Resting / Camping Discussion Thread

[Aotrs Commander]

I understand I'm suggesting changes to a classic formula, and changes are scary because no one knows for sure if the result will be better, so the question becomes whether the change is worth trying.

 

 

(First shouting with larger font sizes and multiple colours makes your post harder to read and people will be more inclined to dismiss what you're saying on principle, regardless of the content.)

 

In my opinion, it really wouldn't be. (Even aside the prely mechanical issues which mean it simply isn't going to happen.)

 

I got exactly the game I paid for (for the first time in about two years). I LIKE having the rest system in. It's part-and-parcel of the tabletop RPG experience (at least of all the RPGs I play) and the IE and games and PoE are basically a single-player (for me anyway) version of that.

 

I have already felt steadily squeezed out of the gaming market by "modern" RPGs (the last one I played was ME3 and I haven't touched DA2/DA3, despite owning the former) - not to mentioned the lack of other generas that just stopped existing before the emergance of kickstarter: for the first time this year for the last few years, I actually have some new games to look forward to, instead of replaying 20-year-old games (or re-releases of twenty-year-old-games) constantly, because there is nothing else out I care to play.

 

So if you want to blame someone for implementing the rest system, you can blame me personally, if you like, with my dread old-gamer, Rest-Liking Ways: because essentially, Obsidian actually made the game I asked for.

 

And we clearly have very different tastes in what is good in an RPG.

[KDubya]

I really like the resting and per encounter system and how it interacts with the whole game experience.

 

In encounters I try and use all of my per encounter abilities and keep my spells in reserve. If an engagement suddenly starts to go badly then I scramble to fire off the big boy spells to turn the tide. As my frontline starts to accrue damage from one encounter to the next I need to free up the spell use to avoid losses. If I have full spells but experiencing fatigue due to travel to a new map, I continue on with a more liberal spell usage until either I clear the map or am forced to rest.

 

The system forces you to make strategic decisions as to when to expend resources. A system like Dragon Age promoted the use of your most powerful abilities as fast as you could while waiting for your timers to reset.

 

On hard you get two sets of camping supplies which feels "right". You can use one and still keep an emergency backup camp. More than two would not promote the feeling of conserving resources.

[R.Alexander]

I like the resting mechanics personally. I have yet to have to backtrack for camping supplies and usually have at least 1 set left over by the time I get to a town (playing on normal). Maybe hard is too hard for you right now if you are taking so much damage and using so many per rest abilities/spells every battle.

 

Edit: Also, all the text size changes in your post are kind of weird to look at. The color changes, however, did make it easier to read for me with the exception of the red.

Edited April 4, 2015 by R.Alexander

[Tigranes]

Merged new camping thread into existing camping thread.

[takamorisan]

I got no issue with resting mechanics, just need a downside by resting in a place where you recently took aggressive actions.

 

Ambushes, something that I'd like to see added in the expansion.

[Iankas]

Eternity's resting system harken back to the old school RPG. Not every battle will present the party with the possibility of defeat, but you are still required to win with efficiency lest you will lose in the long run to attrition.

 

Many, especially those who backed the kickstarter like the system. Some people dont like it. But that's all right. Cant please everyone.

I sympathize with being annoyed with the bugs, I have to refrain from playing the games too until the patch comes out in GoG. That said, perhaps you should consider that this game just isnt for you.

Instead of long ass post with bright colors in the forum, maybe find other games more to your liking.

[Caerdon]

You should learn to use colours and sizes properly. Here, fixed that for you:

 

 

Thanks for those  cons tructive replies guys.

 

I thought I may address a few things here based on you r replies. ( Anyone know how to edit the original p ost? I can't find the edit button anymore...

 

1) My main idea, put briefly, is that the devs should eliminate resting, make all spells per encounter and up the challenge of each encounter.

 

I don't think this will result in spell spamming because, aside from the upped challenge, per encounter, you are still only able to utilise a limited # of spells out of you spell pool and limited # of castings.

 

Again, as I have mentioned, encounter designs are the key.

 

I understand I'm suggesting changes to a classic formula, and changes are scary because no one knows for sure if the result will be better, so the question becomes whether the change is worth trying. I think if you really read my post, it won't be hard for you to see that I'm suggesting something that is.

 

2) Other than the above I'm NO T  sugg e sting ANYTHING ELSE - definitely not a shift from consuming casting counts to mana points.

 

3) My quarrel with resting in IE games is that it's pointless. My  quarr el with resting in PoE is that it forces you to backtrack, wastes time, and becomes even more annoying.

 

At the moment in PoE(hard), to minimise backtracking I'm alread y us ing abilities/spells sparingly. Even so I still have to backtrack sometimes. Although I do tend to forget to resupply, and I hate frequent S/L. [edited]

 

BTW I don't think the game is hard on hard difficulty. I'm just annoyed  by h aving to waste time for t ravel ling instead of having s m ooth  un interrupted dungeon playthroughs. [added by edit]

 

4) I brought up Dragon Age because it's the only game off the top of my head that truly breaks its combat experience into encounters and i t did  a great job. S o if there is already a successful exampl e with what I'm suggesting why don't we all try refreshing out perspective and encourage Obsidian to give it a go?

 

Also remember DA is developed by Bioware before they were merged with Mythic Entertainment and really lost their independence under EA and produced such abomination  as DA2  with it's careless and s***ty encounter designs.

 

For the record I didn't get my ideas from Dragon Age. I had them when I was still playing a lot of Baldur's Gate II. Al so I'm  not saying DA is better or worse t han the classic IE games, but that DA handled encounters better.

 

On a side note, strategy-wise, I wouldn't say DA is less enjoyble than IE games or PoE. Rather, DA took a different approach due to its Tactics mechanics, in that IE games require you to strategise during an encounter whereas DA provides you the OPTION to communicate your strategy BEFORE the encounter. Delving deep into this option in DA you can get a lot of fun out of it. 

My last playthrough of DA (no DLC) I was on Nightmare difficulty with the main character being a shield warrior, Wynne, Leliana, and Alistair (archer build). With properly thought-out tactics for everyone I powered through the game with little challenge and was able to defeat the Archdemon without pause, a keyboard, or use of potions. (Somebody mentioned optimal composition need to have three mages?  )

 

[edited to reformat]

[Xharlie]

Throughout my pen-and-paper experience, resting was what you did at the end of the session, when all the players went home. They party didn't rest otherwise - certainly not to simply refill the mage's spell slots.

 

There were no trash-mob encounters in my pen-and-paper campaigns, though.

 

The PoE dungeons feel far too over-populated with meaningless encounter groups. The endless paths are a great example.

[pipgrandpa]

 

Thanks for those constructive replies guys.

 

I thought I may address a few things here based on your replies. (Anyone know how to edit the original post? I can't find the edit button anymore...

 

1) My main idea, put briefly, is that the devs should eliminate resting, make all spells per encounter and up the challenge of each encounter.

 

I don't think this will result in spell spamming because, aside from the upped challenge, per encounter, you are still only able to utilise a limited # of spells out of you spell pool and limited # of castings.

 

Again, as I have mentioned, encounter designs are the key.

 

I understand I'm suggesting changes to a classic formula, and changes are scary because no one knows for sure if the result will be better, so the question becomes whether the change is worth trying. I think if you really read my post, it won't be hard for you to see that I'm suggesting something that is.

 

2) Other than the above I'm NOT suggesting ANYTHING ELSE - definitely not a shift from consuming casting counts to mana points.

 

3) My quarrel with resting in IE games is that it's pointless. My quarrel with resting in PoE is that it forces you to backtrack, wastes time, and becomes even more annoying.

 

At the moment in PoE(hard), to minimise backtracking I'm already using abilities/spells sparingly. Even so I still have to backtrack sometimes. Although I do tend to forget to resupply, and I hate frequent S/L. [edited]

 

BTW I don't think the game is hard on hard difficulty. I'm just annoyed by having to waste time for travelling instead of having smooth uninterrupted dungeon playthroughs. [added by edit]

 

4) I brought up Dragon Age because it's the only game off the top of my head that truly breaks its combat experience into encounters and it did a great job. So if there is already a successful example with what I'm suggesting why don't we all try refreshing out perspective and encourage Obsidian to give it a go?

 

Also remember DA is developed by Bioware before they were merged with Mythic Entertainment and really lost their independence under EA and produced such abomination as DA2 with it's careless and s***ty encounter designs.

 

For the record I didn't get my ideas from Dragon Age. I had them when I was still playing a lot of Baldur's Gate II. Also I'm not saying DA is better or worse than the classic IE games, but that DA handled encounters better.

 

On a side note, strategy-wise, I wouldn't say DA is less enjoyble than IE games or PoE. Rather, DA took a different approach due to its Tactics mechanics, in that IE games require you to strategise during an encounter whereas DA provides you the OPTION to communicate your strategy BEFORE the encounter. Delving deep into this option in DA you can get a lot of fun out of it. 

My last playthrough of DA (no DLC) I was on Nightmare difficulty with the main character being a shield warrior, Wynne, Leliana, and Alistair (archer build). With properly thought-out tactics for everyone I powered through the game with little challenge and was able to defeat the Archdemon without pause, a keyboard, or use of potions. (Somebody mentioned optimal composition need to have three mages?  )

 

[edited to reformat]

 

Christ almighty.

 

Whoever was able to read this formatting and colours needs to visit a specialist.

 

I didn't read it and I continue the discussion pretending it is not there. 

 

I played on path of the damned, got very far in the game before I got stopped by bugs that should never have have been there in a released product.

 

On path of the damned you are allowed to have at most 2 camping supplies at a time. This is one of the best new mechanics they added. This feels like pen and paper. You go to a dungeon lets say the temple in gilded vale. You know you have 2 rests and you have to plan your adventure so that it is enough. I think camping supplies limitation add more to the difficulty on PoD than the extra stas creatures have. Screw the loot. Best moment in a dungeon is when you find an extra supplies and you can sleep and take them. Also if you fail to finish the dungeon and you need to come back you get the proper punishment. Especially painful in endless path of nua

 

Your "Christ almighty" made me laugh

 

Point taken about the format. It has been a good while since I last posted in a forum. There seem to be a lot posting etiquette l need to learn.

 

I do hope you would still read my post, but it's still at your discretion. 

[pipgrandpa]

 

I understand I'm suggesting changes to a classic formula, and changes are scary because no one knows for sure if the result will be better, so the question becomes whether the change is worth trying.

 

 

(First shouting with larger font sizes and multiple colours makes your post harder to read and people will be more inclined to dismiss what you're saying on principle, regardless of the content.)

 

In my opinion, it really wouldn't be. (Even aside the prely mechanical issues which mean it simply isn't going to happen.)

 

I got exactly the game I paid for (for the first time in about two years). I LIKE having the rest system in. It's part-and-parcel of the tabletop RPG experience (at least of all the RPGs I play) and the IE and games and PoE are basically a single-player (for me anyway) version of that.

 

I have already felt steadily squeezed out of the gaming market by "modern" RPGs (the last one I played was ME3 and I haven't touched DA2/DA3, despite owning the former) - not to mentioned the lack of other generas that just stopped existing before the emergance of kickstarter: for the first time this year for the last few years, I actually have some new games to look forward to, instead of replaying 20-year-old games (or re-releases of twenty-year-old-games) constantly, because there is nothing else out I care to play.

 

So if you want to blame someone for implementing the rest system, you can blame me personally, if you like, with my dread old-gamer, Rest-Liking Ways: because essentially, Obsidian actually made the game I asked for.

 

And we clearly have very different tastes in what is good in an RPG.

 

Not trying to blame anyone. Just a rant while I'm waiting for the patch to come out for the GOG platform.

[Kal Adan]

My position is - if you need to rest very often, then you're doing something wrong. Splitting standard health into life and endurance means you can fight more often without needing to rest after each fight, as long as you're being efficient. Instead of blaming the system try to improve the way you engage enemies, because clearly there is the problem. Not with resting being limited. I play on hard (and have 2 camping supplies. Total) and I find resting mechanic fine.

[anameforobsidian]

I enjoy resting a lot.  I'm resting way less than BG / BG2, and it feels sensible every time I do.  I'm getting in the more difficult parts of odd-nua (lvl 13 right now), and can still clear half a level on normal with rest.  

[pipgrandpa]

... There is nothing tactical or unique about playing Wizard like an auto-attacking Ranger for a majority of the game.

 

 

Spot on!

 

Allowing a wizard to literally work all their magic to triumphs in a challenging combat scenario that deserves all that work may well be more fun than the status quo. 

[sparklecat]

Yeah, but... most of the little combat encounters you run into aren't challenging.  They're things you clear out on your way to the real fights.

[wpmaura]

So the op wants an invulnerbilty mode where he never has to worry about healing, standard game mechanic in decent RPGs, a game should not appease every faction.

[pipgrandpa]

Indeed, Dragon Age has shown us that resting is not needed at all to make a good CRPG. The fact that game had its own issues (like absurdly OP mages), as some pointed out, have nothing to do with it's elimination of resting. The fact is still, as it always was in IE games, that resting adds absolutely no challenge to the game. In IE games it meant you have to reload if you get ambushed and can't handle that fight. Staring at a loading screen for a few seconds is no way challenging or "strategic", which seems to be the buzzword people love throwing around here with no explanation for how that makes sense. In PoE, if you run out of supplies, you simply walk back to the nearest inn, again having the equivalent of staring at a loading screen for a bit.

 

I ask you this: What would be the grand "strategic" difference between the current PoE system, and an infinite resting system where you simply get a message saying "your party returns to town to rest and returns"? That's right, nothing whatsoever, except that it takes less time from you. There is ZERO added challenge or strategic depth in the PoE system in comparison. The only reason I can see for having this stupid limited supply system is indeed trying to make the game feel more like the IE games, regardless of whether it's ultimately the best mechanic. If the game wasn't so easy and people actually needed to do multiple trips to an inn all the time while clearing a dungeon, the transparent nature of the system's pointlessness would be more easily seen. Perhaps when people start doing some ironman runs and rest a lot to reduce the danger they'll figure out running to town all the time is nothing but tedious busywork. Hopefully someone mods this out soon with a simple rest = lose 75cp mod.

Nicely put.

 

Also it's strange to see some players calling others exploiting the resting system. How often does someone have to rest to be labelled so? Is there a clear line? Do we all agree on what's challenging what's not? If there's a combat which you think is difficult and rest before and after it, but I don't think so, is it right for me to call you cheap for that? Another relevant question - If someone S/L a lot to get the best result our of every encounter to minimise resting, should that be considered cheap? Were there more or less tactics in that? Finally, if there's a way for us to not have to worry about all these questions, shouldn't we give it a chance?

Edited April 4, 2015 by pipgrandpa

[Tigranes]

Oh, there isn't a line. But if you're wasting 5 minutes running back to town frequently and you're getting bored by it, it's probably the game's way of saying, "you're resting too much". 

[pipgrandpa]

That counts as a decent answer to at least one question. How about the rest?

Also answering these questions are not the point but the possibility that we don't need to answer them.

 

I don't think I'm going to use any mod to get rid of camping limits though, because on its own it most likely will really hurt the experience.

Edited April 4, 2015 by pipgrandpa

[Kal Adan]

Also it's strange to see some players calling others exploiting the resting system. How often does someone have to rest to be labelled so? Is there a clear line?

Answer to this question is exactly why rest limit exists in Pillars of Eternity. It's not just "some players" who called others exploiting the resting system. The developers themselves directly stated the resting system was misused and they introduced rest limit in Pillars of Eternity to prevent that.

 

Do we all agree on what's challenging what's not?

If it takes you much more effort than somebody else (because you need to use more supplies), then it certainly means it's more challenging to you.

 

If there's a combat which you think is difficult and rest before and after it, but I don't think so, is it right for me to call you cheap for that?

It's up to you to decide how much you want to sleep. If you ask why there is a limit if you want to sleep as much as you like, then we go back to the question number one.

 

Another relevant question - If someone S/L a lot to get the best result our of every encounter to minimise resting, should that be considered cheap? Were there more or less tactics in that?

 

I think save and load is a part of learning process - you do something and you fail, so you try something else and see how that goes. If you do that to minimize resting, then I'd call it pointless, because the only way to minimize resting is by getting a firm grip on the combat system, your own tactics, etc. I try to be efficient, but it's not the end of the world if I will have to come back for more supplies to finish something. In the end I see camping supplies as encouragement to involve more tactics.

 

Finally, if there's a way for us to not have to worry about all these questions, shouldn't we give it a chance?

Honestly, I am playing another game where camping is very important (it's Darkest Dungeon) and I think it's much more interesting than what you're proposing. There is simply no trade-off. It's saves you a minute or two of going between locations, but nothing more than that. There is no thought, no creative process behind it whatsoever. It does not produce any interesting situations nor makes you consider your chances.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Kal Adan

[manageri]

Oh, there isn't a line. But if you're wasting 5 minutes running back to town frequently and you're getting bored by it, it's probably the game's way of saying, "you're resting too much". 

 

But you're not resting "too much", as the game lets you rest THAT much. The fact of the matter is the game mechanics allow you to rest after every single fight if you so choose. The game does not offer any plot or mechanic based penalty for doing this, and instead simply makes it inconvenient for the player, not THE PARTY, which is how it should be instead. Walking back to town is no different whatsoever from having one big ol' loading screen instead. Oh, except that the loading screen prompts you to click an area transition icon a few times, such depth and strategy, wow.

 

The only way in which this system can be said to add challenge to the game is in making weak enemy groups relatively tougher because you don't always have all your abilities ready for them, but this illusion of challenge goes right out the window as soon as said group becomes too tough for your group to handle, because when that happens you can simply run back to the inn and wipe the floor with them again. As I said before, what do you think people will do with this system when they're presented with a REAL challenge, such as trial of iron? We all know the answer; They will rest spam, because that's a perfectly legitimate way to play the game, as made possible by game mechanics, and they will get really friggin bored of the runs back to the inn.

 

I only hope Obsidian has the courage to break away from this nonsense when they make a sequel, which will have less obligation to follow the IE games' mechanics so strictly if it's not another kickstarter project promising such adherence.

[Badmojo]

I really do not see the point of resting, it just breaks up the flow and forces you to run all the way back to an inn to restock on comping supplies and take a nap.  What is ironic is that going far away (like 22 hours away) to a distant area tires your group and forces you to rest/use up a camping supply to take off a tired debuf!  It would not be so bad if it wasn't for all the damn loading screens you have wait on to switch between maps.

 

While DAO was a more dumbed down RPG, it had some interesting ideas and was still a true RPG before EA ruined bioware (RIP Bioware!).  I actually liked the recharge mechanic per encounter.  You could keep fighting/exploring without having to stop or rest.  It was actually refreshing.  Another thing I think DAO had that was interesting was creating a camp SITE.  A location where your party was sitting around and you had time to talk, unwind, get to bond with your companions, could buy/trade new equipment, and Change party memebers..etc.  It might be something Obsidian might consider.  While we can talk to our team anywhere, the camp could be a place where more dialog options might appear and more than one party member can talk in a group along with random NPC's coming to your comp to talk, trade, sing, tell stories..etc.  

 

Obsidian should at least let us sleep at abandoned camp sites, or at homes of people we helped (ask of course).  On a side note, I do think Obsidian did go a little overboard with the monster encounters, you can't walk a few feet in a new map before hitting a monster.  Would been more fun and balanced to be at an interesting locations with interesting things going on that was not a monster encounter.

[Rack]

I really do not see the point of resting, it just breaks up the flow and forces you to run all the way back to an inn to restock on comping supplies and take a nap.  

 

 

Oh, there isn't a line. But if you're wasting 5 minutes running back to town frequently and you're getting bored by it, it's probably the game's way of saying, "you're resting too much". 

 

But you're not resting "too much", as the game lets you rest THAT much. The fact of the matter is the game mechanics allow you to rest after every single fight if you so choose. The game does not offer any plot or mechanic based penalty for doing this, and instead simply makes it inconvenient for the player, not THE PARTY, which is how it should be instead. Walking back to town is no different whatsoever from having one big ol' loading screen instead. Oh, except that the loading screen prompts you to click an area transition icon a few times, such depth and strategy, wow.

 

The only way in which this system can be said to add challenge to the game is in making weak enemy groups relatively tougher because you don't always have all your abilities ready for them, but this illusion of challenge goes right out the window as soon as said group becomes too tough for your group to handle, because when that happens you can simply run back to the inn and wipe the floor with them again. As I said before, what do you think people will do with this system when they're presented with a REAL challenge, such as trial of iron? We all know the answer; They will rest spam, because that's a perfectly legitimate way to play the game, as made possible by game mechanics, and they will get really friggin bored of the runs back to the inn.

 

I only hope Obsidian has the courage to break away from this nonsense when they make a sequel, which will have less obligation to follow the IE games' mechanics so strictly if it's not another kickstarter project promising such adherence.

 

 

 

 

Really this is two points.

 

1) In principle is limiting resources over more than a single fight a good idea.

 

For me the answer is "maybe". My favourite combat systems all revolve around insular encounters, but these are games with very limited encounters. If you're going down the Baldurs Gate route you need a lot of combat, and it's easier for filler combats to have meaning if the results of those combat matter. Even with no planning throwing a few enemies your way is an interesting problem because you need to work out how to get past it with the fewest resources. Having every encounter hand-crafted to be interesting is probably too big an ask so this is the best way.

 

2) Is the current camping system a good one and should it be changed for any sequels.

 

I think this is where we can hope for an improvement. Going back to rest should cost an in game resource, otherwise you end up in an awkward situation. Maybe on normal or hard the system is fit for purpose, if you spend your resources wisely you won't NEED to go back and will just hold one camping supply back for the final fight. But on Ironman Path of Torment people are going to be inevitably led into spamming rests.

 

A fixed system for a future game would rationalise classes powers across the difficulties and limit rests by ingame resources rather than player ones. But I don't think it's inherently a bad idea.

[Ondb]

This is not really just about resting / camping alone. One of the goal of the PoE design was to allow each class to have interesting stuffs to do in combat. This is why fighters get per encounter abilities. The general idea was that in IE games only Spell-casters was doing something interesting while rest of classes just attack.

 

Now go back to PoE combat. Most of the time only classes doing nothing more then auto-attacking is Wizard (then Druid, Priest).

All other classes are using some active abilities. Why?

 

1/ Going back to get camping supply is bothersome. It take time. Lots of time to load new maps....

2/ There is Cipher class with unlimited resource fulfilling the IE wizard role

3/ If your my PC is not Wizard then taking auto-attacking Aloth is just fine...

4/ If your PC is Wizard and you just auto-attack most of the time it sucks. I have created PC to do something in combat (its called role-playing).

 

There is nothing wrong with current camping system.

There is problem with camping system and Wizard fully on per rest spells with nothing to do except auto-attacks. 

[AnarchyJesus]

thanks for changing my post moderator, all i asked was a yes/no question on if there is a mod because i was SOLOING hard. now i got 8 pages of people telling me how great the resting system are and how noob im.

Edited April 4, 2015 by AnarchyJesus

[NoQuitt]

 

I think they implemented rest very well; certainly better than how it has been implemented in other games I've played, including the IE games.  The resting mechanic is what allows there to be powerful per-rest spells and abilities without the game turning into a tedious cycle of burning your party's entire power during each fight and then resting afterwards.  Limiting powerful abilities allows for more interesting choices in combat, where you need to decide when to reserve a powerful ability and when to use it.  The alternative is to remove rest and allow every ability to be used per-encounter - but then every fight would have to be equally epic or the power level of abilities would have to be lowered and every fight would be equally un-epic.  Additionally, you'd be wasting a larger portion of your play time resting.  As it is now they are free to vary the difficulty level of encounters while still maintaining an overall level of difficulty based on requiring you to ration how you use your power.  I think that the end result is that the game is more fun.

The meaningful alternative is to reset the dungeon if player retreats (for example, Souls games) and teach them how to play better through this.

Or make the inhabitants organize superior defense next time he returns (mostly seen this on pen and paper games, unfortunately).

Or make the quest fail, because villains left the dungeon and took the important loot with them / killed the virgin / nuked the village with a ritual meteor spell.

Or locking the party in the dungeon and forcing them to deal with it using the limited resources they have + whatever they can scavenge from the location (like old school Dungeon Master games, where you have to eat and drink, which means scavenging by advancing in the dungeon and killing monsters for food).

 

Consequences that actually matter.

 

 

I agree completely. Something needs to be in place to enforce the whole limited per rest spell use/health design. Something needs to give meaning to the choices I make in battle. If I have to return to town from a dungeon for more rests because I failed in managing my spells/rests then there should be consequences.