Lessons from recent IE playthroughs

[Stun]

There isn't an English explanation for the OP's use of the term "quadratic". Quadratic simply means "square".

 

Are mages Square in Bg2? That makes no sense at all. I'm betting the Op wanted to avoid using the term he really meant (BALANCED...or Unbalanced) for fear that it'd just end up being another one of those pointless discussions. And sure, mages are unbalanced in Bg2. Big deal. Lets all cry for 14 f*cking years about that.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Stun

[ManifestedISO]

I thought he was a she. Pretty well-read, as I recall. Maybe neither, though. Who knows, none of you exist IRL anyway. 

[Lephys]

There isn't an English explanation for the OP's use of the term "quadratic". Quadratic simply means "square".

 

Are mages Square in Bg2? That makes no sense at all.

I believe its use here refers to the notion that, if graphed, the capability-progression of the mage would produce a blatantly curved line instead of a generally sloped straight line. I could be wrong, though.

 

Edit: For what it's worth, I believe the more accurate term for the meaning they're looking for is simply "exponential." Although, I guess if you went with that, then a Level 2 Mage would have to be better than a Level 2 anything else. So, I guess the term's attempting to signify that the mage's progression slowly gains exponentiality? *shrug*

Edited May 21, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

Ok then, graphically speaking, I'd say mage progression in BG2 would take the shape of a smoking hot woman with skinny legs, a small ass and gigantic bouncy t*ts.

 

Of course, BG2 allowed for countless combinations of multi and dual classing, so you could, if you wanted, play a Fighter-Mage. Or in graphic terms, a smoking hot woman with a nice rounded ass and slightly larger than normal t*ts. Or you could be a Fighter-Mage-Cleric. Which would be the equivilant of a hot and perfectly proportioned woman with a cool personality.

 

But lets not forget that this is BG2 we're talking about here. The undisputed Madam of all Loot-heavy games. In Bg2, you could take a plain fighter and by chapter 7, via items alone, win just about any battle using only the magic items you've hoarded. Thus, You begin as an ugly flat-chested guy, and get a sex change, a boob job, a face job, liposuction, and a professional makeup job...just in time for your assault on Suldanessalar

Edited May 21, 2014 by Stun

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I took the use of the word 'quadratic' as a reference to this trope from TV Tropes.

[ManifestedISO]

Oh ... okay, I see now. A wizard's power ... squared²

[Kjaamor]

I took the use of the word 'quadratic' as a reference to this trope from TV Tropes.

 

Indeed, and so it is. I was simply using what I believed was the identified term for the subject.

 

Edit: For what it's worth, I believe the more accurate term for the meaning they're looking for is simply "exponential." Although, I guess if you went with that, then a Level 2 Mage would have to be better than a Level 2 anything else. So, I guess the term's attempting to signify that the mage's progression slowly gains exponentiality? *shrug*

 

In the interests of pedantry, it is fair to say that "exponential", in its literal sense, is less accurate than "Quadratic". The wizard's power can be said, broadly speaking, to be squared (Not only does he gain spells with each level, but many previous spells become more powerful BECAUSE of his level. E.g. Magic Missile). The wizard's growth of power is not proportional to his current amount of power.

 

To return to the example in the original post (I know you love examples and similes, Lephys), The comparitive Exponential Wizard (to the Quadratic Wizard and Linear Fighter) spends almost the entire game being weaker than the fighter and the Quadratic Wizard, but at the end becomes so vastly powerful as to render the other classes utterly pointless.

 

Generally speaking, when people use "Exponential" in everyday life, it is almost always used inaccurately and more often than not "Quadratic" would actually be more accurate.

 

I thought he was a she. Pretty well-read, as I recall. Maybe neither, though. Who knows, none of you exist IRL anyway. 

 

*blushes*

Edited May 21, 2014 by Kjaamor

[Gromnir]

quadratic actual results in a parabolic graph.  *shrug*

 

mages is quadratic and parties is quadratic and somehow, good v. evil is quadratic. the funny thing is that modrons didn't get quadratic mention. would think that it if any aspect from the genesis post coulda' gotten a forced quadratic, it woulda' been modrons.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Kjaamor]

quadratic actual results in a parabolic graph.  *shrug*

 

I know we've established that the term "Quadratic Wizard" reflects a popular culture term, but out of interest what is your point?

[Gromnir]

 

quadratic actual results in a parabolic graph.  *shrug*

 

I know we've established that the term "Quadratic Wizard" reflects a popular culture term, but out of interest what is your point?

 

1) is tech not accurate.  graph the following:  q(x) = (x - 4)2 + 7 . as is parabola, can be up or down or sideways and depending where you is along the curve, you is gonna get very different results.  that being said, the somewhat inaccurate labeled trope were unknown to us.

 

2) you used for so many different things that nobody could know how you meant to use it. good v. evil?

 

well, you asked.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 21, 2014 by Gromnir

[Stun]

To return to the example in the original post (I know you love examples and similes, Lephys), The comparitive Exponential Wizard (to the Quadratic Wizard and Linear Fighter) spends almost the entire game being weaker than the fighter and the Quadratic Wizard, but at the end becomes so vastly powerful as to render the other classes utterly pointless.

Except for high level Paladins with Dispel Magic, True Seeing and Carsomyr, which will make any mage in Bg2 just as weak and squishy and effortless as they were in Bg1.

 

Edit: Or Rogues, who also become "quadratic" in BG2. (it's hard to even graph the sudden spike in Rogue power once he gets UAI, and the HLA traps)

Edited May 21, 2014 by Stun

[Kjaamor]

 

 

quadratic actual results in a parabolic graph.  *shrug*

 

I know we've established that the term "Quadratic Wizard" reflects a popular culture term, but out of interest what is your point?

 

1) is tech not accurate.  graph the following:  q(x) = (x - 4)2 + 7  that being said, the somewhat inaccurate labeled trope were unknown to us.

 

2) you used for so many different things that nobody could know how you meant to use it. good v. evil?

 

well, you asked.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I ask honestly out as someone without a background in mathematics. Is the wizard's graph not parabolic?

 

As for the other thing, I think you're clutching at straws slightly to say I used it for "so many different things" but I will freely concede that its use in the Good versus Evil section was wholly inaccurate and in that instance it is fair to say that linear is more accurate. In my defence, I was using it to illustrate a comparitive piece between something I feel gets relatively little press yet has a greater impact (The Quadratic wizard problem compared to the "Quadratic" morality issue BG2 has), and that the benefits from being "Good" come twofold (Immediate quest rewards of exp and items and cheaper shopping as a result of reputation).

[Iucounu]

I read a lot about mages being overpowered in BG2, or that they're unbalanced compared to other classes. Basically, I agree with that, and I'm all for classes being equally powerful or interesting. However, if this is achieved by dumbing down magic and it's tactical possiblities, as it is in every game I know of in which classes are more or less equal, I think that's a rather suboptimal solution.

 

Is there actually a reference, a party-based rpg that came close to achieve absolute balance, and still had exciting, I mean really exciting combat? 

It would certainly bore me to tears if P:E (or rather P:E 2) would end up as a second BG2 and it's kind of  mage-centric approach, because I had enough BG2 in a lifetime. But still, in my youth, for me there wasn't a game that was even remotely as interesting combatwise 

 

I guess many people have a different view there, but tbh, I'm not sure if most of them even know what they're talking about. They play the game like 2-3 times in a decade, and I can't imagine that this gives them an in-debth understanding of all the tactical possiblities and maneuvers that were possible in BG2.

[Lephys]

Yeah, I mean... your progression is never going to go backwards. So, technically, the wizard's progression IS parabolic. It just only represents half the parabola. 8P

 

For the record, yes I'm a math nublet. I learned this all just fine a while back, but I haven't used it in quite a while. That's why I didn't realize the above earlier, and supposed that "exponential" would more accurately describe Wizard growth, but then turned around and pointed out that term's inaccuracy.

[Gromnir]

double-post and monstrous edit failure... nothing to see here.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 21, 2014 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

 

Gromnir has a BS in physics from Cal.

 

and again, we mentioned from the start that you used ubiquitous and perplexing. is no clutching at straws if you used at least three different times and one were clear wrong.  another were... queer. quadratic party? quadratic good v. evil?  seriously? and keep in mind you used in two Headings... and used different in those two observations.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps freaking board quotes function apparently is more difficult for Gromnir to grasp than is math. *chuckle*

Edited May 21, 2014 by Gromnir

[Stun]

Is there actually a reference, a party-based rpg that came close to achieve absolute balance, and still had exciting, I mean really exciting combat?

I can't think of one.

 

The problem with "balanced" mages is that in order to make them "equal" or force some linear progression on them like a fighter class you have to suck all the "magic" out of their magic. Especially at higher levels. You can no longer have dynamic AOE nukes, or save-or-die spells, or dominate effects, or mass charms because they're all way too powerful by comparison. After all, there's no way that +3 sword will ever cause as much instant carnage to everyone on the field as a fireball will.

 

Consequently, games that offer perfect class balance tend to have dull spells that resemble weapons. Like those Pew-pew beams of fire from a mage's fingertips that do exactly as much damage as the arrows from an archer's bow. (same hit and miss chance too!) Or that Protection spell that, coincidently enough, functions exactly the same as the plain suit of plate mail that the fighter is wearing. <yawn>

Edited May 21, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

^ PoE makes that a non-issue with all class "powers" stemming from souls. No longer is the Fighter supposed to be mundane, while the magic-user is special.

 

Granted, in various circumstances, you will still have drastically different effects. A Wizard will take out a certain group of enemies quite quickly and easily, in a very "powerful" fashion, while the Fighter would've had difficulty, and vice-versa.

 

But, yeah... in various lores (like D&D), there's very much a reason for the arcane to prevail over the mundane. However, from the nature of game design, it's not very prudent to designate your player options as mundane or spectacular. It's no fun to suck early on AS a mage, just like it's no fun to suck later on because you aren't a mage.

 

This whole "balance" thing is just everyone always overjumping the meaning. "Balanced" does not mean "No difference at all." It just means that, whatever margin of variation you're allowing for revolves around the same base slope. The very nature of a leveling system (and tiered spell/equipment systems and such) is the idea of comparing things to one another. What's the point in having Level 9 spells as opposed to Level 1 spells if you're going to slap Ray of Frost into the Level 9 category and just shrug and say "Yeah, it's unbalanced... who cares?!"? Obviously, the very nature of the label "Level 9" suggests that the goal is for those spells to be, in some way, better/more potent than the previous 8 levels of spells.

 

But then, it's totally fine for a level 10 Wizard to be 17 times more amazing than a Level 11 Fighter. That's just silly.

 

I want to encounter a Level 1 enemy in the world that's the toughest enemy in the universe.

[Stun]

I'm more worried about the replayability. 'Different but equal' still translates to "equal" when its all said and done, which means your 2nd play through of the game using a different class will still *feel* the same as your first, since everything was perfectly balanced to insure that every class is just as viable as the other. you just get to use different tools.

 

Call me crazy, but I *like* it when some classes are weak and some are over powered. Unlike some people, I have gaming moods. Sometimes I feel like playing a tragically weak class/party and see if I can weather the game's challenges with it. While other times I feel compelled to utterly power-play and see if I can break the game.

 

 

"Balance" takes that all away, and gives you a game with an invisible referee looking over your shoulder, making sure that Mages don't ever overstep their bounds and outshine Fighters, at any level, or vise versa. I find that remarkably dull as far as game design goes.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Stun

[Valorian]

Have they ever said that all class powers stem from souls? I interpret the whole soul power thing as some things and abilities being influenced by your soul, especially those that one could describe as supernatural.

I'd find it rather silly to discover that soul, not his physical and mental capabilities, propels the warrior's ability to swing his sword, get better with it and use a variety of mundane maneuvers. 

 

[Kjaamor]

Gromnir has a BS in physics from Cal.

 

and again, we mentioned from the start that you used ubiquitous and perplexing. is no clutching at straws if you used at least three different times and one were clear wrong.  another were... queer. quadratic party? quadratic good v. evil?  seriously? and keep in mind you used in two Headings... and used different in those two observations.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps freaking board quotes function apparently is more difficult for Gromnir to grasp than is math. *chuckle*

 

 

Gromnir receives congratulations from Kjaamor. Kjaamor politely points out, however, that for all Gromnir's shoulder movements, Gromnir's assertion that a Quadratic equation results in a Parabolic graph was never in question.

 

The "Quadratic party" reference does, however deserve clarification, because I don't think anyone should be expected to understand where that came from. I mentioned in another recent thread that my current BG playthrough features 5 mages/multiclass mages and one Cleric. Hence my party is Quadratic purely by virtue of the fact that it has five Quadratic members.

 

If I could edit that out, I would, because that reads poorly and I can understand the confusion. Its inclusion without clarification represents an error on my part, unfortunately.

[Lephys]

I'm more worried about the replayability. Different but equal still translates to "the same" when its all said and done, which means your 2nd play through of the game using a different class will still *feel* the same as your first, since everything was perfectly balanced to insure that every class is just as viable as the other.

I don't understand what evidence supports this conclusion.

 

Unless you expect to literally be incapable of completing the game because of one party makeup, versus another, what exactly makes it "the same" any more than any replay is going to be similar to another?

 

I bet you going through the game with 6 Fighters is going to result in startlingly different, ehh, what term to use here... replay footage... than a party of 6 Druids. Just for example.

 

If how you fight the exact same encounter to achieve victory isn't enough difference for you, then I don't understand what needs to be different. That, and I don't see how imbalance brings anything to that same table.

 

Could you provide me of an example of how having decently balanced classes mandates that replays will end up feeling "samey"? I'm honestly asking. From my just-a-single-human imperfect perspective, I'm not seeing any basis for that conclusion.

[Lephys]

Have they ever said that all class powers stem from souls? I interpret the whole soul power thing as some things and abilities being influenced by your soul, especially those that one could describe as supernatural.

I'd find it rather silly to discover that soul, not his physical and mental capabilities, propels the warrior's ability to swing his sword, get better with it and use a variety of mundane maneuvers.

Ehhh, I'm not sure on the exact specifics of that, actually. But, I didn't mean to say that all individual abilities are powered by soul-power. And I'm aware that that might've been what my words meant. In which case, my apologies.

 

I'm fairly certain all classes are soul-powered. Meaning, no, every sword-swing isn't necessarily a use of soul "magic," but the Fighter is capable of doing things that go beyond mere physical conditioning and training, as opposed to Fighters in traditional fantasy RPG lore, who are basically just in-really-good-shape, well-trained equipment specialists.

 

Via the souls thing, everyone's got some kind of "magical" aspect to them, even if some rely on it a lot more, and others a lot less.

[Stun]

Could you provide me of an example of how having decently balanced classes mandates that replays will end up feeling "samey"? I'm honestly asking. From my just-a-single-human imperfect perspective, I'm not seeing any basis for that conclusion.

Yes. I can.

 

Dragon Age 2. <---- There's your different but equal class balance in all its shameless glory. Warriors, Rogues and Mages are different. They have utterly different skill sets.

 

But they play so similarly that there's really no real point to playing as a Warrior after you've played as a Rogue. Not a single encounter in the game will feel different. All three classes are so rigidly balanced that it feels as if the devs used some super-complicated computer program to insure, mathamically, that your rogue will not feel any more or less powerful than your warrior or mage...from beginning to end.

 

Consequently, DA2's replay value is zero.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Stun

[Iucounu]

@ Lephys

P:E does indeed have more suited lore in that respect. However, a warrior in the end is still mostly a stick fighter, even if his stick fighting is powered by some supernatural soul, the whole thing is still rather mundane. You can't do much with a sword other than thrusting and slashing, it's not something abstract and elusive like magic. Just taking the old model of a warrior from d&d and other systems and add some supernatural speed and strength is probably not enough.