No buffing outside of combat, why?

[View619]

Only issue I have with no pre-buffing is the restriction of making potions combat only. I wouldn't be able to stack potion effects, but at least drinking a Bulwark of the Elements potion before initiating combat with a drake should be reasonable.

[endolex]

Only issue I have with no pre-buffing is the restriction of making potions combat only. I wouldn't be able to stack potion effects, but at least drinking a Bulwark of the Elements potion before initiating combat with a drake should be reasonable.

 

Yet is isn't, probably for the same silly assumption that "once you make that possible, everyone will feel they have to use potions all the time". Complete nonsense.

[mighij]

Buff durations are so short I don't think there are no-brainer pre-buffs

 

True. Did use them once though. Beefing up my party with 6 plates of food for the final boss fight helped me defeat him. Lost 2 times before that but +60 endurance for each character helped a lot. For normal gameplay it's too much hassle.

 

If food bonus lasted unly you're fatigued or downed they would be a lot more useful. They would have to limit the food bonus to 1 only though.

[eisberg]

 

 

 

No pre-buffing was one of the better improvements they made over the IE games.  When there was pre-buffing, there was less tactical choices to make.  Now there are more tactical choices to make.

 

Again, this argument has absolutely no rational basis, the opposite is true. The pure possibility to use buff spells outside of combat do NOT make it mandatory, nor even possible to use them for every encounter.

But with all spells being possible to cast at all times (which makes more sense from a character agency and immersion point of view anyway), you can decide to buff before an encounter or you can decide against it (either for conserving spells or simply not feeling buffs are necessary for this fight).

With buffing spells prohibited out of combat, you simply cannot make that choice. It is a reduction of choice, nothing else.

 

 

Nope, completely disagree.  Pre-buffing is a reduction of choice during combat, that is less spells that you need to take into consideration during combat.  Pre-buffing takes away from tactical choices.  Pre-buffing is a no-brainer, and all it does is take away choices during combat, which in turns makes the combat even easier because of less decisions to make.

 

 

Can you please explain how having more options results in having less choice? I sure don't get it. You seem to base this view on the strange assumption that 'pre-buffing is a no-brainer', a mandatory decision you have to make just because you can, yet I have yet to read a single reason for that.

 

 

Pre-buffing is the obvious no brainer, it was the far superior choice to make that Not Pre-buffing wasn't really a choice in the first place.  Just because some fights can be easy, doesn't negate the fact that a lot of fights are going to be obviously hard so Pre-buffing was the vastly superior option to take that the other option is basically negated and really isn't an option in the first place.

 

Pre-buffing takes away tactical choices during combat, it makes it so you have less spells/buffs/whatever to choose from during combat, which means that combat is even easier cause you have less decisions to make. {Do I cast this buff spell, or do I cast an offensive spell} as compared to your idea {Cast offensive spell}.

[View619]

 

Only issue I have with no pre-buffing is the restriction of making potions combat only. I wouldn't be able to stack potion effects, but at least drinking a Bulwark of the Elements potion before initiating combat with a drake should be reasonable.

 

Yet is isn't, probably for the same silly assumption that "once you make that possible, everyone will feel they have to use potions all the time". Complete nonsense.

 

 

Well, I was going to point out that I can just drink a potion as my first action in combat which is true for casting a spell buff as well. Just a personal dislike of the restriction, although it works.

 

Also, are we not considering eating and drinking the equivalent of pre-buffing?

[endolex]

 

 

 

 

No pre-buffing was one of the better improvements they made over the IE games.  When there was pre-buffing, there was less tactical choices to make.  Now there are more tactical choices to make.

 

Again, this argument has absolutely no rational basis, the opposite is true. The pure possibility to use buff spells outside of combat do NOT make it mandatory, nor even possible to use them for every encounter.

But with all spells being possible to cast at all times (which makes more sense from a character agency and immersion point of view anyway), you can decide to buff before an encounter or you can decide against it (either for conserving spells or simply not feeling buffs are necessary for this fight).

With buffing spells prohibited out of combat, you simply cannot make that choice. It is a reduction of choice, nothing else.

 

 

Nope, completely disagree.  Pre-buffing is a reduction of choice during combat, that is less spells that you need to take into consideration during combat.  Pre-buffing takes away from tactical choices.  Pre-buffing is a no-brainer, and all it does is take away choices during combat, which in turns makes the combat even easier because of less decisions to make.

 

 

Can you please explain how having more options results in having less choice? I sure don't get it. You seem to base this view on the strange assumption that 'pre-buffing is a no-brainer', a mandatory decision you have to make just because you can, yet I have yet to read a single reason for that.

 

 

Pre-buffing is the obvious no brainer, it was the far superior choice to make that Not Pre-buffing wasn't really a choice in the first place.  Just because some fights can be easy, doesn't negate the fact that a lot of fights are going to be obviously hard so Pre-buffing was the vastly superior option to take that the other option is basically negated and really isn't an option in the first place.

 

Pre-buffing takes away tactical choices during combat, it makes it so you have less spells/buffs/whatever to choose from during combat, which means that combat is even easier cause you have less decisions to make. {Do I cast this buff spell, or do I cast an offensive spell} as compared to your idea {Cast offensive spell}.

 

 

How exactly does the decision to buff before or during combat increase or decrease my spell slots total? If it is extremely well-advised to buff my party, I will either do it as soon as combat starts and pay in spell slots for it (with no pre-buffing possible), or I do it before combat starts and pay in spell slots for it (when pre-buffing is allowed). There's absolutely no increase or decrease in tactical option aside from limiting of my choice if I take the risk and waste spell slots on unnecessary buffs, therefore having less offensive potential, or taking the risk of entering combat unbuffed with enemies I should buff for.

Edited April 5, 2015 by endolex

[glenn3e]

Eisberg explains it the best. I was going to write a long post about this issue but yeah I guess liking his post does the same thing.

[TCJ]

Pre-buffing, if one were to imagine that world to be real, might make perfect sense for some fights, but for others not so much.   It would be meta-knowledge.  For instance, how many times in the BG or BG2 games did one end up fighting someone and had no forewarning?  Sometimes someone who appears friendly isn't, sometimes it's an ambush, etc.  For those, it would be using meta knowledge to pre-buff, yet, the ability to prebuff is still there.  I admit that I, not being that great at usage of spells and abilities, would sometimes prebuff after having to load.  Meta knowledge?  Yup!  But for me it was easier than loading a hundred times before finding the right tactic.   The system PoE uses prevents all that meta-knowledge from having as much effect after a save, although it certainly can't eliminate all of it.

Edited April 5, 2015 by TCJ

[WebShaman]

What a wierd topic.

 

Even stranger discussion.

 

Seems like Gameplay vs Realism to me.

 

Realistically speaking, whenever one decides to create a fantasy environment where magic is present, then of course one is going to find that magic not only permeates everything, but dominates as well.

 

This is because we all know that instead of having to invest time/physical energy/risk into something, one can just use magic to make said thing easier in all three catagories.

 

In PoE, the environment itself, though nice, is totally laughable.  Because magic exists, it would be used to move from one place to another (as instantaneous as possible), lift stuff, build stuff, create stuff, provide a source of energy, etc!  Anytime one had the opportunity.  Obviously everything magical is under tight constraints SOLEY DUE TO GAMEPLAY ELEMENTS.

 

Which of course does break realistical immersion.

 

It doesn't make any sense WHY magic does not work outside of combat.  None whatsoever.  Magic does not come from combat itself.  It is paramount to saying "one cannot shoot a crossbow/firearm or swing a weapon outside of combat".  You pull and pull on the trigger, or the haft of the weapon, but it does not budge.

 

Not to mention that one can scout (stealthwise - too bad one does not have invisibility in this game - another use of magic that would be an obvious one, but somehow is not in the game for Players).  Scouting allows for exactly that - obtaining information that one can use to their advantage over those who do not have it (I know they are there, they don't know I am, etc)

 

In a gameplay sense, not allowing magic to be cast outside of combat relieves the Developers of having to plan for this.  This applies not only to buffing, but also to travel, and any other mechanism that Developers use to control gameplay.

 

I personally fall into the "allow pre-buffing" crowd.  I just prefer to allow it easier by having a mechanism that you decide on the pre-buffs, save, and push a button. 

[Prime-Mover]

 

 

 

No pre-buffing was one of the better improvements they made over the IE games.  When there was pre-buffing, there was less tactical choices to make.  Now there are more tactical choices to make.

 

Again, this argument has absolutely no rational basis, the opposite is true. The pure possibility to use buff spells outside of combat do NOT make it mandatory, nor even possible to use them for every encounter.

But with all spells being possible to cast at all times (which makes more sense from a character agency and immersion point of view anyway), you can decide to buff before an encounter or you can decide against it (either for conserving spells or simply not feeling buffs are necessary for this fight).

With buffing spells prohibited out of combat, you simply cannot make that choice. It is a reduction of choice, nothing else.

 

 

If a choice is obviously supperior to possible alternative, it becomes more or less mandatory, and the alternative is no longer has any a real value. To give a fairly broken analogy: if you are given a +5 longsword at the beginning of BG1, why would you ever be tempted to buy a +1 sword? Pre-buffing has a Diderot effect, making alternative approaches pretty irrelvant, unless to avoid the tedium of buffing.

 

The analogy is truly broken, for it would only apply if you could use this +5 sword only once per rest cycle and only starting at 7th level. Which would be the equivalent for a high-lvl weapon summon. Which would be the exact analogy of something you want to cast before combat starts.

 

An analogy does not need have to be comparable in all respects, just in relevant respects. And the point I was trying to draw out should be clear enough, namely that there is no real alternative to the standard buffing scheme, unless you are deliberately weakening yourself, or you're too tired to go through all the buffs. You said that this view had "no rational basis", but you have yet to show this.

 

The only case where pre-buffing isn't a no-brainer IMXP, is when faced with walk-over opposition. But in most encounters, you used the same few basic buffs, with the exception of challenging encounters, where you use the whole goram tedious list. I get that it's interesting gaming the system, and actually coming up with the optimal buffing scheme,and that challenge is missing when you disable pre-buffing. And removing that challenge is - I imagine - what many malcontempts are really annoyed with.

 

But really, I just don't see the fun of being forced to go through the same exact steps before every encounter the IE way. Maybe there's a better pre-buff approach that would be interesting (suit my notiong of interesting gameplay), but that certainly wasn't it.

[endolex]

Pre-buffing, if one were to imagine that world to be real, might make perfect sense for some fights, but for others not so much.   It would be meta-knowledge.  For instance, how many times in the BG or BG2 games did one end up fighting someone and had no forewarning?  Sometimes someone who appears friendly isn't, sometimes it's an ambush, etc.  For those, it would be using meta knowledge to pre-buff, yet, the ability to prebuff is stil there.  I admit that I, not being that great at usage of spells and abilities, would sometimes prebuff after having to load.  Meta knowledge?  Yup!  But for me it was easier than loading a hundred times before finding the right tactic.   The system PoE uses prevents all that meta-knowledge from having as much effect after a save, although it cetainly can't eliminate all of it.

 

And that is something I wish players had a choice to do. If they don't like using player knowledge, they could just not do it, or tick an option to not being able to pre-buff.

[endolex]

 

An analogy does not need have to be comparable in all respects, just in relevant respects. And the point I was trying to draw out should be clear enough, namely that there is no real alternative to the standard buffing scheme, unless you are deliberately weakening yourself, or you're too tired to go through all the buffs. You said that this view had "no rational basis", but you have yet to show this.

The analogy is truly broken, for it would only apply if you could use this +5 sword only once per rest cycle and only starting at 7th level. Which would be the equivalent for a high-lvl weapon summon. Which would be the exact analogy of something you want to cast before combat starts.

 

 

 

The only case where pre-buffing isn't a no-brainer IMXP, is when faced with walk-over opposition. But in most encounters, you used the same few basic buffs, with the exception of challenging encounters, where you use the whole goram tedious list. I get that it's interesting gaming the system, and actually coming up with the optimal buffing scheme,and that challenge is missing when you disable pre-buffing. And removing that challenge is - I imagine - what many malcontempts are really annoyed with.

 

But really, I just don't see the fun of being forced to go through the same exact steps before every encounter the IE way. Maybe there's a better pre-buff approach that would be interesting (suit my notiong of interesting gameplay), but that certainly wasn't it.

 

 

Who forces you? How? Who forces players to pre-buff just because it is possible? If they prefer a challenge, they still can go in there without pre-buffing.

I still haven't heard any precise reason of this 'no brainer' limiting tactical choice. If pre-buffing was allowed right now, without any other changes, what exactly would force you to go through this, and how it would it be a different tedium from buffing everything after combat has started, if you feel it is that necessary in an encounter? I haven't heard a single argument.

Edited April 5, 2015 by endolex

[Horrorscope]

Josh, whom I just saw for the first time in a Twitch stream a couple days before release said he also prefers options, however it is measured in how difficult it would be. So they must have weighed that. One can argue, it is simple, you have it so you can do it out of combat, bada-bing, bada-bang! BUT...Do you expect them to balance for pre-buffs or just for the players that don't use out of combat buffs? My guess this is where the difficulty came in, if we make the toggle how do we balance from there?

 

So in regards to out of combat buffs, would we be ok that no tweaks made to the difficulty? If so, I think that is the argument you take to Obsidian. Be clear, because otherwise they see "how do we balance this? too hard? next suggestion...".

 

Somewhere there are closet players that may say this games is too easy, but still want it easier with big time buffing. A hunch.

 

I'm develpoer supportive when it comes to an option where there are solid reasons for either side that splits the audience. So whichever they choose, that is the game, that is their decision, like it or leave it. There are so many 50/50's is game design, that we rake our heroes over the coals when it isn't our side of the 50. No matter what they were screwed. But the heat was coming either way, pre-buffs or no pre-buffs, this thread was going to exist.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Horrorscope

[Prime-Mover]

 

 

An analogy does not need have to be comparable in all respects, just in relevant respects. And the point I was trying to draw out should be clear enough, namely that there is no real alternative to the standard buffing scheme, unless you are deliberately weakening yourself, or you're too tired to go through all the buffs. You said that this view had "no rational basis", but you have yet to show this.

The analogy is truly broken, for it would only apply if you could use this +5 sword only once per rest cycle and only starting at 7th level. Which would be the equivalent for a high-lvl weapon summon. Which would be the exact analogy of something you want to cast before combat starts.

 

 

 

The only case where pre-buffing isn't a no-brainer IMXP, is when faced with walk-over opposition. But in most encounters, you used the same few basic buffs, with the exception of challenging encounters, where you use the whole goram tedious list. I get that it's interesting gaming the system, and actually coming up with the optimal buffing scheme,and that challenge is missing when you disable pre-buffing. And removing that challenge is - I imagine - what many malcontempts are really annoyed with.

 

But really, I just don't see the fun of being forced to go through the same exact steps before every encounter the IE way. Maybe there's a better pre-buff approach that would be interesting (suit my notiong of interesting gameplay), but that certainly wasn't it.

 

 

Who forces you? How? Who forces players to pre-buff just because it is possible? If they prefer a challenge, they still can go in there without pre-buffing.

I still haven't heard any precise reason of this 'no brainer' limiting tactical choice. If pre-buffing was allowed right now, without any other changes, what exactly would force you to go through this, and how it would it be a different tedium from buffing everything if you feel it is necessary in an encounter? I haven't heard a single argument.

 

No one forces you. It's an argument about gaming psychology, and how various mechanics makes the game more or less interesting, and how a clearly superiour strategy delimits the viable choices available. That was what the sword analogy was supposed to draw out. And of course, the player can deliberaltly gimp him/herself by using a sub-optimal strategy, but where's the fun in that? That's as fun as playing chess/checkers with children.

 

And regarding pre-buffing in the current game, well first of all, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, when the effects are so short currently. And if you made them last longer, but changed nothing else, I would imagine the encounters aren't balanced against it.

[Volourn]

The lack of pre buffing is silly, illogical, evil, disgusting, unfun, hilarious, weak, and cowardly.

[vril]

The lack of pre buffing is silly, illogical, evil, disgusting, unfun, hilarious, weak, and cowardly.

 

At least we now know the disposition of the developers.

[Caerdon]

 

@NathanH Josh changed a lot of stuff based on BB feedback. He's nowhere near as dogmatic as many people make him out to be. He stuck to his guns on a couple of points, but for most of those there was at least a large minority opinion backing his view. Like this question on this thread for example.

 

There is a tendency for people to throw hissy fits when they don't get their way, including calling Josh names. I imagine he's grown an extremely thick skin by now.

Yeah I have no idea what people think they can accomplish by throwing personal insults at Josh instead of providing constructive criticism

 

And seems to me that people think that Josh designed every single part of this game. Like everything. That's a good soundtrack Josh, didn't know you were so musically inclined

 

You're being silly. Obviously he only designed all the bad parts!

[endolex]

 

No one forces you. It's an argument about gaming psychology, and how various mechanics makes the game more or less interesting, and how a clearly superiour strategy delimits the viable choices available. That was what the sword analogy was supposed to draw out. And of course, the player can deliberaltly gimp him/herself by using a sub-optimal strategy, but where's the fun in that? That's as fun as playing chess/checkers with children.

 

 

Who forces you? How? Who forces players to pre-buff just because it is possible? If they prefer a challenge, they still can go in there without pre-buffing.

I still haven't heard any precise reason of this 'no brainer' limiting tactical choice. If pre-buffing was allowed right now, without any other changes, what exactly would force you to go through this, and how it would it be a different tedium from buffing everything if you feel it is necessary in an encounter? I haven't heard a single argument.

 

 

And regarding pre-buffing in the current game, well first of all, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, when the effects are so short currently. And if you made them last longer, but changed nothing else, I would imagine the encounters aren't balanced against it.

 

 

I still haven't heard a sound reason why buffing the party before combat starts is 'clearly the superior strategy' when at the same time you limit your offensive potential once combat starts, by way of having less spell slots left for 'nukes'. 

 

A more or less interesting game to whom exactly? And who is willing or unwilling to gimp themselves? There are players who will restrict their stash, who will disable the 'maim' feature and deal with character deaths, on Path of Iron / the Damned to boot. What gives you the position to judge what kind of playstyle if more or less 'interesting', as if it where an objective quality?

 

I actually don't quite follow the 'buffs are too short anyway' argument right now. We are talking about 20-30 seconds baseline for many priest buffs here. 20-30 seconds can be an eternity in Eternity (couldn't resist that one, sry).

 

'Balance' has been discussed in this thread quite a lot - I don't believe encounters are much balanced at all (against what, exactly? All possible party compositions, equipment, talents? I don't believe it) There are general difficulty settings, a lot of options, and that's it. 

[Voss]

 

 

@NathanH Josh changed a lot of stuff based on BB feedback. He's nowhere near as dogmatic as many people make him out to be. He stuck to his guns on a couple of points, but for most of those there was at least a large minority opinion backing his view. Like this question on this thread for example.

 

There is a tendency for people to throw hissy fits when they don't get their way, including calling Josh names. I imagine he's grown an extremely thick skin by now.

Yeah I have no idea what people think they can accomplish by throwing personal insults at Josh instead of providing constructive criticism

 

And seems to me that people think that Josh designed every single part of this game. Like everything. That's a good soundtrack Josh, didn't know you were so musically inclined

 

You're being silly. Obviously he only designed all the bad parts!

 

He certainly takes credit for most of them.  So, yeah, it does actually look that way.

[Luckmann]

@NathanH Josh changed a lot of stuff based on BB feedback. He's nowhere near as dogmatic as many people make him out to be. He stuck to his guns on a couple of points, but for most of those there was at least a large minority opinion backing his view. Like this question on this thread for example.

 

There is a tendency for people to throw hissy fits when they don't get their way, including calling Josh names. I imagine he's grown an extremely thick skin by now.

 

Well to be fair, to grow a thick skin, you have to subject yourself to criticism or address it. Animals that live in isolated environments rarely develop a functional carapace, and in addition, are often spineless. Take from that analogy what you will.

[Sleazebag]

 

@NathanH Josh changed a lot of stuff based on BB feedback. He's nowhere near as dogmatic as many people make him out to be. He stuck to his guns on a couple of points, but for most of those there was at least a large minority opinion backing his view. Like this question on this thread for example.

 

There is a tendency for people to throw hissy fits when they don't get their way, including calling Josh names. I imagine he's grown an extremely thick skin by now.

 

Well to be fair, to grow a thick skin, you have to subject yourself to criticism or address it. Animals that live in isolated environments rarely develop a functional carapace, and in addition, are often spineless. Take from that analogy what you will.

 

Seriously did Sawyer kill your dog or something

[Volourn]

Well.. he is on the side of people who want to murder me so just as bad.

[Sleazebag]

Well.. he is on the side of people who want to murder me so just as bad.

I don't think LGBT people want to murder you, even though the gamergate people tend to do nasty **** like stalk and swat them

[RedSocialKnight]

 

Pre-buffing is obviously an advantage to the player, but it's a boring advantage. It's a no-brainer.

 

Nope, you can decide not to do the pre-buffing, save time and start offensively even if pre-buffing is possible. 

 

That is obvious but pointless -- sure, some fights might be so easy that buffing doesn't matter because you're going to faceroll them anyway.

 

That doesn't change the fact that pre-combat buffing is never a negative.

 

In-combat buffing is always both a negative and a positive -- you must decide how to use the scarce resource of combat action. That's what makes it an interesting part of tactics, rather than just busywork you have to go through before every fight.

 

Buff or attack in combat: interesting decision, fun. Buff or don't buff pre-combat: boring decision, not fun.

[Luckmann]

 

Well.. he is on the side of people who want to murder me so just as bad.

I don't think LGBT people want to murder you, even though the gamergate people tend to do nasty **** like stalk and swat them

 

 

You say that, I want to argue with you, I want to tell you to stop trying to deflect, I want to tell you to stick to the topic, I want to tell you to stop trying to derail the thread... yet all I can think is "#SWATSawyer2015".