Crazy difficult

[Lephys]

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

The feeling is mutual.

 

My god. What the hell am I reading. Why are you going on about different types of spells of the same spell?

Because a spell isn't a spell until it's coded into the game by a developer. They don't just go dig them up, you know. "Hey guys! I found a Fire Protection spell! Oh, it's 1 minute long. Better build a game around that duration, u_u"

 

What I'm "going on about" are different potentialities for the "same" spell. It's kind of what you do when you're designing a spell. Obsidian are desigining spells. New, original IP spells. Is there some restriction in programming I should know about? o_o

[Stun]

LOL Back for more are we? Good. Lets continue.

What I'm "going on about" are different potentialities for the "same" spell.

Really? It was "versions" just a page ago. Now it's "potentialities". What's it gonna be next page? Names?

 

You're just throwing thoughts out here wildly because none of your arguments are sticking. Spell versions suggests that they're... different spell effects. Spell potentialities suggests that the spell can have a different utility use depending on the situation. I will give you an example of both. Note: these will be hypothetical.

 

Different versions: Monster summoning. The 1st level version of this spell summons goblins. The 9th level version of this spell summons Umberhulks.

Spell Potentialities: Invisibility. When cast outside of combat, this spell can be used to scout areas. When cast in-combat, this spell can be used to set up sneak attacks.

 

 

 

It's kind of what you do when you're designing a spell.

What is? Creating versions of a spell or creating potentialities of a spell? Because most spells only have 1 version. In fact, the vast majority only have one version. And I cannot recall more than 1 or 2 buffs in all my years of gaming that have had more than one version of themselves. But potentialities... well, that's another beast all together. The player's imagination is the limit on that. Haste is an example of a spell with a bajillion potentialities. It can be used as a standard buff to give you extra attacks. It can be used to dispel the Slow affliction. It can be used outside of combat to quicken travel speed. It can be used as a solution to a terrain puzzle (like if there's a lava pool that you must cross that causes 10 points of damage per second. By using Haste, you can cross that pool faster, thus taking less damage)

 

 

Obsidian are desigining spells. New, original IP spells. Is there some restriction in programming I should know about? o_o

Well, there might be a time and funding restriction, if they have to make multiple versions of every single spell in the game. Edited March 20, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Really? It was "versions" just a page ago. Now it's "potentialities". What's it gonna be next page? Names?

A) You're not accomplishing anything by arguing semantics. You're basically just saying "I don't even care what you mean, as long as you're technically using the wrong word," which is hardly productive.

 

B) You're not even doing it right. You just picked an overly specific meaning of "potentialities" and decided that, since it works, mine doesn't.

 

The next word out of my mouth has the POTENTIAL to be any word I can form with my vocal cords. It could be "blue," or it could be "Steve," etc. However, the next word out of my mouth can only be ONE of however many potential options. Much like a spell. Firebolt. It shoots a firebolt, and deals some value of damage. It can't have a range of 30, AND a range of 70, shoot only a single electric bolt AND shoot only a single firebolt, have a cast time of 1 second AND have a cast time of 9 seconds. It doesn't have any set values until I code it into the game and say "this is Firebolt." Unless I code in 7 different spells, all called "Firebolt," and say "These are all Firebolt."

 

You comprehend this, yes? Tell me what word you want me to use for that, and we'll all agree I'm a big idiot who can't think up the perfect words to use to express ideas, and that the 17 paragraphs I type to elaborate on a concept I'm trying to convey never make up for the fact that I didn't use that ONE word that was kind of vague because you maybe thought of a different specific meaning for it.

 

Different versions: Monster summoning. The 1st level version of this spell summons goblins. The 9th level version of this spell summons Umberhulks.

Those aren't the same spell. If they were, then all movie sequels would just be different "versions" of the same movie. By definition of the word "version," those could all be called different versions of monster-summoning (type) spells. But they are not different versions of one, unary, singular, solitary spell. One is either Monster Summoning IV, or it is not. This is why I elaborate on things, instead of just tossing out the word "versions" and calling it a day. You should try utilizing context sometime to rule out all the potential specific meanings of a word that's been used. It works wonders.

 

There, are we done with SemanticsFest 2K14 now? If you want, I'll pretend both you and Hiro DIDN'T just misunderstand the crap out of me and prompt a bunch of "multiple versions of a spell" argument that doesn't even have any significance to the actual topic of pre-buffing and the effects of its elimination versus its inclusion. If it makes you guys feel better. I couldn't care less. I don't think any less of either of you for misunderstanding. To err is human.

 

 

Back to the actual topic we were on, here's the thing... What's the difference between these?:

 

A) You do 5 damage, but you pre-buff yourself, before combat, so that you now do 8 damage. Your foe has 50 health, but he pre-buffs himself to have 60 health (because, as we said, why shouldn't enemies prepare for combat if we, the players, do?). Now you fight.

 

B) You just do 8 damage, and your enemy has 60 health. Now you fight.

 

 

I'll tell you what the difference is. In A, you happened to cast some spells. In B, you didn't.

 

(Anticipated response)

"But casting those spells or not-casting them changes the playing field at the start of combat in different ways, depending on what you cast and don't, and adds in a whole new aspect to the active portion of combat!"

 

Nope. Sorry. It's an illusion. What's the difference between dispelling that +5 armor buff that's making your foe's armor value 10 instead of 5 -- so that your 10-damage attack can actually do 5 damage to them insted of none -- and simply debuffing them for -5 armor, OR simply buffing yourself for +5 damage? The difference, again, is just that you happened to cast some spells beforehand when you pre-buffed. Combat still plays out the same way. Based on whatever factors are in place, you have so many options to tackle them.

 

In fact, pre-buffing can potentially limit your options. Those fire elementals do nothing but fire damage, so you see them, slap a bunch of fire resistance on your peeps, then jump into the fray? Awesome. What option do the fire elementals have BUT to strip away your resistance? Their options are "don't be effective," or "strip away that resistance and actually be effective."

 

The more different things you can render ineffective before combat even starts, the fewer options there are but "dispel the crap out of all of them." Whereas, without pre-buffing, any number of things could be feasible: stop them from casting a spell, buff your party against some specific thing, debuff the enemy, focus-fire on something to kill it quickly and take it out of the equation, etc. Sure, you can protect yourself from fire AFTER combat has started, but you've got to actively close that door while your actions and their timing/order actually counts, and not just conveniently have it closed when the fighting starts.

 

Not to mention that there are already permanent traits/factors that serve the same function. If you're wearing plate armor, and the enemies are using weapons that are weak against plate, then you've already got them at a passive disadvantage. Why do you need to ALSO be able to boost your armor, and your attack, and be immune to sleep effects (which is one of the things they COULD effectively use on you), and be immune to poison (something they were gonna use to get around that whole "our weapons already suck against your armor" thing, but now they can't), etc.?

 

Why is being able to dictate so many factors at the moment of combat's beginning necessary, or in any way superior to simply dealing with the factors at-play at the start of combat?

Edited March 20, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

A) You're not accomplishing anything by arguing semantics. You're basically just saying "I don't even care what you mean, as long as you're technically using the wrong word," which is hardly productive.

 

B) You're not even doing it right. You just picked an overly specific meaning of "potentialities" and decided that, since it works, mine doesn't.

 

The next word out of my mouth has the POTENTIAL to be any word I can form with my vocal cords. It could be "blue," or it could be "Steve," etc. However, the next word out of my mouth can only be ONE of however many potential options. Much like a spell. Firebolt. It shoots a firebolt, and deals some value of damage. It can't have a range of 30, AND a range of 70, shoot only a single electric bolt AND shoot only a single firebolt, have a cast time of 1 second AND have a cast time of 9 seconds. It doesn't have any set values until I code it into the game and say "this is Firebolt." Unless I code in 7 different spells, all called "Firebolt," and say "These are all Firebolt."

 

You comprehend this, yes? Tell me what word you want me to use for that, and we'll all agree I'm a big idiot who can't think up the perfect words to use to express ideas, and that the 17 paragraphs I type to elaborate on a concept I'm trying to convey never make up for the fact that I didn't use that ONE word that was kind of vague because you maybe thought of a different specific meaning for it.

^this is another subject change attempt. And I'm not going to indulge in these antics of yours any more. I'll just say that We were NOT discussing the state of buff spells during the coding development process before a game has been released. We were discussing Buff spells as they exist in a game that has been already delivered to us.

 

 

 

 

Those aren't the same spell. If they were, then all movie sequels would just be different "versions" of the same movie. By definition of the word "version," those could all be called different versions of monster-summoning (type) spells. But they are not different versions of one, unary, singular, solitary spell. One is either Monster Summoning IV, or it is not.

In that case, there is no such thing as a different version of the same spell. It's either the same spell or it's a different spell. Lephys, If you want people to understand you instead of dismissing your arguments as long winded drivel, I'd suggest you try to be a little less.... erroneous with your terminology use.

 

For example, if you mean RUN, don't say Walk.

 

Oh and in case that went over your head: stop blaming others for your own faulty use of language.

 

 

 

Back to the actual topic we were on, here's the thing... What's the difference between these?:

 

A) You do 5 damage, but you pre-buff yourself, before combat, so that you now do 8 damage. Your foe has 50 health, but he pre-buffs himself to have 60 health (because, as we said, why shouldn't enemies prepare for combat if we, the players, do?). Now you fight.

 

B) You just do 8 damage, and your enemy has 60 health. Now you fight.

 

 

I'll tell you what the difference is. In A, you happened to cast some spells. In B, you didn't.

Not following. According to the damage and health numbers, B was the result of the Buffing from both sides that occurred in A. So....What is your point?

 

 

(Anticipated response)

 

<blah blah blah>

Just stop. I'll post my OWN responses. Thanks. Quit trying to burn a straw man in my face by shooting down arguments that I would never make.

 

 

 

In fact, pre-buffing can potentially limit your options. Those fire elementals do nothing but fire damage, so you see them, slap a bunch of fire resistance on your peeps, then jump into the fray? Awesome. What option do the fire elementals have BUT to strip away your resistance? Their options are "don't be effective," or "strip away that resistance and actually be effective."

Excuse me, but from a tactical point of view, I'd much rather those Fire elementals waste their attacks trying to debuff me, instead of actually trying to, you know... kill me.

 

Look, let me help you out here. And let me do it in plain English. Pre-buffing can limit your combat options in ONE way: By diminishing your spell pool. There can be situations where you "over-anticipate" and start casting buffs that turn out to be not needed. For example: You cast Protection from Arrows, then wade into battle, only to discover that the enemy does not consist of a single archer. Oops. Now you're out one 3rd level spell. One 3rd level spell that could have been used in the form a Fireball, or some other very useful non-buff that actually hurts the enemy directly.

 

 

 

Why is being able to dictate so many factors at the moment of combat's beginning necessary, or in any way superior to simply dealing with the factors at-play at the start of combat?

Because.... tactics? Cover your ass? Anticipate everything? Be prepared? Get a head start? Grab every advantage you can get?

 

Because.... you can? Because.... a good game allows it? Because...a game with Rigid Lephys-advocated Restrictions isn't as good as a game without Lephys-advocated Restrictions?

Edited March 20, 2014 by Stun

[Ffordesoon]

Why is this argument still going on? It's boring.

[Lephys]

^this is another subject change attempt. And I'm not going to indulge in these antics of yours any more. I'll just say that We were NOT discussing the state of buff spells during the coding development process before a game has been released. We were discussing Buff spells as they exist in a game that has been already delivered to us.

A) You don't get to dictate what "we" were discussing. Only what you were. And you'll hardly find me insisting you were on the same page I was.

 

B) Did I miss PoE's completion and delivery to us? As well as a plethora of specific references you made to PoE's own buffs and their details?

 

Because... I could've sworn I was talking about what PoE's doing with buffs, as compared to what it isn't doing with buffs, and you were talking about other, existing games buffs as if PoE is somehow obviously restricted to those templates when designing buffs.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Why is this argument still going on? It's boring.

No porn.

[tdent]

 /shrug worst case I mod it and blow up all the things~~

[Stun]

Because... I could've sworn I was talking about what PoE's doing with buffs,

Really? By talking about their coding?

 

Interesting. By all means then, please share more of your insider information with us. Specifically, give us a list of Wizard buffs (all versions) that are going to be in the game that haven't yet been revealed, then take some time to tell us about the various changes to the higher level buffs that were made during the coding process, both minor and major, that you personally witnessed.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Why is this argument still going on? It's boring.

 

What is the point of this post? It's boring. Why do I continue to go into threads that I find boring and post meaningless posts? I know, because I feel special and need to post these meaningless posts and let the community know how I'm feeling. Ah, I feel better knowing I've let the whole community know I'm bored and had to post this.

[Ffordesoon]

 

Why is this argument still going on? It's boring.

 

 

What is the point of this post? It's boring. Why do I continue to go into threads that I find boring and post meaningless posts? I know, because I feel special and need to post these meaningless posts and let the community know how I'm feeling. Ah, I feel better knowing I've let the whole community know I'm bored and had to post this.

Well, yeah, pretty much. I never claimed I couldn't be a jerk.

 

Still a boring argument, though.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm finding it entertaining. Seeing what madness Lephys can come up next.

[Lephys]

Really, Stun. Your whole side of this is opposition to the approach they're taking with buffing. They didn't just copy D&D's buff list, then rip out the sheer capability to pre-buff. That's been the point this whole time. And yet, somehow, my commentary on how their approach to buffing is different, and how the role of pre-buffing, in tandem with this approach, is severely diminished, is somehow completely nonsensical and has nothing to do with this topic?

 

And you still, still miss any point with your retorts. I didn't claim to know all the specifics of all the buffs that are definitely in the game, so my lack of such info is in no way contrary to what I'm talking about here.You implied that my analysis of PoE's approach to buffs, in general, was vague and inferior to your reference of specific, actual in-game buffs... of not PoE. So, I merely pointed out that it doesn't really matter how exact your info is if it's not actually about PoE's buffs. I didn't claim mine was more exact than yours. So, I don't know what you're calling me out on now.

 

Why must you make everything so complicated?

 

"Their CODING?!" Yes. Everything in the game is coded. Where did I actually analyze code, itself? Nowhere. Nor did I suggest we should. I actually placed no emphasis, whatsoever, on the process of coding. Ever. And now, you focus on that in a response.

 

Such a mystery, where the confusion comes from.

 

Buffs in RPGs are designed. The IE games had them designed one way. PoE's are designed another way. There's no pre-buffing. You're not happy with that, in isolation. PoE's entire approach to buffing is such that the ability to pre-buff would hardly be significant.

 

It's not... that... complicated. If you disagree, then disagree, by all means. But please, for the love of all that is holy, stop arbitrarily spinning a wheel of words I've spoken, and selecting one to insist is somehow the nonsensical focus of my entire argument.

 

Please. I'm genuinely asking.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

Why must you make everything so complicated?

We're getting this from You? YOU, the guy who's posts on any given thread are always at least 3 times longer than everyone else's?

 

LOL

 

By the way... Just to tie up a one loose end, and to illustrate just how lacking your knowledge of buffs has been in this discussion:

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.

Or.... you can have a Buff with a very significant, almost absolute, factor adjustment, but who's duration is not measured by time at all.

 

So tell us, Lephys, how would such buffs fit into your constrictive, "either/or" gaming theories?

Edited March 21, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

A "duration," by definition, is dealing with time. Whether it's indefinite (i.e. "lasts for 3 attacks") or specified in a time-based unit of measure, it's still "measured in time."

 

And my "theories" aren't constrictive. I'm referring to relative things. You can either have something higher, or lower, in relation to any point of reference you'd like to choose. It simply cannot be BOTH at the same time.

 

You're like an Irrationality hydra:

 

Every item one point of contention is clarified, you raise two more.

 

I don't know what to say.

[pi2repsion]

On the original topic, regardless of the basic difficulty level of the playing experience, I am hoping for a few optional really difficult encounters: Encounters that are pretty likely to destroy anybody unprepared, even hardcore veterans of CRPGs with min/maxing as second nature, as some of us are, and will allow those with the patience for a good fight requiring them to exercise their tactical skills to the utmost some challenge.

 

I am not so much thinking trick encounters where a simple trick renders the difficulty negligible, like Kangaxx the demilich from BG2, or something moderately challenging like the Twisted Rune encounter from the same game, but of encounters that are a real challenge, also to the prepared.

 

The gold standard for such encounters in CRPGs probably remains the optional fight against the Mulmaster Beholder corps in the gold-box game, Curse of the Azure Bonds, or at any rate, that is the encounter that I can still remember vividly these two decades hence despite all the other CRPGs I've played since then. For those who weren't around at the time to appreciate that masterpiece of a set battle, it was under the 2nd ed AD&D rules, and your party of 6 level ~10 adventurers kicked open a door just to end up face to face with - if I recall the numbers correctly -

 

15 Beholders (providing the usual bunch of disintegration, flesh to stone, and other fun ray attacks)

10 Dark Elf lords (fighters with good damage and better armour)

12 Zentarim High Priests (liked spamming Slay Living, Hold Person, and other nasty cleric spells)

8 Rakshasa (mages one and all with a liking for lightning bolts and with lots of magic resistance)

 

..You were given an option to flee rather than fighting them, though, and as it was indoors it was possible to use walls to your advantage rather than having to face all of them head-on all the time. The developers weren't utterly heartless. There was also a single unique consumable magic item in the game (Dust of Disapperance) that, if you had saved it for the occasion, would allow you to trivialize the fight - so everybody had the opportunity to finish it, at least the second time around, if they knew in advance to save that item.

 

Be that as it may, that's the sort of encounter - in terms of difficulty level when not using the Dust of Disapperance - that I'd love to see one or two in one or two optional fights. Something that challenges the player to do better and to exceed whatever his standard tactics are, that allows him to coast through the rest of the game.

[Stun]

A "duration," by definition, is dealing with time. Whether it's indefinite (i.e. "lasts for 3 attacks") or specified in a time-based unit of measure, it's still "measured in time."

Uh...No. "Lasts for 3 attacks" would not be a time measurement. It would be an instance measurement. And, your limitation of "Short term vs. Long term" definitely wouldn't apply. Would it.

 

You can either have something higher, or lower, in relation to any point of reference you'd like to choose. It simply cannot be BOTH at the same time.

Correct. It can be NEITHER. The nature of the buff can be such that it is not effected by time. It can be a spell that, once cast, stays in effect until it fulfills its function. For example: a buff that Absorbs x levels of spells directed at the wizard, and then expires once its absorption limit has been reached. Or a Melee-shielding type spell that will block x number of melee hits and then expire only when it reaches its limit.

 

I'll ask again, how does that fit into your Either/Or world of limitations? You guessed it! It doesn't. It renders your all your incessant rambling on this topic completely moot.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Stun

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't know what to say.

How about using that nifty "Ignore" option? Getting into tangent wars probably isn't the best use of your time.

[Lephys]

How about using that nifty "Ignore" option? Getting into tangent wars probably isn't the best use of your time.

I don't mean to. Stun's deceptive. At first, it REALLY seems like he's just trying to discuss things. He starts out all reasonable. Then, he focuses so hard on some word that maybe would've been clearer if it had been another word, and instead of just saying "This seems to mean this, and that seems nonsensical. Is that what you meant to convey?", he just argues in such a way that I have NO idea what isn't making sense to him, but the more I elaborate, the more things he picks out until I don't even know how to give directions to get back to the main road from where we are. We're like... teetered on a boulder in the desert, on the edge of a cliff, with no road in sight.

 

It's a very gradual process. I never see it coming until it's already devolved so far, because I just am weird.

 

I honestly don't think "just ignore Stun all the time" is a good way to go, because he's got a lot of good stuff to say. *shrug*

 

On the original topic, regardless of the basic difficulty level of the playing experience, I am hoping for a few optional really difficult encounters: Encounters that are pretty likely to destroy anybody unprepared, even hardcore veterans of CRPGs with min/maxing as second nature, as some of us are, and will allow those with the patience for a good fight requiring them to exercise their tactical skills to the utmost some challenge.

 

I am not so much thinking trick encounters where a simple trick renders the difficulty negligible, like Kangaxx the demilich from BG2, or something moderately challenging like the Twisted Rune encounter from the same game, but of encounters that are a real challenge, also to the prepared.

I'm with you on that. Alas, THIS...

 

The difficulty level issue is going to be less about how you manage your resources fight-to-fight and more about figuring out how to get through fights, period.  Some of the optional fights we have in right now can only be beaten by a few people on the team, and that's with a mostly-fresh party.

... is quite encouraging in that regard.

[600lbpanther]

I used to be a forum warrior until I took an arrow to the...

[Stun]

 

Some of the optional fights we have in right now can only be beaten by a few people on the team, and that's with a mostly-fresh party.

... is quite encouraging in that regard.

 

After having watched some of these very same Obsidian devs play the old classics like Icewind Dale 2 (Adam) and Arcanum (Avellone), and get their asses kicked in easy encounters. this statement from Sawyer does not have quite the awe inspiring impact it he probably meant it to have.

 

 

Besides, Gamers have always been 10000 times better at Games than the devs who created them. We're the ones who discover loopholes, exploits and cheese tactics.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Stun

[Osvir]

 

 

Some of the optional fights we have in right now can only be beaten by a few people on the team, and that's with a mostly-fresh party.

... is quite encouraging in that regard.

 

After having watched some of these very same Obsidian devs play the old classics like Icewind Dale 2 (Adam) and Arcanum (Avellone), and get their asses kicked in easy encounters. this statement from Sawyer does not have quite the awe inspiring impact it he probably meant it to have.

 

 

Besides, Gamers have always been 10000 times better at Games than the devs who created them. We're the ones who discover loopholes, exploits and cheese tactics.

 

 

Not only loopholes, exploits or cheese tactics. Gamers have more time on their hands to become skillful at a game. A developer might know that this or that is a great tactic and they know that it can be utilized, but a gamer "perfects" it to do it faster, stronger and better.

 

A developer will probably know that "This attack can be dodged, but it is difficult even for me" whilst a gamer will know that "I can dodge this attack, it is easy because I trained for this".

 

Gamers train to become great at playing games, developers train to become great at creating games.

[Lephys]

I didn't say how encouraging.

 

Just... encouraging. As opposed to, say, even intern Steve who doesn't even play vidya games being able to beat them after half-an-hour at the test comp.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Lephys

[stkaye]

I'm late to this debate, but I have to say  - having played every IE game going, modded and unmodded, there's no stretch of gameplay in any of them that's more difficult than the first few hours of Baldur's Gate 1. The game world was incredibly unforgiving on normal difficulty - I think I died by being struck by lightning on one occasion - and that's just when I was unlucky. Those early bounty-hunters will make mincemeat of a less-than-optimised starting party; it's a wonder that any of my first-level mages ever survived at all.

[Sarex]

Am I the only one who didn't die in the beginning of BG1 or find it that difficult.