Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, I'm mighty glad you feel comfortable concluding that with no information as to its verity, but that doesn't really nullify or counter my points. Besides, just because Obsidian's doing something doesn't mean it isn't still bad design. Maybe the Arcane Veil makes you INVINCIBLE unless it's shattered, and it can ONLY be shattered by a successful hit with a firearm? I would still objectively rate that a bad design, regardless of whether or not it was the planned design for the game we're all waiting for.

 

Disclaimer: It isn't my belief that Arcane Veil makes you invincible and can only be shattered by a firearm. That was purely a hypothetical. (This, just so no one will go off on a tangent evaluating the accuracy of that hypothetical versus what we know in official quotes regarding Arcane Veil, :) )

Oy vey. I am in no way interested in nullifying or countering your points, I was simply pointing out that it was an already known example of "armor on armor" in PE. Please spare me your forthcoming 7 paragraph post on how you were misunderstood. :)

  • Like 3

image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no idea how hard I am laughing right now. This coming from you is rich.

You could've posted an "LoL," or an emoticon or something. Then I could've had some idea. *shrug*


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oy vey. I am in no way interested in nullifying or countering your points, I was simply pointing out that it was an already known example of "armor on armor" in PE. Please spare me your forthcoming 7 paragraph post on how you were misunderstood. :)

My bad. I thought it was intended to be relevant. I misunderstood. Carry on. u_u


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could've posted an "LoL," or an emoticon or something. Then I could've had some idea. *shrug*

 

You've concluded that on your own did you. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've concluded that on your own did you. XD

No, I had help, actually. But I'll get there one day. :)


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prebuffing in tradtional IE games was anything but fun, so I'm gonna vote against having (a) a rediculous variety of buff spells, and (b) several simultaneous active buffs.  Personally, I'd prefer spell buffs to be per-encounter affairs, and have potions for extended effect buffs.  I really enjoyed the Witcher 2's pre-combat potion system - where you had to balance the beneficial and harmful effects of potions to match your combat approach and anticipated enemies.  Increase attack at the cost of vitality, increase "mana" at the cost of attack, so on. You could only imbibe so many potions at any one time, and the more powerful ones were more intoxicating than the milder (limiting how many you could take).

 

I liked it because you couldn't just OD a variety of potions to buff your character into oblivion, and buff decisions weren't purely binary.  You didn't just pop fire resistance to walk into fire elementals without a thought - it would damper another stat, or at best simply limit what other potions you could also bring into combat, making it more tactical than a free stat boost.  The latter element could be applied to buffs and spell slots (having to balance defense and offense), but the way it was handled in IE games wasn't fun-tactical (to me), it was misery-tactical-sadness.

 

I'm not arguing that PoE should follow this example precisely, just that it should address pre-combat buffs in a similar manner, or at least a different one from my traditional IE experience.

Edited by Pipyui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course. (...)

 

Yes, but I was curious about what the specifics were.  I'm asking b/c our sense of how IE combat plays is extremely different, especially when you say things like "I don't want to win combat because I had more positive effects on my party than the enemy did, and/or countered their dispels before they could counter my buffs, etc."

 

Sorry we still disagree, but my overwhelming impression from many, many of your posts is that you dislike managing risks ex ante; you only ever seem to want determinism or pure ex post reaction.  But that eliminates wholesale a source of complications and contingency-planning; it just flattens the dimensions of the tradeoffs the player faces.  That's far more, as you put it, "primitive" than including those added complications.   

 

So for instance: "For example, having the ability to strike your ally to awaken them from a Sleep effect is, in my book, a far superior means of handling such a thing than 'I'll cast this spell that's the opposite of sleep, and/or is designed to remove effects.'"  Look at what you're proposing: the player can only react, rather than having the option of judging in advance the risk of a sleep effect to be high enough that it's worth devoting resources to addressing.   That's obviously an elimination of a potential source of tradeoffs and difficulty - you're homogenizing gameplay.

 

Some of the rest of your post is a bit hard to untangle, partly b/c it intermingles three different things: buffing before combat, buff stacking itself, and hard counters.

 

On buffing before combat, you know my suggestions.  It's not hard to understand why ppl dislike rote pre-combat buffing.  On buff stacking - again, I said why I like them and why they add strategic challenge; the response seems to be primarily, oh, it's "silly", "primitive," "ridiculous."  When you say, "Well, the tradeoffs just don't need to be purely a choice between a direct action and a passive boost," it's fairly clear you simply didn't read what I wrote, which you know, is fine, but then why respond?

 

On hard counters, I haven't really discussed them.  I like hard counters simply b/c of my experience w/ them vs. other combat systems, which don't deliver the same complexity.  (Yeah, that's ironic, given how they work vs. other buffs, which on paper seem more intricate.)  Let's take a simplified example: Let's say your spellcaster-only party loads up on fire spells.  That's a very simple tactical plan, and (past maybe a first handful of low-lvl encounters or such) you should lose for it.  If the enemy has hard-counter PfFire, you will - so if a hard counter's in a game, you'll have to weigh the risks of facing it, and assess the opportunity costs of taking other damage types versus debuffs, etc.  Sometimes this risk management will pay off big, sometimes it'll go terribly, and it lets combat be dicey in ways I haven't seen other combat systems deliver.  All of that delivers combat diversity and strategic depth.  Otoh, If the enemy has a soft counter to fire, well, either you're in the same boat b/c PfFire's effectively close enough to a hard counter (in which case, the change had no point), or there's no particular reason to change your tactical plan and you can still win with mindless tactics.  

 

The response here might just be Pipyui's point that if you know you're facing e.g. Fire Elementals, you can memorize PfFire and have a win on simple tactics.  But that's a problem of enemy design given the spells and abilities, not the other way around - e.g., aTweaks' pnp Salamander Nobles had an ability that lowered enemies' fire resistance.  And along those lines, have you played mage duels in BG2?  Particularly with the SCS mod?  They really bring out the potential of these systems.  It's not at all a function of simply having more buffing, or countering them before they counter you, as you suggested above.  You can win w/ fewer or no buffs, and you can win w/ no or minimal debuffing - or lots of both.  You can also lose any of those ways, and I've done that too.  It's partly a function of smart spell selection ex ante - you have to think abt the system and the spectrum of contingencies possible, especially in no-reload - but also how well you can implement that understanding on the fly.  It's more an intellectual challenge.

 

So I strongly disagree when you say it'd be better to have "something like Mage Armor to be more than just 'you're harder to hit for a duration,' instead being breakable or something, like the Wizard's Arcane Veil seems to be in PoE. Now it's strategic."  That's not strategic; on the contrary, being breakable (what you seem to have in mind here, per the discussion w/ Gfted1) rewards the mindless tactic of just bashing away to break the spell.*  Again, your preferences here tend towards simplifying and homogenizing gameplay.

 

*(The particular mechanism Arcane Veil seems(?) to have where a single weapon type can pierce it is fine by me - it's analogous to the Mantle line of spells.  It's a hard counter to most wpn types.)

 

edit: rather than posting another dull book, I'll just mention here abt the Summoning thread discussion: regarding chance in combat, the reason it's strategically challenging is b/c the risk of an adverse event induces the need to create contingency plans, particularly in no-reload.  If you take a risk-based spell, other parts of your spell/ability selections will change to keep it from being a disaster if e.g. the summon rebels.  So the chance spells have an implicit resource cost that you're overlooking.  As well, sorry to say, I disagree w/ the rest of your views there, but it's probably not worth pursuing.

Edited by ZornWO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder where the spells Sequencer and Minor Sequencer fall into. It's a pre-buff spell for your mage and you always had it ready before going into combat. But it seems nobody has a problem with it? Or do people suggest that these spells should only be allowed in combat? Same with contingency spells?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is pretty much the same as it was almost a year ago. I am so sure of it that thought Obsidian had already decided to do it that way, apparently that isn't the case. Too bad. 

 

The topic isn't exactly the same, but I think all points transfer easily to this one. 

 

To quote

 

 

In NWN2 or rather in any DnD based game the buff durations were all over the place. You had ones at 24 hours, 1 hour / level, 10 minute / level, 1 minute / level, 1 minute and 9 seconds. Despite that, once I got past level 10 I treated all buffs from 24 hours up to 1 minute / level as "long term" and everything else as I couldn't be bothered, I'll just cast FIREBALL instead short term.  

 

So I think buffs should be split into short term buffs and long term buffs.

 

Long Term Buffs

 

The long term ones can be either be AoE (affecting all party members) or self-cast and should last until you rest (or whatever)

 

I remember in NWN2 where you had stat boosting spells like bull strength and owl's wisdom. These spells were level 2. By the time you got past the halfway point the level 2 damage spells were pretty crappy. So the best thing to do was fill your level 2 slots with buff spells. This meant that every time you rested you ended you having to cast a ton of single target buff spells onto the relevant party members. Annoying. 

 

By making long term spells either AoE or self-cast you are limiting the amount of times you can need to cast them after you rest to precisely one. 

 

Short Term Buffs

 

The short term ones won't have the self-cast restriction but should only last up to the duration of the fight. I'm not sure how long fights are going to last in this game but imagine on average fights last for 2 mins. In this case, the maximum duration of a short term buff should be roughly 1.5 minutes, though it can be as short as 5 seconds. 


. Well I was involved anyway. The dude who can't dance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say, "Well, the tradeoffs just don't need to be purely a choice between a direct action and a passive boost," it's fairly clear you simply didn't read what I wrote, which you know, is fine, but then why respond?

This is a perfect example of something I'm noticing quite frequently on forums and the like, and it's really very detrimental to productive discussion, and I don't comprehend it in the least (and, quite frankly, grow a bit weary of it).

 

Could you kindly explain to me why my only two valid options for response are:

 

A) The direct opposite of every single facet/detail of whatever you've said, or

B) Nothing at all, because we just either share the exact same complex perspective on "pre-combat preparation" or we don't.

 

?


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When you say, "Well, the tradeoffs just don't need to be purely a choice between a direct action and a passive boost," it's fairly clear you simply didn't read what I wrote, which you know, is fine, but then why respond?

This is a perfect example of something I'm noticing quite frequently on forums and the like, and it's really very detrimental to productive discussion, and I don't comprehend it in the least (and, quite frankly, grow a bit weary of it).

 

Could you kindly explain to me why my only two valid options for response are:

 

A) The direct opposite of every single facet/detail of whatever you've said, or

B) Nothing at all, because we just either share the exact same complex perspective on "pre-combat preparation" or we don't.

 

?

 

In terms of your suggestions--even beyond this thread, I find this to be generally true. I find many of your suggestions high in form, but low in substance. Almost every single one of your ideas has extreme ramifications for the entire structure of any resulting system. Many of them are reminiscent of someone attempting to create a specific dramatized scene, rather than the foundations for a working system. I don't think you realize this when you propose most of your ideas. At the very least, they are presented in this manner.

 

P:E is meant to be a revival of sorts. Spellcasting is viewed (generally), as one of the unquestionable high points of the IE games and not something terribly broken. This thread does seek to address the minor drudgery of pre-buffing, but I personally even think something as simple as a spell-que from the NWN games would be entirely sufficient. My point is, when you continually suggest whimsical ideas which would severly alter one of the principle strengths of what is attempting to be revived here....expect conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of your suggestions--even beyond this thread, I find this to be generally true. I find many of your suggestions high in form, but low in substance. Almost every single one of your ideas has extreme ramifications for the entire structure of any resulting system. Many of them are reminiscent of someone attempting to create a specific dramatized scene, rather than the foundations for a working system. I don't think you realize this when you propose most of your ideas. At the very least, they are presented in this manner.

I realize exactly what I'm saying when I post. I try to make my words and ideas clear, but forgive me for not trying to conform to other people's posting boundaries. I didn't realize a free and open analysis of the topic at hand was somehow off-limits or taboo. How can something even be a good option (much less the best) if you're not even going to compare and contrast it with other potential options, variations, and ideas?

 

What I'm offering are suggestions and analysis for the conceptual approach towards a given design -- in this case, buffs/combat preparation.

 

You show me PoE's current work-in-progress system, and I'll gladly make sure everything I come up with directly pertains to what is and isn't already in place. Until then, the last time I checked, we're discussing design concepts, and not a tangible system that we're just all collectively tweaking.

 

If you feel that my suggestions have no value that pertains to even conceptual approach, then you have every right to feel that way. Feeling that way, of course, in no way requires responses that arbitrarily assume my suggestions and postulations are seeking to do anything beyond what they're seeking to do.

 

Discussion is like a buffet: If you don't like my cookies, simply pass them by and spare your plate their presence. There's no reason to waste time pretending my placing some cookies on the buffet table is somehow threatening your casserole's existence.

 

I think Pong was a great game, but if I were to make a game like it now, I'd probably not limit myself to whatever Pong did.

 

IE buffs have some great stuff in them, but I simply think a lot more can be done with buffing than simply stacking augmentative effects and immunities. If you don't agree, then you don't agree.

 

My point is, when you continually suggest whimsical ideas which would severly alter one of the principle strengths of what is attempting to be revived here....expect conflict.

Josh has already announced that there won't be ANY pre-combat buffing, so I don't think I'm the one bringing fundamental alterations to the table. If you want to just keep everything like the IE games had it, with buffing, AND you want to play and enjoy PoE for that very aspect of design... expect conflict.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Try not to get your knickers in a twist when you get an honest response. My point was, if you don't present your ideas in a detailed manner which flesh out the implications of an idea, don't be surprised when they're readily shot down or completely disagreed with when those implications are identified. I'm not saying you need to be meticulous, but you may want to think more than one step ahead when presenting an idea if congenial and receptive responses are what you seek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was simply clarifying things. This is text, and it can easily be assumed to be in any number of tones, but that does not make it so. My knickers are twist-free.

 

The fact remains that I present ideas to present ideas, not purely in the hopes of gaining congenial responses. If my ideas are unclear to you, you can either help me clarify them for your own benefit (if you're interested in knowing/understanding them, despite the obstacle of the lack of clarity), or you can deem it unworthy of your time and effort. Either way, that doesn't make my ideas pointless, or my presentation of them meaningless. It simply means we have an unfortunate disconnect.

 

You are disagreeing with my ideas on the basis that they're intending to do away with the things you've pointed out as beneficial in the buff system. Which is not the case. Again, you can ask me how that isn't the case, or not care, or think I'm a liar, or believe me. That's all up to you, whatever it is you wish to do, for whatever reason you wish to do it. However, determining the validity of my ideas without first actually comprehending them is utterly pointless. And discussing to what degree I should have made my ideas clear in the first place is a bit moot, too.

 

To be honest, I don't understand exactly what it is YOU want in the buff system, which is exactly why I decided to clarify what it is I think should be done with it, rather than try to judge your specific ideas down to a T.

 

If you'd simply take the time to actually join me in observing the potential of buffs and their role in an RPG in general, rather than narrowing the options at hand down to a way to do buffs, and the complete disagreement with that way of doing them, we'd probably get farther than we're getting now.

 

Let me ask you this: What do you think shouldn't be done with the buff system, in the context of what we know of PoE's design, and why do you think that? I'm not here to argue about whose opinion is better. I want to understand your perspective, and I don't right now. And obviously mine isn't making much sense to you. So, let's try to get on the same page, and go from there.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removal of buffing has several ramifications. In many ways, buffing in the IE games could be deemed necessary. The threat of instant death spells, petrifaction, confusion, dire charm/domination, along with the prevalence of very powerful damaging spells made spell protections a rather note-worthy component. This matters, because spells possessed threat. Spells has substance and consequence if ignored.

 

Since then, magic has just been treated as another form of DPS in RPGs. Limited by mana, perhaps with an AoE, but otherwise no different than any other class ability. Boring. Trivial. Banal. The mediocre spells don't need protected against in any real way. You just absorb the damage with your HP like any other attack. No real distinguishing status effects either, just damage with a different animation. I see the (potential) removal of buffing as thus:

  • Removing the presence of durable spell protections indicates a lack of need.
  • No need for durable spell protections indicates a low level of threat from spells (IE: HP soak is adequate).
  • Low level of spell threat indicates generic, uninspired spell effects.
  • Boring spells, with no "need" to ward against with spells precludes any intricate and satisfying magical combat (Absorptions, Reflections, Breaches, Pierce, etc.)

I've had nearly 15 years of awful, boring, and utterly unimpressive spell systems. DA:O was supposed to save the day, but wound up being a Luke-warm MMO in terms of game play. Along comes P:E promising to resurrect the glories of the past which have yet to be duplicated or improved upon. I want to see that spell casting system intact--at the very least. No more bland magic systems because some twitch 12 year old doesn't like prudently planning out spells per day. Catering to that has poisoned the proverbial well. Enough is enough.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is a perfect example of something I'm noticing quite frequently on forums and the like, and it's really very detrimental to productive discussion, and I don't comprehend it in the least (and, quite frankly, grow a bit weary of it).

 

Could you kindly explain to me why my only two valid options for response are:

 

A) The direct opposite of every single facet/detail of whatever you've said, or

B) Nothing at all, because we just either share the exact same complex perspective on "pre-combat preparation" or we don't.

 

?

 

Ofc it's perfectly fine to disagree only in part.  The issue was that I posted abt my interest in all these different kinds of tradeoffs, and your response was to enlighten me that tradeoffs don't all have to be one kind of thing.  On top of a more general sense your replies tend to be... unresponsive to the topics discussed, and it creates an impression you don't give attention or thought to the posts you reply to.  My schedule's far too hectic to view ignoring other ppl as "productive discussion."  Even here, in response to a passage suggesting you didn't consider an earlier post's points, your reply isn't to clarify how you did consider them, or to acknowledge the problem and address it, or even to avoid replying to the point (which, as before, would've been fine), but it's instead to react as if the passage disdained partial disagreement - a leap that's just baffling.

 

Lephys, it's clear (and appreciated!) you're well-intentioned, but it is frustrating having a conversation that lacks conversing.  Perhaps it's best just to agree to disagree & move on.  Some of what you've said to Mr. M has been rather ironic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removal of buffing has several ramifications. In many ways, buffing in the IE games could be deemed necessary. The threat of instant death spells, petrifaction, confusion, dire charm/domination, along with the prevalence of very powerful damaging spells made spell protections a rather note-worthy component. This matters, because spells possessed threat. Spells has substance and consequence if ignored.

 

Since then, magic has just been treated as another form of DPS in RPGs. Limited by mana, perhaps with an AoE, but otherwise no different than any other class ability. Boring. Trivial. Banal. The mediocre spells don't need protected against in any real way. You just absorb the damage with your HP like any other attack. No real distinguishing status effects either, just damage with a different animation. I see the (potential) removal of buffing as thus:

  • Removing the presence of durable spell protections indicates a lack of need.
  • No need for durable spell protections indicates a low level of threat from spells (IE: HP soak is adequate).
  • Low level of spell threat indicates generic, uninspired spell effects.
  • Boring spells, with no "need" to ward against with spells precludes any intricate and satisfying magical combat (Absorptions, Reflections, Breaches, Pierce, etc.)

I've had nearly 15 years of awful, boring, and utterly unimpressive spell systems. DA:O was supposed to save the day, but wound up being a Luke-warm MMO in terms of game play. Along comes P:E promising to resurrect the glories of the past which have yet to be duplicated or improved upon. I want to see that spell casting system intact--at the very least. No more bland magic systems because some twitch 12 year old doesn't like prudently planning out spells per day. Catering to that has poisoned the proverbial well. Enough is enough.

 

Wait, they aren't removing buffing altogether right?

 

They are just removing pre-buffing. That thing when you had to spend 2 minutes buffing every time you rest and another 1 buffing before each fight. I personally never saw that as a "past glory". 


. Well I was involved anyway. The dude who can't dance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, just pre-buffing. They want to have it be stuff you use IN a fight not stuff you 'always' do after a fight because more numbers. I kinda hope they have some duality type buffs, like Prayer. You know, party buff that also functions as a offensive AoE debuff for enemies. Always liked that one since It made it more of a combat buff. Sure it was more useful then Bless and would remain so even if you used it as a pre-buff, but you got better use out of it if you used it at the start or in the middle of a fight.


Def Con: kills owls dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ofc it's perfectly fine to disagree only in part.  The issue was that I posted abt my interest in all these different kinds of tradeoffs, and your response was to enlighten me that tradeoffs don't all have to be one kind of thing.

First of all, that's not even a disagreement, partial or otherwise. It's simply a supplemental observation. We can have those tradeoffs with buffs, and also we can have other functions and interesting things done with buffs. And also we can restrict buffs to combat, and still even maintain the general idea behind the tradeoffs, as well as the other interesting things. I even talked about still allowing pre-combat buffing, but simply controlling it a bit better, so I'm not even just presenting such a rigid perspective as to say "they've decided no pre-combat buffing, so THERE SHOULD NEVER EVER BE ANY PRE-COMBAT BUFFING!" or anything. So, I'm honestly not sure what's wrong with my presentation of ideas in the context of this thread.

 

On top of a more general sense your replies tend to be... unresponsive to the topics discussed, and it creates an impression you don't give attention or thought to the posts you reply to.  My schedule's far too hectic to view ignoring other ppl as "productive discussion."  Even here, in response to a passage suggesting you didn't consider an earlier post's points, your reply isn't to clarify how you did consider them, or to acknowledge the problem and address it, or even to avoid replying to the point (which, as before, would've been fine), but it's instead to react as if the passage disdained partial disagreement - a leap that's just baffling.

I'm truly not trying to be hostile or anything here. Just matter-of-fact. But... do you not see the irony here? I respond to posts that seem to not take my point accurately (usually that I'm actually not disagreeing with something, but am simply trying to supplement the group discussion/analysis at hand) and that's somehow bad form, intentional or no. But it's only bad form because my posts seem to be ignoring other people's points and/or suggesting that they're "disdaining partial disagreement," in which case it's totally justified to call me out as the anomaly, the source of the trouble (again, regardless of intention)?

 

I'm just trying to make sense of that, to be honest. At this moment, I fail to comprehend exactly how I'm supposed to approach a discussion without frustrating people by not typing posts exactly as others wish me to. I feel like we're playing a board game I didn't even know we were playing, and I don't know the rules. And, instead of telling me the rules, you're just telling me every time I'm not adhering to them.

 

I really am truly sorry for being frustrating, regardless of the reason, and I honestly appreciate your consideration that it most likely isn't intentional (a lot of people just assume it is, which really isn't very fun). And, maybe it is best to agree to disagree. However, just to be clear, there's a difference between that and agreeing to allow everyone else to make whatever points they want, while I refrain from doing so because my presentation of ideas is somehow inherently frustrating. To be clearer, I'm not implying you're meaning it like that, but many often seem to do so, so I only wanted to make the difference clear.

 

If you wish it, I'll cease addressing you, specifically, on this matter. But, should I feel the need to simply address the topic further, in general, in this thread, it's just going to have to go ignored by those who don't wish to address me (or be addressed by me) about it. Which is fine. I've said it oodles of times: My posts are not inherently valuable to all. If something doesn't make sense to you, and you don't want to expend the effort of making sense of it, that doesn't say anything bad about you. But, so long as someone's making the effort to clarify their point in direct response to something I've said, I'm going to do exactly the same with whatever I feel might've been vague or misleading, or just plain whatever will make my point better/clearer.

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, they aren't removing buffing altogether right?

 

They are just removing pre-buffing. That thing when you had to spend 2 minutes buffing every time you rest and another 1 buffing before each fight. I personally never saw that as a "past glory". 

 

 

That still has a major impact though. If, as a spell caster, you need to spend your first several actions in combat raising your defenses--that puts you at a major disadvantage. Those buffs better be extraordinarily powerful, because all of those classes that don't need to buff will be gunning for you. Party members may be able to screen some enemies, but not all of them--particularly ranged attacks. The second most major concern, is that having to buff every battle will seriously deplete a caster's spells per day. I doubt the protections which really make a true difference are going to be at-will abilities for that matter.

 

It's the big picture and all of the ripples that occur within it that has me concerned about "no pre-buffing". It seems like a minor change, but I highly doubt it. I hope I am proven utterly wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That still has a major impact though. If, as a spell caster, you need to spend your first several actions in combat raising your defenses--that puts you at a major disadvantage. Those buffs better be extraordinarily powerful, because all of those classes that don't need to buff will be gunning for you.

True. But, why do there need to be classes that need to buff? If your party bumps into a group of 6 heavily-armed melee combatants, and they just start charging at all your characters, then yeah, it's probably situationally quite beneficial to throw up some kind of magical shields that make your robe-wearing Priests and Mages less "squishy." But, if you've simply got to put 3 buffs on a given character 99% of the time, just to make them not useless or instantly killed in every single battle, what's even the point in that design? They have to live inside a bubble, but it's not even a permanent bubble?

 

Plus, we know Wizards will have a defense called the Arcane Veil. Not sure if it's a buff, or a passive/innate ability, or a modal ability, etc. But, it very well could be. It's something specific to their class, so it doesn't seem to be a spell, but rather an ability. *shrug*. The IE games didn't have that, so we can't just look at the IE combat system if you suddenly ripped pre-combat buffing out of it, and assume that's what's going to happen in PoE.

 

For the record, I'm not saying you're assuming that. I'm simply suggesting that, if you're going to take the time to point out undesirable hypotheticals, that you give just as much effort to considering desirable ones at the same time.

 

Party members may be able to screen some enemies, but not all of them--particularly ranged attacks. The second most major concern, is that having to buff every battle will seriously deplete a caster's spells per day. I doubt the protections which really make a true difference are going to be at-will abilities for that matter.

Since we know there will be at-will spells AND per-encounter spells, it's extremely possible that a buff your class's build relied on for almost every single combat encounter would be per-encounter or at-will, rather than per-"day".

 

It's the big picture and all of the ripples that occur within it that has me concerned about "no pre-buffing". It seems like a minor change, but I highly doubt it. I hope I am proven utterly wrong.

And that's understandable. I don't think anyone's intent here is to pretend it can't go wrong. But, I personally feel like thinking of ways in which the game could end up proving you utterly wrong is a worthwhile endeavor. At the very least, it's no less worthwhile than taking the time to think of all the ways in which it could possibly be horrible.

 

About the only conflict we have is that you highly doubt it's a minor change (and believe it will most likely be problematic in yours and others' enjoyment of the game for various reasons), and I simply believe it will actually not be so horrible as you think and will end up being pretty minor and working out pretty spiffily. And, I'm certainly not trying to tell anyone they have to believe the same thing. I don't KNOW it's going to be great. I simply believe it will be good and not terrible.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At this moment, I fail to comprehend exactly how I'm supposed to approach a discussion without frustrating people by not typing posts exactly as others wish me to.

 

Brevity and concision would help. Here's a link to Wikipedia on it and gives an example which is very much like how you post. Also, no need to talk in circles.

 

First, you need to cut out the superfluous words:

 

At this moment, I fail to comprehend exactly how I'm supposed to approach a discussion without frustrating people by not typing posts exactly as others wish me to.

 

so you end up with this:

 

I fail to comprehend how I'm supposed to approach a discussion without frustrating people

 

That would be a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, you need to cut out the superfluous words:

 

At this moment, I fail to comprehend exactly how I'm supposed to approach a discussion without frustrating people by not typing posts exactly as others wish me to.

 

so you end up with this:

 

I fail to comprehend how I'm supposed to approach a discussion without frustrating people

Excellent. So everyone can point out 73 ways in which I can approach a discussion without frustrating people that aren't even relevant to the situation at hand.

 

My words conveyed my meaning, which was more specific than your abbreviated suggestion above. I'm not going to take up being vague purely because people find specifics annoying.

 

You know what? Heh, actually, I'm gonna take this advice. I'll start being brief and concise, and we'll see how much that helps things. It'll be a splendid little experiment, 8D.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. So everyone can point out 73 ways in which I can approach a discussion without frustrating people that aren't even relevant to the situation at hand.

 

My words conveyed my meaning, which was more specific than your abbreviated suggestion above. I'm not going to take up being vague purely because people find specifics annoying.

 

You know what? Heh, actually, I'm gonna take this advice. I'll start being brief and concise, and we'll see how much that helps things. It'll be a splendid little experiment, 8D.

 

 

Brevity and concision isn't being vague when you get to the point and know what you're talking about. Brevity and concision can get to the specifics. For some reason you think brevity and concision is being vague which truly baffles me. And now it seems you're intentionally going to be vague with brief posts just to prove that brief posts = vague, with this little experiment you have in mind. Okay Lephys. You play your little experiments. And you wonder why people get frustrated with what you post.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason you think brevity and concision is being vague which truly baffles me.

Nope. I just think concision doesn't always go hand-in-hand with brevity.

 

And the only thing I'm intentionally going to do is attempt to be concise. Are you a psychic, knowing what other people have in mind like that?

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...