Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How about a system where your abilities are tied to your endurance or willpower to use them. You can cast whatever you want as much as you want but there is some kinda threshold where if you cast too many powerful spells in succession the effectiveness of the abilities you are using diminish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That'd be a lot more acceptable. Unfortunately we don't know what it'll be like yet either way so I can only fall back on my initial "God please no!" reaction. I'm fearing the worst: infinite magic missile castings as long as you wait five seconds. I hope it'll be something a little... smarter than that.

reading all of the quotes on the front page, it really sounds like the cooldowns are more likely replacing the rest system while you will still have to make choices about what spells you have available to cast.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
these are smart people designing the game. That is such an obvious flaw in the cooldown system that I have a hard time believing that they aren't getting a little creative with the way it is implemented to avoid problems like standing around waiting.

 

Do you have any ideas on it? A cooldown by definition is a timer based mechanic. How would you change that?

 

To me it seem like a punitive action from the developer to remove "rest spam". Who cares about "rest spam" in a single player game? Its up to the individual to play the game as they wish. I suppose a next logical step would be to introduce a checkpoint save system so people cant "save spam".

  • Like 1

image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That'd be a lot more acceptable. Unfortunately we don't know what it'll be like yet either way so I can only fall back on my initial "God please no!" reaction. I'm fearing the worst: infinite magic missile castings as long as you wait five seconds. I hope it'll be something a little... smarter than that.

reading all of the quotes on the front page, it really sounds like the cooldowns are more likely replacing the rest system while you will still have to make choices about what spells you have available to cast.

 

It seems to me that Obsidian as a whole is still discussing how combat is going to work. It also seems like the bulk of the discussion is on how to solve the rest issue that doomed Vancian in RTwP games. I think you're right, ogrezilla. I really think Obsidian is having a very similar discussion as what is going on in this thread and the ones it came from. So everyone should calm a bit and hope we'll get an explanation on what basic combat system they've chosen before the end of the kickstarter. I would also remind people to avoid the curse of keywords. When designing something new, the language isn't always there to easily explain it. Vancian can be described as a cooldown system and likely would be if it wasn't so fleshed out itself. So even if they are working with a cooldown system it may be a lot closer to the Vancian than to previous examples of cooldowns.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we are looking at this in the wrong way, Magic Cooldown? I say Resting Cooldown. I know what kind of headaches I get if I sleep too long or too much.

 

Make resting more of a hassle, add in some RTS elements wherein you need to place a campfire, tent and a night guard. You can only place 2 tents, and resting is on an IN-GAME 12H-24H COOLDOWN (which is the answer to all of our problems, you can not simply Nuke Resting). There could be several different tents, making the decision to which ones you should use more of a tactical element. One specific tent would be the Mage's Tent (for memorization), however, if you use it you only have 1 slot left to place and you're entire party wouldn't be rested.

 

EDIT: If the Resting is on cooldown and your mage is depleted of all the memorized spells well... go figure, you didn't plan ahead properly. Or perhaps have some areas (Libraries/Temples/Personal House Haven) or powerful End-Game Wizards that can replenish your "memorize".

 

If the area is safe enough you won't need a guard (you could still get a random encounter, but in a safe area that would be pointless). The night watch/guard would also suffer from lack of sleep, but it would lower the random encounter rate (it can still happen, you just don't get it as often. Maybe from 50% to 25% or something).

 

EDIT: This would give the Resting the "Day-to-Day" Tactical Strategic elements that so many seem to want: I.E. You would plan your day ahead, "What spells should I bring out? Oh he already has full stock, well then I can rest my entire party in this lion tent which has most comfort and boosts morale, making the party feel more mountain barbaric*stronger).

 

If there is going to be any Steampunk this would be a heck of a lot easier with the Tents. "Shower Tent", "Transport Tent", "Stove Tent". Although I can think of several ways to implement Magical Tents that boosts Strength, Dexterity, Health, and so on. Some tents only heal 1 or 2 HP but also gives some sort of statistical benefit, whilst another gives 10 HP for resting but no statistical benefit. I can think of hundreds of different tents and ideas for this... you get the point I think.

Edited by Osvir
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
these are smart people designing the game. That is such an obvious flaw in the cooldown system that I have a hard time believing that they aren't getting a little creative with the way it is implemented to avoid problems like standing around waiting.

 

Do you have any ideas on it? A cooldown by definition is a timer based mechanic. How would you change that?

 

To me it seem like a punitive action from the developer to remove "rest spam". Who cares about "rest spam" in a single player game? Its up to the individual to play the game as they wish. I suppose a next logical step would be to introduce a checkpoint save system so people cant "save spam".

Longer cooldowns based on game time for one. Not a series of 5-30 second cooldowns that result in spell spamming. More like someone said above: you can cast 2 fireballs a day, 3 magic missiles a day, etc. The key is to figure out a way to discourage just standing around to wait for a cooldown to finish because "waiting around" spamming would be much worse than rest spamming. That's the issue that worries me. Tie game time to actual advancement instead of a clock? I don't know. I'm just spitballing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That'd be a lot more acceptable. Unfortunately we don't know what it'll be like yet either way so I can only fall back on my initial "God please no!" reaction. I'm fearing the worst: infinite magic missile castings as long as you wait five seconds. I hope it'll be something a little... smarter than that.

reading all of the quotes on the front page, it really sounds like the cooldowns are more likely replacing the rest system while you will still have to make choices about what spells you have available to cast.

 

It seems to me that Obsidian as a whole is still discussing how combat is going to work. It also seems like the bulk of the discussion is on how to solve the rest issue that doomed Vancian in RTwP games. I think you're right, ogrezilla. I really think Obsidian is having a very similar discussion as what is going on in this thread and the ones it came from. So everyone should calm a bit and hope we'll get an explanation on what basic combat system they've chosen before the end of the kickstarter. I would also remind people to avoid the curse of keywords. When designing something new, the language isn't always there to easily explain it. Vancian can be described as a cooldown system and likely would be if it wasn't so fleshed out itself. So even if they are working with a cooldown system it may be a lot closer to the Vancian than to previous examples of cooldowns.

 

This is a good point that can't be overstated. The magic system is still being worked on. Everything is still being worked on. Really, I think the most important thing will be making sure the combat mechanics fit properly into the rest of the game. Design encounters based on the combat mechanics so it is properly balanced. The old games were not built this way. If you used the rest mechanic to your advantage, the game was pretty much a joke because you always had your best spells available for any significant fight but the game was designed around you using your spells sparingly.

 

Maybe we are looking at this in the wrong way, Magic Cooldown? I say Resting Cooldown. I know what kind of headaches I get if I sleep too long or too much.

 

Make resting more of a hassle, add in some RTS elements wherein you need to place a campfire, tent and a night guard. You can only place 2 tents, and resting is on an IN-GAME 12H-24H COOLDOWN (which is the answer to all of our problems, you can not simply Nuke Resting). There could be several different tents, making the decision to which ones you should use more of a tactical element. One specific tent would be the Mage's Tent, however, if you use it you only have 1 slot left to place and you're entire party wouldn't be rested.

 

If the area is safe enough you won't need a guard (you could still get a random encounter, but in a safe area that would be pointless). The night watch/guard would also suffer from lack of sleep, but it would lower the random encounter rate (it can still happen, you just don't get it as often. Maybe from 50% to 25% or something).

I like this idea in general. Limiting the resting really does solve a lot of the problems of the old system.

Edited by ogrezilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the cooldowns were on a day like timer (i.e. Fireball 2x a day) and we have limited rest?

Longer cooldowns based on game time for one. Not a series of 5-30 second cooldowns that result in spell spamming. More like someone said above: you can cast 2 fireballs a day, 3 magic missiles a day, etc. The key is to figure out a way to discourage just standing around to wait for a cooldown to finish because "waiting around" spamming would be much worse than rest spamming. That's the issue that worries me. Tie game time to actual advancement instead of a clock? I don't know. I'm just spitballing here.

 

Maybe Im misunderstanding but isnt that what a Vancian system does?


image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the cooldowns were on a day like timer (i.e. Fireball 2x a day) and we have limited rest?

Longer cooldowns based on game time for one. Not a series of 5-30 second cooldowns that result in spell spamming. More like someone said above: you can cast 2 fireballs a day, 3 magic missiles a day, etc. The key is to figure out a way to discourage just standing around to wait for a cooldown to finish because "waiting around" spamming would be much worse than rest spamming. That's the issue that worries me. Tie game time to actual advancement instead of a clock? I don't know. I'm just spitballing here.

 

Maybe Im misunderstanding but isnt that what a Vancian system does?

on its own, basically. But the rest system ruined it because you could get them back pretty much instantly whenever you wanted. The random encounters weren't enough to really keep you from rest spamming because they were mostly too easy. Like I said above, I think cooldowns are more likely taking the place of the rest system as a way to limit when you can get your spells back. That system would actually reduce spell spamming compared to games like IWD.

Edited by ogrezilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

I think it's possible to still make prep meaningful by allowing the player to switch between pre-built (by the player) suites of spells at a frequency that is less than "per rest". I.e. if the player can only use a subset of spells at any given time, but can switch between those subsets with a time penalty (or only outside of combat), that still makes the choices important without the system strictly being Vancian.

 

 

I read into it that this either means: a) memorization and strategical depth remains in the game, since you can have only one spell set active, or b) the whole cooldown issue will boil down to having a cooldown when changing between said spell sets. Either looks fine (and in keeping with the IE spirit) to me. I really don't understand what the fuss is all about.


"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vancian system is not very good, a cooldown (+mana) system neither.

 

Some kind of hybrid might be better, like for every spell level you have a set amount of charges (for any spell of that level) which does not reset after every encounter. It only resets after you sleep in an inn or if you use a (rare) "charge replenishment potion" or something similar.

Or have a base amount of charges, and a spell uses a certain amount of charges based upon it's level (e.g. a level one spell uses 1 charge, a level three spell uses 3 charges).

 

Just trying to be constructive with some ideas.

  • Like 1

:closed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the cooldowns were on a day like timer (i.e. Fireball 2x a day) and we have limited rest?

 

i have dual monitors. I'll just watch a TV show on one monitor for half an hour while I wait for my cool downs to come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuss is about the fact that not everyone likes the combat in Dragon Age and MMORPGs and that is very likely what we are going to get. No one has ever implemented cooldown based combat that didn't suck. I don't think Obsidian is going to be the first. Oh, and when Sawyer and Feargus talk about "cooldowns" they mean the same thing that everyone else means when they use the term. They don't mean some brand new weird definition. They mean the sort of game timers that are so prevalent in WoW and DA2. Has anyone from Obsidian gone on record saying they didn't want their combat to be anything like Dragon Age?

  • Like 1

JoshSawyer: Listening to feedback from the fans has helped us realize that people can be pretty polarized on what they want, even among a group of people ostensibly united by a love of the same games. For us, that means prioritizing options is important. If people don’t like a certain aspect of how skill checks are presented or how combat works, we should give them the ability to turn that off, resources permitting.

.
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On balance

Let S be the set of all possible spells in Project: Eternity. Let x be a character and let Bx be the set of spells available for that character. Assuming a cooldown mechanic, let Bxcd be the (multi) set of spells currently chosen to be on continual refreshing via a cooldown.

 

In this situation we have that Bxcd is a subset of Bx, which, in turn, is a subset of S.

 

I want to investigate under which circumstances this series of inclusions is part of a balanced game.

 

The set which most directly determines the power of x is Bxcd, and it is clear that this set must be limited for the power of x not to be too great. We can achieve this bound on Bxcd by different restrictions; restrictions from which different game-mechanics crystallize.

  1. We can have that Bx is small and no restriction is put on how Bxcd relate to Bx. This situation resembles how a sorcerer worked in 3.xE D&D if you put cooldown time to zero.
  2. We can have that Bx is large and severely restrict how Bxcd is picked. This situation resembles how wizards worked in old D&D if you put cooldown time to zero.

(Alternatively we can have something in between; medium size Bx and some restrictions on how Bxcd is picked.)

 

A further, most unfortunate, way to resolve this is to have S be a very limited set in itself.

 

Another thing that contributes to the power x is under which circumstances Bxcd can be changed. If change is allowed after every battle or rest then it is clearly more powerful than if you're only able to replace spells in town (maybe even at a fee) or if you're not even allowed to change at all; where the spell selection is determined as your character advances in level.

 

Besides balance

I think for Project eternity to be a good game with the depth of say the classical IE-games the set S has to be large. For it to be tactical, the number of spells cast must be relatively small but in exchange the spells must have a great effect. And for it to be strategical, freedom in planning must be left for the player in how to choose Bxcd. As far as I know, this has only been achieved in Vancians systems (I dont think cooldowns are the antitheses of Vancian magic; but they're more or less superfluous in that setting).

 

Among the things I hope not to see in P:E are mages who are specced to cast only evocation spells or only conjuration spells (because that means lack of freedom in the planning). Or even worse that half the spells in the game are direct damage spells like in DA:O (because that would mean that S is probably essentially small).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooldown systems such as Dragon Age and Diablo 3 make me shudder.

 

On the other hand ...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldq1afiKQb8

 

If the game felt more like DotA except with waaay more abilities (not the look, but the smoothness / flow of combat), slower combat, move speed and pause .. that could be interesting.

 

Although it wouldn't feel like an IE game I don't think ... (well who knows really).

 

Dragon Age combat is too slow and clunky

 

Diablo 3 is too fast.

 

THE PLAY

 

dendi style

 

EDIT OT:

 

What the vancian system in IE games did was making all the daily spells memorization more like a "encounter" set of spells. It would even make sense like this: you set your skills\spells and you have that determined set for the next encounter.

Edited by Uomoz

1669_planescape_torment-prev.png


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuss is about the fact that not everyone likes the combat in Dragon Age and MMORPGs and that is very likely what we are going to get. No one has ever implemented cooldown based combat that didn't suck. I don't think Obsidian is going to be the first. Oh, and when Sawyer and Feargus talk about "cooldowns" they mean the same thing that everyone else means when they use the term. They don't mean some brand new weird definition. They mean the sort of game timers that are so prevalent in WoW and DA2. Has anyone from Obsidian gone on record saying they didn't want their combat to be anything like Dragon Age?

I really didn't get the impression that it would be the same system as DA or MMORPGs. They still talked about strategically choosing spells and specifically avoided the rest system in the old games. Most importantly, these game developers aren't stupid. They know what they are doing.

Edited by ogrezilla
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuss is about the fact that not everyone likes the combat in Dragon Age and MMORPGs and that is very likely what we are going to get. No one has ever implemented cooldown based combat that didn't suck. I don't think Obsidian is going to be the first. Oh, and when Sawyer and Feargus talk about "cooldowns" they mean the same thing that everyone else means when they use the term. They don't mean some brand new weird definition. They mean the sort of game timers that are so prevalent in WoW and DA2. Has anyone from Obsidian gone on record saying they didn't want their combat to be anything like Dragon Age?

I really didn't get the impression that it would be the same system as DA or MMORPGs. They still talked about strategically choosing spells and specifically avoided the rest system in the old games. Most importantly, these game developers aren't stupid. They know what they are doing.

Too bad there are no other current definition of cooldown system.And we are not sure they do.Keep in mind Obsidian survived Troika due to better business acumen.I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some of the most questionable decisions(generic fantasy,level scaling like DAO,cooldowns) were attempts to pander to disgruntled DAO fans.

Edited by Living One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuss is about the fact that not everyone likes the combat in Dragon Age and MMORPGs and that is very likely what we are going to get. No one has ever implemented cooldown based combat that didn't suck. I don't think Obsidian is going to be the first. Oh, and when Sawyer and Feargus talk about "cooldowns" they mean the same thing that everyone else means when they use the term. They don't mean some brand new weird definition. They mean the sort of game timers that are so prevalent in WoW and DA2. Has anyone from Obsidian gone on record saying they didn't want their combat to be anything like Dragon Age?

I really didn't get the impression that it would be the same system as DA or MMORPGs. They still talked about strategically choosing spells and specifically avoided the rest system in the old games. Most importantly, these game developers aren't stupid. They know what they are doing.

Too bad there are no other current definition of cooldown system.And we are not sure they do.Keep in mind Obsidian survived Troika due to better business acumen.I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some of the most questionable decisions(generic fantasy,level scaling like DAO,cooldowns) were attempts to pander to disgruntled DAO fans.

 

long cooldowns still fit that definition but have a completely different impact on game design and combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only game where I have seen this kind of info gathering before fight actually be satisfying and have much benefit in actual battle is The Witcher, which used Magic only briefly and with cooldowns. So are the cooldowns really the big black evil behind why this kind of things have been mostly forgotten in games nowdays? I'd like to see this in more games too, but it definitively doesn't require adoption of Vancian magic system.

 

Well, I suppose I referenced 'info-gathering' with the mention of a library, but the bulk of my comment was referring to basic communication to the player via design. If the player party wanders into a cave and sees dragon eggs, they probably ought to start equipping their rings of fire resistance. If the player party spots the village guards standing over the remains of a rust monster near the town gates, they're probably going to presume rust monsters will be in the surrounding wilderness and plan accordingly. This concept definitely isn't exclusive to the Witcher. All of which is besides the point, because my argument wasn't that this sort of design necessitates 'Vancian' spells. My argument was that this sort of design can overcome the concerns Josh Sawyer raised about 'Vancian' spells without too much difficulty, and that it's, by-and-by, a good attitude towards design.

 

You don't play new RPGs much do you? Even much hated The Elder Scrolls did this better than for example Bladur's Gate: When you have fought your way through snowtrolls and dragons at snowy plains for hours and finally see College of Winterhold looming at horizon that feeling you described is much stronger than ever in Infinity Engine game. And I'm not joking.

 

Oh, and TES uses mana pool BTW, so no absolute need for Vancian here either.

 

...right, but the TES series utilises a first-person perspective and favours trekking through that vast wilderness. You're talking about a sense of recognition and comfort that comes through playing in that first-person perspective - spending hours on end simulating being lost in a barren landscape, then seeing a landmark faraway on the horizon and feeling good about it (which is obviously far more suited to first-person than to isometric). Or, to put it another way, you're talking about good atmospherics making the wilderness/dungeon feel threatening and the place-of-safety feel comforting; I'm talking about achieving something similar, but grounded in the actual game, by limiting the party's resources so that the player really is in danger if they don't retreat from the former to prepare and recuperate in the latter.

 

In Middle-Ages cities were dangerous places. You are blaming Dragon Age for having little realism in the game?

 

Well, no.* I didn't mention realism, and I'm not saying that NPCs shouldn't be allowed to attack you specifically in built-up urban areas. I was talking about the pacing of the RPG, and the importance of the breathing-space, the resource-hub, and the sanctuary; a place of safety or relative safety in which the player can plan and recover before heading out into a dungeon or wilderness, which has often, but not always, been a town. I thought I made it clear enough by putting alternatives to town (camp/temple/resting in wilderness) every time I used the word.

 

*I mean, I probably could...

 

Second I wouldn't say any of the cities in Dragon Age dungeons. If you encounter few muggers here and there that hardly qualifies. Cities in Dragon Age were places to meet people, hear rumors, find quests, replenish supplies and rest, though last one was not implemented so literally, but more as a feeling. Same as in most IE games I have played and definitively far from a "shop/loot-storage-area" you mentioned.

 

Again, not literally a dungeon. My only point there was that the second Dragon Age game would hurl mob after mob of cheap bandits at the player party whenever they stepped out onto the streets of the city hub, time after time, place after place, to pick up a fetch-quest or buy potions, resulting in an astounding monotony of tone and lack of definition, and that it could only get away with this absurd padding without becoming physically unplayable because its cooldown system meant that the party, give or take a few potions, would begin and end every fight in exactly the same condition, with exactly the same abilities. There's no real need for sanctuaries or places of recovery, since the party never degrades in any meaningful sense from battle to battle, and in the wrong hands this can allow for a cycle of combat and cutscenes ad nauseam with no sense of value to the player's decisions to use particular spells or abilities, and no real point to long-term planning, since the party's back to its full capabilities once the next wave of thugs appears a few seconds later.

 

Again I don't see any relevant point why this all could be achieved only by Vancian system.

 

Well, all right, then.

Edited by grotbag
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many problems with cooldowns.

 

Here is one. In the Vancian system, you may have several of a particular spell prepared because you want to cast it several times in fairly rapid succession (perhaps through spell sequencer use or just regular use). Like maybe, I dunno, Hold or whatnot. In a Cooldown system, you do not have that option. You have to wait for the cooldown and you are forced to use other spells. While some may argue that forces a more diverse use of spells, I would say that limits my options as a spell caster.

 

I am sure the more you focus on the cooldown mechanic the more one notices that it imposes quite a few limitations on the player while also severly limited strategic and tactical depth.

 

You can do a lot of different things with cooldowns. Even possibly a combination of vancian and cooldowns where cooldowns are really replacing rest instead of the spell memorization.

 

Ok, so how do you fix that issue? What is this combo of which you speak in concrete terms? Please, its best to respond with specifics when presented with specifics. Responding in generalities does not move the conversation forward,

 

Honestly, the only way to fix the problem I presented above is to use multiple of the limited "slots" JE mentioned earlier on the same spell. If they allow that, what do you end up with? A mage that casts an extremely limited number of spells very very often. I doubt even they will allow this. Instead, you will just have to accept that you will not be able to cast the same spell in rapid succession. That is a MAJOR blow to what a mage should be able to do. Spell sequencers, etc, are dead.

 

This just kills mage battles as they existed in BG2. Proponents of this system have listed TORCHLIGHT II's system... an action rpg.. uggh.. teriible.

 

I am not sure how Obsidian expected folks to react to this. They tell us they are making an oldschool rpg and then they throw in a mechanic for spells that is more at home in an action rpg.

Edited by Shevek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuss is about the fact that not everyone likes the combat in Dragon Age and MMORPGs and that is very likely what we are going to get. No one has ever implemented cooldown based combat that didn't suck. I don't think Obsidian is going to be the first. Oh, and when Sawyer and Feargus talk about "cooldowns" they mean the same thing that everyone else means when they use the term. They don't mean some brand new weird definition. They mean the sort of game timers that are so prevalent in WoW and DA2. Has anyone from Obsidian gone on record saying they didn't want their combat to be anything like Dragon Age?

I really didn't get the impression that it would be the same system as DA or MMORPGs. They still talked about strategically choosing spells and specifically avoided the rest system in the old games. Most importantly, these game developers aren't stupid. They know what they are doing.

Too bad there are no other current definition of cooldown system.And we are not sure they do.Keep in mind Obsidian survived Troika due to better business acumen.I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some of the most questionable decisions(generic fantasy,level scaling like DAO,cooldowns) were attempts to pander to disgruntled DAO fans.

 

long cooldowns still fit that definition but have a completely different impact on game design and combat.

Then why haven't they clarified anything?And will there still be meaningful resource-management if they really go with cooldowns?They frequent internet communities,they'd likely know about the rep of cooldowns,yet they don't clear things up.I guess I'll have to wait and see if I should re-pledge or not.

Edited by Living One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why haven't they clarified anything?And will there still be meaningful resource-management if they really go with cooldowns?They frequent internet communities,they'd likely know about the rep of cooldowns,yet they don't clear things up.I guess I'll have to wait and see if I should re-pledge or not.

 

I'm pretty sure they haven't cleared anything up because there is nothing to clear it up with yet. I don't think there is a working model decided on for the P:E combat system.

 

I'm not going to rule out cooldowns and I'm not going to design the entire magic system on the fly over the course of three weeks. Both Tim and I want the magic system to feel expansive, powerful, and flexible. We want the player to have to make prep choices when selecting spells for active use. These things do not require a Vancian system, nor do they require the absence of cooldowns as a mechanic. As I wrote in one of the class threads, our goal with class design is not to limit the role of classes but to ensure that every class does have at least one combat role they can clearly excel in. This does not mean that wizards won't be able to cast protective spells, transformative spells, etc. It is likely that they will not be able to select from all of those things in the moment but unlikely that we will require the player to rest to change what he or she has access to.

 

That seem to me to be a clear statement that the system is still being fleshed out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why haven't they clarified anything?And will there still be meaningful resource-management if they really go with cooldowns?They frequent internet communities,they'd likely know about the rep of cooldowns,yet they don't clear things up.I guess I'll have to wait and see if I should re-pledge or not.

 

You are aware it is only 7:03 AM currently for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many problems with cooldowns.

 

Here is one. In the Vancian system, you may have several of a particular spell prepared because you want to cast it several times in fairly rapid succession (perhaps through spell sequencer use or just regular use). Like maybe, I dunno, Hold or whatnot. In a Cooldown system, you do not have that option. You have to wait for the cooldown and you are forced to use other spells. While some may argue that forces a more diverse use of spells, I would say that limits my options as a spell caster.

 

I am sure the more you focus on the cooldown mechanic the more one notices that it imposes quite a few limitations on the player while also severly limited strategic and tactical depth.

 

You can do a lot of different things with cooldowns. Even possibly a combination of vancian and cooldowns where cooldowns are really replacing rest instead of the spell memorization.

 

Ok, so how do you fix that issue? What is this combo of which you speak in concrete terms? Please, its best to respond with specifics when presented with specifics. Responding in generalities does not move the conversation forward,

 

Honestly, the only way to fix the problem I presented above is to use multiple of the limited "slots" JE mentioned earlier on the same spell. If they allow that, what do you end up with? A mage that casts an extremely limited number of spells very very often. I doubt even they will allow this. Instead, you will just have to accept that you will not be able to cast the same spell in rapid succession. That is a MAJOR blow to what a mage should be able to do. Spell sequencers, etc, are dead.

 

This just kills mage battles as they existed in BG2. Proponents of this system have listed TORCHLIGHT II's system... an action rpg.. uggh.. teriible.

 

I am not sure how Obsidian expected folks to react to this. They tell us they are making an oldschool rpg and then they throw in a mechanic for spells that is more at home in an action rpg.

You just gave a perfectly good solution in your own question: let us load up multiples of the same spell. I don't see how that limits your number of spells any differently than the Vancian system does. They could give you the exact same number of spell slots. Then the only difference is you actually have to wait for the spells to recharge instead of just resting to get them back.

 

Just use the same style of spell selection as the vancian system but add long cooldowns based on game time. It would work exactly the same as it did in the old games except you would wait on a cooldown instead of resting. As I've said, that is a problem itself though. I don't want the system to simply encourage standing around waiting for spells to recharge. On that part, I really don't have a good solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuss is about the fact that not everyone likes the combat in Dragon Age and MMORPGs and that is very likely what we are going to get. No one has ever implemented cooldown based combat that didn't suck. I don't think Obsidian is going to be the first. Oh, and when Sawyer and Feargus talk about "cooldowns" they mean the same thing that everyone else means when they use the term. They don't mean some brand new weird definition. They mean the sort of game timers that are so prevalent in WoW and DA2. Has anyone from Obsidian gone on record saying they didn't want their combat to be anything like Dragon Age?

I really didn't get the impression that it would be the same system as DA or MMORPGs. They still talked about strategically choosing spells and specifically avoided the rest system in the old games. Most importantly, these game developers aren't stupid. They know what they are doing.

Too bad there are no other current definition of cooldown system.And we are not sure they do.Keep in mind Obsidian survived Troika due to better business acumen.I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some of the most questionable decisions(generic fantasy,level scaling like DAO,cooldowns) were attempts to pander to disgruntled DAO fans.

 

long cooldowns still fit that definition but have a completely different impact on game design and combat.

Then why haven't they clarified anything?And will there still be meaningful resource-management if they really go with cooldowns?They frequent internet communities,they'd likely know about the rep of cooldowns,yet they don't clear things up.I guess I'll have to wait and see if I should re-pledge or not.

I hate to speculate, but its 7 in the morning where they are, so its reasonable to assume its because they are sleeping.

 

And was there meaningful resource management in any of the old IE games? Not really. And definitely not when it comes to spells.

Edited by ogrezilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...