Is it just me or combat is really tedious?

[Killyox]

 

 

 

 

PoE's combat has nothing to do with turn based systems, as it don't even have anything that one could call representing turn let alone having actual turns.

That's actually not the attribute of a turn based system that I'm referring to, ironically enough. Turn based systems are by their nature, methodical and ponderous. Combat in PoE is methodical and ponderous. There's your linkage.

 

 

Turn based systems are system where game flow is partitioned with well-defined and visible parts called turns, nothing more nothing less.  Although turn-based systems can be more complex than real-time systems without causing severe issues in game flow as by nature they have more disjointed game flow.

 

You're missing a detail here. Turn based RPGs pause the game while the player considers and enacts his turn for each party member they control. This is the methodical and ponderous part that I referred to.

 

I've played plenty of turn based video games in my day, that pausing component is a fundamental part of the experience. I liken that experience to the longer pause times that I experience also in PoE.

 

 

No in turn based game there is turns where player can do their actions and then there is turns for other parties usually AI or game master. Turns can consist very simple things like move one game piece to another square. Turn-baseness don't bring anything methodical or ponderous in the game, but turn-based systems allow more complex rules without making game unplayable in extent that most players can't play it.

 

Because of turns there is no pausing in turn based games as time is controlled by turns not by clock.

 

I am sorry but the underlined part is not entirely true.

 

Whether there is pause or not also depends on type of turn-based system.

 

Take Magic the Gathering: Duels of the Planeswalkers for example. There are turns there but also there is pause for enemy to use instant spells.

 

Turn-based is a very loose and arguable term. It doesn't have fixed definition really. It can only be described in general sense. Might and Magic: Heroes VI for example also has turn based combat but based on units and not players. Xcom has turn based combat based on player and AI going one after another. Wasteland 2 has turn based system based on initiative and sequence. There are turns but units with higher initiative act not only sooner but also more often.

 

I am seeing you guys arguing over semantics. What I am getting on with this is that there isn't any point in doing so due to loose nature of the term.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Killyox

[Killyox]

Well, I'm a bit on the basic side when it comes to combat myself (I prefer it to be easier), but I think it's worth mentioning that for PoE to succeed it has to be accessible to a broader base of players than truly hardcore IE fans who have already bought it for the most part.  In that sense I think BG-esque easy trash mobs with more intricate special encounters would be better, with the option of cranking difficulty up to what we're seeing here in the beta if one prefers it. 

It doesn't. That's the point. It was kickstarted and crowdfunded for it to not cather to everyone and their mom but to have a fixed target audience.

 

If Obsidian dumbed the game down just for the sake of cathering to more people, broader audience, like is so popular now with big brands, then it would be the last time they saw my money.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Killyox

[bussinrounds]

 

Well, I'm a bit on the basic side when it comes to combat myself (I prefer it to be easier), but I think it's worth mentioning that for PoE to succeed it has to be accessible to a broader base of players than truly hardcore IE fans who have already bought it for the most part.  In that sense I think BG-esque easy trash mobs with more intricate special encounters would be better, with the option of cranking difficulty up to what we're seeing here in the beta if one prefers it. 

It doesn't. That's the point. It was kickstarted and crowdfunded for it to not cather to everyone and their mom but to have a fixed target audience.

 

If Obsidian dumbed the game down just for the sake of cathering to more people, broader audience, like is so popular now with big brands, then it would be the last time they saw my money.

 

Exactly.  Isn't that what we're trying to get away from here,  having to cater to a broader base of players ?  

 

I don't get it.  Is this the Obsidian boards or the Bioware boards here ?

[Namutree]

 

Well, I'm a bit on the basic side when it comes to combat myself (I prefer it to be easier), but I think it's worth mentioning that for PoE to succeed it has to be accessible to a broader base of players than truly hardcore IE fans who have already bought it for the most part.  In that sense I think BG-esque easy trash mobs with more intricate special encounters would be better, with the option of cranking difficulty up to what we're seeing here in the beta if one prefers it. 

It doesn't. That's the point. It was kickstarted and crowdfunded for it to not cather to everyone and their mom but to have a fixed target audience.

 

If Obsidian dumbed the game down just for the sake of cathering to more people, broader audience, like is so popular now with big brands, then it would be the last time they saw my money.

 

Poe is only supposed to be as difficult as BG2. Even if it were meant to be more challenging (which it isn't), having the trash mobs, special encounters, and bosses be tactically challenging is simply poor game design. It will be mentally draining and the game will feel repetitive since every battle will go on too long and the difficulty won't ever spike thus lacking variety.

 

Not to mention a flat difficulty curve will make special battles less memorable. 

 

Remember that in the IE games the trash mobs died easily. It served the IE games well and poe would be wise to emulate them. 

[archangel979]

D:OS also has trash mob fights and tough fights and after clearing easily few encounters running into that tough fight and going "Oh ****. I need to take this more seriously" you remember the fight much more than if it was just another of the 20 common tough fights. 

[Racker]

 

 

Well, I'm a bit on the basic side when it comes to combat myself (I prefer it to be easier), but I think it's worth mentioning that for PoE to succeed it has to be accessible to a broader base of players than truly hardcore IE fans who have already bought it for the most part.  In that sense I think BG-esque easy trash mobs with more intricate special encounters would be better, with the option of cranking difficulty up to what we're seeing here in the beta if one prefers it. 

It doesn't. That's the point. It was kickstarted and crowdfunded for it to not cather to everyone and their mom but to have a fixed target audience.

 

If Obsidian dumbed the game down just for the sake of cathering to more people, broader audience, like is so popular now with big brands, then it would be the last time they saw my money.

 

Exactly.  Isn't that what we're trying to get away from here,  having to cater to a broader base of players ?  

 

I don't get it.  Is this the Obsidian boards or the Bioware boards here ?

 

 

 

I thought part of the goal was to rekindle interest in IE style RPGs in general.  Anyway, if having an easier difficulty setting is that much of an issue to most backers, than they can do without it, I suppose.  But I believe the game will fail because of it.  

[bussinrounds]

 having the trash mobs, special encounters, and bosses be tactically challenging is simply poor game design. 

 

 

You know there are different degrees of tactically challenging, right ?

Edited September 11, 2014 by bussinrounds

[Namutree]

D:OS also has trash mob fights and tough fights and after clearing easily few encounters running into that tough fight and going "Oh ****. I need to take this more seriously" you remember the fight much more than if it was just another of the 20 common tough fights. 

This. I wish I could give two likes.

[Namutree]

 

 having the trash mobs, special encounters, and bosses be tactically challenging is simply poor game design. 

 

 

You know, there are different degrees of tactically challenging, right ?

 

I know. Even so; the point is valid.

[bussinrounds]

 

 

 having the trash mobs, special encounters, and bosses be tactically challenging is simply poor game design. 

 

 

You know, there are different degrees of tactically challenging, right ?

 

I know. Even so; the point is valid.

 

Ok..cause you guys are making it sound like there's nothing 'in between', fighting a bunch of goblins and fighting beholders.

 

I'm hoping PoE is gonna have good monster variety too, btw.  That's a great thing about d&d games, as opposed to something like Dragon Age. (where you're fighting the same crap like darkspawn over and over)  

Edited September 11, 2014 by bussinrounds

[morhilane]

 

 

Well, I'm a bit on the basic side when it comes to combat myself (I prefer it to be easier), but I think it's worth mentioning that for PoE to succeed it has to be accessible to a broader base of players than truly hardcore IE fans who have already bought it for the most part.  In that sense I think BG-esque easy trash mobs with more intricate special encounters would be better, with the option of cranking difficulty up to what we're seeing here in the beta if one prefers it. 

It doesn't. That's the point. It was kickstarted and crowdfunded for it to not cather to everyone and their mom but to have a fixed target audience.

 

If Obsidian dumbed the game down just for the sake of cathering to more people, broader audience, like is so popular now with big brands, then it would be the last time they saw my money.

 

Poe is only supposed to be as difficult as BG2. Even if it were meant to be more challenging (which it isn't), having the trash mobs, special encounters, and bosses be tactically challenging is simply poor game design. It will be mentally draining and the game will feel repetitive since every battle will go on too long and the difficulty won't ever spike thus lacking variety.

 

Not to mention a flat difficulty curve will make special battles less memorable. 

 

Remember that in the IE games the trash mobs died easily. It served the IE games well and poe would be wise to emulate them. 

 

 

I think you have a skewed memory of BG2 encounters difficulty in your first playthrough. That is the difficulty that PoE should be compared too, not the difficulty after your 10th playthrough of BG2 when you know exactly all encounters and already pillaged the best weapons and armors.

[PrimeJunta]

Right tactic being having a lvl 3 wizard and casting Horror at that group. Very intricate lol..

Yeah, and reload until they fail their saves. :eyeroll:

[Elerond]

 

Because of turns there is no pausing in turn based games as time is controlled by turns not by clock.

I am sorry but the underlined part is not entirely true.

 

Whether there is pause or not also depends on type of turn-based system.

 

Take Magic the Gathering: Duels of the Planeswalkers for example. There are turns there but also there is pause for enemy to use instant spells.

 

Turn-based is a very loose and arguable term. It doesn't have fixed definition really. It can only be described in general sense. Might and Magic: Heroes VI for example also has turn based combat but based on units and not players. Xcom has turn based combat based on player and AI going one after another. Wasteland 2 has turn based system based on initiative and sequence. There are turns but units with higher initiative act not only sooner but also more often.

 

I am seeing you guys arguing over semantics. What I am getting on with this is that there isn't any point in doing so due to loose nature of the term.

 

 

There is nothing loose nature in definition of turn-based games. As it only means that there is turns to tell who's turn it to do something at the moment. 

 

Fact that fps, third person shooters, adventure games, reflex/reaction games, rts, lot of other games use different implementation of real time system don't mean that definition of real time system is obscure.

 

There is also hybrid systems that combine multiple ways to control game flow.

 

Magic the Gathering: Duels of the Planeswalkers don't actually use real time mechanic, but instead of one player can interrupt another player's turn to cast instant spells by taking interrupt turn, which is limited by clock (like all turn in the game), because it has heavy multiplayer focus and developers use timed turns to prevent another player to use tire tactics to make another player to quit the game.

 

Here are some more specific definitions for the terms at question:

 

Real time:

In real-time games, game time progresses continuously according to the game clock. Players perform actions simultaneously as opposed to in sequential units or turns.

 

Turn based:

In turn-based games, game flow is partitioned into well-defined and visible parts, called turns. A player of a turn-based game is allowed a period of analysis (sometimes bounded [meaning for example timed turns like in MtG: DotP], sometimes unbounded) before committing to a game action, ensuring a separation between the game flow and the thinking process.

 

Real time with pause / Pausable real-time:

In real-time games with an active pause system  players are able to pause the game and issue orders such that once a game is un-paused, orders are automatically put into effect.

 

There are more specific definitions for system depending on what sub system they use. This definitions help to differentiate two games that use same overall system, but such specifications aren't usually needed when we speak about real-time vs. turn-based.

[Msxyz]

 

 

 

Well, I'm a bit on the basic side when it comes to combat myself (I prefer it to be easier), but I think it's worth mentioning that for PoE to succeed it has to be accessible to a broader base of players than truly hardcore IE fans who have already bought it for the most part.  In that sense I think BG-esque easy trash mobs with more intricate special encounters would be better, with the option of cranking difficulty up to what we're seeing here in the beta if one prefers it.

 

It doesn't. That's the point. It was kickstarted and crowdfunded for it to not cather to everyone and their mom but to have a fixed target audience.

 

If Obsidian dumbed the game down just for the sake of cathering to more people, broader audience, like is so popular now with big brands, then it would be the last time they saw my money.

Poe is only supposed to be as difficult as BG2. Even if it were meant to be more challenging (which it isn't), having the trash mobs, special encounters, and bosses be tactically challenging is simply poor game design. It will be mentally draining and the game will feel repetitive since every battle will go on too long and the difficulty won't ever spike thus lacking variety.

 

Not to mention a flat difficulty curve will make special battles less memorable. 

 

Remember that in the IE games the trash mobs died easily. It served the IE games well and poe would be wise to emulate them.

 

I think you have a skewed memory of BG2 encounters difficulty in your first playthrough. That is the difficulty that PoE should be compared too, not the difficulty after your 10th playthrough of BG2 when you know exactly all encounters and already pillaged the best weapons and armors.

I reinstalled recenly BG2, after nearly 8 yrs since I had last played it, and I did experience some difficulties at the beginning. However, after a few hours, I felt perfectly in control of my party even if, after all this time and hundreds of games played, I barely rememebered the story. D:OS is also quite brutal with beginners but it's easier to understand the mistakes, feel the 'flow' of the battle, learn the ropes.

 

between the difficulty of understanding what is going on in the screen and the counter intuitive mechanics, I'm finding PoE boring, exhausting and more of a matter of repeating, at each encounter, a sequence of action which I observed to work through sheer trial and error rather than from reason.

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

between the difficulty of understanding what is going on in the screen and the counter intuitive mechanics, I'm finding PoE boring, exhausting and more of a matter of repeating, at each encounter, a sequence of action which I observed to work through sheer trial and error rather than from reason.

 

Sad but true. This is what I'm finding.

[Namutree]

 

Right tactic being having a lvl 3 wizard and casting Horror at that group. Very intricate lol..

Yeah, and reload until they fail their saves. :eyeroll:

 

I just fought them for the first time thanks to this thread. Didn't need to use horror or any other save based power. I just had Ran in my fighter pc and had Edwin use acid arrow on one of the spellcasters to interrupt whatever she was going to do. My main pc attacked the other spell caster and I easily took them all down. It was pretty fun actually. 

 

Thank you guys for mentioning that fight on this thread. As I said before; I didn't know there was a different way out of the mine other than the entrance. This is my 8th game (I think) of BG, and I'm still learning new stuff. Very fun.

 

EDIT: Spelling mistakes were corrected.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Namutree

[IndiraLightfoot]

Msxyz, Monte Carlo and others: No wonder that you find combat boring and exhausting, where you just have to do combat manoeuvres in the dark all the time and hope for the best. You're definitely not alone in this. And after having read Josh's comments on Interrupt and Concentration from Something Awful -Sensuki posted this under a bug thread - Misses causes Interrupts - I am even more convinced that combat is but a dozen of out-of-sync action queues, many of which will be interrupted, only some start over, others forced on you automatically. Read and weep:

"These are the RAW, though I don't currently have the constants handy:

 

 

***

 

Here are the basic mechanics for Interrupt (modified from the attack's Base Interrupt) and Concentration (derived from a constant Base Concentration), which are two opposed values used for determining if someone plays a hit reaction when they take damage. It comes down to a comparison of an Interrupt value (from the attack and attacker's stats) vs. the defenders' Concentration values (from the defender's stats) with a random percentile roll.

 

A hit reaction always stops movement, cooldown timer, reloading, and all other actions. Movement, cooldowns and reloads do not reset but are simply paused and resumed. All other actions (attacks, spells, abilities, etc.) are stopped and must be restarted from the beginning.

 

In general, these values do not scale tremendously over the course of the game. They also are generally applied based on the speed and area of effect of the attack. A fast AoE will have a miniscule Base Interrupt. A slow single-target attack will have a high Base Interrupt.

 

The general rule is this: the slower the attack, the higher the Base Interrupt. The more targets it affects, the lower the Base Interrupt.

 

Interrupt Scale:

[None]
Weakest
Weaker
Weak
Average
Strong
Stronger
Strongest

 

These names are associated with constants. If the constant is adjusted for "Stronger", it will automatically affect everything set to have a Stronger interrupt.

 

Every Attack can have an Interrupt value, though it should be set to [None] unless damage is part of the attack. Note that even if damage is not, in the final tally, applied to the target, it can still be interrupted. However, the attacker must at least score a Graze. The formula for calculating interrupt follows:

Interrupt = Base Interrupt * (1 + [{Perception * 3}/100])

 

The attack roll can further modify this value. The final result increases by 50% if the attack was a Crit and is cut to 50% if the attack was a Graze. Additionally, a Disengagement Attack automatically increases the final result by 50%. A Disengagement Attack that Crits would increase the result by 50%, then that result by 50%.

 

For example, let's say someone attacks with a Sword. The Sword has an Average Base Interrupt. We've defined Average to be 40. The attacker has a Perception of 15. Interrupt = 40 * (1 + [{15*3}/100]) or Interrupt = 40 * 1.45, so Interrupt = 58.

Concentration = Base Concentration * (1 + [{Resolve * 3}/100])

 

Base Concentration is a constant. Let's say it's 50, assuming we want a lower number of Average attacks to call a hit reaction (we may not, which is why this is a constant we can tune). The defender's Resolve is 18. Concentration = 50 * (1 + [{18*3}/100]) or Concentration = 50 * 1.54, so Concentration = 77.

 

To call a hit reaction, the percentile roll needs to be 51 or higher. The roll is 1-100 + Interrupt - Concentration. In this case, it's 1-100 + 58 - 77. It's kinda hard to call a reaction (only on 70 or higher), but it wouldn't be rare.

 

Now let's say with the same characters an attacker is using Stilettos with Weak Base Interrupt. We define Weak as being 30, so the Interrupt is 44 (43.5). With a compared 77 Concentration, the roll now needs to be an 84 or higher to call an Interrupt!

 

If the attacker really wants to call an reaction, he or she may use a Morning Star, which has a Strong Base Interrupt (50). This results in a 77 Interrupt, which exactly matches the 77 Concentration. A roll of 51 or higher (half of all Hits) will call a reaction. On a Crit, the Interrupt is increased to 116 (115.5), meaning even a roll of 12 would call a reaction! A Crit Disengagement Attack would do it every single time, though obvious those attacks have to be provoked.

 

Magical weapons can have a special property (called Superior Interruption) that bumps their set/listed Base Interrupt rating up by one category. E.g., a Stiletto would be set to Weak but be bumped to Average.

Magical items (of any sort, but usually armor) and spells/abilities can have a special property, called Interrupting, that adds to the modifier normally calculated from Perception. This adds directly into the percentage increase of the Base Interrupt. Conversely, they can have a property called Concentrating that specifically adds to the modifier normally calculated from Resolve."

 

Intuitive, no?

 

Here I thought I was a nerd loving complex RPGs, with random tables, dice and plenty of rules for everything, but I'm most humbled now.

Edited September 12, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Hiro Protagonist II]

And you have people complaining about THAC0.

[archangel979]

This is what that article I posted talked about. Developers being obsessed with complex mechanics and 2% here or there instead of focusing on fun design...

 

Ok, lets look how a similar mechanic works in D&D 5. You receive damage and half that damage is number you need to roll on 1 to 20 roll or you need to roll 10 or more (whichever is higher). Your Constitution gives you bonus on this roll (from +1 to +5). If you fail, you lose the spell. 

 

A simpler mechanics like this can be easily put into PoE that uses DT system for armors. You give high interrupt weapons bonus interrupt damage that is just counted to increase this difficulty for the random roll (in case you do at least 1 damage to enemy). So if you attack with Morningstar and do 20 damage but DT reduces that by 5 you do 15 but as a high interrupt weapon it adds +7 and damage (real damage to stamina is still 15) is 22 so DC 11 on a roll (in this case on 1 to 20 scale but for PoE that would be 1 to 100 once these numbers are adjusted for d100). 

Edited September 12, 2014 by archangel979

[Doppelschwert]

What exactly is unintuitive about interruption?

 

When you hit someone, you have a chance to ministun them. Active stuff is resetted, the rest is paused. Different stuff ministuns you for different periods. You can influence the likelihood via stats.

 

OH MY GOD CALL THE HOSPITAL MY HEAD IS GONNA EXPLODE - seriously?

 

It's not even like you need to know the actual numbers, as the descriptors are all pretty self-explanatory.

[archangel979]

They added a whole new mechanics and number system that ignores damage done and armor reduction of that damage and they calculate interrupts based on that needlessly complicated system. That is not needed or realistic. Morning Star that cannot pass your armor is not better at interrupting than a dagger that just pierced your eye for massive damage. 

 

This is just another of the game mechanics that is implemented just because. At this point I wish they more closely copied 4e D&D as this is becoming crazy stupid. 

Edited September 12, 2014 by archangel979

[IndiraLightfoot]

Doppelschwert:  What archangel979 just said. And it's all obscure and extremely complicated to keep track of, even at a point in time when you happened to pause the game. It's all redundant and superfluous. Interrupt can be done so much simpler, as in for instance the D&D5 example. people want slighty simpler and cleaner system, with feedback that they can understand. Sure, you can hide a lot under the hood or some blax box, but the more you hide, the more frustrating in a RPG combat system that is meant to be transparent. There are of course lots of PnP RPGs, where all numbers and mechanics are hidden and at GMs discretion only. However, this is a computer game. 

[archangel979]

Basing interrupts on damage done is way more intuitive than some crazy system based on type of weapon only. They don't even need to change how the bonus from Perception and Resolve works, just change that 50 into damage done. Than you can still have armors that give a bonus to interrupt or to concentration. 

 

EDIT: And they don't even need to add different interrupt bonuses for weapons, just have amors have different DT vs different type of weapons which is both realistic and intuitive. So with some weapons you will be able to do more damage depending on armor and have a higher chance at interrupt. 

Edited September 12, 2014 by archangel979

[Hiro Protagonist II]

The Pillars of Eternity table top game - includes charts, graphs and Calculator.

[Arsene Lupin]

I'm not sure how I feel about combat.

 

I think, perhaps, it's still a little too fast.

 

Beyond that, I think it suffers from two chief problems:

 

1. The experience abstraction makes combat less interesting/rewarding. When my party kills an ogre in a fit of martial skill and courage, nothing changes--they are no stronger or more "experienced" after the fight than before. The "reality" that the XP system abstracts is that each party member became more experienced from the combat--but this is not reflected in the mechanics. Instead, that combat "experience" is arbitrarily tied to the quest system, which results in the counter-intuitive effect of becoming more experienced not through actual experience, but through the recognition of random people (NPCs). This baffling inconsistency robs combat of the immediacy and importance it ought to have.

 

2. The unnecessary abstraction of health into two different stats. "Health" and "Stamina." And then, of course, their counter-intuitive reversal. Stamina is reduced when you take damage/wounds (which makes zero sense: health should be the value that decreases when a sword cleaves through your shoulder, not stamina); the health stat is seemingly reduced at random, and seems to be more an abstraction of stamina than health (as once your health--stamina--is depleted you can no longer fight).

 

The fact that these two integral aspects of combat are more than unintuitive, but counter-intuitive, really destroys the experience.

 

......

 

But they can be fixed, though whether or not Obsidian is willing to do so remains to be seen.

 

First: experience should be earned for killing enemies. It can be weighed less or more than quest EXP, or it can scale to discourage "grinding" (which no matter what I'm told is something I refuse to believe anyone ever did with any Infinity Engine game), but it most certainly NEEDS to exist.

 

Second: the dual health abstractions need to be completely overhauled. Make health represent health--when you take damage, you lose health. And you should ONLY have to worry about health depleting from damage. It makes no sense to have two different stats that are susceptible to "damage." Keep stamina, but make it represent stamina--have its depletion occur NOT as a result of damage, but as a result of action. IE it decays over time--slowly during normal gameplay, faster during combat. Total stamina would be dependent on player stats. When stamina reaches zero, the characters should become "exhaused" and receive numerous (temporary) penalties that persist until they rest at an inn or camp.

 

These seem like very obvious solutions to very obvious problems to me, which begs the question: why weren't they implemented ages ago?