No more GM sucker punches, and the gameplay challenges thereof

[Hassat Hunter]

Variety has never done a game good.

The best are alway doing the same from start to end.

TETRIS/PONG/PACMAN Forevah!

[Ffordesoon]

Variety has never done a game good.

The best are alway doing the same from start to end.

TETRIS/PONG/PACMAN Forevah!

Wait, so you're for getting rid of the sucker punches? I thought you were against it.

 

EDIT: And, I mean, that's also patently false, but I'll accept that you believe it.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Ffordesoon

[Karkarov]

 

Variety has never done a game good.

The best are alway doing the same from start to end.

TETRIS/PONG/PACMAN Forevah!

Wait, so you're for getting rid of the sucker punches? I thought you were against it.

 

EDIT: And, I mean, that's also patently false, but I'll accept that you believe it.

Here is the thing, sucker punches are actually the opposite of variety.  The only difference between a trap that is save or die from poison and a lich casting a death spell that is save or die is one you needed to have protection from poison for and the other you needed protection from death.  Both are still roll a dice and fail you die.

 

You can design a dangerous hard encounter where the enemies simply fight smart and it can be tons more creative and exciting to play out than Kangaxx ever was.  Good combat design with a large variety of encounters is always more enjoyable, and possibly a ton harder, than "counter the mage" will ever be.

[Hassat Hunter]

Nah, one needs disarm traps, the other needs silence mage .

Always more options. That's the variety part btw.

 

And it's good to see sarcasm still fails to register... :/

[Ffordesoon]

Nah, one needs disarm traps, the other needs silence mage .

Always more options. That's the variety part btw.

 

And it's good to see sarcasm still fails to register... :/

Oh, haha, that makes more sense!

[Karkarov]

Nah, one needs disarm traps, the other needs silence mage .

Always more options. That's the variety part btw.

 

And it's good to see sarcasm still fails to register... :/

I wasn't responding to you per se because I knew you were being sarcastic.  I was responding to the idea that removal of sucker punches is somehow less variety than having them when in fact suck punches in general are the opposite of variety.  To be more specific "disarm the trap" is no less or more fun if the trap just causes a floor to cave in, a save or die, the building to light on fire, poison smoke to fill the room, spikes to shoot out of the wall, or a door with a golem behind it to open.  It is the effect of the trap that actually matters.  Meanwhile silence the lich is nothing but "counter the mage the game tm" also known as Baldur's Gate 2.  It isn't all that fun, it doesn't have much variety, and it is basically the same encounter over and over and over.

[Sarex]

I wasn't responding to you per se because I knew you were being sarcastic.  I was responding to the idea that removal of sucker punches is somehow less variety than having them when in fact suck punches in general are the opposite of variety.  To be more specific "disarm the trap" is no less or more fun if the trap just causes a floor to cave in, a save or die, the building to light on fire, poison smoke to fill the room, spikes to shoot out of the wall, or a door with a golem behind it to open.  It is the effect of the trap that actually matters.  Meanwhile silence the lich is nothing but "counter the mage the game tm" also known as Baldur's Gate 2.  It isn't all that fun, it doesn't have much variety, and it is basically the same encounter over and over and over.

 

I disagree, I found that there are more then one way to deal with the "sucker punch" fights, as you call them. That people chose to follow guides with hard counters, well that is their prerogative, in fact any fight can be easy with the right counters.

 

[Volourn]

Your cheesy method is not the way to prove a point.

[Hassat Hunter]

To be more specific "disarm the trap" is no less or more fun if the trap just causes a floor to cave in, a save or die, the building to light on fire, poison smoke to fill the room, spikes to shoot out of the wall, or a door with a golem behind it to open.

Take that in mind.

 

Now, make ALL traps in the game release poison smoke to kill you.

See the variety already?

 

Even if for you maybe one encounter is "wasted" since you cast spell X and are immune... isn't having ONE such encounter in the game not more variety than instead adding there one of the same encounters we already had?

 

The way to solve it doesn't make that it NEEDS a change of strategy. That, by my very definition, is variety.

 

EDIT:

Example... 100% of your traps are poison traps. You equip 100% poison resistance. Now you can walk over all traps unscathed. Then suddenly, one of the traps sets up a FIRE bomb, and you burn to a crispy ex-hero.

"Suckerpunch... you just need to equip 100% fire resistance and you can walk through it!"

Well, that maybe true, and there also other ways (avoid it, disarm it, etc.) but you can't deny it adds variety to the table?

So... why again, is that a bad thing?

Edited April 13, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[Sarex]

Your cheesy method is not the way to prove a point.

 

Yes, yes it is. Any fight can be cheesed and countered.

[Cubiq]

EDIT:

Example... 100% of your traps are poison traps. You equip 100% poison resistance. Now you can walk over all traps unscathed. Then suddenly, one of the traps sets up a FIRE bomb, and you burn to a crispy ex-hero.

"Suckerpunch... you just need to equip 100% fire resistance and you can walk through it!"

Well, that maybe true, and there also other ways (avoid it, disarm it, etc.) but you can't deny it adds variety to the table?

So... why again, is that a bad thing?

I know this is not the point you're making, but your example is sort of the opposite of what you're going for.

Yes there are other ways to avoid a trap, but that is using the logic that you know in advance that there is a trap there without getting killed first and reloading. You can do that by looking for traps. That's not a sucker punch because you have a single mechanic, "Find traps", that you are expected to regularly use throughout the whole game when exploring unknown dangerous territory and can be used to stop every trap in the game. That's not really asking too much.

 

But you can not expect people to know that Kangaxx has infinite Imprison spells when you first encounter him. You basically need to brute force your way through it by dying again and again, which can be seen as the same as the example you gave but you have no way of knowing where the trap are and the only way to get trough them is to equip the correct resistance and hope for the best. And that's why i think it's a bad thing.

 

 

The only reason i can see why people would like this sort of thing, is because of puzzle solving aspect of it. (unless you just like getting killed)

But you can put those puzzles in without having to get killed and reload just to see what you're suppose to do. Yes you can argue that clues that warn you in advance of what to do can sometimes be too obvious, but that's really up to each developer on how to implement it, as long as the probability of finding the clue isn't 100% dictated by luck.

 

If i remember correctly Sawyer said that there won't be puzzle-like fights in the game, but we don't know if he only meant fights that you can only know what to do by getting killed several times. Maybe there will be sucker punch fights, but you have an option to find out a bit about them beforehand. (in which case, it's not really a sucker punch)

[Lephys]

Here is the thing, sucker punches are actually the opposite of variety.  The only difference between a trap that is save or die from poison and a lich casting a death spell that is save or die is one you needed to have protection from poison for and the other you needed protection from death.  Both are still roll a dice and fail you die.

Exactly! Though, I will say... typically, if you fail the poison roll, you simply become poisoned, and must simply deal with the fact that you are poisoned while you're still able to interact with the encounter. Death isn't something you can really mitigate or react to (with that character). I realize you were specifically talking about save-or-die poison (from a trap, in the example), but I just thought it brought up another good point in the form of the differences between the effects.

 

Which is why I love that particular example. Also, it's not any easier to win combat because you were poisoned instead of deathed. It's just a lot more possible to do so. The fact that you can take poison to the face and still feasibly fight efficiently/effectively enough to win without having simply immunized yourself to the poison says a lot. You can't out-effect death. Unless your strategy is to come back as a lich, or posses the foes with your disembodied spirit or something.

 

Heck, sometimes you can even use damage to your advantage, if you're clever. "Oh, I've been poisoned? Well, that'll put my Barbarian here into a rage once it deals enough damage in a certain amount of time. Silver lining... I'll use that rage to my advantage, in lieu of the lost hitpoints, instead of wasting time stopping the poison and/or healing him to mitigate it."

 

Show me a strategy that puts a silver lining on death, and I'll give you a cookie.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Lephys

[Lephys]

EDIT:

Example... 100% of your traps are poison traps. You equip 100% poison resistance. Now you can walk over all traps unscathed. Then suddenly, one of the traps sets up a FIRE bomb, and you burn to a crispy ex-hero.

"Suckerpunch... you just need to equip 100% fire resistance and you can walk through it!"

Well, that maybe true, and there also other ways (avoid it, disarm it, etc.) but you can't deny it adds variety to the table?

So... why again, is that a bad thing?

A = problematic. A has variety. Therefore, variety = problematic.

 

I don't think that works. There are plenty of things that add variety and aren't suckerpunches.

 

Honestly, I don't really think that example is much of a suckerpunch. It's a pretty terrible design. If you actually have to deal with the traps (instead of simply figuring out which protection to cast on yourself to match to their type), then you'd actually be avoiding/disarming them in the first place, instead of tromping across them. Thus, when you got to the fire one, the fact that the trap type changed wouldn't make much of a difference, in regard to it somehow becoming something unexpectedly detrimental. You might still have to deal with fire differently than poison (you can dodge a jet of flame, but it's harder to simply "dodge" a poison cloud, for example), but it's not "you died 'cause you didn't prevent this thing from even being able to affect you."

 

Maybe I'm just weird, but I prefer to counter things with actual, active tactics and choices, and not with passive "protection from bad things" effects. The counter to a trap is to get around the trap without tripping it and being struck by it. Not "want to laugh in the face of threatening effects? There's an app for that! 8D!"

[Karkarov]

I disagree, I found that there are more then one way to deal with the "sucker punch" fights, as you call them. That people chose to follow guides with hard counters, well that is their prerogative, in fact any fight can be easy with the right counters.

You understand I actually refer to BG2 combat as "Counter the Mage" right?  That doesn't mean I think it is a sucker punch (maybe the first few times before you realize every mage in the game is just the same mage with more or less levels of countering) it means I think the combat design is ... in a word... crap.  Countering the Mage isn't fun.  It is repetitive, boring, has no strategic value, doesn't actually add anything to the fight.  Counter the Mage is this .... Tic Tac Toe.  You are player 2 and your only job to prevent player 1 from winning, since in Tic Tac Toe you can't win as player 2 unless player 1 is dumb.  Once you exhaust all of player 1's options though you can now beat him,

 

There is no actual difference between countering Kangaxx, Irenicus, random lich, zhentarim mage hiding in a bush, bandit mage #5, or bobo the clown mage.  Well except for the fact that you had to notice the Zhentarim mage hiding in the bush before you countered him and you might be afraid of clowns which makes Bobo have an edge.

 

So my point, cheesing and countering isn't fun.  It is boring and trite.  I would rather fight 5 normal humanoid bandits who simply use different weapons and have good ai to fight in different ways all day long than fight Jon Irenicus once.  Because the bandits wont be the same fight over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ov.....

 

 

Which is why I love that particular example. Also, it's not any easier to win combat because you were poisoned instead of deathed. It's just a lot more possible to do so. The fact that you can take poison to the face and still feasibly fight efficiently/effectively enough to win without having simply immunized yourself to the poison says a lot. You can't out-effect death. Unless your strategy is to come back as a lich, or posses the foes with your disembodied spirit or something.

Hmm Lephys.... it almost sounds like you are saying "Save or Die" is less interesting and adds less to a fight than simply poisoning me with a damge over time effect?  By jove I think you may be on to something!

Edited April 14, 2014 by Karkarov

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Save or die isn't very fun. All it amounts to is "better reload and cast Death Ward beforehand". Rather, a spell that inflicts negative energy over time or weakens the characters would be much more challenging(rather than punishing), because the player can actually get through it without cheese and dealing with that is more difficult than using a hard counter.

 

Karkarov is right, BG2's "Counter the Mage" was boring and repetitive. If battles consist of the same tactics in every instance, then it isn't challenging.

[Sarex]

You understand I actually refer to BG2 combat as "Counter the Mage" right?  That doesn't mean I think it is a sucker punch (maybe the first few times before you realize every mage in the game is just the same mage with more or less levels of countering) it means I think the combat design is ... in a word... crap.  Countering the Mage isn't fun.  It is repetitive, boring, has no strategic value, doesn't actually add anything to the fight.  Counter the Mage is this .... Tic Tac Toe.  You are player 2 and your only job to prevent player 1 from winning, since in Tic Tac Toe you can't win as player 2 unless player 1 is dumb.  Once you exhaust all of player 1's options though you can now beat him,

 

There is no actual difference between countering Kangaxx, Irenicus, random lich, zhentarim mage hiding in a bush, bandit mage #5, or bobo the clown mage.  Well except for the fact that you had to notice the Zhentarim mage hiding in the bush before you countered him and you might be afraid of clowns which makes Bobo have an edge.

 

So my point, cheesing and countering isn't fun.  It is boring and trite.  I would rather fight 5 normal humanoid bandits who simply use different weapons and have good ai to fight in different ways all day long than fight Jon Irenicus once.  Because the bandits wont be the same fight over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ov.....

 

And you could cast protection from weapons and those fights were countered too. Any fight can be cheesed and countered. Also it seems to me that your problem is with the AI and not the system it self. That is a whole other story though.

[Volourn]

"Karkarov is right, BG2's "Counter the Mage" was boring and repetitive. If battles consist of the same tactics in every instance, then it isn't challenging."

 

If you chose to do the same thing over and over that's on you. There were multiple ways to 'win' BG2 fights.   Heck, I rarely used c'ounter spells' because I find only wussies and cowards use them. L0L

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I find many of the negative attitudes toward Baldur's Gate 2 spell casting to be vexing.

 

Baldur's Gate Spell Combat

The enemy wizard has made their self either totally or partially invisible and cannot be directly targeted. What do you do now?
The enemy wizard is protected against your (conventional) weapons. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has created a duplicate of itself. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has summoned a powerful demon rampaging across the battlefield. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard is bathing the screen in a damage type or effect they have protected themselves against. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has dispelled your compliment of buffs and enhancements. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has Dire Charmed your front-line fighter--the backbone of your defense. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has used a contingency/sequencer to revitalize its defenses which you had just disabled. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has just dismissed your powerful summons by casting Death Spell. What do you do now?

Your spell was sent screaming back at you due to the enemy wizard's use of Spell Reflection. What do you do now?

Your Breach spell failed due to the enemy wizard's use of Spell Shield. What do you do now?

Your Spell Thrust spell failed due to the enemy wizard's use of Spell Immunity: Abjuration. What do you do now?

Your fighters can't reach the enemy wizard due to its use of Teleport Field. What do you do now?

 

Need I go on? There is more. Much more. That diatribe above is only from the reactive perspective. Considering there are two-sides to every coin, the implicit tools at the proactive end of the spectrum are equally dazzling. The breadth and depth of tactical play/spontaneous tactical decision making from a nearly 20 year old game entirely outclasses and dwarfs anything ever seen in a cRPG ever since. EVER SINCE.

 

I'd like to have one of the most essential aspects of that masterpiece revived, thank-you-very-much. Spell casting was damn near half of the game renowned as the greatest cRPG ever, yet somehow it was a chore? It was a masterpiece in spite of this complexity and lethality? That is an extremely dubious claim. I'm sorry if you didn't enjoy the complexity and sophistication that came with a fantastic and powerful spell system. I'm sorry if you found it overwhelming and tedious. I truly am. You must be ecstatic with the state of spell casting systems in cRPGs these days. Good for you! You go play those games.

 

[/rant]

[Tamerlane]

Counterpoint:

 

 

Nerds suck. Make the only spell wizards can cast "fire bolt". Give fighters, like, a billion different stances and special little maneuvers and stuff. Oh, you tried to break his vom tag with a zwerchhau but then he shifted into an ox guard? What now, I ask?

Edited April 14, 2014 by Tamerlane

[Ffordesoon]

I find many of the negative attitudes toward Baldur's Gate 2 spell casting to be vexing.

 

Baldur's Gate Spell Combat

The enemy wizard has made their self either totally or partially invisible and cannot be directly targeted. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard is protected against your (conventional) weapons. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has created a duplicate of itself. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has summoned a powerful demon rampaging across the battlefield. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard is bathing the screen in a damage type or effect they have protected themselves against. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has dispelled your compliment of buffs and enhancements. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has Dire Charmed your front-line fighter--the backbone of your defense. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has used a contingency/sequencer to revitalize its defenses which you had just disabled. What do you do now?

The enemy wizard has just dismissed your powerful summons by casting Death Spell. What do you do now?

Your spell was sent screaming back at you due to the enemy wizard's use of Spell Reflection. What do you do now?

Your Breach spell failed due to the enemy wizard's use of Spell Shield. What do you do now?

Your Spell Thrust spell failed due to the enemy wizard's use of Spell Immunity: Abjuration. What do you do now?

Your fighters can't reach the enemy wizard due to its use of Teleport Field. What do you do now?

 

Need I go on? There is more. Much more. That diatribe above is only from the reactive perspective. Considering there are two-sides to every coin, the implicit tools at the proactive end of the spectrum are equally dazzling. The breadth and depth of tactical play/spontaneous tactical decision making from a nearly 20 year old game entirely outclasses and dwarfs anything ever seen in a cRPG ever since. EVER SINCE.

 

I'd like to have one of the most essential aspects of that masterpiece revived, thank-you-very-much. Spell casting was damn near half of the game renowned as the greatest cRPG ever, yet somehow it was a chore? It was a masterpiece in spite of this complexity and lethality? That is an extremely dubious claim. I'm sorry if you didn't enjoy the complexity and sophistication that came with a fantastic and powerful spell system. I'm sorry if you found it overwhelming and tedious. I truly am. You must be ecstatic with the state of spell casting systems in cRPGs these days. Good for you! You go play those games.

 

[/rant]

But it doesn't need to be less complex or interesting, nor do the effects need to be less powerful. The question "What do you do?" simply needs to have an answer the player can grasp without memorizing the Spell Compendium. Which isn't hard, as the answer to almost all of those questions is ridiculously obvious: use the appropriate counter. The only issue with BG2's combat is that it's rarely obvious what the appropriate counter is in the moment, because every rule has a billion exceptions.

[Lephys]

^ This.

 

Plus, I dare say you can even have all those immunities and such, but make them a lot more temporary.

 

For example, the idea that you, as a mean old mage, protect yourself from fire, then bathe the battlefield in fire... that's a great tactic! But, why do you need to be immune to fire for the next 72 hours, or until someone else can dispel it? Does it prevent this ability if you make yourself immune to fire for like... the next 20 seconds, or for the next 5 hits from a source of fire damage? Nope. You still get to do really cool things with that. "Hey, Fighter... *poof*, you're immune to fire for the next 10 seconds. NOW CHARGE THAT FIRE ELEMENTAL AND MAKE THEM COUNT!"

 

The thing that makes them boring (in a way, mind you; that spell system isn't just-plain lame or anything... it's just an aspect that could allow for the rest of combat to be more interesting and diverse) is that it becomes a game of "either successfully dispel that, or just completely abandon anything even remotely having to do with that." Oh, you made a Fire Mage? And the enemy mage blanketed everyone on the battlefield with fire protection? Well, you can use of of those 2 spells that aren't fire-based. OR, you can be useless. Or, you can try to dispel that protection. Except, what's this? They're even using countermeasures against your attempts to dispel it! WTF?! Better deploy the anti-anti-dispel countermeasures, so that you can dispel their anti-fire countermeasures, so that you can actually use fire again, which your build was designed around for your mage. And that's just the start of things. Now, your mage is useful again, and you wasted all that time and effort just so he could hurt things again. You STILL have to win combat. They can still mitigate your fire damage in various other ways, and can still thwart your casting efforts and such. It's not like tactics are gone now because they can't immunize themselves against fire for the duration of combat, and force you to partake in a Dispelling Bee.

 

And... I'm sorry, but PROTECTION AGAINST WEAPONS? That's great in a PnP campaign, but in a friggin' cRPG? What the eff? That's like an FPS giving people "Protection from Bullets." I really don't think that's necessary at all.

 

A damage threshold in the armor system already provides functional protection from weapons. So, that's just plain redundant. The mage could just as easily cast a magical armor-boosting spell, and raise the DT so that most of your normal attacks don't hurt him. You can still hurt him, though. You just have to use your more damaging abilities. But, it doesn't just nullify the entire type of damage.

 

I think a system that allows you to figure out how to achieve something in a limited capacity is much better than one that just says "try something else, entirely." Especially when you start stacking those effects. "Oh, now he has protection from like 5 things. Great..."

 

Basically, the more options the player has (even if some of them are still far less effective than others), the better, in a tactical sense. Figuring out a way to turn a disadvantage around is something you don't get to do when the disadvantage is simply "this approach has been totally nullified." And this is far worse when it applies to build choices. Very general ones. "Oh, you can specialize in this one school of magic, but then... in certain fights, the enemy mages are going to render moot that entire school, LOLZ!"

 

Look at PoE, at the Wizard's Arcane Veil. Sure, a firearm is the quickest, easiest way to pierce it, but it's not just "immunity to everything except firearms." I can still be broken in other ways, just not quite as quickly. Thus, "carry a firearm around" doesn't become an absolute necessity, with the difference being "either we can't do anything to mages, or we can do stuff to mages."

[Volourn]

"The breadth and depth of tactical play/spontaneous tactical decision making from a nearly 20 year old game entirely outclasses and dwarfs anything ever seen in a cRPG ever since. EVER SINCE. "

 

No.

[Hassat Hunter]

I only want to say to Lephys last post "That's like giving a FPS "Protection from bullets"" pretty much all 'old-school shooters' have that (Painkiller, Serious Sam, Bulletstorm, Unreal Tournament).

And what's with that bullet time in Max Payne, eh?

 

EDIT:

Now I recall you can buy it too in Saint's Row III and IV.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[Lephys]

I only want to say to Lephys last post "That's like giving a FPS "Protection from bullets"" pretty much all 'old-school shooters' have that (Painkiller, Serious Sam, Bulletstorm, Unreal Tournament).

And what's with that bullet time in Max Payne, eh?

 

EDIT:

Now I recall you can buy it too in Saint's Row III and IV.

A) That's called Invulnerability, not specifically immunity to bullets.

B) It's generally quite temporary.

C) No one ever had to dispel it in those games.

D) The general design of an FPS is completely different (one character versus hundreds upon hundreds of enemies, in real-time action combat in which a mere couple of strikes can and will kill you; pretty much the whole point of those games is "don't get hit.").

E) Your enemies didn't get to cast this protection upon themselves.

 

Also, I'm not really sure the way the Saint's Row games do things is very applicable to even other shooters, since they're basically just big, digital playgrounds (considering in the fourth one, you're essentially a super-hero the whole time.)

[Karkarov]

But it doesn't need to be less complex or interesting, nor do the effects need to be less powerful. The question "What do you do?" simply needs to have an answer the player can grasp without memorizing the Spell Compendium. Which isn't hard, as the answer to almost all of those questions is ridiculously obvious: use the appropriate counter. The only issue with BG2's combat is that it's rarely obvious what the appropriate counter is in the moment, because every rule has a billion exceptions.

What you just said is pretty darn accurate, but I am going to add on one more bit.  The problem isn't that you sometimes have to counter someone else's spell, it is that you had to do it in almost 50% of the fights in the game, and that there were so many counters you had to use in literally every other fight past a point.  You should never need 4-5 counter spells for one fight.  I needed that many for one fight so many times in BG2 I can't even guess how many times it went down.... probably over 100 times.

 

Also Mr. Badass whoever who never used counter spells.  I guess you used the console to beat Irenicus when he he got his free time stop (twice) to give himself protection from magic weapons, phase out, stone skin, protection from missiles, greater spell shield, and god knows what else.  Because he sort of makes himself immune to pretty much everything unless you start using things like pierce magic, spell thrust, etc etc etc.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Karkarov