Are per encounter spells needed? And are they balanced?

[Oralaina]

 

Fine with me so long as it is by design rather than by accident.

 

As an example, a fighter who's immortal if the player doesn't equip him right or use his abilities right is unlikely to be much fun to play, unless he is an NPC with a great backstory explaining his immortality, and is something I'd normally consider poorly designed, while a fighter class who required the player to equip and specialize in a certain way to achieve immortality when the player played well, but failed to achieve immortality when played poorly or with minimal tactical considerations (positioning/ability use), could be a quite funny class design to play. You'd probably want to give it a more thematic name hinting at its awesome powers than fighter, though. Likewise, if you make a cipher class to have all sorts of different abilities to use with a resource system that gradually refills in combat, and it turns into a machinegun against your intent and in combat doesn't represent the class as it is otherwise presented in the game, thus creating a clear dissonance, that's bad, whereas if the cipher operating as a machinegun fits into the theme or story being told (and is fun to play), that's great.

 

I've played fantasy CRPGs where melee damagedealers were the most powerful, where ranged damagedealers were the most powerful, where casters were most powerful, and a few other combinations during my 30 years of playing singleplayer CRPGs, and I can't say that it matters much to me who comes out on top of the different classes in a game. I just examine what is available and tailor my party for the theme I want to achieve and challenge I want to face and go with that.

 

(Same goes for races.)

 

And, of course, regardless of what sort of class balance there is in a game, there will be players complaining about it. Nerf this, buff that, ad nauseam. That pretty much goes without saying. But who cares? Other than those who agree with them that class balance is important, but for whatever reason prefer another class balance, that is. :D

 

 

Very well said.  I always start out trying to post things like that, give up after I get tangled in phrases that make no sense, and then am just real happy when someone who's got it together posts it so I can agree!

Edited September 22, 2015 by Oralaina

[Teioh_White]

There seems to be some idea that the issue is that -casters- are out of whack, and that's problem. Class balance isn't even the problem itself, just zooming in on what example of troublesome gameplay design. It doesn't matter where the imbalance in gameplay is, it has a negative impact on the game, and leads to less tuned and challenging gamplay.

 

To a degre the player can self mitigate this, but it gets bad when the player has to constantly attempt to house rule themselves, rather than focusing instead on how to better work the system. It's more stimulating for the player to tune strategy to get the most out of a system, than it is to find things to prune off it.  It's particularly annoying when a game actually has really solid core gameplay, but it's just let down by the balance.

 

Of course, they'll always be people saying some variation of it's fine, it's a single player game, play it as you want.  Or who even enjoy the overpowered aspect, and that's what makes it fun for them.  Plenty of games show balance and tuned gameplay isn't very important to players, even in genre. And it really shouldn't be a large concern for devs, as for the vast majority of players, they'll never even finish the game once, let alone multiple times. And balance isn't a big deal playing a game for a short period of time.

[Elric Galad]

The more I think about it, the more I believe that spells should be only per rest.

 

A lot of abilities of non-caster classes have been balanced in some ways taking into account that they are per encounter.

 

Take the example of blinding strike or Knockdown : before level 9, they are useful tools for small encounters. After level 9, they suddenly become total lacklusters when wizard start spamming slicken 4x times per encounter.

 

My current party is lvl 8. Spells are per rest and I feel it is more epic this way.

 

It is not even that per encounter spells scale too fast, it is that they kill the thrill of managing ressources, as well as they kill abilities meant to carry small encounters (like chanters support or cipher spells).

 

I think it will be better to have a way to disable them in standard game, but there is an IE mod to do so anyway. So for my next playthrough, I'll choose this option.

[oaktownbrown]

To a degre the player can self mitigate this, but it gets bad when the player has to constantly attempt to house rule themselves, rather than focusing instead on how to better work the system. It's more stimulating for the player to tune strategy to get the most out of a system, than it is to find things to prune off it.  It's particularly annoying when a game actually has really solid core gameplay, but it's just let down by the balance.

 

Of course, they'll always be people saying some variation of it's fine, it's a single player game, play it as you want.  Or who even enjoy the overpowered aspect, and that's what makes it fun for them.  Plenty of games show balance and tuned gameplay isn't very important to players, even in genre. And it really shouldn't be a large concern for devs, as for the vast majority of players, they'll never even finish the game once, let alone multiple times. And balance isn't a big deal playing a game for a short period of time.

 

I like being able to house rule gameplay. I don't think it's more fun to try to figure out how to beat the system. I'd far rather the devs focus on giving players tools so that they can decide how much and what kind of challenge that they want (e.g., by self-imposed restrictions).

 

I don't think it's possible for a dev to get the challenge level right when a game has many players with a wide variety of skill levels (and each of them being good at different kinds of challenges), many different playstyles, and a variety of preferred challenges in a game. E.g., from other posts, you like to know where the good equipment is and plan your character based on that. You like that type of challenge. I prefer to have to deal with random drops, although it's good if at least some of them have equipment that is interesting and are useful for everyone. Some people here seem to like to rest before somewhat difficult encounters and might try to never have a party member knocked out. I prefer to fight on and have the challenge of dealing with fewer resources (per rest) as well as possible fatigue. Some players may want to get through tough fights without needing to camp immediately afterward or, e.g., complete a full level (or two levels, three levels, etc.) of the Endless Paths (or any map(s)) without resting. Neither way is right or wrong but a game dev can't tailor a game's challenges to all these preferences. Sometimes it's possible for a game dev to give the player tools to do that, though, and I am for as much of that in a game as practicable (e.g., through game menu options, in game options like player control over when to level up, etc.). I really don't care at all about beating the game's official system; for me, house ruling (i.e., customizing) a game in a way that makes it fun to play for me is tuning the game in a way that gets the most out of it.

 

The more I think about it, the more I believe that spells should be only per rest.

 

A lot of abilities of non-caster classes have been balanced in some ways taking into account that they are per encounter.

 

Take the example of blinding strike or Knockdown : before level 9, they are useful tools for small encounters. After level 9, they suddenly become total lacklusters when wizard start spamming slicken 4x times per encounter.

 

My current party is lvl 8. Spells are per rest and I feel it is more epic this way.

 

It is not even that per encounter spells scale too fast, it is that they kill the thrill of managing ressources, as well as they kill abilities meant to carry small encounters (like chanters support or cipher spells).

 

I think it will be better to have a way to disable them in standard game, but there is an IE mod to do so anyway. So for my next playthrough, I'll choose this option.

 

 

I wouldn't mind this if casters continued to get more per rests of lower level spells when they leveled up. Right now, casters get 4 first level spells at level 3. That doesn't increase until level 9, when they get their level 1 spells per encounter. If the number of per rest spells increased gradually, I think that would work very well without the per encounter spells.

 

It probably doesn't help that my main in my party playthrough is a druid and IMO spiritshift is not a good ability, especially at mid to high levels. Therefore, IMO the druid's class talents suck except those that increase the number of spells at each level but those are available to all traditional caster classes. I'd like a way for my druid to feel  more powerful as a druid as I level up. Higher level spells help but when all the other casters (except chanters, which also need love in terms of class talents IMO) can get several talents that help them as casters, it feels like my druid is stagnating to me. I want some increase in lower level spells as I level up. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by oaktownbrown

[MunoValente]

Take the example of blinding strike or Knockdown : before level 9, they are useful tools for small encounters. After level 9, they suddenly become total lacklusters when wizard start spamming slicken 4x times per encounter.

 

Yeah 4x slicken or chill fog per encounter is a bit much, but at the same time I think having something per encounter is good, which is why I think making it something 1 per encounter, plus 4 more per rest, would be a better balance.  Perhaps up it to 2 per encounter at even higher levels or with a talent.  

 

Even better I think would be regenerating 1 per encounter, that way if you go a few fights without using them you can end up with a full load again or you can just use one per battle and immediately get it back.

[Elric Galad]

I would agree with both of you : a few per encounter spells and a few more low level spells wouldn't hurt. But I think casters class would be ok (and even powerful) even without this and without per encounter spells.

 

Spellcasters have other abilities that can help to give them per encounter use. I personnally think Spiritshift is really ok since 2.0, wizards have blast and arcane assault and priest interdiction, radiance, and +10 accuracy weapon talents.

 

I think in a certain way it compensates in easy encounters for not having too much low level spells and no per encounter spells. In a certain way, it makes caster playstyle more diversified.

[Hydralysk]

 

Take the example of blinding strike or Knockdown : before level 9, they are useful tools for small encounters. After level 9, they suddenly become total lacklusters when wizard start spamming slicken 4x times per encounter.

 

Yeah 4x slicken or chill fog per encounter is a bit much, but at the same time I think having something per encounter is good, which is why I think making it something 1 per encounter, plus 4 more per rest, would be a better balance.  Perhaps up it to 2 per encounter at even higher levels or with a talent.  

 

Even better I think would be regenerating 1 per encounter, that way if you go a few fights without using them you can end up with a full load again or you can just use one per battle and immediately get it back.

 

Not sure how I feel about regenerating spells, but I definitely like the idea of 1 or 2 encounter spells better than the current system. Once I get my wizard or druid to a per encounter basis all but the toughest fights seem to follow the exact same pattern: I lay down a chill fog and then spam fan of flames with my wizard, and queue up 4-5 charges of dancing bolts (or sunbeam if there's a fire weakness) with my druid. Everyone else just needs to stand still while everything around them dies.

 

I really like the idea of having 1 or 2 per encounter spells so at higher levels I can still lay down a chill fog and maybe a slicken or fan of flames at the beginning of every fight for free, but any additional spell require I pull from my per-rest pool. Perhaps add in a talent that allows you to specify a single spell be completely per encounter use, so if you do actually want your caster to spam your favourite spell you can build him around it.

[sapientNode]

Per encounter spells are fantastic.

 

The only thing they do is eliminate the need to either camp your group or run back to town and rest at an inn. What else is the real difference? I for one do not need my 27 intelligence Mage unable to remember how to cast spells. I used iemod and activated this function even before they put it in game because resting simply takes time.

 

Potentially if they added encounters to rest or some other variables they could be something more than a clicky regen button. Perhaps spells per encounter could be based on the Int stat since then it would make sense that a magic user could hold more inside their cranium or within themselves to be readily able to recall them.

 

As they are though I find it a refreshing design to the old mundus of fight a big party go find random spot in forest click button watch animation and poof your full health with spells. Its like the evolution of having to completely delete a spell book of certain spells then rescribe them with ones you want and resting again for them to be committed to the spell book. That was how it once was and this is simply yet another evolution.

 

It could be perhaps tweaked but it does not make anything OP because you essentially have the exact same thing as after each encounter resting which could cost around 80cp or 25-180cp if you go to an inn. And time of course.

 

Bottom line for me is that the per encounter spell use/ability use was a very refreshing addition to the genre. I like the fact I can utilize my skills more than 3 to 7 times per rest which made it so most of the time I just sat there and auto attacked. Now I can use more of my arsenal of attained skills/spells.

Edited September 26, 2015 by sapientNode

[Hydralysk]

And time of course.

 

For me that's the big sticking point. The time you spend walking back to the inn once you run out of supplies is boring, and I don't have as much time as I used to for playing games to being with. The cost for recharging my spells in that scenario isn't really paid by in-game currency, it's paid in my free time.

 

I CAN spend time going back to the inn, but that's an unattractive option to me so I'd rather just plow through until I absolutely need to stop, which means I get the added fun of resource management to the game (weird way to have fun I know, but there you go). I like having the option to replenish my spells at any point as a fallback at the cost of my free time, but with low-level spells being so effective having them regenerate after every encounter almost feels like I have cheat codes on. It almost completely destroys the need to worry about conserving your spells since you can rely solely on per-encounter spells in 80% of fights.

 

That isn't to say people that enjoy powering through things with their per-encounter spells are wrong for liking them. If I didn't enjoy the dilemma of whether using a spell was a cost-effective trade I'd probably agree with them, but that's my feelings on the subject.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Hydralysk

[Dinky Dino]

With the current state of the game, are per encounter spells needed?

 

With the new level cap you get level one, two and three as per encounter. The next expansion will get you level four.

 

Before it was determined that Ciphers were unbalanced because they started with enough focus to blast out two of their more powerful attacks at the start of every encounter. Now their focus is knocked back such that they can do one cast of their biggest power and then need to regain focus through attacks. Ciphers seem well balanced now and more of a hybrid caster/weapon user.

 

Ciphers are still top tier with amplified wave given the few item changes and new abilities. Once you get the Durgan steel that just makes em faster and their time leech emphasizes this which you get enough to start battles with at level 14 which they will have around 50 focus by next expansion to start with. Forget about it if you find gauntlets of swift action. Set an arquebus on them and you get a ridiculous amount of focus to spam amplified wave with and keep enemies pinned especially if you choose good talents like both whips and baby sneak attacks. The ridiculous range and fast cast time on amplified wave is what makes them great everything falls to the ground and takes damage even off screen and you don't have to get close to cast just aim at a teammate. Given accuracy and high levels of perception, dex and int cipher is a wrecking ball. Start off every battle with that and after the next volley or so the enemies practically beg for mercy. My go to class given that arquebus is great against ancient death Knights. Edited September 26, 2015 by Dinky Dino

[sapientNode]

Like someone posted in this thread I wish more devs would spend a good amount more time setting up modding capability to we could tinker with whatever we choose and share it.

[KDubya]

 

With the current state of the game, are per encounter spells needed?

 

With the new level cap you get level one, two and three as per encounter. The next expansion will get you level four.

 

Before it was determined that Ciphers were unbalanced because they started with enough focus to blast out two of their more powerful attacks at the start of every encounter. Now their focus is knocked back such that they can do one cast of their biggest power and then need to regain focus through attacks. Ciphers seem well balanced now and more of a hybrid caster/weapon user.

Ciphers are still top tier with amplified wave given the few item changes and new abilities. Once you get the Durgan steel that just makes em faster and their time leech emphasizes this which you get enough to start battles with at level 14 which they will have around 50 focus by next expansion to start with. Forget about it if you find gauntlets of swift action. Set an arquebus on them and you get a ridiculous amount of focus to spam amplified wave with and keep enemies pinned especially if you choose good talents like both whips and baby sneak attacks. The ridiculous range and fast cast time on amplified wave is what makes them great everything falls to the ground and takes damage even off screen and you don't have to get close to cast just aim at a teammate. Given accuracy and high levels of perception, dex and int cipher is a wrecking ball. Start off every battle with that and after the next volley or so the enemies practically beg for mercy. My go to class given that arquebus is great against ancient death Knights.

 

I agree that Ciphers are great but they are not a quadratic wizard at high levels.

 

You Cipher starts off with a Time Parasite that makes them like 50% faster. Now you have zero focus, you need to attack and hit to regain focus. You can miss with the attack, especially painful if it is a very slow reloading firearm, maybe instead you go with a fast Stormcaller or Persistence Bow. Going with the faster bow means you'll need a few attacks in order to get out your Amplified Wave. After which you will again be out of focus.

 

It takes time and you need to hit in order to gain and make use of your focus. If you skip the Time Parasite and go straight to Amplified Wave you get that first one off but then you are out of focus and need to attack to get it back, all without the benefit of the speed boost from time parasite.

 

Ciphers are easy to balance due to their need to hit and damage in order to generate focus.

 

The Wizard can instead cast alacrity for +50% speed, and then either go right into casting what ever spell he wants or he can set some defenses via free per encounter spells to give him defenses and endurance comparable to frontline melee. this takes enough time for two fast casts that are boosted by alacrity. The Wizard probably has his defenses and speed up before your Cipher has finished casting Time Parasite at the minimum he is set up before you've gotten off your first attack.

 

Unlike the Wizard your Cipher still has his normal low defenses and low hit points. You can fix them with powers but they all take time and cost focus. The Wizard has no limitation on what he can choose to do other than running out of spells, which at four per level gives you a pretty large quiver to pull from as well as being fully refreshed with the power nap, which you don't even need to abuse as your 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells with only a few higher level spells will carry the day except for a boss fight where you'll probably rest before and after.

[Elric Galad]

Like someone posted in this thread I wish more devs would spend a good amount more time setting up modding capability to we could tinker with whatever we choose and share it.

 

The point is Obsidian need an official version that is more or less balancer. They should not rely too much on Mod to do so.

 

That's why I belive that an option to make spell only per rest should be included in the base game.

This should be an Option (like Expert / Non Expert or companion auto-respec when you find them) because :

- per encounter spells does not BREAK the game. It only makes it UMBALANCED which is not so much a problem for single player game.

- per encounter spells are a lot of fun for a lot of players.

 

But my opinion is that :

- Only per rest only spell can bring balance to the world of PoE, without complex redesign that would require a LOT of work from Obsidian. Changes like 1-2 per encounter spells or additional low level spells are more a job for moders IMHO )  

- I really believe that it won't make casters Underpowered, they will still have options easy encounters. I even believe that these options (blast, Spiritshif) are currently completely overshadowed by encounter spells at high level.

- The "unbalance" issue will grow with additional Add-on and levels. Soon or later, Obsidian will need to fix it. And the fix might hurt.

 

My opinion is that this is a "fun vs balance" issue. Both deserve to be included in the base game.

[gkathellar]

Except that per-rest spells don't change the game's balance. They adjust the butthurt:power ratio in favor of butthurt, but they don't make casters any less powerful. So at the end of the day, when you do your boss fights fully rested, your casters are still going to make MVP.

[Elric Galad]

Except that per-rest spells don't change the game's balance. They adjust the butthurt:power ratio in favor of butthurt, but they don't make casters any less powerful. So at the end of the day, when you do your boss fights fully rested, your casters are still going to make MVP.

 

I see your point. But I think it does change class balance in practice.

 

I have some kind of "untold assumptions" in my reasonning that might be seen as a bias.

 

Like for example : "for the sake of epicness, my party won't go back to the hostel after a couple of fights."

 

I like having party members that are MVP for a whole dungeon, and other that are MVP for boss fights.

As long as I respect my own rule of epicness above, that makes all party members shine at specific moments.

Maybe I'm thinking like this because it has always been the case in my old IE games parties.

 

 

But I really think PoE has been designed following this principle.

What you're rising is not just a problem of spelcasters, it is an issue about the whole "per rest / per encounter" stuff, which is inspired by Tabletop games where GM ensures it does matter. In a videogames, players are more or less doing half of GM job (unless, for example, Time limit for quests are implemented). 

 

 

Personnaly, I think per rest ressource management is one of the interesting aspects of the gameplay.

It add another dimension to the gameplay (that you can completely skip if you're really blocked in some occasions)

It makes you feel more like "a dungeon explorer who can be short on ropes" and not a Diablo 3-like mass-slaughterer (I have spent a lot of time on Diablo 3, so it is not a criticism. It is just not what I'm looking for in PoE.)

 

It is not only a problem of Butthurtness, but also a problem of roleplay.

Resting all the time is a bit cheesy in my opinion. Cheese could be fun, but I can't see it as a "mainstream" problem. 

[pi2repsion]

Excuse me for introducing a moment of levity in these weighty discussions, but the issue of being overshadowed happened to trigger a fond memory from Mitchell & Webb:

 

Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit:

 

The feelings expressed by the BMX Bandit here are those that make class balance important in MMOs and Pen&Paper/Multiplayer RPGs, where players are represented by avatars that cooperate or compete against other avatars representing other human players. Single-player party based games? Not so much.

Edited September 27, 2015 by pi2repsion

[Elric Galad]

I agree with the "not so much", and this is exactly why I believe that removing Per Encounter spells in the base game would be a mistake.

 

I just would like an option to allow more balanced* gameplay.

(*"More balanced in case you repect the game's untold principle of not resting all the time. Butthurt can be seen as an incitative way to promote this principle ^^. Time limit for quests should have been the best "roleplay-friendly" way to do so, but it is usually seen as too unfriendly for players")

 

 

Furthermore, it might be a Single Player games, but it is a Single Player Party Games.

 

I feel bad if some party member are lacklusters.

I feel bad if I can't pick a particular class because it will never shine among his teammates.

If I had to pick only 1 character, I think I will less feel it.

But maybe I am too sensitive ^^

Edited September 27, 2015 by Elric Galad

[Elric Galad]

By the way, every skilled player should know that the most powerful party is :

 

- 1 Priest

- 5 Wizards

 

It can only be argued that :

- 1 additional priest can be cool

- 1 Paladin for top tanking can be comfortable without dampening too much your party pure power

- Some Wizards could maybe be replaced by druids.

 

That is the status of how far we are from balance if we remove the per rest considerations.

 

I personnaly don't see the problem, because I don't rest all the times.

But I will start thinking it is a problem if per encounter continue scaling.

 

But hey, I could use a mod anyway ^^

[MadDemiurg]

I think it's a necessary mechanic to "scale" lower level spells. And with resting not really being limited in PoE it's more or less just a convenience than anything. Whether it's inherently balanced compared to martial classes - probably not, but martial classes in PoE follow the questionable D&D 3.5 tradition of being dull autoattack bots and imo should be scrapped and redesigned completely for PoE2. If lower level spells did not become per encounter they would probably need some sort of level scaling instead (even D&D has this). 

Edited September 27, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[Elric Galad]

I think it's a necessary mechanic to "scale" lower level spells. And with resting not really being limited in PoE it's more or less just a convenience than anything. Whether it's inherently balanced compared to martial classes - probably not, but martial classes in PoE follow the questionable D&D 3.5 tradition of being dull autoattack bots and imo should be scrapped and redesigned completely for PoE2. If lower level spells did not become per encounter they would probably need some sort of level scaling instead (even D&D has this). 

 

Interesting question about low level spell scaling.

 

Currently, only Accuracy scale with spells.

 

CC spells does not need more scaling in my opinion. 6s incapacitation at level 1 or at level 14 is anyway 6s incapacitation.

 

I think only Damage and healing Spells need level scaling. They should scale more or less like Ranger's pet or Spriritshift Damage, which means about +20% every 3 levels.

This may require them to start at a slightly lower basis.

[Teioh_White]

I still don't see a compelling argument there can't a higher difficulty that enforces stricter/different rules than the base game, such as Mass Effect 2. Other than, of course, it's not worth a devs a time. Which I'd agree with. If folks don't like more tuned gameplay, as the current gameplay is more fun for them, great! The easier difficulties are there for that. Fun is rough though, as it's very subjective and difficult to get a consensus on. Balanced gameplay is something different people can come to a rough consensus on though, and encourages discussions about a single player game, rather than something we play once or twice then gush to each other about on a board.

[oaktownbrown]

Spellcasters have other abilities that can help to give them per encounter use. I personnally think Spiritshift is really ok since 2.0, wizards have blast and arcane assault and priest interdiction, radiance, and +10 accuracy weapon talents.

 

I think in a certain way it compensates in easy encounters for not having too much low level spells and no per encounter spells. In a certain way, it makes caster playstyle more diversified.

 

I don't think I've used spiritshift since 2.0. I don't have White March and the only time I've played PoE since the 2.0 patch was with a sneak party (low kill) on normal difficulty. SInce Hiravias didn't have high sneak, I didn't use him much.

 

In my pre-2.0 party play, IMO shapeshifting was much worse than either Arcane Attack or Interdiction/Holy Radiance. You have to be in melee, which is a significant disadvantage over either AA or I/HR, and it was single target (unless stag but even that AoE was small and centered near the attacker), unlike AA or I/HR. IMO it was essentially a damage over time spell that was single target, exposed your druid to damage, and (unless bear) didn't inflict status effects. Then, on top of that, it didn't scale well. It's ok but nowhere near strong enough to carry the druid's class-specific talents. I invested in wildstrike corrode in my early game and regretted it pretty much the whole game. (My only combat-oriented party run with the game is my first party, which uses a druid and the recruitable companions. They are now almost at the end of Defiance Bay, have done all the bounties they can do at that point, and have enough points to be at level 8 or 9.)

 

I'll try a druid in 2.0 combat (on PotD) but unless they've added things like an automatic affliction from attacks (and the affliction should be longer or more debilitating than normal AA or Interdiction IMO since the druid is restricted to using wildstrike in melee and against a single target, which are significant disadvantages IMO) or "druid is indestructible while spirit-shifted"/armor and spiritshift's DR stack, which might cause balance problems with fighters and other tanks, or "spiritshift's damage is a bit lower than using a series of single target touch range spells of a comparable level to the druid's level", my guess is that spiritshift is still going to suck as a class talent. I'll try it. I may need to wait until I get to Act III, though, bc I'm pretty sure in my current save, I've completed all the challenging fights in Act II.

 

I rarely used spiritshift even at low levels, whether in party or solo play. It was helpful a few times but was more of a way to end very early fights quickly. Even then, it wasn't as helpful as Arcane Attack IMO. It could have been useful at low levels if the duration had been signficantly longer.

Edited September 27, 2015 by oaktownbrown

[oaktownbrown]

Per encounter spells are fantastic.

 

The only thing they do is eliminate the need to either camp your group or run back to town and rest at an inn. What else is the real difference? I for one do not need my 27 intelligence Mage unable to remember how to cast spells. I used iemod and activated this function even before they put it in game because resting simply takes time.

 

Potentially if they added encounters to rest or some other variables they could be something more than a clicky regen button. Perhaps spells per encounter could be based on the Int stat since then it would make sense that a magic user could hold more inside their cranium or within themselves to be readily able to recall them.

 

. . . .

 

It could be perhaps tweaked but it does not make anything OP because you essentially have the exact same thing as after each encounter resting which could cost around 80cp or 25-180cp if you go to an inn. And time of course.

 

Bottom line for me is that the per encounter spell use/ability use was a very refreshing addition to the genre. I like the fact I can utilize my skills more than 3 to 7 times per rest which made it so most of the time I just sat there and auto attacked. Now I can use more of my arsenal of attained skills/spells.

 

I agree that it changes the dynamic of fights for traditional casters. I like your suggestion of tying number of spells to intelligence (or resolve or constitution, which has the bonus of giving casters a reason to boost constitution).

 

I think this is the crux of the disagreement:  "The only thing they do is eliminate the need to either camp your group or run back to town and rest at an inn. What else is the real difference?"

 

For some players, that is all the per rest restrictions do. For those players, there is no downside to lower level spells becoming per encounter. For other players, per rest restrictions are an important element of strategic gameplay that is otherwise missing in PoE. I would never consider resting after every fight. If I wanted to do that, I'd console code "god" (which can be fun for a short time IMO but would take the fun out of most of the game) and, if you need to, the command that gives you unlimited spells. (I've never used godmode in PoE so I'm not sure what it gives you.) For players who like the strategic element of per-rest spells, there is a significant downside to those spells becoming per encounter. There is also the class balance issue, which is an important consideration for some players (but not others).

 

 

And time of course.

 

For me that's the big sticking point. The time you spend walking back to the inn once you run out of supplies is boring, and I don't have as much time as I used to for playing games to being with. The cost for recharging my spells in that scenario isn't really paid by in-game currency, it's paid in my free time.

 

I CAN spend time going back to the inn, but that's an unattractive option to me so I'd rather just plow through until I absolutely need to stop, which means I get the added fun of resource management to the game (weird way to have fun I know, but there you go). I like having the option to replenish my spells at any point as a fallback at the cost of my free time, but with low-level spells being so effective having them regenerate after every encounter almost feels like I have cheat codes on. It almost completely destroys the need to worry about conserving your spells since you can rely solely on per-encounter spells in 80% of fights.

 

That isn't to say people that enjoy powering through things with their per-encounter spells are wrong for liking them. If I didn't enjoy the dilemma of whether using a spell was a cost-effective trade I'd probably agree with them, but that's my feelings on the subject.

 

 

I think this is a good summary. The time cost of resting will also vary by player. For players who rarely rest, it's a small benefit (and if they like the strategic element of per rest, a fairly high cost). For players who rest more often, it's a bigger consideration. For the players who struggled on easy (with 6 camping supplies) and had to trudge back to an inn, this would be a big factor.

 

Except that per-rest spells don't change the game's balance. They adjust the butthurt:power ratio in favor of butthurt, but they don't make casters any less powerful. So at the end of the day, when you do your boss fights fully rested, your casters are still going to make MVP.

 

But how many fights do you rest for?  I think the answer to that question may have a lot to do with how you feel about per rest/per encounter. Because if you rest frequently, you probably are not losing that much on the strategic management side and you probably are gaining quite a bit on the convenience side. If you rarely rest, you are probably losing quite a bit on the strategic side and not gaining much on the convenience side.

 

For me, having per encounters significantly changed the game. It was fun at first to only use per encounters and nothing else but, for me, that got old quickly. I missed having to manage my spells. It also greatly affected class balance, which is important to me in a single player game, especially if I'm using a party. I want each party member to shine at what s/he does. I want my fighter or paladin tank to out-tank my tank chanter, shape-shifted druid, or buffed wizard. I want my chanter summoner to out-summon my level 11 druid who can spam lesser blights. If I'm going to play a party, I want to have to think about which members I take to specific areas, not just automatically take 5 casters.

Edited September 28, 2015 by oaktownbrown

[sapientNode]

 

Per encounter spells are fantastic.

 

The only thing they do is eliminate the need to either camp your group or run back to town and rest at an inn. What else is the real difference? I for one do not need my 27 intelligence Mage unable to remember how to cast spells. I used iemod and activated this function even before they put it in game because resting simply takes time.

 

Potentially if they added encounters to rest or some other variables they could be something more than a clicky regen button. Perhaps spells per encounter could be based on the Int stat since then it would make sense that a magic user could hold more inside their cranium or within themselves to be readily able to recall them.

 

. . . .

 

It could be perhaps tweaked but it does not make anything OP because you essentially have the exact same thing as after each encounter resting which could cost around 80cp or 25-180cp if you go to an inn. And time of course.

 

Bottom line for me is that the per encounter spell use/ability use was a very refreshing addition to the genre. I like the fact I can utilize my skills more than 3 to 7 times per rest which made it so most of the time I just sat there and auto attacked. Now I can use more of my arsenal of attained skills/spells.

 

I agree that it changes the dynamic of fights for traditional casters. I like your suggestion of tying number of spells to intelligence (or resolve or constitution, which has the bonus of giving casters a reason to boost constitution).

 

I think this is the crux of the disagreement:  "The only thing they do is eliminate the need to either camp your group or run back to town and rest at an inn. What else is the real difference?"

 

For some players, that is all the per rest restrictions do. For those players, there is no downside to lower level spells becoming per encounter. For other players, per rest restrictions are an important element of strategic gameplay that is otherwise missing in PoE. I would never consider resting after every fight. If I wanted to do that, I'd console code "god" (which can be fun for a short time IMO but would take the fun out of most of the game) and, if you need to, the command that gives you unlimited spells. (I've never used godmode in PoE so I'm not sure what it gives you.) For players who like the strategic element of per-rest spells, there is a significant downside to those spells becoming per encounter. There is also the class balance issue, which is an important consideration for some players (but not others).

 

 

And time of course.

 

For me that's the big sticking point. The time you spend walking back to the inn once you run out of supplies is boring, and I don't have as much time as I used to for playing games to being with. The cost for recharging my spells in that scenario isn't really paid by in-game currency, it's paid in my free time.

 

I CAN spend time going back to the inn, but that's an unattractive option to me so I'd rather just plow through until I absolutely need to stop, which means I get the added fun of resource management to the game (weird way to have fun I know, but there you go). I like having the option to replenish my spells at any point as a fallback at the cost of my free time, but with low-level spells being so effective having them regenerate after every encounter almost feels like I have cheat codes on. It almost completely destroys the need to worry about conserving your spells since you can rely solely on per-encounter spells in 80% of fights.

 

That isn't to say people that enjoy powering through things with their per-encounter spells are wrong for liking them. If I didn't enjoy the dilemma of whether using a spell was a cost-effective trade I'd probably agree with them, but that's my feelings on the subject.

 

 

I think this is a good summary. The time cost of resting will also vary by player. For players who rarely rest, it's a small benefit (and if they like the strategic element of per rest, a fairly high cost). For players who rest more often, it's a bigger consideration. For the players who struggled on easy (with 6 camping supplies) and had to trudge back to an inn, this would be a big factor.

 

Except that per-rest spells don't change the game's balance. They adjust the butthurt:power ratio in favor of butthurt, but they don't make casters any less powerful. So at the end of the day, when you do your boss fights fully rested, your casters are still going to make MVP.

 

But how many fights do you rest for?  I think the answer to that question may have a lot to do with how you feel about per rest/per encounter. Because if you rest frequently, you probably are not losing that much on the strategic management side and you probably are gaining quite a bit on the convenience side. If you rarely rest, you are probably losing quite a bit on the strategic side and not gaining much on the convenience side.

 

For me, having per encounters significantly changed the game. It was fun at first to only use per encounters and nothing else but, for me, that got old quickly. I missed having to manage my spells. It also greatly affected class balance, which is important to me in a single player game, especially if I'm using a party. I want each party member to shine at what s/he does. I want my fighter or paladin tank to out-tank my tank chanter, shape-shifted druid, or buffed wizard. I want my chanter summoner to out-summon my level 11 druid who can spam lesser blights. If I'm going to play a party, I want to have to think about which members I take to specific areas, not just automatically take 5 casters.

 

 

I guess some utilize the camping as a integral limit that also counts as strategy.

I have been playing so many games over the years with numerous variance in how they handle what we are dealing with per encounter spells and I have gotten to a point where cool downs are what I find the best design.  Per encounter is a quasi method of CDs to me.

 

The recent game I played that I felt had the best method of dealing with spell casting was Larian's Divinity: Original Sin.  Wherein the spells were on CD basically with the CD decreasing based on your casters stat (INT)  Which could very well lend itself to the design here where per encounter spells not only increased based on a stat or some form of talent/ability but they could also all share a global CD.  This of course enters somewhat into the mmo style but it works quite well and could very easily be augmented with different attribute boosts and other talents/abilities.

 

Overall we need to evolve.  I mean early on we rarely ever left the dungeons until the end because such a mimimal amount of items dropped it was unnecessary to go back and sell and camping was outright free to do as long as enemies were not in range or you were too close to some other hostile situation.  In PoE we at least have the design set up to limit the freebie camping constantly.  Never the less it is inevitable we slowly eliminate the added tedium of certain things that once were balanced for what games were.  Now since we have so many games with teleportation and incredible amounts of content and of course a much greater time sink in certain aspects we need to shave stuff away.  In my opinion anyway.

 

At a certain point in time I remember being upset by teleports being introduced into games.  Now I think seriously I have to run across this forest where there is going to be nothing new to look at or any other chance of an enemy battle.  And I still semi role play my parties in these games.

 

I think 2 separate issues got raised here.  One was that casters are OP.  Which essentially is the longest standing issue of having games with casters.  I would never opt for a fully party of casters though because the micro managing to not get stomped and the boring routine of casting CCs and the same AoE damage spells would grate on me.  Its a bit of a conundrum to me when people literally get upset about a caster which is in their party and helps them kill an enemy and overcome an obstacle i thought to be too OP.  I love my casters for what they do and my Paladin and my Monk and my awesome Rogue.  Just because it says in my stat sheet that my Rogue has hit more cirtted more and done the most damage as well as having defeated the most powerful enemy we encountered I would not tell her she is OP and needs to tone it down.  I am like right on Orlan you are frakin awesome!

 

That said the entire per encounter spell issue could be solved by adding an option to disable it for those who wish to.

As it was added to the iemod before it was added to the core of PoE perhaps they could  create a method in which it could be disabled.

In addition the OPness of certain spells could easily be resolved if someone wanted to go into their respective unity files and tweak them.

 

I for one found the difficulty of PoTD and per encounters starting at level 6 9 12 perfect for me.  I only moderately spam slicken and chill fog.  And I still only have 5 of them.  The only battles I have run into problems with were lengthy stamina fights which by the end my slicken and chill fog are gone anyway.

 

It is not as if per encounter spells equates to infinite casts of some spell.  That spell is still in existence regardless of per encounter system.  I admit I will use a per encounter spell more graciously than a per rest spell and that is even when I know I can simply just go rest or drop down at some random spot and click sleep.  The main thing for me is that I do not want the immersion broken so per encounters allows me to stay in the dungeon longer and not run back to a town.

 

It would be of course fantastic if we had battles that got randomly spawned in areas we had to run back through or if there was a chance to be awakened by roaming monsters as in the old school days of this genre.  But then of course people would complain about being able to sit around camp and power level.

 

Overall I think to solve these types of problems they just need to add more variables in the settings to disable/enable them.  Then we all can be smiley!

[oaktownbrown]

saapientnode, it sounds like we're very different in what we prefer.

 

I hate cooldowns and disliked that about the combat in D:OS and Dragon Age. I guess that cooldowns could work in a game with really difficult combat but, so far, I haven't played one that combined good, wearing combat with cooldowns. I'd have to try it to see if I thought if cooldowns were ok in that context. I enjoy micromanaging my party. I like utility spells that let you walk through walls, levitate, etc., which teleportation can be (and was outside of combat in D:OS). I've liked them since Wizardry 4 and Daggerfall. I hated all the corridors of D:OS and really wished I had a levitation spell that let me fly over them. I prefer that to the teleports like in D:OS but both are fine if they fit the setting. E.g., undisguised teleports only work in a high magic setting IMO. But you can disguise teleports by tying them to a mundane transportation system like boats, trains, silt riders, etc.

 

I agree that games should change but we seem to disagree about the way in which they should change. I'd strongly prefer more strategic elements in cRPGs, not fewer.

 

I wouldn't mind an option to disable per encounter spells but I'd want my casters to get something at level ups bc I like that they get stronger in their core skills as they level. They could have something where maybe you could disable per encounters but increase the number of spells. It would be great if that could happen automatically, e.g., instead of level 1 spells becoming per encounter at level 9, casters automatically get 1 or 2 extra level 1 spells or something like that. But I could do it manually with a mod that let me do that. I hate to rely on mods, though, bc I play games for years after they've been released and, in my experience, mods can become impossible to track down after many years or, e.g, the mod gets abandoned but the game gets updated so the mod no longer works well. Also, if my game gets wonky, I'm never sure if it's the mod or the game itself. But something like that probably is the most realistic solution.

 

I realize that players are going to disagree about what is fun in any given game (and in general with crpgs). It sounds like the per encounter system works well for you. I only replied bc your initial post made it seem like that's how it works for everyone and that convenience was the only important factor wrt per encouters when that isn't the case. I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree about cooldowns vs per encounter vs per rest spells.

 

I agree that more options are better. But options come at a cost of developer time so, obviously, there are limits on which options make sense to include. It sounded like the devs might be interested in this particular issue so maybe we'll get some options in this case.

Edited September 28, 2015 by oaktownbrown