EI Mod and my opinions

[Sensuki]

My squishies rarely ever get engaged. Sometimes it's deliberate, like when I send Durance in with a melee weapon on the odd occasion. If they're never at the front, melee enemies won't target them. If they do, ENGAGEMENT LULS.

 

Flanked is never a big deal, I control aggro well enough that my tanks are often flanked but it doesn't matter.

 

Teleporting enemies (Shades/Shadows/Cean Gwla/Stone Beetles) - always know what they're gonna do lol. Shadows/Shades prefer Aloth or low Freeze DR I think, so I just babysit him and insta Blinding Strike/etc as soon as they land.

 

I prepare for charm by sending Eder in alone off to one side, sometimes he doesn't get charmed, but if he does I just wait until it's about to end then coming piling in on the other side of the pathing space ... they re-target Eder and blow them up and if Eder comes at me, I'm already in position and don't suffer from stupid disengagement attacks from him.

 

You do have to use a different strategy for some creatures (Shades, Archer targeting prefs, Charm/Confusion) but they're the exception to the rule. Rarely does it require a tactical adjustment unless you made a mistake in executing the encounter strategy.

 

I play this game completely different to how I play the IE games, because the way I play the IE games is heavily, heavily penalized in this game. It's a load of garbage.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

That's your problem right there. You're just too damn good at it. Have you tried drinking a six-pack of beer first, or maybe hitting the bong? You clearly need to handicap yourself somehow.

[Sensuki]

I don't drink alcohol

[Longknife]

I have read several of these posts and I have come to the conclusion that I am incredibly bored.

[anameforobsidian]

In Pillars of Eternity when you face spellcasters such as Wizards you just attack them, and they die  . No tactics or strategy required.

I know which system I prefer.

 

Eh, the AI needs work more than the system.  Wizards don't use the abilities they have available, like Dimensional Shift or Iron skin.  In BG2 once the AI was worked on, you got to see its atrocious innards.  BG2 regularly overleveled and underutilized enemy mages because that was more fun than actually utilizing every aspect of the system.

 

Like others have said, the fun (for me, anyhow) of the IE games is the slightly cheesy combat which still has some fun tactical options and resource concerns underpinning it. You can play an IE game with a small party... summon monsters

and pelt your enemy with missiles

or chug invis potions and backstab or tank,

or drop cloudkills and run around kiting.

 

It's sometimes cheesy but it's usually fun. Fun is so subjective, but enough people loved the IE games for me to take a punt on I'm not the only person who loved over-the-top gonzo IE combat.

 

None of this is possible in PoE. You have to follow a proscribed stratagem of tanks, support and DPS. The only choice is how many of each you use.

 

• You can summon monsters, and Pillars actually has more summon spells than BG1.
• You can pelt your enemy with ranged weapons (or minoletta's missiles).  More classes can use powerful ranged weapons, so it's an even more viable tactic.
• Pillars stealth system is not as robust as the IE games.  That's a valid criticism, and this summer I'm going to take a hand at modding it.
• You can run around kiting, it's just not nearly as easy (which is a good thing).  Even without boots of speed, monks, chanters, and barbarians can get increased move rates.

 

Furthermore, you don't have to follow "the prescribed stratagem of tanks, support, and DPS."  I ran for a little bit on normal with two ciphers and no tanks.  Start combat, slicken, mind bomb, and suddenly the enemies are your tanks.

Right now I'm working on a party of all barbs.  Lots of AoE damage.

Many people have said that a party of all chanters has no tanks and absolutely tears through PoD.

 

My squishies rarely ever get engaged. Sometimes it's deliberate, like when I send Durance in with a melee weapon on the odd occasion. If they're never at the front, melee enemies won't target them. If they do, ENGAGEMENT LULS.

 

Flanked is never a big deal, I control aggro well enough that my tanks are often flanked but it doesn't matter.

 

Teleporting enemies (Shades/Shadows/Cean Gwla/Stone Beetles) - always know what they're gonna do lol. Shadows/Shades prefer Aloth or low Freeze DR I think, so I just babysit him and insta Blinding Strike/etc as soon as they land.

 

I prepare for charm by sending Eder in alone off to one side, sometimes he doesn't get charmed, but if he does I just wait until it's about to end then coming piling in on the other side of the pathing space ... they re-target Eder and blow them up and if Eder comes at me, I'm already in position and don't suffer from stupid disengagement attacks from him.

 

You do have to use a different strategy for some creatures (Shades, Archer targeting prefs, Charm/Confusion) but they're the exception to the rule. Rarely does it require a tactical adjustment unless you made a mistake in executing the encounter strategy.

 

I play this game completely different to how I play the IE games, because the way I play the IE games is heavily, heavily penalized in this game. It's a load of garbage.

 

And there it is.    You just listed several enemies that require different strategies.  But it's not really about that, it's just about the incredibly cheesy high apm single-player dota movement dance.  Which no, you can't do in this game.  Because it's unrealistic, abuses enemy targeting in a way that no AI programmer could fix, and is incredibly limited to a small subset of players.  The game just doesn't cater to your personal preferences no matter how many times you tried pushing the developers or bitching on the codex.

[ruzen]

We both gave up because we don't find the game very fun to play.

 

Do you think combat could be more fun / satisfying If the game, still has the engagement system but mönsters have different ( for real) immunutes, abilities and suchas..? I agree sometimes combat is so not satisflying your imersion breaks from the story, after some time therefor I'm trying more stupidly challanging ways to play. Which is sad beause I love the books and all the lore is wasting at this plain combat.

 

** It must be frustrating for you to stop playing the game because you spent more than 1000 hours just to test and the final result.... It is really upsetting to hear that you stoped playing aswell.

[Sensuki]

And there it is.    You just listed several enemies that require different strategies.  But it's not really about that, it's just about the incredibly cheesy high apm single-player dota movement dance.  Which no, you can't do in this game.  Because it's unrealistic, abuses enemy targeting in a way that no AI programmer could fix, and is incredibly limited to a small subset of players.  The game just doesn't cater to your personal preferences no matter how many times you tried pushing the developers or bitching on the codex.

Yeah there's not many enemies that require different strategies. There's a couple more than that and that's it. There's more enemies in BG1 that require you to do something a bit different than there is here.

 

Q_Q did moving in combat make you cry or something?

 

With the No Engagement mod, I can move about in combat all I like, and the combat still sucks. The Engagement system is actually one of the smaller problems in comparison to some of the others.

 

And excuse me for wanting combat like the Infinity Engine games.

 

But hey if you don't enjoy tactics, that's fine.

 

 

 

Do you think combat could be more fun / satisfying If the game, still has the engagement system but mönsters have different ( for real) immunutes, abilities and suchas..? I agree sometimes combat is so not satisflying your imersion breaks from the story, after some time therefor I'm trying more stupidly challanging ways to play. Which is sad beause I love the books and all the lore is wasting at this plain combat.

 

Yeah it would be better, but they will never do it. They may raise enemy defenses / DR as Prime Junta suggested but that will only solve one problem, and not the main problem the game has.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensuki

[Ohioastro]

 

 

 

You can't use Entangle and Web every encounter in the Infinity Engine games, they're per-rest spells. You can if you rest spam, but you're not supposed to rest spam.

 

I dunno... I don't think this is really a valid argument to make. Anything that the game mechanics allow or tacitly encourage you to do is fair game for criticism. It doesn't make sense to criticise PoE for having abusable mechanics (like engagement in some cases) but give the IE games a pass. You're never "supposed" to do abusable things, that's why we label them abusable.

 

Now you're just creating a narrative and selectively ignoring post content, Matt.

 

/s

 

 

Yea, I am just bowing out.  In the end, some people can't accept that other people have a point, and Sensuki is one of them.  There is a reason why I, and a lot of other vets, don't hang out at the Codex - because you have people trying to win arguments rather than having discussions.  I like IWD; I like BG; I like PoE.  Other people have different tastes.  Vive la differance and all that!

[Matt516]

It's a shame they didn't show Karkarov's HUD in the article though :/ That's by far the best feature.

 

Couldn't imagine playing without it.

 

Oh, I still need to try that!

[Sensuki]

Yea, I am just bowing out.  In the end, some people can't accept that other people have a point, and Sensuki is one of them.  There is a reason why I, and a lot of other vets, don't hang out at the Codex - because you have people trying to win arguments rather than having discussions.  I like IWD; I like BG; I like PoE.  Other people have different tastes.  Vive la differance and all that!

Far better discussions of mechanics take place on the Codex than here.

 

There's some useful statistical stuff that comes from here specific to this game though.

 

The only person who was not intent on discussing anything in this conversation is Tartantyco, but all he ever does is post acidic one liners and stuff like that.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensuki

[MadMaligor]

I appologize for the length.  TLDR: Personally I agree with some of the criticism regarding tactics in Pillars, but sometimes I think I am playing a different game when it comes to other criticism.

 

1. Would love to see more weapon swapping to accommodate creature resistance, and thus make taking the weapon focus and slot sets hard choices.  The system is there, its just needs a good tweak or two.

 

2.  The same goes for spell selection and diversity.  You never have to swap Grimoire's because most spells are always use-full.

 

3.  Unique items need love and this is being addressed soon (thank god!)

 

Those three things would go a long way IMHO.

 

I do think I am playing a different game when I read some of the other criticism's like pathing, I am always getting flanked by enemies if I don't set up a proper front or am out in the open.  This happens all the time.  Guarding is super useful and you have to pay attention.  That grab talent (forget the name) for fighters is a saving grace.  I constantly see the AI using spells, abilities, debuffs, and items trying to muck up my well laid plans.  Some of the fights are tons of fun and tough tactically (fungus and shades to name a few, that dragon fight at the bottom of Caed Nua was insane).

 

Other things like immersion and environment are spot on.  I enjoy the interaction with party members and some of their conversations are hilarious (Eder and Aloth) and even thought provoking, though I do wish there was a bit more flavor in this department.  I hear the chatter in town and stop to listen to street conversations all the time.  Nothing seems "empty" to me.  I love the story (which is a personal taste kinda thing so take it or leave it) and I feel dialogue choices have enough impact game wise to create a role playing flavor for my main.  I have had a number of encounters that were diverted down interesting paths by my previous choices and plenty of instances where combat could be potentially avoided if that was my role-playing angle.  As far as lore and character background, for me P:E delivers.

 

I don't think Pillars is by any means up to BG2 standards in some areas yet only because it hasn't had the love applied to it that BG has over the years.  BG2 Vanilla had a number of issues, and if I remember correctly that pathing thing was a big deal early on for AI with tons of bugs and abuses.  Comparing an expansion patched player modded version of BG2 vs P:E is a bit of an apples/oranges kinda thing and sometimes people look back at some of the best fights in BG2 (like the Illithids, Beholders, Lich etc...) and forget the plethora of Gnoll/Bugbear/Troll/goblin/Skelleton/Ogre faceroll encounters (of which there are freaking tons).

[Matt516]

Speaking of Tartantyco, I get you and Luckmann confused.. like, all the time. Y'all need to have a fight over who gets the avatar or something.

[PrimeJunta]

@Luckmann should just use a Scandinavia and the World avatar like sensible people. 

 

Too bad Scania isn't anywhere near as cool as Finland. :smug:

 

[ http://satwcomic.com/raising-children ]

[sparklecat]

Speaking of Tartantyco, I get you and Luckmann confused.. like, all the time. Y'all need to have a fight over who gets the avatar or something.

I use that image for a major D&D character I play, too

[Emc2]

There's no way to say whether IE or PoE is objectively better, so all anyone is doing in this thread is emoting "IE Yay! PoE Grrr!" or vise versa.

Of course there is no way to tell which one is ultimately better. We can still criticize some of the design choices that make the games less enjoyable, while discussing the possible solutions.

 

While reading through this thread, I noticed how similar PoE's problems feel to original Baldur's Gate's problems. The combat is essentially just a mindless slashing once you've learned the basic tropes. Both have problems with encounter variety (though I think BG1 had less problems with that). The quest design is a lot better in PoE than in BG1, but neither have those long, epic quests BG2 had, at least not as far as I've played. Thankfully there is a possibility for PoE2, and I'm fairly sure the new expansion will try to fix some of the problems. In my opinion PoE is a good base for a sequel.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Emc2

[Malekith]

Shadow_Arms, on 12 Apr 2015 - 7:12 PM, said:

guys, he's from RPG codex hateverse, he probably posts on NMA and praises fallout 2 as the ultimate RPG, and hates ultima and TES

So he has good taste and i should listen to him?

Ok.

[Malekith]

Darkcloud1987, on 12 Apr 2015 - 7:31 PM, said:Darkcloud1987, on 12 Apr 2015 - 7:31 PM, said:

 

ComplyOrDie, on 12 Apr 2015 - 3:52 PM, said:ComplyOrDie, on 12 Apr 2015 - 3:52 PM, said:

 

Darkcloud1987, on 12 Apr 2015 - 06:25 AM, said:Darkcloud1987, on 12 Apr 2015 - 06:25 AM, said:

 

Jasta11, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:47 AM, said:Jasta11, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:47 AM, said:

 

Luckmann, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:Luckmann, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

 

RedSocialKnight, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:22 AM, said:RedSocialKnight, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:22 AM, said:

I find the "no engagement" part of the mod very strange.

 

I understand why Sensuki dislikes it, although I disagree. But, engagement is a really central part of how combat is designed in PoE.

 

Remove engagement and it seems to me you're just sort of left with a scrum.

 

Remove Engagement and nothing changes. The AI still acts like it's there. Engagement is not a very large part of how combat is designed in PoE, all it does is inhibit movement and forces everyone to cluster up and stay there, and saves the developers from having to make an AI that would move around and make decisions that would improve their position on the battlefield, for the same reason the player won't do it; it'll murder you with instant free invisible attacks if you even try to move *towards* the opponent that is engaging you.

 

The biggest problem with Engagement has always been for it to excuse it's own existence. I play with it on simply because the game is made for it, and there are Abilities and Spells and Talents that deal specifically with it, and I don't want to break pre-existing interacting functionalities, but it doesn't really add anything by itself.

 

I can't think of any RPG that ever had half-decent AI myself. Certainly not the IE games where enemies almost always just mobbed the first thing they saw. Difficulty in RPGs single-player game has never, ever come from the AI anyway in my experience, unless it's a very tightly scripted boss battle. It's always hard by making the enemy bigger and badder than the player so they have a challenge to overcome.

 

Not really disagreeing with you, just pointing that out. Albeit I do think engagement is preferable to everyone running around willy-nilly like in Baldur's Gate, I love establishing a frontline.

I think this is especially true in Baldur's Gate. It is filled with Mages which would be some of the most powerful ones in Faerun if they only knew how to open a door and well were smart enough for a sensible spell selection and usage of their spells.

 

 

http://www.gibberlings3.net/readmes/readme-stratagems.html

 

The frustrating thing for me is this has been done for Baldur's Gate by one person in their spare time (albeit over many years). It's a solid, partially randomized AI that basically makes intelligent enemies do intelligent things, example, they actually use good contingencies and sequences, and precast spells like stoneskin because if you were a mage you would have an 8 hour spell on so you didn't get backstabbed randomly one day. It doesn't break immersion, and nothing breaks the rules, it's just the AI intelligently uses the same tools that the player has available precisely how difficulty should be done.

 

I just don't think game developers see AI as a priority, which is partially understandable, although less so for single player RPGs like this. I don't care that the Starcraft single player AI doesn't exist because the replayability comes from human opponents, for a game like this you don't have that luxury, and many players want that feeling of challenge everpresent not once in a blue moon as it is with PoE on all modes at the moment.

 

Overall I actually prefer the systems in PoE, nearly all your options in BG came from spellcasters and particularly Wizards, but at the moment the vast majority of fights are basically decided in the first ten seconds, because nothing is thrown at you which forces you to adapt. This is a mix of scripting and bad/inaccurate/"bland" enemies (they look cool but are usually a bag of hitpoints with varying degrees of (in)accuracy). You couldn't stand toe to toe  not doing anything with many enemies for very long in BG no matter how pimped your tank was, certainly at higher levels.

 

And yeah, the final fight in Vanilla BG1 was not more interesting than Vanilla PoE. Difference is Sarevok was fun but so were all the end chapter fights and a ****load more besides, here the final battle sticks out like a sore thumb in that you actually have to think a bit.

 

SCS is nice but has its own problems. Most of them expanding on problems with the Vanilla game.  Mages actually using spells appropriate seems logical but imo gives the game to many strong mages.  The mages where only given such high levels in the vanilla game to compensate their crappy AI and when you are hit by an Abi Dazims Horrid Whitering for the first time you realize that enemies really casting spells at you works even worse than it does in PoE.  

 

Also SCS cheats with those contingencies and spells  even more than the original game did and realizes a lot of them via scripts.  This means they can't be interupted (intended for contingencies but not normal spells) and they are used even if they should not be able to be used. The game also turns into mage chess because mages are the only ones that can truly be protected against enemy spells and they are the only ones that can dispel the protections.

 

And in vanilla fights against mages are: true sight, Breach, hack to death

 

Really a lot of the problems with PoE are even worse in BG. 

 

I completely disagree, but that is the main reason i'm disapointed in PoE and i don't believe patches, expansions and the sequel will improve the game for me. The sole reason i liked IE gameplay was BG2 mage duels, and BG2 with SCS is...perfection. I would like a game made in the BG2 turned to eleven way, and it seems some people disliked the aspect of IE combat i liked the most. And since Sawyer desided to make the game for those people, i understand Sensuki's and Bester's desicion to give up on the game.

Sometimes all you can do is accept you are no part of the target audience, and move on to other games/companies.

I realy hope the next Obsidian kickstarter has nothing to do with PoE, and is designed from Avellone from scratch

Edited April 12, 2015 by Malekith

[Darkcloud1987]

 

Darkcloud1987, on 12 Apr 2015 - 7:31 PM, said:Darkcloud1987, on 12 Apr 2015 - 7:31 PM, said:

 

ComplyOrDie, on 12 Apr 2015 - 3:52 PM, said:ComplyOrDie, on 12 Apr 2015 - 3:52 PM, said:

 

Darkcloud1987, on 12 Apr 2015 - 06:25 AM, said:Darkcloud1987, on 12 Apr 2015 - 06:25 AM, said:

 

Jasta11, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:47 AM, said:Jasta11, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:47 AM, said:

 

Luckmann, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:Luckmann, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

 

RedSocialKnight, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:22 AM, said:RedSocialKnight, on 12 Apr 2015 - 04:22 AM, said:

I find the "no engagement" part of the mod very strange.

 

I understand why Sensuki dislikes it, although I disagree. But, engagement is a really central part of how combat is designed in PoE.

 

Remove engagement and it seems to me you're just sort of left with a scrum.

 

Remove Engagement and nothing changes. The AI still acts like it's there. Engagement is not a very large part of how combat is designed in PoE, all it does is inhibit movement and forces everyone to cluster up and stay there, and saves the developers from having to make an AI that would move around and make decisions that would improve their position on the battlefield, for the same reason the player won't do it; it'll murder you with instant free invisible attacks if you even try to move *towards* the opponent that is engaging you.

 

The biggest problem with Engagement has always been for it to excuse it's own existence. I play with it on simply because the game is made for it, and there are Abilities and Spells and Talents that deal specifically with it, and I don't want to break pre-existing interacting functionalities, but it doesn't really add anything by itself.

 

I can't think of any RPG that ever had half-decent AI myself. Certainly not the IE games where enemies almost always just mobbed the first thing they saw. Difficulty in RPGs single-player game has never, ever come from the AI anyway in my experience, unless it's a very tightly scripted boss battle. It's always hard by making the enemy bigger and badder than the player so they have a challenge to overcome.

 

Not really disagreeing with you, just pointing that out. Albeit I do think engagement is preferable to everyone running around willy-nilly like in Baldur's Gate, I love establishing a frontline.

I think this is especially true in Baldur's Gate. It is filled with Mages which would be some of the most powerful ones in Faerun if they only knew how to open a door and well were smart enough for a sensible spell selection and usage of their spells.

 

 

http://www.gibberlings3.net/readmes/readme-stratagems.html

 

The frustrating thing for me is this has been done for Baldur's Gate by one person in their spare time (albeit over many years). It's a solid, partially randomized AI that basically makes intelligent enemies do intelligent things, example, they actually use good contingencies and sequences, and precast spells like stoneskin because if you were a mage you would have an 8 hour spell on so you didn't get backstabbed randomly one day. It doesn't break immersion, and nothing breaks the rules, it's just the AI intelligently uses the same tools that the player has available precisely how difficulty should be done.

 

I just don't think game developers see AI as a priority, which is partially understandable, although less so for single player RPGs like this. I don't care that the Starcraft single player AI doesn't exist because the replayability comes from human opponents, for a game like this you don't have that luxury, and many players want that feeling of challenge everpresent not once in a blue moon as it is with PoE on all modes at the moment.

 

Overall I actually prefer the systems in PoE, nearly all your options in BG came from spellcasters and particularly Wizards, but at the moment the vast majority of fights are basically decided in the first ten seconds, because nothing is thrown at you which forces you to adapt. This is a mix of scripting and bad/inaccurate/"bland" enemies (they look cool but are usually a bag of hitpoints with varying degrees of (in)accuracy). You couldn't stand toe to toe  not doing anything with many enemies for very long in BG no matter how pimped your tank was, certainly at higher levels.

 

And yeah, the final fight in Vanilla BG1 was not more interesting than Vanilla PoE. Difference is Sarevok was fun but so were all the end chapter fights and a ****load more besides, here the final battle sticks out like a sore thumb in that you actually have to think a bit.

 

SCS is nice but has its own problems. Most of them expanding on problems with the Vanilla game.  Mages actually using spells appropriate seems logical but imo gives the game to many strong mages.  The mages where only given such high levels in the vanilla game to compensate their crappy AI and when you are hit by an Abi Dazims Horrid Whitering for the first time you realize that enemies really casting spells at you works even worse than it does in PoE.  

 

Also SCS cheats with those contingencies and spells  even more than the original game did and realizes a lot of them via scripts.  This means they can't be interupted (intended for contingencies but not normal spells) and they are used even if they should not be able to be used. The game also turns into mage chess because mages are the only ones that can truly be protected against enemy spells and they are the only ones that can dispel the protections.

 

And in vanilla fights against mages are: true sight, Breach, hack to death

 

Really a lot of the problems with PoE are even worse in BG. 

 

I completely disagree, but that is the main reason i'm disapointed in PoE and i don't believe patches, expansions and the sequel will improve the game for me. The sole reason i liked IE gameplay was BG2 mage duels, and BG2 with SCS is...perfection. I would like a game made in the BG2 turned to eleven way, and it seems some people disliked the aspect of IE combat i liked the most. And since Sawyer desided to make the game for those people, i understand Sensuki's and Bester's desicion to give up on the game.

Sometimes all you can do is accept you are no part of the target audience, and move on to other games/companies.

I realy hope the next Obsidian kickstarter has nothing to do with PoE, and is designed from Avellone from scratch

 

While I generaly don't like the mage is the one integral class in the game desing thing. There is one thing that really ruins the smarter mages and demons from SCS. Dispel and remove magic. There is no protection from that spell for non mages and since enemies are almost all times at much higher levels it will dispel all of your protections. That means in every battle with a mage or stronger demon your other party members are completely helpless against their crowd control spells. 

 

I also don't like the extended mage chess since it is essentially the same thing every time. You just can leave out some of the parts of the chain with weaker mages.  NWN2 hat great mages where they could pull out strong protections without being completely invulnerable until you pull a big chain of dispels. They just would have needed stronger spells. 

 

My main problem with many spells in PoE and especially with Wizards spells is the short casting range. They almost have to go to melee range for some of them and then you have druids that have spells with the same damage, sensible casting range and huge aoe that is easy to cast party friendly even if the spell is not party friendly because they get such a huge range boost from int.

 

The other thing is that the engagement system somehow doesn't work out all that well. I don't know what it is because I like the AOO system like it is in NWN2 though not having such a thing allowed positioning of your party in the IE engine games to still cast AOE spells even when your melee fighters are already in combat. Though I am not sure if just disabling them like the mod does is a good idea since the game still was build with them in mind. 

[Jasta11]

It seems to me the problems with engagement would be solved, or at least mitigated, by having the AI play around it more. Making it able to decide if taking a disengagement attack is worth the risk. So squishier enemies wouldn't disengage, but big stuff like Ogres would because they know they can take the hits. I have no idea how to program AI so I don't know if this is even possible, but currently the biggest problem is that AI enemies refuse to disengage the vast majority of the time and stay glued to Éder.

 

Enemies using abilities more in general (not spells but knockdowns, AoE damage, dashes, and so forth) might also help making some encounters feel less samey. I find humanoid enemies in general way too easy, this could solve that to a degree.

 

And while I'm not fond of too many immunities (which encourage metagaming more than anything else, and I loath metagaming), having more of them would force the player to vary tactics up a bit. So Blights being immune to their respective elements. Ogres having very high Fortitude. Animats with very high Will. Dragons with fairly high elemental resistances, that sort of thing.

[Nerdwing]

Guys dont be rest abusers everyone hates rest abusers they're the worst abusers rest abusers dont do it now let me tell you how to play the game with tactics 

[Malekith]

No one cares if you rest spam or no. But rest after every encounter AND complaining that IE games were too easy/had unbalanced spells is idiotic.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Malekith

[Nerdwing]

No one cares if you rest spam or no. But rest after every encounter AND complaining that IE games were too easy/had unbalanced spells is idiotic.

And yet it was doable.  People just opted not to do it.

 

Kind of like taking smaller-than-normal groups of characters with non-optimally tuned specs and feats and still forcing your way through an encounter so you could sit back, stroke your neckbeard, and wave a finger in the air shouting "TACTICS!! TACTICS!!!"

Edited April 12, 2015 by Nerdwing

[Jasta11]

No one cares if you rest spam or no. But rest after every encounter AND complaining that IE games were too easy/had unbalanced spells is idiotic.

 

And that's different from complaining that PoE is too easy if you stealth all the time and/or always use the best spells (for instance) how exactly? You're still using a system within the game to cheese its difficulty to a degree. To selectively label one abuse and another smart gameplay is a bit strange to me. Same with, say, abusing the stupid AI vs statistically genius Illithids by tank swapping. I fail to see how that way is any more ''proper'' than using summons.

 

Fact is, both PoE and IE are heavily abusable. In different ways, certainly, but still. Whenever one is more abusable than the other seems like an academic discussion at best. 

[Malekith]

Nerdwing, on 13 Apr 2015 - 01:35 AM, said:

 

Malekith, on 13 Apr 2015 - 01:31 AM, said:

No one cares if you rest spam or no. But rest after every encounter AND complaining that IE games were too easy/had unbalanced spells is idiotic.

And yet it was doable.  People just opted not to do it.

 

Of cource it was doable. Your point is? The spells weren't balanced for you to use them in every fight, and that was clear in most people minds.(people with functioning minds at least).

Yes, it was very easy to sidestep the restriction, abuse the system. So what? If someone didn't make the correlation between :game too easy->spamming 3 dragon's breath in every encounter, chances are he was to dumb to win otherwise and should be thankfull that the BG2 devs allowed for an ingame easy/cheat mode.

[Malekith]

Jasta11, on 13 Apr 2015 - 01:41 AM, said:

 

Malekith, on 13 Apr 2015 - 01:31 AM, said:

No one cares if you rest spam or no. But rest after every encounter AND complaining that IE games were too easy/had unbalanced spells is idiotic.

 

And that's different from complaining that PoE is too easy if you stealth all the time and/or always use the best spells (for instance) how exactly? You're still using a system within the game to cheese its difficulty to a degree. To selectively label one abuse and another smart gameplay is a bit strange to me. Same with, say, abusing the stupid AI vs statistically genius Illithids by tank swapping. I fail to see how that way is any more ''proper'' than using summons.

 

Fact is, both PoE and IE are heavily abusable. In different ways, certainly, but still. Whenever one is more abusable than the other seems like an academic discussion at best. 

 

Except that PoE being abusable/too easy isn't the main complaint against the game. The main complaints are that the game is boring/not fun too play, or that the game doesn't require for you too change your tactics. The same tactic works on everything because the combination of "no hard counters" design, and the engagement system making the AI very simple/predictable.

Plus, stealthing all the time when stealth is free, or "using the best spells all the time" when said spells are per encounter? Can you spot the difference?

Edited April 12, 2015 by Malekith