Jump to content
Sensuki

RPGCodex Review #1 - Hŵrpa Dwrp

Recommended Posts

Hmm.

 

Maybe time for another review? I have always had a negative opinion of the mechanics. Those for which I had a positive opinion (camping supplies) was made moot by the devs by free inns. How the heck did this happen?


"The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.

 

Maybe time for another review? I have always had a negative opinion of the mechanics. Those for which I had a positive opinion (camping supplies) was made moot by the devs by free inns. How the heck did this happen?

 

There's only one free inn in the game I believe, although in practice your funds soon make inn stays trivial (unless you rest after every encounter I guess).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think Sagani is an interesting character"

 

\I think she could have been but the writing ultimately failed her. I mean, the cocnept of her is awesome. A dwarf female ranger who is married but needs to adventure could be so awesome and I was looking forward to her pre release but the actual reality of her is just meh. Meh is not good enough.

 

 

"You can spit your poison, oh PoE backer-haters, but this is where this poison will stay- for your voices of vile and outrage are just drops in the ocean. The latest Obsidian rpg is a success, whether you refuse to acknowledge the fact."

 

You do realize that Obsidian's PE 'success' is just  bucket in the ocean right. Hardly anyone cares or plays about it. You fanbioys are hilarious thnking this game is super popular and successful. It isn't.

 

And, I like the game but COME ON. *REALITY CHECK NEEDED*


DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In IE magic usually helped to solve stalemates as it spells always hit, but their target could save against their effects, where in PoE spells use same ACC-DEF system than weapon attacks.

 

So miss-graze-hit-crit system only gives larger variety of hit types.

The IE games also had a solution to the stalemate problem for NON-magic battles. They use the D20 system, where 1 is always a miss and And a 20 is always a hit.

 

Personally, though, I've come to terms with the Miss--Graze---Hit--Crit system that PoE uses. I like it. My only issue with it is how....universal it is. It applies to everything. Which means we'll never see those dramatic high level magic battle moments from BG2 and IWD2 where a heated, intense battle could end suddenly in a nail-biting moment due to, say, a Finger of Death, or a Wail of the Banshee. After all, what's the point of scoring a critical hit with your death spell? or a Graze with your Destruction spell?

 

 

It doesn't really work with spells nearly as well with as damage, because the marginal utility curve works the opposite way. With damage reduction, that 50% damage on a graze can easily become 10% if all of it falls under the DR. Similarly, the 50% bonus from crits can actually be much higher since it's more likely to fall above the DR.

 

On the other hand, for conditions, often adding or losing 50% duration means nothing to a win button sort of condition, so the only real consideration is the miss chance.

 

Both damage and conditions could have really benefited from an effect table; for damage, you could let attacks that roll higher on the table also inflict permanent-until-rest Injuries like the ones you get from some scripted bits (like Crippling in Fallout). For effects, it would let you define the effect of a spell as an Affliction class that would grow in power as you roll higher on the table; e.g. from Dazed to Confused to Charmed to Dominated, or Frightened to Terrified to Paralyzed, etc. Ideally, there would be some means to trade an accuracy penalty for a better roll on the table, similar to aimed attacks in Fallout.

 

On a mostly unrelated noted, death magic would have also been workable as a soft counter if implemented like death spells in Morrowind -- basically, a big but very brief drop in endurance, so either it kills them outright or basically does nothing. Grazes and crits would actually make sense there -- obviously increasing the damage would be helpful, but also increasing the duration would allow a tiny window where another hit or two could finish them off.

 

As long as we're on the subject of Fallout, one rule change that would mitigate the supremacy of tank and spank would be the use of (a chance of) friendly fire for ranged attacks (or even melee with the right talents on the defender). Realistically, if the guy who wants to stop your squishy arrow-shooting ass from being pummeled by the enemy brawler has interposed himself directly between you and said brawler, he has also positioned himself directly between your arrows and the brawler, which is a problem. Implements should be reimagined as essentially telekinetic weapons rather than projectile, taking a penalty to damage in exchange for ignoring friendly fire or any other talent that would block or affect projectiles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In IE magic usually helped to solve stalemates as it spells always hit, but their target could save against their effects, where in PoE spells use same ACC-DEF system than weapon attacks.

 

So miss-graze-hit-crit system only gives larger variety of hit types.

The IE games also had a solution to the stalemate problem for NON-magic battles. They use the D20 system, where 1 is always a miss and And a 20 is always a hit.

 

Personally, though, I've come to terms with the Miss--Graze---Hit--Crit system that PoE uses. I like it. My only issue with it is how....universal it is. It applies to everything. Which means we'll never see those dramatic high level magic battle moments from BG2 and IWD2 where a heated, intense battle could end suddenly in a nail-biting moment due to, say, a Finger of Death, or a Wail of the Banshee. After all, what's the point of scoring a critical hit with your death spell? or a Graze with your Destruction spell?

 

 

One thing I'd love to see is for more than just the duration of spell effects to vary with attack resolution. Particularly, CC spells need to apply different status effects based on the attack resolution - so on a hit you might charm, and on a crit you might dominate, but a graze only dazes. (just as an example)

 

This would allow for a bit more counter-play on both the part of the player and the AI against status effects. As it is, you can confuse or paralyze even extremely powerful enemies for a decent amount of time since you can generally get a graze even when their defenses are very high. Extremely powerful status effects like confuse, charm/dominate, paralyze, etc should be difficult to apply and (IMO) should only ever apply on a hit or a crit, with the possible exception of some very powerful and very specialized (possibly single-target) spells. Maybe slicken doesn't inflict prone unless you hit, and just hobbles on a graze? Etc...

 

There's been some serious missed opportunity to do interesting things with spell effects and the attack resolution system. Maybe they'll implement some more interesting stuff in the expansion?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to be this blunt, but...

 

That review is ****. It is. Obsidian's "worst game of all time"? Really???

What would be the worst game? (I really don't know.)


How can anyone in their right mind try to ship a multimillion dollar product without making absolutely sure that they don't upset all their players with a degree in Medieval English Linguistics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents (for whatever they are worth to you) is that PoE is an above average game generally - since there have been almost no games of its genre released until the recent renaissance, that makes it definitely worth playing.

 

It has some very enjoyable aspects - I happen to think the characters are very good and at least as engaging as anything over the past half dozen years. The writing is not bad - it does grow a little flat in some places but does the job for the most part. Atmosphere is fantastic - that room in the Temple of Eothas will stay with me for a while, and I actually am a big fan of the reputation/personality system, which I think has ample reactivity and adds flavor and even some consequence. Story is a mixed bag - I agree with those who have said it suffers from serious motivation/pacing problems; I actually thought knowing the villain from the beginning in, e.g., BGII, was a huge advantage. But there are still good parts to the story. (Admittedly, the stronghold was an enormous let down, and really something it felt like they didn't want to do but had no choice - did not fit into the story at all and had no meaningful content attached to it). 

 

However, the single biggest problem with PoE, though, is that gameplay isn't very enjoyable, at least for me, for many of the reasons that people have pointed out here. I think there is a reason the Codex review spent an inordinate amount of time on gameplay, and though I disagree with a few of his criticisms about other elements of the game, most of them are fairly accurate, especially as to gameplay. The gameplay being poor isn't necessarily a death sentence; I love PS:T and (especially) Arcanum, and I consider both of them to have terrible gameplay. Arcanum is especially bad given the gameplay radically alters depending on what mode you play on, yet they all manage to be wonky, horribly balanced, and tedious. But both of those games have some other sterling qualities that are so strong they surpass the poor gameplay; PoE isn't quite good enough to make me want to slog through the poor gameplay to experience the other elements; I'm stalled about halfway through and don't have much motivation to continue on. Also, it is a huge problem for PoE in particular because PoE throws TONS of encounters at you. It is designed to. PS:T and Arcanum both went out of their way to provide non-combat options for at least significant portions of the game. 

 

And while those of you who are saying this is the first game, and there are going to be growing pains, have a point, I am concerned that (again, for me personally) the gameplay would need such radical overhauling that you would basically need to blow everything up and start over. For me, it's not just the engagement system; it's DR, it's the samey feeling to almost all of the classes, it's the counter-intuitive attribute system that manages to be meaningful in all the wrong ways (why does my theoretically frail yet arcanely mighty wizard keep getting options to hoist people up by their shirt collars?), it's the encounters that all play out almost exactly the same way, over and over again.

 

In sum, PoE delivered up to my (IMHO conservative and reasonable) expectations on the "Role-playing" front, but failed to deliver on the "Game" front, making it decent but not great. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not reading all this crap. Review was Awesome.

 

Fanboys gonna Fanoboy.

 

 

 

I hate to be this blunt, but...

 

That review is ****. It is. Obsidian's "worst game of all time"? Really???

 

There are plenty of problems with PoE. Plenty. I'm not denying that. But it is a very good game nonetheless. This isn't a review, it's a rant. It's rife with misunderstandings of basic game mechanics, which makes all his criticisms of the mechanics suspect at best.. and the fact that he couldn't think of a single thing to praise other than the aesthetics and the music is silly. This is a troll review at best. It's very clear that the reviewer went into it looking to take every single complaint he had about the game and magnify it to the point of ridiculousness.

 

Sorry, Sensuki... I've gotta disagree with you 100% here. This review is the Codex at its worst. And I say that not in a "the Codex is terrible" sense, but in a "this is the kind of thing that gives the Codex a bad name" sense.

 

:getlost:

Edited by Immortalis

From George Ziets @ http://new.spring.me/#!/user/GZiets/timeline/responses

Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat. While this does put more emphasis on solving quests, the lack of rewards for killing creatures makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game) as much as I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait to buy all the expansions and contribute to the next kickstarter. Pillars of Eternity is really going to be the true successor and eclipse the Baldur's Gate series. 

Edited by RushAndAPush
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't like hardcounters. I think they're stupid. They are based purely on luck. They have no place in any well reasoned RPG. I'm so very happy they're not in this game.

You mean Save or else. Because Hard counters aren't based on luck. They're the opposite of luck. They're spells that guarantee immunity to the effect that the enemy is trying to afflict you with.
I dislike save or else (mazed in Bg2 one too many times, I guess.)

 

That said, hard counters are kind of cheesy. Could probably live with 'more likely that not' counters.

 

Anyhow, agree totally with your early assertion that the intended changes didn't pan out well...

Edited by Amentep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard counters and save or else are awesome because they make you change up strategy and not act the same every fight. As long as its done logically. Maze is a weird spell since there is literally no save for it. You get targeted by it with no super hard counters) you are simply screwed.  But, I'd rather have a maze like spell than the silliness of PE stuff where there are no ahrd counters or no uber spells... thought petrification is the closest thing.

  • Like 2

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"save or else" is a bit o' nonsense invented by the ignorant or the obtuse.  poe developers did not add insta-kill spells and effects to their game.  great.  am not sure what "save or else" is s'posed to mean to some o' you jokers.  paralyze effects is not insta-kill, and neither is domination.  you get hit by a powerful enough fireball blast, and don't make your save, you very well could die, but that is a factor o' damage rather than a "die" effect.  same were true in bg2 btw. well guess what, all those adverse effects in poe is the same. take damage after getting hit with an effect and you may die... or you may die from the damage resulting from the effect. regardless, is no poe insta-kill effects.

 

oh, and btw, with all the in-combat options for revives, death (knockout actually) is nothing more than another aspect o' combat, and an intriguing one at that.  for many battles we plan ahead-- assume we is gonna lose a party member or two, and we tactical plan on when to revive.  paladin revive ability bug needs be addressed though.

 

we found all those domination, confusion and stun effects to be mighty annoying for much o' the game, but it ain't as if our characters don't have such stuff.  *chuckle* combats can get kinda wacky when more o' the enemies is actually friendly than party members, eh?  is different.  is not like ie battles.  in bg2 once we had the Ultimate Protection against level drain and mental domination/charm, vampires were a laughable foe.  once we had the Ultimate Protection (pre-buffed in layers) 'gainst mind flayers, those battles were also cake walks.  poe is different.  we can't walk into a battle knowing we is immune to everything save melee damage. good. is different and frustrating and good.  heck, we didn't think psychic backlash were much o' a talent, and it still isn't, but am thinking we will take it for virtual all our cipher characters henceforth.  any help we can get to deal with those mental attacks is a good thing.  poe is different and thank goodness for that.

 

regardless, "save or else" were not the crpg/rpg evil obsidian were exorcising from poe... no more than they ever claimed that poe were the "spiritual successor" o' the ie games.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 7

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called Feedback. Complicated concept to grasp, I know, but lets roll with it anyway.

Not really. It'd be called Feedback if devs actually cared to read it, but I doubt some of them has the nerve to jump into the pool of vitroil each and every such discussion seems to devolve into. And I can't blame them for it, really.

 

Anyway, most of the game's issues became apparent and were reported since beta, the rest were shouted about within first week after release. They're known. I expect some of them to get fixed in expansion incoming and the others (namely, battle mechanics complaints) to go ignored as I have feeling devs already know what they want to do with their game and it's not going to make Baldur's Gate fetishists (I'm sorry, but some of posters really are) happy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

 

In IE magic usually helped to solve stalemates as it spells always hit, but their target could save against their effects, where in PoE spells use same ACC-DEF system than weapon attacks.
 
So miss-graze-hit-crit system only gives larger variety of hit types.

The IE games also had a solution to the stalemate problem for NON-magic battles. They use the D20 system, where 1 is always a miss and And a 20 is always a hit.

Personally, though, I've come to terms with the Miss--Graze---Hit--Crit system that PoE uses. I like it. My only issue with it is how....universal it is. It applies to everything. Which means we'll never see those dramatic high level magic battle moments from BG2 and IWD2 where a heated, intense battle could end suddenly in a nail-biting moment due to, say, a Finger of Death, or a Wail of the Banshee. After all, what's the point of scoring a critical hit with your death spell? or a Graze with your Destruction spell?

 

 

One thing I'd love to see is for more than just the duration of spell effects to vary with attack resolution. Particularly, CC spells need to apply different status effects based on the attack resolution - so on a hit you might charm, and on a crit you might dominate, but a graze only dazes. (just as an example)

 

This would allow for a bit more counter-play on both the part of the player and the AI against status effects. As it is, you can confuse or paralyze even extremely powerful enemies for a decent amount of time since you can generally get a graze even when their defenses are very high. Extremely powerful status effects like confuse, charm/dominate, paralyze, etc should be difficult to apply and (IMO) should only ever apply on a hit or a crit, with the possible exception of some very powerful and very specialized (possibly single-target) spells. Maybe slicken doesn't inflict prone unless you hit, and just hobbles on a graze? Etc...

 

There's been some serious missed opportunity to do interesting things with spell effects and the attack resolution system. Maybe they'll implement some more interesting stuff in the expansion?

 

 

I definitely agree.  I think the debuffs/soft CCs (hobbled, blind, etc) should cause their effects regardless of whether your graze, hit, or crit.  Their duration should be effected based on whether it is a graze, hit, crit.  Some single target hard CCs should also remain this way (Fighter Knockdown).  However, big CCs like Charmed, Paralyze, and/or big AoEs that cause knockdown should only work when hitting or critting, and should hobble, daze, etc when they graze.  Obviously, these abilities/spells should do nothing when they miss.  If not, the AoE CCs need to go.  They really trivialize the combat too much.  Especially the way the AI doggy piles the Tank.

 

@Gromnir - I won't argue for pre-buffing.  I never cared for it, and I think it adds a lot of tedium by forcing the habit and then forcing the players to strip those effects from enemies.  I understand why some like it, and admittedly have played games like NWN (1 and 2) as a Strength Bard that prebuffs.  However, I think that gameplay style not being in PoE is fine.  I know others think it needs to be here, but I definitely do not.  

 

However, I will stand by "hard counters" and "Save or else" being a good thing.  You can call it archaic, obtuse, or what have you.  However, it is in those moments where you failed with your spell, or the enemies are resisting your normal strategy, that you have to think up something else. Because of differing party compositions this forces you to do different things from one fight to another and from one play through to another.  I see that as a good thing.  Otherwise, it is far too easy to open almost every hard fight with Gaze of the Adragan (or some equivalent CC), and pretty much stomp the opponent.  

 

I always liken it to a popular quote from Return of the Jedi.  "It's a trap!!!"  The rebels were hard countered, and then they had to do what they could to come out on top.  Or maybe the Empire was Pre-buffed.   :dancing:

 

The effects of these CCs aren't really the problem, nor the consistency of them working, but the fact that a large portion of them are AoE is definitely an issue.  Charming/Dominating 1 Ogre among the 7 in combat isn't a huge swing, but Charming/Paralyzing/Proning/etc 2 to 4 of them is a gigantic one.  The fact that 1 or 2 buffs to accuracy can make those effects a near certainty (with a hefty duration, I might add) compounds the issue.  

 

The annoyance of being under the effects of these CCs would be diminished if we had ways to remove those effects.  Reducing the time is ok, but sometimes you have to use a CC to counter the CC.  It just isn't great gameplay IMHO, but YMMV.  I would rather be able to devote resources to fixing the issue and not using a duct tape solution.  

 

EG - I would rather be able to remove the effect vs reduce the duration or casting hold on my Charmed Rogue party member.  

 

To each their own.  I will say... that as annoying as these CCs can be that their not being removable has forced me to do some odd things to stop my Monk, with full wounds, under the effects of charm from tearing my squishies apart.  However, if that kind of variability is ok then why are hard counters a problem?  Because the outcomes are the same.  The outcomes are " **** happened and now you gotta deal with it".  I guess you could argue that the way the system works that it isn't a variability, but all that does is make me (and I would assume many others) metagame it on harder encounters. These Dank Spores are gonna Charm/dominate the party?  Open combat with Priest's Prayer Against Treachery.  Those Drakes going to drop some AoE frighten/terrify?  Open with Prayer Against Fear.  So on, and so forth.  

 

Anyway, to go on record... I really like the game, and I am really enjoying it, but I won't pretend that all is right in Eora.  To use a metaphor, I think that this is a really good base for some amazing soup, but I still want to voice my opinion on what spices would be the best.  I expect the Expacs and the Sequels to bring the spice.  

Edited by Ganrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

In IE magic usually helped to solve stalemates as it spells always hit, but their target could save against their effects, where in PoE spells use same ACC-DEF system than weapon attacks.

 

So miss-graze-hit-crit system only gives larger variety of hit types.

The IE games also had a solution to the stalemate problem for NON-magic battles. They use the D20 system, where 1 is always a miss and And a 20 is always a hit.

 

Personally, though, I've come to terms with the Miss--Graze---Hit--Crit system that PoE uses. I like it. My only issue with it is how....universal it is. It applies to everything. Which means we'll never see those dramatic high level magic battle moments from BG2 and IWD2 where a heated, intense battle could end suddenly in a nail-biting moment due to, say, a Finger of Death, or a Wail of the Banshee. After all, what's the point of scoring a critical hit with your death spell? or a Graze with your Destruction spell?

 

 

One thing I'd love to see is for more than just the duration of spell effects to vary with attack resolution. Particularly, CC spells need to apply different status effects based on the attack resolution - so on a hit you might charm, and on a crit you might dominate, but a graze only dazes. (just as an example)

 

This would allow for a bit more counter-play on both the part of the player and the AI against status effects. As it is, you can confuse or paralyze even extremely powerful enemies for a decent amount of time since you can generally get a graze even when their defenses are very high. Extremely powerful status effects like confuse, charm/dominate, paralyze, etc should be difficult to apply and (IMO) should only ever apply on a hit or a crit, with the possible exception of some very powerful and very specialized (possibly single-target) spells. Maybe slicken doesn't inflict prone unless you hit, and just hobbles on a graze? Etc...

 

There's been some serious missed opportunity to do interesting things with spell effects and the attack resolution system. Maybe they'll implement some more interesting stuff in the expansion?

 

 

I definitely agree.  I think the debuffs/soft CCs (hobbled, blind, etc) should cause their effects regardless of whether your graze, hit, or crit.  Their duration should be effected based on whether it is a graze, hit, crit.  Some single target hard CCs should also remain this way (Fighter Knockdown).  However, big CCs like Charmed, Paralyze, and/or big AoEs that cause knockdown should only work when hitting or critting, and should hobble, daze, etc when they graze.  Obviously, these abilities/spells should do nothing when they miss.  If not, the AoE CCs need to go.  They really trivialize the combat too much.  Especially the way the AI doggy piles the Tank.

 

@Gromnir - I won't argue for pre-buffing.  I never cared for it, and I think it adds a lot of tedium by forcing the habit and then forcing the players to strip those effects from enemies.  I understand why some like it, and admittedly have played games like NWN (1 and 2) as a Strength Bard that prebuffs.  However, I think that gameplay style not being in PoE is fine.  I know others think it needs to be here, but I definitely do not.  

 

However, I will stand by "hard counters" and "Save or else" being a good thing.  You can call it archaic, obtuse, or what have you.  However, it is in those moments where you failed with your spell, or the enemies are resisting your normal strategy, that you have to think up something else. Because of differing party compositions this forces you to do different things from one fight to another and from one play through to another.  I see that as a good thing.  Otherwise, it is far too easy to open almost every hard fight with Gaze of the Adragan (or some equivalent CC), and pretty much stomp the opponent.  

 

I always liken it to a popular quote from Return of the Jedi.  "It's a trap!!!"  The rebels were hard countered, and then they had to do what they could to come out on top.  Or maybe the Empire was Pre-buffed.   :dancing:

 

The effects of these CCs aren't really the problem, nor the consistency of them working, but the fact that a large portion of them are AoE is definitely an issue.  Charming/Dominating 1 Ogre among the 7 in combat isn't a huge swing, but Charming/Paralyzing/Proning/etc 2 to 4 of them is a gigantic one.  The fact that 1 or 2 buffs to accuracy can make those effects a near certainty (with a hefty duration, I might add) compounds the issue.  

 

The annoyance of being under the effects of these CCs would be diminished if we had ways to remove those effects.  Reducing the time is ok, but sometimes you have to use a CC to counter the CC.  It just isn't great gameplay IMHO, but YMMV.  I would rather be able to devote resources to fixing the issue and not using a duct tape solution.  

 

EG - I would rather be able to remove the effect vs reduce the duration or casting hold on my Charmed Rogue party member.  

 

To each their own.  I will say... that as annoying as these CCs can be that their not being removable has forced me to do some odd things to stop my Monk, with full wounds, under the effects of charm from tearing my squishies apart.  However, if that kind of variability is ok then why are hard counters a problem?  Because the outcomes are the same.  The outcomes are " **** happened and now you gotta deal with it".  I guess you could argue that the way the system works that it isn't a variability, but all that does is make me (and I would assume many others) metagame it on harder encounters. These Dank Spores are gonna Charm/dominate the party?  Open combat with Priest's Prayer Against Treachery.  Those Drakes going to drop some AoE frighten/terrify?  Open with Prayer Against Fear.  So on, and so forth.  

 

Anyway, to go on record... I really like the game, and I am really enjoying it, but I won't pretend that all is right in Eora.  To use a metaphor, I think that this is a really good base for some amazing soup, but I still want to voice my opinion on what spices would be the best.  I expect the Expacs and the Sequels to bring the spice.  

 

possible misunderstanding?  you like the ie/d&d approach?  fine.  is nothing wrong with that.  personally we see d&d as even more susceptible to the meatgame approach.  hell, take demi-liches as an example o' the wacky meta-game silliness d&d were capable o' dumping on us.  an astral or ethereal mage casting power word kill can insta-kill a demi-lich? yeah, trial and error or reason your way to figuring that out. sorry, but the meta-game argument is not your friend.

 

regardless, the point were that obsidian ain't the folks who came up with "save or else."  obsidian rejected insta-kills and hard counters and that resulted in different gameplay for poe.  different.  you don't need to like different, but some folks pretending as if obsidian abandoning insta-kills is somehow disingenuous or inconsistent with their message board and interview claims is utter hokum.

 

we like different.  the frustration we had to endure with poe combat was a challenge.  dominated party members seem invariably to switch to ranged weapons?  well then, before fighting dark spores, we make sure our party is armed with crappy ranged weapons to minimize the harm from our own party members. *chuckle* we found an alternative use for the disappointer.  that ain't metagame but tactical awareness... and perhaps a bit o' an exploit.

 

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 3

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1) Save or else - will not be in the game because it is a dreadfully Non-fun, non-tactical, binary gameplay hangover from the IE games and should die by fire.

2) Hard counters and pre-buffs - will not be in the game because they are apocalyptic designs that promote metagaming, instead of reaction based tactical gameplay

 

Also, if I remember right, the whole "miss-graze-hit-crit + DR" system was advertised as a solution for preventing the "miss fests" that allegedly plagued the IE games.

 

Yet in those games I have never experienced such hopeless stalemates as in situations in PoE when tank-Eder and random-enemy-boss were the only ones left standing. Miss after miss after miss, with an occasional graze for single-digit damage. Could sometimes have probably gone on for fifteen minutes if I hadn't been impatient and reloaded.

 

 

This. God. Damn. This. The discrepancy between survivability and an ability to hit the broad side of a barn is crazy. I've had huge fights where the only survivor is Edér, and they can stand and swing at eachother for upwards 5 minutes without meaningfully hurt eachother (but then Edér eventually loses out, because he, well, he's a lover, not a fighter; and also, he sucks at damage-dealing).

 

Anyone that's talking about miss-fests in the IE games have no goddamn idea what they're talking about.

Edited by Luckmann
  • Like 1

t50aJUd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard counters and save or else are awesome because they make you change up strategy and not act the same every fight. As long as its done logically. Maze is a weird spell since there is literally no save for it. You get targeted by it with no super hard counters) you are simply screwed.  But, I'd rather have a maze like spell than the silliness of PE stuff where there are no ahrd counters or no uber spells... thought petrification is the closest thing.

 

They deliberately did not have hard counters as it just creates what they call puzzle fights. If you don't use the hard counter you are screwed, if you do the fight becomes trivial, and this gets decided before the fight even starts. Casting the spell that protects against maze when you are up against a boss that casts maze is not strategy, that's common sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

1) Save or else - will not be in the game because it is a dreadfully Non-fun, non-tactical, binary gameplay hangover from the IE games and should die by fire.2) Hard counters and pre-buffs - will not be in the game because they are apocalyptic designs that promote metagaming, instead of reaction based tactical gameplay

Also, if I remember right, the whole "miss-graze-hit-crit + DR" system was advertised as a solution for preventing the "miss fests" that allegedly plagued the IE games.

 

Yet in those games I have never experienced such hopeless stalemates as in situations in PoE when tank-Eder and random-enemy-boss were the only ones left standing. Miss after miss after miss, with an occasional graze for single-digit damage. Could sometimes have probably gone on for fifteen minutes if I hadn't been impatient and reloaded.

This. God. Damn. This. The discrepancy between survivability and an ability to hit the broad side of a barn is crazy. I've had huge fights where the only survivor is Edér, and they can stand and swing at eachother for upwards 5 minutes without meaningfully hurt eachother (but then Edér eventually loses out, because he, well, he's a lover, not a fighter; and also, he sucks at damage-dealing).

 

Anyone that's talking about miss-fests in the IE games have no goddamn idea what they're talking about.

Amen! Preach it brother!

 

And to make things worse - this is not a bug! It will not get "fixed"! It is working as intended.

 

I just can't believe anyone would like this, let alone say "this is what I wanted!"

 

Crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I didn't misunderstand you Gromnir.  I am not arguing for D&D here either.  I don't want save vs Death.  It's odd you use that particular save vs effect since I used examples of CCs. I haven't once mentioned save vs death.  Could we not use examples of extremes that don't exist in this game to argue our points about PoE?  Unless of course you see someone arguing for that extreme.  I am talking save vs CC.  I am not arguing for a Finger of Death.  

 

I would like Obsidian to use its Accuracy system to have some variability in the outcome of CC.  More variability than duration, that is.  It isn't one way or the other IMHO.  There can be a happy medium.  If a wizard grazes on Gaze of the Adragan it doesn't have to necessarily still land a Paralyze effect.  It could just hobble or daze, or perhaps cause a knockdown.  I do not want the spells/abilities to be hit or miss, but the spells to work more like:  Crit = Extended Paralyze (or Petrify), Hit = Normal Paralyze, graze= knockdown (hobble or daze), and miss does nothing.  Of course another thing they could do is cut down on so many spells and abilities being AoE.  I may actually prefer that route as at the moment a large number spells effect far too many enemies at once because we need to make sure Intellect is valuable as an Attribute.  

 

Either way, I actually like the game, as I said in the post you quoted.  Heck, I have played through the game 2 times and working on 3 now.  I would probably have a few more plays under my belt, but life has been busy lately.  Anyway, I just think certain things are janky, and the fact that any combat can be resolved using the same tactics as any other is one culprit.  I do agree the game being different from the other IE games is a bit of a breath of fresh air, but the game still has issues in my eyes.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"They deliberately did not have hard counters as it just creates what they call puzzle fights. If you don't use the hard counter you are screwed, if you do the fight becomes trivial, and this gets decided before the fight even starts. Casting the spell that protects against maze when you are up against a boss that casts maze is not strategy, that's common sense."

 

The idea is not use the same  super spells like maze/use the same ahrd counters all the time. The problem with made/mr demi lich is that is all he used.  Better off either a) have the mage not use mze right away b) cast a spell to remove your protections c) cast it on a character who likely won't be defended. Also, mix it up. Maze was not a commonly used spell in BG2 so if you preped just to defend against you may very well be wasting a resource.  Unless you were the type to rest between every fight. For example, having a cave that is just poison using or level draining enemies is easy to counter but mix it up. BG2 MOSTLY did i this well.

 

With PE, there were a lot of fights only about a dozen fights were really worthwhile. In a 50+ hour game with lot of combatthat is pretty sad. Even sadder, despite that, I genuinely find PE's combat fun. But, it could soooooooooooo much more.

  • Like 1

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I didn't misunderstand you Gromnir.  I am not arguing for D&D here either.  I don't want save vs Death.  It's odd you use that particular save vs effect since I used examples of CCs. I haven't once mentioned save vs death.  Could we not use examples of extremes that don't exist in this game to argue our points about PoE?  Unless of course you see someone arguing for that extreme.  I am talking save vs CC.  I am not arguing for a Finger of Death.  

 

I would like Obsidian to use its Accuracy system to have some variability in the outcome of CC.  More variability than duration, that is.  It isn't one way or the other IMHO.  There can be a happy medium.  If a wizard grazes on Gaze of the Adragan it doesn't have to necessarily still land a Paralyze effect.  It could just hobble or daze, or perhaps cause a knockdown.  I do not want the spells/abilities to be hit or miss, but the spells to work more like:  Crit = Extended Paralyze (or Petrify), Hit = Normal Paralyze, graze= knockdown (hobble or daze), and miss does nothing.  Of course another thing they could do is cut down on so many spells and abilities being AoE.  I may actually prefer that route as at the moment a large number spells effect far too many enemies at once because we need to make sure Intellect is valuable as an Attribute.  

 

Either way, I actually like the game, as I said in the post you quoted.  Heck, I have played through the game 2 times and working on 3 now.  I would probably have a few more plays under my belt, but life has been busy lately.  Anyway, I just think certain things are janky, and the fact that any combat can be resolved using the same tactics as any other is one culprit.  I do agree the game being different from the other IE games is a bit of a breath of fresh air, but the game still has issues in my eyes.

I actually though that lesser conditions would be a great way to do grazes. Like if someone grazes on a charm spell they end up confused or something instead. That way those spells aren't completely useless if you graze, but aren't as overpowered as they are now.

  • Like 7

"Take your child murderin' god and shove his him up his own ass."-Volorun

 

"...the vote of a black redhead disabled homosexual transsexual Jew should probably be worth the same as at least a hundred white heterosexual Christians."-Rostere

 

"i can think of many women i would gladly sleep with, but not a single one that i would want as a girlfriend/wife... neither real nor fictional."-teknoman2

 

"I'm all for killing dogs in film." - algroth

 

"Iselmyr is the one who did GOMAD... Aloth is lactose intolerant" -ShadySands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"save or else" is a bit o' nonsense invented by the ignorant or the obtuse.  poe developers did not add insta-kill spells and effects to their game.  great.  am not sure what "save or else" is s'posed to mean to some o' you jokers.  paralyze effects is not insta-kill, and neither is domination.  you get hit by a powerful enough fireball blast, and don't make your save, you very well could die, but that is a factor o' damage rather than a "die" effect.  same were true in bg2 btw. well guess what, all those adverse effects in poe is the same. take damage after getting hit with an effect and you may die... or you may die from the damage resulting from the effect. regardless, is no poe insta-kill effects.

 

The problem in PoE is HP (or energy) bloat. In BG hold spells were often a death sentence because the HP was low and even the tanks could go down in several hits. In PoE the massive amount of energy and the short duration of prone / paralyze / stuck etc makes these effects a lot less dangerous. I don't know if reducing the HP per level up in PoE would help keep the combat challenging through the entire game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"They deliberately did not have hard counters as it just creates what they call puzzle fights. If you don't use the hard counter you are screwed, if you do the fight becomes trivial, and this gets decided before the fight even starts. Casting the spell that protects against maze when you are up against a boss that casts maze is not strategy, that's common sense."

 

The idea is not use the same  super spells like maze/use the same ahrd counters all the time. The problem with made/mr demi lich is that is all he used.  Better off either a) have the mage not use mze right away b) cast a spell to remove your protections c) cast it on a character who likely won't be defended. Also, mix it up. Maze was not a commonly used spell in BG2 so if you preped just to defend against you may very well be wasting a resource.  Unless you were the type to rest between every fight. For example, having a cave that is just poison using or level draining enemies is easy to counter but mix it up. BG2 MOSTLY did i this well.

 

With PE, there were a lot of fights only about a dozen fights were really worthwhile. In a 50+ hour game with lot of combatthat is pretty sad. Even sadder, despite that, I genuinely find PE's combat fun. But, it could soooooooooooo much more.

 

The encounter still gets decided before combat even starts, and requires metagaming to boot- you need to know you are up against maze/level drain/etc in advance (because you died to them and reload, read a guide, or played the game before), and if you do the boss might as well not have those abilities at all. You can't just make yourself immune to the enemy in advance in PoE, so you have to deal and react to their gimmick during the actual battle.

 

Also there is still the issue of (lack of) an oportunity cost. There's no reason not to use protection against negative energy before a fight if you are facing vampires, and no reason not to use the generic long lasting buffs (protection circle, bless, stone skin etc) before every fight. In PoE you have to decide if you want to buff yourself (and with what), debuff the enemy, CC, or just nuke them with damage. 

 

I don't disagree with you saying encounters in PoE could have been better/more interesting, I think more fun and challenging encounters are achievable with the systems in place though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...