Will Pillars of Eternity have better combat system than Dragon Age Origins?

[Stun]

PS: I wouldn't rejoice ever much about PoE not having hard counters. Since it will have them. We haven't even gotten updates on all the classes, yet we've already seen one or two hard counters that Mages will be getting. What do you call Minor Arcane Reflection?

Edited April 29, 2014 by Stun

[MReed]

PS: I wouldn't rejoice ever much about PoE not having hard counters. Since it will have them. We haven't even gotten updates on all the classes, yet we've already seen one or two hard counters that Mages will be getting. What do you call Minor Arcane Reflection?

 

A nice thought (well, for me), but I just double checked the description, and it includes: "When an incoming spell targets the caster, the Reflection attacks the enemy's Will." -- unlike the D&D equivalent, the reflection effect can and will fail.  In fact, successful reflections to occur less than 50% of the time if spellcasting classes have high will saves. 

 

Removing the effect will almost certainly be possible, of course, but I doubt that it will be worth the trouble in the vast majority of cases, which is the textbook definition of a "soft counter".

[Suburban-Fox]

I simply don't want to need meta-game knowledge to beat certain encounters. I want to play and beat the game with the knowledge my characters would have.

 

QFT!! This is the one thing that bugged me about the IE games too (well....that and the silly base clothing that they had...seriously, who wears a short skirt and a sleeveless doublet that doesn't fit, with nothing underneath?? XD )

 

I'm all in favour of being able/expected to prepare for encounters that you can be reasonably expected to know are coming up, but I hate using OOC knowledge for IG situations. However, I like being able to gain the knowledge IC, and being expected to use that knowledge to prepare for what's to come. To do that, I need to have some way of gaining such knowledge, and some way to know what to expect to be facing in certain situations.

 

That's not to say that unexpected scenarios are necessarily a bad thing - maybe the whole idea was that the random demon encounter in a tavern is meant to shock you and catch you off guard - but it should be possible to beat it without resorting to metagaming, and casting Protection from Demon Fire on the whole party when you think you're going to relax and have a few drinks. :D

[rjshae]

However, given the focus that Josh has placed on eliminating pre-battle buffing mechanics, the logical solution to absolutely stamp this out is to simply cancel all ("standard" -- the kinds of buffs that the player can apply anywhere) buffs at the end of each encounter.  This feature, combined with sharp limits on the abliity of the player to enter into combat without opponents present, should achieve the desired result.

 

For me, the exception would be sequential battles where a second battle starts immediately before characters have had a chance to recover. Either allow full recovery or leave buffs enabled.

[Elerond]

PS: I wouldn't rejoice ever much about PoE not having hard counters. Since it will have them. We haven't even gotten updates on all the classes, yet we've already seen one or two hard counters that Mages will be getting. What do you call Minor Arcane Reflection?

Minor Arcane Reflection is moderate protection spell.

 

It protects wizard by giving him or her chance to reflect low level spells (up to level 3 targeted spells and total 10 spell levels worth of spells if wizard success in will attack towards casters will, failed reflection attempts count towards spell level total) back to their casters.

 

It don't make anything that enemy can use against wizard useless, so it don't fulfill any definition of hard counter that I know.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Elerond

[Cubiq]

Stun definitely brought up a good point when he mentioned the exploit of leaving 1 enemy alive to buff yourself before the next battle, i just hope the developers won't come up with some strange mechanic that would be made just to prevent it, like making you unable to engage the next enemy until killing everyone. Something like that would really break any immersion i would have in the game.

If you can't fix it in a very, very natural way then please just leave it alone.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Cubiq

[Ink Blot]

Stun definitely brought up a good point when he mentioned the exploit of leaving 1 enemy alive to buff yourself before the next battle,

He does, but I'm not sure it's something that's really all that big a deal. I'd assume that this type of thing would not happen inadvertently in-game (or at least, would be extremely rare if it did - QA should root out any common occurrences, one would hope). And as far as players going out of their way to exploit the game mechanics - does it really matter? There will always be players that do this. If the devs design the game so an exploit doesn't occur accidentally, but can pretty much only occur if the player actively seeks it out, then I see no big issue.

[Elerond]

Stun definitely brought up a good point when he mentioned the exploit of leaving 1 enemy alive to buff yourself before the next battle, i just hope the developers won't come up with some strange mechanic that would be made just to prevent it, like making you unable to engage the next enemy until killing everyone. Something like that would really break any immersion i would have in the game.

If you can't fix it in a very, very natural way then please just leave it alone.

I think that would cause more disadvantage for player than exploit as your party don't get back their per fight abilities, which I think are in most cases more important than those per day buffs that last until end of encounter or so long that they matter if you use them before encounter.   

[Cubiq]

I think that would cause more disadvantage for player than exploit as your party don't get back their per fight abilities, which I think are in most cases more important than those per day buffs that last until end of encounter or so long that they matter if you use them before encounter.   

 

That's a good point, i just hope the developers have the same mindset.

[Stun]

If the devs design the game so an exploit doesn't occur accidentally, but can pretty much only occur if the player actively seeks it out, then I see no big issue.

You mean like... being able to freely spam prebuffs to make fights easy - That horrible horrible Horrible horrible degenerate practice that never occurs accidently (obviously), but rather, only occurs when the player actively seeks it out. You see no big issue with that.

 

Neither do I. But behold: Here's an entire forum of people who condemn the Infinity engine games for it.

[anameforobsidian]

Stamina regeneration is also rapid outside of combat.  I'm okay if you have to decide between a super-cool buff and health.

[Ffordesoon]

 

 

 

Stun definitely brought up a good point when he mentioned the exploit of leaving 1 enemy alive to buff yourself before the next battle,

 

He does, but I'm not sure it's something that's really all that big a deal. I'd assume that this type of thing would not happen inadvertently in-game (or at least, would be extremely rare if it did - QA should root out any common occurrences, one would hope). And as far as players going out of their way to exploit the game mechanics - does it really matter? There will always be players that do this. If the devs design the game so an exploit doesn't occur accidentally, but can pretty much only occur if the player actively seeks it out, then I see no big issue.

This is the thing. Nobody can end all exploits forever, even in one game. But what you can do is make the game in such a way that any exploits players devise aren't something you can accidentally run into in the normal course of play. If players who seek to break your game break it, then they're having their special brand of fun, and mazel tov to 'em. The problem is when "correct" play is built around the idea that tactics you are not taught by the game - tactics that run counter to the game's previous lessons, in fact - are inarguably the most valuable and efficient ones for all players.

[Ink Blot]

You mean like... being able to freely spam prebuffs to make fights easy - That horrible horrible Horrible horrible degenerate practice that never occurs accidently (obviously), but rather, only occurs when the player actively seeks it out. You see no big issue with that.

Neither do I. But behold: Here's an entire forum of people who condemn the Infinity engine games for it.

 

I'm assuming you're being facetious, as I think it's pretty obvious that's not even in the same galaxy as what I meant.

[Lephys]

You mean like... being able to freely spam prebuffs to make fights easy - That horrible horrible Horrible horrible degenerate practice that never occurs accidently (obviously), but rather, only occurs when the player actively seeks it out. You see no big issue with that.

So freely spamming pre-buffs to unintentionally make fights easy is a bad thing, according to you?

 

Also, what Ink Blot says is perfectly reasonable. Cheat codes. You type them in, you get cheats. You don't intentionally type them in, you don't ever accidentally become invulnerable during your live-streamed IronMan run that's supposed to be legit.

 

What exactly is the point you're trying to make, there?

[Stun]

The example I gave (finding a way to spell-pre-buff in PoE despite the no-spell-prebuffing rule) is what we were discussing here and what Inkblot was responding to. It obviously will never happen "unintentionally". It will always happen only when the player deliberately makes it happen.

 

My point, is that this is No different than spamming pre-buffs in the IE games in order to make that next battle easy. In Both cases 1) the player is intentionally gaming the system ie. exploiting; 2) In both cases, there may be huge quantities of meta-gaming knowledge behind the player's every move.

 

Yet we don't really mind the first case. We're OK with it! It's the second case that, on this forum, has damned those IE games as terrible, unfun, untactical pieces of garbage that they are!

Edited April 30, 2014 by Stun

[Gromnir]

will poe have good combat? who can say? for us, poe is a put-up or shut-up development.  is a LONG list o' excuses why obsidian/black isle failed  to do X or couldn't do Y over the years. torn dies after considerable development time 'cause the engine black isle/interplay licensed didn't meet expectations? seriously? fo3 development got delayed over and over and over 'cause interplay needed immediate cash and iwd were seen as a quick fix. how many years? heart of winter? *shudder* endemic bugginess o' all black isle/obsidian titles were fault o' working on somebody else's engine, or not having enough time from publisher.  kotor 2 were kinda a mess in parts (particularly at the end) 'cause Lucas rushed... or rather, obsidian didn't get it in writing that they were to get more time. etc.

 

we like obsidian games, but from an outsider's pov, their efforts look a bit like the following

 

 

is funny, and sad. the real mystery is that obsidian has been as successful as they is in spite o' them seeming to trip over their own feet at every possible opportunity. 

 

well, guess what? there ain't nobody to blame this time. poe is all on obsidian. if it turns out well, obsidian deserves all kinda credit. if it sucks... 

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 30, 2014 by Gromnir

[PrimeJunta]

As an aside, I still don't get this discussion.

 

Games are supposed to be enjoyable, right?

 

Games are based on incentive systems, right?

 

Therefore, an enjoyable game should provide incentives for enjoyable activities, and not provide incentives for unenjoyable activities, right?

 

Are things like constant saving and reloading, repetitive, rote application of pre-buffs, trekking back and forth between a dungeon and a shop, shuffling things around in and between inventories, or repetitively killing the same respawning monsters over and over again enjoyable activities?

 

If not, then why should the game incentivize you to engage in them?

[PrimeJunta]

their efforts look a bit like the following

FO:NV is superb by any standard. MotB is the least flawed NWN series game. South Park: The Stick of Truth is brilliant at what it attempts. That's three they hit out of the park, which is better than you can say for most studios as far as I'm concerned.

[Gromnir]

 

their efforts look a bit like the following

FO:NV is superb by any standard. MotB is the least flawed NWN series game. South Park: The Stick of Truth is brilliant at what it attempts. That's three they hit out of the park, which is better than you can say for most studios as far as I'm concerned.

 

seeing as how nwn2 and storm of zehir were obsidian games, your compliment of motb is a back-handed one at best. additionally, we got a substantial list o' serious criticisms of motb that we could share in a more appropriate fora.  fo:nv were buggy, unbalanced and had the typical disappointing conclusion that is also a rather infamous trademark of obsidian/black isle games (iwd being an odd exception.) we had no urge to play the south park title from obsidian, so we cannot comment other than to observe that south park were near universal criticized even by folks who liked it as a bugfest... and, "brilliant at what it attempts" is more than a little suspicious, don't you think? 

 

*shrug*

 

​as we said, we like obsidian games, but that is as much in spite of what they does as anything.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[PrimeJunta]

seeing as how nwn2 and storm of zehir were obsidian games, your compliment of motb is a back-handed one at best.

Not intended that way. I'm also not denying that Obs and BIS produced more than their share of bugfests too.

 

additionally, we got a substantial list o' serious criticisms of motb that we could share in a more appropriate fora.

No doubt. I've got my own list. It's still a brilliant game, and after PS:T my favorite among all the party-based D&D cRPG's.

 

fo:nv were buggy, unbalanced and had the typical disappointing conclusion that is also a rather infamous trademark of obsidian/black isle games (iwd being an odd exception.)

Unbalanced and disappointing compared to what?

 

we had no urge to play the south park title from obsidian, so we cannot comment other than to observe that south park were near universal criticized even by folks who liked it as a bugfest...

I encountered two bugs on my one-and-a-half playthroughs. Both were cosmetic; in one case some toons were lacking heads, and in another case the map marker showing where you are was shifted to the right a bit. My suspicion is that the "bugfest" thing is due to confirmation bias -- Obs has a reputation for buggy games, so even a small number of low-impact bugs will make people go "Oh, bug, Obsidian, right."

 

and, "brilliant at what it attempts" is more than a little [/size]suspicious, don't you think? 

Shouldn't be. I try to judge things by what they attempt. While I like the odd J-RPG and have watched a few South Park episodes, I'm not a huge fan of that style of gameplay nor the series. I.e., I'm not in the core target demographic for the game.

 

Obsidian has a track record of doing brilliant things with the material they're given to work with, whether it's epic D&D in a horrid engine, Fallout in 3D with Oblivion faces, or South Park. What's more, I think it's fairer to compare their games to other games that are out there rather than some imaginary ideal. Even in their weak spots Obsidian's games compare pretty well to what else is out there -- and they've done a lot to improve their weak spots over the years.

[IndiraLightfoot]

The two dork commandments that we see all too often in effect on these forums:

 

1) "If you love a game you should not and cannot fault it for anything. It's just a relic and a canon."

2) "If you criticize a game, you cannot love it. You should leave it alone, and your opinions on it are invalid."

 

I am a fan of several Obsidian's games, I admit it, but I'm also happy to provide long lists of faults, bugs and inconsistencies in said games.

However, regardless of them shortcomings, I have played the NWN2 series and F:NV for hundreds and hundreds of hours, and I still enjoy them when I pick them up, that should tell you something of how good Obsidian are at making games. However, more or less the same goes for BG1 & 2 + Planescape Torment. I've replayed them all in recent years, and they have plenty of issues and outright annoyances. In my replays, the three games that hold up the best after all these years are MotB, PST and FN:V.

Edited April 30, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Gromnir]

am not gonna go through the ridiculous reply/quote nonsense, so we will not actual respond to lion's share of your post. call it a pet peeve. it may seem like we is being a jerk, but if we use reply/quote as you did, and you follow in the same format, we will very quickly reach a point in which neither of us is actually responding to anything o' significance. it is an asinine way to respond to a post.

 

 that being said, fo:nv were fundamentally unbalanced with many weapons/skills/abilities/etc being clear superior or inferior.  there is no need for a "compared to."  also, the fo:nv conclusion were disappointing to any game we believes had a good or even adequate conclusion? am not seeing how you need clarification.  *shrug* as for motb, that were one o' those games from obsidian that some small number of fans adore, and we just don't see it. in the george zeits thread we discussed motb shortcomings briefly... would be repeating self to do so in this thread. 

 

regardless, pointing out individual games you like from obsidian is a rather pointless observation as Gromnir already said that we also like obsidian games. we did note that obsidian has a way of self-destructing or making developments more difficult... to a comical degree. kotor2 actual had some fabulous writing. we would argue that obsidian's best written game to date were the first 2/3 of kotor2. the thing is, how does a developer fail to get it in writing when the publisher offers more time to expand the scope of the game? the torn engine blunder is another mistake we can't even fathom as it strains credulity. obsidian mistakes would be funny, if they weren't sad.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[IndiraLightfoot]

That response expressed more a general frustration on my behalf, and wasn't aimed at you specifically, Gromnir. And I can see that you really know your stuff, and yes, if not in so exaggerated words, there have been plenty of problems over the years in games Obsidian have produced. Still, and that is my main point, why focus on the negative? I just don't get it. Pointing out shortcomings in order to help making the games better in the future is one thing, but just trash-talking in order to be kewl is something entirely different.

 

Overall, they have made a few fantastic games with enormous scope, replayability and entertainment value (the writing in them alone is mind-blowingly good at times). Like you said, the beginning and middle of KOTOR2 is a gem.

[Suburban-Fox]

My point, is that this is No different than spamming pre-buffs in the IE games in order to make that next battle easy. In Both cases 1) the player is intentionally gaming the system ie. exploiting; 2) In both cases, there may be huge quantities of meta-gaming knowledge behind the player's every move.

 

Yet we don't really mind the first case. We're OK with it! It's the second case that, on this forum, has damned those IE games as terrible, unfun, untactical pieces of garbage that they are!

 

The issue people have isn't the fact that you can pre-buff before a fight. It's with the fact that you had to pre-buff before a fight that you aren't supposed to know is coming. Unless, of course, you reload the game, and pre-buff in preparation for a fight that you're not supposed to know is about to happen.

 

Having a reasonable idea that you're about to fight a demon (either because you scouted the area and saw the demon or somebody said "don't go in there, there's a demon in there!"), and therefore being expected to cast Protection from Demon Fire in preparation, is fine.

 

Having to cast Protection from Demon Fire because you "just know!", somehow, that your relaxing night in the tavern is about to be interrupted with a random demon that your characters couldn't possibly have known about, or expected, and if you don't use that spell (which lasts 5 minutes so you're hardly going to keep it on all day every day) then you'll get horribly killed to death, is what people don't like.

 

That's the difference...pre-buffing before a fight that you know about IC is fine. Pre-buffing before a fight that you only know about OOC is not fine, because roleplayers like myself consider that metagaming.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Suburban-Fox

[Cubiq]

^ what Fox said.

 

 

On the side note, I have mixed feelings about pre-buffing.

The annoying one is that, because you can pre-buff, then that means that the AI must also be able to do that, with contingency spells. And that was one of the most annoying things for me in bg2. The amount of dispels i had to cast just to deal some damage to the opponent mage was staggering, and not only that i had to save those dispels for when my party would eat a chaos or confusion spell, so most of the time the combat just came down to me trying to outlive my opponent's buff durations.

 

On the other side, i'm not sure how i will like the new buffing system in PoE, because i don't like the idea that my mage is unable to cast a buff outside combat because he's.....retarded?

I hope there's a system in place that just makes it more sense to cast buffs during combat, rather than just fading out the buff spell button on your action bar when you aren't fighting.

Only system i can think of, is having the buffs have short duration but extremely fast cast time, so it wouldn't make much sense to stand there pre-buffing yourself before the fight.

But i can see how even that has flaws.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Cubiq