Jump to content
Infinitron

Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring

Recommended Posts

^ Actually, what they've said is that they want fighters to be low maintenance, that's very different from 'simple'.  The design goal for fighters is for thet class to be durable, dependable, and not subject to micro-management.

 

Within those parameters, Obsidian could still introduce a ton of talents like trip, cleave, improved critical, etc. that could be offensive boni/moves based on conditional requirements.

 

Personally,in addition to general offensive talents like the above,  I think fighters should have an additional tier of weapon focus around combat styles; Ranged, 2-weapon, Sword & Shield, and 2-Hand.  There could be certain modal talents (both offensive and defensive) using these styles as prerequisites.  From these, Obsidian could layer more specific talents, and include a couple of style-specific, click-to-activate ones like shield bash(S&S), whirlwind attack(2w), Sweep(2H), and Called Shot(Ranged) for those of us who want more micro management.  

Edited by curryinahurry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to re-iterate, the Cipher practically uses combos already, if not actually does use them. Mechanically, it's not that absurd, in real-time instead of turn-based combat, for subsequent actions to produce a different result. OR for certain actions to become available only when certain conditions are met (this is exactly how the Rogue's Sneak Attack works).

 

Functionally, for a Fighter to utilize combos, you could simply flag the attacked foe with a Fighter-only status effect. Then, if attacked with abilities A, B, or C (for example), or attacked in a specific way, while that foe has that status, the combo effect would be produced and the status would be removed. If attacked in such a way that the combo wouldn't "proc," the flag would still be removed, unless it produced a condition for a potential combo maneuver to follow.

 

I think one of the reasons Fighters get seen as so simple is because of the factors they deal with; Their class is often reduced to simply handling the simple factors that everyone has: defense, attack power/damage, etc.

 

The enhanced engage-ability of Fighters in PoE is a start, but, in my opinion, they could really use something else to set them apart, functionally, from other classes. If you put a Fighter up beside a Wizard, the Wizard doesn't just do the same thing the Fighter does, but does some of them way better. The Wizard feels functionally different. As does the Ranger. The Ranger does things with ranged weapons that others can't do, and has a companion with whom he shares health resources. What does the Fighter do? Basically nothing everyone else doesn't already do (other than engage 3 peeps at once), but he has adjusted numbers/capabilities.

 

I think it'd be great if he felt like he manhandled foes in such a way that other classes could not. A lot of positioning-based stuff was mentioned. I think that's a great idea. Combos is another. And pretty much anything along those lines; something that allows the Fighter to actively function distinctly from the other classes. Not that there won't be a good bit of overlap, but the Fighter need's a class's worth of distinction, since so many others get that (Ciphers, Chanters, Wizards, etc.). Heck, simple as it is, even Rogues have their own mechanic (affliction-based effects). The Fighter gets... the best melee fighting parameters, and good defenses?


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're comparing the Fighter to other classes, it would be better to compare them to classes in the same role - defenders. Comparing a fighter to a Wizard (Controller) or Ranger (Striker) and saying other classes feel functionally different than the fighter isn't really a good argument, because they are functionally different due to their different roles. And when you compare the fighter to the other classes in the same role as defender, they are different to the other defenders.

 

Also, as I said, there's needs to be a good reason why and how a fighter is getting a combo of attacks. Why is the fighter getting more than one standard attack and how will it be implemented. At the moment, it sounds very much like an arcade fighting game like Street Fighter.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying. It would better to compare a Defender to a Defender. However, I think it's still perfectly fine to compare any given class to any other class for the purposes of distinction, since, without distinction, the class boundaries are pointless.

 

I realize that the Fighter gets to do lots of Defendery things right now, but, my point is that pretty much every other class feels like it has its own, unique, substantial function, regardless of the specific role within which that function resides.

 

Also, I don't know what you mean by "why is the fighter getting more than one standard attack...?", as Silent Winter already pointed out that giving the Fighter more frequent attacks, or an additional quantity of attacks is not the goal. I realize it sounds like Street Fighter to you, because you've made that clear three times now. But, the idea isn't to make things like Street Fighter.

 

Street Fighter did not invent the concept of combinations ("combos" for short). So, please, consider non-twitchy, speed-based combinations when you evaluate this idea, and instead of sequence-based effects/abilities.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you said, it would be better to compare a defender to a defender, which is why we should do it and not compare a defender to a controller.

 

Also, I don't understand what you mean by every other class feels like it has its own unique function regardless of the role they play. A Rogue feels like a striker to me. It doesn't feel like a defender, controller or leader. In fact, I have no idea how you would play a Rogue as a controller or leader and trying to play it as a defender would get it killed.

 

And you still haven't explained how this 'combo' actually works. And as I've explained to you and Silent Winter, this doesn't happen in 4th ed where you can combine two standard actions together to make a new combo action. The more I think about it, the more it is Double Dragon / Street Fighter. And arcade fighting games like Street Fighter did introduce them into video games. So please give some examples how this would be implemented into PoE and what the fighter would be doing, instead of saying combos could be the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you said, it would be better to compare a defender to a defender, which is why we should do it and not compare a defender to a controller.

No, not really. I'm not comparing roles. Some classes can fill more than one role, depending on the build of a specific character. So, comparing roles is a bit moot, since role is not the sole factor at play distinguishing classes from one another.

 

Also, I don't understand what you mean by every other class feels like it has its own unique function regardless of the role they play. A Rogue feels like a striker to me. It doesn't feel like a defender, controller or leader.

I mean that no one but a Rogue inherently takes advantage of afflictions by Sneak Attacking. No one besides a Ranger has anything mimicking an animal companion. I don't care if your Rogue is the most defensive guy in the universe, or your Ranger is Captain Crowd Control. It doesn't matter. They still function differently before you even get to role. Or, to put it another way... The Rogue is a Striker because Sneak Attack (his class's distinctive mechanic) happens to produce increased damage. I'm sure you can blast the enemy with Wizard spells and still accomplish lots of damage, but you wouldn't suddenly say "I'm being a Striker, and therefore I'm playing like a Rogue!" No. The Wizard and the Rogue still differ in raw functionality. The Wizard weaves big active magic effects that get hurled at people, and the Rogue must successfully land regular attacks whilst his foe is under the influence of a number of afflictions.

 

A class is not so much what they do (which should be pretty flexible, hence all these "problems with classes!" threads in response to the current state of the backer beta), as much as it is how they do what they do. I hope that makes sense. Please, if you have further questions on that, or I haven't made myself clear enough about what I think the Fighter lacks, ask away.

 

And you still haven't explained how this 'combo' actually works. And as I've explained to you and Silent Winter, this doesn't happen in 4th ed where you can combine two standard actions together to make a new combo action. The more I think about it, the more it is Double Dragon / Street Fighter. And arcade fighting games like Street Fighter did introduce them into video games. So please give some examples how this would be implemented into PoE and what the fighter would be doing, instead of saying combos could be the answer.

I'm not really concerned with what does or doesn't happen in 4th ed, since never have I referenced 4th ed in regard to my idea for combos. And I have explained how it works, but I shall elaborate, as I clearly have not explained enough.

 

Super Simple Example (don't evaluate this like it's supposed to be THE final, genius-design build of a game that you'll actually play and love):

 

The Fighter uses Smack. If it lands, the enemy has successfully been smacked. Now, if the Fighter follows that up with Thwack, and lands it, the foe not only takes damage from that attack, but he also gets knocked back. If the Fighter, instead, had followed Smack with Crack, the foe would have suffered from rent armor (deflection/DT penalty or something). If the Fighter had used Boof, the foe would've been knocked down. Etc.

 

Each of these attacks are pretty standard, until performed in the proper sequence. Some of them would even have multiple potential effects, depending on the state of the foe when they were used.

 

Really, the same thing could possibly be accomplished by using stances, or something similar, rather than individual abilities. Thus, it could just be that you strike with a certain attack, or with an attack from a given stance, to set the condition necessary for the next attack to produce a combo. Then, you swap stances and attack again from a different stance, and the foe -- because of how your previous attack left them and the specifics of your current attack -- receives some other effect than just "Oww I took damage."

 

This could apply to both ranged weapons AND melee weapons (except the stances wouldn't really apply to ranged... that would have to be different abilities, I suppose), even.

 

Does that make sense, though? The combo thing? And yes, Street Fighter was one of the first games to introduce fighting game combos, but that's a more specific usage of "combo" than just the raw meaning, which is what I'm after (hence my original post being devoid of anything resembling "LIKE IN STREET FIGHTER! 8D!").


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not really. I'm not comparing roles. Some classes can fill more than one role, depending on the build of a specific character. So, comparing roles is a bit moot, since role is not the sole factor at play distinguishing classes from one another.

 

So it's better not to compare different types of defenders? But to also compare defenders to controllers? :blink:  Can you show me how a rogue can be a defender? 

 

 

Also, I don't understand what you mean by every other class feels like it has its own unique function regardless of the role they play. A Rogue feels like a striker to me. It doesn't feel like a defender, controller or leader.

I mean that no one but a Rogue inherently takes advantage of afflictions by Sneak Attacking. No one besides a Ranger has anything mimicking an animal companion. I don't care if your Rogue is the most defensive guy in the universe, or your Ranger is Captain Crowd Control. It doesn't matter. They still function differently before you even get to role. Or, to put it another way... The Rogue is a Striker because Sneak Attack (his class's distinctive mechanic) happens to produce increased damage. I'm sure you can blast the enemy with Wizard spells and still accomplish lots of damage, but you wouldn't suddenly say "I'm being a Striker, and therefore I'm playing like a Rogue!" No. The Wizard and the Rogue still differ in raw functionality. The Wizard weaves big active magic effects that get hurled at people, and the Rogue must successfully land regular attacks whilst his foe is under the influence of a number of afflictions.

 

A class is not so much what they do (which should be pretty flexible, hence all these "problems with classes!" threads in response to the current state of the backer beta), as much as it is how they do what they do. I hope that makes sense. Please, if you have further questions on that, or I haven't made myself clear enough about what I think the Fighter lacks, ask away.

 

 

You're confusing what a role is. The rogue is playing a role by doing sneak attack and doing a lot of damage. The rogue is playing the role of the heavy hitter of the party. The rogue's role is intertwined into the class. You can't say the rogue is a rogue before it gets to its role. That doesn't make sense. When you create a rogue, before you even start the game the role is a heavy hitter. It's the same with the Fighter who is playing a defender role being the tank of the party.

 

 

I'm not really concerned with what does or doesn't happen in 4th ed, since never have I referenced 4th ed in regard to my idea for combos. And I have explained how it works, but I shall elaborate, as I clearly have not explained enough.

 

Super Simple Example (don't evaluate this like it's supposed to be THE final, genius-design build of a game that you'll actually play and love):

 

The Fighter uses Smack. If it lands, the enemy has successfully been smacked. Now, if the Fighter follows that up with Thwack, and lands it, the foe not only takes damage from that attack, but he also gets knocked back. If the Fighter, instead, had followed Smack with Crack, the foe would have suffered from rent armor (deflection/DT penalty or something). If the Fighter had used Boof, the foe would've been knocked down. Etc.

 

Each of these attacks are pretty standard, until performed in the proper sequence. Some of them would even have multiple potential effects, depending on the state of the foe when they were used.

 

Really, the same thing could possibly be accomplished by using stances, or something similar, rather than individual abilities. Thus, it could just be that you strike with a certain attack, or with an attack from a given stance, to set the condition necessary for the next attack to produce a combo. Then, you swap stances and attack again from a different stance, and the foe -- because of how your previous attack left them and the specifics of your current attack -- receives some other effect than just "Oww I took damage."

 

This could apply to both ranged weapons AND melee weapons (except the stances wouldn't really apply to ranged... that would have to be different abilities, I suppose), even.

 

Does that make sense, though? The combo thing? And yes, Street Fighter was one of the first games to introduce fighting game combos, but that's a more specific usage of "combo" than just the raw meaning, which is what I'm after (hence my original post being devoid of anything resembling "LIKE IN STREET FIGHTER! 8D!").

 

 

Okay, what does smack do? Does it do damage? You haven't said what it does.

 

Also your example with smack (don't know what it does) and thwack (damage + knock back). So you want a knockback that does damage? If smack does damage, then you want two lots of damage with a knock back? If this is the case, then you're combining two attacks that do damage which you can't do. So I was right. You do want to combine two standard attacks. eg. Street Fighter.

 

Also, there is a knockdown in the game that does damage. Combining different attacks that do damage isn't the solution. It makes it into an arcade game with street fighter type moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^You're confusing the idea of 'combo' with 'auto-combo' - in SF, you'd use X,X,down right, O, left, X or something, and then get a 10-hit combo.

We're talking about using a standard attack in a standard time frame, then using a 2nd standard attack in a 2nd time frame but then having a different result.

 

Would you say that a rogue hitting an enemy for damage and then hitting again for damage on their next 'turn' was "combine two standard attacks. eg. Street Fighter."?

This is the same, but producing a different result on 2nd hit, not the same.

 

So, to take another exampe:  Fighter hits enemy with standard attack, Fighter then hits same enemy (on next turn) with 'power attack' - instead of using the regular 'power attack', the fighter would use a slightly less powerful attack (compared with regular 'power attack') but with an added 'stun' effect.

^Not the best example of a good in-game combo - just trying to help you understand the difference between this and SF.

 

As far as comparing defenders to other defenders:
 - who are the other defender classes in PoE?  (I'm counting Rogues/Rangers/Ciphers as 'Strikers', Druids/Wizards/Barbarians as 'Crowd Control, Paladins/Clerics/Chanters as 'Support' and then we've got Fighters/Monks as defenders.  Is that right?
So monks have the ability to convert damage into wounds and then use those wounds for special abilities.

Fighters can get hit more before going down, they deal consistent damage, they can enage more than one enemy without adding a talent.

All classes can get hit and deal damage (including other defenders) - Lephy's point (correct me if I'm wrong, Lephys) is that this makes fighters boring for some people (not me) as there's not much special in the way they fulfill their, or any other, role.  Their class advantages are 'under the hood', so to speak - a numbers advantage.

 

We're just brainstorming ways to differentiate them on an interaction level.
 

Edited by Silent Winter
  • Like 1

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We're talking about using a standard attack in a standard time frame, then using a 2nd standard attack in a 2nd time frame but then having a different result."

 

Having a combo attack over different turns? That sounds even worse, especially for new players. They may be doing something and not realising what they did on their previous turn is having an affect on their attacks on the current turn. eg. I did a stun attack but I never choose stun? How did that happen? I could see a combo sheet of moves being shipped with the game. Do X in one turn, then Y in your next turn to produce Z attack. ugh. No, thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's better not to compare different types of defenders? But to also compare defenders to controllers? :blink:  Can you show me how a rogue can be a defender?

No. It's not better in a way that is relevant to basic class distinction to restrict comparisons to roles instead of simply comparing classes. It's not that it's better to specifically refrain from comparing classes with similar roles. It's pretty much unaffected by role.

 

You're confusing what a role is. The rogue is playing a role by doing sneak attack and doing a lot of damage. The rogue is playing the role of the heavy hitter of the party. The rogue's role is intertwined into the class.

Then, tell me, how is a Wizard different from a Rogue? I made that example for a reason, and you didn't even address it. You just came out with "No, you don't know what roles are... here, I'll tell you."

 

Also, the Rogue happens to do lots of damage with Sneak Attack. He could function the same way (when X afflictions, proc Sneak Attack) and instead create lots of debilitating effects with Sneak Attack, or generate lots of buff auras with Sneak Attack, etc. It just so happens that they want his role to be a damager, so his class function boosts damage. Again, his role is completely moot, as it is the fact that he produces SOME effect based on the number of concurrent afflictions a target has that makes him a Rogue, as distinct from some other class.

 

Okay, what does smack do? Does it do damage? You haven't said what it does.

Yes, it does damage. I apologize, as I assumed calling it an attack conveyed that it was essentially an active ability that dealt damage. I shouldn't have assumed that, and should have specified.

 

Also your example with smack (don't know what it does) and thwack (damage + knock back). So you want a knockback that does damage? If smack does damage, then you want two lots of damage with a knock back? If this is the case, then you're combining two attacks that do damage which you can't do. So I was right. You do want to combine two standard attacks. eg. Street Fighter.

 

Also, there is a knockdown in the game that does damage. Combining different attacks that do damage isn't the solution. It makes it into an arcade game with street fighter type moves.

No, it doesn't. At least, not in the sense you seem to mean. For one thing, I'm not sure how any of this is going to resemble Street Fighter, since there are set recovery times between actions in PoE. That, and, in Street Fighter, a combo attack doesn't produce anything new. It's simply a coincidental chain of attacks. You don't even get a bonus to damage. You just get the satisfaction of having performed a "combo," and of your opponent not having been able to act in the midst of it, I suppose.

 

So, no, I'm not trying to have the Fighter literally combine multiple actions into a single action. It's essentially sequencing. I call it a "combo," however, because the different attacks would produce conditions that allow for the subsequent attack to produce something beyond it's base effect. Really not very much like Street Fighter at all. I'm uncertain, at this point, as to why you seem to be incapable of conceiving of any example of a combination attack/effect that isn't exactly the same thing as Street Fighter.

 

If you simply select your Fighter and run up to an enemy (still using my Super Simple Example), and use Thwack on that enemy, it would not knock him back. You must have stricken him with Smack first, for the combo to actually take place. That, or you could even have a sequence of more than 2 specific attacks/attack-types, resulting in something pretty awesome.

 

Again, I believe the Chanter already uses a similar system. Anywho... that's all the explanation I have in me, for a rudimentary concept. It doesn't have to work exactly like that. It was just a basic idea. You asked for elaboration, and I've elaborated. It is my hope that you have achieved an understanding of my concept now.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We're talking about using a standard attack in a standard time frame, then using a 2nd standard attack in a 2nd time frame but then having a different result."

 

Having a combo attack over different turns? That sounds even worse, especially for new players. They may be doing something and not realising what they did on their previous turn is having an affect on their attacks on the current turn. eg. I did a stun attack but I never choose stun? How did that happen? I could see a combo sheet of moves being shipped with the game. Do X in one turn, then Y in your next turn to produce Z attack. ugh. No, thanks.

This is basically how the Chanter works. Do you hate the Chanter? Also, do you hate Sneak Attack? It almost works the same way. You apply afflictions (just not necessarily with your Rogue), then make a second attack that produces the combo effect Sneak Attack, which happens to deal additional damage.

 

Do you say "yuck, no thanks!" to the Rogue's class function? What about effect combos? If an enemy is first frozen, then stricken with crush damage (for example) and shatters, do you feel the urge to vomit at the thought?


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It's not better in a way that is relevant to basic class distinction to restrict comparisons to roles instead of simply comparing classes. It's not that it's better to specifically refrain from comparing classes with similar roles. It's pretty much unaffected by role.

 

Can you answer the question and show me how a rogue can be a defender?

 

 

Then, tell me, how is a Wizard different from a Rogue? I made that example for a reason, and you didn't even address it. You just came out with "No, you don't know what roles are... here, I'll tell you."

 

Also, the Rogue happens to do lots of damage with Sneak Attack. He could function the same way (when X afflictions, proc Sneak Attack) and instead create lots of debilitating effects with Sneak Attack, or generate lots of buff auras with Sneak Attack, etc. It just so happens that they want his role to be a damager, so his class function boosts damage. Again, his role is completely moot, as it is the fact that he produces SOME effect based on the number of concurrent afflictions a target has that makes him a Rogue, as distinct from some other class.

 

I did address it. And you don't know what roles are which is why I gave you an example of the Rogue. His role is not completely moot. Just because you say it is doesn't mean it is. You're completely wrong on this. The role is important to distinguish the Rogue from a controller or defender or leader.

 

 

Yes, it does damage. I apologize, as I assumed calling it an attack conveyed that it was essentially an active ability that dealt damage. I shouldn't have assumed that, and should have specified.

 

So it is combing two standard attacks, just like I said. Well, you can't do that.

 

 

No, it doesn't. At least, not in the sense you seem to mean. For one thing, I'm not sure how any of this is going to resemble Street Fighter, since there are set recovery times between actions in PoE. That, and, in Street Fighter, a combo attack doesn't produce anything new. It's simply a coincidental chain of attacks. You don't even get a bonus to damage. You just get the satisfaction of having performed a "combo," and of your opponent not having been able to act in the midst of it, I suppose.

 

So, no, I'm not trying to have the Fighter literally combine multiple actions into a single action. It's essentially sequencing. I call it a "combo," however, because the different attacks would produce conditions that allow for the subsequent attack to produce something beyond it's base effect. Really not very much like Street Fighter at all. I'm uncertain, at this point, as to why you seem to be incapable of conceiving of any example of a combination attack/effect that isn't exactly the same thing as Street Fighter.

 

If you simply select your Fighter and run up to an enemy (still using my Super Simple Example), and use Thwack on that enemy, it would not knock him back. You must have stricken him with Smack first, for the combo to actually take place. That, or you could even have a sequence of more than 2 specific attacks/attack-types, resulting in something pretty awesome.

 

Again, I believe the Chanter already uses a similar system. Anywho... that's all the explanation I have in me, for a rudimentary concept. It doesn't have to work exactly like that. It was just a basic idea. You asked for elaboration, and I've elaborated. It is my hope that you have achieved an understanding of my concept now.

 

Combo attacks over different turns. Even worse than attacks during the same turn. As I said in my previous post, trying to work out what attack you made on your previous turn and working out what attack you make on your current turn to produce another type of attack isn't the solution. It's convoluted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is basically how the Chanter works. Do you hate the Chanter? Also, do you hate Sneak Attack? It almost works the same way. You apply afflictions (just not necessarily with your Rogue), then make a second attack that produces the combo effect Sneak Attack, which happens to deal additional damage.

 

Do you say "yuck, no thanks!" to the Rogue's class function? What about effect combos? If an enemy is first frozen, then stricken with crush damage (for example) and shatters, do you feel the urge to vomit at the thought?

 

 

No it's not. It's not the same. That's like saying the Priest who casts Pillar of Faith that prones enemies, also get a second attack. They don't. They get a second attack in their next turn. Well the priests Pillar of Faith can cause the rogue to sneak attack against that prone enemy.

 

And stop with the strawman arguments. It doesn't help your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you answer the question and show me how a rogue can be a defender?

No, because it's an arbitrary question, as I never even claimed it was possible.

 

I did address it. And you don't know what roles are which is why I gave you an example of the Rogue. His role is not completely moot. Just because you say it is doesn't mean it is. You're completely wrong on this. The role is important to distinguish the Rogue from a controller or defender or leader.

No you did not. You didn't even mention anything about a Wizard, or any kind of comparison. You just said "Here, have an explanation of roles" and demonstrated what roles are using the Rogue as an example.

 

If I thought my mere mention of something made it true, I wouldn't have followed up my claim with an explanation of why it wasn't true, and the same rule applies to your words. So, saying you addressed it, and saying I don't know what roles are doesn't make it true. You seem to be arguing against the importance of roles in general, while I am arguing that the specific role you design a class to fill does not inherently determine class distinction. Sure, you can use only roles to differentiate between classes, but that becomes rather boring. Besides, how do you differentiate between multiple classes of the same role group? With something beyond a role, that's how. Which brings us back to my point.

 

The core of class distinction is not "what general combat factor that is common to all classes are you best at?". The core of interesting class distinction, anyway.

 

The Wizard can blast something to kingdom come, and thus does lots of damage. The Rogue can do lots of damage with his Sneak Attack. How does that make the Wizard not a Striker, and not a Rogue? You didn't answer the actually-relevant question.

 

So it is combing two standard attacks, just like I said. Well, you can't do that.

No, and I have no idea how that small quote clarifying that my example ability "smack" deals damage somehow led you to the conclusion that "A-HAH! So I'm correct in the entire process of this combo-ability example!"

 

Combo attacks over different turns. Even worse than attacks during the same turn. As I said in my previous post, trying to work out what attack you made on your previous turn and working out what attack you make on your current turn to produce another type of attack isn't the solution. It's convoluted.

You can actually respond to things other people say, or you can go on repeating yourself and disregarding the fact that anyone has said anything at all. I can assure you, only one of these options is actually constructive.

 

The specific example you're thinking up in your head is convoluted. Why would you have to figure out what it is you did before? Are video games suddenly incapable of indicating things to you?

 

It's no trickier than remembering what 5 different abilities do, then deciding the order in which you wish to use them in combat. If you can remember what Power Attack does, then you can remember that, when the enemy is in A state, Power Attack also does X. Then, you have an attack that puts the enemy into A state, and/or just a status indicator of the state the enemy is in.

 

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Instead of considering the general idea, you're arguing specifically against details I haven't even suggested (such as the player having to solely rely upon memory in order to execute a plethora of tricky combos). If you can conceive of a potential problem with the system, how about putting some of that brainpower to good use thinking of ways around that problem, instead of arbitrarily concluding that there's no hope and the entire concept is doomed because of a mere way in which it could be made horrible.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see Lephys is back in Lephysland. Contradicting himself and talking in circles. You're not answering questions, you're making up stuff on the run and just being argumentative. I clearly stated reasons why combo attacks would be worse for PoE. You can't accept that. I get it.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not. It's not the same. That's like saying the Priest who casts Pillar of Faith that prones enemies, also get a second attack. They don't. They get a second attack in their next turn. Well the priests Pillar of Faith can cause the rogue to sneak attack against that prone enemy.

 

And stop with the strawman arguments. It doesn't help your argument.

I already addressed that. I said that the exception is that the affliction need not be applied by the Rogue, himself. That's the only functional difference. The rudimentary idea is still a combo. Affliction status + Rogue attack = Sneak Attack. The same attack from the Rogue, without the necessary afflictions present, produces no Sneak Attack. Same with the Fighter, only it would be more than binary, and the Fighter would have to produce the conditional status.

 

Or, maybe he gets to take advantage of some other, global statuseseses? Who knows. The idea is just a rough draft.

 

Good to see Lephys is back in Lephysland. Contradicting himself and talking in circles. You're not answering questions, you're making up stuff on the run and just being argumentative. I clearly stated reasons why combo attacks would be worse for PoE. You can't accept that. I get it.

I'm doing neither. I answered all questions except "How can a Rogue be a Defender?", because it might as well have been "Tell me how a Monk can juggle cantaloupes!". All you "clearly stated" was fuzzy, potential ways in which combo attacks could be worse for PoE.

 

Abort, retry, or fail:

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I already addressed that. I said that the exception is that the affliction need not be applied by the Rogue, himself. That's the only functional difference. The rudimentary idea is still a combo. Affliction status + Rogue attack = Sneak Attack. The same attack from the Rogue, without the necessary afflictions present, produces no Sneak Attack. Same with the Fighter, only it would be more than binary, and the Fighter would have to produce the conditional status.

 

Or, maybe he gets to take advantage of some other, global statuseseses? Who knows. The idea is just a rough draft.

 

 

No you didn't. And it's not a combo that the rogue is doing when another class is helping the rogue. If you want the Fighter to produce something defensive before their turn, they can do that already. And that may help with their next turn with another attack. They don't need combo's with X attack from previous turn (eg. prone, stun, paralyse, etc) + Y attack this turn = Z special attack this turn. 

 

If anything, it should be conditions + special attack. And in relation to the Rogue, that's what happens. They either sneak attack or they don't. And if they are sneak attacking, then the Y attack is the sneak attack. If the rogue is flanking, they will always sneak attack. And the sneak attack can depend on encounter start, where they are (flanking) or if a status effect is on the enemy.

 

 

I'm doing neither. I answered all questions except "How can a Rogue be a Defender?", because it might as well have been "Tell me how a Monk can juggle cantaloupes!". All you "clearly stated" was fuzzy, potential ways in which combo attacks could be worse for PoE.

 

Abort, retry, or fail:

 

 

Yes you are. And you haven't answered all my questions. You've just talked past me and come up with your own convoluted examples. I gave reasons and you're now trying to compare a Fighter to a Chanter or whatever class. It won't work.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We're talking about using a standard attack in a standard time frame, then using a 2nd standard attack in a 2nd time frame but then having a different result."

 

Having a combo attack over different turns? That sounds even worse, especially for new players. They may be doing something and not realising what they did on their previous turn is having an affect on their attacks on the current turn. eg. I did a stun attack but I never choose stun? How did that happen? I could see a combo sheet of moves being shipped with the game. Do X in one turn, then Y in your next turn to produce Z attack. ugh. No, thanks. 

New players could easily RTM or figure it out through playing (as they would for any other game mechanic)

Do you really find it that complex?  Seems fairly simple to me - no worse than having 'breach' followed by 'attack' = damage (vs no damage if breach not done first due to stoneskin) in BG2, or 'Timestop' followed by 'attack' = guaranteed hit.  Not for the same reasons but certainly no more complex

 

Good to see Lephys is back in Lephysland. Contradicting himself and talking in circles. You're not answering questions, you're making up stuff on the run and just being argumentative. I clearly stated reasons why combo attacks would be worse for PoE. You can't accept that. I get it.

You 'clearly stated' that you would find it too difficult or that it would be 'like street fighter' - I 'clearly stated' it wasn't (on both counts) - doesn't make you or me right or Lephys wrong.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New players could easily RTM or figure it out through playing (as they would for any other game mechanic)

Do you really find it that complex?  Seems fairly simple to me - no worse than having 'breach' followed by 'attack' = damage (vs no damage if breach not done first due to stoneskin) in BG2, or 'Timestop' followed by 'attack' = guaranteed hit.  Not for the same reasons but certainly no more complex 

 

Those spells are quite intuitive. Breach is to breach defences so everyone that attacks can get their attacks through. Timestop stops everything and your mage is the one on the screen that's moving. That's fairly simple.

 

The Fighter in PoE has abilities that helps themselves or the companions. Knockdown knocks down opponents. That helps the Rogue with sneak attack. Constant recovery recovers stamina to keep the Fighter standing. Into the Fray yanks enemies into melee which protects your back line. Guardian is an ability that increases deflection for allies in a short range.

 

So what extra abilities do you want the Fighter to have? What abilities would help with holding the front line for your party? More status affects like stun, dazed, frozen, etc?  So maybe an attack like if an enemy is prone from the previous turn is hit by the Fighter again, it makes them dazed or stunned? How do you incorporate that into the game?

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Fighter in PoE has abilities that helps themselves or the companions. Knockdown knocks down opponents. That helps the Rogue with sneak attack. Constant recovery recovers stamina to keep the Fighter standing. Into the Fray yanks enemies into melee which protects your back line. Guardian is an ability that increases deflection for allies in a short range.

 

So what extra abilities do you want the Fighter to have? What abilities would help with holding the front line for your party? More status affects like stun, dazed, frozen, etc?  So maybe an attack like if an enemy is prone from the previous turn is hit by the Fighter again, it makes them dazed or stunned? How do you incorporate that into the game?

now we're talkin'!  (And as I said before - I personally think the fighter's ok as is).

So yes, basically like that - not sure about 'frozen' though, may have to let that one go.

You incorporate it into the game the same as any other ability.  If status-X then effect-Y - like sneak attacks.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitting an enemy while prone, stunned, dazed, etc activates the special attack depending on the status. It still feels a little convoluted to me with these special attacks with the Fighter. You're turning it into a Rogue like Fighter with these special attacks. For example:

 

1. No status effects + normal attack = normal damage

 

2. Special attack such as Knockdown power (knocks down enemy, makes them prone). Small amount a damage to enemy. [currently in the game]

 

3. Prone target + hit makes it a special attack (Special attack could be to daze the target?)

 

4. Dazed target + hit makes it a special attack (Special attack could stun the target?)

 

I don't know. It's quite messy. The rogue is easy because the special attack can include the sneak attack. It doesn't change. What proceeds it can be various things. (eg. flanking, hobbled, prone, etc) -> Sneak Attack. And if you do any of the various attacks like crippling strike, riposte, etc and are flanking or the enemy has a status effect that helps with sneak attack, then -> sneak attack.

 

With this proposal for the fighter, it seems to be what proceeds the special attack can be various things leading to various attacks. eg. various things -> various attacks. Putting out different status effects dependant on what proceeded it. While the fighter is defending and holding the line, it's quite hard to follow. The Rogue just puts out extra damage which is what it's supposed to do, being a heavy hitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way for me to explain it is:

 

With my Rogue, I can do various things but ultimately -> I want to be able to sneak attack every time.

With my Fighter, I can do various things but this will -> creates various outcomes.

 

And If I want to stun an opponent with a special attack with my Fighter, I have to go through Knockdown, daze and then stun which is 3 attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It could be simple as knockdown triggering a disengagement attack by the fighter performing the knockdown, no special affliction necessary.  Right now, knockdown only interrupts attacks and is beneficial if you have another character nearby that can attack in the small window that the creature is prone.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it doesn't have to be sequential combos, necessarily. I was just thinking of ways in which the Fighter could mechanically take advantage of combat conditions that other classes do not.

 

I find it kind of interesting the things that can occur in the flow of fighting. That's why I was thinking of combos. "Oh, look, that last blow sent my opponent off-balance. NOW I can take advantage of his crappy footing with this attack that, if he had good footing, wouldn't really give me any advantage." Etc.

 

It's a brainstorming party, Hiro, and you're invited.

 

Also, though, I do think that, if anyone should conditionally produce various status effects, it should be the Rogue. I mentioned before, but I think the concept of Sneak Attack could simply be broadened a bit. It's already conditional (Afflictions? Okay, then SNEAK ATTACK!), so it'd be pretty easy to say "Prone? Okay, then BLEED EFFECT!", or "Dazed? Okay then KNOCKBACK!", etc. That, and you could still have active-use abilities that did this, under whatever specific conditions you wanted (you don't have to have one for each and every affliction present or anything), just so that the Rogue has more in his arsenal than "EXTRA DAMAGE somewhat passively dished out with every attack!", while still keeping with the "The Rogue thrives on the existing afflictions of his target."

 

If that were the case, then the Fighter should probably do something else. Of course, there's still a lot of options available, what with positioning, etc.

 

On a scale of super-micromanagey to pretty passive, the Fighter's decently passive-use, understandably so. So, it just feels like any new mechanic for the fighter should probably coincide with not having to select one of 25 active abilities every time you want to make a tactical choice with him. So I'm just trying to think of passive-ish functions for the Fighter. Stances could still work. Maybe each stance allows for points to accrue towards a specific bonus? In this stance, successful hits increase your chances to interrupt, at 3% per point, up to a total of 5 points, for example. A different stance could increase crit chance, maybe after successful crits, instead of hits? There could be a defensive stance. Whenever something happens, your Deflection gets a boost. Or even DT. etc.

 

So many possibilities. Something like that seems like it'd work pretty well. You actively decide when to use which stance, and how long to remain in it, but it's a simple evaluation of "what will I be doing a lot of, and what will I need?" It would sort of mimic combat rhythm or something, though. Fighting a certain way, as opposed to another way. Defensive stance = you're very focused on defense. If you haven't been fighting like that, it takes a bit to get into "the zone," hence the cumulative points/charges toward that stance. If something happens, and it becomes more prudent to go for a different bonus than to continue building the current one, you can switch stances. Switching loses the previous bonus and resets the charge counter, but you start with 1 charge in the current stance's bonus.

 

*shrug*. Again, any of that could be changed a lot. It's just a rough draft. I'll try to think of something better.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rogue's sneak attack is conditional for a reason. And you can already do those effects like Blind, Hobbled, Bleed (Deep wounds) while sneak attacking and still get a bonus for sneak attack damage. As I said, with my Rogue, I can do various things but ultimately -> I want to be able to sneak attack every time.

 

So I have no idea why you want to bring up something like: "prone? okay bleed effect." That's just way too OP if the game gives you a bleed effect power for free (you have a similar power called Deep Wounds) because an enemy is prone but also gives you sneak attack on top of it. Basically, the game is giving you a free power and you can keep your power in reserve. No, the sneak attack is enough and if you want the enemy to bleed, then you need to use your rogue power to do additional damage. Not because the enemy is under some effect like being prone. You're already getting additional damage with sneak attack. The game doesn't need to give you more damage for free.

 

Also, the fighter is able to increase deflection, increase DT, increase the Fighters attack grazes to hits, increase number of attacks in engagement, increase defences to allies for a short time, makes it more difficult for enemies to score critical hits against them. So your suggestions like deflection boost are already in the game. The argument for combo attacks for the Fighter isn't convincing at the moment and is a mess. If you want to convince people like myself, you'll need to show how this would be implemented and in what circumstances with simple examples. None of these confusing 7 paragraph posts.

 

I made an easy 4 point post showing different types of statuses and effects from damage and even that came across as convoluted. As I said, I want to stun an enemy with my fighter?  I have to go through Knockdown, daze and then stun which is 3 attacks and that is if every preceding status is still in effect with my next turn. As soon as a status changes and I don't get off the next hit, I have to go through it all again. ugh, no.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...