Josh Sawyer on dealing with grognards

[Ffordesoon]

Where did I compare the IE games to any RPG today, let alone an MMO? I said the trinity existed in the IE games. Why it should be a bad thing that it exists in this game too puzzles me, especially since the game simply cannot be designed around the trinity and live up to its design goals (every party is viable, six fighters, etc.)

 

What is the concern here? Where is it coming from? I do not understand how you get "MMO" from any of what's been said so far.

[Sarex]

Where did I compare the IE games to any RPG today, let alone an MMO? I said the trinity existed in the IE games. Why it should be a bad thing that it exists in this game too puzzles me, especially since the game simply cannot be designed around the trinity and live up to its design goals (every party is viable, six fighters, etc.)

 

What is the concern here? Where is it coming from? I do not understand how you get "MMO" from any of what's been said so far.

 

They you missed the whole point of the discussion, or you don't understand what is being said when you call them tank/healers/dps.

[Ffordesoon]

So explain it to me.

[Stun]

Why it should be a bad thing that it exists in this game too puzzles me,

It's not a bad thing unless developers design the encounter system around it. Because then it becomes nothing but an imposed limitation on the player. A few of them in fact.

 

1) Party makeup limitation - Some people pick their party lineup based on things that have nothing to do with combat roles. In BG2, the player could decide that he wants a specific party of females. So he rolls up a female Sorceress. Then he takes Jahiera, Viconia, Nalia and Imoen. In WoW's system, they'd be in for a world of pain, here. There's no tank in this party. There's no dedicated DPS'er in this party. In BG2 though, this party is super overpowered. You've got 5 spell casters, 3 of them are mages. By chapter 7, you will have a screen full of Simulacrums that spam Project images that proceed to unleash copies of the mage's deadliest AOEs, Spell sequencers and contingencies, while the mages themselves sit around twiddling their thumbs, watching the destruction in invisible safety while the priests buff the PIs and the Simulacrums so that they become even more deadly

 

 

2) Classes don't need predefined combat ROLES anyway- I would hope that if I roll up a Mage, that the game would leave it up to me to decide what role he's going to play in the party or whether he's even going to be part of a party at all. In games like WoW, this is an incomprehensible notion. But In BG2, this is what made the game so mind-blowingly replayable. In BG2, you could turn your vanilla mage into a tank. And not just any tank, the BEST tank. A solo tank! or You could turn your Berserker into a Crowd controller nuisance on the battle field while your mage Tanks the front lines and your vanilla Thief spams summons and Horrid wiltings from scrolls he's been hoarding.

 

 

Sawyer has assured us that classes will have adequate flexibility in PoE so maybe some of this BG2ish freedom-goodness will be doable in the game. I sure hope so. I'm counting on it.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Stun

[Sarex]

So explain it to me.

 

People are concerned that PoE classes will represent tanks, dps and healers like in mmo's. You then said that IE games also had tank/dps/healers and then I told you that while yes they had the trinity it was not class reliant, ie. classes could fulfill multiple roles, especially with multiclass characters.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Sarex

[Karkarov]

No, the fact is there is a lot taken from 4th ed with PoE. The roles, a lot of the abilities of the classes. Many things. Have you actually played 4th ed? 4th ed turned the roles upside down. Because there are four roles in the game. Not three.

Well first off would you please stop saying D&D uses the "Trinity".  It doesn't.  It uses some craptastic dumbed down version of it that basically is a joke because it removes character diversity in almost all respects.  It also adds even more roles to remove even more choice from the system and shoehorn your characters even more than they already are.

 

Second... why would you explain it in D&D 4.0 edition terms?  I don't know.... cause it is a nostalgia game based on the IE games that were all based on D&D and they figure most of the backers will be familiar with D&D 4.0 even if it is the worst version of the game ever made?  As for similarities I am sure there will be some, but guess what, there will also be similarities to other RPG's too.  Pathfinder, older versions of D&D, hell probably even some mmo's like WoW.  You can have "similarities" to D&D 4.0 and still not "be" 4.0. 

 

I have also already said in other posts that classes need to have diversity and be more than one trick ponies.  Yes a Rogue should be best as a DPS, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to also have other methods of combat or abilities.  Such as traps to root mobs, poisons to give them status penalties, special combat moves to stun opponents or even cause them to suffer penalties to armor.  You could even do something crazy like give them some dodge based ability so they can temporarily "tank" a mob, or god forbid even ranged combat options.  In a well designed RPG no two Rogues will be the same. 

 

Now if Eternity is going the D&D 4.0 route where every character is basically a cardboard cutout with little actual depth that's fine, it is their game.  That said it will be a worse game for it and I am not afraid to let them know it either, and if D&D 4.0 has "tactical depth" you need to play some better games.  Modern D&D is nothing but a bad WoW knockoff.

[Helz]

1) Party makeup limitation - Some people pick their party lineup based on things that have nothing to do with combat roles. In BG2, the player could decide that he wants a specific party of females. So he rolls up a female Sorceress. Then he takes Jahiera, Viconia, Nalia and Imoen. In WoW's system, they'd be in for a world of pain, here. There's no tank in this party. There's no dedicated DPS'er in this party. In BG2 though, this party is super overpowered. You've got 5 spell casters, 3 of them are mages. By chapter 7, you will have a screen full of Simulacrums that spam Project images that proceed to unleash copies of the mage's deadliest AOEs, Spell sequencers and contingencies, while the mages themselves sit around twiddling their thumbs, watching the destruction in invisible safety while the priests buff the PIs and the Simulacrums so that they become even more deadly

 

 

2) Classes don't need predefined combat ROLES anyway- I would hope that if I roll up a Mage, that the game would leave it up to me to decide what role he's going to play in the party or whether he's even going to be part of a party at all. In games like WoW, this is an incomprehensible notion. But In BG2, this is what made the game so mind-blowingly replayable. In BG2, you could turn your vanilla mage into a tank. And not just any tank, the BEST tank. A solo tank! or You could turn your Berserker into a Crowd controller nuisance on the battle field while your mage Tanks the front lines and your vanilla Thief spams summons and Horrid wiltings from scrolls he's been hoarding.

 

 

Sawyer has assured us that classes will have adequate flexibility in PoE so maybe some of this BG2ish freedom-goodness will be doable in the game. I sure hope so. I'm counting on it.

 

 

I fail to see how you could believe that the class roles in the IE games were more flexible than the ones in WoW.  In WoW several of the classes (druid, paladin, shaman) can specialize as any role - healer, tank, or DPS.  Most others can fulfill at least 2 roles, and even the "pure DPSers" (mage and rogue) can also be the best at crowd control.  There are plenty of hybrid builds as well.  Everything I've seen in regards to class flexibility in PoE actually strikes me as pretty similar to WoW.  In other words, your character's role is determined more by the skills you pick than the class you chose.  

 

And since I'm already defending WoW anyway, few encounters are impossible without a specific party makeup.  Extra DPS can reduce the need for a healer, and good crowd control can substitute for a tank.  Hybrid characters can fill in when you need them too.  5 mage runs used to be some of my favorites, btw.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Helz

[Sarex]

I fail to see how you could believe that the class roles in the IE games were more flexible than the ones in WoW.  In WoW several of the classes (druid, paladin, shaman) can specialize as any role - healer, tank, or DPS.

 

And IE games you couldn't?

Edited April 2, 2014 by Sarex

[BruceVC]

 

I fail to see how you could believe that the class roles in the IE games were more flexible than the ones in WoW.  In WoW several of the classes (druid, paladin, shaman) can specialize as any role - healer, tank, or DPS.

 

And IE games you couldn't?

 

Technically no I would say you can't, for example I usually play a mage. He hangs back and cast offensive spells. He is not a tank, I could use a spell like Tensers Transformation but that would only make him a temporary tank.

[Suburban-Fox]

That's kind of the problem behind most issues with modern games, if you ask me. It's not exclusive to dialog.

 

"Let's make an RPG for people who don't like RPGs! 8D!"

"Let's make a tactical shooter for people who don't like tactics!"

 

Etc.

 

Then, the game has an inherent conflict with itself, right out of the gate.

 

Yep. The biggest problem with modern games is that they try too hard to appeal to the widest audience possible, and most of the time they treat that audience as stupid.

 

I don't think it's a bad thing to write a game for a niche audience, as long as you're fairly confident that that audience is large enough to generate enough revenue to at least cover your expenses. So what if people who loved Skyrim don't like this game? They don't have to play it, they have other games that they can play instead...that's the nice thing about the gaming market. There are games around that appeal to all sorts, and almost everybody can find something that they like.

[Sarex]

Technically no I would say you can't, for example I usually play a mage. He hangs back and cast offensive spells. He is not a tank, I could use a spell like Tensers Transformation but that would only make him a temporary tank.

 

Cast Iron Skin and you can tank indefinitely.

[Hassat Hunter]

But... but... Triniy. Wow > BG! Cheap MMO tactics!

 

Why Sarex, why? Why wont you succomb to bad gameplay. Why do you insist for more...

 

*cough**cough*

[Stun]

 

Technically no I would say you can't, for example I usually play a mage. He hangs back and cast offensive spells. He is not a tank, I could use a spell like Tensers Transformation but that would only make him a temporary tank.

 

Cast Iron Skin and you can tank indefinitely.

 

 Or... Cast Mirror Image then Stone Skin then Simulacrum then have your Simulacrum cast a Project image. Then have your Project image cast Improved haste, and Shapechange: Mind Flayer then go to work on the front lines while your Simulacrum buffs your party with more improved Hastes, Mass invisibility, and spirit armor. In the meantime, you can spam the battle field with Horrid Wiltings, chain lightnings, Disintigrates, Emotion: Hopelessness and fireballs. You will then (literally) be able to say that your mage is Tanking, DPSing and Crowd Controlling Simultaneously. Throw in a couple of Vampiric touches by your simulacrum, and you can say that you're Tanking, DPSing, Crowd Controlling, and healing simultaneously.

 

Or you can forget all that multi-dimensional noise and just.... Dual Class. Or multi-class. <----there's your REAL, and LITERAL flexibility right there. Your mage could play a fighters role because he IS a fighter.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Stun

[Malekith]

 

 

Technically no I would say you can't, for example I usually play a mage. He hangs back and cast offensive spells. He is not a tank, I could use a spell like Tensers Transformation but that would only make him a temporary tank.

 

Cast Iron Skin and you can tank indefinitely.

 

 Or... Cast Mirror Image then Stone Skin then Simulacrum then have your Simulacrum cast a Project image. Then have your Project image cast Improved haste, and Shapechange: Mind Flayer then go to work on the front lines while your Simulacrum buffs your party with more improved Hastes, Mass invisibility, and spirit armor. In the meantime, you can spam the battle field with Horrid Wiltings, chain lightnings, Disintigrates, Emotion: Hopelessness and fireballs. You will then (literally) be able to say that your mage is Tanking, DPSing and Crowd Controlling Simultaneously. Throw in a couple of Vampiric touches by your simulacrum, and you can say that you're Tanking, DPSing, Crowd Controlling, and healing simultaneously.

 

But no. Class roles aren't as flexible in BG2 as they are in WoW. LOL

 

Edit: ROFL

 

To be fair, only the mage classes could do that. BG2 had the best magic from any game ever, but the other classes weren't so flexible.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Technically no I would say you can't, for example I usually play a mage. He hangs back and cast offensive spells. He is not a tank, I could use a spell like Tensers Transformation but that would only make him a temporary tank.

 

Cast Iron Skin and you can tank indefinitely.

 

 Or... Cast Mirror Image then Stone Skin then Simulacrum then have your Simulacrum cast a Project image. Then have your Project image cast Improved haste, and Shapechange: Mind Flayer then go to work on the front lines while your Simulacrum buffs your party with more improved Hastes, Mass invisibility, and spirit armor. In the meantime, you can spam the battle field with Horrid Wiltings, chain lightnings, Disintigrates, Emotion: Hopelessness and fireballs. You will then (literally) be able to say that your mage is Tanking, DPSing and Crowd Controlling Simultaneously. Throw in a couple of Vampiric touches by your simulacrum, and you can say that you're Tanking, DPSing, Crowd Controlling, and healing simultaneously.

 

But no. Class roles aren't as flexible in BG2 as they are in WoW. LOL

 

Edit: ROFL

 

To be fair, only the mage classes could do that. BG2 had the best magic from any game ever, but the other classes weren't so flexible.

 

 

Also surly you couldn't do that all the time because you would run out of  spells and need to rest ?

[Stun]

Also surly you couldn't do that all the time because you would run out of  spells and need to rest ?

Eventually. But keep in mind that any spell or item used by your Simulacrums and Project Images is a free usage. It doesn't count towards your per day limits.

 

But this flexibility comparison with WoW is totally Moot. You can Multi-class and Dual class in BG2. WoW fans will never be able to overcome this. It's an impregnable trump card to the entire discussion.

[Malekith]

 

 

 

 

Technically no I would say you can't, for example I usually play a mage. He hangs back and cast offensive spells. He is not a tank, I could use a spell like Tensers Transformation but that would only make him a temporary tank.

 

Cast Iron Skin and you can tank indefinitely.

 

 Or... Cast Mirror Image then Stone Skin then Simulacrum then have your Simulacrum cast a Project image. Then have your Project image cast Improved haste, and Shapechange: Mind Flayer then go to work on the front lines while your Simulacrum buffs your party with more improved Hastes, Mass invisibility, and spirit armor. In the meantime, you can spam the battle field with Horrid Wiltings, chain lightnings, Disintigrates, Emotion: Hopelessness and fireballs. You will then (literally) be able to say that your mage is Tanking, DPSing and Crowd Controlling Simultaneously. Throw in a couple of Vampiric touches by your simulacrum, and you can say that you're Tanking, DPSing, Crowd Controlling, and healing simultaneously.

 

But no. Class roles aren't as flexible in BG2 as they are in WoW. LOL

 

Edit: ROFL

 

To be fair, only the mage classes could do that. BG2 had the best magic from any game ever, but the other classes weren't so flexible.

 

 

Also surly you couldn't do that all the time because you would run out of  spells and need to rest

After a level not even that. Just cast Wish and select to regain all your spells

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

Technically no I would say you can't, for example I usually play a mage. He hangs back and cast offensive spells. He is not a tank, I could use a spell like Tensers Transformation but that would only make him a temporary tank.

 

Cast Iron Skin and you can tank indefinitely.

 

 Or... Cast Mirror Image then Stone Skin then Simulacrum then have your Simulacrum cast a Project image. Then have your Project image cast Improved haste, and Shapechange: Mind Flayer then go to work on the front lines while your Simulacrum buffs your party with more improved Hastes, Mass invisibility, and spirit armor. In the meantime, you can spam the battle field with Horrid Wiltings, chain lightnings, Disintigrates, Emotion: Hopelessness and fireballs. You will then (literally) be able to say that your mage is Tanking, DPSing and Crowd Controlling Simultaneously. Throw in a couple of Vampiric touches by your simulacrum, and you can say that you're Tanking, DPSing, Crowd Controlling, and healing simultaneously.

 

But no. Class roles aren't as flexible in BG2 as they are in WoW. LOL

 

Edit: ROFL

 

To be fair, only the mage classes could do that. BG2 had the best magic from any game ever, but the other classes weren't so flexible.

 

 

Also surly you couldn't do that all the time because you would run out of  spells and need to rest

After a level not even that. Just cast Wish and select to regain all your spells

 

 

Interesting strategy, I never used Wish in BG2

[Iucounu]

My favorite combo was summoning a dozen chickens via Limited Wish, and then with a lucky Wish cast Horrid Wilting on every creature in the area :D

 

It's fun when you can use and combine abilities in such a creative and not too obvious way. Something for the harder difficulties.

[Tale]

VO can really set the scene and set the game on fire. It's VO Mismanagement that has been hurting games recently. I'm looking forward to seeing how DA3 handles it.

I'll caveat that. VO can only set the scene well when it's done as part of a greater scene. Characters interacting with the background, pacing about, and reacting expressively and not with 5 stock animations. I'm not sure why RPGs fail at this, but I suspect part of it a pacing issue with the way choosing dialogue works as well as just how much dialogue and cutscenes they have to do. They have to cut back and it ends up looking like the Star Wars prequels. Sitting, standing, walking, shot/reverse shot.

 

An inexpressive Shepard sitting on a crate while the camera cuts between him and Garrus who is flailing at buttons that don't do anything isn't contributing much to mood for me. It's nice to hear about reach and flexibility in voice, but the body language is completely dead.

[Sheikh]

Old school - new school is a misnomer. Its purely less casual - more casual. Guess which one Id prefer.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Grognards should be a monster in PoE so Sawyer can do an update about dealing with them.

[nipsen]

An inexpressive Shepard sitting on a crate while the camera cuts between him and Garrus who is flailing at buttons that don't do anything isn't contributing much to mood for me. It's nice to hear about reach and flexibility in voice, but the body language is completely dead.

 

Mm. I wondered about that a lot as well. Why wouldn't that character do some gesture in the game-event, in less detail than in the pre-renders maybe, when they've bothered making these huge cutscenes with the same models elsewhere. Until I tried making some mods in NWN, and it turns out that adding any kind of animation isn't just difficult in the first place - but also introduces a lot of scripting problems the engine just doesn't account for.

 

Maybe the same problem as in Fallout:NV, with the framework. "Oops, there's no system for having three characters talking together". Probably the same thing. Just was never designed for any sort of interaction between the animation system, camera, independent events and the dialogue system to begin with. But I mean.. do designers really sit down and say things like "there's no need to have different dialogues than this to drive the game anyway", at the beginning of the project? Or is it just that the first prototype never gets replaced before the scripting of the dialogue starts..?

[Ffordesoon]

Grognards should be a monster in PoE so Sawyer can do an update about dealing with them.

He'd probably call them gûryg-nuardhs or something.

 

(I kid, Josh!)

[Helz]

But this flexibility comparison with WoW is totally Moot. You can Multi-class and Dual class in BG2. WoW fans will never be able to overcome this. It's an impregnable trump card to the entire discussion.

 

 

I guess I'm a WoW fan, even though it has been years since I played it.  I just wanted to point out that the multi specialized class system of PoE that you seem to favor is far more similar to the WoW design than it is to the IE games.  Bashing games you've obviously never/barely played might be fun, but it was undermining your whole argument.