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

[Jarmo]

There's basically two directions to approach the difficulty/challenge/build of combat.

One is from computer games direction and the other is from tabletop roleplaying direction.

 

Neither is inherently wrong approach.

 

In computer games, there's a boss and when you fight him you find out he has a special attack of rushing you fast as a lightning and then devouring you. You must dodge or block or somehow stop him. But when it's all of a sudden and you're unprepared, you'll likely fail. But you can also have superior reflexes or just luck and be successful on the first attempt. If you fail you retry until successful.

 

In roleplaying tradition, if a GM puts in an unavoidable combat situation where the party has a very, very slim chance to come out alive from, he's a bit of an arse. It's like putting you up against a werewolf and not providing any hints towards you not actually being able to harm one without silver weapons (assuming that's not common knowledge), maybe it's not silver but cardboard weapons in this universe.

 

Computer roleplaying games can lean on one direction or another and it's not wrong as such.

[Zulithe]

Strongly relate to what you are saying. I played Baldur's Gate I & II, Icewind Dale I & II, and so many other games like these back in the day. In recent years, I just haven't had the time to devote to such games, even though I adore them so very much and have such great memories of the experiences.

 

If this game can live up to those, I plan on honoring their commitment as well as my long history of playing these games by completing Eternity in its entirety! I'm really excited about it.

[Karkarov]

Hmmm sorry for not visiting this thread in awhile, I am having flashbacks to the death spell thread where Stun made it clear he loves hard counters and pre buffs, which is nice I guess, but most people well.... don't.

 

This is not an MMO RPG.  I do not expect to fail 3-5 times before I learn "certain tough fights" like Kangaxx or a Demi Lich.  I am not taking down a 25 man raid boss, it should not take multiple wipes.  If they design a encounter that takes multiple wipes (3 or more) to beat it better be because I am just underleveled and not getting the message, or playing REALLY badly.  If it takes me more than 30-40 minutes to clear any encounter in this game, I don't care what it is against, how bad ass it is, or anything else, they have gone over the line of fun vs frustrating and I won't be a happy camper.  Bear in mind I am counting wipes, time looking up strats if you do that, experimenting, all that in the 30-40.  If they design ANYTHING that is combat based and one "pull" (mmo terminology lul) takes more than 10 minutes to win (or lose) I am going to be giving the game the serious stink eye anyway.

 

Like many have stated... combat needs to be about strategy and playing to your parties strengths.  If you can't do that well then you deserve to lose, but you are going to learn eventually or quit.  The game shouldn't be forcing gimmicks or putting you in "use this strat or lose" scenario's ever, not even as a one off encounter.  BG2 is a "classic" to most people on this forum, some would even tell you it is the best game ever made.  I will tell you it is a great game hampered by some absolutely terrible combat design that was cheap, unfun, boring, repetitive, badly balanced, RNG driven, and all about hard counters/countering the mage.

[PrimeJunta]

Amen.

[Stun]

I agree. Please design this game to be void of a learning curve. Give us success even if we fail. Make it pleasant, friendly, straight forward and one-dimensional... like tic-tac-toe, or Checkers. Make it so that 4 years from now, after the 5th play-through, the game is so simplistic that it plays itself while we watch.

 

PS: and release it for the WII, so that my Mom can enjoy it.

 

<gag>

Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[Metabot]

I don't agree with the idea that we should never ever have to try more than a couple of times to overcome one fight or another, all I'm saying is that it should rest on skill and knowledge of game mechanics. However, I do think there is an element of luck or chance in all combat.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Metabot

[Monte Carlo]

As long as there is a difficulty slider that sorts the men from the sheep then I'm cool.

[Sarex]

I don't really get it, what is so bad with reloading? Don't you want the game to be challenging to play? Is Dark Souls bad because you reload/die a lot? You guys dream of some idealistic game where no fight will catch you unprepared, but will still be hard to play. To be perfectly clear every fight can be beat the first time, it's just that most people aren't good enough at the game the first time they play it to succeed in doing it without reloading. Every fight you played gave you enough time to do something that will make you win the first time you encounter it, otherwise you wouldn't be able to win it.

 

Would you guys like to get rid of fights like the skull of the lich or mind flayers or beholders or dragons because you couldn't beat them the first time around. Please don't substitute your own deficiencies with that of the game, because you aren't good enough at playing it(not an offense).

 

Also the online guides I hear mentioned, how do you think the people who made them won the fights in the game? No fight is impossible, you just aren't good enough at the game, plain and simple (again, this isn't meant to be an offense).

 

You can't make challenging fights without making them unfair. Anyone who doesn't like that can play on easy mode, that is why it exists.

 

edit: I think you guys want a game that has a real AI, because that is the only way to make the fights the way you want them. Because even DS is just about learning the movement of bosses and that is the game that everyone says has the best and most challenging fights.

 

So you heard it Obsidian, make us a real AI. We will accept nothing less. Also it would be preferable if it doesn't go terminator on us.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Sarex

[Soldat of Life]

If I really like a game, I will play it till the end. Certainly I will occasionally look at a walkthrough when I'm stuck and the answer doesn't pop up after a few hours. I am not that good with strategies and often depend on others when I am in trouble. I will try not to get spoiled in doing so though, as I sure do love a good story driven game with lots of twists and turns.

 

I recently decided to play Baldur's Gate (PC) again, it being one of my favorite games of old. I remember having played it all summer long back in 2002. I played BG II in 2003 and its expansion a year or two later. I am someone that is very very patient in terms of playing a video game. Though the time I invest in games has diminished quite a bit seeing as I have 20+ projects that takes my time away from them. To show my point....I started my BG game three weeks ago, and only played 30 minutes so far...

 

I'll definitely invest more effort in playing PoE, but unless my life calms down a bit, I'm guessing it'll easily take me 3-4 months to complete, if not a bit more.

[Yonjuro]

 So, let's look at some examples regarding these quotes:

 

....

Like many have stated... combat needs to be about strategy and playing to your parties strengths.  If you can't do that well then you deserve to lose, but you are going to learn eventually or quit.  The game shouldn't be forcing gimmicks or putting you in "use this strat or lose" scenario's ever, not even as a one off encounter.  ....

 

 

....I don't agree with the idea that we should never ever have to try more than a couple of times to overcome one fight or another, all I'm saying is that it should rest on skill and knowledge of game mechanics......

 

 

 My example is the final fight in BG1. That was very challenging for me the first time I did it and it was mostly for interesting reasons.

 

 First, Sarevok has a lot of magic resistance and is a meat grinder. Tazok also hits hard, so you don't have 'just  contain Sarevok' as a viable strategy. Then you have Angelo doing lots of AoE damage, mostly with flame arrows, so that tight formation you wanted to use to deal with the melee guys is looking less viable. Finally, you have Semaj hurling crowd control spells that make party member run around in panic or confusion (and inadvertently summoning battle horrors by triggering the undisarmable traps). That was pretty challenging the first time I played it partly because I knew nothing about D&D and hadn't played a game like BG before. The last time I played BG, the final fight was easy and not entirely due to metagame knowledge.

 

 In hindsight, the game gave you some huge hints about that fight - e.g. a gnome that you may have bumped into in the Gibberling  Mountains was having dreams about you and gives you some of the best advice you'll ever get (in a game or out of one). Also, in the thieves guild they recommend you buy some things from 'Black Lily' and she has arrows of dispelling for sale. Yeah, should have taken that advice too.

 

 Anyway, what do people think about that fight?

 

 It seems to have a good tactical challenge as I mentioned above. Strategic planning helps a lot (and the layout of the room, especially the trap placement points to some useful strategic ideas). Prebuffs help a lot and are probably necessary due to the crowd control spells and to the AoE damage spells to a lesser degree (those could be protected against after the fact if your party wasn't running around in a panic). I didn't beat it the first time without reloading, but in hindsight, it was probably possible to win it without metagame knowledge. 

 

 Thoughts on that fight? Other examples?

[Stun]

LOL I can't tear my eyes away from this thread.

 

If it takes me more than 30-40 minutes to clear any encounter in this game...

....Then you're not learning from your mistakes. Or.... you're in an area you're not supposed to be. (the devs HAVE said that there will be no level scaling in this game. This means that you can, in fact, wander too far down in he mega dungeon (for example) and get yourself into a situation where the enemy is of substantially higher level than your party and therefore the solution is to get out and come back later)

 

 

 

Like many have stated... combat needs to be about strategy and playing to your parties strengths.

These are nice, fluffy words, and you're spouting them without knowing what they really entail.

 

Look, Developers cannot create a combat encounter that requires strategy and plays to your party's strengths and weaknesses, while at the same time guarantee that no one will suffer from the 30 minutes of frustrating reloading and failure that you claim to despise. It's gonna happen. People have wildly different playstyles and the only way to eliminate all "frustration" and "tedium" is to make it so ALL strategies succeed. Well? if all strategies succeed then what you have is brainless trash mob encounter.

 

And you're not asking for that, are you.

 

Or are you?

Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[Jarmo]

 

 My example is the final fight in BG1. That was very challenging for me the first time I did it and it was mostly for interesting reasons.

.....

 

 Thoughts on that fight? Other examples?

 

My take.

The last couple of hours were an endless horrible grind and I hated every moment,

I'm never going to replay BG1 (because of the ending).

Edited January 15, 2014 by Jarmo

[Monte Carlo]

* shrugs * It was a good fight, better than the Throne of Bhaal boss battle.

[Yonjuro]

I don't really get it, what is so bad with reloading? ...

 

 Reloading because the fight was difficult is good. Reloading because the fight has some strange very specific thing that will be obvious in hindsight but impossible to tell in advance is bad. 

 

 I think that's the argument that (most) people are making here.

 

 Silly example: You walk into a room (that you had no way of scouting in advance and onto an immediate dispell invisibility trap) and a guy hurls the 'Kill Your Party Instantly With No Save' spell and kills your party instantly with no save. You reload and go the store to buy six 'Protection From Kill Your Party Instantly With No Save' scrolls and then read them before going back in the room. Victory! 

 

 vs.

 

Less silly example: You walk into a room and there's a beholder elder orb in the room who starts casting true sight. You know what a beholder is. You run back out before the true sight finishes, go to the store and buy things to protect you from petrification, imprisonment, magical damage etc. or maybe you even have them with you already. Better than the first example; some would argue that it's not a lot better.

 

vs. 

 

Much less silly example: You walk into a room and there's a party just like yours, maybe a few levels higher and maybe there's eight of them. You might lose and need to reload, but that's ok.

[Stun]

BG1's final fight is unintelligently designed. Not because of the Cheese (Serevok is a 16th level fighter with 80% magic resistance. RIGHT!), Or because of the illogical terrain (cloudkill, web and stinking cloud traps that everyone is immune to except your party. RIGHT!) No. BG1's final fight is poorly designed because it instantly ends when Serevok is killed. This means that it's an utter waste of time to bother with his interesting cohorts. All you need to do is focus everything you've got on Serevok, and ignore everything else. Lame.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[Sarex]

 

I don't really get it, what is so bad with reloading? ...

 

 Reloading because the fight was difficult is good. Reloading because the fight has some strange very specific thing that will be obvious in hindsight but impossible to tell in advance is bad. 

 

 I think that's the argument that (most) people are making here.

 

 Silly example: You walk into a room (that you had no way of scouting in advance and onto an immediate dispell invisibility trap) and a guy hurls the 'Kill Your Party Instantly With No Save' spell and kills your party instantly with no save. You reload and go the store to buy six 'Protection From Kill Your Party Instantly With No Save' scrolls and then read them before going back in the room. Victory! 

 

 vs.

 

Less silly example: You walk into a room and there's a beholder elder orb in the room who starts casting true sight. You know what a beholder is. You run back out before the true sight finishes, go to the store and buy things to protect you from petrification, imprisonment, magical damage etc. or maybe you even have them with you already. Better than the first example; some would argue that it's not a lot better.

 

vs. 

 

Much less silly example: You walk into a room and there's a party just like yours, maybe a few levels higher and maybe there's eight of them. You might lose and need to reload, but that's ok.

 

 

So we don't want traps, we don't want fights to surprise us because we might be low health (stamina?!?), we want to be told everything about the fight before hand or to be able to retreat and make preparations (how this is different from reloading I don't know), and we want the enemy to have equal resistances to everything (so there isn't any weakens we can exploit on our next play-through).

[JFSOCC]

I agree. Please design this game to be void of a learning curve. Give us success even if we fail. Make it pleasant, friendly, straight forward and one-dimensional... like tic-tac-toe, or Checkers. Make it so that 4 years from now, after the 5th play-through, the game is so simplistic that it plays itself while we watch.

 

PS: and release it for the WII, so that my Mom can enjoy it.

 

<gag>

you have done your very best not to listen to what is being said to you. This is why I didn't reply to you earlier. You're so convinced of your own opinion being the only right way to view things that you have stopped listening, and repeat yourself like a broken record. You're not willing to hear what others say, and that's a problem because then you're not really taking part in the conversation.

 

If you truly believe that this (your post I've quoted) is what everyone is saying, then I feel sorry for you.

Because I believe a learning curve is not dependent on trial and error. That's not learning good play, that's memorizing the answer. Nor does anyone say that combat should be easy or one dimensional. Many have made the argument that it is pre-buffing which is one-dimensional.

I do believe players should be able to fail combat and die, but not because they couldn't possible know how to deal with their next threat, when it was coming and what it would do. If you think think combat cannot be challenging without encounters that cannot be beaten the first time, you must not have played many games.

Lastly: Time stop a great spell? Time stop is the single most overpowered game breaking spell I've seen in any IE game. Surviving it involves luck, not skill.

 

I'd like this discussion to move on, I haven't heard new arguments for a while, on both sides; just examples and reiterations of previous arguments.

Edited January 15, 2014 by JFSOCC

[Stun]

Reloading because the fight was difficult is good. Reloading because the fight has some strange very specific thing that will be obvious in hindsight but impossible to tell in advance is bad.

Right, but how can one make such a judgment call (that this encounter had a special attack that was impossible to predict)?

 

Player Party X walks into a room of Clay Golems. They did not expect to encounter clay golems, and no one in his party has a blunt weapon. So...Clay Golems win. Reload.

 

Ok, that may have been impossible for Player X to predict, but what about Player Y, player Z, Player A, and Player B? What if they happen to have Hammers, maces and morning stars in their arsenals because Blunt weapons ARE their party's strengths and they were promised that the game would play to their strengths?

 

Should we all be deprived of such encounters just because it MIGHT be impossible for someone to predict the first time around?

Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[JFSOCC]

 

Reloading because the fight was difficult is good. Reloading because the fight has some strange very specific thing that will be obvious in hindsight but impossible to tell in advance is bad.

Right, but how can one make such a judgment call (that this encounter had a special attack that was impossible to predict)?

 

Player Party X walks into a room of Clay Golems. They did not expect to encounter clay golems, and no one in his party has a blunt weapon. Clay Golems win. Reload.

 

Ok, that may have been impossible for Player X to predict, but what about Player Y, player Z, Player A, and Player B? What if they just happen to have Hammers, maces and morning stars in their arsenals?

 

Should we all be deprived of such encounters just because it MIGHT be impossible for someone?

 

But that's not what is being argued.

 

If there is no other way to beat the clay golems than blunt weapons, the party had no reason to expect the golems, no knowledge about how to beat clay golems (no lore, no previous encounters) then it is a single solution combat, and yes, that is terrible design, and failing because you had no blunt weapons is not your fault but the lazy design of the encounter.

[Ink Blot]

BG1's final fight is unintelligently designed. Not because of the Cheese (Serevok is a 16th level fighter with 80% magic resistance. RIGHT!), Or because of the illogical terrain (cloudkill, web and stinking cloud traps that everyone is immune to except your party. RIGHT!) No. BG1's final fight is poorly designed because it instantly ends when Serevok is killed. This means that it's an utter waste of time to bother with his interesting cohorts. All you need to do is focus everything you've got on Serevok, and ignore everything else. Lame.

I think it's lame for all the reasons you stated, not just the last one.

 

I don't mind having to reload some fights. No big deal as long as it's not due to some kind of cheap advantage the game has over the player (i.e. the boss is immune to everything except the stench of wilted tulips - you did keep that bouquet of wilted tulips you found in the graveyard 14 hours ago, didn't you?). If you need to reload because you got your tactics/strategy wrong or because you didn't use the proper buffs, I'm cool with that.

[Sarex]

But that's not what is being argued.

If there is no other way to beat the clay golems than blunt weapons, the party had no reason to expect the golems, no knowledge about how to beat clay golems (no lore, no previous encounters) then it is a single solution combat, and yes, that is terrible design, and failing because you had no blunt weapons is not your fault but the lazy design of the encounter.

 

IWD had wilderness lore, BG had tracking. You also had detect evil. There where ways to find out what you would be facing. Also as far as I remember, all IE games had a couple of weapons stashed when you where facing creatures that could only killed with specific items. In fact I remember in BG when you where facing those creatures that could only killed with normal weapons and I only had magic weapons (first world problems) there where a bunch stashed thorough out the level, you even had a book telling you how to kill them and to be honest that felt kind of lame to me.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Sarex

[Stun]

But that's not what is being argued.

That is precisely what's being argued. People here are LITERALLY against all unpredictable Variables in an encounter (the proof of this is right here in this thread. Notice how RNGs and "luck" have become bad words, and talking points on this thread even though this discussion has nothing to do with luck!)

 

If there is no other way to beat the clay golems than blunt weapons,

There may have been another way. But if there was, the Player didn't figure it out before he was killed, so the point remains. Why should we condemn that encounter and beg developers to eliminate it, and all encounters like it, just because someone could conceivably stumble into it unprepared and end up having to reload? Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

If they design a encounter that takes multiple wipes (3 or more) to beat it better be because I am just underleveled and not getting the message, or playing REALLY badly.  If it takes me more than 30-40 minutes to clear any encounter in this game, I don't care what it is against, how bad ass it is, or anything else, they have gone over the line of fun vs frustrating and I won't be a happy camper.  Bear in mind I am counting wipes, time looking up strats if you do that, experimenting, all that in the 30-40.  If they design ANYTHING that is combat based and one "pull" (mmo terminology lul) takes more than 10 minutes to win (or lose) I am going to be giving the game the serious stink eye anyway.

 

Or maybe you're just not good at playing games. Perhaps the IE games are too technical for you to play. Maybe it's time for you to play some Facebook games.

 

You have players at varying skills. You have players that are good at playing games, players that are average and some that aren't good at playing games. That's why there is a sliding scale of difficulty in games. While some people may find the encounters challenging and win on the first go, other players don't have the ability to do so and may take them 17 reloads. Those people who have to reload 17 times or take 30-40 minutes to beat an encounter are just not good at playing games and I don't see why encounters have to be taken into account for the lowest common denominator.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Halsy]

You want the truth?! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

 

[Yonjuro]

 

 

 My example is the final fight in BG1. That was very challenging for me the first time I did it and it was mostly for interesting reasons.

.....

 

 Thoughts on that fight? Other examples?

 

My take.

The last couple of hours were an endless horrible grind and I hated every moment,

I'm never going to replay BG1 (because of the ending).

 

 

Starting at what point? The final fight in the temple? Before that?