The difficulty of the game

[Lephys]

^ One reason I'm very fond of full-immunities being used quite sparingly. I think effect immunities work better more commonly. i.e. "This thing can't be ignited for burn damage, even though your fireball still hurts it," or "this thing can't be slowed by cold, because of it's very nature," or "this thing can't bleed," etc. Instead of "I HAVE A RESTRAINING ORDER ON METAL! MUAHAHAHA!"

 

Another thing that might even be interesting is if, say, a fireball (so easily pluckable as an example, ) did full damage and full effect, but using it against a particular foe caused it to molt flaming blobs of itself around in an area, which could harm you. So, it wouldn't be so much "what do we use that will hurt this thing?", but rather, "how do we kill this thing and not burn alive while doing it?". Or, maybe if you use crushing damage against some big stone golem, you can smash its limbs off with critical hits. But, the debris from its broken limb falls to the ground, only to animate itself as a lesser golem thing. If your party's better suited to taking on one single enemy and dealing with his attacks, maybe it's more prudent to forego the extra damage from majorly crushing attacks so you don't have to face multiple opponents. *shrug*

[Sabotin]

Honestly, I think full immunities should be part of the game where it makes sense. They should however not be something sweeping like "immune to non-magic" or randomly put there (thug type 1 immune to cold, thug type 2 immune to fire, ...)

 

My reasoning is that with just resistances you can more easily have a one-approach-fits-all situation where specialized party members can have enough punch to ignore resistances, thereby making them pointless. And that I have preconceptions (common/fantasy sense?) in place, like "fire elementals are immune to fire" etc...

 

Sort of unrelated: I'd like to see some encounters that have a narrower field of possibilities to overcome, but that the player has the option to plan ahead. Ok this sounded weird. I'd like some encounter that you have to be pretty specific about your strategies, but that the game provides you with some knowledge and hints, so that you prepare somewhat. So that the encounter is similarly difficult on further playthroughs and doesn't hinge on the player being unprepared.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

> You encounter an Allip.> You don't have any magic weapons.> Kiss the entire party goodbye.

Which is why the Cleric or Wizard should always have "Magic Weapon" Memorized at low levels. That and the fact it is a very useful buff.

 

 

 

Honestly, I think full immunities should be part of the game where it makes sense. They should however not be something sweeping like "immune to non-magic" or randomly put there (thug type 1 immune to cold, thug type 2 immune to fire, ...)

 

My reasoning is that with just resistances you can more easily have a one-approach-fits-all situation where specialized party members can have enough punch to ignore resistances, thereby making them pointless. And that I have preconceptions (common/fantasy sense?) in place, like "fire elementals are immune to fire" etc...

 

Sort of unrelated: I'd like to see some encounters that have a narrower field of possibilities to overcome, but that the player has the option to plan ahead. Ok this sounded weird. I'd like some encounter that you have to be pretty specific about your strategies, but that the game provides you with some knowledge and hints, so that you prepare somewhat. So that the encounter is similarly difficult on further playthroughs and doesn't hinge on the player being unprepared.

I agree, the "immune to magic weapons" in BG2 was really stupid. Having partial immunity to certain types of damage(slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning) seems like it would be a lot more fun.

Edited August 19, 2013 by KaineParker

[Mr. Magniloquent]

> You encounter an Allip.

 

> You don't have any magic weapons.

 

> Kiss the entire party goodbye.

 

I have no problems with this. In a world of magic, people should be prepared for stituations that call for magical solutions. Likewise, in a world populated with monsters where the character's profession is to go out in the world and do battle with them--these kinds of scenarios are a fact of reality that they character accepts. Informal graves are filled with not just the unprepared adventurer, but the unlucky ones too.

[Micamo]

Which is why the Cleric or Wizard should always have "Magic Weapon" Memorized at low levels. That and the fact it is a very useful buff.

This reasoning is why the Allip is rated at CR 3. Personally though I find it very troubling that the game is balanced around the assumption that the party will have spellcasters (see also diseases that can only be magically healed, locks that can only be magically picked...).

 

I have no problems with this. In a world of magic, people should be prepared for stituations that call for magical solutions. Likewise, in a world populated with monsters where the character's profession is to go out in the world and do battle with them--these kinds of scenarios are a fact of reality that they character accepts. Informal graves are filled with not just the unprepared adventurer, but the unlucky ones too.

There's a significant difference between "This is something that could conceivably happen in the game world" and "This is a smart thing for you to do as a DM." If you want to play a tabletop version of Nethack then more power to you, but let's not forget that we play the game so that everyone at the table can have fun, and there's a reason why Killer DMs are unpopular. If verisimilitude is getting in the way of having fun then it's time for verisimilitude to take a back seat.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Micamo

[J. Trudel]

I have no problems with situations like this IF and ONLY IF the game has a decent way to retreat and then come back later and better prepared. In fact, this is something missing in most game. Some encounters should be failed, that is when you run and think about an alternative, sneaking past that invincible golem, making him fall to his death in a trap you disarmed sooner in the dungeon. Endless possibilities, if many encounters happenend in a similar fashion, 

[Christliar]

I'm playing The Prophet modules for Neverwinter Nights and I have to say that it does quite a few good things with the difficulty and general pacing. You have to go into a mine to rescue some elf for such and such and this mine stretches into a spider kingdom in which he is found dead, Your main quest is done now and you can leave, but there are 4 extra tough bosses you can defeat (seriously tough, one is a cleric/mage with invisibility and regeneration and you are 5-6th lvl) who drop awesome loot. If you can defeat them all you perform a ritual to open even further into the temple where you fight an even harder boss with even more awesome loot. Also more importantly they were supported by lore. The whole rescue the elf thing went wrong because of those 4 bosses, because they just had to awaken centuries old Drow heroes.

I find that level of exploration depth awesome and gives you incentive to explore while flinging everything the game has to offer at you (within reason, you can't have a 20th lvl demilich versus a 3rd lvl party) while remaining accessable to newer players.

The 4 bosses were a mage who uses Stoneskin and Ice-based spells; A cleric/mage who uses invisibility the moment you attack her and casts every possible buff on herself and then summons a wight and a dire spider - she was the toughest of them all and I had to reload many times; A drider druid who was all about cc'ing your party with Entangle, Grease and healing himself, but I found he was the easiest of them all; and a Blackguard with a vampiric weapon who had massive hp and high AB and damage.

The toughest boss was actually a previous party member of one of your companions who was turned into a drider with many spiders taking care of him. When you talk to him enough his previous party member attacks him and I think you can let him (the drider) kill him (your companion) and strike some sort of deal, but I'm not sure since I joined the fray immediately. All spiders attacked you and when you killed him he was resurrected by 4 orbs which you had to destroy. It was quite hectic and most importantly fun ;d Also awesome loot.

I find these very hard optional encounters are the best, because they challenge you and give you incentive to explore. I think FF do this as well with the "weapons", but since I haven't played FF ever I can't tell from personal experience.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Christliar

[Lephys]

I agree, the "immune to magic weapons" in BG2 was really stupid. Having partial immunity to certain types of damage(slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning) seems like it would be a lot more fun.

I think the other potential problem with something like immunity to magic weapons (or non-magic damage/weapons) is how broad that is. In a game in which you could feasibly have a party of non-mages, and no magic weapons, you're essentially at a brick wall. It's approaching the level of restriction at which a foe is susceptible to only a single type of attack. "You can only damage this thing with backstabs. I hope you have a Rogue, MUAHAHAHA!" Obviously that's more extreme, but it illustrates the extent of such restrictions, methinks.

 

I think immunities (even when used sparingly) work best when they're against more specific forms of damage, rather than entire types. Even then, I still hold that it would be quite interesting if, say, a fire elemental was immune to fire damage, but that it could still be damaged/affected by something like a fireball (which explodes). You simply wouldn't be able to BURN the fire elemental, since you can't burn fire. Thus, if you have a party filled with fire mages, you're going to take a hit in effectiveness, versus a fight with a typical group of non-fire-immune foes, but forcefully throwing exploding magical balls (even of fire) still counts for something. What would be REALLY interesting (but admittedly hardly suited to a game like P:E -- probably only really suited for like a PnP campaign) would be if you could start so many fires in a smallish room with a flame/fire elemental inside, then flee the room and seal it off. Even though you aren't actually damaging the elemental, directly, with fire, your extreme amount of flames could burn all the oxygen in the room faster than it could seep in under doors, etc, and extinguish the fire elemental (or at least weaken it, if it's simply made out of molten/burning substance rather than being comprised entirely of flame).

 

Anywho... simply put, I think it's best when you remove specific functions of tools from the equation, rather than entire tools (much less sets of tools). For the most part. It's fine to occasionally restrict a bit further, but I still think it should always keep in mind each classes'/roles ability to provide SOME effectiveness, even if it isn't via damage. Of course, in regard to non-magic immunity, I think P:E's lore rather supports the notion that everyone would have SOME means of combatting a foe, even if their physical weapons were extremely diminished in effectiveness, or even useless, what with its soul powers/magic.

[Christliar]

 

I agree, the "immune to magic weapons" in BG2 was really stupid. Having partial immunity to certain types of damage(slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning) seems like it would be a lot more fun.

I think the other potential problem with something like immunity to magic weapons (or non-magic damage/weapons) is how broad that is. In a game in which you could feasibly have a party of non-mages, and no magic weapons, you're essentially at a brick wall. It's approaching the level of restriction at which a foe is susceptible to only a single type of attack. "You can only damage this thing with backstabs. I hope you have a Rogue, MUAHAHAHA!" Obviously that's more extreme, but it illustrates the extent of such restrictions, methinks.

 

I think immunities (even when used sparingly) work best when they're against more specific forms of damage, rather than entire types. Even then, I still hold that it would be quite interesting if, say, a fire elemental was immune to fire damage, but that it could still be damaged/affected by something like a fireball (which explodes). You simply wouldn't be able to BURN the fire elemental, since you can't burn fire. Thus, if you have a party filled with fire mages, you're going to take a hit in effectiveness, versus a fight with a typical group of non-fire-immune foes, but forcefully throwing exploding magical balls (even of fire) still counts for something. What would be REALLY interesting (but admittedly hardly suited to a game like P:E -- probably only really suited for like a PnP campaign) would be if you could start so many fires in a smallish room with a flame/fire elemental inside, then flee the room and seal it off. Even though you aren't actually damaging the elemental, directly, with fire, your extreme amount of flames could burn all the oxygen in the room faster than it could seep in under doors, etc, and extinguish the fire elemental (or at least weaken it, if it's simply made out of molten/burning substance rather than being comprised entirely of flame).

 

Anywho... simply put, I think it's best when you remove specific functions of tools from the equation, rather than entire tools (much less sets of tools). For the most part. It's fine to occasionally restrict a bit further, but I still think it should always keep in mind each classes'/roles ability to provide SOME effectiveness, even if it isn't via damage. Of course, in regard to non-magic immunity, I think P:E's lore rather supports the notion that everyone would have SOME means of combatting a foe, even if their physical weapons were extremely diminished in effectiveness, or even useless, what with its soul powers/magic.

 

 Yeah, I like that. I don't know what else I can add to this idea. I don't think fire elementals require oxygen since they draw their flame directly from the elemental plane of fire, but I get the gist of the overall idea :D It would be too much work though, since this isn't a point-and-click adventure game where you have to find extreme methods of dealing with situations. Other than that, yes to everything.

 

P.S. You can actually burn fire ;d it creates plasma. (it's not that simple, of course, but the idea is the same)

[Lephys]

Yeah, I like that. I don't know what else I can add to this idea. I don't think fire elementals require oxygen since they draw their flame directly from the elemental plane of fire, but I get the gist of the overall idea :D It would be too much work though, since this isn't a point-and-click adventure game where you have to find extreme methods of dealing with situations. Other than that, yes to everything.

 

P.S. You can actually burn fire ;d it creates plasma. (it's not that simple, of course, but the idea is the same)

Maybe the Elemental Plane of Fire is ill-named, and should be called the Elemental Plane of Combustible Gases?

 

Nah, it was just an interesting thought, of how a witty person might use fire to combat living fire, in a given situation. As I said, I don't at all recommend that they try to implement that scenario into P:E. At least, not in unscripted, open-combat form. That would require an oxygen/breathability tracking system for every space in which combat could take place and flames could occur. Pretty much only suited for PnP games, really.

 

As for the plasma, I was not aware of that. You learn something new every day, ^_^

[jethro]

 

Which is why the Cleric or Wizard should always have "Magic Weapon" Memorized at low levels. That and the fact it is a very useful buff.

This reasoning is why the Allip is rated at CR 3. Personally though I find it very troubling that the game is balanced around the assumption that the party will have spellcasters (see also diseases that can only be magically healed, locks that can only be magically picked...).

 

As long as the allip doesn't block the main quest this still would be okay. Even a magical disease could be made managable by making sure the contagion can happen only in a small area with a priest NPC nearby who offers healing. Also scrolls and wands could substitute for abilities missing in the group (in a RPG system where most classes could use them).

 

Generally I find it acceptable that a game doesn't guarantee that you can see every corner and solve every quest if you try out unusual combinations. As long as those quests and corners can be counted on one hand.

Edited August 19, 2013 by jethro

[jamoecw]

 

Yeah, I like that. I don't know what else I can add to this idea. I don't think fire elementals require oxygen since they draw their flame directly from the elemental plane of fire, but I get the gist of the overall idea :D It would be too much work though, since this isn't a point-and-click adventure game where you have to find extreme methods of dealing with situations. Other than that, yes to everything.

 

P.S. You can actually burn fire ;d it creates plasma. (it's not that simple, of course, but the idea is the same)

Maybe the Elemental Plane of Fire is ill-named, and should be called the Elemental Plane of Combustible Gases?

 

Nah, it was just an interesting thought, of how a witty person might use fire to combat living fire, in a given situation. As I said, I don't at all recommend that they try to implement that scenario into P:E. At least, not in unscripted, open-combat form. That would require an oxygen/breathability tracking system for every space in which combat could take place and flames could occur. Pretty much only suited for PnP games, really.

 

As for the plasma, I was not aware of that. You learn something new every day, ^_^

 

you don't actually create plasma by using lesser heat on fire, heat creates an equilibrium, so to make fire a plasma you'd have to have something much hotter than what it would take to make fire into a plasma, then when they equalize you'd have 2 substances that are hot enough to make fire go plasma.

 

and the problem with your scenario with the fire elemental is flash fire stuff.  basically when you reintroduce oxygen to the room to fight the elemental it will return to full strength, though if it was a molten creature then the lack of oxygen wouldn't affect it, as you aren't depriving the room of heat (in fact you are adding to it).  though the general idea you are going towards is good (water for the most part snuffs fire by starving it of oxygen), so anything that suffocates should be extra effective.

[Ieo]

I wanted to talk about the difficulty of P:E. I skimmed the first few pages and couldn't find a topic about it, so I decided to create one. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but here we go:

 

I've been replaying DA:O on nightmare and couldn't help but notice how easy it is. When I played it for the first time I found it was more difficult than other games this generation, but that feeling went away when I got used to the mechanics. Now I just wail on the enemies and wait for them to die. That's not good combat.

 

I know Obsidian is trying to capture the IE games, but those weren't *hard* per se, just obnoxiously luck based. I want to use tactics and all tools I have at my disposal. You should be punished for memorizing only damaging spells on your mage etc. The question is: How badly should you be punished? How difficult should the game be? How different should the experience be between normal and hard? How do you define difficulty in RPG's in general? Should anything be designed around luck?

 

I have no idea where to even begin answering those questions, so I'll refrain from having an opinion before I read some of yours.

DA:O combat was easy. Part of the symptom was that it only ever had, what, three enemy classes? Ranged archer, mage-type, and melee grunt. That's it. And then the actual skillsets each of those classes used were quite small.

 

Contrast this with fighting a party of enemies in the IE style: Mage, fighter, cleric, stealthy thief, ranged fighter, maybe a druid. Then the collection of skills each of those classes possess. Yes, AI has a lot to do with it (and luck), but DA:O was less technical in the sense of variety. Sure, you had MMO-style LOS, but that's no big deal.

 

And you didn't find threads about game difficulty in the first few pages because that was discussed back in 2012:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60710-just-how-easy-will-easy-be/page-1

Look for the quotes by the dev Bobby Null.

 

That said, we have details on specific options for the hardmodes. http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Mode

And you can turn specific things on and off.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Ieo