Out of combat buffs

[Sensuki]

They've also massively nerfed most durations of spells in v301. They used to be really, really freaking long.

[Captain Shrek]

The duration argument is also a pretty bad one. It does not matter how long the buff is, the real question is what does it replace. Does it mean that you can't use one of your other spells which matters in the battle? And if a single buff is SO useful that it is always good to have it? Those are the questions which need to be addressed. Now, of course if the buff duration is 24 hours then that is a badly designed duration. But if it lasts a 1o mins, then it is quite okay. 

[Sensuki]

If it's a per-rest buff then it is an opportunity cost - one less spell taken from the level.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[Quetzalcoatl]

 

Really? I see maybe one or two posters in support of pre-buffing and the rest expressing they don't like it.

 

Yes really. There's more than one or two. Go count again.

 

What kind of response is this? If you make a statement, you have to back it up with something. You've refused to do so several times now, which tells me you aren't really convinced of your own arguments. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

What kind of response is this? If you make a statement, you have to back it up with something. You've refused to do so several times now, which tells me you aren't really convinced of your own arguments.  

 

LOL. Seriously? You were the one who made the statement of one or two posters. Go back it up. It tells me you aren't convinced of your own argument.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Namutree]

If it's a per-rest buff then it is an opportunity cost - one less spell taken from the level.

Exactly. This is why only buffs like stoneskin bother me.

[Labadal]

For those that don't like buffing pre-combat, it wouldn't hurt your enjoyment of the game if it was allowed in Pillars of Eternity. If you don't like to do it, you don't have to.

 

I would like to see the option implemented before release.

[Namutree]

For those that don't like buffing pre-combat, it wouldn't hurt your enjoyment of the game if it was allowed in Pillars of Eternity. If you don't like to do it, you don't have to.

 

I would like to see the option implemented before release.

As long as spells like stoneskin or ghost-armor aren't in the game. Those spells wreck balance. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Some examples would help. Bad-mouthing people without evidence is generally considered bad form. 

 

Feigned ignorance is also bad form. Or are you just that forgetful you can't remember what you post. 

 

Until you fill up the bestiary, yes. Or, if you figure that there are plenty of spiders, you might skip them figuring that you'll fill up the bestiary later. Or, if it's ogres and there happens to be a nonviolent way to deal with a particular ogre, you might do that figuring that you'll always fill the bestiary entry on ogres later.

 

So yes it does TOO mitigate the grind for XP. Nyah. 

 

It doesn't mitigate the grind xp. If I know I can go to this cave, this cliff face and this other place and can get xp by killing critters, level up and then tackle a boss, you won't think I won't do it? And the same with other players? Checks character sheet, nearly levelled up. Goes off to grind xp, kills a whole heap of critters, receives kill xp bestiary pages, levels up and then goes to tackle the boss. Seriously. 

 

Which introduces an inconsistency into the way the world behaves: why are these characters unkillable, while those aren't? I'm a tiny bit bothered by things like this. Aren't you? 

 

The IE games had unkillable NPCs. And some walked away and disappeared. You now have a problem with this? NPCs walking away and disappearing out of a door? Also, I gave other suggestions for not going back and killing quest givers. Kill a quest giver, receive no xp and take a reputation hit. No problem with that.

 

Yep, it does show that there's a lack of 'something' there. I did not expect to feel that when playing the BB, but there it is. I think it's a clever and non-shoddy solution to the problem, though. 

 

It's not clever and it is shoddy. 

 

This, I think, illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding, and perhaps a fundamental difference in which we view the whole game.

 

None of my objections to any particular mechanic are fundamental and inflexible. I object to mechanics because of the effects they have on gameplay. In particular, when discussing XP mechanics, incentive effects. I do not object to kill XP because "kill XP is bad." I object to it because it incentivizes boring, repetitive behavior (grinding) and favors some approaches over others (solving problems by murdering things rather than other ways). If these problems are resolved or greatly mitigated without introducing other, equally serious or worse problems, I'm happy.

 

Bestiary XP does address both of these problems, as long as it's appropriately balanced with the number of critters around. If, say, killing at most a quarter of each type of critter will fill it up, then the incentive to go around murdering things isn't all that big, but you still get that nice little feeling of progressing through combat. It's a win-win. 

 

Bestiary xp is a shoddy implementaion of kill xp, a poor halfway measure to appease the kill xp crowd. It also comes across as a poor bribe to get people into combat instead of leaving maps half unexplored due to no xp rewards in going to the other end of the map and engaging in combat.

 

The Ogre cave is one example where I only engage two spiders to get to the Ogre and I leave the rest of the spiders alone. The rewards are poor if I do engage them and I lose resources like health as well as possible per rest abilities and spells. The same with Dyrford Crossing. I leave half the beetles alive, the wolves can keep their shelter in the corner ruins, the wyrms can fly around all they like and the other critters (can't remember them, I think they were shambling mounds or something) can keep to themselves. If I already have those bestiary pages, then I'm not going to bother them and the map can stay half unexplored. Similar with the Gorge map.

 

 

Uh, Hiro. By "evidence" I meant something I have said, not something you have said.

 

And I am not feigning ignorance. As stated, I have based on my idea of what the fighter was going to be like on the paragraphs I quoted in the above post. Clearly this vision shifted over the course of development, and I objected to that shift. 

 

I did post something you said. What I posted has your post in my response. And the vision has NOT shifted AT ALL over the course of development. As I pointed out to your post with my responses, the Fighter has always been envisioned as such. You've assumed something that isn't there, agreed with all the updates, and since the beta has come out you've gone WTF? Well it's all there in the updates. The Fighter is as it's been envisioned and has followed everything to a tee with the updates. No Shift at all.  So if you are objecting, then you are objecting to something you made up in your own mind right from the start.  

 

Well, that's what I've been talking about. 

 

Well then talk with Namutree because I haven't been talking about 24hr buffs and never brought it up. 

 

Yes, if it is possible to go into combat with 5-8 pre-buffs active, and those pre-buffs last long enough to make a significant impact, then I am not OK with it. I would be OK with one or two lasting maybe halfway through the encounter.

 

Once again: I do not object to pre-buffs qua pre-buffs. I object to them if they promote rote (=cast the same set of long-duration buffs on every rest) or cheesy (=go into combat, find out what you're facing, die, reload, prebuff with the appropriate counters, win) gameplay. Short durations and buffs with more in-combat utility (e.g. "suppress hostile status effects") greatly mitigate both of the problems. Under these circumstances, my objection is no longer relevant and I withdraw it.

 

And, once again: if, indeed, buff durations are or can be long enough that pre-buffing becomes cheesy or rote again, then my objection applies again, and I would prefer that pre-buffing is not allowed.

 

This is how I form my opinions on the game. This is also how my preferences on particular mechanics shift. It's contextual. I like combat XP in NetHack. I wouldn't like it in P:E. I would like pre-buffing if there are significant-enough limitations on it that it doesn't become rote or cheesy, but would not like it if buffs are powerful and long-duration enough to turn it into rote or cheese. How hard is this to understand?

 

Edit: missed the last bit about the fighter. I read that original description as describing someone who's quite versatile in combat -- high-damage, high-defense, ranged, melee. I have based my ideas on the class on that idea. It is of course possible that I've entirely misunderstood it, in which case my views have been based on that misunderstanding. It's clear that one of us has, if you think the BB fighter fits that original description. However, I don't think I misunderstood it. When I read those paragraphs now, they still appear to describe someone a great deal more versatile than the specialized tank in the BB. 

 

It's not only possible to go into battle with 5, 6 or 8 pre-buffs and all active for a considerable amount of time during the encounter, but I can work out how to go into battle with more than that. But that's okay, I'll let you argue for pre-buffs. As I said before, it is funny seeing people who argued against this now arguing for this.

 

And I'm not talking about people (eg. Sensuki) who had no problem with pre-buffs which seemed to be a minority on this forum some time ago. I've talking about those who opposed pre-buffs who have now back flipped.

[PrimeJunta]

@Hiro, snipping out the quoting because the editor makes it so difficult. Instead, addressing point by point.

First off, if you have a personal problem with me, please DM and we'll see if we can sort it out. Otherwise I would really appreciate if you'd knock off the unsubstantiated accusations like "feigned ignorance" and the rest. If you don't, I'll have to conclude that you're among the people not worth talking with.

Now, to the substance.

 

1. Look up "mitigate," since you clearly don't appear to understand what it means.

 

2. I was bothered by disappearing and unkillable NPC's, magically in-teleporting enemies, set pieces where you were popped in the middle of a group of enemies etc. in the IE games. I would prefer producing the desired effects without these kinds of kludges. I would be mildly bothered by them if they're used in P:E as well.

 

3. Re the ogre cave: aren't you contradicting yourself here? Earlier you were arguing that bestiary XP is just like kill XP, here you're arguing that the incentives are, in fact, different. Which is precisely the point I'm making -- why I'm against kill XP but for bestiary XP. Which is it?

 

4. Vision of the fighter class. I contend my reading of the original description is correct, and the class described there is a combat generalist, not a defense specialist like BB fighter. I also contend your reading of it is incorrect. I do concede that it's possible that your reading was correct and mine not, in which case my views of the class were based on a misunderstanding.

 

As evidence, I present the same paragraphs again, with the passages emphasizing versatility highlighted:

 

-- STARTS --

If you see a fighter, chances are good that he or she is going to be able to take a lot of damage, but that's about all you can be sure of.

...

Fighters are men and women trained to use a wide variety of traditional weapons in brutal combat. They are often put in -- or put themselves in -- harm's way and are built to take an extraordinary amount of punishment. Though not traditionally as mobile as the monk nor as likely to dish out individually withering attacks as a rogue, fighters are dependable and flexible, able to shift between a variety of attack modes that alternate between high damage, maintaining a strong defense, weakening opponents, and dealing harsh retribution to those who attack his or her allies. Some fighters build up arsenals of feints, knockdowns, and special attacks rather than rely on the “slow and steady” approach.

And while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close. Though it may not look like it to see them in battle next to wizards and priests, fighters are just as able to tap into the power of their souls to devastating effect: accelerating their attacks to a superhuman speed, striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet, and maintaining a phenomenal endurance that allows them to rapidly bounce back from even terrible wounds.

When they aren't locked in life and death struggles, fighters are, unsurprisingly, often quite athletically capable. Even so, it's not uncommon to find fighters who are stealthy and well-educated. Moving unseen and knowing how to get out of a jam can come in handy even for them.

-- ENDS --

 

Now, would you care to support your assertion that the original vision described a tank/defense specialist?

 

Finally, prebuffs. I have already agreed with you that if your contention is valid that you can wade into battle with 5-8 pre-buffs, some or most of which will last through more than half the encounter, then I continue to be opposed to them. I've even conceded that I haven't studied the lengths of the buffs in depth, and may be mistaken in my impression that most or all are short-duration enough that the ability to cast them out of combat would not turn pre-buffing into rote or cheese.

 

If you insist on belaboring the point, I will simply point you back to this message.

 

And, once again, when expressing my opposition to pre-buffs my primary objection has always been to the rote casting of long-duration buffs. I can understand that you've missed that part, what with all the discussion going on in these forums.

 

[Guest 4ward]

i hope Obsidian keeps the equivalent of stoneskin, fireshield and such in the game. Enemy spellcasters should be tough and have protections so rushing in on them won’t help you immediately. I hope also for protection against normal/magic weapons and spells that should be breached before. Stats that effect duration, AoE and target range are imo not that important to any caster class, they’re more a luxury for which you have to invest points in. I don’t know how long a fight will take, the battle against e.g. Firkraag in BG2 could last a minute or it could also take much more time. AoE is also situational and I can position my caster and place target point as I see fit. The casting time/action speed is the most important for a caster. So that’s why I for one will most likely leave resolve, intelligence at 10 and perception around 12 while dexterity will get maxed. I see it as some kind of robe of vecna from BG2 which was one item my caster got asap. Am also hoping for potions that are just a ‘gulp’ away..

[DCParry]

Hell, why not, they seem to be changing so many things why not change a fundamental design decision as well. I also like how people can't be bothered to do the most cursory search of the forum for topics before they post. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

@Hiro, snipping out the quoting because the editor makes it so difficult. Instead, addressing point by point.

 

First off, if you have a personal problem with me, please DM and we'll see if we can sort it out. Otherwise I would really appreciate if you'd knock off the unsubstantiated accusations like "feigned ignorance" and the rest. If you don't, I'll have to conclude that you're among the people not worth talking with.

 

Now, to the substance.

 

1. Look up "mitigate," since you clearly don't appear to understand what it means.

 

I don't have a personal problem with you. I'm just showing how some people will argue obstinately for the last couple of years about something and then once the beta is out and actually experience what you've been championing for, to see how wrong you and these people were and how they flip-flop over issues. And then argue for things they were originally against. Also the old, 'you're not worth talking to' but then you go on with addressing my points.

 

I do understand what it means though. Which is why it doesn't mitigate the grind xp. The grind xp is still there. In fact, I would say it encourages players to grind xp with kills to get those bestiary pages. Heck even the objective xp during quests don't seem to be enough if Obsidian has to now throw in kill xp in the form of bestiary pages.

 

2. I was bothered by disappearing and unkillable NPC's, magically in-teleporting enemies, set pieces where you were popped in the middle of a group of enemies etc. in the IE games. I would prefer producing the desired effects without these kinds of kludges. I would be mildly bothered by them if they're used in P:E as well.

 

Hang on. You're conveniently ignoring one of those suggestions I gave. Kill the quest giver, get no xp and get a reputation hit. There are many ways to stop players going back. But lets forget about that shall we? No you want to keep repeating the same arguments.

 

3. Re the ogre cave: aren't you contradicting yourself here? Earlier you were arguing that bestiary XP is just like kill XP, here you're arguing that the incentives are, in fact, different. Which is precisely the point I'm making -- why I'm against kill XP but for bestiary XP. Which is it?

 

No, I'm not contradicting myself at all. Might help to learn to read. At the moment, there is no kill xp in the game so I ignore the spiders in the Ogre cave except for two that you have to fight to get to the Ogre. If there is bestiary pages in the final game and I already have those bestiary pages with the spiders (from other encounters), then I'm still going to ignore the rest of them because I already have the kill xp. Therefore half the map will go unexplored because I see no point in wasting resources (health, per rest spells) for trash mobs and trash loot. There's possibly a good chance I've already grinded that kill xp to get those bestiary pages elsewhere in the game.

 

4. Vision of the fighter class. I contend my reading of the original description is correct, and the class described there is a combat generalist, not a defense specialist like BB fighter. I also contend your reading of it is incorrect. I do concede that it's possible that your reading was correct and mine not, in which case my views of the class were based on a misunderstanding.

 

As evidence, I present the same paragraphs again, with the passages emphasizing versatility highlighted:

 

-- STARTS --

If you see a fighter, chances are good that he or she is going to be able to take a lot of damage, but that's about all you can be sure of.

 

...

 

Fighters are men and women trained to use a wide variety of traditional weapons in brutal combat. They are often put in -- or put themselves in -- harm's way and are built to take an extraordinary amount of punishment. Though not traditionally as mobile as the monk nor as likely to dish out individually withering attacks as a rogue, fighters are dependable and flexible, able to shift between a variety of attack modes that alternate between high damage, maintaining a strong defense, weakening opponents, and dealing harsh retribution to those who attack his or her allies. Some fighters build up arsenals of feints, knockdowns, and special attacks rather than rely on the “slow and steady” approach.

 

And while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close. Though it may not look like it to see them in battle next to wizards and priests, fighters are just as able to tap into the power of their souls to devastating effect: accelerating their attacks to a superhuman speed, striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet, and maintaining a phenomenal endurance that allows them to rapidly bounce back from even terrible wounds.

 

When they aren't locked in life and death struggles, fighters are, unsurprisingly, often quite athletically capable. Even so, it's not uncommon to find fighters who are stealthy and well-educated. Moving unseen and knowing how to get out of a jam can come in handy even for them.

-- ENDS --

 

Now, would you care to support your assertion that the original vision described a tank/defense specialist?

 

And I've already pointed out that you are wrong, you jump to conclusions before you digest what it is you're reading (see below with liking Josh's posts), you've made up this stuff in your head of what a Fighter should or could be in your own perceived way, disregarding the ORIGINAL VISION and DESIGN as well as interpreting all the updates with your own incorrect assumptions. And this text doesn't refute my point, it actually reinforces it with another post I've already pointed out to you. You're reading things that aren't there whereas I can grab the PoE Fighter and fit it into all that you've quoted. And I already have but you choose to ignore it. If you want to bury your head in the sand and go 'na na na', then by all means, but it doesn't refute anything or the ORIGINAL VISION and DESIGN.

 

I also think people like yourself will throw themselves at Josh's posts by 'liking' them without even thinking about what he's actually saying. You even admit that you were hasty after I pointed it out. And that truly baffles me. It comes across as when Josh speaks, it makes people like youf warm and fuzzy inside and who cares what he's actually talking about.

 

Finally, prebuffs. I have already agreed with you that if your contention is valid that you can wade into battle with 5-8 pre-buffs, some or most of which will last through more than half the encounter, then I continue to be opposed to them. I've even conceded that I haven't studied the lengths of the buffs in depth, and may be mistaken in my impression that most or all are short-duration enough that the ability to cast them out of combat would not turn pre-buffing into rote or cheese.

 

If you insist on belaboring the point, I will simply point you back to this message.

 

And, once again, when expressing my opposition to pre-buffs my primary objection has always been to the rote casting of long-duration buffs. I can understand that you've missed that part, what with all the discussion going on in these forums.

 

Check out the beta. The BB Priest has quite a few buff spells. Mouse over them and look at the duration. Thank you for coming.

[PrimeJunta]

@Hiro: I'm glad we don't have a problem. It was a warning, not an announcement.

 

1. "Mitigate" means something like "reduce the severity or impact of a problem." In your example with the ogre, you yourself described the difference in incentives between kill XP and bestiary XP. This is exactly what I mean when I say it mitigates the problem. It does not completely eliminate it, but it makes it a great deal less severe.

 

2. "Kill quest giver" etc.: I realize there are other ways to address the problem as well. I did not reply to the ones I had no issues with. A reputation system is a good way to encourage players to kill discriminately.

 

3. Here you just repeated what you said earlier -- i.e., the difference in incentives and consequently your behavior with bestiary XP as opposed to kill XP. I consider the behavior with bestiary XP more logical and consistent with in-world goals, and therefore preferable. However, you are contradicting your previous flat assertion that, I quote, "bestiary XP is kill XP." It's not: you just described the difference!

 

4. Here you're completely ignoring my argument and evidence, and simply asserting that I misread the original description of the fighter class, and throwing in a gratuitous accusation of brown-nosing Josh. Classy, Hiro. Real classy.

 

Summa summarum: nope, you really aren't worth talking to. You added nothing of substance but merely repeated your already-debunked arguments and did not knock off the gratuitous barbs, instead you piled on a few more. Welcome to my ignore list. 

 

<plonk>

 

Edit: WTF, three four alts?

Edited October 8, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Hiro Protagonist II]

@Hiro: I'm glad we don't have a problem. It was a warning, not an announcement.

 

1. "Mitigate" means something like "reduce the severity or impact of a problem." In your example with the ogre, you yourself described the difference in incentives between kill XP and bestiary XP. This is exactly what I mean when I say it mitigates the problem. It does not completely eliminate it, but it makes it a great deal less severe.

 

2. "Kill quest giver" etc.: I realize there are other ways to address the problem as well. I did not reply to the ones I had no issues with. A reputation system is a good way to encourage players to kill discriminately.

 

3. Here you just repeated what you said earlier -- i.e., the difference in incentives and consequently your behavior with bestiary XP as opposed to kill XP. I consider the behavior with bestiary XP more logical and consistent with in-world goals, and therefore preferable. However, you are contradicting your previous flat assertion that, I quote, "bestiary XP is kill XP." It's not: you just described the difference!

 

4. Here you're completely ignoring my argument and evidence, and simply asserting that I misread the original description of the fighter class, and throwing in a gratuitous accusation of brown-nosing Josh. Classy, Hiro. Real classy.

 

Summa summarum: nope, you really aren't worth talking to. You added nothing of substance but merely repeated your already-debunked arguments and did not knock off the gratuitous barbs, instead you piled on a few more. You must be a real hoot to hang around. Welcome to my ignore list. 

 

<plonk>

 

1. It hasn't reduced the severity or impact of the problem. This encourages players to go on kill sprees early in the game to get those bestiary pages when you really need xp to level up. And having trash mobs with trash loot that you can ignore later because you already got the kill xp in the form of bestiary pages earlier? Yep, I'll ignore half this map, I'll save all my resources and won't worry about the trash loot from these trash mobs because I already have the kill xp earlier. And they pose no danger to me because I've ignored them. What wonderful game design.

 

2. So you admit there isn't a problem with going back and killing quest givers. One of the arguments that keeps getting brought up is now not a problem anymore. Good to see.

 

3. Bestiary xp is kill xp. No matter how you try and deny it, it's always going to be kill xp. And this is especially important early in the game when you want to level up. Also, if you're close to levelling up, you can go off and grind some critters and get the kill xp in the form of bestiary pages before you tackle that enemy boss. Ah, yes. Sees enemy boss, looks at character sheet, very close to levelling up, decides to go grind some kill xp and get some bestiary pages. Levels up, goes back to boss a level higher. It hasn't mitigated the problem at all.

 

4. Well you have no evidence and I debunked your posts with the Fighter. In fact, your evidence supports everything I have said about the PoE Fighter. The fact is you assumed the fighter would be something else despite all the updates to the contrary. You have no evidence and you're argument has no merit or validity. And as I pointed out, you do have a habit of liking certain people's posts without actually digesting what the person is actually saying.

 

My arguments weren't debunked at all. But it's okay PrimeJunta, keep believing what you want. The Backer updates are there for all to see and the PoE fighter fits the updates to a tee. The updates you AGREED with over the course of the development. No point trying to say the updates mean something else.

 

Ciao.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Uomoz]

PJ finally reached the ultimate truth. :D

 

BTW, pre-buffing doesn't exist because part of the cost of the buff spells is in the time used to cast them during combat. It's a design decision, and actually rectify the horrible BG implementations where if you didn't have the buffs you were simply missing bonuses, while in PoE buffing is a non-obvious choice.

 

Hiro, could be useful taking a look outside of your box, once in a while.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Uomoz

[Jon of the Wired]

Can't recall buff spells and durations but lets go with a 10 second buff spell. It's the difference of getting that 10 second buff spell raised to nearly 16 seconds and being able to cast it a second or two before combat and still benefiting from a considerable duration of that spell during the encounter. And I expect you're going to do a lot of damage during those 10-14 seconds, especially with sneak attack at the start of the encounter. If the encounter goes for 20 seconds, you were buffed for at least half the encounter and you didn't have to cast it during the encounter. That gives your priest other options with casting different spells and not necessarily having to cast a buff spell. This is what Gfted1 pointed out with Sawyer's stance on no "opportunity cost" with pre-buffing.

 

When I said no more than half the length of a "normal" fight, that's what I meant, so if we're assuming a "normal" fight lasts twenty seconds, then the max Resolve duration for the buff would be no more than ten seconds, and the duration with average Resolve would be six seconds. Considering these numbers, there's two factors that make pre-buffing maybe not the best idea. First, pre-buffing by definition has to be done outside of the detection radius of enemies, so if you're pre-buffing a character built for melee or with short range attacks, they're going to be wasting buff time just getting into range of the enemy. If the buff only lasts six to ten seconds, then a lot of the buff could be wasted. Second, even in the best case scenario where you're buffed for the first half of the encounter, that may not be the best time for the buff to be active. For example, if you're fighting a Wizard, they could pop off Arcane Veil right at the beginning of the encounter and if you've pre-buffed with a damage increasing buff, it's mostly going to waste. If you'd held off and cast the buff during the fight, it would have been much more effective.

 

Of course, even if the buff durations are short there will still be times when pre-buffing is the best choice. I'd argue that the goal is not to make pre-buffing always bad but to make sure it's not always good. If there are dominating tactics in combat, such that you can just play through every fight the same way without putting any though or effort into it, that's not fun. In the IE games pre-buffing, especially with some of the extremely long duration buffs, was a dominating tactic. It just became mindless busywork, because you were always going to cast those buffs. There was no meaningful choice.

 

As an aside, PoE does have long duration buffs, but it models them as modal abilities so you don't have to tediously recast them. Also, they either have penalties as well as benefits, or you have to chose one to have active from a set, so there is some meaningful choice involved.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Jon of the Wired

[PrimeHydra]

Good riddance, pre-buffing.

 

If an encounter is so unbalanced that I have to reload my game, cast a bunch of buffs and then march straight into the fog-of-war area where I died last time for not having pre-buffed...that's a design flaw. I've been enjoying not needing to worry about whether I should cast a bunch of Protection from Evil or Chaotic Commands on everybody before wandering through a dungeon.

 

Having said that, most of the buffs are annoyingly short-lived. Maybe my toon just doesn't have enough Resolve, though.

Edited October 8, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Caladian]

Pre-buffing would give significant advantages to all ranged chars (spell or otherwise).  With that in mind, they would need to rebalance the encounters or the skills knowing that more dmg would be dealt, and less dmg would be received.  It is currently 'balanced' with that not in mind.

 

In other words, why fix what ain't broken?

[wanderon]

Pre-buffing would give significant advantages to all ranged chars (spell or otherwise).  With that in mind, they would need to rebalance the encounters or the skills knowing that more dmg would be dealt, and less dmg would be received.  It is currently 'balanced' with that not in mind.

 

In other words, why fix what ain't broken?

 

And by doing so (rebalancing to accomodate prebuffing advantages) would more or less force you to prebuff...I too would vote no on that...

[Captain Shrek]

The stupid arguments against pre-buffing make a comeback. 

 

 

Pre-buffing would give significant advantages to all ranged chars (spell or otherwise).  With that in mind, they would need to rebalance the encounters or the skills knowing that more dmg would be dealt, and less dmg would be received.  It is currently 'balanced' with that not in mind.

 

In other words, why fix what ain't broken?

 

 

I don't even...

 

 

PJ finally reached the ultimate truth. :D

 

BTW, pre-buffing doesn't exist because part of the cost of the buff spells is in the time used to cast them during combat. It's a design decision, and actually rectify the horrible BG implementations where if you didn't have the buffs you were simply missing bonuses, while in PoE buffing is a non-obvious choice.

 

Hiro, could be useful taking a look outside of your box, once in a while.

 

It's hardly the only cost. And by any sensible reckoning the least important one as the thing is called "pre" buffing. 

 

 

Good riddance, pre-buffing.

 

If an encounter is so unbalanced that I have to reload my game, cast a bunch of buffs and then march straight into the fog-of-war area where I died last time for not having pre-buffed...that's a design flaw. I've been enjoying not needing to worry about whether I should cast a bunch of Protection from Evil or Chaotic Commands on everybody before wandering through a dungeon.

 

Having said that, most of the buffs are annoyingly short-lived. Maybe my toon just doesn't have enough Resolve, though.

 

It's also called tactics. Sometimes you do make a mistake only to find out that you should have done things differently.  I would more appreciate the issue, by addressing with sensible writing: You enter a Basilisk cave, but with enough lore/gather information/spot+wisodm realize that you need to protect yourself from being turned to stone. So you cast the protection from petrification buff. Removing pre-buffing is a lazy, incompetent way out of this problem. 

Edited October 8, 2014 by Captain Shrek

[Caladian]

So... You are denying that ranged characters would get an advantage to prebuffing?  Just want to make sure that is your assertion, since your response uses an ad hominem instead of an actual argument.

[Captain Shrek]

So... You are denying that ranged characters would get an advantage to prebuffing?  Just want to make sure that is your assertion, since your response uses an ad hominem instead of an actual argument.

I am not denying anything. To do that takes something to deny. You have just made a statement without an actual argument and are now acting strange. May be correct that first. Give me a reason why it helps ranged characters more than melee ones. Then we will see. 

[Caladian]

Simple, ranged attackers will almost always get to attack before melee.  A rogue 'might' be able to sneak up for an initial melee but generally it will always be the ranged chars that strike first.  I did make a statement with an actual argument.  My statement is: right now the game is balanced, or is being balanced,  around there not being pre-buffing.  So, please make an argument to refute this.

[Captain Shrek]

I don't still this. So what has pre buffing to do with Attacking first? A buff can do a lot of things, you know. Like granting attack damage, attack accuracy, protection from effects, higher speed etc. So no, I would still say that your argument does not make much sense. As a counter, a monk with mage armour on will probably be benefitting more from it than an archer can as he mostly will be in melee. So it is entirely situational.