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

[PrimeJunta]

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

 

Gfted1, question. Are you being intentionally obtuse or just genuinely blockheaded?

 

People have explained to you numerous times what degenerate tactics mean, yet even now, after all this time, you can't even get the word right, let alone the concept. What gives?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

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."

 

 

You've been consistently called out and asked if you have played the games and you never admit to it. In fact, a number of people have made posts in this very thread about you having not played the IE games and you haven't responded to them. And there's been many posts about this issue with you in threads over the last few weeks/months and you avoid those posts and don't respond. And when called for proof about something in the IE games, you never provide it. No screen shot. Nothing.

 

So now all of a sudden you've played the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games? I guess recently? That's great. Now how about testing whether everyone in this thread is right about playing with a 4 member party? Why not test for yourself what we're saying is true? Why argue the point for pages and pages and not test it for yourself? I don't get it. If you have the games, if someone said this is what happens in a game, I'd be very tempted to check if what they're saying is true. What I wouldn't be doing is arguing against it for pages and pages.

 

And the discussion with me isn't worth it anymore? Oh Lephys. You know you'll be back arguing over and over. It's what you do. You say things like 'good day to you' and leave, and then immediately jump right back in.

 

And with the 4 opposed to 6 party members. We give examples and you argue against it. If you have the games, why not test it? Test what we're saying is true. Complete a couple of chapters with 4 members and see if it is easier or harder. Hiro gives an example and it turns out to be true. Stun gives an example, and yep, that turns out to be true. Wouldn't that be a good way to test what we're saying is true? The loot spread is better with 4 players? My players aren't dying as much? The reloads have gone down? The fights are actually easier because I'm at a higher level than if I was with 6 party members? I now have access to a Fireball spell and have more fireballs to throw around the place but in my 6 party member game, my mage would only have 1 fireball memorised at this part of the game?

 

 

 

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*

 

 

Well logic and reason can be frustrating to those who find it frustrating. I don't feel bad when I put up logical reasons why things apparently work such in the IE games. And I'm not sure if you are trying or not. Only you can answer that. How many pages does it take, how many people is required to convince you that what we're saying is true? The best way in my mind if you have the games is test what we're saying. If everyone in a thread was posting about something, trying to convince me that something happens in a game which does defy conventional thinking, I would be inclined to test it. Not disagree for pages.

 

But mostly your post comes across as off topic. If you want to disagree or not even respond to people who have tried to tell you one thing, and not test what everyone is saying is true, then that's something you have to reconcile with yourself.

[IndiraLightfoot]

MReed: Nice attempt at an archer combat breakdown. However, a big caveat, which you don't include, is that any combat savvy archer will surely invest in close-combat skills too (even swap weapon sets, perhaps), and this makes kiting 1.01 even more interesting and viable in PE, I'm guessing, as some sort of staggered kiting.

[Cubiq]

MReed: Nice attempt at an archer combat breakdown. However, a big caveat, which you don't include, is that any combat savvy archer will surely invest in close-combat skills too (even swap weapon sets, perhaps), and this makes kiting 1.01 even more interesting and viable in PE, I'm guessing, as some sort of staggered kiting.

Why would this make kiting viable?

 

 

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 the developers say you will be able to hide in plain sight with stealth?

Edited May 10, 2014 by Cubiq

[IndiraLightfoot]

Cubiq: Some of this is pure speculation, but it may go something like this: kite-kite-kite-sting-escape and the rinse and repeat, or perhaps: add summon-kite-kite-add summon-kite-kite, or if needs be, mix this two, and then you have what I clumsily referred to as "staggered kiting". HIPS, however, I really doubt will be in PE. It was a pretty OP and stupud feature in NWN1's D&D 3rd ed CRPG.

[Cubiq]

Well... i doubt you'll be able to use a summon to tank the opponent, because of the link i posted above where Sawyer says : "and using summons as hit point bag nose tackles can cause harm to the summoner"

This will probably include figurines, otherwise why would they even try to implement this combat mechanic if you could get around it with something everyone can use.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Cubiq: I interpret that quote as "having summons blocking will come at a cost - the summoner may sustain some of the damage its summon takes". And if so, then a fighter archer, presumably with high numbers in health/stamina and even armour, would make for a perfect "kiting staggerer"!

[Cubiq]

Well aren't you optimistic

I guess you could take it that way, but counting on that monsters will probably have less defenses than you, could mean that you would actually take damage quicker than if your character was tanking it.

 

Also i would like to point out that all escape abilities we already know of have only a 1 time per combat use. (except monk stun, it doesn't say how many times they can use it, but he needs to use wounds to execute it.)

I still believe the chances of you able to continually get away from your opponent is very slim.

The developers really seem intent on trying to stop kiting, so i doubt they will be lax on such things.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Cubiq

[Stun]

The developers really seem intent on trying to stop kiting, so i doubt they will be lax on such things.

This entire discussion about Kiting is a huge red herring. From you. Why the hell would a solo fighter want to Kite in the first place when engagement is a Fighter's *strength*?

 

 

Did the developers say you will be able to hide in plain sight with stealth?

Nope.

 

Did the developers say that you can't use figurines to engage the enemy?

Edited May 10, 2014 by Stun

[Cubiq]

This entire discussion about Kiting is a huge red herring. From you. Why the hell would a solo fighter want to Kite in the first place when engagement is a Fighter's *strength*?

HAHAHA now it's my fault.

I specifically said that "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."

 

It was you who started trying to prove that you CAN kite with this post:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66149-can-we-really-play-the-whole-game-with-just-one-character/?p=1448031

Even though i was talking to IndiraLightfoot at the time.

And after you've been proven that you don't even have a clear grasp of the mechanics, you became butthurt and now you're telling me how i'm misleading the conversation.

No one but Hiro and Sarex actually takes your post seriously anymore Stun. You're just forum troll no one gives a **** about anymore.

 

I'm done replying to your little troll posts.

 

 

Nope.

 

Did the developers say that you can't use figurines to engage the enemy?

Did they say you can't use figurines to "engage" the enemy? No

Did they say they don't like the mechanics where you use the summons to tank? Yes

[Stun]

I specifically said that "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."

Fair enough. let me respond to that then.

 

Profound! thank you for your input. It's also fair to say that you probably won't be able to Solo as a mage unless you.... use spells against Bosses. And you probably won't be able to solo a Chanter unless you.... employ chants and invocations against bosses.

 

 

 

Did they say you can't use figurines to "engage" the enemy? No

Did they say they don't like the mechanics where you use the summons to tank? Yes

I never once brought up using a figurine as a tank.

 

Edit: and neither did anyone else. You literally brought it up yourself, then shot it down with your own speculation.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

No one but Hiro and Sarex actually takes your post seriously anymore Stun. You're just forum troll no one gives a **** about anymore.

 

Cubiq. I only take posts seriously if or when they makes sense. While on the other hand, you're trolling with this post. Perhaps looking at your own troll posts first before accusing others of trolling.

[Stun]

He also sees things that aren't there.

 

Here's what Sawyer REALLY said about summons:

This is a big thread so I apologize for missing a lot of it. Summoning is tricky business because there are a lot of ways it can become the de facto tactic, especially in a CRPG environment. Casters do not currently have a huge number of summoning spells (chanters more than others), and using summons as hit point bag nose tackles can cause harm to the summoner, but I recognize that people like being able to use them. Additionally, we do plan to have summoning figurines and similar goodies for people to use. Sorry I don't have more details right now, but summoning is something I've only started revising recently.

^He's wary of the fact that players often use summons as the de facto tactic. ERGO, he has designed (and is still designing) POE to have LESS summoning so as to make it impossible for them to be used so frequently, and to incur a risk when they are used.

 

In other words, we'll still be able to use summons, and we'll still be able to use summons as "tanks". It just won't be the universal cheese it was in the IE games.

 

 

Sawyer also said exactly nothing about the nature of Figurines. We have no idea if they're even going to be monsters.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

No one but Hiro and Sarex actually takes your post seriously anymore Stun. You're just forum troll no one gives a **** about anymore.

:me raises hand:

 

I also take his posts seriously, and I don't think he's trolling. Which doesn't mean I agree with him.

 

He is a little excitable and gets somewhat personal when upset, but if that makes him a troll then I think you'll find a quite a few in this very thread.

[Gfted1]

 

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.

 

 

My Mage and Ranger are specifically designed for range attack. As soon as a mook makes a beeline to one or the other and engages in melee combat then they will be severely disadvantaged. The mage will be reduced to hitting with his grimoire (laff) or plinking with his "blast" ability while the Ranger will probably suffer a close range penalty or be forced to switch to a melee weapon. If they try to make space they will suffer AoO. That's dumb design. 

 

 

 

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

 

Gfted1, question. Are you being intentionally obtuse or just genuinely blockheaded?

 

People have explained to you numerous times what degenerate tactics mean, yet even now, after all this time, you can't even get the word right, let alone the concept. What gives?

 

 

Shhh, adults are talking. I'll try to pay attention to you when you have something productive to add.

[Sensuki]

Shhh, adults are talking. I'll try to pay attention to you when you have something productive to add.

I could say the same to you, honestly.

[Gfted1]

 

Shhh, adults are talking. I'll try to pay attention to you when you have something productive to add.

I could say the same to you, honestly.

 

 

Umadbro that I deleted your prison rape scene?

[Sensuki]

I actually did not know that. But that exact response proves my point.

[Gfted1]

There there, I will pat your head until the hurt inside subsides.

[Sensuki]

 

 

 

that exact response proves my point.

[MReed]

My Mage and Ranger are specifically designed for range attack. As soon as a mook makes a beeline to one or the other and engages in melee combat then they will be severely disadvantaged. The mage will be reduced to hitting with his grimoire (laff) or plinking with his "blast" ability while the Ranger will probably suffer a close range penalty or be forced to switch to a melee weapon. If they try to make space they will suffer AoO. That's dumb design. 

 

tl;dr:  Kiting is indeed a degenerative mechanic (making meleers obsolete).  The AOO / engagement mechanc being implemented is even more degenerative.

 

Um, yes, and your point is?  If you choose to play a class oriented about ranged combat, then yeah, it is almost never a good idea to have them engage in melee (and vice versa, of course).  The goal is to force the player to need friendly meleers to avoid this problem, which is a good thing in my book.

 

Having a single strategy (kiting) that is ~100% effective at preventing meelers from doing their thing is degenerative game play -- it renders melee oriented classes irrelevant for both the party and the enemy.  That's pretty much a text book definition, actually.   When you add the fact that kiting requires enormous amounts of micro-management, especially with multiple party members then I'm not sure why anyone would defend this as a desirable component of CRPG gameplay.

 

My objection to the mechanics being discusses is not that it eliminates kiting (which I think it probably do quite well), but my belief that the monster's AI will be totally incapable of dealing with it in a vaguely intelligent way.  Based on this belief, I suspect that this mechanic will lead to combat where the AI enemies meleers are still utterly incapable of threatening friendly ranged combatants (because they are always engaged by friendly meleers first, and the AI is incapable of disengaging effectively [in a way that allows them to reengage with ranged combatants]) while the player is able to get meleers to engage AI ranged combatants with a high degree of reliability (by either overriding the [dumb] pathfanding to avoid engagement, or by disengaging in effective ways).

 

Basically, I believe that this mechanic successfully eliminates kiting by providing a much more effective way to achieve the exact same result -- the only difference will be that is far easier to exploit, with less to go wrong.  After all, if the player tried to run a party with 6 ranged combatants against 12 AI meleers under 2E D&D rules, the odds are fairly good that the player would eventually make a mistake (or be bitten by a pathfinding glitch) and be forced into melee combat with disastrous results.  Thus, most people play IE games with 2 dedicated meleers, 2 backup meleers (to cover "leakers" or kiting failures), and 2 full-time ranged combatants.  The very weak AI (out of the box) also helps.

 

Given the anticipated effectiveness of AOO / engagement model being implemented, I'd expect PoE parties to run with 2 (maybe 3 -- depends on encounter design and how quickly fighters get multi-engagement abilities) full time meleers, with the remainder being full time ranged combatants.  Heck, if you are able to couple this mechanic with natural bottlenecks (in 95% of combat encounters), you might be able to get down to 1 full time meleer and 1 part-time, the rest being 100% ranged -- but I think the odds are against this.

[Gfted1]

 

 

 

 

 

that exact response proves my point.

 

 

Let the pain out little buddy.

 

 

Um, yes, and your point is?  If you choose to play a class oriented about ranged combat, then yeah, it is almost never a good idea to have them engage in melee (and vice versa, of course).  The goal is to force the player to need friendly meleers to avoid this problem, which is a good thing in my book.

My point is that range characters should not be additionally penalized due to the nature of that class.

[Sensuki]

 

 

 

that exact response proves my point.

 

[Gfted1]

 

 

 

that exact response proves my point.

 

 

I feel like you're close to a breakthrough! Dry those eyes and get back on the horse buckaroo.

[Sarex]

tl;dr:  Kiting is indeed a degenerative mechanic (making meleers obsolete).  The AOO / engagement mechanc being implemented is even more degenerative.

 

Um, yes, and your point is?  If you choose to play a class oriented about ranged combat, then yeah, it is almost never a good idea to have them engage in melee (and vice versa, of course).  The goal is to force the player to need friendly meleers to avoid this problem, which is a good thing in my book.

 

Having a single strategy (kiting) that is ~100% effective at preventing meelers from doing their thing is degenerative game play -- it renders melee oriented classes irrelevant for both the party and the enemy.  That's pretty much a text book definition, actually.   When you add the fact that kiting requires enormous amounts of micro-management, especially with multiple party members then I'm not sure why anyone would defend this as a desirable component of CRPG gameplay.

 

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Kitting is never 100% effective. Or you have no idea what kitting is.

 

Let me further elaborate, to kite you need to hit back while running away, where as the melee only needs to move to you. So the fact that you are hitting back makes you stop for the duration of animation, which makes you slower which in turn means that eventually the melee will catch up.