Game Mechanics etc.

[cornishr]

What stands out to me, is that you can tell these guys (Obsidian) have been playing all of these games (D&D etc.) for years and they are bonafide (and passionate) experts in the field. Every time i read of their reasoning behind a change (example being the new health plus stamina double tier thing and the per rest/per encounter abilities), i can immediately see what a good idea it is and exactly where it's come from and why it's been brought in. Several times so far i've thought 'why on earth would they do that" then i've read their thought process and it's miles ahead of mine.

 

They really are getting nearly everything spot on imo. Keeping all of the good stuff, altering/fixing/improving everything which can be made better. Sometimes they are picking out fundamental issues which i hadn't even realised needed changing until they pointed out the inherent faults.

 

Reading the forums, it strikes me that there are a lot of people scared and resistant to any change, but if something can be improved, surely go for it? Pen & paper and video games are, after all, completely different; why restrict a video to pen and paper drawbacks? Nostalgia is all well and good, but there have always been numerous fundamental flaws in any D&D edition, so for me one of the best things about this game will probably be the fact it isn't limited to replicating a flawed system. And if some mechanic does turnout to be dodgy, it can be altered later, so it isn't the end of the world.

 

You'll never be able to please everybody everytime, but it's clear they are doing their best and i think we should trust their experience and judgment in this stuff instead of questioning every single decision they make. Until now it looks damned near perfect if you ask me. The fuss some people have made about the publishers; bloody hell. It's like reading little children sometimes!

 

Obsidian great work so far, i trust you are aware most of us think it looks awesome and the other minority would never, ever be happy whatever you do, so don't worry too much about dissenting voices.

 

Now all you need are more wilderness levels and a kickass male (no offende anybody) Aumaua barbarian and we're sorted...

 

Ps I've just read that the Glanfathan language has been influenced by the Cornish language; this pleases me greatly!  I'm impressed, most people in Britain don't even realise Cornwall has it's own language.

 

Kernow bys vyken!!! (Cornwall forever)

Edited March 23, 2014 by cornishr

[Jarrakul]

I totally agree with you, both in your opinion of chance in general and in your assessment of the quality of the dev team's ideas (Josh has yet to say something I disagree with). But then, I come from a pen-and-paper community that averages two sets of house rules per DM, so I may be more inclined to change than most. I also know what it's like to be utterly convinced that you're right (that's me, most of the time; all the "in my opinion"s are really just me trying to be diplomatic), so I can see why people might be a tad stubborn. The only reason I'm taking the changes as well as I am is that they're the changes I would make in Josh's place.

 

I am ashamed to say that everything I know about Cornwall comes from Arthurian legend. Somehow I imagine that's not the best source for real information.

[cornishr]

I totally agree with you, both in your opinion of chance in general and in your assessment of the quality of the dev team's ideas (Josh has yet to say something I disagree with). But then, I come from a pen-and-paper community that averages two sets of house rules per DM, so I may be more inclined to change than most. I also know what it's like to be utterly convinced that you're right (that's me, most of the time; all the "in my opinion"s are really just me trying to be diplomatic), so I can see why people might be a tad stubborn. The only reason I'm taking the changes as well as I am is that they're the changes I would make in Josh's place.

 

I am ashamed to say that everything I know about Cornwall comes from Arthurian legend. Somehow I imagine that's not the best source for real information.

No, that's very much what Cornwall is like )

[cornishr]

And another thing i don't understand is why some people are so obsessed with 'balance' in everything. Great when possible, but who cares? It's a one player game where you have a party under your command. I couldn't really care less if one of my party is weaker or stronger than another party member. Will the world really come to an end if a Druid is slightly stronger than a wizard?

 

Ps Or a fighter; Aumaua fighter would be equally acceptable to me.

Edited March 23, 2014 by cornishr

[Endrosz]

The concern with balance is not that there must be some picture-perfect equal distribution of power amongst attributes, classes, builds, any kind of choice.

 

The concern is that now matter how you build your party, it'll be viable to play until the very end of the game:

 

1. If you choose an aumaua chanter with a high Resolve and Stamina, that is a fine choice. Strong in some situations, weak in others. If you play to the build's strengths, and try to make up for the weaknesses (with gear choices, consumables, support from other party members), you should be able to complete the game without being stuck on "unwinnable" battles.

2. If you choose an elf fighter with a high Intellect and Dexterity, that is a fine choice, too. Strong in some situations, weak in others. If you play to the build's strengths, and try to make up for the weaknesses (with gear choices, consumables, support from other party members), you should be able to complete the game without being stuck on "unwinnable" battles.

 

Because it wasn't so in oh-so-many games, not just DnD ones. I have my own memories of realizing "this isn't gonna work", and starting over with a fresh party. In Might and Magics, in Bard's Tales, in Wizardries, and so on.** Some choices would end up sucking ass endgame-wise. And that's punishing the player for no good reason, because you can't really expect people to know all there is to know about the game system and the particular challenges at the beginning of the game, when they make those choices.

 

Some of us "play the system", we find out the best builds, party compositions etc. pretty fast, we are willing to restart the game, reload a battle already won to try something else, and so on. I am one of those people. But many people who play RPGs do not "play the system", they just play the game as it comes. They should be able to boot up the game, make those initial choices, and play the game to the very end without worrying about "did I make the right choices at the start?". This is the reason for caring about balance.

 

So Josh&Co. doesn't care if powergamers, min-maxers find out that, for example, orlan cyphers are 8% better than any other class. More power to them! (pun intended ) What they care about is "sucks ass" choices being too far behind the others. Because that hurts the player experience for many.

 

**

My first character in NWN2 was a Dex-based rogue 16/fighter 4, with Weapon Finesse. Everything was fine until the end dungeon where every single mob was an undead (and thus immune to Sneak attack dmg), and in the hardest battle, against the 3 Shadow Reavers, my character was just too weak to win the battle. I always play on the hardest difficulty available, which means Hardcore difficulty with 200% damage from opponents. In that battle, you're down one party member who has to recite the True Names of the Reavers, another is a healer, that leaves 2 DPS characters. And that first choice of mine just wasn't able to put out enough DPS, even with scrolls and such from Use Magic Device to kill the Reavers faster than they killed my party. On my second playthrough, a Str-based fighter 16/rogue 4 rolled over the Reavers rather easily.

[Hassat Hunter]

That's the risk of a one-char based game. In PoE (a teambased game) such a weakness can be compensated by another teammember. Fire Wizard in a fire-immune area? Impossible in, say, Diablo II. But in PoE that wont be a problem since you can simply use the other 5 teammembers.

That's why I rather prefer immunities are in (unlike an older thread who wanted them abolished). It might make things more complicated if you want to solo, but then again, isn't that the point of solo'ing a team game, challenge?

 

Anyway, OP, weren't you mad they rejected the additional wildlife areas, something you again point out in this post. Doesn't quite seem to vibe with the posts content.

Also, something may sound right, and have good reasons from one perspective, but really, only once you get to play you can tell if it's fun. There are things like over-balancing, over-compensating flaws, and sucking the fun right out choices.

 

What's an improvement for one (yay, no identification!) may be a con for another (so all items are pre-identified... well, that sucks out some of the mystique and fun) and some people actually like functions many people complained about (like item-degredation, or Deus Ex-type aiming systems).

Improvement is a very subjective term.

[cornishr]

I'd say to come up with a full party of six characters whereby you literally couldn't overcome a fight would be pretty rare. You'd have to go out of your way to create crap characters on purpose. Do we really want them spending most of their time going over every single last percentage point again and again (when it's clear they are already incredibly diligent and thoughtful) just to make 100% certain that one person can't get stuck on one fight once on extra hard level? If that happens the difficulty could be turned down for that one fight. Or go get some magical help. They can't be expected to legislate for quite literally everything and some people seem staggeringly pedantic at times and on occasion it appears as though they seem desperate to pick holes and find fault.

 

It must be disheartening at times, they must feel like they just can't win.

 

Luckily it seems a small minority; i think most of us absolutely love the look of it.

 

If the game is released and there are a couple of dodgy mechanisms or whatever, i'm sure it will be easy for them to correct, nothing to panic so much over beforehand.

 

Ps Yes, absolutely gutted there isn't more wilderness. That was unbelievably cruel of Obsidian. I wasn't angry with Obsidian, though; i was and am angry with the folk who actually voted for a smaller game. Talk about a negative, pessimistic, unambitious outlook in life to assume it'll be worse if they make a bigger game with more area. I still can't fathom that one.

 

I'd have assumed it'd be more of the glorious same. More levels, more companions. Everyone's a winner. Feature creep? Good grief.

 

And that (levels/companions) really is a critical area of the game imo; much more so than whether or not chainmail deflects arrows better than it deflects bullets.

Edited March 23, 2014 by cornishr

[Jarrakul]

Balance I am in favor of. Strongly. Because a character being useless isn't fun. People always talk about how if you roleplay, being weak isn't bad, but sometimes (pretty frequently in D&D-like things) being competent is part of the character's concept. If that character isn't the best, fine, whatever. If that character isn't useful, that's out of line with the character concept (and also just boring, although with 6 party members that's not as much of a problem). So balance is important, because it allows me to play whatever class I want even if the character concept involves being vaguely competent.

 

I am also really big into not punishing roleplayers for roleplaying, and I find balance is the most important part of that. This argument has historically fallen flat, though, because of people arguing that it doesn't matter in a single-player game. Never mind that the game can't be balanced for everyone, and the more balance there is the better the difficulty curve works in practice. *shrug*

[rjshae]

Actually I'd prefer some imbalances during combat because they create interesting tactical situations; as long as those imbalances even out over the long haul. I.e. a class that is weak in one combat should be strong in another, making you think about how best to use each character. Absolute balance is kind of boring.

[Ffordesoon]

Good narrative cRPG balance, to my mind, means five things are true in a given game's case:

 

1) Every player can complete the critical path. Some parts are very difficult for some players, other parts are very difficult for other players, but every player who is willing to engage with the mechanics and is persistent can eventually complete the game.

 

2) The hardest side quests are much harder than the hardest crit path content, but it should be clear to every player that it's possible to beat them, and those who can't beat them should always have a way out, even if it's just running away.

 

3) Multiple solutions to every problem, and multiple ways to accomplish those solutions. They sound like the same thing, but they're not. If there are multiple ways out of a jam, it's best if they break down into something more complex than the Combat Way, the Stealth Way, and the Talky Way. Players should also be tempted repeatedly to switch approaches, and the game should accomodate that, too. That way, the player who doesn't give into temptation will feel special, and the player who does will feel catered to anyway.

 

4) The game should provide a stiff challenge, but that stiff challenge should be surmountable through proper engagement with the mechanics, telegraphed effectively, and never cheap. I should always be able to trust that my failures are not the game's failures.

 

5) It's fun to play even if you're not all that good at it. This may sound "casual," but it's really the reason roguelikes and Dark Souls are so popular. They're not forgiving in the traditional sense, but everyone can walk around and fight a few monsters in, say, Dungeons Of Dredmor or Spelunky or Dark Souls, and they're fun then.

 

I could probably go on, but these are the requirements I feel most strongly about, so I'll stop here.

[Bryy]

 That was the huge problem with IWD and IWD2. If you created a bad combo, you were very much screwed over the course of the game. Even though the learning curve was there, it gets so tedious juat going back to the start and making characters after characters. Trial and error only goes so far in gameplay. That's why Super Meat Boy was so great.

 

Which is why the pre-made party/Adventurer's Hall combo in PoE works so well. It accomodates both playstyles. I think it'll be great, and lead to a lot of discussion and interaction on the 'net.

 

Ps Yes, absolutely gutted there isn't more wilderness. That was unbelievably cruel of Obsidian. I wasn't angry with Obsidian, though; i was and am angry with the folk who actually voted for a smaller game. Talk about a negative, pessimistic, unambitious outlook in life to assume it'll be worse if they make a bigger game with more area. I still can't fathom that one.

People have given their opinions a bunch of times, and it does not make them horrible people, or depressed, or whatever. Stating over and over that you think the people that voted for no new stretch goals are horrible or have no motivation in life (srsly, over a video game, dude) is not doing you any favors.

 

It's rude and uncalled for. 

Edited March 24, 2014 by Bryy

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I'm very open to new ideas and have generally liked just about everything Obsidian has made mention of to this point. My one contention though, is spell casting. Multi-player and the resulting "balance" that it has wrought over the last...13 years or so has ruined spell casting. Boring, neutered, unimaginative, unsophisticated spells and magic systems have left me wanting. I'd like to see the potency, flexibility, creativity, and the relatively elaborate interactions of the Baldur's Gate spells make a return. That's one point which I am vocal about seeing kept relatively intact.

 

Since the BG series, there have been many great stories told. There have been many wonderful and reactive NPCs. There have even been games with great tactical combat--even if they weren't exactly RPGs. What I haven't seen though, is a game with great spell casting--those have been sacrificed before birth on the altar of "balance" no doubt. After Baldur's Gate.....perhaps Magicka in 2010(?) gave me something I was looking for. Aside from that adventure game, I'm still waiting for an RPG with a spell system that can even approach a game that is approaching TWO DECADES in age. That's really sad. If someone knows any, please inform me.

[Ffordesoon]

What about NWN2? I haven't played it extensively, but it seems to have a pretty complex spell system.

[Bryy]

Magicka is kind of DQ'd from that list on the basis that the entire game is designed around spell creation.

[BrainMuncher]

Balance in general becomes more imperative as complexity increases.

 

Low complexity

Imagine a child playing with blocks. If they are big chunky blocks, and he's only stacking them three blocks high, then they don't need to be perfectly squared to remain stable. They can afford to be a little trapezoidal without causing the stack to fall down.

 

High complexity

Now imagine many smaller blocks being stacked quite high (jenga?). Each one of the blocks needs needs a pretty tight tolerance or it will be impossible to balance them on top of one another and the stack will fall down.

 

 

If all you have is three classes with minimal customisation (eg. diablo 1), and party size of one, then balance isn't so much of a concern. All you have to do is make sure that the game is suitably challenging for three known quantities. You can predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy what the player will be capable of at any given point in the game.

 

When you start talking about 10+ highly customisable classes and a big party, it becomes extremely difficult (practically, impossible) to test every possible combination of classes and builds that could make up a party. It's much more difficult to predict what the player will be capable of. Therefore extra care must be taken to ensure that all of the building blocks that make up the game are nicely balanced. Otherwise you can end up skills and abilities that are basically mandatory, or entirely worthless. This defeats the purpose of having high complexity in the first place, which is to provide variety and options. If half of the abilities in the game are worthless then they may as well not be in the game, as the only purpose they serve at that point is to punish the player for trusting that the developer would make them useful.

 

The idea is to reduce the standard deviation between the most useful and the least useful things, so that the player's overall competence can be predicted to a reasonable extent. If possible competence of the player can range all the way from cowardly fumbler all the way to angel of death, how do you design encounters? If you make them appropriately challenging for the angel of death, then they will be prohibitively difficult for anything less than the angel of death, and you've just invalidated 90% of the options and complexity in your game. If you make it appropriate for the fumbler, then it will be laughably easy for everyone else, and you've invalidated all of the tactics and special abilities you built into the game, because basic attacks are sufficient.

If you put the difficulty right in the middle there will still be many players for which it is either too difficult or too easy, only those whose competence falls in the middle of the range will have a good experience.

 

There's always going to be some variation between the best and worst approach to any situation. It shouldn't be the goal to entirely eliminate that variation, making everything equally useful in all situations, as this also negates the point of complexity and options. But it should be the goal to keep that variation in check, and also to present a variety of challenges that is equal to the variety of options available to the player. If all the encounters (both combat and non-combat) are similar, then there will be a "best" way to approach them. But with sufficient variety, what is best in one case won't be best in the next.

[Hormalakh]

What stands out to me, is that you can tell these guys (Obsidian) have been playing all of these games (D&D etc.) for years and they are bonafide (and passionate) experts in the field. Every time i read of their reasoning behind a change (example being the new health plus stamina double tier thing and the per rest/per encounter abilities), i can immediately see what a good idea it is and exactly where it's come from and why it's been brought in. Several times so far i've thought 'why on earth would they do that" then i've read their thought process and it's miles ahead of mine.

 

They really are getting nearly everything spot on imo. Keeping all of the good stuff, altering/fixing/improving everything which can be made better. Sometimes they are picking out fundamental issues which i hadn't even realised needed changing until they pointed out the inherent faults.

 

Reading the forums, it strikes me that there are a lot of people scared and resistant to any change, but if something can be improved, surely go for it? Pen & paper and video games are, after all, completely different; why restrict a video to pen and paper drawbacks? Nostalgia is all well and good, but there have always been numerous fundamental flaws in any D&D edition, so for me one of the best things about this game will probably be the fact it isn't limited to replicating a flawed system. And if some mechanic does turnout to be dodgy, it can be altered later, so it isn't the end of the world.

 

You'll never be able to please everybody everytime, but it's clear they are doing their best and i think we should trust their experience and judgment in this stuff instead of questioning every single decision they make. Until now it looks damned near perfect if you ask me. The fuss some people have made about the publishers; bloody hell. It's like reading little children sometimes!

 

Obsidian great work so far, i trust you are aware most of us think it looks awesome and the other minority would never, ever be happy whatever you do, so don't worry too much about dissenting voices.

 

For people like me who have been following the mechanical implementation of the game from the beginning, here's a response. While, in general, there are a lot of issues that Obsidian does identify and articulates well enough - many players agree that these are mechanics that need changing - the point of disagreement among many is HOW these concerns should be addressed. The issue isn't the old mechanic, it's with the new mechanic. 

 

Obsidian isn't the only developer who's id'd these issues in previous games: other developers like Bethesda and Bioware have also id'd these issues and have taken different routes to "solving" them. The point here is how do you answer the difficulties of mechanics and make the game enjoyable for players? A lot of us are scared that simplification or "new-age design" (as opposed to old-school design) becomes the answer, which leads down the path of "push A for awesome."

 

Sometimes, when discussing mechanics with Josh Sawyer, many players on this forum and others, have learned that Josh's analysis is correct, but argue that his conclusions are not.

 

If you've been following the discussion with critics of mechanical design, they also have very good ideas and things to say. Sometimes these good ideas have been voiced well enough that Obsidian has chosen to reconsider their design.

 

Design isn't easy: if it was, we'd have the perfect game ages ago.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Hormalakh]

As for balance: while that isn't the topic of this thread, I'd like to address that as well. In single-player games, I am in favor of balance, to the extent that it is achievable more for a lore reason than much else. For me, it's difficult to reconcile stories with extremely powerful characters who have not, by the time I'm involved in the game, taken complete control of the system in the story.

 

Take mages for example. In many games, extremely powerful mages with extremely interesting spells continue to live out lives that are mediocre in contrast to their awesome might. How does that make sense? Why isn't every single person cowering and paying obedience to them? Not all of them are evil, but even the evil ones seem to be unable to use their power when it matters. They should be the council of nuclear powers because of their ability for raw destruction. Yet, time and time again, these magicians live fairly insignificant lives. I'm not talking about the big names. I'm talking about even a mediocre mage has so much power that most people really don't stand a chance against them. Dimensional doors and magic missles and fireballs are extremely destructive. That's why the cowled wizards made sense and why I enjoyed that. It helped "balance" the powers in the system. And ultimately, the ones in power were the mages - as they should rightly be.

 

But then again, why isn't the whole story just filled with wizards (because everyone else should be extinct by then) when there are so many of them? Either they should go the LoTR way (few mages, very powerful) or go in the opposite direction.

 

With balanced classes, this concern goes away. Every ying has a yang, and nobody is exponentially more powerful than another. There is a balance to the system within the story, and for up-and-coming individuals, it's more difficult to take control of whole nations with unimaginable power. Yes, the magic might not be as "exciting" or "interesting" but most people are similar. Everyone's got a chance for democracy.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Hassat Hunter]

Why there are few mages? Cause groups of adventurers come killing them by the dozens, Baldur's Gate II style

 

 

Absolute balance is kind of boring.

Yup. All those MMO's where, due to PvP every class is just a clone of the other. It's the worst thing imaginable (and also why most MMO's are really bad, this PvP balance making them more and more symetrical and less fun to play per patch).

 

Let's not wring a fun system with that kind of MMO clone balance.

[rjshae]

n/m

Edited March 24, 2014 by rjshae

[Jarrakul]

Why there are few mages? Cause groups of adventurers come killing them by the dozens, Baldur's Gate II style

 

 

Absolute balance is kind of boring.

Yup. All those MMO's where, due to PvP every class is just a clone of the other. It's the worst thing imaginable (and also why most MMO's are really bad, this PvP balance making them more and more symetrical and less fun to play per patch).

 

Let's not wring a fun system with that kind of MMO clone balance.

 

I totally agree that creating classes that are functionally identical is a big problem. It's why I don't like 4E D&D. Classes should feel different. That said, more-or-less perfect asymmetrical balance does appear to be possible, at least in theory. MOBA games may be an example of this, depending on how different you feel the different characters are. Of course, even that only works among top-tier heroes, and those seem to arise basically by trial and error. In a more abstract sense, Starcraft serves as the poster child for the general concept of asymmetrical balance, although the lack of RPG-ness makes it only peripherally relevant. So, basically, I do philosophically believe that perfect asymmetrical balance is possible in an RPG, but I'll admit that I haven't seen it, and I don't want to fall back on symmetrical balance because that defeats the whole point of having different classes to balance.

[Lephys]

And another thing i don't understand is why some people are so obsessed with 'balance' in everything. Great when possible, but who cares? It's a one player game where you have a party under your command. I couldn't really care less if one of my party is weaker or stronger than another party member. Will the world really come to an end if a Druid is slightly stronger than a wizard?

That's not what it's about. It's about the balance between choices made by the player, and how there shouldn't be arbitrary severe differences.

 

If I pick a Fighter instead of a Wizard, there shouldn't be 70% of the enemies in the game that I need a Magic Weapon buff just to damage, while my having chosen a Wizard would've resulted in EASILY wiping the floor with all those foes (or, at least, being SIGNIFICANTLY more effective against them).

 

Or... better, more blatant example: If I put all my points into survival every time I level up, there doesn't need to be 700 instances of blatant Stealth usefulness in the game, and only like 5 instances of survival being useful.

 

Of course, it's really easy to point out BLATANT examples, and much harder to point out more subtle ones, because they're always going to come across as just a solitary situation in which a class wasn't as effective as another class.

 

The point is... it's not about a class and another class being able to take each other in a fight or something. It's about your decision to use swords instead of magic not arbitrarily affecting your usefulness throughout the majority of the game. Sure, you're controlling a party, but, at the very least you personally built onecharacter from the ground up. So, again, you don't want to have to rely on the rest of your party most of the time, JUST because you picked a certain style of combat via your class choice.

 

It's the same for combat as it is with anything else. You don't want one choosing an Elf to prompt oodles of NPCs to just bestow you with free gifts because you're pretty, while choosing a Dwarf has everyone attacking you because they don't like you as much. Just because you want to be an Elf instead of a Dwarf doesn't mean you want no one to ever hate you, and just because you want to be a Dwarf doesn't mean you never want anyone to like you and hook you up/help you out because of your race.

[cornishr]

I don't mean balance isn't important; it obviously is very important. But only up to a point. A fighter has always been tougher than a bard, but so what? It would never stop me having/being a bard if i wanted to. If i want a warhammer, i'll use it, don't care if it doesnt damage as much as a sword. I just feel sometimes the reactions are a touch over the top for pretty minor issues and it feels like some people are literally straining every sinew to try and pick holes where everything seems great to me. Better than great, we have real experts working on it who are typically one step ahead so far. And if there are oversights/**** ups, they can be rectified after the event no doubt.

[Jarrakul]

I certainly can't speak for everyone, but my thinking is "why leave to repairs what you can fix in the design?" Not everything can be fixed in the design phase, of course, since no amount of playtesting is going to test the game as well as its release into the wild, but you have a lot less work ahead if you fix what you can early.

 

Basically, here's the thing: Being willing to play something weaker for thematic reasons is awesome. I applaud everyone who does that. But from a design standpoint, no one should have to. The roleplayers should not be punished for not being powergamers, even if they're willing to endure it. So some of us, myself very much included, are very strongly in favor of extremely tight balance whenever possible. Which is not to say we don't also have other priorities also, just that we consider balance to be very important.

 

That said, I do have no end of respect for the devs, both for the quality of their ideas and for their listening to fan concerns. I trust them to make the decisions, but I love that we get to make our arguments in a space that they actually read. Makes it feel a little less pointless to argue on the internet.

[Fatback]

Why there are few mages? Cause groups of adventurers come killing them by the dozens, Baldur's Gate II style

Absolute balance is kind of boring.

Yup. All those MMO's where, due to PvP every class is just a clone of the other. It's the worst thing imaginable (and also why most MMO's are really bad, this PvP balance making them more and more symetrical and less fun to play per patch).

 

Let's not wring a fun system with that kind of MMO clone balance.

A completely pvp oriented mmo game dota2 very balanced very diverse in Heroes.

 

 

It's a system that uses soft and hard counters which most of you argue against.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Fatback

[Suburban-Fox]

Reading the forums, it strikes me that there are a lot of people scared and resistant to any change, but if something can be improved, surely go for it? Pen & paper and video games are, after all, completely different; why restrict a video to pen and paper drawbacks? Nostalgia is all well and good, but there have always been numerous fundamental flaws in any D&D edition, so for me one of the best things about this game will probably be the fact it isn't limited to replicating a flawed system. And if some mechanic does turnout to be dodgy, it can be altered later, so it isn't the end of the world.

 

I don't think it's so much "scared and resistant to change", but more "scared that it might end up being yet another dull, bland action RPG". I hated Diablo, and WoW, and Dragon Age 2, and Dungeon Siege. The fact that there does seem to be a scarily high emphasis on combat, and the fact that they're using D&D4e as part of their inspiration, doesn't help alleviate any fears in that regard.

 

Also, it's not exactly 'change' if it's going to be like every other RPG currently on the market...what would be 'change' is if they made it into an actual roleplaying game - you know, the type where how you present yourself and how you interact with NPCs is just as important as which combat abilities you choose!