Can I even handle a game like PE any longer? Well, I sure hope so!

[Stun]

Timestop most definitely made combat more interesting (And a lot more fun!) Oh and for you "pre-buffing is bad!" peeps, Timestop also gives your mage a chance to freely buff himself up right in the middle of heated combat... literally, but I digress. lol

 

Mostly though, Timestop's main purpose is to allow players a rare chance to stroke their egos. It just *feels* like the ultimate expression of power. Not to mention that For the first 100 hours of BG2, your party has to deal with mages and liches casting timestop against you. But when your mage finally gets it it's like: "Aaah! at last. Time for some seriously well deserved paybacks!"

Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

I'll ask again, what's wrong with that? does everything have to be "usual"? does every single encounter have to be completely winnable the first time out?

I'll ask again, as well (since I not only answered the question you're asking again, but you failed to answer mine):

 

Why are my only two options encounters that require, by design, multiple attempts just to beat them, or encounters that only ever require 1 attempt to beat?

 

Also, what's wrong with that is the same thing that's wrong with making everyone play on Trial of Iron mode. There's nothing wrong with the very idea of someone wanting to play the game with only one save/life, just as there's nothing wrong with someone enjoying figuring out, reload by reload, how to take down a tough boss/combat encounter. But there's no reason to design these combat encounters in such a manner, so that, the average person, just playing through the game, HAS to die to a group and reload just to have the knowledge necessary to take down that group.

 

So, actually, yeah, I'm gonna go with "It should be possible to beat everything in one go," actually.

 

*Waits for someone to argue against "No one should ever fail to beat something in a single try," instead of what he actually said.*

 

 

Mostly though, Timestop's main purpose is to allow players a rare chance to stroke their egos. It just *feels* like the ultimate expression of power. Not to mention that For the first 100 hours of BG2, your party has to deal with mages and liches casting timestop against you. But when your mage finally gets it it's like: "Aaah! at last. Time for some seriously well deserved paybacks!"

 

Again... Maybe I'm just weird? But, I'd rather actually best someone at darts by throwing darts better than they do, rather than by having the ability to teleport my dart straight to the bulls-eye, or the ability to simply prevent them from even throwing darts.

 

It'd be really nice to just create 5 permanent clones of myself, too, because I'm such a powerful mage, but that would also kind of defeat the purpose of tactical combat; overcoming limitations.

 

With an ability like Time Stop, it either completely supercedes the challenge of tactical combat, OR the encounters are balanced against it (at some point), so that it becomes a necessary thing just to get through them. In which case, where does that end, and why?

 

"I have a spell that does 1,000,000,000 damage. Now, we'll run into some enemies that have 1,000,000,000 HP, because otherwise my spell would just be super ridiculous." Great, the triangle block goes into the triangular hole. That's the pinnacle of tactical excitement. Truly.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

I'll ask again, as well (since I not only answered the question you're asking again, but you failed to answer mine):

 

Why are my only two options encounters that require, by design, multiple attempts just to beat them, or encounters that only ever require 1 attempt to beat?

LOL Ok. I'll answer the question, as stupid as it is: Because there isn't a 3rd option.

 

In any encounter you engage in, you either 1)succeed the first time, or 2)you don't succeed the first time. There is no third Option (at least until the day we see an RPG incorporating stalemates. But that would be retarded, unless there's a story-based reason to have them, in which case the player is still succeeding by fighting to a stalemate (see #1).

 

In this debate though, you want #1 and have vehemently opposed encounters designed to produce #2

 

Also, what's wrong with that is the same thing that's wrong with making everyone play on Trial of Iron mode.

Uh... no. It'd be more accurate to say that wanting what you suggest would be like forcing everyone to play on Easy mode. Seriously, a game who's normal mode is so easy that you never lose a fight, even on your first playthrough is.... not a well designed or well balanced game. And it will most certainly be seen as a giant "UP YOURS!" to the infinity engine classics. If combat DOES end up being so embarrassingly simple, then the story had better be extraordinarily good to compensate, or else the entire game will go down in history as an epic failure. Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[ZornWO]

As for buffing, we're not eliminating buffing, but we are eliminating pre-combat spell buffing.  Buffs in PoE have an opportunity cost because they're combat only spells.  They're good and they're powerful, but when you cast them, you're choosing between buffing or engaging in offense or taking some other action against hostile enemies that are engaging the party.  As others have already posted, aside from hard counters (which often require metagaming or prescience), most pre-buffs are rote actions.  There's nothing strategic about it other than asking the question, "How many resources would I like to expend now to increase the power of my party members?"  That is a choice, but it's not much of one.

 

 

If a player scouts ahead using stealth or divination spells, and finds an enemy ahead, does that start the combat condition even if the enemy isn't aware of the party's presence?  (Like IE wouldn't let you save if there were monsters nearby.) 

[Fatback]

Leyphs your argument about 2 options of fights 1 that takes multiple times and one that takes one time. Those are the only options unless you want to never be able to win the fight or win In zero try's that makes 4 options

 

 

Lol kitten I stopped reading before you answered own question

Edited January 15, 2014 by Fatback

[Stun]

Wait a minute. I think I've found the real reason for the confusion here:

But there's no reason to design these combat encounters in such a manner, so that, the average person, just playing through the game, HAS to die to a group and reload just to have the knowledge necessary to take down that group.

But Lephys, we're not average people. Average people don't back Kickstarters that promise an isometric party-based RPG in 2014.

 

We're very not-average people. We're Gamers who want what today's mainstream games are miserably failing to deliver.

[Mor]

Even average people know how to use difficult settings, right? 

[Stun]

Right, but the problem we're discussing is not solved by difficulty settings. It's an issue with specific encounter design. A demi-lich with 100% magic immunity who fires off uninterruptable 9th level spells at you in combat will not be easier to beat on "easy" mode, he'll just have 'less health', or in PoE's case, he won't obliterate your party members, he'll just "disable them".

Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[Yonjuro]

 

LOL Ok. I'll answer the question, as stupid as it is: Because there isn't a 3rd option.

 

 

 

 You guys aren't communicating. The distinction Lephys is making is not:

 

Fail the first time vs. Succeed the first time

 

it is:

 

Always fail the first time - impossible to succeed vs. Always succeed on the first time - too easy to fail.

 

There's a lot of room between those extremes.

[Fatback]

Wait can we get back to the the time warp thing what if a wild Mage cast three spells all the cause wild surge with rolls of 17 7 and 89 what happens

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

 You guys aren't communicating. The distinction Lephys is making is not:

 

Fail the first time vs. Succeed the first time

 

it is:

 

Always fail the first time - impossible to succeed vs. Always succeed on the first time - too easy to fail.

 

There's a lot of room between those extremes.

 

 

 

Can you show some of those examples between them? Considering you've said there's a lot of room between them.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Stun]

 

LOL Ok. I'll answer the question, as stupid as it is: Because there isn't a 3rd option.

 

 

 You guys aren't communicating. The distinction Lephys is making is not:

 

Fail the first time vs. Succeed the first time

 

it is:

 

Always fail the first time - impossible to succeed vs. Always succeed on the first time - too easy to fail.

 

There's a lot of room between those extremes.

 

If that's what he's saying then he's putting up a ridiculous straw man. I gave exactly zero examples of an "always fail the first time" encounter. Why? because there are no such encounters in the IE games. One can very easily (and logically) ONE-SHOT-KILL Kangaxx by accident in a blind first playthrough. Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

So, actually, yeah, I'm gonna go with "It should be possible to beat everything in one go," actually.

 

Well, yeah it should be possible to beat everything in one go in any game. But why would you want a game like that where you beat everything in one go? It doesn't sound challenging to me and it doesn't necessarily make you change tactics or do things in different ways and approach situations differently. If you're going to succeed in doing something a certain way, then why change the way you play to succeed in another way?

 

As Stun said, there's many ways to defeat Kangaxx. Some of the ways I've read on forums I would never have guessed. That's the challenge with difficult battles. People at different levels find different ways to defeat him and post online. And it challenges the way you think and approach different situations when you're up against difficult foes.

[Lephys]

*Waits for someone to argue against "No one should ever fail to beat something in a single try," instead of what he actually said.*

Uh... no. It'd be more accurate to say that wanting what you suggest would be like forcing everyone to play on Easy mode. Seriously, a game who's normal mode is so easy that you never lose a fight, even on your first playthrough is.... not a well designed or well balanced game.

Annnnd there it is. Amazing. It's like I'm psychic!

 

Yes, Stun, admittedly, I worded that poorly, and, technically, there was no third option. I meant "more than 2" when I said "multiple," but I should've used a better word. However, the key word there was "require." Basically, what Yonjuro said.

 

You always beat something "in one attempt." Your actual killing of something can't span multiple attempts, right? So, what I'm arguing against is it being impossible (without otherwise looking up the "how to do it" outside the game somewhere, like online or in a strategy guide) to beat an encounter until you find out what it entails, specifically, die, then reload to do it correctly the next time.

 

When I run into 7 heavily-armored Ogres for the first time ever, I should know what options I have against heavy armor. Then, when they start moving really fast, or using certain abilities, I should know what that means for me and my party and my options.

 

The difficulty comes from the time/efficiency constraints. "Did you figure out a way to not-die before they killed you, and did you come up with effective enough tactics, with what you've got at your disposal, to take them down before you ran out of resources?" See, easier fights don't require as much precision/accuracy in tactics. Harder fights mean that if you just spam fireballs, you're out of spells well before the things are dead, etc.

 

I'll say it again... if you think it's fun to have to die at least once before you can even know what you should possibly do to combat something, then more power to you. But if you think the absence of that is just easy combat, then I think you're crazy and are ignoring an awful lot of combat design factors.

 

 

Well, yeah it should be possible to beat everything in one go in any game. But why would you want a game like that where you beat everything in one go? It doesn't sound challenging to me and it doesn't necessarily make you change tactics or do things in different ways and approach situations differently. If you're going to succeed in doing something a certain way, then why change the way you play to succeed in another way?

 

As Stun said, there's many ways to defeat Kangaxx. Some of the ways I've read on forums I would never have guessed. That's the challenge with difficult battles. People at different levels find different ways to defeat him and post online. And it challenges the way you think and approach different situations when you're up against difficult foes.

Firstly, there it is again! Didn't know I'd get TWO side-step arguments! 8D!

 

I didn't say you beat everything in one go. But it's possible to, if you're skilled enough, rather than requiring information that you cannot obtain from the game itself without first blindly entering combat with your best tactics, then finding out something you wouldn't have known until after you already screwed up too big a portion of the combat to come back from.

 

If it's possible to beat every encounter without dying, then you'd do so by changing your tactics and adapting to circumstances, not by knowing all the steps to the dance from the get-go because you saw them already in a past life before reloading the game. I don't understand what you're even saying here. You're applying all kinds of words arbitrarily to other stuff. When did I ever express the desire to have all combats be identical in their victory conditions?

Edited January 15, 2014 by Lephys

[Yonjuro]

 

 

 You guys aren't communicating. The distinction Lephys is making is not:

 

Fail the first time vs. Succeed the first time

 

it is:

 

Always fail the first time - impossible to succeed vs. Always succeed on the first time - too easy to fail.

 

There's a lot of room between those extremes.

 

 

 

Can you show some of those examples between them? Considering you've said there's a lot of room between them.

 

 

 

 Of course I can - it seems that you don't see the distinction or you wouldn't have worded it like that. 

 

Pretend that Kangaxx needed a plus 5 weapon to hit him instead of plus 4. Also pretend that the only plus 5 weapon is Carsomyr. Finally pretend you don't have a paladin in your party so you sold Carsomyr. You get into that fight, put up the protections you need, and eventually they wear off and everyone gets imprisoned because nobody can hit Kangaxx.

 

 That's pretty extreme, but it's still in between the two extremes of always fail and always succeed because if you got really lucky with your party composition and equipment (and did everything right) you could still win.  It isn't actually impossible to win without metagame knowledge it's just improbable.

 

 On the other end, suppose Kangaxx is hittable by anything and dies of fright if you hit him. Well, that's also very extreme, but if you got really unlucky he would still imprison your whole party before anyone in your party hit him so it isn't an example of always winning. 

 

 In the middle of the above two silly examples you have the actual Kangaxx fight. Do you see now what I mean by there's a lot of room between the two extremes?

 

 

 

[Stun]

So, what I'm arguing against is it being impossible (without otherwise looking up the "how to do it" outside the game somewhere, like online or in a strategy guide) to beat an encounter until you find out what it entails, specifically, die, then reload to do it correctly the next time.

Then we have no dispute.

 

There are no encounters in the IE games that are impossible to win in a blind first playthrough. There are merely a couple that present an unlikelihood for a new player to win in a blind first playthrough.

 

Now then, do you have a problem with that too?

Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Then we have no dispute.

... Maybe if you'd realized that before you said this:

 

 

However, there are CERTAINLY encounters designed for repeated reloading.

So?

 

I've never in my life played a game that contained combat, that DIDN'T have at least 1 such encounter.

 

Oh and by the way, POE won't be any different, so....

 

We could've all done more constructive things with our forum time.

 

There are no encounters in the IE games that are impossible to win in a blind first playthrough. There are merely a couple that present an unlikelihood for a new player to win in a blind first playthrough.

I should clarify that "impossible" isn't really the right word. Or that it lacks the specifics, at least. "Impossible without precisely the correct party build/composition and/or luck." Or, better put, "impossible to win because of your deliberate actions/choices."

 

Now then, do you have a problem with that too?

No, not really. I can't say with certainty that there are definitely any encounters like that in any of the IE games. But, I'm not sure you can really say there definitely aren't. PoE isn't going to use AD&D, so you can't take your prior elaborate knowledge and experience with the ruleset into your first playthrough with you and happen to beat things other people can't, then go around emphasizing how perfectly possible things are to overcome, and how the game design isn't bad because intuitiveness is stupid and everyone should have to die (the only thing in the game that amounts to a "Game Over") JUST to acquire the knowledge you needed to then much-more-easily dispatch some combat encounter.

 

Maybe that's a better way of putting it. Possible or not, the probability of victory doesn't need to be astronomically higher after you've died to something, than before. If it's challenging, then it's just as tough even after you know what it does. That's the kind of challenge I want. Not the "if only you know the specifics of all its abilities and behaviors" difficulty.

 

D&D is literally built around a world full of crap that your character isn't supposed to have any knowledge of. Sure, the player can read the entire bestiary and such, but your Level 1 Fighter who just recently left a militia isn't exactly going to go "Oh, hey, some scary ethereal creature from another plane I've never seen before! I know what that purple beam it just shot at me does! 8D!" And yet, the player, in a CRPG, learns this when that purple beam gets shot at his character.

 

In a PnP campaign, the DM wouldn't tell you/allow you to know. Thus, you can't even have an encounter designed around having to die, then reload and use your newfound knowledge to drastically increase your probability of defeating the creature. And yet, you slap everything into a CRPG, and you all but demand that very scenario.

 

Simply put, the player shouldn't need intimate knowledge of all foes/effects/abilities just to intentionally prevent his own death (his party's).

[Yonjuro]

 

 

LOL Ok. I'll answer the question, as stupid as it is: Because there isn't a 3rd option.

 

 

 You guys aren't communicating. The distinction Lephys is making is not:

 

Fail the first time vs. Succeed the first time

 

it is:

 

Always fail the first time - impossible to succeed vs. Always succeed on the first time - too easy to fail.

 

There's a lot of room between those extremes.

 

If that's what he's saying then he's putting up a ridiculous straw man. I gave exactly zero examples of an "always fail the first time" encounter. Why? because there are no such encounters in the IE games. One can very easily (and logically) ONE-SHOT-KILL Kangaxx by accident in a blind first playthrough.

 

 

Sure, 'impossible' is strong word - it's really more like exponentially improbable.

 

But, fair enough, let's ignore the strawman and put it this way instead:

 

There could be fights that almost nobody wins the first time because the fights are really hard and there could be other fights that almost nobody wins the first time because the fight is (next to) impossible without metagame knowledge (hence reloading for a not so good reason).

 

I don't want to speak for Lephys but I think what he's getting at is that he is pretty ok with the former and opposed to the latter.

 

EDIT: Nevermind - talk amongst yourselves. 

Edited January 15, 2014 by Yonjuro

[Lephys]

Yonjuro... Can I hire you to be my translator?

[Yonjuro]

Yonjuro... Can I hire you to be my translator?

 

 

Of course, but puns are the only currency I can accept. I hope that's not going to be a problem. 

[Lephys]

Consider this your first payment:

 

I really wish I could've discovered your ability to comprehend and brevitize my points trans-sooner rather than trans-lator.

[Stun]

 

Then we have no dispute.

... Maybe if you'd realized that before you said this:

 

 

However, there are CERTAINLY encounters designed for repeated reloading.

So?

 

I've never in my life played a game that contained combat, that DIDN'T have at least 1 such encounter.

 

Oh and by the way, POE won't be any different, so....

 

We could've all done more constructive things with our forum time.

 

Not following. Just because devs design an encounter to be a pure trial & error experience for the player, does not mean it instantly succeeds in being one. (Chahopek the Guardian in IWD2 was supposed to be one of those, ask Josh Sawyer) But it wasn't for me. I destroyed him in 3 rounds in my first playthrough.

 

All combat-based RPGs have such battles by design. Sometimes devs will even get all personal about things and try to *force* matters via scripts and whatnot to insure that their precious "bosses" cause first time players who don't cheat to die and reload (High dragon Battle in DA2, with its silly "phases".)

 

I should clarify that "impossible" isn't really the right word. Or that it lacks the specifics, at least. "Impossible without precisely the correct party build/composition and/or luck." Or, better put, "impossible to win because of your deliberate actions/choices."

But that covers all combat encounters, doesn't it. Especially that last one. Even a hostile 4hp Kobold is impossible to beat unless you employ a specific set of actions/choices.

 

No, lets just stick with an increased unlikelihood of success. because, frankly, neither specific builds, nor luck, nor specific party composition is required to defeat Kangaxx (for example). But the likelihood of success is increased dramatically based on a variety of tactics, weapons and magic items that the game gives you. Tactics, weapons and items I might add, which players often already use to defeat other enemies in the game. For example, Kangaxx is Undead, and like any other undead in the game, he is vulnerable to the Improved Mace of disruption.

 

PoE isn't going to use AD&D, so you can't take your prior elaborate knowledge and experience with the ruleset into your first playthrough with you and happen to beat things other people can't, then go around emphasizing how perfectly possible things are to overcome, and how the game design isn't bad because intuitiveness is stupid and everyone should have to die (the only thing in the game that amounts to a "Game Over") JUST to acquire the knowledge you needed to then much-more-easily dispatch some combat encounter.

I look forward to the learning process!

 

But The ruleset isn't really a deciding factor here. Devs can make an encounter difficult or not-so-difficult regardless of the rules. Kangaxx Breaks almost every AD&D rule in the book.

 

Possible or not, the probability of victory doesn't need to be astronomically higher after you've died to something, than before.

It doesn't have to, but why wouldn't it be? If you're a halfway decent player, you're going to be observant of how the enemy killed you and you're going to learn from your mistakes, yes? That naturally equates to a higher chance of victory in the rematch.

 

 

 

D&D is literally built around a world full of crap that your character isn't supposed to have any knowledge of. Sure, the player can read the entire bestiary and such, but your Level 1 Fighter who just recently left a militia isn't exactly going to go "Oh, hey, some scary ethereal creature from another plane I've never seen before! I know what that purple beam it just shot at me does! 8D!" And yet, the player, in a CRPG, learns this when that purple beam gets shot at his character.

 

In a PnP campaign, the DM wouldn't tell you/allow you to know. Thus, you can't even have an encounter designed around having to die, then reload and use your newfound knowledge to drastically increase your probability of defeating the creature. And yet, you slap everything into a CRPG, and you all but demand that very scenario.

 

Simply put, the player shouldn't need intimate knowledge of all foes/effects/abilities just to intentionally prevent his own death (his party's).

Er... but your argument here suggests the complete opposite. If your 1st level Fighter, fresh out of the militia, has never seen or fought a scary ethereal creature from another plane before, then doesn't logic dictate that he probably has only a marginal chance of victory against such a creature? See, this is why a *good* game educates you, then gives you the tools....but not a guarantee of success simply because you took some "sword training". instead, it will be a trial and error ordeal. And you shouldn't hold it against the game if you "try your best" but still get your ass whooped the first time around. Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I don't understand what you're even saying here. You're applying all kinds of words arbitrarily to other stuff. When did I ever express the desire to have all combats be identical in their victory conditions?

 

 

Another strawman argument Lephys. You say you don't even know what I'm saying and then immediately say I'm applying all kinds of words arbitrarily which I'm not. But nice try in misrepresenting me.

[Lephys]

@Stun:

 

You either know what I'm saying and just enjoy going "haha, you technically could've said it all better!", or you don't care what it is I'm actually getting at, because your correctness just somehow trumps all else.

 

Either way, I think we've exhausted the argument. I was debating with you because I thought you were actually interested in the debate, not because I require your validation to be content.

 

There's a "that's a bit ridiculous" threshold for the necessity of specific information in a particular combat encounter, and that's worth considering when designing them. Simple as that. Whether or not you can beat something doesn't validate it as nothing shy of optimal design.

 

@Hiro:

 

Allow me to clarify. "I cannot find a reasonable point in what you are saying."

 

Yeah, yeah, I'm still wrong, regardless. Saved you the trouble. I hope you both have a pleasant day, and I'll see you around.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Lephys

[IndiraLightfoot]

Lephys: You're one patient punsmith!

Stun: Give differing opinions a bit of slack, coz clearly, like Hiro, you have plenty of playtime under your belt, it should be well enough in order to appreciate other ways of playing the same games as you have done aplenty.

 

This topic reminds me of what a food conneisseur would descirbe after living in an area of food insecurity for a decade, and then wondering whether he can ever get back to good, fresh, home cooking since he's addicted to junk food now.

 

ARPGs are the crappy every-day games that you play to interact with your children and socialize and put your mind on hold. I expect PoE to be the 200-something year old bottle of champagne that you crack open and savor slowly.

Somehow, this comparison is pretty cool and valid. May I propose that PE will be gourmet food in a Michelin Guide five star restaurant, and that ARPGs are like fast food, and that Stun's playthroughs of the IE games seem to have been slow food?

 

 

There are no encounters in the IE games that are impossible to win in a blind first playthrough. There are merely a couple that present an unlikelihood for a new player to win in a blind first playthrough.

 

This is all in good order, but I think it was a bit too much due too lucky rolls (which is an intrinsic part of RPGs, sure, in one degree or another)

 

Cue music: "What does the fox say?"

"RNG, RNG, RNG, RNG, RNG, RNG, RNG, RNG, RNG"

 

Personally, I think it's too much RNG.