidian the studio and Pillars of Eternity the series, so I'm going to support whatever will make those things successful while still serving their actual audience, people who are fans of these games as deep, complex, role-playing games in general. If it was RTWP that created that success, you certainly wouldn't see me whining about it, because I'm not here just to have my niche within a niche catered to.

Anyways, there has yet to be a financially successful modern day RTWP, narrative driven CRPG that has not banked on nostalgia for sales. Deadfire would've been that game, and it was a failure. We'll have to see whether or not a Pathfinder II is that game (which I would think is most assuredly happening), and I hope so since it would be a shame to see the format completely disappear, but I wouldn't say its incredibly likely based on how the genre has played out since the launch of the original POE.

And no, while Divinity's cooperative play is certainly a factor, the turn-based mechanics (and the way it's sandbox nature interacts with those mechanics) are much more responsible for Divinity's financial success. I would say that when you are trying to measure a game's financial success, you should probably listen to what the people who play it say they love about it, and the co-op is almost always an afterthought to the fantastic combat and the sandbox shenanigans. In addition, ALL of the mainstream, financially successful strategy games are turn-based. And it is very easy to see why, because turn-based games are a lot more accessible due to being less overwhelming. This is regardless of how much you want to reinterpret things for your own convenience.

Quote

Besides, why stop at making it TB because it will be more popular? By that logic Obs should go even further and turn the game into an MMO shooter, because that will surely make it a whole heck of a lot more popular.

That is not at all a logical conclusion from what I stated. The idea that they should make an MMO shooter from this is not at all a logical extreme of this conversation, and the implication that it is... seriously disingenuous. Even if we just remember that the one RPG studio which did that (Bioware) created a financial failure with that format.  There's also the matter that Obsidian is a company that makes narrative-driven RPGs, that's their reputation and their specialty. You can only be financially successful by serving your audience and your fans, this is why building and maintaining a brand is super important in the game industry. And it should be remembered that Pillars of Eternity was a game that saved Obsidian as a studio, because they started catering to an audience that hadn't been catered to in a long time. The situation has changed in that the audience now has a great number of games to choose from, and time has seemingly borne out that turn-based is the more financially viable format for these types of games. That's not just my opinion, that's just what any logical person would draw from the data we have access to.

[gloomseeker]

3 hours ago, Novem said:

And that's really only one of it's problems. Don't forget it's hilariously awful buildcraft, complete lack of character diversity, and the great overemphasis on level gating.

Warfare for everyone when going for Physical damage did feel a bit awkward to say the least...

 

 

In all fairness and by definition the original pen and paper RPGs are turn based. Good old D&D was all about turns and rounds and the order in which characters took action. 

 

Real time with pause in BG was an attempt to replicate this system and make it more dynamic and it worked but you could still set it up so that the game would pause at the end of each round. 

 

Ideally we would be getting the best of both worlds by having more choice. I can't imagine Obsidian completely ditching real time with pause for the next Pillars game but I'm definitely looking forward to playing Deadfire in turn based mode.  

[Novem]

1 minute ago, gloomseeker said:

Warfare for everyone when going for Physical damage did feel a bit awkward to say the least...

I never want to play another video game with Divinity's truly awful attribute and skill system ever again. Pillars of Eternity (both of them) has really given me an appreciation for just how much well-designed, fundamental systems like these can impact my enjoyment of a game.

Quote

Ideally we would be getting the best of both worlds by having more choice. I can't imagine Obsidian completely ditching real time with pause for the next Pillars game but I'm definitely looking forward to playing Deadfire in turn based mode.  

I 100% agree. I can't imagine limiting themselves when they've shown they can capably do both would be good for the future of the series. Plus, I'm a stickler for accessibility features, and one of the reasons I love Deadfire so much is the insane extent its gone to in catering to the tastes and needs of so many different players. The ability to tailor the experience to my liking is one of the primary reasons I enjoy it so much.

And same! Can't wait to finally try out the turn-based mode with the next patch where it will hopefully be coming out of beta in preparation for the console release.

[bringingyouthefuture]

4 hours ago, Novem said:

The dagger does less damage per hit because it has a lower initial damage value through spread, it does more damage over time because it has a lower attack time and recovery.  In fact, daggers have much higher damage potential because that ability to repeatedly attack works nicely with builds that pump up your ability to snag critical hits more regularly (not sure how effective it is because I've never done such a build, but that is my understanding of the weapon's intended niche). Also, while daggers tend to have a bit lower penetration, they aren't that far off from most other weapons in terms of the value of the stat as far as I'm aware. Regardless, as long as you can get the dagger over the target's pen value, the damage between it and other weapons is overall normalized in any builds that can utilize the dagger's potential damage effectively ....

But this is all just a theory, and it is based on incorrrect facts - I just did the math and Sword and dagger are comparable in damage yes - but you don't take into account the many added bonuses of the unique weapons so I can safely say it is your opinion - Modwyr for example has potential for +20 percent action speed plus +20 percent additional damage - which begins to push it past a dagger - compared with Marux Amanth the dagger you get added penetration for a small amount of time which drops off quickly but while it is active keeps the damage slightly less than Modwyr.  Not to mention swords have two types of damage vs one for daggers, so again you fail to even take penetration into account as in many cases a dagger can't penetrate at all on PoTD - try attacking a boar with a dagger without buffing the penetration.  And I already stated that I think needing to buff makes the combat more interesting, and that may be my opinion

[Novem]

Just now, bringingyouthefuture said:

But this is all just a theory, and it is based on incorrrect facts - I just did the math and Sword and dagger are comparable in damage yes - but you don't take into account the many added bonuses of the unique weapons so I can safely say it is your opinion - Modwyr for example has potential for +20 percent action speed plus +20 percent additional damage - which begins to push it past a dagger - compared with Marux Amanth the dagger you get added penetration for a small amount of time which drops off quickly but while it is active keeps the damage slightly less than Modwyr.  Not to mention swords have two types of damage vs one for daggers, so again you fail to even take penetration into account as in many cases a dagger can't penetrate at all on PoTD - try attacking a boar with a dagger without buffing the penetration.  And I already stated that I think needing to buff makes the combat more interesting, and that may be my opinion

Good point. I will never pretend to be a math guy, but I will object to "incorrect facts". Everything I said is still true, you've just used one very specific example which defies the standard between the two basic weapon types as a whole. What I said about this system creating the situation which you describe, where a dagger can take on a heavily armed and armored target, is still completely true, and it also still completely true that the first game less often created this situation because DR limits low damage weapons ability to impact armored targets far better than Penetration as a system ever would. That was in fact Daggers entire niche in the first game, you'd use them on low armor targets, while you'd use higher damage weapons like Greatswords against people with high DR.

The whole buffing thing is an entirely different argument by the way. I don't disagree, but I don't think it has much of anything to do with the substance of the conversation we're having. You can have damage buffs just as easily as you can have penetration buffs, they have little to do with whether or not it's a bad mechanic, which I think I've provided a very compelling argument for why it absolutely is and I also think I've very aptly countered your argument for why it potentially isn't.

[bringingyouthefuture]

23 minutes ago, Novem said:

Good point. I will never pretend to be a math guy, but I will object to "incorrect facts". Everything I said is still true, you've just used one very specific example which defies the standard between the two basic weapon types as a whole. What I said about this system creating the situation which you describe, where a dagger can take on a heavily armed and armored target, is still completely true, and it also still completely true that the first game less often created this situation because DR limits low damage weapons ability to impact armored targets far better than Penetration as a system ever would. That was in fact Daggers entire niche in the first game, you'd use them on low armor targets, while you'd use higher damage weapons like Greatswords against people with high DR.

The whole buffing thing is an entirely different argument by the way. I don't disagree, but I don't think it has much of anything to do with the substance of the conversation we're having. You can have damage buffs just as easily as you can have penetration buffs, they have little to do with whether or not it's a bad mechanic, which I think I've provided a very compelling argument for why it absolutely is and I also think I've very aptly countered your argument for why it potentially isn't.

Hmm, again not sure I agree because again that is looking at mechanic and not the actual game, and personally am basing my observations on how much more dynamic POE2 combat is, and you say that isn't because of the PEN mechanic, but I would argue that it is a major factor in making the game more interesting - but until some mod totally converts the battle system to a POE-based DR system we will never know, and could go back and forth arguing for days.  Again why I think both of us are stating opinions.

Edit:

Also, you keep speaking of armor as an abstract with one value, and I think you fail to take into account that a dagger will always under pen plate without a buff.  As for more crits with a dagger that  is correct - but again it is an a theory vs actual game.

Edited May 3, 2019 by bringingyouthefuture

[Novem]

17 minutes ago, bringingyouthefuture said:

Hmm, again not sure I agree because again that is looking at mechanic and not the actual game, and personally am basing my observations on how much more dynamic POE2 combat is, and you say that isn't because of the PEN mechanic, but I would argue that it is a major factor in making the game more interesting - but until some mod totally converts the battle system to a POE-based DR system we will never know, and could go back and forth arguing for days.  Again why I think both of us are stating opinions.

But you have yet to name a single substantive reason why Pen makes the game that way, wheras I've contributed several reasons why it doesn't. And that is unsurprising because as I've already said, Penetration is not responsible for the excellence of POE2's combat. It certainly doesn't make it more "dynamic". In fact, it does exactly the opposite. It makes the combat more predictable and readable, which is exactly what the mechanic was created to do. And while it isn't exactly DR, the penetration overhaul I've already referenced multiple times already shifts things back towards a DR-like system (it's really more of a compromise between the two extremes that DR and Pen represent) and the game still rocks (and it makes the game better, because it makes equipment choice meaningful again).

Wanna know what makes POE2's combat more dynamic? Per-encounter spellcasting, expanded character progression, multiclassing, subclasses, the class resource system (along with the great deal of nuanced changes each individual class's playstyle received for the second game), the superior encounter and enemy design, the passive/active skill system split, the improved stealth mechanics, and more. To say any of these systems are solely responsible for how great Deadfire is to play would be ridiculous, regardless of whether or not you would include Penetration among them for some mystifying reason. And there's no need for an overhaul to ascertain that, all you have to do is compare the wide swath of differences between the first and the second game to each other, and have played both games enough to grasp the significance of the changes.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Novem

[Morrydwen]

1 hour ago, Novem said:

The situation has changed in that the audience now has a great number of games to choose from, and time has seemingly borne out that turn-based is the more financially viable format for these types of games. That's not just my opinion, that's just what any logical person would draw from the data we have access to.

I am not so sure about this. Can you show me actual data that indicates that turn-based is more popular?

Personally as a Baldur's Gate crpg-fan I don't really see that many games to choose from these days. What games are you referring to?

[Novem]

15 minutes ago, Morrydwen said:

I am not so sure about this. Can you show me actual data that indicates that turn-based is more popular?

All of the top most popular strategy games are turn-based. XCOM, Fire Emblem, Civilization, etc.

In addition ever since the CRPG revival, the most financially successful game (Divinity Original Sin) is turn-based, and it has had two entries to prove the endurance of that formula (not to mention continues to sell like hotcakes,). More importantly, if Obsidian didn't also believe it to be a financially successful formula (and they have access to a lot more consumer data than any of us filthy casual analysts ever would), it wouldn't be a post-launch addition in Deadfire.

There's also just the fact that if you hang around a lot of internet message boards where people play RPGs, you will CONSTANTLY hear the sentiment that turn-based is more appealing to people than RTWP. Even among people who play these types of games, the sentiment that people enjoy turn-based more than RTWP is very prevalent.

While yes this isn't a ton of evidence, there's not exactly that much of a sample size. You have to make assumptions based on the data you actually have.

Quote

Personally as a Baldur's Gate crpg-fan I don't really see that many games to choose from these days. What games are you referring to?

Divinity Original Sin I & II, Pathfinder Kingmaker, Wasteland II and III, Tower of Time, Torment Tides of Numenera, Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition I+II (along with Siege of Dragonspear), PST Enhanced Edition, IWD Enhanced Edition, Tyranny, Pillars of Eternity I & II (as well as the Complete Edition for consoles), Mutant: Year Zero, and I'm sure there has probably been a resurgence of the genre in terms of niche indies as well. The genre is niche, and was dead before Pillars of Eternity. Even just the major games I've listed here is a lot of activity for a genre whose games take a lot of work and time to produce, and which have a relatively small (if dedicated) audience. And these are just the games that are already out, there are also other upcoming games in the genre like The Waylanders and Realms Beyond: Ashes of the Fallen.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Novem

[bringingyouthefuture]

22 minutes ago, Novem said:

But you have yet to name a single substantive reason why Pen makes the game that way, wheras I've contributed several reasons why it doesn't. And that is unsurprising because as I've already said, Penetration is not responsible for the excellence of POE2's combat. It certainly doesn't make it more "dynamic". In fact, it does exactly the opposite. It makes the combat more predictable and readable, which is exactly what the mechanic was created to do. And while it isn't exactly DR, the penetration overhaul I've already referenced multiple times already shifts things back towards a DR-like system (it's really more of a compromise between the two extremes that DR and Pen represent) and the game still rocks (and it makes the game better, because it makes equipment choice meaningful again).

Wanna know what makes POE2's combat more dynamic? Per-encounter spellcasting, expanded character progression, multiclassing, subclasses, the class resource system (along with the great deal of nuanced changes each individual class's playstyle received for the second game), the superior encounter and enemy design, the passive/active skill system split, the improved stealth mechanics, and more. To say any of these systems are solely responsible for how great Deadfire is to play would be ridiculous, regardless of whether or not you would include Penetration among them for some mystifying reason. And there's no need for an overhaul to ascertain that, all you have to do is compare the wide swath of differences between the first and the second game to each other, and have played both games enough to grasp the significance of the changes.

Okay, I understand you will not be moved on this and neither will I so don't want to co-op the topic.  It is fine for you to think that way, but again you base your assumptions on incorrect info when applied to the actual game.  PEN makes designing encounters better, it makes the player use a variety of weapons, it makes the weapons more unique, it made for a good Challenge mode with Abydon, it makes armor more important ... I can go on and on and I am sure you can too so I will let it rest after this just to give it back to TB vs RTwP.  Feel free to have the last word on the topic

As for your take on per-encounter ... now there is a hot topic - but yes that is what I was implying, I think PEN with all the others makes it great and if you remove PEN, I think the mechanics start to fall apart, just as if you removed superior encounter design or multi-classing.  I played some mods that added the scaling above PoTD for enemies, some that made PEN less of an attrition mechanic, and none did a better job than how the game is now personally - I think they really hit a sweet spot with the game - though each to there own.

[bringingyouthefuture]

With the slow mode in POE2, they really fixed RTwP - as I stated before it only took them 20+ years to perfect it   I think POE2 RTwP is a way better mechanic than most turn-based games, but they did it right.  PK should have been turn-based - they didn't have the experience to really make RTwP enjoyable - combat in PK is pretty bad.  DOS and DOS2 turn-based is pretty good, but I think it is more because of the many features of its combat and not TB to be specific, also the dynamic camera they use makes it seem modern, and attracts modern gamers.  I will admit it is hard to have a camera the goes everywhere and then go back to POE2, but then once I start playing the combat in POE2 and its nuance, I really start to enjoy POE2 more.

[Boeroer]

PEN/AR mechanics wouldn't be so awful if there wasn't double inversion applied to underpenetration. It makes PEN and AR too important, especially on PotD where AR is raised through the board. 

You think "oh, -75% of base dmg isn't that bad" while those 75% get munched by double inversion and turn out to be a 300% malus. While that is somewhat realistic (a weapon that doesn't penetrate armor usually doesn't do much damage) it's also very frustrating in a game - if you don't know the PEN/AR mechanics in and out.

[Novem]

25 minutes ago, bringingyouthefuture said:

Okay, I understand you will not be moved on this and neither will I so don't want to co-op the topic.  It is fine for you to think that way, but again you base your assumptions on incorrect info when applied to the actual game.  PEN makes designing encounters better, it makes the player use a variety of weapons, it makes the weapons more unique, it made for a good Challenge mode with Abydon, it makes armor more important ... I can go on and on and I am sure you can too so I will let it rest after this just to give it back to TB vs RTwP.  Feel free to have the last word on the topic

As for your take on per-encounter ... now there is a hot topic - but yes that is what I was implying, I think PEN with all the others makes it great and if you remove PEN, I think the mechanics start to fall apart, just as if you removed superior encounter design or multi-classing.  I played some mods that added the scaling above PoTD for enemies, some that made PEN less of an attrition mechanic, and none did a better job than how the game is now personally - I think they really hit a sweet spot with the game - though each to there own.

It OBJECTIVELY makes armor LESS important in several situations (that's like... the entire problem), it actually DOESN'T make the player use a variety of weapons (only ALLOWS it, which is a very important distinction), as I've already pointed out it has almost nothing to do with the degradation introduced by Abydon's Challenge, and as far as making designing encounters "better"... what is that even supposed to mean? Are you saying you think it makes encounter design easier for the developers or something? If so, sure, that's an opinion that at least makes sense (though I shouldn't have to make your argument FOR you, it's really hard to have a conversation with someone who just says things instead of substantiating their claims with evidence and reasoning, so if you could "go on and on", please do so, so that I can understand where you're coming from instead of just responding to each idea you present on an intrinsic level).

And what do you mean my "take" on per-encounter? I didn't make a qualitative assessment there, I only pointed out things which factually make the combat more dynamic. It is a fact that combat has greater variety because you have greater access to more tools. Personally, I do think it's a positive change, but I just want to make it clear I was not complimenting the game there, just pointing out mechanics that provably give the game more variety, in the same way penetration provably does not.

And what's your evidence that the mechanics would "fall apart" without it? What you say after making that statement is not in any way logically related to whether or not Pen has an impact on other game mechanics. And wouldn't adding scaling pen actually make it MORE of an attrition mechanic? If you are hitting for reduced damage, that would make you need to output more damage in a combat encounter, which would result in less durability after the fight ends. That would mean your resources would deplete more quickly, which focuses the game more on management of those resources (IE, Attrition... which also brings up something I'd like to note in that Abydon's Challenge would also be more effective as attrition under DR for the exact same reasons, more hits equals less durability).

Regardless, adding scaling pen is not in any way an overhaul of the mechanic. You should test the actual overhaul of the mechanic in Deadfire Combat Tweaks instead.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Novem