Crazy difficult

[Stun]

But, if he just had a problem with time-wasting, I think he would've just come up with some kind of buff-macroing or some other streamlining function for pre-buffing.

Like contingencies and sequencers? Yes, he could have. (and he should have) Bioware did that with BG2. And as a result, BG2 is a better game than Icewind Dale.

 

Instead of specifically designing buffs to support and be heavily influenced by active combat factors.

All buffs are influenced/support active combat factors. That's why they're called Buffs. The issue here isn't what those buffs are, it's when you're allowed to use them. One side says you should only be allowed to use them during combat, while the other side says such limitations shouldn't be imposed.

 

As for your list, I actually agree very much with the first one. It's no different from save-anywhere. However, in that particular case, I would argue that you shouldn't really need to, or be able to, prepare beyond a certain amount with passive, duration-based value-changing spells/abilities.

Usually you don't need to. In the tougher encounters of the Icewind Dale games the enemy sometimes begins the encounter by casting Dispel Magic on your party, thus erasing all the pre-buffing you did. LOL. Strangely, this really didn't make much of a difference - didn't really change the difficulty of the battle, it just forced you to either fight unbuffed, or take some time to re-buff yourself.

 

I'm all for planning, but planning does not mean "deal with every possible factor before you go into this." No. It means "Okay, there's gonna be a lot of lava around, and no rails to stop us. Let's put on some heat barriers to make getting knocked about on this battlefield a lot less of a worry." That was feasible preparation. So is the proper formation. Equipping the proper weapons, etc. Choosing the proper stances. Coming up with a plan to set up choke points, and/or keep certain enemies from moving into certain areas or getting behind certain people, etc.

Lets stick to the latter - combat pre-planning.

 

You enter a cave. You know for a fact (because you took the time to do some in-game investigation/rumor gathering) that this cave is filled with Fire elementals, Salamanders, and Fire Giants. So you plan ahead for the challenge. As soon as you enter the cave you start casting Fire Protection spells. Oh wait. You can't. because there's no spell pre-buffing. Instead, you must wait until those fire-using monsters are upon you.

 

 

And really, the AI should already be pre-buffingly prepared, just like you were. So, you spend the whole fight trying to de-buff each other

Nothing wrong with that. Specifically, when encountering a fully buffed up enemy, you should have a choice. 1) Debuff him enough so that he becomes 100% vulnerable to every one of your Party's attacks 2) debuff him just enough so that your most powerful "heavy hitter" can take him out 3) Debuff him just enough so that he becomes vulnerable to your party's most effective damage-dealing strategy 4) engage him in a war of attrition and wait out his buffs.

 

^This is Tactical. It poses a decent problem-solving challenge. And most importantly it is a situation that all builds can tackle.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Like contingencies and sequencers? Yes, he could have. (and he should have) Bioware did that with BG2. And as a result, BG2 is a better game than Icewind Dale.

In all fairness, that's just a subjective claim. He should have. The game was better. I'd like to know why/how, as that's what's most important. And better than what? Better than simply being devoid of those streamlining things? Or better than this other way that buffs are being handled in PoE's current design? Because that's two different things, too.

 

All buffs are influenced/support active combat factors. That's why they're called Buffs. The issue here isn't what those buffs are, it's when you're allowed to use them. One side says you should only be allowed to use them during combat, while the other side says such limitations shouldn't be imposed.

I didn't word that well. I didn't mean to propose the option of buffs that don't somehow affect/support active combat features. I meant to more specifically design them to be especially integrated into the active aspect of things.

 

It's the entire approach to buff design. Look at turn-based games. They tend to have effects that last for 3 or 4 turns. If you take out the turns and speed that up to real-time, it's just short-duration buffs, that last just long enough to affect a significant allotment of stuff. You could even take the duration completely out, and just use charges, for example. Instead of 10 seconds of +20% accuracy attacks, your next 4 attacks could just have +20% accuracy. It's not that having 5 minutes, or 30 attacks of +5% accuracy isn't tactical, but you can't make as significant of tactical decisions that incorporate the use of that, specifically, in what you do and how you do it. It's much more of a background thing.

 

But, yeah, you can't pre-buff in turn-based games. It's just a different approach to buffs, is all. And, turn-based or not, it's the same principle. Because you have to use combat time to cast them, they're usually of more significance than a passive bonus or immunity. At least, the timing/order of your spells (including the buffs) becomes much more significant, as well as how you make use of the buff's duration. If you make a passive, long-lasting-and-stacked-with-plenty-of-other-buffs-because-you-just-cast-them-all-before-combat buff that potent, it's not really of much significance. The significance is diluted to basically "is it in effect, or is it not?"

 

*shrug*. I don't know how to just say what that difference is in a simple phrase. I really don't. Examples are the best thing I know of to point it out. But, it's a mechanical relationship/ratio. There's something lacking in passive, "background" buffs that's kind of nice to have. And, to really have it, you can't have passive pre-buffing be an allowed thing that grants all your buff effects. Either the timing of the effect durations is significant (happens after combat starts), or it isn't.

 

Usually you don't need to. In the tougher encounters of the Icewind Dale games the enemy sometimes begins the encounter by casting Dispel Magic on your party, thus erasing all the pre-buffing you did. LOL. Strangely, this really didn't make much of a difference - didn't really change the difficulty of the battle, it just forced you to either fight unbuffed, or take some time to re-buff yourself.

Fair enough, but I'm not really worried about whether or not combat was more difficult, as much as I'm worried about how it objectively differed. If the buffs were so insignificant that it didn't really even affect your tackling of the encounter at all to go without buffs, then that's something I'd not like to see, either.

 

Lets stick to the latter - combat pre-planning.

 

You enter a cave. You know for a fact (because you took the time to do some in-game investigation/rumor gathering) that this cave is filled with Fire elementals, Salamanders, and Fire Giants. So you plan ahead for the challenge. As soon as you enter the cave you start casting Fire Protection spells. Oh wait. You can't. because there's no spell pre-buffing. Instead, you must wait until those fire-using monsters are upon you.

Which is where potions/items could come in. Between equipment enchantments and potential "protect from X" potions (or similar items), I think that's plenty of preparation for a situation such as your example. You don't really need a spell or ability that can bestow that on everyone, nor do you need to be able to stack buffs against all the other factors you could deal with. "Salamanders have claws... PROTECTION FROM CLAWS! It'll be dark in here... EVERYONE GETS INFRAVISION! The Fire elementals will be using magic. PROTECTION FROM MAGIC! The Giants will have high strength. BOOSTED ARMOR BUFF!" I think you get the idea. If you wanna cast all those while combat's going on, and they don't conveniently all last for the entire duration of combat, be my guest. But, if you want to just cast all that before combat, then what's the point of having all those facets of these enemies that make that combat unique? Is it the challenge of having to figure out that the square peg goes in the square hole, and the round peg goes in the round hole, etc.? Look at all the wholes, then just cast all the appropriately shaped pegs. Even if you're not getting full immunity from everything, there's not much point in having so many differences amongst foes if the entire buff system is simply designed to equalize all the factors to some degree before you even draw your sword.

 

 

Nothing wrong with that. Specifically, when encountering a fully buffed up enemy, you should have a choice. 1) Debuff him enough so that he becomes 100% vulnerable to every one of your Party's attacks 2) debuff him just enough so that your most powerful "heavy hitter" can take him out 3) Debuff him just enough so that he becomes vulnerable to your party's most effective damage-dealing strategy 4) engage him in a war of attrition and wait out his buffs.

 

^This is Tactical. It poses a decent problem-solving challenge. And most importantly it is a situation that all builds can tackle.

*shrug* Personally, I'd rather spend time actually fighting the enemy, with him fighting me, instead of spending all my time trying to destroy all his nukes while preventing him from destroying mine. I'd rather just not have the figurative nukes, if they're going to take the spotlight.

 

And I realize it's tactical. So is seeing the enemy Wizard grant the enemy Rogue Haste, then responding in kind by tossing out some barriers on the battlefield, to make him have to move twice as far just to get to you. Or stickying him in place. Or greasing the floor so he keeps slipping and falling, and can't get to you before his haste wears off.

 

They're just tactical in different ways, is all. I prefer the latter, but that's not really important. What's important are the things the latter brings to the table, and the fact that Obsidian wants those things on the table. The latter grants things more active significance, and allows for more emergent combat tactics. I won't say that's objectively better, but I think it's not something we see in a lot of games, and I'm excited to experience that and play with it in PoE.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

My two cents on prebuffing: I really like it in concept. If you have time to plan and prepare, you should have an advantage. The problem is when you run into a battle, die, reload, and then prebuff. You aren't being rewarded for good foresight and planning. You're being rewarded for having died the first time. I don't like the way that changes the game. That said, it's entirely possible to just voluntarily not do that, but the game can't be balanced for both prebuffing and no prebuffing. So in the interests of balancing the game for as many people as possible, the devs need to pick one, and I do support their decision to choose no prebuffing. Granted, my feelings on the matter aren't all that strong.

The problem is as you said, they have to balance encounters for either a pre-buffing party or a non-pre-buffing party. If attempted to be somewhere in the middle, the game will reward save scumming rather than tactical expertise. As of now, this is a non-issue because ability pre-buffs will not be implemented. I highly doubt that item pre-buffs will either, as that would sort of defeat the stated reason of not having spell pre-buffs.

 

By contrast, in pen-and-paper, where there are no reloads, I support prebuffing. I actually support it in hardcore mode also, but allowing it in only one game mode would require more design effort than I suspect it's worth.

It depends on PnP. The GM is sitting right there, so spending a few minutes casting spells is likely not a valid option in most situations. Take Firkraag in BG2 for example. A common strategy is to hide in the fog of war, summoning creatures and casting buff spells. This is a valid strategy in BG2, but in PnP would result in Firkraag looking 100ft ahead and unleashing his breath attack on the party.

[Stun]

In all fairness, that's just a subjective claim. He should have. The game was better. I'd like to know why/how, as that's what's most important. And better than what? Better than simply being devoid of those streamlining things? Or better than this other way that buffs are being handled in PoE's current design? Because that's two different things, too.

It's an extra dimension to combat, is all. BG2 probably took it a bit too far with its super-complex mage battles. But the solution isn't to go in the opposite direction. It's to keep that dimension but tone it down. When we talk about Pre-buffing, no one here is asking for us to be able to buff against every single possible attack form in a given encounter (as your repeated hyperbole-driven examples suggest) But rather, just let us prepare for the obvious. For example, entering mind flayer stronghold, and putting up buffs that will protect us against psionic attacks. That's not overkill, nor does it kill challenge (since mind flayers can still destroy you in a few rounds without using their psionics.)

 

 

I didn't word that well. I didn't mean to propose the option of buffs that don't somehow affect/support active combat features. I meant to more specifically design them to be especially integrated into the active aspect of things.

 

It's the entire approach to buff design. Look at turn-based games. They tend to have effects that last for 3 or 4 turns. If you take out the turns and speed that up to real-time, it's just short-duration buffs, that last just long enough to affect a significant allotment of stuff. You could even take the duration completely out, and just use charges, for example. Instead of 10 seconds of +20% accuracy attacks, your next 4 attacks could just have +20% accuracy. It's not that having 5 minutes, or 30 attacks of +5% accuracy isn't tactical, but you can't make as significant of tactical decisions that incorporate the use of that, specifically, in what you do and how you do it. It's much more of a background thing.

Again, if given a choice between a game that has both types and a game that only has one, only a fool would choose the latter. Why impose unnecessary limitations?

 

But, yeah, you can't pre-buff in turn-based games.

You can in some. In Temple of Elemental Evil (for example) you can totally load up with all manner of pre-buffs

 

 

*shrug*. I don't know how to just say what that difference is in a simple phrase. I really don't. Examples are the best thing I know of to point it out. But, it's a mechanical relationship/ratio. There's something lacking in passive, "background" buffs that's kind of nice to have.

Which is why No one here is arguing that a game should only have the passive type.

 

 

Fair enough, but I'm not really worried about whether or not combat was more difficult, as much as I'm worried about how it objectively differed. If the buffs were so insignificant that it didn't really even affect your tackling of the encounter at all to go without buffs, then that's something I'd not like to see, either.

Er... I never claimed that it didn't affect the tackling of the encounter at all. I just claimed it didn't affect the difficulty. Of course it affected how you fight the encounter. if you pre-buffed your party, then all your buffs got dispelled as soon as combat starts, then...YES, you suddenly have to stop and ponder your next move (do I recast those buffs? or do I forget them and just go on the attack?)

 

Which is where potions/items could come in. Between equipment enchantments and potential "protect from X" potions (or similar items), I think that's plenty of preparation for a situation such as your example. You don't really need a spell or ability that can bestow that on everyone, nor do you need to be able to stack buffs against all the other factors you could deal with. "Salamanders have claws... PROTECTION FROM CLAWS! It'll be dark in here... EVERYONE GETS INFRAVISION! The Fire elementals will be using magic. PROTECTION FROM MAGIC! The Giants will have high strength. BOOSTED ARMOR BUFF!" I think you get the idea. If you wanna cast all those while combat's going on, and they don't conveniently all last for the entire duration of combat, be my guest. But, if you want to just cast all that before combat, then what's the point of having all those facets of these enemies that make that combat unique? Is it the challenge of having to figure out that the square peg goes in the square hole, and the round peg goes in the round hole, etc.? Look at all the wholes, then just cast all the appropriately shaped pegs. Even if you're not getting full immunity from everything, there's not much point in having so many differences amongst foes if the entire buff system is simply designed to equalize all the factors to some degree before you even draw your sword.

Aah, and this is where I get to ask: What's the difference here? What's the real difference between using potions to pre-buff yourself up vs. using your class's abilities to pre-buff. Answer: there's only 1 difference. Casting spells/abilities takes longer.

 

So at the end of the day, Sawyer's argument really does boil down to only one thing: he doesn't want us to waste time preparing for battles.

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with that. Specifically, when encountering a fully buffed up enemy, you should have a choice. 1) Debuff him enough so that he becomes 100% vulnerable to every one of your Party's attacks 2) debuff him just enough so that your most powerful "heavy hitter" can take him out 3) Debuff him just enough so that he becomes vulnerable to your party's most effective damage-dealing strategy 4) engage him in a war of attrition and wait out his buffs.

 

^This is Tactical. It poses a decent problem-solving challenge. And most importantly it is a situation that all builds can tackle.

*shrug* Personally, I'd rather spend time actually fighting the enemy, with him fighting me, instead of spending all my time trying to destroy all his nukes while preventing him from destroying mine.

 

Translation: Me no want think. Me just want SMASH!

 

Personally, I want combat to be more of a thinking man's game. If an enemy has no defenses, then so be it. ME SMASH! But if he's got protections, then I want to deal with them, render them inert/useless/non-existent, then ME SMASH.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Translation: Me no want think. Me just want SMASH!

 

Personally, I want combat to be more of a thinking man's game If an enemy has no defenses, then so be it. ME SMASH! But if he's got protections, then I want to deal with them, render them inert/useless/non-existent, then ME SMASH.

If you think the options are "buff/debuff wars" or "BLIND HULK SMASHING!", then I don't think you quite comprehend the variety of tactical aspects, here.

 

I guess all real-life historical battles have just been a bunch of idiots smashing each other, since they were devoid of pre-combat buffing.

 

It's not moving in the opposite direction, by the way. It's just a fork in the road. You can either go right, or go left. You can't go both, but that doesn't mean your options are forward or backward. I don't think anyone's arguing against passive buffs being in the game at all. I haven't seen anyone argue that. But, typical combat pre-buffing (going into combat with a bunch of beneficial effects stacked on your party) is kind of built upon the foundation of buffs, in general, being heavily passive.

 

As I've pointed out multiple times, you can't really stack a bunch of 7-second buffs on your party, then charge into combat with all of those effects on. But you can do a lot of DIFFERENT stuff with 7-second buffs. You can ALSO cast longer-lasting, less-strictly-potent buffs.

 

It's pretty convoluted if you just say "Hey, player... totally go into combat with +10 to a bunch of things from passive buffs, AND you can cast short-duration, redundant bonus spells that are more potent, on top of that! 8D!"

 

Well, what's going to stop you from just pre-buffing the shyte out of your party, then using all the short-term buffs every single time? When would that be a bad idea? Why would you decide "No... I'll just skip those free 7 bonuses I could cast before combat, and JUST use well-timed, in-combat buffs to my advantage", or vice versa? Never.

 

It's also not the obligation of the lore to make sure magic is capable of long-term, cautionary effects. Again, in a game without magic, no one would be insisting on passive buffs. But then, simply because magic exists, and OMG! OBVIOUSLY real-life magic offers the convenient ability to protect everyone from fire for the duration of an entire cave-system expedition.

 

And, maybe an item can do it, but then only one can work at a time or they interfere with each other. You could impose that restriction on abilities, but then, that'd be no less arbitrary than simply having ability-based effects only be short-term, because lore. Besides, with items, it could even be not-magic. So it wouldn't just be an item doing a spell's work. Maybe to protect yourself from fire, you use that substance that fire-eaters and those people who light parts of themselves on fire use. You smear it all over yourself, and boom. You're not flammable and resist heat. You can't smear that on yourself, AND ointments/substances that protect you from 7 other things. And you can't put anti-arrow ointment on you, either. So, if magic can only maintain an anti-magic barrier for so long, then it can only do it for so long. I'm not sure how to argue against the reasons magical lore is whatever it is in a given IP. *shrug*

[Stun]

Buff-debuff battles are not isolated things separate from the core of combat. They're PART of the whole. Even in BG2, the mother of all mass-Buffing experiences, combat was robust and comprehensive enough to have both the offense and defense minigames going on at the same time. It was not unusual to literally debuff an enemy to death. Or the opposite --- destroy someone without touching any of his buffs.

 

So stop making this out to be an either/or.

 

And that goes for the passive/active nonsense you're arguing too. Wanting pre-buffs does not mean that one doesn't also want in-combat buffs. Let me repeat that. Wanting pre-buffs does not mean that one doesn't also want in-combat buffs. So trying to argue for one over the other is pointless. Since I want both.

[Lephys]

I'm sorry you feel this is nonsense, but it isn't. You're trying to read into it, instead of just taking what I'm saying at face value. I'm trying to point out an aspect that's either/or, and you're deciding that I'm encompassing the entirety of support effects into my argument.

 

Wanting pre-buffs generally means that you don't want the same buffs to have in-combat versions. Right? So, in any given situation, you can either have the buff work short-term, with a very significant factor adjustment, so that it can be more effectively used in emergent combat tactics, OR you can have the buff work longer with a less significant factor adjustment, and have it function more passively. If you have both, then you just have a stacked, redundant effect. At the very least, you've got a convoluted set of two different versions of every buff effect in your game. Or some just have passive versions, and some just have active versions. In which case, why? "You can block 10% of arrows with a shield of wind, for like 3 minutes, but you cannot make a more focused shield of wind that blocks 80% of arrows for like 10 seconds."

 

You're not commenting at all on the point about lore. Why can't the world simply deal with very short-term magical enhancements to people? Maybe casting spells gives away your position (because people are all using soul energy, basically, for their abilities, regardless of class, so maybe they can all detect it within a decent radius if you start emitting bursts of it when buffing everyone), so combat "starts" when you start casting spells anywhere near any enemies. Thus, it's so infeasible to pre-buff that, like being able to just waltz into a town and start burning down everyone's houses, the game simply doesn't let you do it. *shrug*

 

I get that it's not your preference, but you can quit pretending leisurely stacking effects on your party before combat even starts is somehow more of a thinking man's game than having to make use of much shorter buff-effect windows and specific effects in the midst of combat. Pre-buffing and buff-debuff-dispel-fests are their own thing, which is great and all, but so is this different approach that PoE's taking. Neither approach is the same thing if you just dilute them with one another, and they happened to choose the latter. Pretending that's somehow wrong or unreasonable is about as useful as claiming they should be making PoE an action shooter instead of an RPG, or that it should be single-player only instead of party-based. None of that is right or wrong. It's just mutually exclusive.

[Stun]

Wanting pre-buffs generally means that you don't want the same buffs to have in-combat versions. Right?

False.

 

 

You're not commenting at all on the point about lore. Why can't the world simply deal with very short-term magical enhancements to people? Maybe casting spells gives away your position (because people are all using soul energy, basically, for their abilities, regardless of class, so maybe they can all detect it within a decent radius if you start emitting bursts of it when buffing everyone), so combat "starts" when you start casting spells anywhere near any enemies. Thus, it's so infeasible to pre-buff that, like being able to just waltz into a town and start burning down everyone's houses, the game simply doesn't let you do it. *shrug*

 

I get that it's not your preference, but you can quit pretending leisurely stacking effects on your party before combat even starts is somehow more of a thinking man's game than having to make use of much shorter buff-effect windows and specific effects in the midst of combat. Pre-buffing and buff-debuff-dispel-fests are their own thing, which is great and all, but so is this different approach that PoE's taking. Neither approach is the same thing if you just dilute them with one another, and they happened to choose the latter. Pretending that's somehow wrong or unreasonable is about as useful as claiming they should be making PoE an action shooter instead of an RPG, or that it should be single-player only instead of party-based. None of that is right or wrong. It's just mutually exclusive.

Oh, I don't know, Lephys. I guess I don't have such an ignorantly narrow view of what Buffs are as you do. Invisibility is a buff. Specifically, it's a buff that can have a very different function when cast before an encounter vs. when cast during an encounter.

 

When cast before an encounter, it can be a tool for scouting/reconnaissance. It can be a tool for an intrepid trap setter to go to work on trapping a future battlefield. It can be a tool to facilitate an ambush.

 

A system that prohibits pre-buffing will not allow for any of this. Therefore, invisibility in this system will be far more limited. it will only have IN-combat uses: To get enemies to leave you alone and to set up a sneak attack. You, of course prefer this. 'The more limited the better' is your motto. Right?

Edited March 19, 2014 by Stun

[Mr. Magniloquent]

As a reminder from the Pre-Combat Preparation thread, moving protective spells exclusively into combat only does not solve the "pre-buffing problem". Instead, you're actually guaranteed to be casting protection spells more often since the Wizard will be entering every instance of combat unprotected. This not only functions as a tax on a Wizard's daily spells and time in combat, but now has to raise protections under duress, rather than before-hand--even when credible danger is to be reasonably expected (or even assured).

 

There are three things yet to be seen which will make substantial differences:

1. The potency of Arcane Veil.
2. The total penalties and modifications which wearing armor imposing on spell-casting.
3. The ultimate potency of spells.

I imagine that Arcane Veil is being designed as an improved form of (3rd Edition D&D) Stoneskin & Mage Armor combo. We shall have to see how it performs. I imagine that it will scale being that it is explicitly an ability rather than a spell. Armor may also play a more prominent roll in the careers of Wizards, though we do not yet know the full extent of the penalties. What truly matters though, is how potent spells will ultimately be whether they be offensive, defensive, or otherwise. If pre-buffing is no longer needed to hedge against spell casters, this could indicate that magic in PoE will be just another bland failure in a long secession of RPG magic systems. If, however, the absence of pre-buffing means that there will be a real tactical choice between a powerful and aggressive first strike or hedging against one....hope might not be lost.

 

We'll have to wait and see.

[Lephys]

 

Wanting pre-buffs generally means that you don't want the same buffs to have in-combat versions. Right?

False.

 

So, you want two versions of every buff? Not only that, but you're also claiming that the desire for pre-buffing generally is accompanied by the desire for non-pre-castable versions of the exact same buffs? Seriously?

 

Oh, I don't know, Lephys. Maybe I don't have such an ignorantly narrow view of what Buffs are as you do. Invisibility is a buff. Specifically, it's a buff that can have a very different function when cast before an encounter vs. when cast during an encounter.

I apologize. I didn't realize literally anything that affects your character temporarily is automatically a buff. Armor is a buff. When you take it off, you lose its armor value. A torch is a buff. It produces light around the character holding it for some duration.

 

Come on, Stun. The entire core of this is not being able to cast/use these effects before combat. Forgive me for being under the impression that the term "buffs" was being used here to describe, specifically, those effects that pertain directly to combat.

 

Hell... Stealth Mode is a buff, and you can use THAT outside of combat. It boosts your ability to detect hidden things, and your ability to not be detected. Why would you think Obsidian has some issue with any and all effects that could ever possibly be useful outside of combat?

 

Specifically on invisibility, I'm not sure we'll see that used outside of combat, as it would kind of defeat the purpose of the Stealth skill.

 

"I've spent the last 8 levels worth of skill points on Stealth! I can now sneak past almost ANYTHING!"

 

(Wizard) "Oh, is that so? My Stealth skill is 0. *casts Invisibility.*"

 

Again... maybe in the spell lore, such effects exist but can only be made to "stick" for very brief periods. Thus, this would still allow an in-combat use (breaking targeting, repositioning without the enemy's knowledge, etc.), but a 7-second (example number) invisibility wouldn't really help you go scouting around an enemy camp or infiltrate a fortress. Not much, anyway. In extremely specific circumstances, sure.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

So, you want two versions of every buff?

Not sure why you think that casting a buff before a battle (ie. PREPARING for battle) suddenly means that this buff must have a totally different version when cast on the fly, during battle.

 

It does NOT. Except maybe in Lephysville.

 

 

 

I apologize. I didn't realize literally anything that affects your character temporarily is automatically a buff.

Anything that temporarily positively affects your character's status is a buff.

 

 

Armor is a buff

No it's not, unless it's a spell called "armor". Actual armor is equipment and is "permanent". Actual armor does not "expire" after a few rounds, or a few minutes. Actual armor does not disappear when an enemy mage successfully casts a debuff spell at you.

 

 

A torch is a buff.

A torch can be a buff, yes, if it bestows a temporary positive status effect on its wielder, such as heat or improved vision.

 

 

Come on, Stun. The entire core of this is not being able to cast/use these effects before combat. Forgive me for being under the impression that the term "buffs" was being used here to describe, specifically, those effects that pertain directly to combat.

Like I said, I don't have such an ignorantly narrow view of Buffs (since I've played games that had robust and comprehensive Buffing spell systems). And maybe that's why me and you are in such disagreement

 

 

 

Hell... Stealth Mode is a buff, and you can use THAT outside of combat. It boosts your ability to detect hidden things, and your ability to not be detected. Why would you think Obsidian has some issue with any and all effects that could ever possibly be useful outside of combat?

I wouldn't say they do, since they didn't say that there will be no prebuffing period. They merely said that there will be no SPELL pre-buffing. And that is what we are specifically discussing here, isn't it.

 

Specifically on invisibility, I'm not sure we'll see that used outside of combat, as it would kind of defeat the purpose of the Stealth skill.

Aah, and there you go again with your unquenchable desire for an overly simplistic, overly limited system. an Invisibility spell would NOT defeat the purpose of stealth, since it would function as a temporary (ie. x per day) alternative for builds that did not put points into stealth. Edited March 19, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

 

Wanting pre-buffs generally means that you don't want the same buffs to have in-combat versions. Right?

False.

 

So, you want two versions of every buff? Not only that, but you're also claiming that the desire for pre-buffing generally is accompanied by the desire for non-pre-castable versions of the exact same buffs? Seriously? 

 

Lephys. There is no two versions when compared to the IE games. It's one version to be used in and out of combat. There is no either/or. In other words, I can cast this spell whenever I like.

 

Hmm. I just thought of something. If some spells are combat or encounter specific, am I still able to cast them out of combat? Say I want to look at the pretty animations in a small corner of a town? ooh ahh, purdy.  

 

Does the game allow me to do it? If you can't pre-buff, then how does that work if I want to see what a buff spell looks like outside of combat? or does entering combat nullify/cancel out any buff spells you already casted?

Edited March 19, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Like I said, I don't have such an ignorantly narrow view of Buffs (since I've played games that had robust and comprehensive Buffing spell systems). And maybe that's why me and you are in such disagreement.

Maybe so. I guess the technical definition of "buffs" isn't as high on my list of priorities as the actual intentions and effects of the approach being taken with PoE, as well as this discussion. *shrug*

 

I wouldn't say they do, since they didn't say that there will be no prebuffing period. They merely said that there will be no SPELL pre-buffing. And that is what we are specifically discussing here, isn't it.

That might be what you're talking about here. We're not even really quite on-topic anymore. But, people started talking about the innards of combat systems in relation to overall game difficulty of cRPGs, and thus we got back to the permeation of buffs, pre-buffing, and buff-debuff sub-battles taking place in the midst of battles. Then I said my bit about what typical pre-buffing in existing games is built upon, and how PoE's system seems to be taking an entirely different approach.

 

And here we are, with you still baffled by the completely ludicrous idea that is "no pre-buffing."

 

However, you are correct in that the only words Josh has spoken have specifically stated the word "spell" in there. So, maybe we'll be allowed to pre-buff with all sorts of stuff that just don't happen to be spells. I mean, I'm pretty excited to use torches on everyone before a fight, so that they can all have +2 to cold resistance and +2 to accuracy. Maybe I'll wrap them all in blankets, too. Rubber blankets. AND coat them in non-flammable oil. That's bonuses to Cold, Fire, and Shock resistances. AND the oil adds a bonus to grapple checks (slippery). Maybe attach a bunch of mirrors to the rubber blanket cloaks. -10% to the accuracy of anyone targeting you, because they can't figure out where the hell you are. That plus torches = blindness to enemies. Another buff! Annnnd then we should be good to go to begin combat.

[Lephys]

Lephys. There is no two versions when compared to the IE games. It's one version to be used in and out of combat. There is no either/or. In other words, I can cast this spell whenever I like.

Thanks for emphasizing my point. A spell or beneficial effect can't be both:

 

1) short-term and potent, AND

2) long-term and more of a background bonus that doesn't directly support emergent/dynamic combat tactics

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Thanks for emphasizing my point. A spell or beneficial effect can't be both:

 

1) short-term and potent, AND

2) long-term and more of a background bonus that doesn't directly support emergent/dynamic combat tactics

 

 

Lephys. I didn't emphasize your point. Try and understand ok. Spells have time limits. There is no short or long term with the actual spell. Only the term during the encounter. And the pre-buff goes against the players in some cases. The spell will run out very quickly if you pre-buff. eg. Haste in the IE games is a short spell. Another one is Negative Plane Protection which is incredibly short.

 

Pre-buff: Spell duration shorter in encounter

Buff at encounter start: Spell duration longer in encounter.

 

Long-term is more potent during the encounter. Not short-term. As a player, I would like the choice of pre-buffing or not pre-buffing. I would like the choice when I can cast a spell, not when the game tells me to. I know PoE is different to the IE games and I accept that.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Stun]

 

Lephys. There is no two versions when compared to the IE games. It's one version to be used in and out of combat. There is no either/or. In other words, I can cast this spell whenever I like.

Thanks for emphasizing my point. A spell or beneficial effect can't be both:

 

1) short-term and potent, AND

2) long-term and more of a background bonus that doesn't directly support emergent/dynamic combat tactics

 

The hell are you talking about?

 

Just a couple of posts ago, you were under the impression (specifically stated, in fact) that if one advocates Pre-buffing and in-combat buffing, then he/she must advocate that the spells used for pre-buffering must be different versions than one ones used during combat.

 

This is complete nonsense on your part and Hiro's post does not "emphasize your point" at all.

 

Lets take a standard combat buff. Say... Protection from fire.

 

Protection from Fire will be the same buff with the same effect, regardless of when it's cast. it will not, for example be more powerful and have a shorter duration if you cast it just before a battle than it will if you cast it during a battle.

[Lephys]

Lephys. I didn't emphasize your point. Try and understand ok. Spells have time limits. There is no short or long term. There is only one term. The spell will run out very quickly if you pre-buff.

 

Pre-buff: Duration shorter in encounter

I tried to understand, but I don't even get what it is I'm supposed to be understanding.

 

Stun said this:

 

 

Wanting pre-buffs generally means that you don't want the same buffs to have in-combat versions. Right?

False.

 

If it's false that you don't want the same buff to have an in-combat version, then it's true that you want each buff to have an in-combat version. As distinct from some other version that doesn't have "in-combat" as a descriptor. Thus, two versions. Which is why I asked if that's what Stun meant.

 

Then you jump in, trying to clarify to me the folly of having two versions. I'm well aware of my own point, but I have no idea what yours is. My best guess is that you weren't clear on the context of what I was saying? *shrug*

 

Even if you didn't know it, you echoed my very point.

[Lephys]

The hell are you talking about?

 

Just a couple of posts ago, you were under the impression (specifically stated, in fact) that if one advocates Pre-buffing and in-combat buffing, then he/she must advocate that the spells used for pre-buffering must be different versions than one ones used during combat.

Specifically stated interrogatively, sure. I'm not entirely sure you understand the function of a question mark.

 

Lets take a standard combat buff. Say... Protection from fire.

 

Protection from Fire will be the same buff with the same effect, regardless of when it's cast. it will not, for example be more powerful and have a shorter duration if you cast it just before a battle than it will if you cast it during a battle.

False. Protection from Fire does not denote the extent of the protection. It could be .0001% damage reduction from fire, or 100%. It could simply prevent you from receiving some kind of Burning status ailment (and taking damage over time, perhaps), or it could shorten the duration of such an effect. Or any combination of the above.

 

You see, PoE isn't limited to the exact same spells and effects as D&D or any other ruleset. Which is exactly why I approach topics like this in a raw form, looking at the general function of buffs, rather than having an "ignorantly narrow view" of them.

 

When making an RPG, like PoE, and deciding "I want to put a buff in this game that protects people from fire." Well, now I've got to come up with all the factors. If I want the buff to last for like 10 fights, then it makes more sense for me to make the effect weaker. Otherwise, why even pretend fire's a hazard if the player can conveniently stave it off for 72-hours at a time? Now, if I want the buff to last for 10 seconds, then it makes sense for me to make the effect quite strong. Why would someone bother with the timing and execution of a 10-second Fire Protection buff if it grants +5% damage reduction to fire?

 

I'm not sure how that's nonsensical. I can't make both of those, and neither is inherently less valid of a choice than the other. Simply put, the player can do significantly different things with a 10-second IMMUNITY to fire than he can with a 10-minute 10% reduction to fire damage.

 

Furthermore, when the general approach to buff effects favors the short-term, more-potent style, it just makes a lot more sense that combat pre-buffing isn't going to really be a big deal, since you're going to need the buffs to be in-effect when you're actually taking the hits and such, as opposed to at the "start of combat" when both sides start charging at one another and nocking their arrows.

 

Tactics are all about what you do in the midst of battle... how you adjust. Not "They're using arrows. We should probably bring shields." That's not a tactic. It's a strategy.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Lephys. I didn't emphasize your point. Try and understand ok. Spells have time limits. There is no short or long term. There is only one term. The spell will run out very quickly if you pre-buff.

 

Pre-buff: Duration shorter in encounter

I tried to understand, but I don't even get what it is I'm supposed to be understanding.

 

I don't think you're trying to understand.

 

 

Lets take a standard combat buff. Say... Protection from fire.

 

Protection from Fire will be the same buff with the same effect, regardless of when it's cast. it will not, for example be more powerful and have a shorter duration if you cast it just before a battle than it will if you cast it during a battle.

False. Protection from Fire does not denote the extent of the protection. It could be .0001% damage reduction from fire, or 100%. It could simply prevent you from receiving some kind of Burning status ailment (and taking damage over time, perhaps), or it could shorten the duration of such an effect. Or any combination of the above.

 

When making an RPG, like PoE, and deciding "I want to put a buff in this game that protects people from fire." Well, now I've got to come up with all the factors. If I want the buff to last for like 10 fights, then it makes more sense for me to make the effect weaker. Now, if I want the buff to last for 10 seconds, then it makes sense for me to make the effect quite strong. Why would someone bother with the timing and execution of a 10-second Fire Protection buff if it grants +5% damage reduction to fire?

 

My god. What the hell am I reading. Why are you going on about different types of spells of the same spell? Why are you going on about two different time durations of the same spell? 10 seconds compared to 10 fights? It's the same spell!!!! There is no difference in time or effect if the spell only lasts 10 seconds. You're talking about two different spells. We're talking about the same spell.

 

If a spell protects you for 10 seconds, then you should be able to cast it anytime you want. If I want to pre-buff and waste a few precious seconds of that spell, why not? It will be less effective during combat. If I want to cast it at the encounter start, then I should be able to it as well. It's more effective if I do cast it at the encounter start and more potent during the encounter. The decision comes down to me when I want to cast it.

[Stun]

Stun said this:

 

 

 

 

Wanting pre-buffs generally means that you don't want the same buffs to have in-combat versions. Right?

False.

 

If it's false that you don't want the same buff to have an in-combat version, then it's true that you want each buff to have an in-combat version. As distinct from some other version that doesn't have "in-combat" as a descriptor. Thus, two versions. Which is why I asked if that's what Stun meant.

 

Sweet merciful f*ck. Enough of this banal gibberish.

 

I said false because, I don't expect nor want "versions" of a specific buff.

 

Moreover, wanting pre-buffs only means that I want to be able to cast some buffs before battle so that when the battle starts, I will already be at my best possible fighting condition and can thus concentrate on the enemy, instead of having to spend too much time on my own defensive protections.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Stun

[BrainMuncher]

 

Stun said this:

 

 

 

 

 

Wanting pre-buffs generally means that you don't want the same buffs to have in-combat versions. Right?

False.

 

If it's false that you don't want the same buff to have an in-combat version, then it's true that you want each buff to have an in-combat version. As distinct from some other version that doesn't have "in-combat" as a descriptor. Thus, two versions. Which is why I asked if that's what Stun meant.

 

Sweet merciful f*ck. Enough of this banal gibberish.

 

I said false because, I don't expect nor want "versions" of a specific buff.

 

Moreover, wanting pre-buffs only means that I want to be able to cast some buffs before battle so that when the battle starts, I will already be at my best possible fighting condition and can thus concentrate on the enemy, instead of having to spend too much time on my own defensive protections.

 

To be fair, it seems you've misunderstood lephys' question, and gave the wrong answer.

 

Wanting pre-buffs generally means that you don't want the same buffs to have in-combat versions. Right?

eg, you do not want an out-of-combat version and an in-combat version of the same buff, right?

 

I said false because, I don't expect nor want "versions" of a specific buff.

You should have said true. As it is, the above quote is a contradiction. Edited March 19, 2014 by BrainMuncher

[Hiro Protagonist II]

eg, you do not want an out-of-combat version and an in-combat version of the same buff, right? 

 

Well for me, I do want the same out-of-combat version and in-combat version of the same buff, whenever I cast the spell. Stun's protection from fire spell is a good example. Why would there be a different version out of combat? Why would I want different versions? Can you show me an IE spell that has different out-of-combat version and an in-combat version of the same buff? No? Didn't think so. Have you actually played the IE games?

 

You should have said true. As it is, the above quote is a contradiction.

 

No it's not.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[BrainMuncher]

 

eg, you do not want an out-of-combat version and an in-combat version of the same buff, right?

 

Well for me, I do want the same out-of-combat version and in-combat version of the same buff, whenever I cast the spell. Why would I want different versions? Can you show me an IE spell that has different out-of-combat version and an in-combat version of the same buff? No? Didn't think so. Have you actually played the IE games?

 

I think the cause of the misunderstanding is that in order to have two versions, they must be different. If they are the same then they are not different versions, since they are the same, there is only one version.

 

So the question was clumsily worded, and understandably was easily misunderstood. The answer was a contradiction because the question was too.

 

"Do you want two versions of the same thing?"

Well if there are two versions, then they are not the same. If they are the same then there is only one version. Quite an absurd question, it is almost impossible to answer without a contradiction.

 

 

lol

[Stun]

Of course it's an absurd question. It's also an intentional attempt to confuse everything. Nowhere on this thread did I ever claim, suggest, or imply, directly or indirectly that any buff should ever be any different depending on when it is cast. Lephys LITERALLY pulled that "question" out of his ass in an attempt to fish around for something new to latch on to, since all of his previous talking points had been shot down.

 

He does this sort of thing all the time, btw. He's a disgustingly dishonest debater. But the problem is that you can't "fix" personalities like his. All you can do is call him out then stay on him till he gets tired and quits his antics on his own.

 

So lets continue.

 

 

Lets take a standard combat buff. Say... Protection from fire.

 

Protection from Fire will be the same buff with the same effect, regardless of when it's cast. it will not, for example be more powerful and have a shorter duration if you cast it just before a battle than it will if you cast it during a battle.

False. Protection from Fire does not denote the extent of the protection.

 

It will in the spell description. Then, when it is cast (either before, during or after a battle), it will bestow the stated protection. Period.

 

 

 

It could simply prevent you from receiving some kind of Burning status ailment (and taking damage over time, perhaps), or it could shorten the duration of such an effect. Or any combination of the above.

So? If it does that stuff, then it will do it regardless of when it is cast. Edited March 19, 2014 by Stun

[BrainMuncher]

Oh dear. I don't sense any malice, besides the question wasn't intentionally made absurd, and was rhetorical anyway. Misunderstandings happen all the time, even among good friends.

 

 

 

I'm giving out free hugs btw