Out of combat buffs

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

When I acquire relevant new information or experiences, I change my mind. What do you do?

 

What I don't do is argue for 2 years, grounding my feet into the ground, obstinately argue from a point of assumed information or ignorance and then flip-flop on issues. But that's just me.

 

Specifically, from your list:

 

XP. Yep, I did think objective-XP would be enough. Now I think bestiary XP and exploration XP would complement it nicely. Still opposed to kill XP and lockpick/untrap XP. (I never was opposed to bestiary or exploration XP though; bestiary XP didn't even figure in the discussion.)

 

Classes. I don't recall having very strong opinions on them before trying them out in the BB. I've always liked the stated design intent of allowing more freedom within classes, e.g. by using different attribute sets and equipment choices to make for various frontline and second-row builds, and that there are no required pump/dump stats for each class. My main objection to the classes in the BB has been, in fact, that some of them (notably the fighter and to a slightly lesser extent the rogue) are extremely role-limited. No major shift in opinion here; more like developing an opinion where I didn't have one before.

 

Pre-buffing. I was and am still strongly opposed to DnD style rote pre-buffing, where you spend a while after every rest casting the same set of long-duration buffs, or where you cheese fights by knowing what you're facing and pre-casting the correct counters. The short durations of the P:E buffs have addressed this problem already, though, so I don't see much harm in allowing casting buffs out of combat. So yeah, my opinion has shifted on this account.

 

Other things I've changed my mind about: no-friendly-fire fringes on AoE's from INT bonus (didn't like the idea, do like it in practice), the stash (thought it was a good idea to only allow access to it on rest, now I think we should be able to access it any time out of combat, or just get rid of it and have unlimited, self-sorting party inventory), individual stealth (thought it was a must-have, but now think the party stealth as currently implemented is OK).

 

Personally I tend to LOL more at people who pull an opinion out of their behind and then stick to it come hell or high water. No shortage of that here either.

 

 

Bestiary xp is kill xp. No way around it.

 

And we've been over the Fighter before in other threads. You were okay with the role of the Fighter and the design intent of them from the very beginning including the updates that came out. And then after the beta, you tried to squirm your way around by suggesting the design intent was something else and I pointed out that you incorrectly perceived it to be something it wasn't, and the PoE Fighter does fit the description and design intent all along. You assumed something incorrectly and went along with it for 2 years.

 

With pre-buffing, I don't see the distinction between a D&D spell and a PoE spell if they have similar effects and duration. There were short duration spells in the IE games. So you would be okay with pre-buffing of D&D type spells if they have short durations? It's funny because you can change the duration of a spell in PoE with Resolve. You can make durations longer in PoE and you're okay with pre-buffing in PoE but not okay with D&D. So in summary regardless of D&D or PoE: Short durations = good. Long durations = bad. (But lets ignore you can change the duration of a spell in PoE)

 

And yeah, I tend to LOL at people who have stuck at opinions come hell or high water for 2 years, then collapse like a wet bag and flip-flop over issues. I also tend to LOL at people who pull opinions from their behind like you do, even with the design intent of the PoE fighter.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Captain Shrek]

 

Maybe being consistently wrong is also an off-putting thing?

 

But, I digress. 

 

I still see no reasonable argument here against out of combat buffs. I see some stupid argument (buffing is always good! Why won't you??? ITS DEGENERATE!!! Its boring!!). 

 

None of these is even close to correct. "It is boring" is pretty much subjective. "Why won't you" Is idiotic as I would like to conserve that spell slot for other things. 

 

I think if you need the sort of boosts that pre-buffing gives you it should be available in some other manner - enchantment  - better gear - whatever - it shouldn't require spellcasters to be buff-bots that start every day casting long term buffs on the entire party.

 

If you DON'T need them to progress through the game then it becomes an easy button

 

 

if the encounters are anything like IWD2/NWN2 and you can rest anywhere to regain spells then yeah, you will be relegated to being a buffbot with buff like that. It has nothing no do with the ability to prebuff. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Hiro implying that changing ideas is laughable is one of the most stupid things I've read recently. The whole point of discussions is comparing ideas and reaching new conclusions, even changing your own starting point. Facepalm

 

No, I'm not implying changing ideas is laughable. You've inferred incorrectly, as you always do.

[Lephys]

There's nothing at all wrong with pre-buffing, in-and-of itself. It's just a different system than one that pretty much doesn't let you do it. It's basically just a different lore. Do people in this world walk around with anti-flame forcefields for hours on end, or can they only maintain such an effect for like a minute, tops?

 

That being said, I think the hard limit on it is a little silly. I think between simply having much shorter durations on buffs (no 1-hour-to-one-day buffs), and having most (if not all) buffs generally announce your presence when you cast them, I think that takes care of itself. You can cast spells before combat, but there's no reason the game needs to make sure you're able to stack 10 spells on everyone before you even enter combat.

 

My issue with that is, if it's totally fine and normal to just buff the crap out of yourself before you even start any kind of conflict, then why don't buffs stack? Why not just let you already outfit your party with the protection and effects from gear, THEN have a party of 6 buffers, and just stack 6 instances of every buff on everyone before every fight?

 

At what point is the limitation inherent to the combat/encounter system totally pointless?

[Namutree]

 

With pre-buffing, I don't see the distinction between a D&D spell and a PoE spell if they have similar effects and duration. There were short duration spells in the IE games. So you would be okay with pre-buffing of D&D type spells if they have short durations? It's funny because you can change the duration of a spell in PoE with Resolve. You can make durations longer in PoE and you're okay with pre-buffing in PoE but not okay with D&D. So in summary regardless of D&D or PoE: Short durations = good. Long durations = bad. (But lets ignore you can change the duration of a spell in PoE)

In poe you cant make any buff go on for 24hrs like stoneskin does in the IE games. So the threat of abuse isn't really there. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

In poe you cant make any buff go on for 24hrs like stoneskin does in the IE games. So the threat of abuse isn't really there. 

 

I've never once talked about 24hr pre-buffs. Not sure why you think I am.

[Namutree]

 

 

In poe you cant make any buff go on for 24hrs like stoneskin does in the IE games. So the threat of abuse isn't really there. 

 

I've never once talked about 24hr pre-buffs. Not sure why you think I am.

 

Because you mentioned long duration pre-buffs.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Because you mentioned long duration pre-buffs.

 

I didn't mention 24hr pre-buffs. PrimeJunta has a problem with long duration buffs. Also, define short and long. PrimeJunta and yourself are okay with short pre-buffs. How short? And when does it become long? What if it's 1 second after you define what is short? Does it then become long? I'm not being sarcastic because battles can be all of 10-15 seconds in some cases. So that extra 1 second could make a difference.

 

That's why I'm finding it funny because you can change a spell's duration in PoE from short to long. I'd like to know what the time frame for a short buff is because I'm sure once you define it and give it a time frame, what's stopping someone pumping up their resolve to increase the duration of the spell? If you pump up resolve, you've now got a longer duration spell before you enter combat. And this is something a lot of people argued against for the last 2 years, the default pre-buffing that some players did in the IE games. And in PoE, players may have one character in their party that has maxed their Resolve just for pre-buffing before fights. I would say to those people (I wasn't one of them) who argued against pre-buffing for 2 years, you need to come up with a better argument to include pre-buffs now.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Namutree]

 

Because you mentioned long duration pre-buffs.

 

I didn't mention 24hr pre-buffs. PrimeJunta has a problem with long duration buffs. Also, define short and long. PrimeJunta and yourself are okay with short pre-buffs. How short? And when does it become long? What if it's 1 second after you define what is short? Does it then become long? I'm not being sarcastic because battles can be all of 10-15 seconds in some cases. So that extra 1 second could make a difference. That's why I'm finding it funny because you can change a spell's duration in PoE from short to long. I'd like to know what the time frame for a short buff is.

 

Hard to say exactly. For me it's a problem if the buff can last long enough that you can rest and it'll still be active. As long as the duration isn't that extreme I don't consider it a problem. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Hard to say exactly. For me it's a problem if the buff can last long enough that you can rest and it'll still be active. As long as the duration isn't that extreme I don't consider it a problem. 

 

So a pre-buff spell you can cast before entering combat that could last for an encounter would be okay? But not after you rest. Can't see Sawyer going for that.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Hiro Protagonist II]

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.

[Jon of the Wired]

 

Because you mentioned long duration pre-buffs.

 

I didn't mention 24hr pre-buffs. PrimeJunta has a problem with long duration buffs. Also, define short and long. PrimeJunta and yourself are okay with short pre-buffs. How short? And when does it become long? What if it's 1 second after you define what is short? Does it then become long? I'm not being sarcastic because battles can be all of 10-15 seconds in some cases. So that extra 1 second could make a difference.

 

That's why I'm finding it funny because you can change a spell's duration in PoE from short to long. I'd like to know what the time frame for a short buff is because I'm sure once you define it and give it a time frame, what's stopping someone pumping up their resolve to increase the duration of the spell? If you pump up resolve, you've now got a longer duration spell before you enter combat. And this is something a lot of people argued against for the last 2 years, the default pre-buffing that some players did in the IE games. And in PoE, players may have one character in their party that has maxed their Resolve just for pre-buffing before fights. I would say to those people (I wasn't one of them) who argued against pre-buffing for 2 years, you need to come up with a better argument to include pre-buffs now.

 

 

So, when I was talking about preventing pre-buffing with spell durations earlier in the thread I was thinking about durations measured in just seconds of real time. More specifically, it's critical that a buff not last for a whole encounter. If it does, than the beginning of the encounter is always the best time to cast it. If the duration of a buff is significantly less than the duration of the encounter, then choosing the best time to cast a buff actually requires some skill and insight, instead of being completely rote. With that in mind, to prevent pre-buffing, a buff should never have a duration longer than, say, half the duration of a "normal" encounter. Obviously not all encounters are the same length, but short ones are usually short because they're easy, in which case you've probably wasted the buff anyway.

 

As far as Resolve goes, at maximum it can only increase the duration of an effect by 40% over the base value, so I don't see that as a meaningful impediment to this kind of balancing.

[Namutree]

 

Hard to say exactly. For me it's a problem if the buff can last long enough that you can rest and it'll still be active. As long as the duration isn't that extreme I don't consider it a problem. 

 

So a pre-buff spell you can cast before entering combat that could last for an encounter would be okay? But not after you rest. Can't see Sawyer going for that.

 

I know Sawyer wouldn't go for that, but I think it would be fine.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

If the duration of a buff is significantly less than the duration of the encounter, then choosing the best time to cast a buff actually requires some skill and insight, instead of being completely rote.

 

As far as Resolve goes, at maximum it can only increase the duration of an effect by 40% over the base value, so I don't see that as a meaningful impediment to this kind of balancing.

 

 

This is what I found in BG2 with short duration times that ended before an encounter finished. There were buffs that had short duration times and I could time it at a precise time to get the maximum benefit from that spell during an encounter. When you're doing it all the time every time, it becomes rote. I didn't have a problem with it in BG2.

 

Maximum? Is that at 21? You can get race and culture benefits to pump up Resolve as well.

[Jon of the Wired]

 

Maximum? Is that at 21? You can get race and culture benefits to pump up Resolve as well.

 

 

That's at 18. 21 gets you all the way to 55%, which isn't a huge difference. As long as you can't double or triple the duration of a spell, I don't think it changes whether or not pre-buffing is a dominating tactic.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

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.

[PrimeJunta]

What I don't do is argue for 2 years, grounding my feet into the ground, obstinately argue from a point of assumed information or ignorance and then flip-flop on issues. But that's just me.

I did that? Wow. 

 

Bestiary xp is kill xp. No way around it.

There's a crucial difference: it's capped, which means that it eliminates or greatly mitigates the incentive to grind, and -- as long as it's decently balanced -- it doesn't incentivize stupid stuff like going back to kill your questgivers for the XP. These are my two main issues with combat XP. Bestiary XP is a clever alternative which doesn't have them but does have much of the same 'feel,' so I like it.

 

And we've been over the Fighter before in other threads. You were okay with the role of the Fighter and the design intent of them from the very beginning including the updates that came out. And then after the beta, you tried to squirm your way around by suggesting the design intent was something else and I pointed out that you incorrectly perceived it to be something it wasn't, and the PoE Fighter does fit the description and design intent all along. You assumed something incorrectly and went along with it for 2 years.

Hu? I don't recall saying anything all that firm about the fighter until actually playing it. Can you provide a quote?

 

My recollection about my fee-fees about the fighter pre-beta were based on the "combat generalist" description from the early updates I've even quoted here a few times. The BB fighter isn't a combat generalist, and I did object that to fairly early on.

 

With pre-buffing, I don't see the distinction between a D&D spell and a PoE spell if they have similar effects and duration. There were short duration spells in the IE games. So you would be okay with pre-buffing of D&D type spells if they have short durations? It's funny because you can change the duration of a spell in PoE with Resolve. You can make durations longer in PoE and you're okay with pre-buffing in PoE but not okay with D&D. So in summary regardless of D&D or PoE: Short durations = good. Long durations = bad. (But lets ignore you can change the duration of a spell in PoE)

As I said, the main beef I have with pre-buffing in DnD is the rote post-rest thing with long-duration buffs, which gets more important as you go up in level. The other, somewhat lesser one is pre-buffing counters to a fight of which you have metagame knowledge. Short durations eliminate the former and greatly mitigate the latter, because it might have run out by the time you actually need it. I much prefer P:E's "suppress hostile effects" counter, for example, which you cast when you're actually hit with something.

 

(Also, yes, long durations = bad, short durations = good, for a variety of other reasons, but that's a different discussion..)

 

And yeah, I tend to LOL at people who have stuck at opinions come hell or high water for 2 years, then collapse like a wet bag and flip-flop over issues. I also tend to LOL at people who pull opinions from their behind like you do, even with the design intent of the PoE fighter.

Temper temper.

 

Seriously though, you're wrong. I haven't flip-flopped over the fighter. I've thought all along that the design intent was a combat generalist with high survivability and consistent damage output as stated in the original description,* and then I objected when it turned out that we got a pure tank/defender instead. I will admit that I may have been sloppy reading the subsequent updates discussing it; if the change in intent was evident from them, I missed it.

 

*here it is again:

 

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.

[Sensuki]

What I think you might have missed is that Josh designed the Fighter to play like his P&P Earthstrength Warden character from 4E, rather than a D&D Fighter, although they have a bit more damage output than his P&P char.

 

That was never official information, it was from an SA post or a post from here.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

I didn't mention 24hr pre-buffs. PrimeJunta has a problem with long duration buffs. Also, define short and long. PrimeJunta and yourself are okay with short pre-buffs. How short? And when does it become long? What if it's 1 second after you define what is short? Does it then become long? I'm not being sarcastic because battles can be all of 10-15 seconds in some cases. So that extra 1 second could make a difference.

"Very long" -- lasts multiple typical encounters.

"Long" -- lasts more than half the length of a typical encounter.

"Short" -- lasts up to six rounds.

"Very short" -- lasts up to two rounds.

 

As I said though, my main problem with pre-buffing is with the very long duration spells you cast by rote post-rest. A secondary problem is with counters you cast from metagame knowledge before a fight.

 

And yet again, if buff durations are as short as in the BB, I have no problem being able to cast them out of combat. It'll give a minor tactical edge from time to time, not become a required or dominant strategy.

 

OTOH if P:E does introduce more long-duration buffs (or change the duration bonus from abilities so that they enter play), then I think that the current restriction on casting them only in combat should stay.

 

That's why I'm finding it funny because you can change a spell's duration in PoE from short to long.

 

I'd like to know what the time frame for a short buff is because I'm sure once you define it and give it a time frame, what's stopping someone pumping up their resolve to increase the duration of the spell?

The fact that you can only pump it to 18 + bonuses?

 

If you pump up resolve, you've now got a longer duration spell before you enter combat.

LongER. If the bonus is big enough to turn short-duration buffs into long-duration ones, then I believe the restriction should be retained. If not -- and my current fee-fee from the spell durations is that it's not -- it could be lifted.

 

And this is something a lot of people argued against for the last 2 years, the default pre-buffing that some players did in the IE games.

And am still arguing against, if I may point out.

 

And in PoE, players may have one character in their party that has maxed their Resolve just for pre-buffing before fights. I would say to those people (I wasn't one of them) who argued against pre-buffing for 2 years, you need to come up with a better argument to include pre-buffs now.

Yep, if the Resolve bonus added so much duration that it allowed buffs to last an entire fight for the typical encounter, then the restriction should be retained.

[PrimeJunta]

What I think you might have missed is that Josh designed the Fighter to play like his P&P Earthstrength Warden character from 4E, rather than a D&D Fighter, although they have a bit more damage output than his P&P char.

Yeh, you pointed that out earlier. I have no idea how an Earthstrength Warden plays though, but whatever it is it's clearly not what was originally envisioned.

[Sensuki]

I've never played one, they're a melee controller with lots of healing surges and disables.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I did that? Wow.  

 

Ah yes, the feigned ignorance. Well you've been obstinately arguing over things for some time prior to the beta. And when the beta is released, there's back flips and flip-flopping everywhere.

 

There's a crucial difference: it's capped, which means that it eliminates or greatly mitigates the incentive to grind, and -- as long as it's decently balanced -- it doesn't incentivize stupid stuff like going back to kill your questgivers for the XP. These are my two main issues with combat XP. Bestiary XP is a clever alternative which doesn't have them but does have much of the same 'feel,' so I like it.

 

It's still kill xp. And it doesn't mitigate the grind for xp. If I know there's 5 spiders in a cave that will give me a bestiary page and xp, then I'll go kill those 5 spiders and get the xp. And there's an easy solution to stop going back and killing quest givers. Make them invulnerable, make them walk off and disappear, make them give no xp and take a reputation hit. The argument about going back and killing quest givers is a false argument by 5 year olds trying to convince others that kill xp is wrong. Try better next time. Bestiary xp is not clever. It's a shoddy implementation and Obsidian considering it shows there's a lack of 'something' (maybe long stretches of combat with no xp rewards? who knows?) to implement it. 

 

And you can't get around the fact that it's kill xp. That's what you are getting rewarded for, killing critters and getting xp rewards.

 

Hu? I don't recall saying anything all that firm about the fighter until actually playing it. Can you provide a quote?

 

My recollection about my fee-fees about the fighter pre-beta were based on the "combat generalist" description from the early updates I've even quoted here a few times. The BB fighter isn't a combat generalist, and I did object that to fairly early on. 

 

More feigned ignorance. Oh how you forget the thread where I pointed out to you that the Fighter in PoE is what it's designed to be. Nothing has changed from it's original design and vision.

 

 

As I said, the main beef I have with pre-buffing in DnD is the rote post-rest thing with long-duration buffs, which gets more important as you go up in level. The other, somewhat lesser one is pre-buffing counters to a fight of which you have metagame knowledge. Short durations eliminate the former and greatly mitigate the latter, because it might have run out by the time you actually need it. I much prefer P:E's "suppress hostile effects" counter, for example, which you cast when you're actually hit with something.

 

(Also, yes, long durations = bad, short durations = good, for a variety of other reasons, but that's a different discussion..) 

 

I've never brought up post-rest long duration buffs. That was Namutree. I'm talking about pre-combat metagame pre-buffing. Short durations don't necessarily or greatly mitigate it. In fact, you can metagame it so you can have 5, 6 or 8 pre-buffs when you go into an encounter in PoE (if pre-buffs were implemented) and they will all be active, just like you could pre-buff in the IE games. The duration may be shorter but you will benefit from all those buffs. And you're now okay with this? What a back flip from you!

 

Temper temper.

 

Seriously though, you're wrong. I haven't flip-flopped over the fighter. I've thought all along that the design intent was a combat generalist with high survivability and consistent damage output as stated in the original description,* and then I objected when it turned out that we got a pure tank/defender instead. I will admit that I may have been sloppy reading the subsequent updates discussing it; if the change in intent was evident from them, I missed it.

 

*here it is again:

 

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.

 

 

No temper here. But I can understand if you're feeling a bit hot under the collar. And yeah, I already pointed this out to you before even though you still have your head buried in the sand. As I pointed out, That's doesn't refute my point. If anything it reinforces it. The PoE fighter is as it was designed to be and you had no problem with the updates. You just read stuff that wasn't there or assumed it could be something else.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

"Very long" -- lasts multiple typical encounters.

"Long" -- lasts more than half the length of a typical encounter.

"Short" -- lasts up to six rounds.

"Very short" -- lasts up to two rounds.

 

As I said though, my main problem with pre-buffing is with the very long duration spells you cast by rote post-rest. A secondary problem is with counters you cast from metagame knowledge before a fight.

 

And yet again, if buff durations are as short as in the BB, I have no problem being able to cast them out of combat. It'll give a minor tactical edge from time to time, not become a required or dominant strategy.

 

OTOH if P:E does introduce more long-duration buffs (or change the duration bonus from abilities so that they enter play), then I think that the current restriction on casting them only in combat should stay. 

 

You will never get around the meta-game knowledge so trying to counter it is a futile exercise. Also, six rounds is short for you? 36 seconds? So pump Resolve up to 21 and you now have a spell that lasts for 56 seconds. That's nearly 10 rounds. Good times.

 

And buff durations are not short in the beta. The BB Priest has two buffs as low as 12.5 seconds and as high as 75 seconds with a lot around the 37.5 second mark. Have you actually played the beta? 

 

The fact that you can only pump it to 18 + bonuses? 

 

Oh, that 18 + bonuses can have a huge effect.  

 

LongER. If the bonus is big enough to turn short-duration buffs into long-duration ones, then I believe the restriction should be retained. If not -- and my current fee-fee from the spell durations is that it's not -- it could be lifted. 

 

Well then what's the point of Rssolve? One of the things is to make your spells LongER. So why wouldn't you use it and max it out on pre-buffs? You'd be mad not to.

 

And am still arguing against, if I may point out. 

 

So you're arguing against pre-buffing in the IE games, but it's all okay in PoE. But you argued against pre-buffing in the past (with PoE) but now it's all okay in PoE. Just because.  

 

Yep, if the Resolve bonus added so much duration that it allowed buffs to last an entire fight for the typical encounter, then the restriction should be retained. 

 

To not have pre-buffs in PoE due to a certain duration of the spell? If that's the case, then it seems weird to be arguing for pre-buffs for a specific time and then if Resolves made that spell last more than 6 rounds, 'Oh No, we can't have that!' That really is a weak argument.

[PrimeJunta]

 

I did that? Wow.

 

Ah yes, the feigned ignorance. Well you've been obstinately arguing over things for some time prior to the beta. And when the beta is released, there's back flips and flip-flopping everywhere.

 

 

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

 

It's still kill xp. And it doesn't mitigate the grind for xp. If I know there's 5 spiders in a cave that will give me a bestiary page and xp, then I'll go kill those 5 spiders and get the xp.

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.

 

And there's an easy solution to stop going back and killing quest givers. Make them invulnerable, make them walk off and disappear, make them give no xp and take a reputation hit.

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 argument about going back and killing quest givers is a false argument by 5 year olds trying to convince others that kill xp is wrong. Try better next time. Bestiary xp is not clever. It's a shoddy implementation and Obsidian considering it shows there's a lack of 'something' (maybe long stretches of combat with no xp rewards? who knows?) to implement it.

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.

 

And you can't get around the fact that it's kill xp. That's what you are getting rewarded for, killing critters and getting xp rewards.

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.

 

 

Hu? I don't recall saying anything all that firm about the fighter until actually playing it. Can you provide a quote?

 

My recollection about my fee-fees about the fighter pre-beta were based on the "combat generalist" description from the early updates I've even quoted here a few times. The BB fighter isn't a combat generalist, and I did object that to fairly early on.

 

More feigned ignorance. Oh how you forget the thread where I pointed out to you that the Fighter in PoE is what it's designed to be. Nothing has changed from it's original design and vision.

 

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've never brought up post-rest long duration buffs. That was Namutree.

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

 

I'm talking about pre-combat metagame pre-buffing. Short durations don't necessarily or greatly mitigate it. In fact, you can metagame it so you can have 5, 6 or 8 pre-buffs when you go into an encounter in PoE (if pre-buffs were implemented) and they will all be active, just like you could pre-buff in the IE games. The duration may be shorter but you will benefit from all those buffs. And you're now okay with this? What a back flip from you!

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.

Edited October 8, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[PrimeJunta]

@Hiro, re the pre-buffs: I had not actually checked the durations of the buffs, nor have I actually played a priest -- I've been relying on BB Priest. It's clear my impression of their durations was wrong, if some of them do go as far as 56 seconds.

 

If that is the case (and I have no reason to doubt you on this score), then allowing them out of combat is a bad idea and would lead to cheesy or rote tactics.