Josh Sawyer on Miss and Hit

[Luridis]

You guys do realize no one ever said that every "hit" would always do HP damage right? The theory crafting in this thread is getting totally out of hand. We don't know enough to make even a quarter of the assumptions I see in this thread and they are being bandied about as if they are stone cold facts.

 

Last time I checked, forums were a place where discussions take place. Well, at least when they're not a screaming match. I'm reasonably certain that most of the folks in here are aware that Project Eternity is Obsidian's game. And, that they will be the ones to ultimately decide on how the mechanics will work. Most of us are passionate about games, in one way or another, including how they should work. So, people come, they talk, they huff and they say what's on their mind. I don't think there's any harm in that...

 

Facts or not, people might have fears about how something might end up working. So, let them speak there mind, that can't actually hurt anybody. Hell, there may even be a potential exploit the developers had not considered that comes to light in the discussion. We all have opinions, no need to start a police force and impose Newspeak on everyone.

 

In other news this isn't D&D 2nd Ed. So why does everyone keep acting like the ruleset of 2nd Ed (or any other edition for that matter) has anything to do with P:E? It doesn't, drop the D&D based arguments, they simply don't apply.

 

Because this studio and a lot of their games have run on D&D systems, maybe? To deny that D&D influence is there is silly, especially when the PE Dev team was playing D&D during the final hours of the Kickstart campaign. Additionally, why are you attempting to sensor this discussion? According to the forum "Hormalakh" started it. I mean, you just did the equivalent of walking into a room full of strangers and saying, "Everyone shut up, I don't like all this D&D talk." If you don't want to talk about D&D then, by all means, start a new thread.

 

Hell, my first CRPG wasn't based on D&D, the mechanics were made specifically for computers. (Might & Magic II) Additionally, what I've seen of the D&D books made in the last decade makes me seriously doubt they were anything but carefully considered, and were rushed out the door. That said, I still don't see why one thing or another shouldn't be discussed here.

[Helm]

Hell, my first CRPG wasn't based on D&D, the mechanics were made specifically for computers. (Might & Magic II) Additionally, what I've seen of the D&D books made in the last decade makes me seriously doubt they were anything but carefully considered, and were rushed out the door. That said, I still don't see why one thing or another shouldn't be discussed here.

D&D has been on a decline ever since TSR was bought out. Quite sad.

[Somna]

Hell, my first CRPG wasn't based on D&D, the mechanics were made specifically for computers. (Might & Magic II) Additionally, what I've seen of the D&D books made in the last decade makes me seriously doubt they were anything but carefully considered, and were rushed out the door. That said, I still don't see why one thing or another shouldn't be discussed here.

D&D has been on a decline ever since TSR was bought out. Quite sad.

 

3.0 and 3.5 were still popular enough for Pathfinder to get spun out when 4.0 got shoved out the door, at least.

[Adhin]

Far as im concerned 3E/3.5 was the best thing to happen to DnD outside of it being created in the first place. It's a damn good base ruleset, pathfinders managed to keep evolving it. 4E still had some good ideas in it but it definitely went a bit to far in MMO'y territory for most peoples liking. Which is a bit sad, cause it does have some good ideas. They handle HP progression better (or at least I prefer it more), the idea of encounter powers for lower end stuff to allow mages and other classes to have stuff to do in each fight while keeping higher end stuff heavily restricted is a nice one.

[ShadowTiger]

We already have a way of having characters and enemies dealing more or less damage: the damage roll, which differs from the to-hit roll. I mean, how would you deal with stuff like fire shields and the like? "Oh, he struck you, but it was only a light blow, so suffers little damage." "But the spell description says that anyone who strikes me in melee is engulfed in flames..."

 

It could work if the entire game was based around different attack severities. For example, lets say we have

Miss, Weak Hit, Medium Hit, Strong hit, Critical Hit

5%, 30%, 40% , 20%, 5%

 

Ray of Frost:

Miss: No effect

Weak: 1/2 minimum damage

Medium: Normal Damage + slowed for 1 round

Strong: Normal Damage + slowed for 1d6 rounds

Critical: Double Damage + Immobilized for 1d6 rounds

 

Fireball (assuming 1 attack roll per enemy):

Miss: 1/2 minimum damage

Weak: 1/2 Normal Damage

Medium: Normal Damage

Strong: +50% Damage

Critical: +50% Damage + creates a zone of fire that damages creatures for 1d3 turns

 

Cleave (assuming 1 attack roll for all enemies):

Miss: No Effect

Weak: Hits up to two targets for half minimum damage

Medium: Hits up to two targets for normal damage

Strong: Hits up to three targets for normal damage

Critical: Hits all units adjacent to you

 

 

So hopefully you can see from my example... if you design everything to use this system... then it adds much more than a die roll for damage. It fundamentally changes the way you experience the game, and it looks pretty fun to me! Notice the flexibility to change the rules per attack, which means you can have the best of both worlds.

Edited January 11, 2013 by ShadowTiger

[Sensuki]

Guild Wars 2 actually does this, slightly. Your slot-1 skill (1-9 keys on the keyboard) is pretty much your auto-attack, no matter what class and weapon you're using, and on most of the melee weapons, it actually cycles through various slightly-different attacks (they actually have different tooltips and everything, and some of them apply effects, so you can halt your auto-attack at a certain step to save it for its knockback or stun effect at a slightly more useful time) much more quickly (probably an attack at least every second, because each attack is just a type of axe swing, or kick, etc... minor individual "moves" that one would probably perform whilst engaging a foe in melee combat.

 

The last thing I want to ever see in Project Eternity is an MMO style UI or 'combat' sequence. Because then it won't feel like an Infinity Engine game at all. None of this 1-9 hotkey skills in a line at the top or bottom of the screen please.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Sensuki

[mstark]

^While I agree with you about the no-MMO style bit, IE games did indeed have hotkeys in the same sense MMOs today have, in a line, along the bottom of the screen, with little colourful icons. F1-F7 accessed all your basic options (attack, sneak, lockpick, spells...). Once in the spells menu (F7), the first 12 spells correspond to F1-F12.

[Helm]

^

^

A UI with hotkeys would be nice though, so that you don't always have to access your inventory just to change your weapon or drink a potion.

[Adhin]

UI with hotkeys, welcome to the 80s? I don't think anyone wants hotkeyless GUI. Folks just don't want each character to have to deal with a rotation. Which... I mean why would anyone want to deal with a rotation when you have 6 characters in a party? The whole reason you have a rotation in an MMO is to give you something to do, constantly, cause your just 1 person. As much as Guild Wars 2 tried to break away from that, they still had it. And they did it in such away that you had little choice in what you had available. Your choice mostly came down to what weapon to use and... yeah.

 

It'll be like the infinity games, but with a new class system designed by Obsidian influenced from 3E, with some 2E and 4E influences (where they did some good stuff). That means less rotation and more uses per rest, or uses per encounter with fighter types having more passives then active abilities and mages having oodles of spells. My barbarians rotation will be rage, smash ****. Not Rage, jump attack -> mighty attack -> super enraged mighty blow! rince repeat cause I got 5 other dudes to pay the hell attention to.

[Sensuki]

Hotkeys are fine. I just don't want an MMO style UI (Dragon Age, NWN etc) or combat sequence as I said.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Sensuki

[TRX850]

Is it that the "floating" toolbar of 1-9 would look out of place in an isometric game? It was okay in NWN2 I suppose, but yeah, I wouldn't want to keep moving floating toolbars around or docking them so I could see what's going on in P:E.

 

But I would still like to assign modal actions and quick actions as per the IE games.

 

We don't really know what the UI looks like yet (do we?), but if there was room and the style was fitting (why wouldn't it be) then 1-9 should be okay. Or 1-0 technically, since we're all pedantic types here.

 

Edit:

 

One minor aesthetic issue I had was that the buttons were numbered as well as having a symbol, and often the number got in the way of the symbol. Might've just been my graphic settings. But I almost always clicked the button (for drink potion, enter stealth mode, cast fireball etc) rather than press the 1-0 keys.

Edited January 11, 2013 by TRX850

[mstark]

We don't really know what the UI looks like yet (do we?), but if there was room and the style was fitting (why wouldn't it be) then 1-9 should be okay. Or 1-0 technically, since we're all pedantic types here.

All we know is that they've said the aesthetic approach will be inspired by the "solid" appearance of BG/IWD/PS:T UI. It'll be graphically "heavy", to make it feel like it's tangible, as opposed to NWN futuristic transparent floating windows style.

 

There's quite a bit about inventory in one of the recent updates! I think it was the one right before xmas.

[rjshae]

Well hopefully they can produce a solid feel without grabbing up too much of the screen real estate. The BG frame worked okay at the time because the screen resolution was much lower and most of the frame was taken up by useful tiles. If they did something similar with modern displays, I can only imagine that a lot of the frame would be unoccupied.

[Adhin]

NWN and DAO didn't have GUI like MMO's. DAO had GUI like NWN. WoW (and subsequent MMO's) used GUI that was like NWN (came out first). And ultimately, NWN GUI was an evolution of BG interface which didn't allow you to place abilities where you wanted. NWN did. Personally I want a mix of NWN and IWD2. I want NWN ability to set stuff 'where I want it' in order but have weapon sets and the like outside of the skill hotkey. That was NWN biggest issue as far as I was concerned, the 36 bind boxes was all they had and you had to do everything via that. Pretty sure DAO didn't have that issue.

 

Either way, NWN/DAO =/= MMO GUI, it just doesn't. Anyone who thinks they're straight from MMO's seriously haven't played very many MMO's. The vast majority do a poor job at copying how WoW has it setup.. and the only thing it has in common with WoW is your ability to order skill hotkeys how you want in a bar. So, not wanting MMO GUI? Yeah, I don't want that either for the most part, they tend to be a tad inefficient due to there bag systems (which exist to be a convoluted progress system). But to single out NWN and DAO as bad examples and liking them to MMO's in general is... doesn't make sense to me really.

 

And of course, none of that has aaanything to do with hit and miss so... that's all off topic really. Sorry.

[Lephys]

The last thing I want to ever see in Project Eternity is an MMO style UI or 'combat' sequence. Because then it won't feel like an Infinity Engine game at all. None of this 1-9 hotkey skills in a line at the top or bottom of the screen please.

 

My specific reference of the UI was merely contextual information. My point was that the slot-1 skill (within an MMO UI/skill system) in Guild Wars 2 happened to VERY closely resemble the auto-attack in almost any cRPG (a lore more so than any other MMO). Therefore, things like attacks, damage, attack speed, and attack effects crossover between the two. I think it worked a lot better in GW2 than in other MMOs, and the same general idea could work well in a cRPG (as the flow and feel of combat is a factor in both genres, regardless of UI).

 

It was not my intention to make a point specifically about the UI, or to even suggest any pertinence between the UI and P:E.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Personally, I backed this more for Obsidian (and specifically Avellone, Cain, and Sawyer) than I did out of nostalgia for the IE games. If I didn't trust them to make a good game, I wouldn't have given them my money. As far as sticking to the IE formula, they said they would try to capture the feel, not exactly replicate the entire D&D system. D&D is complete balls in real time crpgs, frankly I'm shocked so many people are defending it.

 

I read this thread just now and realize it means some big and exciting changes to combat, but some of them may make the game flow too generic and "systemy". First and foremost, though I have to make clear that my sentiment is like the quote above.

Perhaps the main problem with all the new ways to calculate hits, critical hits and misses or dodges and glances has been voiced by the quotes below:

 

The randomness makes for better story-telling. One of my favourite gaming moments arose from encountering the Demonknight at the end of Durlag's Tower when I stumbled into the room without having rested and was low on spells. With a 4 mage party, I needed spells, so I didn't have many tactical options. In desperation, I had Viconia cast Hold Monster at the Demonknight, knowing the spell would almost certainly be resisted.

 

It wasn't. I Held the Demonknight, and promptly pincushioned it to death with arrow and dart attacks. That was amazing, and it was amazing because it was extremely unlikely to work.

 

Having wide ranges of possible outcomes (randomness) allows for high-risk high-reward tactics to succeed, albeit rarely. Normalising the outcomes, thought, eliminates high-risk tactics by causing them always to fail. If my enemy cannot miss, then he cannot miss three times in a row when I only have 1 hp left, but if he can miss then that outcome remains possible, and encounters remain exciting right up until the moment when I succeed or fail.

 

Normalising the outcomes makes combat less exciting.

I see no reason why any element of fighting that could occur in real life should not be in the game.

 

Dodge/miss, parry, deflection, damage reduction, critical miss/hit and so on. Frankly I don't see any reason at all why the game should not include these.

I love critical misses. They happen in real combat, they add drama, they can happen to you or them.

 

Basically, I far more enjoyed those kind of mechanics than say streamlined DPS-Diablo games or X-Coms rather systematic take on tactics. Don't get me wrong, I love tactics, but first and foremost I'd love to see a computer roleplaying game. So, those drastic fumbles, absurd tactics, and extreme critical hits make for quite different outcomes even if you reloaded. It was like you got many parallel scenarios of one fight in one game. That is not what you get in Diablo 3 or the new X-Com. Ideally, that darn small halfling should be able to crawl pass the barbed devils and sink a critical dart into the sacred third eye of some arch-devil and perhaps be hailed as the one saving the day afterwards. In some sense, the IE games and even NWN 2 made that possible. Both the uneven 2nd ed D&D and the much more free 3.5 ed D&D did a good job at that even in CRPGs. Drastic shifts in outcomes of the same combat situation with the same tactics on behalf of the party should be possible, I reckon, coz it's much more fun and RP-minded. Having said this, I'm quite sure that the new system the Obsids are devising will take this slightly more adventurous approach to combat plans and mad tactics to heart and enable such whimsical freedom. Don't let neat equations and systems and dreams of tactical predictability get in the way of the RP in the G of PE!

Edited January 16, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[Ieo]

You know what, the idea of getting rid of the "miss" mechanic entirely (which is only perceptual in real combat) and adding broken-out dodge/parry/block mechanics does not actually remove the RNG but rather shifts it to something both more meaningful and realistic (IMO).

 

 

In the usual weird "miss" scenario the die roll is on A's turn:

 

A attacks B, A misses

A attacks B, A misses

A attacks B, A misses

A attacks B, A hits

A attacks B, A misses

A attacks B, A hits

 

versus die roll on the defense side

 

A attacks B, B dodges

A attacks B, B dodges

A attacks B, B parries

A attacks B, B is hit

A attacks B, B blocks

A attacks B, B is hit

 

See the difference? The first is "My character is too low level and lame" while the second is "The baddie is better than my character's combat skills." The RNG applies to both sides just fine. And then the additional, finer distinctions on the defense side also mean that classes can be built to differing and more unique combat specs.

 

Then what about critical misses and hits?

 

Removing the "miss" mechanic means that avoidance depends on the defender, so a "critical miss" instead could be shifted to the defense. For example, we have the basic combat actions above--attack, dodge, parry, block, hit. Perhaps another combat action would be retaliate.

 

A attacks B, B retaliates

 

A retaliation may mean that B, the defender, was not only able to dodge/parry/block the attack but was able to do so in such a way that the attacker, A, was unable to return to proper combat stance--like blocking with a shield but redirecting the full force such that A lost his footing. That would be a "critical miss" by A's perception. Critical hit is easy enough...

 

Yes, this is my pipe dream that I wish Josh would consider. A related issue is how all of that would line up with the stamina/health bars.

[Adhin]

Diablo 3, yeah streamlined no real hit formula (though a dodge % so things can still miss a small amount depending on character/equipment). D2 though had a rather crazy to-hit formula that acted on a curve not only based on your attack rating vs there defense but also your level vs there level. (100*AR/AC+DR) was the basic formula before lvls get into play. Basically equal values (say 100 vs 100) net a 50% hit/miss, it takes 10 times the AC to get a 90% hit chance, and a 20 times to hit 95% (which is there cap). (100*AR/AC+DR)*2*(alvl/(alvl+dlvl).

 

Personally I don't like that formula, requires to much absurd inflation. Then again D2 had A LOT of systems or numbers in place to make you ignore them. XP tables where designed to make you glaze over when looking at it to make it, generally, more difficult to figure out the difference in levels. first few are tine but then it starts going odd ball curvy and 'never' ends in 0's. Last 5 digits always end up looking like someone just wacked there num-pad.

 

Anyway the current thing Sawyer mentioned kicking around, the idea of having a 'range' where beyond that point a glancing blow turns into a full on miss and using the same as a hit turning into a crit and the ability for talents to sway the ranges (in relation to whats 'required' to hit) I think is a good system in general. It kind of allows for everything and keeps the consistent, non-stop misses of early levels from plaguing beginners and there attention span (outside of story stuff of course).

 

Also ensures damage is at least being done sometimes for someone who does deep on defenses like that where as in DnD you could get it so they had a 5% chance to hit you, then because your AC was over a 20+AB they only had a 5% of that 5% hit chance of actually landing a critical hit (regardless of weapon type and build). Which can be further compounded by a concealment buff for 50% on top of that to just right out miss on that 5%. End up witha 2.5% chance of being hit and a .125% crit chance. And that's of many monsters above your damn level. DnD has been to exploitable (hense the whole 'munchkin' non-sense) and a system like this can bring that down while keeping the random and allow some wiggle room.

 

So... I kinda hope they go with there current idea + the miss/crit ranges on the outer edges of the hit/glancing blows with talents to shift those. That way your heavily defensive character will take a lot of glancing blows, some normal hits, and a good bit more misses then anyone else. I mean say a normal person gets hit 40% of the time, glances on 50%, leaves 10% 'misses'. Heavy Defense could easily be 20% getting hit, 60% glancing blows leaving 20% straight misses due to talent choices and a heavy focus on his defense stat.

 

-edit-

As a side note, the dodge, parry, riposte, block thing reminds me of EverQuest... saw those a lot. But each one was its own, separate stat. Still had a straight up hit/miss roll, and hit's where then rolled against the other stuff. A higher enough parry roll turned into a riposte I think but you could only get a limited number of those between your own attacks or something.. been a looong time.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Adhin

[Lephys]

Then what about critical misses and hits?

 

Removing the "miss" mechanic means that avoidance depends on the defender, so a "critical miss" instead could be shifted to the defense. For example, we have the basic combat actions above--attack, dodge, parry, block, hit. Perhaps another combat action would be retaliate.

 

A attacks B, B retaliates

 

A retaliation may mean that B, the defender, was not only able to dodge/parry/block the attack but was able to do so in such a way that the attacker, A, was unable to return to proper combat stance--like blocking with a shield but redirecting the full force such that A lost his footing. That would be a "critical miss" by A's perception. Critical hit is easy enough...

 

Yes, this is my pipe dream that I wish Josh would consider. A related issue is how all of that would line up with the stamina/health bars.

 

I like this. It's basically a critical defense instead of a critically-bad offense. I think the only problem I really have with critical misses in the D&D rulesets and any RPGs that copy them in that respect is when you're attacking a stunned combatant who's lying on the ground, not even moving or taking any action whatsoever, and you not only fail to hit him, but you stab yourself in the leg. What caused you to stab yourself in the leg? What factors even produced a chance of that?

 

It should only be possible under certain circumstances, and tying those directly to the capabilities of the defender is a good way to handle that.

[Luridis]

I've never had a problem with the D&D system itself in CRPGs, except that no one has ever made enough necessary modifications to the system to make it work entirely in smooth fashion. In fact, having started CRPGs on a game with a mechanic specifically designed for computers, I found D&D based CRPGs to be awkward, but still playable. Here are a few examples...

 

Initiative: This doesn't work well in real time. In PnP there is the assumption that, unless stealth is involved, when two opponents are aware of each other then the battle has started. Initiative gets rolled, with bonuses from feats and dexterity, with highest numbers winning. What about range? What if I see them before they're aware? Is awareness automatic? If so, the AI controlled opponents would always win first attack because they're basically omnipotent within their sphere of awareness.

 

In NWN2 I see this happen all the time: I see enemy at max range, I click attack, I see in the status window "Initiative: 4 + 2 = 6" ... and my Fighter goes charging into a group of 4 and every single one of them gets a free attack before I take my first swing. Doesn't matter that they were facing away from me, doesn't matter that I clicked "attack" first, doesn't matter that I have a Greatsword with 2x the reach of their "claws". From the player perspective that looks and feels crappy in play. That's not Obsidian's fault either, it's a PnP rule set and one they probably weren't given a lot of license to modify. I've seen D&D on CRPG clones where, if they won initiative and you cast a spell at max range, your casting would stop while all their move actions executed. They'd end up closing and interrupting your spell in spite of you having seen them, acted first, and had ample time to deliver the spell. NWN2 does something similar, where you cast and target an area, get stuck behind it not being your "turn" and everything moving out of the area of effect and you're left thinking, "FFS at least let me re-target".

 

So, what do you do then? Since initiative doesn't feel smooth in a CRPG? What I've seen that I personally like, and works well, is a stealth detect "lite". Enemies have a detection range where they can become aware of you. Regardless of the range, this would modified to accommodate graphics settings. If the enemy isn't rendered, due to distance fog on low end computers, etc. then detection should be turned off. Once you can see them a heartbeat roll starts on frame rate, seconds, what have you. There is a base chance to notice you modified something like this: Things like heavy armor or running apply negatives, starting a spell cast, day & night, are you within the enemy's visual angle etc. All those bonuses from feats like alertness and dexterity could be applied to the detection roll for the monster, rather than an a clunky PnP initiative. As you get closer, the base chance to detect would go up. On the player side, adjustments can be made via audio triggers if the enemy is noisy, feats like alertness could brighten up the edge of the screen making distant enemies easier to see. Finally, whichever party clicks attack first, has initiative...

 

Full Round Action: Doing something and standing around for 5 seconds feels clunky... Things need to be either channeled or cast and fire in < 2 seconds or it doesn't feel smooth.

 

Buffs: There's only 3 kinds I will make use of, or I'll just not bother. Short term buffs that fire instantly, last for 5-10 seconds and provide a major effect. Medium term buffs that fire instantly and last the duration of combat with medium effect. Long term buffs applied outside of combat that are near perpetual and provide small benefits. Something that lasts 2.13 seconds, or for a single attack of 6 you will make that "round" I have no use for.

 

CC: I heard an MMO developer once say, "people hate losing control of their character." That is absolutely true. Things like paralyze and sleep are just way too annoying to deal with. As a matter of fact I quit playing DAoC over what they referred to as "mez", short for mesmerize, the dominant CC. When they opened the PvP zones I spent exactly 2 nights playing and dealing with minute long paralyzations before I had enough of it. I'm supposed to be playing a game, not sitting here wishing that I could play. Silence, level drain, disease, poison, slow, DoT, increased miss, etc. are all annoying but tolerable debuff mechanics. Staring at your screen for 17 seconds in which you can take no action at all makes me want to tab out of the game till it's over. Edit: And yes, I do realize that this is less of an issue when you control the whole party.

 

So, I don't see anything wrong with D&D math or flavor in a CRPG. What needs to change is some of the mechanic implementations, something WoTC was probably reluctant to allow their IP licensees much leeway with.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Luridis

[Lephys]

CC: I heard an MMO developer once say, "people hate losing control of their character." That is absolutely true. Things like paralyze and sleep are just way too annoying to deal with. As a matter of fact I quit playing DAoC over what they referred to as "mez", short for mesmerize, the dominant CC. When they opened the PvP zones I spent exactly 2 nights playing and dealing with minute long paralyzations before I had enough of it. I'm supposed to be playing a game, not sitting here wishing that I could play. Silence, level drain, disease, poison, slow, DoT, increased miss, etc. are all annoying but tolerable debuff mechanics. Staring at your screen for 17 seconds in which you can take no action at all makes me want to tab out of the game till it's over.

 

*Nod nod*. Limitation is one thing. "Oh know, I've taken an arrow in the knee, and I can't move as quickly!" or "I can't use certain abilities right now," etc. But, a complete void in the player's ability to input any commands or take any actions is excrutiating.

[Luridis]

*Nod nod*. Limitation is one thing. "Oh know, I've taken an arrow in the knee, and I can't move as quickly!" or "I can't use certain abilities right now," etc. But, a complete void in the player's ability to input any commands or take any actions is excrutiating.

 

Yep. Take stinking cloud for example, if it checked more often and made you pause for one second from time to time, or caused you automatically miss say Attacks/2 + (Attacks % 2) per round it wouldn't be so annoying. If there was an animation of you running around vomiting for those one second pauses it would be even better, because at least there's something to giggle at.

[Sensuki]

CC: I heard an MMO developer once say, "people hate losing control of their character." That is absolutely true. Things like paralyze and sleep are just way too annoying to deal with. As a matter of fact I quit playing DAoC over what they referred to as "mez", short for mesmerize, the dominant CC. When they opened the PvP zones I spent exactly 2 nights playing and dealing with minute long paralyzations before I had enough of it. I'm supposed to be playing a game, not sitting here wishing that I could play. Silence, level drain, disease, poison, slow, DoT, increased miss, etc. are all annoying but tolerable debuff mechanics. Staring at your screen for 17 seconds in which you can take no action at all makes me want to tab out of the game till it's over. Edit: And yes, I do realize that this is less of an issue when you control the whole party.

 

I will be ****ing furious if they nerf or get rid of spells that allow you to lose or simply not control your character. Sure it's not fun when one of your characters gets held in a web while there's 2 sword spiders next to it or imprisoned by the Maze spell in a lich battle but it's all part of the challenge. There's a good encounter in BG1 Durlag's Tower where you come up against a bunch of Skeleton Archers which aren't that fearful enemies on their own, but all the platforms are covered in Sleeping Cloud and Cloudkill traps, which made that encounter a challenge. I don't really care how much they nerf it for people who play on pissant difficulties but on expert mode, I hope there are such punishing debuffs. Charm, Hold, Stun, Paralyze, Sleep, Fear etc. Wouldn't feel like an IE game without those.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Sensuki

[Adhin]

Also a big difference between loosing control of your 1 character and losing control of some of your 6 characters. Losing control of your entire party (which happened in BG a looot) did suck and usually resulted in a reload. Pretty bad when 2-3 of them got controlled or hit by an insanity effect and the rest ran scared of everything and you just kinda sat there watching your own guys kill your own running guys and just... yup, reload cause that's bad.

 

Basically I think mass or rapid fire effects like that tends to ruin fun real quick, and it often results in reloads and a quick trying to figure out how to stop them from the mass disability non-sense. Personally I think heavy disability stuff, in a party vs party game should be single target for the vast majority, and anything in group should be short lived. Disabling 1 of your enemies is a good tactical advantage... mass holding the whole lots just kinda stupid and boring.

[Ieo]

CC: I heard an MMO developer once say, "people hate losing control of their character." That is absolutely true. Things like paralyze and sleep are just way too annoying to deal with. As a matter of fact I quit playing DAoC over what they referred to as "mez", short for mesmerize, the dominant CC. When they opened the PvP zones I spent exactly 2 nights playing and dealing with minute long paralyzations before I had enough of it. I'm supposed to be playing a game, not sitting here wishing that I could play. Silence, level drain, disease, poison, slow, DoT, increased miss, etc. are all annoying but tolerable debuff mechanics. Staring at your screen for 17 seconds in which you can take no action at all makes me want to tab out of the game till it's over. Edit: And yes, I do realize that this is less of an issue when you control the whole party.

 

I will be ****ing furious if they nerf or get rid of spells that allow you to lose or simply not control your character. Sure it's not fun when one of your characters gets held in a web while there's 2 sword spiders next to it or imprisoned by the Maze spell in a lich battle but it's all part of the challenge. There's a good encounter in BG1 Durlag's Tower where you come up against a bunch of Skeleton Archers which aren't that fearful enemies on their own, but all the platforms are covered in Sleeping Cloud and Cloudkill traps, which made that encounter a challenge. I don't really care how much they nerf it for people who play on pissant difficulties but on expert mode, I hope there are such punishing debuffs. Charm, Hold, Stun, Paralyze, Sleep, Fear etc. Wouldn't feel like an IE game without those.

 

This is a case where an MMO mentality doesn't port to the SP party genre, so I must disagree with Luridis on cc and general "control loss" spells - PE should have plenty of these.

 

The reason why control-loss skills and spells stink in MMOs is because you literally lose all control over everything--your own toon. But that is irrelevant to tactical party games: You always have something to do. I have never lost control of my entire party in any IE game; some members will escape a trap or miss it while others make their saving throw. I can still move at least one member and try to save the others or something. The frustration level compared to the MMO genre is completely different in this case.