Is Obsidian trying to rush this game?

[Infinitron]

There was good reason to worry about the systems, mechanics and ruleset back then. And the beta confirms this.

 

 

 

Not really. The beta's problems have little do with rules and everything to do with implementation and "feels". The principles of "Sawyerism" (by which I mean things like class balance, "gamist" attribute design, etc) have little bearing on issues like animation and visual feedback, combat speed, pathfinding, etc.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Infinitron

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Is that you Roguey?

[Immortalis]

 

There was good reason to worry about the systems, mechanics and ruleset back then. And the beta confirms this.

 

 

 

Not really. The beta's problems have little do with rules and everything to do with implementation and "feels". The principles of "Sawyerism" (by which I mean things like class balance, "gamist" attribute design, etc) have little bearing on issues like animation and visual feedback, combat speed, pathfinding, etc.

 

 

I disagree.. I think game design greatly effects things like combat and pacing and "feels".. Adding abilities, cooldowns, changing the pacing of combat all for balance reasons will also effect how the game plays and the player feedback you get.

 

They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Infinitron]

Obviously, but nevertheless I think the amount of complaints you're going to see about "OMG, MIGHT AFFECTS BOW DAMAGE, THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, THIS MUST BE WHY THE COMBAT ISN'T FUN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION BETWEEN THOSE THINGS" is going to plummet once the visual and feels issues are sorted out.

 

Also, at the risk of drifting off into the hypothetical, it's almost certain that every possible designer this game could have had would have added more abilities to formerly purely passive classes, not just Josh Sawyer. That's the direction that D&D itself has been going. In fact, it probably could have been a lot more extreme. Josh at least acknowledges the fact that some classes should be more passive than others, even if they aren't as passive as you want.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Infinitron

[archangel979]

Obviously, but nevertheless I think the amount of complaints you're going to get about "OMG, MIGHT AFFECTS BOW DAMAGE, THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, THIS MUST BE WHY THE COMBAT ISN'T FUN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION BETWEEN THOSE THINGS" is going to plummet once the visual and feels issues are sorted out.

 

Also, at the risk of drifting off into the hypothetical, it's almost certain that every possible designer this game could have had would have added more abilities to formerly purely passive classes, not just Josh Sawyer. That's the direction that D&D itself has been going. In fact, it probably could have been a lot more extreme. Josh at least acknowledges the fact that some classes should be more passive than others, even if they aren't as passive as you want.

Pathfinder added active abilities through feats.

5e added fighter subtypes where some are passive and some have active abilities so they catered to both type of players.

OE can do the same.

[Elerond]

 

Obviously, but nevertheless I think the amount of complaints you're going to get about "OMG, MIGHT AFFECTS BOW DAMAGE, THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, THIS MUST BE WHY THE COMBAT ISN'T FUN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION BETWEEN THOSE THINGS" is going to plummet once the visual and feels issues are sorted out.

 

Also, at the risk of drifting off into the hypothetical, it's almost certain that every possible designer this game could have had would have added more abilities to formerly purely passive classes, not just Josh Sawyer. That's the direction that D&D itself has been going. In fact, it probably could have been a lot more extreme. Josh at least acknowledges the fact that some classes should be more passive than others, even if they aren't as passive as you want.

Pathfinder added active abilities through feats.

5e added fighter subtypes where some are passive and some have active abilities so they catered to both type of players.

OE can do the same.

 

 

They can, but is there any more compelling reason to do so than catering hypothetical groups of players that may or may not exists in meaningful scale? Meaning is there some reason from point of view game mechanics or gameplay that would be better with such approach instead of going with quite low maintenance (singular active ability and some modal abilities) build that can be made more high maintenance with feats by adding more modal and active abilities, even though current set of feats don't yet convey this fully (but at least it is or has been the plan to give fighters such feats)?  So is the point that fighters should be even more passive in their basic build or do you only feel that there isn't enough feats that give fighters more active abilities?

[morhilane]

 

Also, at the risk of drifting off into the hypothetical, it's almost certain that every possible designer this game could have had would have added more abilities to formerly purely passive classes, not just Josh Sawyer. That's the direction that D&D itself has been going. In fact, it probably could have been a lot more extreme. Josh at least acknowledges the fact that some classes should be more passive than others, even if they aren't as passive as you want.

 

It's not hypothetical, players have been requesting more and more actives for years. Just go into the Fighter and Rogue are boring thread in the Gameplay & Mechanics sub-forums and read some of the posts there to see such requests.

 

A small part of me think that WoW is to blame for that, it made a lots of new gamers believe that having 30+ active abilities was how a cRPGs was supposed to be played (even if you technically use only like 5 of them).

[archangel979]

 

 

 

Obviously, but nevertheless I think the amount of complaints you're going to get about "OMG, MIGHT AFFECTS BOW DAMAGE, THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, THIS MUST BE WHY THE COMBAT ISN'T FUN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION BETWEEN THOSE THINGS" is going to plummet once the visual and feels issues are sorted out.

 

Also, at the risk of drifting off into the hypothetical, it's almost certain that every possible designer this game could have had would have added more abilities to formerly purely passive classes, not just Josh Sawyer. That's the direction that D&D itself has been going. In fact, it probably could have been a lot more extreme. Josh at least acknowledges the fact that some classes should be more passive than others, even if they aren't as passive as you want.

Pathfinder added active abilities through feats.

5e added fighter subtypes where some are passive and some have active abilities so they catered to both type of players.

OE can do the same.

They can, but is there any more compelling reason to do so than catering hypothetical groups of players that may or may not exists in meaningful scale? Meaning is there some reason from point of view game mechanics or gameplay that would be better with such approach instead of going with quite low maintenance (singular active ability and some modal abilities) build that can be made more high maintenance with feats by adding more modal and active abilities, even though current set of feats don't yet convey this fully (but at least it is or has been the plan to give fighters such feats)? So is the point that fighters should be even more passive in their basic build or do you only feel that there isn't enough feats that give fighters more active abilities?

I feel PoE should give its backers a way to play the game similarly to IE games where some classes were very low maintenance while also providing active abilities for newer players. It does not need to be through feets but through multiple choice of class abilities during level up.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Obviously, but nevertheless I think the amount of complaints you're going to get about "OMG, MIGHT AFFECTS BOW DAMAGE, THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, THIS MUST BE WHY THE COMBAT ISN'T FUN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION BETWEEN THOSE THINGS" is going to plummet once the visual and feels issues are sorted out.

 

Also, at the risk of drifting off into the hypothetical, it's almost certain that every possible designer this game could have had would have added more abilities to formerly purely passive classes, not just Josh Sawyer. That's the direction that D&D itself has been going. In fact, it probably could have been a lot more extreme. Josh at least acknowledges the fact that some classes should be more passive than others, even if they aren't as passive as you want.

Pathfinder added active abilities through feats.

5e added fighter subtypes where some are passive and some have active abilities so they catered to both type of players.

OE can do the same.

They can, but is there any more compelling reason to do so than catering hypothetical groups of players that may or may not exists in meaningful scale? Meaning is there some reason from point of view game mechanics or gameplay that would be better with such approach instead of going with quite low maintenance (singular active ability and some modal abilities) build that can be made more high maintenance with feats by adding more modal and active abilities, even though current set of feats don't yet convey this fully (but at least it is or has been the plan to give fighters such feats)? So is the point that fighters should be even more passive in their basic build or do you only feel that there isn't enough feats that give fighters more active abilities?

I feel PoE should give its backers a way to play the game similarly to IE games where some classes were very low maintenance while also providing active abilities for newer players. It does not need to be through feets but through multiple choice of class abilities during level up.

 

 

So you feel that fighters (and some other classes) in PoE are currently too high maintenance by default?

[archangel979]

I don't have access to beta so my info comes from watching Streams, youtube videos and comments from people that do play it (which is why I don't ever comment on quests and art as I only look out for mechanics and how combat works and looks).

 

I feel that the game will work better if the party can consist of low and high maintenance characters as it makes the combat faster and less taxing. D:OS is high maintenance with all character but that is a turn based game and it works well there.

 

But since some people are screaming that "boring" classes from IE games need more active abilities, best thing OE can do is offer both kind of abilities to "boring" classes from IE games and let their player base choose at each level up if they want to focus their fighters, rogue, paladins, monks and such more into low or high maintenance characters. Implementing passive bonuses at level up should not be hard and it is a win win for all.

[Lephys]

It's not hypothetical, players have been requesting more and more actives for years. Just go into the Fighter and Rogue are boring thread in the Gameplay & Mechanics sub-forums and read some of the posts there to see such requests.

 

A small part of me think that WoW is to blame for that, it made a lots of new gamers believe that having 30+ active abilities was how a cRPGs was supposed to be played (even if you technically use only like 5 of them).

This is true, but I think "just slap on like 30 active abilities!" is equally as preposterous as "just give 'em more defense, attacks, and chance to hit, and call it a day!".

 

"More passive" doesn't have to mean "just a blob of combat factor values that increase over time."

 

And no, I don't think "You can use knockdown if you want!" helps all that much. Modals are a really good choice, though, I think. But, the thing is, you still have to actively toggle them. So... is that a foul? Defender is a pretty great example of what makes the Fighter passive-yet-interesting, because it actually alters the mechanics of how he's fighting, via engagement, instead of JUST boosting numerical values.

 

The "Indominable" and other such modals from Dragon Age: Origins were actually pretty great in that regard, too, because they were tactically useful.

 

Simply put, just because Fighters shouldn't have spellbooks full of abilities doesn't mean they shouldn't have a lot of options available to them in combat. If you just want to set 5 things and never change them, that's fine. You can always use them more passively without having to strip the options away from them. And you don't have to add a ton of active-use abilities just to provide options.

[Captain Shrek]

 

 

Also, at the risk of drifting off into the hypothetical, it's almost certain that every possible designer this game could have had would have added more abilities to formerly purely passive classes, not just Josh Sawyer. That's the direction that D&D itself has been going. In fact, it probably could have been a lot more extreme. Josh at least acknowledges the fact that some classes should be more passive than others, even if they aren't as passive as you want.

 

It's not hypothetical, players have been requesting more and more actives for years. Just go into the Fighter and Rogue are boring thread in the Gameplay & Mechanics sub-forums and read some of the posts there to see such requests.

 

A small part of me think that WoW is to blame for that, it made a lots of new gamers believe that having 30+ active abilities was how a cRPGs was supposed to be played (even if you technically use only like 5 of them).

 

eh?

 

I never played wow and I still feel that Fighters and Rogues in cRPGs are boring. And I need to highlight that, that they are boring in COMPUTER GAMES derived from PnP. In fact fighters and rogues (especially the latter) are great in PnP. I have been playing a Rogue for ages in my earlier campaigns and they get a lot of tactical choices either in the social scenario or the combat one through magic items, traps etc.

 

None of these are even close to relevant in cRPGs. 

[sb5]

I wonder if the forum people at obsidian make a statistic after the game has been released, kinda like "...and 50% of the postings in the backer forums consisted of pointless flames and man tears."

[archangel979]

I never played wow and I still feel that Fighters and Rogues in cRPGs are boring. And I need to highlight that, that they are boring in COMPUTER GAMES derived from PnP. In fact fighters and rogues (especially the latter) are great in PnP. I have been playing a Rogue for ages in my earlier campaigns and they get a lot of tactical choices either in the social scenario or the combat one through magic items, traps etc.

 

None of these are even close to relevant in cRPGs.

Good thing you are not playing a rogue or a fighter in IE type cRPG then, but you are playing the whole party. It is unfair to compare the experience of playing a single character both in such a computer game and PnP to a party based game.

[Lephys]

I wonder if the forum people at obsidian make a statistic after the game has been released, kinda like "...and 50% of the postings in the backer forums consisted of pointless flames and man tears."

There'd probably be one for "pointless posts pointing out the pointlessness of other posts."

[Karkarov]

 

A small part of me think that WoW is to blame for that, it made a lots of new gamers believe that having 30+ active abilities was how a cRPGs was supposed to be played (even if you technically use only like 5 of them).

I never played wow and I still feel that Fighters and Rogues in cRPGs are boring. And I need to highlight that, that they are boring in COMPUTER GAMES derived from PnP. In fact fighters and rogues (especially the latter) are great in PnP. I have been playing a Rogue for ages in my earlier campaigns and they get a lot of tactical choices either in the social scenario or the combat one through magic items, traps etc.

Actually I have played a ton of MMO's and I can tell you playing a "Warrior" tank in WoW is one of the least boring things you can do in a MMO.  It required a reasonable set of abilities, but you had to use most of them constantly, there was tons of movement in any fight that wasn't throw away, and many of your abilities were positioning or reactive based so you had to pay some level of attention to what was going on to use them correctly.

 

Playing a fighter in BG1?  Yeah, that is some boring stuff.

[archangel979]

 

 

A small part of me think that WoW is to blame for that, it made a lots of new gamers believe that having 30+ active abilities was how a cRPGs was supposed to be played (even if you technically use only like 5 of them).

I never played wow and I still feel that Fighters and Rogues in cRPGs are boring. And I need to highlight that, that they are boring in COMPUTER GAMES derived from PnP. In fact fighters and rogues (especially the latter) are great in PnP. I have been playing a Rogue for ages in my earlier campaigns and they get a lot of tactical choices either in the social scenario or the combat one through magic items, traps etc.

Actually I have played a ton of MMO's and I can tell you playing a "Warrior" tank in WoW is one of the least boring things you can do in a MMO.  It required a reasonable set of abilities, but you had to use most of them constantly, there was tons of movement in any fight that wasn't throw away, and many of your abilities were positioning or reactive based so you had to pay some level of attention to what was going on to use them correctly.

 

Playing a fighter in BG1?  Yeah, that is some boring stuff.

 

Good thing you can play up to 6 characters in BG and not just your fighter. And managing the whole party is way more fun than playing one in MMO (unless you prefer playing with other people more than single player games)

[Monte Carlo]

^ It's a good point. Managing six low-medium maintenance characters in an IE game can be surprisingly micro-intensive. Timing attacks, abilities, spells, buffs, potions etc.

 

One of my initial problems with PoE is what I'll call Ability Shock. Five characters, all of whom appear to have the same level of powaz as a medium level IE game spellcaster. It can be a handful to manage, not least with speed of combat, dog-piling etc.

 

I'd like one or two low maintenance classes at least, personally. A nice selection of low-maintenance modal, and lots of passives can still allow you to customise that character.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

^ It's a good point. Managing six low-medium maintenance characters in an IE game can be surprisingly micro-intensive. Timing attacks, abilities, spells, buffs, potions etc.

 

One of my initial problems with PoE is what I'll call Ability Shock. Five characters, all of whom appear to have the same level of powaz as a medium level IE game spellcaster. It can be a handful to manage, not least with speed of combat, dog-piling etc.

 

I'd like one or two low maintenance classes at least, personally. A nice selection of low-maintenance modal, and lots of passives can still allow you to customise that character.

I've been fairly successful with playing Fighters low maintenance. Activate Defender and occasionally use knockdown or the other thing when needed. I believe Paladins are also capable of effective low-maintenance.

[wanderon]

 

^ It's a good point. Managing six low-medium maintenance characters in an IE game can be surprisingly micro-intensive. Timing attacks, abilities, spells, buffs, potions etc.

 

One of my initial problems with PoE is what I'll call Ability Shock. Five characters, all of whom appear to have the same level of powaz as a medium level IE game spellcaster. It can be a handful to manage, not least with speed of combat, dog-piling etc.

 

I'd like one or two low maintenance classes at least, personally. A nice selection of low-maintenance modal, and lots of passives can still allow you to customise that character.

I've been fairly successful with playing Fighters low maintenance. Activate Defender and occasionally use knockdown or the other thing when needed. I believe Paladins are also capable of effective low-maintenance.

 

 

I agree - the barbarian as well and to a somewhat lesser degree the rogue.

[Craptrain]

^ It's a good point. Managing six low-medium maintenance characters in an IE game can be surprisingly micro-intensive. Timing attacks, abilities, spells, buffs, potions etc.

 

One of my initial problems with PoE is what I'll call Ability Shock. Five characters, all of whom appear to have the same level of powaz as a medium level IE game spellcaster. It can be a handful to manage, not least with speed of combat, dog-piling etc.

 

I'd like one or two low maintenance classes at least, personally. A nice selection of low-maintenance modal, and lots of passives can still allow you to customise that character.

This was always my view on the game.  I looked at it as not controlling a single character, but controlling an entire party.  In fact, I rarely plan a single character and instead plan parties that I think are fun.

 

With players like me in mind, having a number of lower maintenance classes is certainly a positive.

[gkathellar]

^ It's a good point. Managing six low-medium maintenance characters in an IE game can be surprisingly micro-intensive. Timing attacks, abilities, spells, buffs, potions etc.

 

One of my initial problems with PoE is what I'll call Ability Shock. Five characters, all of whom appear to have the same level of powaz as a medium level IE game spellcaster. It can be a handful to manage, not least with speed of combat, dog-piling etc.

 

I'd like one or two low maintenance classes at least, personally. A nice selection of low-maintenance modal, and lots of passives can still allow you to customise that character.

 

Well, you're also starting at level 5 with 5 characters in the beta. It might be easier with a learning curve, both in terms of level (complexity) and number of characters.

[Quantics]

 

One of my initial problems with PoE is what I'll call Ability Shock. Five characters, all of whom appear to have the same level of powaz as a medium level IE game spellcaster. It can be a handful to manage, not least with speed of combat, dog-piling etc.

 

 

(I've never played the beta but) That's also the impression I had by watching the gameplay videos. 

 

As an observer combat appeared particularly un-fun (as in, not fluid at all), and it was extremely hard to follow which player was inflicting what damage.

 

 

 

 

 

Fair disclosure, the last game I played is Diablo 3 so it might explain why I was so shocked   

Edited October 7, 2014 by Quantics

[Lephys]

Well, you're also starting at level 5 with 5 characters in the beta. It might be easier with a learning curve, both in terms of level (complexity) and number of characters.

True that. Take someone who's new to D&D, and give them a party of Level 5 adventurers, then see if they're overwhelmed or not.

[talharbash]

Wasteland 2 release is Wasteland 2 beta

 

Do you see a pattern?