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

[Fatback]

I'm worried now about buffs after reading Josh's post about one of the game testers. Buffs are and should be very important. In a party based game especially, now I'm very one sided on this because I love playing support type characters, it adds a level of depth to a game when you get a quest and you go out and get ready to delve into that dungeon. Be it with potions or memorizing a different set of spells.

 

About hard counters: there are hard counters in real life too the plastic on the outside of an electrical plug, hard counter to getting electrocuted. As an adventuring party you should be prepared with anti poison potions or more restorative spells. Not to say that having these things should make fights stupid easy. But if you are alergic to bees and run into a den of level 7 sword bees with out an epi pen then you should die.

 

I hope I got my points across properly.

[IndiraLightfoot]

PIP-Clownboy: No, it doesn't. You're absolutely right. And indeed it did suck big time!

Stun: Sorry. I know you for some reason love pre-buffing, but in a CRPG, it usually has been a pain in the ass.

 

Nonek: I agree that pre-buffing could be done cleverly in advance, by taking clues from the environment and the story, but was it ever fun?

 

Fatback: Was it really granting any gameplay depth? Or just a tedious chore of lighting up your party like a grove of X-mas trees?

 

And all too often, you got surprised, especially by humanoid casters, and then you realized you had prepped wrong. So after death of party, or even before that, you did Ye Olde Ho Hum Reloade, and encounter solved. I'm so very glad Josh & Co have rethought this and come up with something new and fresh.

Edited January 14, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Metabot]

Pre-buffing kind of assumes you know the nature of the encounter to come. That means you've probably reloaded. I guess that is bad design if you have to know the encounter beforehand in order to have any hope of overcoming it. It kind of negates tactics entirely.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Exactly!

[Metabot]

I guess with the way combat in bg and iwd were structured it made it nearly impossible to buff party members during combat, not impossible though, maybe if buffing during combat were more viable people would be happy with that.

 

Dark souls is a game where you'll probably retry most bosses multiple times. It is possible to beat every boss the first time but that requires perhaps nearly infinite skill, for argument's sake. The problem that josh is pointing out is that it didn't require skill to make it through encounters just luck.

[Stun]

Pre-buffing kind of assumes you know the nature of the encounter to come. That means you've probably reloaded. I guess that is bad design if you have to know the encounter beforehand in order to have any hope of overcoming it. It kind of negates tactics entirely.

That's not true at all. (and hasn't someone already given us examples on this thread?). If you enter an old abandoned crypt, common sense, not meta-gaming, will see smart players buffing themselves up with anti-undead buffs the moment they walk in the door. If you see a swarm of fire elementals in the distance, it's common sense, not reloading, that will make smart players ready their protection from fire/outsiders buffs. If a game is any good, the player will get hints from the environment, or from NPCs on what's in store for him if he enters a certain area. Buffing choices should come from THAT.

 

Additionally, some buffs are just common-sense UNIVERSAL. if you know that you're going to be engaging in combat soon, then why not cast haste, or stoneskin, or invisibility, or protection from evil, or bless, or all of the above? You'd be *stupid* not to. You'd literally be a lousy player and the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer a soulless dumbed down game just because some casual gamers find it too complicated or 'tiresome' to have to engage in the BASIC practice of planning ahead.

 

Good god, people. What kind of a garbage bore-snore would BG2 have been without the buffing element?

Edited January 14, 2014 by Stun

[PIP-Clownboy]

 

Pre-buffing kind of assumes you know the nature of the encounter to come. That means you've probably reloaded. I guess that is bad design if you have to know the encounter beforehand in order to have any hope of overcoming it. It kind of negates tactics entirely.

That's not true at all. (and hasn't someone already given us examples on this thread?). If you enter a old abandoned crypt, common sense, not meta-gaming, will see smart players buffing themselves up with anti-undead buffs. if you see a swarm of fire elementals in the distance, it's common sense, not reloading, that will make smart players ready their protection from fire/outsiders buff.

 

Additionally, some buffs are just common-sense UNIVERSAL. if you know that you're going to be engaging in combat soon, then why not cast haste, or invisibility, or protection from evil, or bless, or all of the above.

 

Good god, people. What kind of a garbage bore-snore would BG2 have been without the buffing element?

 

 

You do realize they aren't taking buffs out of PE, right?  

 

BG2 pretty much became a bore-snore when a certain class can project image free immunity buffs to everything + imp haste while enemies twiddle their thumbs in the next room waiting to die. Only way I can play BG2 these days is with all the masochistic options of SCS turned on otherwise there is absolutely no challenge. 

Edited January 14, 2014 by PIP-Clownboy

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Good god, people. What kind of a garbage bore-snore would BG2 have been without the buffing element?

 

Not a bore-snore, at all. Just a faster BG2, with all the story and the vibrant greatness intact, assuming it had been replaced by something requiring skill during the encounter.

[Fatback]

You are in a party adventuring in the world you should always have some poison potions on a couple people esp your frontline fighters or some invulnerability potions, And maybe some invis on your casters and ranged if attacked from behind. If you get a quest to go into some tombs maybe memorize 2 turn undead spells and some protect evil things. These things are intrinsic for adventuring. Tombs = undead AND the evil casters reanimating them. Without these things having to be thought of the game just becomes a lifeless world were I am god, because no thought had to go into perpetration.

 

Now with the limited details about the chanter(which is going to be my first hero) it seems like there will be some great ability to change party wide buffs on the fly, but there needs to be some pre buffing going on as well before opening the door into the next room maybe use some armor buffs on fighters going in first or using a sneak buff on your thief about to stealth around a corner to scout ahead a little these things will make a game fun and avoid constant reloads because you thought ahead as opposed to steam rolling it. Without much thought. RPGs are ment to be enjoyed and to require thought. When you get back to a city it's like ok restock arrows potions of all kinds. Its why I play games like this and for my competitive needs I play dota 2 because unlike cod multi were you run in circle and shoot it requires thought.

[Metabot]

I agree preparation is something that should be expected to some degree.

[Fatback]

Some people say perpetration is everything

[Metabot]

All of this talk has made me realize even more how much I can't wait to play this game.

[Stun]

 

Good god, people. What kind of a garbage bore-snore would BG2 have been without the buffing element?

 

Not a bore-snore, at all. Just a faster BG2,

 

What do you mean by this, exactly? If your mindset is "lets hurry up and get through this", then the game in question (and specifically its combat) has already failed. Eliminating the buffing session won't help. For obvious logical reasons (one of which is that often times, buffing makes fights shorter, not longer.)

 

with all the story and the vibrant greatness intact, assuming it had been replaced by something requiring skill during the encounter.

Isn't that kinda an exaggeration? Aside from PS:T, the IE games were all combat primary, with story being secondary. You do not enrich the experience of such games by eliminating major parts of the primary.

 

As for during-combat skills... why replace anything? a good game should have lots of All Three. 1)pre-combat planning; 2) buffing during combat 3) post combat replenishment.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Stun

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 If your mindset is "lets hurry up and get through this", then the game in question ( and specifically its combat) has already failed. Eliminating the buffing session won't help.

 

 

Isn't that kinda an exaggeration? Aside from PS:T, the IE games were all combat primary, with story being secondary. You do not enrich the experience of such games by eliminating major parts of the primary.

 

As for during-combat skills... why replace anything? a good game should have lots of All Three. 1)pre-combat planning; 2) buffing during combat 3) post combat replenishment.

 

 

I just meant "faster", as in "rid of a tedious drag", not necessarily "faster" as in "fast-paced" or "hurried", even though this thread is, amongst other things, about having the time to play big CRPGs, so well, yeah, faster in that way too wouldn't do too much harm, I reckon.

 

Buffing is still in, but it happens during the encounters in a more intuitive way.

 

And indeed, preparation in a CRPG will always be a part of it, but more in the sense of rolling up an interesting and responsive party and be clever and alert when you stumble into various game settings/contexts.

 

As for combat being the primary part of all IE-games except PST, I'm not so sure. I'd like to think it's the whole thing rolled up into one, and that you can dissect it that way.

[PrimeJunta]

There's preparation, and then there's mechanically casting the same buffs over and over again, allowing for occasional variation for "oh, undead, Death Ward, oh, fire elementals, Protection from Fire."

 

Unfortunately D&D is mostly the latter. That's not fun, it's just tedious.

[Metabot]

I think we can all agree that buffs on a per-situation basis is more interesting than using the same ones over and over, right? Although I think the idea of common sense ones is fine like fire resistance if you're in an area known for having enemies that deal fire damage and the like.

[Monte Carlo]

With regards to the original question, I'd use the old saw: "how do you eat an elephant?"

 

The answer is slowly, and in small pieces.

 

Which is how I will probably play much (but not all) of PoE.

[Gorgon]

You are all old and sad. 

[Metabot]

I"m not old! 

 

Well not that old.

[Gorgon]

I'm just plain old, certainly not daunted by the prospect of having to play an EI style RPG.

[Stun]

There's preparation, and then there's mechanically casting the same buffs over and over again, allowing for occasional variation for "oh, undead, Death Ward, oh, fire elementals, Protection from Fire."

 

Unfortunately D&D is mostly the latter. That's not fun, it's just tedious.

Ok, Can we just stick to criticizing the IE games implementation of (A)D&D, instead of making ignorantly false statements about the AD&D system itself which you apparently know very little about? Edited January 14, 2014 by Stun

[JFSOCC]

 

Pre-buffing kind of assumes you know the nature of the encounter to come. That means you've probably reloaded. I guess that is bad design if you have to know the encounter beforehand in order to have any hope of overcoming it. It kind of negates tactics entirely.

That's not true at all. (and hasn't someone already given us examples on this thread?). If you enter an old abandoned crypt, common sense, not meta-gaming, will see smart players buffing themselves up with anti-undead buffs the moment they walk in the door. If you see a swarm of fire elementals in the distance, it's common sense, not reloading, that will make smart players ready their protection from fire/outsiders buffs. If a game is any good, the player will get hints from the environment, or from NPCs on what's in store for him if he enters a certain area. Buffing choices should come from THAT.

 

Additionally, some buffs are just common-sense UNIVERSAL. if you know that you're going to be engaging in combat soon, then why not cast haste, or stoneskin, or invisibility, or protection from evil, or bless, or all of the above? You'd be *stupid* not to. You'd literally be a lousy player and the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer a soulless dumbed down game just because some casual gamers find it too complicated or 'tiresome' to have to engage in the BASIC practice of planning ahead.

 

Good god, people. What kind of a garbage bore-snore would BG2 have been without the buffing element?

 

This sounds like it is very personal to you, so I get that you're defensive about it, but I do think you've got some things wrong.

 

If buffing is required for every encounter, then you're required to have spellcaster*s* in your party. Those spellcasters are required to have the relevant buffs (and enough off them in order not to have to rest-scum)

You might argue that "yes, of course you need spellcasters in your party" to which I counter "Why couldn't I have an effective party without them?" Why would I need buffs to deal with *every* encounter. Most buffs weren't situational, they were standard requirements for getting through many encounters.

On the preparation argument I have this to say: Buffs had a round limit, if I buffed my party 3 minutes before the encounter, they would wear off at the start, or halfway through the encounter. So pre-buffing was a stupid idea, unless you knew exactly what was coming and when.

 

Now I didn't enjoy buffing and I didn't do a whole lot of it, which is why I did a whole lot of reloading, and eventually (hey I was a teenager) cheating by means of savegame editing. But others here who have done a lot of buffing are telling you that in their experience buffs removed the tactical element to combat. Buffs allowed them to breeze through many encounters where enemies had no counters. That doesn't sound like interesting tactical combat to me.

 

I'm all for planning ahead, and I'm not even against buffs, I think the chanter will be a valuable party member in this sense, as will the paladin. I hope though, that their buffs are not as overpowered as to be unbreakable without a hard counter, especially when I choose to play a party without these classes (you may know that I don't particularly enjoy paladins, so I will not likely have them in my party)

 

If some buffs are common sense universal, clearly they're not optional, there is no choice involved. You want to beat this? Buff. Are there other ways to beat this combat? No? Then we have a problem.

You're right that you'd be stupid in the old IE games not to cast these spells. In my opinion, that's a problem. Obvious choices are false choices, or no choice at all.

I would argue that a game which doesn't allow for solving encounters without buffs is the dumbed down game, not the one which allows you to find and use different tactics to deal with the encounter.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I'm just plain old, certainly not daunted by the prospect of having to play an EI style RPG.

 

EI style RPG? Come again? You must be an octogenarian.

[Fatback]

Buffs and debuffs should be considered one in the same and I am at fault for not including them. In my examples. So maybe you have run out of anti evil spells for the next fight were you will prob fight 2 ghasts a skeleton archer and a necro with level drain silence is a deBUFF that would work. Adding tactical play to the fights. Adding in the necessity to plan and memorize that deBUFF ahead of time.

 

And I believe I read about a post your issue with taking a party that you want be it all fighters or what not. Devs have stated that you will be able to diversify the builds of said fighters to be different ie one can cast minor healing spells or one can sneak better than the rest, but be prepared to get a lot more potions to make up the difference in not having a wizard or a chanter.

 

There also aren't rounds in this game so you would would have say 5 minutes after casting a buff.

[Stun]

This sounds like it is very personal to you, so I get that you're defensive about it, but I do think you've got some things wrong.

 

If buffing is required for every encounter, then you're required to have spellcaster*s* in your party. Those spellcasters are required to have the relevant buffs (and enough off them in order not to have to rest-scum)

You might argue that "yes, of course you need spellcasters in your party" to which I counter "Why couldn't I have an effective party without them?" Why would I need buffs to deal with *every* encounter. Most buffs weren't situational, they were standard requirements for getting through many encounters.

I don't recall anyone arguing that we should have to buff for every encounter. I know I didn't, and I know Sawyer (who started this part of the discussion) didn't cite such a thing as a common frustration of the IE games.

 

Moreover, I most certainly wouldn't limit my definition of "buffing" to just spells cast by spellcasters. Buffing includes potions, magic castable from devices that NON-casters can use, protection scrolls (that anyone can use) and of course, sustained abilities from non-casters, which technically aren't even magic.

 

On the preparation argument I have this to say: Buffs had a round limit, if I buffed my party 3 minutes before the encounter, they would wear off at the start, or halfway through the encounter. So pre-buffing was a stupid idea, unless you knew exactly what was coming and when.

Yes. This is a good point. But probably not in the way you think. The fact that many buffs have short durations is an inherent, and deliberate limitation placed on pre-buffing. It makes it so that if you DO decide to "spend 5 or 6 rounds" pre-buffing, as Sawyer says, then you will be faced with diminishing returns. This is as it should be. it's yet another layer to the tactical game.

 

Of course, some of the best buffs in the IE games have durations that are not measured in rounds. Stoneskin lasts 8 hours. Invisibility lasts 24 hours etc.

 

Now I didn't enjoy buffing and I didn't do a whole lot of it, which is why I did a whole lot of reloading, and eventually (hey I was a teenager) cheating by means of savegame editing. But others here who have done a lot of buffing are telling you that in their experience buffs removed the tactical element to combat. Buffs allowed them to breeze through many encounters where enemies had no counters. That doesn't sound like interesting tactical combat to me.

Stop pretending that it's me vs. the masses when it's nothing of the sort. if Sawyer or any other dev went to the Announcement forum and started a thread entitled: Pre-buffing is tedious, so we're not having it in POE., you'll see 1000 posters come out of the woodwork and voice the same arguments I've been making on this thread.

 

I would argue that a game which doesn't allow for solving encounters without buffs is the dumbed down game, not the one which allows you to find and use different tactics to deal with the encounter.

Contrary to the hyperbole spouted here, the IE games you guys have been condemning for several pages now Allowed you to solve encounters without pre-buffing. Imagine that. Games that let you pre-buff or not pre-buff. Edited January 14, 2014 by Stun