Update #70: New Year Project Update

[Lephys]

Also, I think people are trying too hard to make sense of nonsensical things (read magic) 

Not really. It's magic that behaves within the confines of physics. In other words, you're starting with magic, which can certainly do all kinds of crazy stuff, and saying "I'm just going to convert magical energy into a ball of fire, which I will hurl at this location, and I'll detonate it, burning and exploding outward, striking everything in that area -- the ground, plants, debris, squirrels, mean people, nice people, orangutans, breakfast cereals, etc.". THEN, wanting to use that magical energy in specifically that manner, but somehow go against how that would behave.

 

It's like using a chainsaw to perform surgery. If you wanted precision, why wouldn't you just use magic in a more precise form? Magic missile. Magic missile produces a bunch of individual missiles that target who you wish. It doesn't produce one, 50-foot-wide missile that destroys a city, but somehow only destroys the bad people's houses and ground and bodies.

 

It's just... contradictory.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Lephys

[PrimeJunta]

A fireball that only kills enemies sounds like a divine invocation to me, not an arcane spell.

[Hassat Hunter]

While I was planning to stay out of the combat talk and just stick to UI talk (which apparently no one talks about) I have to comment now;

 

AoE-avoiding friendly fire based on additional INT radius sounds like a HORRIBLE idea.

If you don't want to hit your friends, don't use AoE. Or keep them out of the area you're about to blast.

 

If we're going this way, we might as well do away with friendly fire all together. Friendlies allowing a feat to lower 50% damage (thereby preventing a potentially more useful one picked, also never fully nullifying any effects); okay! But this, no, I really prefer if it wasn't made as such.

[Monte Carlo]

+1

 

Sawyer has gone and answered a question no-one asked with this one.

[rjshae]

A spell to solely protect against friendly fire by the caster could be useful; cast it on your allies then detonate a fireball wherever you want. (The spell could briefly blink the party away the moment fireball spell goes off.) Having your opponents use it against the party would be a nasty surprise.

[pseudonymous]

A fireball that only kills enemies sounds like a divine invocation to me, not an arcane spell.

 

I'd say it sounds like a game designer trying to appeal to filthy casuals by making the game a cake-walk.  IF that is the case, it should be an option for the super easy settings and not forced on everyone.

[ProjectBG2Respawn]

 

A fireball that only kills enemies sounds like a divine invocation to me, not an arcane spell.

 

I'd say it sounds like a game designer trying to appeal to filthy casuals by making the game a cake-walk.  IF that is the case, it should be an option for the super easy settings and not forced on everyone.

 

 

I agree totally.

 

But allow the player to increase the size of the fireball effect is a good idea. Same thing for spells duration.

 

Or maybe the friendly fire could be disable only for the last fireball you gain, late in the game, like a sort of ultimate spell. Is it a bad idea ?

Cuz' really, i don't think fans of BG IWD NWN or whatever will appreciate to have NO friendly fire.

As the automatic life regen... Which is a Call Of Duty thing.

[rjshae]

 

A fireball that only kills enemies sounds like a divine invocation to me, not an arcane spell.

 

I'd say it sounds like a game designer trying to appeal to filthy casuals by making the game a cake-walk.  IF that is the case, it should be an option for the super easy settings and not forced on everyone.

 

Which reminds me, my gutter needs scrapping...

[Lephys]

Sawyer has gone and answered a question no-one asked with this one.

I'd say it sounds like a game designer trying to appeal to filthy casuals by making the game a cake-walk.  IF that is the case, it should be an option for the super easy settings and not forced on everyone.

Hey, now... All Josh said is that they're looking into it as a possibility. It does make sense, as a possibility, from a purely balancing standpoint. If you DIDN'T have high INT, given AoE spell would've only hit a 5-meter-diameter area, for example, but now, just 'cause you have power, it'll hit a 10-meter-diameter area. Thus, purely because of the increase in size, you're more prone to hit friendlies. Thus, the problem being addressed is specifically with INT bonus increasing the threat of your spells to friendlies.

 

Josh doesn't just arbitrarily think something's an awesome idea and carve it into stone. Even the stuff he LIKES a lot, he still tests to make sure it's actually a good idea in practice, and not just functional in theory.

 

Sure, tell him why you think it's a bad idea, but I don't think there's any need to go accusing him of pretending this is somehow a shining beacon of game design salvation.

[Wombat]

A fireball that only kills enemies sounds like a divine invocation to me, not an arcane spell.

 

I'd say it sounds like a game designer trying to appeal to filthy casuals by making the game a cake-walk.  IF that is the case, it should be an option for the super easy settings and not forced on everyone.

Actually, you don't need a genius to figure out that the most probable motivation is the balance issue.  Also, here and here are recent quotes about FF by Sawyer.

 

Personally, I wouldn't regard D&D or PoE as realism simulators but, if there are enough people find it causes the suspension of disbelief, then, the designers will come up with a better solution.  If I'm sure a certain piece of info would upset some backers/potential players, I'd keep it secret.  Basically, I think DMs/GMs should follow the rule-sets but, at times, I feel some things would work better if the players are not informed.  For example, in New Vegas, Obsidian cranked up the HPs of the companion NPCs but how many of us complained of it?  However, the story would have been different if the info had been revealed somehow before the release of the game.  This reminds me of DM/GM screens although Sawyer seems to be a kind of open dice guy.

[Monte Carlo]

 

Sawyer has gone and answered a question no-one asked with this one.

I'd say it sounds like a game designer trying to appeal to filthy casuals by making the game a cake-walk.  IF that is the case, it should be an option for the super easy settings and not forced on everyone.

Hey, now... All Josh said is that they're looking into it as a possibility. It does make sense, as a possibility, from a purely balancing standpoint. If you DIDN'T have high INT, given AoE spell would've only hit a 5-meter-diameter area, for example, but now, just 'cause you have power, it'll hit a 10-meter-diameter area. Thus, purely because of the increase in size, you're more prone to hit friendlies. Thus, the problem being addressed is specifically with INT bonus increasing the threat of your spells to friendlies.

 

Josh doesn't just arbitrarily think something's an awesome idea and carve it into stone. Even the stuff he LIKES a lot, he still tests to make sure it's actually a good idea in practice, and not just functional in theory.

 

Sure, tell him why you think it's a bad idea, but I don't think there's any need to go accusing him of pretending this is somehow a shining beacon of game design salvation.

 

 

Is anything you post not copper-bottomed fanboy-ism?

[Lephys]

Is anything you post not copper-bottomed fanboy-ism?

What can I say? I'm a HUGE fanboy... of reason! You should try it sometime.

[pseudonymous]

Hey, now... All Josh said is that they're looking into it as a possibility. It does make sense, as a possibility, from a purely balancing standpoint. If you DIDN'T have high INT, given AoE spell would've only hit a 5-meter-diameter area, for example, but now, just 'cause you have power, it'll hit a 10-meter-diameter area. Thus, purely because of the increase in size, you're more prone to hit friendlies. Thus, the problem being addressed is specifically with INT bonus increasing the threat of your spells to friendlies.

 

No, it does not make sense.  If your characters are in the AoE they should take damage no matter what your mage's INT is.  There is no balance issue here, just gamers wanting to ignore where their party is when casting spells.

[AndreaColombo]

Well, Josh did say that it is still early in the development of the game's mechanics, and the actual effects of INT on AoE and spell duration are still up for internal discussion.

 

As a matter of fact, he implied two solutions are being debated: One is to let high-INT mages dynamically alter their spells' AoE from a minimum given by each spell's standard range, to a maximum given by standard range + bonus range from INT; the other is to have the bonus range from INT apply all the time but not hit your allies.

 

The latter appears to be loathed by the majority of the users who cared to post about it (including me), and I am sure the devs will take this into account in their internal discussions.

 

As a side note, it would be overly kewl (and logically sense-making, if you ask me) to let high-INT mages dynamically alter their spells' duration as well (as suggested by ProjectBG2Respawn). If I'm casting a Cloudkill-like spell to take out a pack of low-level monsters, I certainly do not need it to last for hours, forcing me to stand idly until it's gone or worse to waste a Zone of Sweet Air-like spell to advance in my path. Standard duration would be more than fine.

 

So, yeah—Josh, dynamic adjustments to AoE and spell duration for high-INT mages are totally cool and should be part of PoE's game mechanics

Edited January 22, 2014 by AndreaColombo

[Lephys]

No, it does not make sense.  If your characters are in the AoE they should take damage no matter what your mage's INT is.  There is no balance issue here, just gamers wanting to ignore where their party is when casting spells.

You're right, it doesn't... except purely from a balancing standpoint. Which is exactly why I said that. I humbly request that you not argue against things nobody said. It accomplishes a goal (making sure one player with high-INT AoE casters doesn't suffer more friendly-fire than another player with low-INT casters), but it also poses the issue of "why is MOST of my fireball damaging my allies, but a portion of it possesses the ability to avoid them entirely?"

 

Both things are true. Neither overrules the other and makes it untrue.

[Wombat]

@AndreaColombo

A possible problem with that solution is that investing on INT sounds less attractive if I'm building a character as offensive AoE damage dealer, especially compared with Might.  For support type characters or characters whose ability lists with enough number of FF-free abilities, the story may be different but is this ideal motivation for the players to choose among ability scores/classes/class abilities in the first place?  If it were just for genuinely about balancing, I'd be inclined to take the solution of non-FF for the extended/bonus areas but...

 

-Edit-

As a side note, it would be overly kewl (and logically sense-making, if you ask me) to let high-INT mages dynamically alter their spells' duration as well (as suggested by ProjectBG2Respawn). If I'm casting a Cloudkill-like spell to take out a pack of low-level monsters, I certainly do not need it to last for hours, forcing me to stand idly until it's gone or worse to waste a Zone of Sweet Air-like spell to advance in my path. Standard duration would be more than fine.

 

So, yeah—Josh, dynamic adjustments to AoE and spell duration for high-INT mages are totally cool and should be part of PoE's game mechanics

I had overlooked at first, but the added control on duration accompanied with that on the areas can compensate it enough.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Wombat

[ProjectBG2Respawn]

Yes !

 

Create your own spells could be really interesting. But anyway, evolutive spells are cool.

Talking about this, AndreaColombo developped well the idea by quoting some examples (is it right to say that in English ?).

 

For those who played Baldur's Gate 2, there's a spell "Melf's minute meteors" that create tiny fireballs that you can throw.

These meteors are heavy for a weak wizard, and each time you level up, you create more fireballs when you do the spell.

When you're a higher level, if you don't have enough strength, you cannot move anymore.

So you summon some skeletons and attack them in order to empty your fireballs so you can move 

Boring...

 

So if there is evolutive spells, make sure we won't say :   "i'm too powerful, this is annoying !!!"

 

And maybe i'm repeating myself but a fireball that blows up near your pals must hurt them.

[ItinerantNomad]

he could also increase aoe damage/duration to off-set the negative aspect of aoes.

[Lephys]

he could also increase aoe damage/duration to off-set the negative aspect of aoes.

True, but then it would increase the negative aspect by that much, as well.

 

If a spell does 2X the damage and lasts twice as long now, then it does so whether or not it hits just enemies, or your allies as well.

 

Still, it's a bigger risk when friendlies are in the way, versus a bigger pure-benefit when you catch a group of enemies with no friendlies in the way. *Shrug*. But then you start running into the balance of that spell's capabilities versus combat difficulty, etc. In other words, it still has to be proportionate to all your other methods of handling combat, however powerful it is in comparison to its ability to potentially harm your own party.

[Wombat]

Yeah-after all, it all comes down to how the system actually plays out*...but I guess I had already mentioned this somewhere else.

* And if the designers go for the flexible area/duration option, how it is going to be presented (the UI and ease-of-use) is added to the factor.  I know it works on theory due to my PnP experiences but I wonder if it works fine under RT with pause/slow combat.  No wonder Sawyer sounded cautious when he mentioned the possible options.  In any case, it's still too early to criticize or praise, I think.

[Cubiq]

I doubt they will change it this far in development, but i think the INT +aoe is just a bad mechanic. It's clearly going to cause problems and the developers are even considering forced clunky mechanics, like semi friendly blasts to balance it up. Not to mention i have a feeling we will see Barbarians have the most INT in the game because it is the most aoe oriented class, unless they add in another strange mechanic to balance it back.

I know people are looking for something fresh and different but this one is really pushing it.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Cubiq

[Hassat Hunter]

You're right, it doesn't... except purely from a balancing standpoint.

BALANCE shouldn't be a gold ticket to do really stupid and illogical things.

If you do so, maybe you should look if balance can't be achieved some other way, and in the end realise... balance isn't everything. This isn't some MMO where the classes battle each other.

 

So my verdict would be;

Don't even bother spending time investigation said option, use it better elsewhere...

Edited January 23, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[Justinian]

I doubt they will change it this far in development, but i think the INT +aoe is just a bad mechanic. It's clearly going to cause problems and the developers are even considering forced clunky mechanics, like semi friendly blasts to balance it up. Not to mention i have a feeling we will see Barbarians have the most INT in the game because it is the most aoe oriented class, unless they add in another strange mechanic to balance it back.

I know people are looking for something fresh and different but this one is really pushing it.

 

I agree. The latest iteration of atributes is an improvement over the previous one but quite a few of the attributes don't make much sense. I understand Josh's rationale for streamlining them in this way, but in the end, "mighty" wizards and "intelligent" barbarians just doesn't sit well with me.

 

Why would a wizard who is able to move heavy objects have more potent spells? How does a Barbarian's ability to navigate dialogue intelligently have any bearing on how effective his physical AoE attacks are? It breaks basic coherence and credibility.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Justinian

[Cubiq]

I might have been overly prejudice with my last post, so i'll just clarify.

If they manage create a cool mechanic like the suggested mouse scroll AoE size, and if they manage to balance the numbers right where Barbarians won't be near the top list of classes that use INT as a main stat, and wizards not the top of MIGHT using classes, then it could be a pretty cool idea.

But it seems like a headache you could avoid by just changing the stat bonuses.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Cubiq

[rjshae]

 

You're right, it doesn't... except purely from a balancing standpoint.

BALANCE shouldn't be a gold ticket to do really stupid and illogical things.

 

Well, anonymity shouldn't be a golden ticket to say really stupid and illogical things either. But it does nonetheless.

 

Magic is illogical and I think the mechanic is a reasonable approach to consider. I think people are tending to oppose it because it lacks a certain verisimilitude, and it perhaps seems a little too munchkin-like.