Status effect examples are a bit pissy compared to 2E/3E counterparts

[Sensuki]

What about when it disables four of your party members? Five? Including the only characters who can make it stop?

I really like stuff like that. That was pretty commonplace in the IE games, but obviously the ability design in Eternity is going to be different, and not like that.

 

The main difference should be duration, but if I were to suffer a short aoe stun that locks 5 party members down for 5 seconds, I wouldn't blame the game as many people here seem to do, I would blame myself for being an idiot and grouping them up like that. Stuff like that is all part of the challenge of an encounter.

 

I don't have a problem with metagaming, you can qq about "oh I didn't know that I was going to get AoE stunned, I should be forewarned". I think that is personally retarded, but anyway in this game, you will be able to use the tooltips when you mouse over enemies to probably discern stuff like that.

 

Think about all the times you died in a game like one of the Super Mario games, Bowser beats you the first time, then you figure out what you're supposed to do after being beaten by it. There is nothing wrong with that.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Sensuki

[Fatback]

The thing with status effects in the bg series is they lasted so long I don't need a fear that lasts 2 d6 rounds so I can break threw the front line to get on top of the Mage 3 seconds is fine. Or an entangle area that lasts 7 d20 rounds + 1per level of caster. 4 - 5 seconds are fine.

[Hormalakh]

The thing with entangle is that you can save against it - as is the case with a lot of these spells. Jut because you're in an entangle area doesn't mean you'll get entangled. It's the same with pretty much all of the other spells too - if you can roll a high enough dice, you don't take the effect. Contrast this with a spell that you can't save against with a lower duration. Which one is better? I don't think it's easy to anser to that.

 

Ultimately, I agree with Sensuki that difficult status effects will make the game more interesting and varied. I don't agree with him that they are pissy because we don't know what the specifics are in this case - as with a lot of other things at this point.

[Suburban-Fox]

Entangle, and Web, would have been useless if they only lasted a few seconds. It wouldn't take long to lose any advantage you had gained from it.

 

Also, these status effects are worthless when they only affect you for a moment, and you can swiftly recover from them. What made Fear so scary (pun intended ) is that it would take people out of the fight for a long time, forcing you to find some way to counter it. If you just have to wait a few seconds, there's no need for spells like Dispel Magic or Protection from Fear.

 

Besides, I prefer it when spells improve as you level up. It makes low level spells still worth using at higher levels. Logic dictates that a Fear spell cast by a more powerful wizard is going to be more effective than one cast by a lesser wizard, and since it's not doing damage, it needs to reflect this by lasting longer.

[Lephys]

Well, when a character is petrified in Baldur's Gate, you can still get them out of it with a Stone to Flesh scroll (as long as it's not your main character - I never really liked that either; the fact that the game ended as soon as your main guy 'died', even though everybody else could be raised).

 

But yeah, I agree. I'd love to have the more nasty, grittier things able to happen to you, but there does need to be a way of countering or reversing them. Imprisonment needs to have a thing that can free people from the imprisonment, even if it does involve going to a high level cleric and paying a shed-load of money. Petrification needs to have a "unstatuify person" spell that can reverse the effect. Poison needs to have an antidote. Level/ability drain needs restoration. Etc.

 

That's actually another thing I don't like about modern RPGs...the fact that none of this stuff happens anymore, and you're all basically immortal - or might as well be, because you can never die, or suffer any kind of long term effect beyond "oh no, I've lost a few more hitpoints than I would have lost normally! TEH HORORZ!!". If such effects exist, they are very short term, and can be easily waited out. Give me a brutal, gritty, nasty world where people can die, suffer horrible injuries, and generally have nasty things happen to them that last forever if not countered, but make it possible to reverse the effects.

Yeah, I don't even necessarily like how some stuff that isn't so extreme is commonly instantly curable. Poison, for example (your mention of poison made me think of this.) Sure, you should be able to cure the poison, but I honestly think it'd be better if it took time. Either you drink an antidote (or cast a spell), and the poison starts to get nullified, gradually. But, while it does, you STILL take poison damage every tick. If the regular spell deals, say, 5 damage per tick. Then, maybe it gets reduced by 1 damage per tick for the next 5 ticks.

 

What this does functionally is still give a distinction to actually preventing the poisoning in the first place, versus just not even caring if you get poisoned or not because you bought 73 antidotes back at the merchant in town, so you'll just pause and use one every time you get poisoned, and it'll INSTANTLY be "problem solved, 8D!"

 

This is something I don't think people shouting "you just want the game to be easier" understand. Just because I don't like the prevent-this-or-die (or pretty-much die/ be REALLY screwed) aspect of abilities doesn't mean I just want the abilities to not even be threatening, or that preventing them shouldn't even be encouraged any more at all. Preventing them should be ONE strategy, while reacting to them should be another. And sure, there might be one or two things that you can't really react to afterwards. But, I'd really rather that be something like "That mage is calling down a meteor... if I don't get the hell out of that thing's path, I'm in a world of trouble" than "oh, that mage is targeting me with a 'You're Effectively Dead/Useless' spell. May the odds be ever in my favor!"

 

Just because everything doesn't rest on your saving throw doesn't automatically mean nothing does. And honestly, I even like that PoE will basically use the same Attack Resolution system with spells and effects as it will with "regular" attacks, instead of the saving throw system. With a saving throw, you either succeed or you don't. A lot of the time, either the spell lands (you fail your save), or the spell does nothing (you succeed at your save). I know there were also a lot of D&D spells that were simply reduced if you save (didn't allow for "full saves"), which is a nice variety. But, it's just a step further, methinks, when the spell's effect can "miss," graze (like a half-save), hit (normal success), or even critically hit.

 

Combine those things, and you've got a lot more distinction between prevention as a factor, and reaction as a factor. Maybe you're fine with reacting because your Fighter's got some poison damage resistance or something. So you'll just cure him if he gets in trouble with poison. Only... CRITICAL HIT! Now it would've been WAY better off to prevent the poison in the first place. Whereas, if he's got really high Fortitude, it may not even be possible for criticals to occur, and unlikely for even normal hits to occur. The majority of outcomes will be grazes and failures.

 

Unless you use immunities, you're ALWAYS gambling to some degree, which is great. You could have high Fortitude, and STILL get hit with a normal, full effect of poison 4 out of 5 times, if you're "unlucky." And yet, not-just-immunizing everyone against poison in a fight is a significantly more feasible choice.

 

Poison was just being used as an example. I'm not trying to comment on how deadly poison was in any particular game or anything. I'm just saying that any effect really benefits from a lot of that variance.

 

Even with something like insta-death... just taking the "insta" out makes a boatload of difference. I've always kinda liked the whole Doom effect from the Final Fantasy series. You could go with something like that. Full effect: you die in 5 "rounds" (it could be seconds, or groups of seconds... the duration would have to be determined according to other specifics and what works best). Graze: You die in 8 "rounds." Critical hit: you die in 2 "rounds." Boom. Now, maybe it requires some channeled spell to actually undo it. So, it's very difficult to react to, but you still can. Not to mention, even if you don't do anything about it, everything doesn't hinge upon "OMG, don't get hit by that!". Your character still gets to do stuff for a short bit, but ultimately is going to die "no matter what." No amount of armor or resistance is going to mitigate the culmination of that death effect, because it's just death. But, it's not all just one giant pivotal point of "save-or-die." Etc.

 

Annnnywho. I just think there's a lot of potential for a much more interesting and versatile approach to the design of combat effects and how they're handled, and it has nothing to do with just removing extreme effects from IE games and leaving the rest of the IE system in place. It has nothing to do with making combat easier.

 

Dark Souls is also a 3rd person game where you control a single character. In that style of game, disable is a big deal, in a party of 6 - not so much.

Yeah, and Dark Souls' encounters are also designed to be a challenge for a single character. I sure as heck hope PoE's encounters aren't going to be designed to be a challenge for a single character, and you just happen to have 5 backups. "Oh, guys... 3 of our group have been petrified, imprisoned, and feared? No worries! We have 6 people! 8D!"

Edited April 15, 2014 by Lephys

[Ffordesoon]

In addition to the already confirmed markers for AoE spells, I'd like to see some status effects that last for the length of an encounter if you don't dispel them. I'd also like to see AoE debuffs last a shorter (though still lengthy) time than single-target versions of the same debuff. And, er, I'd like to see single-target and AoE debuffs be separate spells, in the same way that Mass Cure is a separate spell from the Cure Wounds series. I think that would satisfy folks on both sides of this argument, because it would feel like BG without turning the game into the status effect bonanza BG could be.

 

A notable exception to this would be a petrification effect, should one exist in PoE. I think the BGs did that mostly right, apart from it garnering an automatic game over when inflicted upon the protagonist.

[Ffordesoon]

EDIT: Accidental double post, please delete

Edited April 15, 2014 by Ffordesoon

[Jarrakul]

I should note that while I seriously dislike spells like Hold Person, I have no problem whatsoever with spells like Web, Entangle, or Command. The reason for this has to do with the way the random distribution works as the way it makes me play. I dislike Hold Person because if I get unlucky once, half my party is out of the fight. Probably dead if anything happened to be attacking them at the time. I dislike it offensively too, because when I cast it I'm basically saying "I hope the enemies fail their saves so I can insta-win this fight." It's not tactically interesting. Which is not to say there's nothing of tactical interest about a Hold Person spell, but the core effect (save or be rendered useless and defenseless for the rest of the fight) is not tactically interesting. However, I like spells like Web, Entangle, and Command. Command is simple. I like it because it's effective and short-duration. For much of BG1, it isn't a gamble, because most BG1 enemies don't get a save against it, and by the time enemies that do become common a 1st level spell and a casting time of 1 isn't much of a resource to gamble. My fondness for Web and Entangle is somewhat more complicated. At first glance, they seem a lot like Hold Person, but they have two crucial differences (beyond Entangle being a root instead of a hold). First, they trend much more heavily towards the average result. This is because their effect only lasts one round, but it's checked every round. So instead of failing one save and being out of the fight, you fail a save and are out for a few seconds, and then you roll again. Both Web-style effects and Hold Person-style effects may have the same expected value in rounds spent paralyzed, but the Web sums multiple random events to produce a result that trends much more strongly towards the average. The second reason is that Web and Entangle are effects that sit on an area, rather than on creatures. That opens up all sorts of fun tactics, both in how you use them and in how you deal with enemies using them. Their existence adds tactical depth, and should be lauded. But note how they differ from Hold Person. I'm not arguing that status effects should be weak. I'm arguing that they should be interesting.

Also, the "you're all noobs for not liking this mechanic" argument needs to die in a fire. I beat Baldur's Gate with SCS and max health enemies. I've only ever run one hardcore run, but I beat it easily (although without SCS, admittedly). I am not somehow unable to deal with the sorts of things BG throws at you. I just prefer challenges that make me respond in interesting ways, rather than challenges that render me unable to respond unless I know about them beforehand and have prepared their specific counter.

[Suburban-Fox]

I just prefer challenges that make me respond in interesting ways, rather than challenges that render me unable to respond unless I know about them beforehand and have prepared their specific counter.

 

I agree with this. I don't like fights where the only way I can win is to pre-empt the encounter. Disintegrate was particularly bad for that, because you can't even get the person back afterwards! I'm not opposed to having that spell, but there does need to at least be a way to restore a disintegrated character, otherwise the only defence is to cast whatever protection spell on one person and pre-empt the enemy to make sure he attacks that one person instead of everybody else who isn't protected.

 

Also, the nice thing about Web and Entangle was that you can get caught in it too, unlike Hold Person which only targets enemies. That made it more interesting from a tactical point of view.

 

Hold Person might be better if it only targetted a single person, rather than the whole group. That way, a character being held would still give you some chance to counter it.

[Infinitron]

Why do players savescum when one of their characters gets hit with a petrification-like status effect?

 

There are three reasons:

 

1) They don't have any way to easily restore the character after the battle.

2) They do have a consumable that can restore the character, but they don't want to use it. Hoarding instinct.

3) They really need the character for the current battle, and can't easily restore him during it.

 

Pillars of Eternity already offers a solution for the first two reasons. The game's healing system has been abstracted into an health reservoir that automatically replenishes your stamina after each battle, removing the need for healing consumables. That health reservoir could also be used to cure status effects.

 

Is your character petrified after a battle? He loses a big chunk of health to unpetrify. If he doesn't have enough health to unpetrify, he just dies.

 

This solution doesn't address the third reason though, which is that you lose the character for the entirety of the current battle. Placing a time limit on the petrification effect is the most straightforward way of solving this.

 

You could combine the two solutions, so that when the character unpetrifies after the time limit is up, he also loses a chunk of health. (If you want to get really funky, you could let a character choose to "shake off" the petrification effect earlier at the cost of losing even more health.)

 

However, I'd understand if the designers feel that petrification is enough of a punishment as it is, without also adding a resource penalty on top of it. By that logic, it's already bad enough that your character was petrified - why force him to suffer a loss of health on top of that?

Edited April 16, 2014 by Infinitron

[Suburban-Fox]

Why do players savescum when one of their characters gets hit with a petrification-like status effect?

 

Why does it matter if players savescum anyway? In the nicest possible way, why does it matter what other players do in a single player game?

 

Actually, why is it even considered 'savescum' to reload the game if the battle goes horribly wrong, and ends with you losing a character whom you've no chance of getting back? Where is the line between normal saving/reloading and savescum? I must confess, I like to save a lot, and reload when a battle goes horribly wrong, so does that make me a savescum?

 

I would rather have petrification be harsh (but recoverable with a bit of effort or forethought), and face the possibility of having to reload, than have it nerfed for the sake of preventing people who want to quicksave a lot from doing so.

[Hormalakh]

 

Why do players savescum when one of their characters gets hit with a petrification-like status effect?

 

 

Why does it matter if players savescum anyway? In the nicest possible way, why does it matter what other players do in a single player game?

 

Actually, why is it even considered 'savescum' to reload the game if the battle goes horribly wrong, and ends with you losing a character whom you've no chance of getting back? Where is the line between normal saving/reloading and savescum? I must confess, I like to save a lot, and reload when a battle goes horribly wrong, so does that make me a savescum?

 

I would rather have petrification be harsh (but recoverable with a bit of effort or forethought), and face the possibility of having to reload, than have it nerfed for the sake of preventing people who want to quicksave a lot from doing so.

Fr the sake of brevity see Josh's comments on designer's roles for creating a good game and game degeneracy. Check any other thread and you'll find the arguments.

 

Let's not devolve the discussion into this conversation all over again.

[Fatback]

There is more gratification in setting up a great combo of web fireball, charge stun when web doesn't last for over a min, or a fear to break a formation. There is less fun/tactical game play when the cc magics don't last forever. Longer duration things like curses and all that is what dispell magic is for.

 

Again let me explain setting up a great play is fun but when you have effects that last so long you have 5 plus seconds of leeway In between combining your abilities is just not as fun and doesn't give you a sense of skill.

 

It is important that the enemy ai scripts are good enough for them to combo abilities as well

Edited April 16, 2014 by Fatback

[Fatback]

Another reason those cc's needed to be so long is because the bg system used rounds and not real time so a 3 second stun would not even get you an attack off but when you have a thief that can make 3 attacks in 3 seconds a 3 second stun followed by backstab attack attack on just recently dispelled Mage is huge.

[Jarrakul]

Hold Person might be better if it only targetted a single person, rather than the whole group. That way, a character being held would still give you some chance to counter it.

 

 

That would be much better, yes, because losing one party member in a party-based game really isn't that bad. But it's still highly random by the standards of damage-dealing effects, and I'm still not totally okay with that. What I'd love to see is something like "Hold targets for 0 seconds on miss, 3 seconds on glancing hit, 10 seconds on full hit, 20 seconds on crit" or something like that. So you could count on it doing something almost all the time, but it would never last so long that the target would be out of the battle altogether. In this way, it remains powerful, but becomes a lot less random. It's now a reliable tool with some random effect, rather than a totally random effect that might do nothing or might insta-win depending on how lucky you get.

[Volourn]

"What about when it disables four of your party members? Five? Including the only characters who can make it stop?"
 

Getting out of tough spots like these is some of the most fun one can have in these games be it CRPGs or pnp. Some of my favorite memories are exactly situatioons liek that wher ehalf the part is disabled in some fashion yet I manage to squeak out victory!

[Lephys]

- deleted -

 

Didn't see a previous post that already said what I was saying.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Lephys