Can we really play the whole game with just one character?

[Cubiq]

Well from what I've seen I don't think you'll be able to solo as a fighter unless you actually overpower the boss enemies in raw power, considering you can't really kite effectively in this game with the Engage mechanic. (And I doubt CC attacks are going to work on them very well.)

[Stun]

Well from what I've seen I don't think you'll be able to solo as a fighter unless you actually overpower the boss enemies in raw power, considering you can't really kite effectively in this game with the Engage mechanic. (And I doubt CC attacks are going to work on them very well.)

Actually, I imagine Soloing a fighter might be easier in PoE than it is in the IE games due to the versatility of the classes.

 

For example, In PoE you will be able to build a mobile fighter with stealth and trap disarming skills. Add to this the mechanics they designed for talent interrupts, and soloing a fighter suddenly looks quite doable. Plus of course the encounters themselves will have more than one solution to them (see: Tim Cain's example of enemies guarding a bridge and how you'll have the option to either fight them, or slip past them, or talk your way past them etc.)

 

Regardless, Gamers will always find a way. First time I played BG2 I wouldn't, in a hundred years, imagined that it could ever be soloed with any class. But how wrong did that turn out to be!?

Edited May 9, 2014 by Stun

[Messier-31]

Regardless, Gamers will always find a way. First time I played BG2 I wouldn't, in a hundred years, imagined that it could ever be soloed with any class. But how wrong did that turn out to be!?

 

So much win... someone give this man some internets.

 

Still, I prefer a party based game. Soloing is a challenge I find not worth the time and effort.

[Cubiq]

For example, In PoE you will be able to build a mobile fighter

But how do you build a mobile fighter?

From what i've read regarding the Engage mechanic, the only way you'll be able to get away from the enemy with a melee fighter after you've done damage, is with a knockdown or some form of CC. And if CC are so effective versus bosses then won't it be easy mode to just get a group of 6 fighters and then chain CC him?

 

see: Tim Cain's example of enemies guarding a bridge and how you'll have the option to either fight them, or slip past them, or talk your way past them etc.

Yes there should be more ways to fight the enemy, but if i remember correctly Sawyer said that the game won't be as combat passive as PS:T, and he said directly that there will be fights that you can't avoid.

Maybe you'll be able to weaken them beforehand like in IWD2, but i doubt it's going to be considerably, otherwise it's going to be a cakewalk for a party of 6.

[Stun]

Well we haven't yet gotten the Fighter class-update, so none of us knows all the fighter abilities. But we do know that just as there's an engage mechanic, there's a disengage mechanic and many classes have it.

 

Besides, what insurmountable benefit will an enemy's engage serve him, if you've built your fighter to excel in violent engagement?

Edited May 9, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

Actually, I imagine Soloing a fighter might be easier in PoE than it is in the IE games due to the versatility of the classes.

 

For example, In PoE you will be able to build a mobile fighter with stealth and trap disarming skills. Add to this the mechanics they designed for talent interrupts, and soloing a fighter suddenly looks quite doable. Plus of course the encounters themselves will have more than one solution to them (see: Tim Cain's example of enemies guarding a bridge and how you'll have the option to either fight them, or slip past them, or talk your way past them etc.)

 

Regardless, Gamers will always find a way. First time I played BG2 I wouldn't, in a hundred years, imagined that it could ever be soloed with any class. But how wrong did that turn out to be!?

Getting pretty speculative, but... I would expect that it'd be easier to build characters that don't have glaring weak spots in P:E than in the D&D based games. A fighter's Will is extremely weak, for example, and it's quite hard to get around this limitation -- even impossible, depending on what magic items are available. This kind of thing can make soloing much harder if there are situations where that weak point gets hammered (as there should be IMO).

 

P:E's "no dump stats" approach should let players create characters that emphasize strengthening their class's weak points over specialization, which would help. On the other hand we don't know how hard the game is going to be overall; if the toughest challenges need a character that's optimized to play to his strengths, then the "generalist" soloer will be at a serious disadvantage.

 

(BTW, for the record, just so you can say it happened once -- I've changed my mind on the topic due to this thread. I no longer think soloing would necessarily be six times harder than playing with a full party. Thinking it might be something like three times harder, which should certainly be doable for a hardcore player, even if the base difficulty is hard enough not to be a cakewalk.)

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Regardless, Gamers will always find a way. First time I played BG2 I wouldn't, in a hundred years, imagined that it could ever be soloed with any class. But how wrong did that turn out to be!? 

 

This is how I see it. There's always going to be gamers that will find a way. And I imagine there will be a lot of players trying different classes and builds to find some of the most optimal builds to solo PoE. Considering PoE is taking a lot from systems like 4th Ed which takes character/class optimisation to levels you've never dreamed of if you've never played it, I can see a lot of optimal builds that will come in this game. There will be threads about this for sure.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[IndiraLightfoot]

Well from what I've seen I don't think you'll be able to solo as a fighter unless you actually overpower the boss enemies in raw power, considering you can't really kite effectively in this game with the Engage mechanic. (And I doubt CC attacks are going to work on them very well.)

 

I have a feeling it will be possible, and one key may perhaps be to make it an archer build. Josh wrote about rangers and archery a while back, and mentioned something in the vein of "If you want to play an archer-type ranger without an animal companion, then just make an archer fighter". For some reason, that sounds promising, since then you can switch fly-paper-close combat tactics and kiting as needed.

[Cubiq]

since then you can switch fly-paper-close combat tactics and kiting as needed.

I have a strange feeling that Josh is trying to completely remove any kind of kiting, and that that's mainly the reason he's using the Engage mechanic, giving Rangers pets, and pausing attack recovery during movement.

Hopefully he will answer the question i posted in the Attack Speed thread.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Cubiq: I suspect that as well, but I just count on something similar to kiting, whatever that may be.

[Stun]

Ok. Just to clear up something here before we get too carried away. The engage mechanic that Josh describes for PoE is not inherently different than how 3e D&D's attack of opportunity mechanic works. Someone engaged in melee has a threat range. Anyone who tries to enter or leave that threat range gets nailed.

 

And....so what? This doesn't necessarily eliminate Kiting or render it unviable, since one can always just stay out of that threat range in the first place when attacking or retreating. Range weapons come readily to mind as one way to do that. Polearms are another way (IF they decide to incorporate decent weapon reach mechanics in PoE)

 

And so what...to that too. Nailing a retreater is not some indefensible insta-kill. Especially when the Kiter happens to be a *fighter* himself... a class who's very strength is resiliency.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Stun

[Sarex]

What stops kitting is that while moving the animation doesn't reset, for the internal clock to tick you need to not be doing anything. So yeah while the archer is out of range for the penalties to affect him, he cannot move-attack-move, he needs to attack-move-stop-attack-move. Of course this could be a non factor if the resets time requires half a second or less of stopping.

 

All that being said I never found the need for kitting in any of the IE games.

[Cubiq]

Ok. Just to clear up something here before we get too carried away. The engage mechanic that Josh describes for PoE is not inherently different than how 3e D&D's attack of opportunity mechanic works. Someone engaged in melee has a threat range. Anyone who tries to enter or leave that threat range gets nailed.

When you get nailed the fleeing opponent staggers with a hit animation which allows the pursuer to immediately reengage the target, hitting him again and again with the disengagement attack, until he either misses (the attacks have a bonus on accuracy) or you use a fleeing ability.

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Melee_Engagement

 

And....so what? This doesn't necessarily eliminate Kiting or render it unviable, since one can always just stay out of that threat range in the first place when attacking or retreating. Range weapons come readily to mind as one way to do that. Polearms are another way (IF they decide to incorporate decent weapon reach mechanics in PoE)

Ok.. so how do you kite with a Polearm or a ranged weapon when the attack recovery only recharges when you are standing still? Sawyer said that the whole point of this mechanic is to prevent kiting, in the Attack Speed thread.

 

Not that it really matters if the retreater can't do the above. Nailing a retreater is not some indefensible insta-kill. Especially when the Kiter happens to be a *fighter* himself... a class who's very strength is resiliency.

The point is more on the idea that it's better to stand still than to kite the opponent considering the disengagement attacks have more accuracy and damage, making you have to overpower the opponent directly.

 

[Stun]

 

Ok. Just to clear up something here before we get too carried away. The engage mechanic that Josh describes for PoE is not inherently different than how 3e D&D's attack of opportunity mechanic works. Someone engaged in melee has a threat range. Anyone who tries to enter or leave that threat range gets nailed.

When you get nailed the fleeing opponent staggers with a hit animation which allows the pursuer to immediately reengage the target, hitting him again and again with the disengagement attack, until he either misses (the attacks have a bonus on accuracy) or you use a fleeing ability.

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Melee_Engagement

 

Sure. And this is where we get to speculate on what defenses/counters a Frontliner (warrior) will be getting, which we don't know yet, since there hasn't been a warrior class update.

 

Ok.. so how do you kite with a Polearm or a ranged weapon when the attack recovery only recharges when you are standing still?

How does recovery matter anyway in a Kiting situation where the pursuer will also be moving?

 

Sawyer can say whatever he wants, but the only ways to prevent player kiting is to either a) design a totally unnatural system where everyone on the battle field is rooted in place once combat starts unless they've got spells or talents that let them move or b) incorporate copious amounts of developer cheese and make all enemies move twice as fast as the player, or c) punish kiting by making all attacks against the kiter be insta-kills.

 

As your link above indicates, however, all Sawyer has succeeded in doing (and even then only in theory) is to make Kiting a little more difficult to carry out than it was in the IE games.

 

 

The point is more on the idea that it's better to stand still than to kite the opponent considering the disengagement attacks have more accuracy and damage, making you have to overpower the opponent directly.

The problem with this all-encompassing mindset is that not all battlefield movement = Kiting. So the question arises. How will the mechanics differenciate between someone who's trying to kite, and someone who's attempting a tactical battle field repositioning? Answer: it can't, And the latter is something that cannot be removed or overly punished if the devs wish to maintain any semblance of believable tactical combat in the game.

 

If my character is happily engaging that Warrior, and I notice that the enemy mage in the back is pot-shotting me to death with his spells, I'm going to disengage an make a b-line for that mage, and the game is going to let me.

 

The same will be true if I decide to kite.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Stun

[Gfted1]

Did kiting become "degenerative gameplay" while I wasn't looking?

[rjshae]

Yes, and if 6 times harder than the default difficult isn't nearly unwinnable, then the default difficulty can't be very hard, can it now?

 

I'm not sure it needs to be unwinnable; just tedious to the point of futility as you endlessly reload and try again with each major battle. :banghead: :banghead:

[MReed]

Ok.. so how do you kite with a Polearm or a ranged weapon when the attack recovery only recharges when you are standing still?

How does recovery matter anyway in a Kiting situation where the pursuer will also be moving?

 

Sawyer can say whatever he wants, but the only ways to prevent player kiting is to either a) design a totally unnatural system where everyone on the battle field is rooted in place once combat starts unless they've got spells or talents that let them move or b) incorporate copious amounts of developer cheese and make all enemies move twice as fast as the player, or c) punish kiting by making all attacks against the kiter be insta-kills.

 

As your link above indicates, however, all Sawyer has succeeded in doing (and even then only in theory) is to make Kiting a little more difficult to carry out than it was in the IE games.

 

No, I'm pretty sure that the sticky engagement / AOO mechanics will suffice to make single person kiting impossible, even with a ranged attacker.

  The scenario goes like this:

 

1) Archer shoots at (& hits, for the sake of simplicity) the monster -- archer's action refresh timer starts (at, say, 2 seconds).

2) Monster moves towards the archer, attempting to engage in melee combat.

3) Archer retreats (at the ~same speed as the monster).

4) Archer stops and attempts to make another attack -- nothing happens, because he still needs to be stationary for 2 seconds before his attack can begin.

5) Monster continue to move towards the archer, and is now able to close the distance

6) Archer's refresh timer expires, and the attack takes place

7) Repeat the above steps until the monster (making up "2 seconds" worth of distance each attack) closes to melee range.

As soon as the monster gets within melee range, he gets to make an attack -- his first of the engagement (he has only moved up to this point), so no refresh timer applies.

9) The archer attempts to disengage -- but when he does, the monster immediately gets another attack (with a bonus) -- if that attack hits, then the monster establishes engagement (guaranteeing another attack if the archer attempts to move away again) and prevents the archer from moving at all for some period of time (say, 0.25 seconds) , allowing the monster an opportunity to reclose the range. 

  * The AOO attack fires even if  the monster's action refresh timer is active, and doesn't reset it either. 

  * Any character can take an unlimited number of AOOs against a single target in an arbitrarily short interval -- feats / perks / class abilities that increase engagement limits simply allow infinite AOOs against more than one foe during some interval.

10) If the archer does manage to break engagement (either via a special ability, or simply via persistence), then repeat the above steps again -- except that the initial range is likely to be close enough that one cycle will suffice to get back into melee range.

 

Now, the above assumes a couple of key things:

1) The pathfinding for monster's is 100% accurate -- if monster's can be decoyed into taking bad paths around battlefield obstacles, then kiting may be possible.

2) The monster's AI fixates on a single target, and won't deviate from it no matter what else happens on the battlefield.  Otherwise, kitting can occur by bouncing the monster between two archer's.

3) The player isn't able to lead the monster into engagement range of a friendly melee combatant -- if he can, then the monster will suffer AOOs if they try to disengage (although engagement limits may come into play here -- if the friendly melee combatant is already engaged with another monster, then they will need a special ability to allow them to make AOOs against the archer's foe)

 

I suspect that the practical impact of this mechanic will in fact be to achieve some combination of "A" (combatants, once engaged in melee, can't practically move away without special abilities) and "c" (moving away from melee combat is never the right decision), and I don't think it is a good idea as a result -- but it likely will make kiting impossible, or at least far, far more difficult than it is in other games.

[Stun]

Or here's a crazy thought. Solo fighter sees an enemy.... activates Figurine. Figurine engages enemy in melee. Fighter launches attacks with his bow.

 

Solo Fighter wins battle.

 

 

8.) As soon as the monster gets within melee range, he gets to make an attack -- his first of the engagement (he has only moved up to this point), so no refresh timer applies.

Wait. What? You lost me here. That's not how it works. The monster must first get within melee range, then he must stop moving, then he gets to attack.

 

Of course, while this is happening the fighter is free to do a bunch of things, like activate stealth mode and.... walk away to load and fire in safety, effectively starting the entire process over from step 1. Welcome to Kiting 101.

 

 

Did kiting become "degenerative gameplay" while I wasn't looking?

'fraid so. But unlike other degenerate behaviors, this one won't be cured. The best that can be done is to make it "less appealing" as a game play option. Edited May 9, 2014 by Stun

[MReed]

Or here's a crazy thought. Solo fighter sees an enemy.... activates Figurine. Figurine engages enemy in melee. Fighter launches attacks with his bow.

 

Solo Fighter wins battle.

 

 

Wait. What? You lost me here. That's not how it works. The monster must first get within melee range, then he must stop moving, then he gets to attack.

 

Of course, while this is happening the fighter is free to do a bunch of things, like activate stealth mode and.... walk away to load and fire in safety, effectively starting the entire process over from step 1. Welcome to Kiting 101.

 

Using a figurine (or other summoning device) wouldn't be kiting, now would it?

 

At the start of any engagement, I'm assuming that all refresh counters start as "OK to attack" (or 0, if you prefer to look at it that way).  Therefore, each character / monster can make an attack (or move) as they wish, thus the logic above.

 

However....

 

Once the monster has made the first attack (in step 7) if the archer can successfully disengage then there is a potential for kiting -- to avoid it the monster's AI needs to be configured to force the monster to stand still after the disengagement for however long is required to satisfy the refresh timer, and only once this has happened restart the pursuit.  This will, of course, allow the archer to further open the range, making re-engagement far more difficult.  If the monster simply immediately restarts the pursuit then the situation you describe will occur (the monster will get within melee range, then be force to stand still for some amount of time, during which time the archer can withdraw out of engagement range).

 

Having monster's stand still after disengagement to satisfy the refresh timer would produce...  Odd looking combat, to say the least.

[Lephys]

You're not pointing out anything. You're arguing against our position. We point out what happens in a game.

Not really. You just claim what happens in a game. You haven't shown any evidence that it occurs, or even begun to explain WHY it occurs. At least Stun did a bit (the explain part). I don't understand why it's all on me to produce concrete evidence that perfectly reasonable notions are, indeed, in effect in the game mechanics, while there's absolutely no pressure for you to produce any evidence that it is, in fact, happening in the game.

 

I'm sorry, but "see, people say it's easier with 4 people instead of 6" is not proof. People also say placebo pills work better for them than the real thing, until they know it's a placebo. Through no fault of their own, the human brain allows us to perceive differences where there aren't really any differences.

 

Anwyho, the whole point at the start of this whole debate was just that, if the game's challenging for a party of 6, it should be extremely challenging for a party of 1. In the context of that argument, the whole "a party of 4 is actually easier than a party of 6" scenario got brought up, which I simply observed shouldn't always be the case. Having 2 more people always grants you a higher potential by raising the ceiling on your limitations. It's not always huge, and there's a lot of chance involved, but that's all a constant. Your party of 4 could suffer a bunch of ill luck just as easily as your party of 6, etc. There's no point in comparing what COULD happen to one group to something ELSE happening to the other group.

 

Your belief seems to be as long as it's positive, then it's better. No it's not because you're discounting all the variables, all the different spells that can affect your party. Your party members being all different. You're discounting that party members can be liabilities.

No, I'm not. You're having the fact that they can be liabilities supercede the fact that they absolutely offer additional combat-challenge-tackling potential. At the very least, 4 character can only be 4 different classes. Thus, in PoE, having 6 characters will provide two entire additional categories of abilities with which to form tactics and provide support for your other 4 people. Not to mention Stamina Health, standard attacks, engagement potential, etc.

 

You know what? I may not be a BG expert, but I'm really not worried about that. Because PoE isn't going to be BG. And my reasoning is sound. What disturbs me isn't that you're suggesting the results might not be what I'm estimating they'll be. It's that you're dismissing my reasoning, as though it doesn't somehow make any sense. And, for some reason, you keep taking it not as something to consider and observe in all this, but as "SEE, THIS IS WHY EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS WRONG!".

 

 

@Stun:

 

Thanks for being reasonable. I do understand how factors in BG might lead to more additional trouble from just two extra party members than one would think. As I said, you pointed out some detriments I hadn't thought of. And yes, I can see how, the more people you have (beyond 1), the less significant additional people become (especially with distributed EXP, etc.). It's a bit of a curve, I'm sure. However, I don't think it peaks at 3 and goes back down. I think it starts leveling out. Thus, yes, circumstantially, you might find a lot more benefit from the pros of being short those extra people than you do from utilizing their presence. That doesn't mean it isn't there, though.

 

I'm not telling people to be better at the game with 6 people instead of 4, and that every individual factor of the additional people is always better than the factors of the smaller party. I'm simply pointing out mathematical potential.

 

Again, the whole meat and potatoes of this was the concern over a game not being impossible for a solo character while still not being too easy for a large party.

 

The disparity is a lot less between a 4-person party and a 6-person party, but the 6-person party still provides a lot of raw potential (especially, it would seem, in PoE's design, which is the specific game we're discussing here) over a 4-person group. Doesn't mean you're dumb if you roll with 4 people instead of 6 or something. Doesn't mean there aren't certain situations in which the benefits of the smaller party outweigh the detriments of the larger.

 

If you want, we could record an entire playthrough of a 4-person party, and a separate one of a 6-person party, side-by-side, and point out every single factor difference throughout the whole game. But, shy of that, all I can do is point out general, mathematical advantages. I know they don't cover everything in the world, but they are a constant in their presence, despite the fluctuation in their exact value.

[Cubiq]

Thanks for the reply MReed, it saved me a lot of typing. I'll just refrain from typing more until i see if Sawyer will reply.

And about Figurines

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63037-summoning/?p=1414557

Using them as a tank tool may not be possible, as the developers seem to be against this kind of mechanic.

[Lephys]

Did kiting become "degenerative gameplay" while I wasn't looking?

No, but always being able to kite foes because of completely inaccurate game world physics has always been horribly lacking combat design.

 

In games in which its intended (the action-y "simply don't ever get hit" shooters and stuff), it's no longer really kiting, because it's the only way you can fight -- you're just a ranged attacker that's shooting when you can and avoiding damage so you don't lose the game. However, in an RPG with tactical combat, your ranged combatants aren't supposed to magically be capable of never having to lose their range advantage, all by themselves.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

All that being said I never found the need for kitting in any of the IE games.

 

Kiting was good in getting Varscona off Greywolf.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

You're not pointing out anything. You're arguing against our position. We point out what happens in a game.

Not really. You just claim what happens in a game. You haven't shown any evidence that it occurs, or even begun to explain WHY it occurs. At least Stun did a bit (the explain part). I don't understand why it's all on me to produce concrete evidence that perfectly reasonable notions are, indeed, in effect in the game mechanics, while there's absolutely no pressure for you to produce any evidence that it is, in fact, happening in the game.

 

I'm sorry, but "see, people say it's easier with 4 people instead of 6" is not proof. People also say placebo pills work better for them than the real thing, until they know it's a placebo. Through no fault of their own, the human brain allows us to perceive differences where there aren't really any differences.

 

Anwyho, the whole point at the start of this whole debate was just that, if the game's challenging for a party of 6, it should be extremely challenging for a party of 1. In the context of that argument, the whole "a party of 4 is actually easier than a party of 6" scenario got brought up, which I simply observed shouldn't always be the case. Having 2 more people always grants you a higher potential by raising the ceiling on your limitations. It's not always huge, and there's a lot of chance involved, but that's all a constant. Your party of 4 could suffer a bunch of ill luck just as easily as your party of 6, etc. There's no point in comparing what COULD happen to one group to something ELSE happening to the other group.

 

 

Hang on. Notice the 'WE" in my post? There are multiple people in this thread saying the same thing. Not just me.

 

Also, I gave a few examples on this page of the thread on why it is the case. The default for you is to argue against our position. Stun gave some great examples and you still argue against his position. There is some logic to these examples which you don't want to accept. Other people come into this thread with their knowledge and experience and say, yes, strangely enough, having 6 can be harder than 4. But you still won't believe the examples and what people are saying. And for someone who has never played the game, I find it extremely bizarre that you would argue against gamers who have actually played the game.

 

It would be the same as me going onto the BioWare forums, arguing against gamers who have played Mass Effect and saying they are wrong when logically for me it doesn't make sense even though I've never played Mass Effect. I wouldn't be that arrogant to think that I'm right and everyone who has played the game is wrong, especially when those gamers have given examples. And then continue blindly arguing the point. Which is what you're doing. It really is bizarre.

 

 

 

Your belief seems to be as long as it's positive, then it's better. No it's not because you're discounting all the variables, all the different spells that can affect your party. Your party members being all different. You're discounting that party members can be liabilities.

No, I'm not. You're having the fact that they can be liabilities supercede the fact that they absolutely offer additional combat-challenge-tackling potential. At the very least, 4 character can only be 4 different classes. Thus, in PoE, having 6 characters will provide two entire additional categories of abilities with which to form tactics and provide support for your other 4 people. Not to mention Stamina Health, standard attacks, engagement potential, etc.

 

You know what? I may not be a BG expert, but I'm really not worried about that. Because PoE isn't going to be BG. And my reasoning is sound. What disturbs me isn't that you're suggesting the results might not be what I'm estimating they'll be. It's that you're dismissing my reasoning, as though it doesn't somehow make any sense. And, for some reason, you keep taking it not as something to consider and observe in all this, but as "SEE, THIS IS WHY EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS WRONG!".

 

No I'm not. You're discounting the liabilities outright. You're not even contemplating that having 2 extra members can be liabilities. All you see is 2 extra party members, therefore the benefit outweighs the negatives. You're discounting the possibilities that the benefits and negatives could be equal and makes no difference having those extra 2 party members, or the negatives can be slightly more than the positives and overall they become liabilities which makes the game harder. One reason could be is you're spending time trying to keep those other two alive when you could be concentrating on the other 4 who are coping just fine. You're tactics could change by moving one of those 4 away to protect those two. The whole combat then changes. And the reasons could very well be loot spread which others have cited. Loot spread is a very good example too. And again with the difference with party xp in a 4 member party as opposed to a 6 member party. The skills that 4 member party has can be similar as the 6 member party. This was the case with dual and mutli-classing in the IE games. And from what we know, you will be able to do something similar in PoE with assigning skills to characters that normally wouldn't have them in the IE games, unless they dualed or mutli-classed.

 

 

There's been many reasons. Because your party members are variables, you can't say for certain that having 6 is better. And there's been many reasons and examples in this thread why those 2 extra party members can be liabilities with the IE games. This is the case with the IE games which PoE is a spiritual successor to. Whether this will happen in PoE, nobody knows until the game is released and gamers can test the differences in party sizes. However, we have the IE games to look to. To see if things will be similar. Will the same reasons that apply to the IE games with 4 party members also apply to PoE? Again, nobody knows now but we have the benefit of the IE games to know what works and what doesn't. To see how some things in the IE games are either broken, anomalous, outright head turning with WTF moments and things like a 4 member party that defy conventional thinking, because of things that people didn't realise at the time when playing. I predict people will be trying to find out what party size is the easiest in PoE. And I have my doubts that it will be 6 party members with having experienced the IE games.

 

No one is saying you have to be a BG expert. The fact is you've never played the game at all. You have no experience whatsoever with the game. Your reasoning is not sound when you discount the variables, when you discount the cons of having extra party members and diminishing returns with the IE games. When we have examples of the IE games to back us up. There is a certain logic why 4 party members are better than 6 in the IE games, you're just not willing to accept it. And I have no idea what evidence you require for us to prove this to you. Our reasoning behind our arguments are more than sound, especially when we give examples.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

No one is saying you have to be a BG expert. The fact is you've never played the game at all. You have no experience whatsoever with the game.

A) You know for a fact that you have no idea whether or not I've ever played BG, so I don't know how you can not be ashamed of yourself for deciding that you somehow know something you don't

B) I have played BG, and BG 2, and the Icewind Dales. In fact, the only IE game I haven't played is Torment. However, I am far from an expert on any of those games, nor have I ever claimed to be.

 

This discussion with you isn't worth it anymore, as usual, because you get so aggressively defensive about everything that the mere fact I'm not simply agreeing with you from the very get-go automatically means I'm somehow being hostile.

 

I am considering all the things that you've said, and you're ignoring my numerous pointings-out of that. I do apologize if my words were not specific enough for my point and were misleading, as that is my fault and not yours if you mistake me, but my point is not that the pros of additional characters, in any given real-time situation ever, will consistently outweigh the cons. Arguing against that is not arguing against me, and telling me that's what I'm arguing does not make it so. It just makes you waste your e-breath.

 

The thing that was brought up by people (and backed by you...) was that the IE games (or, I guess specifically, the BG games?) are actually easier with approximately 4 characters than with 6. My immediate response to that was that I don't see how it's possible that having those 2 extra characters consistently and absolutely makes the game harder no matter what. So, again, you're sitting here trying to point out to me the nature of variables in flux, and yet my argument from the get-go was to basically say "I don't see how the extra people aren't just as potentially beneficial as they are potentially detrimental."

 

I don't hate you, Hiro. You're just really, really frustrating. And that's not intended to make you feel bad. It's simply information. I realize I'm frustrating, too, and I don't mean to be, just like I believe you don't mean to be. But, I'm trying my darnedest to be less frustrating to you and anyone else, and I feel like:

 

A) You just don't care whether or not I even try. And...

B) You're not really trying, because you think just nothing you say can possibly be frustrating to anyone else?

 

I dunno. That's what it seems like, and I'm aware that what seems to be and what is are not always the same thing.

 

Anywho, if the only thing you take from this post is to simply maintain that my "default" is to arbitrarily argue, then I literally have no idea what else to say to you, and I'm honestly considering just avoiding even interacting with you in the future, if only just to spare you, as well as myself (and possibly others that get caught up in the middle of it) the wasted time. Maybe our minds are just oil and water. *shrug*