PoE - A game for Road Runner only? "Pausable Real Time Combat"

[morhilane]

Perhaps lower some weird damage spikes (still mostly poison and bleed effects over time, no?) that make some of your party members go bye-bye in a couple of seconds even on easy?

 

BG1 had crazy poison dots too, but there wasn't has many creatures with it than PoE have.

[archangel979]

 

Perhaps lower some weird damage spikes (still mostly poison and bleed effects over time, no?) that make some of your party members go bye-bye in a couple of seconds even on easy?

 

BG1 had crazy poison dots too, but there wasn't has many creatures with it than PoE have.

 

IE poison needed you to get hit and fail the save. Then antidote potions were kind of plentifull and a lvl 2 spell Slow Poison removed it.

[Karkarov]

Like Wanderon said, the opinions of the most vocal people are worth no more than the least vocal.

Logical fallacy at it's finest.

 

The voice that is least vocal is silent, you can't make a decision based on an opinion that never get's spoken.  They can only listen to the people who are actually talking.  I don't think asking them to fix blatant disengagement exploits is something that should be ignored.  I don't think when almost all people who are posting agree and say "combat is at least a little too fast" that they should ignore that.  I don't tell Obsidian how to do their job, I just make suggestions and trust that they will actually listen to good suggestions and fix the things (or at least try) that are obvious stand out issues. 

 

As for backers not being important?  Well slippery slope there.  No, they aren't developers.  Some of them actually understand things like design and combat flow etc etc.  I will never say Obsidian should design by committee and if you look at my posting history I am probably one of the over all most positive people saying "Give it time, Obsidian knows what they are doing" more often than not.  That said.... no backers = no game in the first place.  I am pretty sure that removes them from the level of "doesn't matter".

Edited November 14, 2014 by Karkarov

[IndiraLightfoot]

Karkarov is absolutely right on this, but why not ask Obsidian themselves?

 

Here's from their second latest update:

"Through your help and feedback, the Pillars of Eternity team has spent the past two years creating a fun, fulfilling experience. An open development has enabled us to interact with our fans and backers in a way we weren't able to in the past, and this has really helped shape Eternity into a game that we all hoped it would become. Plus, with the Backer Beta, we have been able to get excellent feedback from our backers that we are using to shape Eternity into an even better game. We really can't thank you enough."

[Shevek]

Sharp_one:

 

You must be confused. None of my characters were maimed and died.

[Gairnulf]

I couldn't agree more with the OP, and I'd also add, as I've explained in more detail elsewhere, that the halos with the little lines representing action cooldown don't present clearly enough information to the player about who is about to preform an action next.

[Captain Shrek]

Sharp_one:

 

You must be confused. None of my characters were maimed and died.

 

yeah. Your builds do make sense. But just saying, I never even get one down on my playthroughs. In fact, I get minimum damage. But I admit that this is beside the point and only highlights the min-max mentality I employ while playing. 

 

I am also a bit miffed that you can lose all "endurance" and just fall unconscious, only to be awoken after the battle with no consequence. In an IE game, you would be dead. But that too is a personal qualification.

 

My biggest problems are pacing. In the current build, it is almost impossible to see what is attacking what during the combat. I have a feeling that this is going to be a serious detriment for most players outside of the "hardcore" (I dislike the word, but I understand what it entails) audience in the forums. Also, I dislike a lot of unnecessary mechanical jumble thrown into the game ; such as the double health bar, grazes and DT, global cooldowns. At the same time, I am at a loss to understand several gameplay choices such as not introducing healing, while making resting so obviously overpowered. This, by the way, also makes "endurance" healing weird. 

 

As I see it there are coupled superfluous mechanisms:

 

1) Graze is superfluous coupled to DT

2) Endurance is superfluous coupled to "no healing."

3) Super mobility of enemies is a result of bad AI

Edited November 14, 2014 by Captain Shrek

[Shevek]

I think you feel that double health is unneccessary because of the amount of effort you are placing on keeping the endurance bar up. If you approach endurance as expendendable and only cast endurance heals when absolutely necessary (when you MUST keep a guy up), then the system clicks.

 

I really like the dual health system it makes healing an optional thing that is still nice to have but popping potions and funneling heals is no longer as necessary as it was. This reduces rest spam and overall IMPROVES pacing in my view.

 

No offense about the other stuff you mentioned but thats alot of stuff that just doesnt matter when you sit down and play (thats why we get games right?).

 

I dont think casuals will have issues as they are going to transition in and adapt from level 1. The folks who have issues are the seasoned gamers who are resistant to games which offer new approaches to things.

 

Edit: I DO think enemies are too fast. I am hoping that creature files are easy to mod and that we can alter those values if Obsidian does not. It should be an easy fix.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Shevek

[Captain Shrek]

I think you feel that double health is unneccessary because of the amount of effort you are placing on keeping the endurance bar up. If you approach endurance as expendendable and only cast endurance heals when absolutely necessary (when you MUST keep a guy up), then the system clicks.

 

I really like the dual health system it makes healing an optional thing that is still nice to have but popping potions and funneling heals is no longer as necessary as it was. This reduces rest spam and overall IMPROVES pacing in my view.

 

 

 

But this is my exact point. Why have two health bars then? Making healing magic rarer would be easier and an elegant solution to the dilemma, I think. Right now, resting is made necessary due to seep in attrition from the mechanics. This as I see it creates a lot of dependencies.

 

Ideally I would see it as: Damaged character -> Healing/Rest. No graze or DT necessary. No endurance necessary. Gameplay remains almost exactly as it is, except that economics of healing changes as it becomes, let's say a per rest or ever better a per resource ability. 

 

This also is true about potions abuse in games. One has to think why that happened in IE games in the first place. It had a broken "potions" economy. A simpler method would be to have these potions as extremely rare elixirs that are just too valuable to quashed often. 

 

This will not only make the game simpler (as in without unnecessary elements) but also more tactical. 

[Shevek]

Well, a few points: Easier or simpler systems are not always better.  Necessary rest is not a bad thing. Dependencies are not bad either. I am also not entirely convinced that your suggestions would make the game any more tactical but thats a nonissue for me since I find the game to be tactical enough for my liking.

 

As to the point of the dual health system: it allows players to track attrition while still being able to move from encounter to encounter at "full endurance" without needing to rest spam. I understand what you are saying but this implementation works. It works well. Other implementations may or may not work better but this is good. So, in my mind, this is all a moot point. Changing the system this late in the game would undoubtedly lead to a poor implementation of something else no matter how simple it is. Also changing implementation is just not needed. The system is fine.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Shevek

[Captain Shrek]

Well, a few points: Easier or simpler systems are not always better.  Necessary rest is not a bad thing. Dependencies are not bad either. I am also not entirely convinced that your suggestions would make the game any more tactical but thats a nonissue for me since I find the game to be tactical enough for my liking.

 

As to the point of the dual health system: it allows players to track attrition while still being able to move from encounter to encounter at "full endurance" without needing to rest spam. I understand what you are saying but this implementation works. It works well. Other implementations may or may not work better but this is good. So, in my mind, this is all a moot point. Changing the system this late in the game would undoubtedly lead to a poor implementation of something else no matter how simple it is. Also changing implementation is just not needed. The system is fine.

 

 

Shevek man, I am not denying that the current system works. In fact, I recently realized that if they did not change anything at this point, I would be okay with the game.  It is easy for me and I feel that I understand the mechanics enough to take down anything without much hassle. 

 

Right now, all I am saying, is that there are elements there which to appear really not playing any role in the game beyond interacting with each other. Removing them would only make the game more "streamline" in the good sense of the word. Would it be necessary? Maybe not. Would it improve the game? I think it will. How hard would that be? I have no real idea, but as I see it, this just boils down to switching off some flags. Healing is already in the game. It just needs to be called as such. 

[Shevek]

Is streamlining something you are advocating? Haven't we had enough streamlined crpgs in the past 14 years?

[Captain Shrek]

Is streamlining something you are advocating? Haven't we had enough streamlined crpgs in the past 14 years?

 

yeah. Too true. But there is "good" streamlining and "bad" streamlining. PoE removing skills =  bad streamlining. PoE removing mechanics that is anyway passive and superficial == Good streamlining.

 

That is why quoted the word. I feel that this nice concept has been forever and ever tainted by Bathesda and Bioware who used it to cut active content instead of building on unimplemented mechanical elements. 

[Shevek]

I just don't feel the game needs to be streamlined. I don't feel the game systems get in the way. The game plays pretty fluid on my end. If anything, I wish there were LESS streamlining. I want more than 5 skills (as you mentioned) for sure but I think the ship has sailed on that one.

[Captain Shrek]

Then that is where we differ and I can live with that . 

[archangel979]

I just don't feel the game needs to be streamlined. I don't feel the game systems get in the way. The game plays pretty fluid on my end. If anything, I wish there were LESS streamlining. I want more than 5 skills (as you mentioned) for sure but I think the ship has sailed on that one.

IE games were less streamlined even with slower combat and no engagement system. We also want a less streamlined game more similar to BG and IWD.

[morhilane]

 

 

Perhaps lower some weird damage spikes (still mostly poison and bleed effects over time, no?) that make some of your party members go bye-bye in a couple of seconds even on easy?

 

BG1 had crazy poison dots too, but there wasn't has many creatures with it than PoE have.

 

IE poison needed you to get hit and fail the save. Then antidote potions were kind of plentifull and a lvl 2 spell Slow Poison removed it.

 

 

It's the same thing in PoE, you get fortitude saves against it, Priest has a lvl2 spells that can remove it and there are potion that cure it.

[nipsen]

 

I wish for some seriously convincing feedback on this.

 

Since we had this exact same conversation a while back - where you agreed that creating invisible combat rounds would not actually make combat either slower, more predictable, or more tactical. And that if the engagement limit is used - if this worked in any meaningful way, which it still did at that point - controlling combat would not involve extremely detailed input every millisecond.

 

So no, Indira, I don't think you want to be convinced.

 

Again - this forum ward stuff would be hilarious, if it wasn't for the fact that Obsidian and Paradox Q&A washed the feedback, and had Obsidian make serious changes to the game because of it.

[Gladiuss8@gmail.com]

As I said before, any fix to the current combat system is possible only if Obsidian acknowledges the fact, that it is really far from ideal. As for now, they seems to be pretty happy about it, so I really doubt that any insightful suggestions on this forum will be applied on the release. I'm pretty sure that they are not planning any big changes to the gameplay, as it would propably make more problems for them. Combat doesn't feel good but apparently, it feels good enough for Obsidian. Oh, well. Maybe someday there will be a true successor to the IE games, but I have a feeling, that it will be not this game.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

we had this exact same conversation a while back - where you agreed that creating invisible combat rounds would not actually make combat either slower, more predictable, or more tactical.

 

And that if the engagement limit is used - if this worked in any meaningful way, which it still did at that point - controlling combat would not involve extremely detailed input every millisecond.

 

 

 

 

That is true for invisible combat rounds, but since each character has out of sync and entirely arrhythmic "personal recovery rounds", it is more a note of theoretical interest. For a game to be enjoyable in practice, you need to have it all synching, else we get a sad, sad mess, with no real options to react on it, even if use slomo mode or pause every millisecond or even every other second. It just won't work, and some balance issues for classes, enemies, skills, spells, etc - they all go awry.

 

In short, the engagement limit you refer to wouldn't have made any difference at all. It's like Shevek says - it is of very little concern here for the problems combat is laden with at the moment.

 

EDIT: I'll give you one thing, nipsen. Due to the attribute changes, all of the sudden we have Dex with action speed. Is perhaps OE trying to send us a message this way? Those players that move the fastest, should be the victors? Slowpokes can go home?

Edited November 14, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[archangel979]

 

I wish for some seriously convincing feedback on this.

Since we had this exact same conversation a while back - where you agreed that creating invisible combat rounds would not actually make combat either slower, more predictable, or more tactical. And that if the engagement limit is used - if this worked in any meaningful way, which it still did at that point - controlling combat would not involve extremely detailed input every millisecond.

 

So no, Indira, I don't think you want to be convinced.

 

Again - this forum ward stuff would be hilarious, if it wasn't for the fact that Obsidian and Paradox Q&A washed the feedback, and had Obsidian make serious changes to the game because of it.

 

They changed some attribute bonuses around, nothing serious there. The removal of skill points was a more serious one and that was not based on forum feedback.

 

The UI changes were all good ones.

[IndiraLightfoot]

As I said before, any fix to the current combat system is possible only if Obsidian acknowledges the fact, that it is really far from ideal. As for now, they seems to be pretty happy about it, so I really doubt that any insightful suggestions on this forum will be applied on the release. I'm pretty sure that they are not planning any big changes to the gameplay, as it would propably make more problems for them. Combat doesn't feel good but apparently, it feels good enough for Obsidian. Oh, well. Maybe someday there will be a true successor to the IE games, but I have a feeling, that it will be not this game.

Cheer up, Gladius! It's four months left, almost an eternity for game devs to fix these combat problems. Josh's last posts on the subject certainly shows he's aware of some of the problems, although he seems to tend to downplay most of them.

 

I'm hoping for the best. I mean, this game needs to have combat that can take endless replays with different characters, builds and party set-ups, so some pretty significant changes are needed. We'll see which these may be as the weeks go by now. 

Edited November 14, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Karkarov]

But this is my exact point. Why have two health bars then? Making healing magic rarer would be easier and an elegant solution to the dilemma, I think. Right now, resting is made necessary due to seep in attrition from the mechanics. This as I see it creates a lot of dependencies.

You know I find it really interesting it turned out this way and I think you make some good points.  Funny thing is... I think Obsidian was aiming to do what (of all games) Dragon Age: Inquisition did in fact do right.

 

In Inquisition there is no healing magic.  Your characters have HP meters, but there are also defensive spells that can grant temporary damage shields.  Ideally you use the spells to shield your characters taking a lot of damage, or characters with low HP in situations where you are dealing with lots of AOE.  When you have to heal for real the only way to do so is healing potions as HP also doesn't refill at the end of combat I believe.  Healing potions are shared with the entire party and you are only allowed to carry a limited number of them (I think 8 when the game starts, bear in mind you have like a 5 person party) and they only refill when you rest in town or other similar "recovery" type locations.

 

It is a very elegant system that removes the "dedicated healer" from the party, gives you a reason to use defensive spells, and punishes players who don't conserve on heals or play smart at the higher difficulties.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Even if I find DA:I's solution sleeker and cooler, I agree on that, Kark.

 

My gut feeling, though, has always been what Captain Shrek's getting at: It's unnecessary in order to achieve the goal they're aiming for. Perhaps OE needs to tweak it a bit. Also, I find it confusing with the yellow bar to the left of the portraits - I keep forgetting it represents not the endurance but the total health.

[archangel979]

 

But this is my exact point. Why have two health bars then? Making healing magic rarer would be easier and an elegant solution to the dilemma, I think. Right now, resting is made necessary due to seep in attrition from the mechanics. This as I see it creates a lot of dependencies.

You know I find it really interesting it turned out this way and I think you make some good points.  Funny thing is... I think Obsidian was aiming to do what (of all games) Dragon Age: Inquisition did in fact do right.

 

In Inquisition there is no healing magic.  Your characters have HP meters, but there are also defensive spells that can grant temporary damage shields.  Ideally you use the spells to shield your characters taking a lot of damage, or characters with low HP in situations where you are dealing with lots of AOE.  When you have to heal for real the only way to do so is healing potions as HP also doesn't refill at the end of combat I believe.  Healing potions are shared with the entire party and you are only allowed to carry a limited number of them (I think 8 when the game starts, bear in mind you have like a 5 person party) and they only refill when you rest in town or other similar "recovery" type locations.

 

It is a very elegant system that removes the "dedicated healer" from the party, gives you a reason to use defensive spells, and punishes players who don't conserve on heals or play smart at the higher difficulties.

 

And defensive spells were useless in IE games?! And the dedicated healer didn't exist in IE games as well. My priests were just as much a part of every battle as any other character (often more because their defensive spells were always very powerful).

 

DAI system has as much logic as XCom (from 2012) where they decided to disallow soldiers to take items from bodies of fallen allies. It was pure and bull**** gamism to promote a bit more tactics that can be just as well promoted by using real inventory system but their real excuse was wanting to simplify and streamline the game.

 

DAI system is also doing that and so is PoE. Limiting resting was good (as that was core of the D&D design in PnP around which all class abilities were based upon) but taking out healing is not.

 

DAI has the artificial potion limit in place and PoE health. Players should be in charge around both, not artificial limits.

Edited November 14, 2014 by archangel979