More like BG2 please

[Mrakvampire]

 

 

Egads, the people the wizard keeps around to deal with the ones who aren't worth a spell ends up getting the most kills?

 

Seriously, what a useless metric to track how powerful a character is. You want to kill people without using spells? Don't look to your mage. You want to kill someone who's a real threat? Wizard powers, activate!

 

Sorry to say that, but this is nonsense. Most really difficult fights in the game (BG2) are nearly unbeatable by casters only due to very high Magic Resistance that Big Bad Guys have.

 

Well, I soloed both BG1, BG2 and ToB with a Sorcerer so I would not say that. I would not have a chance to finish it with a Fighter.

 

 

I said nearly unbeatable, not 100% unbeatable. 

[archangel979]

 

 

AD&D fighters are not weaklings... unless you compared them to wizards. Enemies with high magic resistance are there so the wizards are not always the stars. And fighters are totally boring too, which is the most important part.

 

 

Look. We are talking about RPG game that involves playing not 1 character but whole party of characters. So, some of them could be 'boring' from mechanics standpoint, yes. But overall, as you manage party, you will have whole bunch of abilities.

 

/end thread

 

In a more serious tone, it seems people don't understand this simple concept. You don't control your fighter or your mage but both. The challenges you meet are met by your whole party and all their abilities are yours to command and (ab)use. It does not matter if wizard is better in this or worse in that encounter as long as whole party wins all encounters. 

 

BTW, having one class in party be bland and another be all crazy is what created crazy fun mage battles BG2 is famous for. Now having two classes of power equal to something in the middle is not going to create these epic battles, but something more mediocre. 

Are you people really going to be happy that you are getting a worse gameplay experience in a singleplayer game just to cater to some interparty balance stupidity that is completely irrelevant in a singleplayer game?

Edited August 20, 2014 by archangel979

[Kiel29]

You call them crazy fun mage battles, I call them colorful, but broken messes. It took the overpowered HLAs took make fighters interesting even a little bit.

The balance I'm looking for in PoE that BG didn't have is that if I don't want to take a mage, I don't have to. In BG series, high level magic could do a fighter's job better than a fighter.

[hairyscotsman2]

 

So you get  to knock enemies over and the equivalent of some free potions. That is not really a lot to manage compared to most PC RPG games.

 

Oh, you know a lot of RPG games with party-based real-time + pause combat beyond IE games? 

 

Dragon Age, Dragon Age 2 (washes mouth out), NWN, NWN2,  Drakensang, Drakenang 2, A Farewell to Dragons, Aarklash Legacy, Confrontation, The Ultima 7 complete remake on the Dungeon Siege engine (recommend that last one).

[Namutree]

You call them crazy fun mage battles, I call them colorful, but broken messes. It took the overpowered HLAs took make fighters interesting even a little bit.

The balance I'm looking for in PoE that BG didn't have is that if I don't want to take a mage, I don't have to. In BG series, high level magic could do a fighter's job better than a fighter.

I've beat BG2 without a mage/sorcerer. Also the mage doesn't the fighter's job better than a fighter. Not that all of this is really relevant. At the core of the issue is this:

 

A) Many people gave Obsidian money on the pitch that poe would be a spiritual successor to the IE games. NOTHING is more important in capturing the feel of playing an IE game than the game-play. If Obsidian didn't want to do that; they shouldn't have pitched it. 

 

B) As of now the game does not feel like an IE game. In which case, whether or not some people prefer it; Obsidian has by definition failed to produce a spiritual successor. In which case they are either too incompetent to do so, or are simply frauds who conned thousands of people by misleading them on what they were planning to make.

 

Finally as a side note something needs to be stated:

 

If upon release poe doesn't play like an IE game not only will poe be poorly received; there will be no trilogy. I certainly won't be interested in the sequel, and I doubt I'd be alone. I won't be fooled twice. 

[Nomadmerc]

I second what many others have said in this thread; POE to capture more than merely our hope and cash to make this first game is gambling on the loyalty of the gamers who wanted a spiritual successor to Baldurs gate series. Here is to the hope that changes will be made to make this so.

[Malekith]

 

You call them crazy fun mage battles, I call them colorful, but broken messes. It took the overpowered HLAs took make fighters interesting even a little bit.

The balance I'm looking for in PoE that BG didn't have is that if I don't want to take a mage, I don't have to. In BG series, high level magic could do a fighter's job better than a fighter.

I've beat BG2 without a mage/sorcerer. Also the mage doesn't the fighter's job better than a fighter. Not that all of this is really relevant. At the core of the issue is this:

 

A) Many people gave Obsidian money on the pitch that poe would be a spiritual successor to the IE games. NOTHING is more important in capturing the feel of playing an IE game than the game-play. If Obsidian didn't want to do that; they shouldn't have pitched it. 

 

B) As of now the game does not feel like an IE game. In which case, whether or not some people prefer it; Obsidian has by definition failed to produce a spiritual successor. In which case they are either too incompetent to do so, or are simply frauds who conned thousands of people by misleading them on what they were planning to make.

 

Finally as a side note something needs to be stated:

 

If upon release poe doesn't play like an IE game not only will poe be poorly received; there will be no trilogy. I certainly won't be interested in the sequel, and I doubt I'd be alone. I won't be fooled twice. 

 

Even if you like the final product, you won't be interested in it's sequel???????????

 

I don't like about half of Sawyer's decisions and i disagree with most of his high level design sensibilities, but i think people are over reacting. The game will be good and the gameplay will be just fine. It won't be BG2, but so what. It will still be good.

Be real. It's combat will be way better than PS:T at minimum, and if they manage another PS:T 90% of the backers would cream their pants.

Will Sawyer's system be better than BG2's? Too early to tell, but even if it's not in SOME aspects, it won't be the huge disaster people are painting it to be.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Malekith

[Karkarov]

In a more serious tone, it seems people don't understand this simple concept. You don't control your fighter or your mage but both. The challenges you meet are met by your whole party and all their abilities are yours to command and (ab)use. It does not matter if wizard is better in this or worse in that encounter as long as whole party wins all encounters.

What you call fun mage battles I call "Counter the Mage: The Game AKA: The worst combat system ever created!"

 

In fact I have many epic posts on these forums about just how much it sucked to play BG2 past a certain point because literally every fight boiled down to using the same tactics the same way in every single fight and the fight was always won the moment you took down the mage.

 

Namutree: Jesus man tone it back.  The game definitely looks like the IE games, feels like them, sounds like them.  The mechanics aren't identical?  We knew they wouldn't be going in.  It definitely plays in a very similar way to BG2, to deny that the game play is very close to the same is.... just false.  You may not like the mechanics behind it, but it plays exactly the same, you pause, you issue orders, you micro manage, you buff, you debuff, etc etc.

[Kiel29]

I think here is our fundamental disagreement: it feels like an IE game to me, where it doesn't to you. The combat mechanics are more involved-which some people like and others don't, but the party set-up in general, the dialogue, the environments; these latter all feel incredible and just like IE.

[Stun]

Fighter Level 1: "Look at me swinging my sword!"

 

Fighter Level 5: "Look at me swinging my sword!"

 

Fighter Level 10. "Look at me swinging my sword!"

 

etc

 

 

Yeah, braindead gameplay as indicator of power.

 

AD&D fighters are not weaklings... unless you compared them to wizards. Enemies with high magic resistance are there so the wizards are not always the stars. And fighters are totally boring too, which is the most important part.

This is an argument in a vacuum. We're talking about BG2. A game that loaded fighters up with enough magic gear to turn them into unique terrors even compared to mages

 

It's more like this:

 

Fighter level 10 - "look at me swinging my weapon while mirror imaged!"

Fighter level 11 - Look at me making swarms of Undead instantly explode while swinging Daystar!"

Fighter level 12- Look at me summoning a phase spider to help me as I swing my sword

Fighter level 13- Look at me stunning opponents, and casting lightning bolts at them as I swing my Katana!"

Fighter Level 18- Look at me insta-killing Trolls and Giants with Crom Faeyr, while making beholders kill themselves with my cloak, as I turn invisible and haste myself with my ring while everything is true sighted with a spell I just cast from the Book of infinite spells...

Fighter level 21 - "look at me Greater whirl winding this guy!"

 

 

etc.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Stun

[Malekith]

 

The game definitely looks like the IE games, feels like them, sounds like them.  The mechanics aren't identical?  We knew they wouldn't be going in.  It definitely plays in a very similar way to BG2, to deny that the game play is very close to the same is.... just false.  You may not like the mechanics behind it, but it plays exactly the same, you pause, you issue orders, you micro manage, you buff, you debuff, etc etc.

^ That.

 

Disagree with the rest though, and i think lack of magic duels will be an area PoE will be worse than BG2, just as IWDs were.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Malekith

[Wintersong]

 

 

AD&D fighters are not weaklings... unless you compared them to wizards. Enemies with high magic resistance are there so the wizards are not always the stars. And fighters are totally boring too, which is the most important part.

 

 

Look. We are talking about RPG game that involves playing not 1 character but whole party of characters. So, some of them could be 'boring' from mechanics standpoint, yes. But overall, as you manage party, you will have whole bunch of abilities.

 

Oh, sorry. Wasn't the argument that fighters shouldn't have abilities because then magic isn't special and they were good enough as they were according to AD&D rules (of the game)?

 

Of course there is a party. Having played many AD&D cRPG games and run tabletop campaings for years, I surely know how it works. And of course that those super fighters that some people claim here wouldn't be such without epic items and super magical buffs. And without thieves you need other ways to deal with traps. And without clerics you need other ways to deal with injuries (amd undead). And low level wizard by himself is only asking for trouble. Teamwork isn't a justification for lazy design and braindead classes (and as much as I still like AD&D, it's faaaaaar from being balanced). I'm quite sure that I have heard more than once that fighters in AD&D are the newbie players' class amd wizards the veterans'. Must be because of something. The player that used to play fighters in my games surely celebrated switching to D&D 3rd edition. I wonder why.

 

But here were are talking about how giving the fighters abilities makes the game more casual, less strategic, makes magic less special... and that swinging a sword (or other weapon) with some external magical buffing should be enough to have interesting fighters. I liked my fighters in BG and the other games. But not for being the most entertaining class, that's for sure. Chuck Norris as a regular fighter in BG would be limited to regular punches and kicks because otherwise, magic is less special.

 

The micromanagent side of the argument could have a point though. But you don't neuter a whole class so a sector of the players get less micro (and only micro the classes they are used to / like).

[Karkarov]

 

 

The game definitely looks like the IE games, feels like them, sounds like them.  The mechanics aren't identical?  We knew they wouldn't be going in.  It definitely plays in a very similar way to BG2, to deny that the game play is very close to the same is.... just false.  You may not like the mechanics behind it, but it plays exactly the same, you pause, you issue orders, you micro manage, you buff, you debuff, etc etc.

^ That.

 

Disagree with the rest though, and i think lack of magic duels will be an area PoE will be worse than BG2, just as IWDs were.

If you want to play "Your a Wizard Harry" go ahead Malekith.  I am not interested in a combat and game system where the only important character is the Mage.  But we have been round the roses on that one enough.  The important point is the game does feel like an IE game regardless of the mechanics being different.

[Leferd]

 

In a more serious tone, it seems people don't understand this simple concept. You don't control your fighter or your mage but both. The challenges you meet are met by your whole party and all their abilities are yours to command and (ab)use. It does not matter if wizard is better in this or worse in that encounter as long as whole party wins all encounters.

What you call fun mage battles I call "Counter the Mage: The Game AKA: The worst combat system ever created!"

 

In fact I have many epic posts on these forums about just how much it sucked to play BG2 past a certain point because literally every fight boiled down to using the same tactics the same way in every single fight and the fight was always won the moment you took down the mage.

 

Namutree: Jesus man tone it back. The game definitely looks like the IE games, feels like them, sounds like them. The mechanics aren't identical? We knew they wouldn't be going in. It definitely plays in a very similar way to BG2, to deny that the game play is very close to the same is.... just false. You may not like the mechanics behind it, but it plays exactly the same, you pause, you issue orders, you micro manage, you buff, you debuff, etc etc.

Yep.

 

We are still in the first couple days of beta and like many have predicted, people are gonna cry arms over how bad and buggy the gameplay is and attribute failure which can be caused by unfamiliarity.

 

Give Obsidian a chance to go through their teething problems. New engine, new pipelines, new rules systems. I may be optimistic but I fully expect this game to be a new modern, if albeit, retrofied classic.

[Wintersong]

 

Fighter Level 1: "Look at me swinging my sword!"

 

Fighter Level 5: "Look at me swinging my sword!"

 

Fighter Level 10. "Look at me swinging my sword!"

 

etc

 

 

Yeah, braindead gameplay as indicator of power.

 

AD&D fighters are not weaklings... unless you compared them to wizards. Enemies with high magic resistance are there so the wizards are not always the stars. And fighters are totally boring too, which is the most important part.

This is an argument in a vacuum. We're talking about BG2. A game that loaded fighters up with enough magic gear to turn them into unique terrors even compared to mages

 

It's more like this:

 

Fighter level 10 - "look at me swinging my weapon while mirror imaged!"

Fighter level 11 - Look at me making swarms of Undead instantly explode while swinging Daystar!"

Fighter level 12- Look at me summoning a phase spider to help me as I swing my sword

Fighter level 13- Look at me stunning opponents, and casting lightning bolts at them as I swing my Katana!"

Fighter Level 18- Look at me insta-killing Trolls and Giants with Crom Faeyr, while making beholders kill themselves with my cloak, as I turn invisible and haste myself with my ring while everything is true sighted with a spell I just cast from the Book of infinite spells...

Fighter level 21 - "look at me Greater whirl winding this guy!"

 

 

etc.

 

Oh, look! I'm like a Barbie! I need tons of complements to shine.

 

Curious how skills by items add nothing to micro but having skills by class is "murder". Just saying.

[Malekith]

 

 

 

AD&D fighters are not weaklings... unless you compared them to wizards. Enemies with high magic resistance are there so the wizards are not always the stars. And fighters are totally boring too, which is the most important part.

 

 

Look. We are talking about RPG game that involves playing not 1 character but whole party of characters. So, some of them could be 'boring' from mechanics standpoint, yes. But overall, as you manage party, you will have whole bunch of abilities.

 

Oh, sorry. Wasn't the argument that fighters shouldn't have abilities because then magic isn't special and they were good enough as they were according to AD&D rules (of the game)?

 

Of course there is a party. Having played many AD&D cRPG games and run tabletop campaings for years, I surely know how it works. And of course that those super fighters that some people claim here wouldn't be such without epic items and super magical buffs. And without thieves you need other ways to deal with traps. And without clerics you need other ways to deal with injuries (amd undead). And low level wizard by himself is only asking for trouble. Teamwork isn't a justification for lazy design and braindead classes (and as much as I still like AD&D, it's faaaaaar from being balanced). I'm quite sure that I have heard more than once that fighters in AD&D are the newbie players' class amd wizards the veterans'. Must be because of something. The player that used to play fighters in my games surely celebrated switching to D&D 3rd edition. I wonder why.

 

But here were are talking about how giving the fighters abilities makes the game more casual, less strategic, makes magic less special... and that swinging a sword (or other weapon) with some external magical buffing should be enough to have interesting fighters. I liked my fighters in BG and the other games. But not for being the most entertaining class, that's for sure. Chuck Norris as a regular fighter in BG would be limited to regular punches and kicks because otherwise, magic is less special.

 

The micromanagent side of the argument could have a point though. But you don't neuter a whole class so a sector of the players get less micro (and only micro the classes they are used to / like).

 

No but i sure as hell excpect more passive abilities so i  have the choice to make a comletely passive fighter if i want, that plays just like the IE ones. Something that Sawyer said it will be in, so i'll hold him on that.

[siril_dana]

Also bring back the wagon weel! And make us open doors before you enter buildings! One last thing, let us read signs like we use to (in other words, make disapear those circles) Mutch like it is in the first minute of this video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYGs1EFSn04

 

And one more thing, it would be nice that books look like books and not scrolls.

Edited August 21, 2014 by siril_dana

[Stun]

Oh, look! I'm like a Barbie! I need tons of complements to shine.

Welcome to all RPGs, including PoE. Try removing your wizard's Grimoire. He will no longer be able to cast spells.

 

Curious how skills by items add nothing to micro but having skills by class is "murder". Just saying.

My point is that you cannot ignore the influence of items in AD&D, as it is part of the class skill-sets themselves. More to the point: AD&D places severe weapon and armor restrictions on Wizards. This is for balance purposes. So a good DM (in this case, Bioware) can take advantage of those rules by loading up their game with super powerful gear that Fighters can wear but Wizard's can't. And the result? Fighters in BG2 can do *SO* much more than simply auto-attack.

 

It's just one way of making different classes fun to play. Obsidian happens to be taking a different route (talents). But I'm not seeing how it's inherently better if the end result is pretty much the same.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Stun

[Karkarov]

No but i sure as hell excpect more passive abilities so i  have the choice to make a comletely passive fighter if i want, that plays just like the IE ones. Something that Sawyer said it will be in, so i'll hold him on that.

BB Fighter is already pretty passive.

 

Seriously, not kidding.  He has 1 per rest ability and 1 ability he can do twice an encounter.  The other two are just modals you either turn on or off.  He and BB Rogue are by far my lowest maintenance characters.

[Stun]

Oddly, the more I play this beta the more I'm noticing that my Wizard is my lowest maintenance character. After discovering that his offensive spells are pitifully inconsequential, I have equipped him with a rifle and just made him shoot things from a distance. He's far more effective that way. He's a heavier hitter than my rogue.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Stun

[Answermancer]

I don't understand you, sorry. I want to have physically weak old, very old wizard that can blast mountains with his spells. Or I want to have weak willed charismatic bard. Try to stat them in this new system.

 

The problem is that in D&D those archetypical characters you mention are the only mechanically effective ones. Only a Wizard with max Int is any good in combat, only a Bard with high Charisma. Your desire to have some validation for these cliché characters limits everyone else.

 

I like that I can actually build 6 wizards that will play completely differently with completely different strengths and weaknesses, I can come up with roleplaying explanations in my head if I want. In D&D you will not build a low-Int Wizard that isn't terrible, it just can't be done. They might be useful outside of combat if your DM gives them something to do but a computer game will never be as flexible as a real DM and won't ever be able to support every mechanically-gimped character type with roleplaying opportunities.

 

Still in BG2 there was no need to micromanage all party with redundant abilities. Just send your Minsc in the direction of enemy and focus on micromanagement of 1-2 casters in your team. Now... You have to babysit all of them!

 

Why is it so hard for you to understand that not everyone wants to play a Wizard? Why should Wizards be the only fun characters (sorry, I don't consider a character who spends his whole time auto-attacking to be fun)?

 

You get to create a main PC in these games, they are the only character you get to directly create at the start of the game and they will be with you for the entire play through. They will be the ones you control in dialogue. I would like my main character to be interesting and fun to play in combat, regardless of if he's a fighter, a rogue, a wizard, or a anything else. I also find trash fights that are trivial a waste of time, this game has a strategy game combat system, it should require at least a modicum of strategy to win any fight.

[Karkarov]

Oddly, the more I play this beta the more I'm noticing that my Wizard is my lowest maintenance character. After discovering that his offensive spells are pitifully inconsequential, I have equipped him with a rifle and just made him shoot things from a distance. He's far more effective that way. He's a heavier hitter than my rogue.

My problem with BB Wizard is his spell options.  All of them are aoes, many of them are line attacks, etc etc.  Too often I am finding there is no way I can just drop a spell without also roasting BB Fighter or someone else at the same time.

 

That said don't knock him.  I have seen him do over 40-50 damage to 5+ guys with one fireball.  His spells are plenty strong they are just hard to use safely and he gets very few casts.

[Namutree]

I think here is our fundamental disagreement: it feels like an IE game to me, where it doesn't to you. The combat mechanics are more involved-which some people like and others don't, but the party set-up in general, the dialogue, the environments; these latter all feel incredible and just like IE.

As you've just stated, "The mechanics are more involved" is proof positive that the game will feel different. Perhaps one MAJOR change to game pace is tolerable, but it is only the beginning. Between no kill xp and trash mobs strong enough to challenge a mid-level party poe could very well play incredibly differently. I'm not saying that poe is a let down as this is just a beta, but Obsidian needs to move this game more towards a classic feel.

[Shevek]

Frankly, I like most of the changes made away from the BG2 standard.

 

Stuff I have seen that I like:

All characters have to be actively played (not just casters).

There are more stat array options to support a variety of builds.

Talents.

Added difficulty.

Adventure hall.

Stealth circles, nice.

WAY better dialog system.

LOVE the hp/stamina system.

 

Of the stuff I like that I have read about but have not seen in beta twitch streams:

More in depth stronghold.

Crafting implementation.

Yay for no romances.

Rep system sounds solid on paper. Way better than simplistic BG2 system.

 

 

There are basically two things that (I think) suck: lack of XP for combat (its a dungeon hack; gimme murder xp) and the skill system (which I think should remain but be tweaked somewhat). *Edit: One other thing that sucks are rangers. Shared health pool with pet is a terrible idea. I love the idea of a pet class (which the IE games didnt really have) but this implementation is horrid.

 

On balance, I think the changes are good. People just need to get some perspective. Do most of these changes make the game better? I think yes. Do most of these changes make the game COMPLETELY unlike the IE games? I think no. Its close enough to get my IE senses tingling. Still, opinions will always differ, I suppose...

Edited August 21, 2014 by Shevek

[Grand_Commander13]

B) As of now the game does not feel like an IE game. In which case, whether or not some people prefer it; Obsidian has by definition failed to produce a spiritual successor. In which case they are either too incompetent to do so, or are simply frauds who conned thousands of people by misleading them on what they were planning to make.

 

I second what many others have said in this thread; POE to capture more than merely our hope and cash to make this first game is gambling on the loyalty of the gamers who wanted a spiritual successor to Baldurs gate series. Here is to the hope that changes will be made to make this so.

I'd like to quote the Kickstarter page now:

Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.

Doesn't sound to me like they're failing to live up to any promises. They promised to deliver on what made those games fun, not on exact copies of them or their mechanics. If they had promised to make Baldur's Gate 3 I never would have pledged.