Are per encounter spells needed? And are they balanced?

[Guest 4ward]

 

and if spells would be per-rest only but when you level-up and gain access to the higher spells also the amount of the chosen low level spells you could cast between rests would increase? That way you'd be still pretty active between rests and you'd have the choice to fight with what you have or go back and rest to replenish. If you always have the same amount of spells available for the encounter then you'd always apply the same spells, on the other hand having less of them because you didn't rest would let encounters play differently? Resource management? Bad idea i guess, that's not what you guys want??

[curryinahurry]

 

 

 

 

Yes, the issue lies mostly with the spells themselves, not the per encounter mechanic which (imo) makes the game more fun to play. I suppose there could be an entire removal of per encounter spells, and in exchange give the players a lot more uses per rest for these previously per encounter spells, but they still wouldn't make broken spells not broken, which subsequently remove an excessive amount of challenge and fun from the game.

 

 

Your rationalization is an act of grasping at straws.  None of the spells you named are particularly OP, particularly at the levels you gain them. and none you mentioned are broken.  The fact that they become OP once you can use them per encounter speaks to the problems with the per encounter use and not the relative power of those spells.  

 

Truth is that all RPG systems start getting funky at higher levels because keeping power curves reasonable is very difficult.  The per encounter spell system needs to be addressed because it so heavily favors 3 classes at the moment, that Obsidian's only options in the future are to give other classes matching ridiculous powers that will lead to the kinds of nonsense we see at the Epic levels of D&D 3.5, or to reign in the power curve so that the game remains playable and enjoyable into higher levels.

 

 

Wrong. More resource efficient =/= more powerful or broken. Having a relatively more auspicious outcome per cast = more powerful or broken.

 

The spells listed (and others) are extremely powerful and break (hence the term "broken") the game's challenge, even on PotD. They would still be extremely powerful even if they were per rest; there would be nothing stopping you from going back to town to gather more camping supplies in between relatively trivial encounters  - this option and scenario does not alter the present potency of the spells I listed, seeing as you would have the same amount of spells for every battle. All the per encounter to per rest change would do is force players to go through more loading screens to gather more supplies if they were tactically inept (which is a huge portion of the player base), but it would not alter the spells being extremely overpowered. 

 

You are most likely just using the aforementioned spells incorrectly. Have you beat the game on PotD before without using Barbarian's pre-patch One Man Standing or are you the one grasping at straws?

 

 

The design of the game was to prevent the type of 'degenerate' scenarios you describe in your response.  Preventing the type of playstyle you mention was an explicit point of Josh Sawyer's original strategy in making lower level spells more potent.  You have, by accident, summed up the entire problem with the per encounter spell solution; it runs counter to the gaming design goals that the lead designer outlined in his layout of the gameplay and resource usage system...thank you very much.  

[Njall]

They are neither balanced nor needed, but, while PoE is a game, people invested their very real time leveling up their characters. Pulling the rug from under their feet at this point wouldn't be cool at all.

I'd rather the devs brought everyone else roughly on par and focused on making every class equally effective and exciting, adjusting those who lag behind upwards rather than making the MVPs weaker.

By all means keep in mind that, whenever PoE 2 hits, they might have to rethink or remove the feature, but there's no need to do it now.

 

I don't know about you guys, but I'm more likely to start a new playthrough when a cool feature is released for an underpowered class than I am to reroll and/or keep playing when a character I enjoy is nerfed to the ground.

By all means strive to achieve balance, but balance should be a means to achieve fun, not an end.

When a new patch hits, I want to be excited about the new content it might bring, I want to think that I'll enjoy the game, and my characters, more.

I don't want to dread that every new patch might kill a PC I've invested a bunch of time playing and leveling up.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Njall

[Ohioastro]

There has always been a cadre of players who are very determined to stomp out any innovation in RPGs.  In this game resting is basically just a time sink, so the only difference between per encounter and per rest is whether you give people incentives to waste their time mechanically running back and forth from A to B.

 

I've never liked the spell per day limits in these games.  They are so restrictive that they always end up getting bypassed, and they tend to lead unfortunate places in balancing (e.g. spells are overpowered to compensate for being rare.)  We now have a lot of games where we can see what happens when players get to regenerate all of their resources between encounters - and the world doesn't end.  You do spend a lot less time sneaking around the rather arbitrary scarcity rules and more time actually playing the game. 

 

The true difficulty is always the encounters that you might lose even if you have all of your resources, and if the trash encounters are trivial time wasters the game is better off not having them.  I'll take one set-piece that makes me think over 10 rote exercises, and per encounter spells don't impact the main events at all and therefore don't really impact true difficulty in my book.

[Pelmaleon]

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, the issue lies mostly with the spells themselves, not the per encounter mechanic which (imo) makes the game more fun to play. I suppose there could be an entire removal of per encounter spells, and in exchange give the players a lot more uses per rest for these previously per encounter spells, but they still wouldn't make broken spells not broken, which subsequently remove an excessive amount of challenge and fun from the game.

 

 

Your rationalization is an act of grasping at straws.  None of the spells you named are particularly OP, particularly at the levels you gain them. and none you mentioned are broken.  The fact that they become OP once you can use them per encounter speaks to the problems with the per encounter use and not the relative power of those spells.  

 

Truth is that all RPG systems start getting funky at higher levels because keeping power curves reasonable is very difficult.  The per encounter spell system needs to be addressed because it so heavily favors 3 classes at the moment, that Obsidian's only options in the future are to give other classes matching ridiculous powers that will lead to the kinds of nonsense we see at the Epic levels of D&D 3.5, or to reign in the power curve so that the game remains playable and enjoyable into higher levels.

 

 

Wrong. More resource efficient =/= more powerful or broken. Having a relatively more auspicious outcome per cast = more powerful or broken.

 

The spells listed (and others) are extremely powerful and break (hence the term "broken") the game's challenge, even on PotD. They would still be extremely powerful even if they were per rest; there would be nothing stopping you from going back to town to gather more camping supplies in between relatively trivial encounters  - this option and scenario does not alter the present potency of the spells I listed, seeing as you would have the same amount of spells for every battle. All the per encounter to per rest change would do is force players to go through more loading screens to gather more supplies if they were tactically inept (which is a huge portion of the player base), but it would not alter the spells being extremely overpowered. 

 

You are most likely just using the aforementioned spells incorrectly. Have you beat the game on PotD before without using Barbarian's pre-patch One Man Standing or are you the one grasping at straws?

 

 

The design of the game was to prevent the type of 'degenerate' scenarios you describe in your response.  Preventing the type of playstyle you mention was an explicit point of Josh Sawyer's original strategy in making lower level spells more potent.  You have, by accident, summed up the entire problem with the per encounter spell solution; it runs counter to the gaming design goals that the lead designer outlined in his layout of the gameplay and resource usage system...thank you very much.  

 

 

Wrong again. Per encounter makes the "degenerate" playstyle less likely to occur, as players are more able to stay adventuring instead of pusillanimously trekking back to town to rest and re-up their camping supplies. The only thing which would stop these "degenerate" (I laugh every time I sarcastically type this - it's a blatant appeal to emotion buzzword) playstyles would be to give a reward to players resting less (immersion-breaking stat bonuses or time-based (better) quest rewards) or punish players who rest more often (way higher cost at inns and of camping supplies). But this is beside the point, seeing as my entire point regarding going back to town frequently was to substantiate a declaration regarding the potency of the spells I listed, not convince you that this "degenerate" playstyle aligns with the game's mechanics.

 

You failed to answer my previous question so I'm going to stop replying to you now, seeing as normal conversations are give and take, while you are merely giving extraneous retorts without taking my contentions into serious consideration.

[gkathellar]

This is a single player game. Why do you minmaxing mooks care so much about balance. If you think a spell is too broken/imbalanced and you play mostly for a challenge, then don't use it.

Difficulty settings should be a function of difficulty settings, not one of metagame self-restrictions. This is especially true when options are presented behind a veneer of equivalency, which PoE's are. Saying balance is unimportant in a game where spells are divided up by tiers of power is absurd - balance concerns are inherent to and inseparable from the very mechanics of the game.

 

Moreover, the pejorative and unjustified claim that anyone who cares about balance is a "minmaxing mook," betrays a complete misunderstanding of game balance as a concept. A well-balanced game has a variety of options that are asymmetric but basically equivalent in value, eschewing a game of "correct" choices for "different" choices. Power gaming is less important in such a game, because players know with relative confidence that any coherent set of decisions will give them a fun play experience. Power gaps increase minmaxing, worsen the learning curve for new players, and create opportunities for a player to become alienated from the game or its mechanics.

 

If you don't have enough willpower to do this, then stop playing video games and work on your real life ego/willpower because it is obviously a more outstanding issue.

ITQ: "People who disagree with me obviously do so because of deep-rooted character flaws, and should not be taken seriously because I say so."

 

Would you like some retorte with that ad hominem, sir?

 

A single player game doesn't need virtually flawless balancing to make it a fun, immersive, and challenging game.

No, but it helps.

 

If a wizard is better than other classes at high levels, then I applaud the devs for giving most crpg players a nostalgia boner because that's how wizards worked in the other infinity engine games.

I don't really understand why we should congratulate them for including one of the worst things about the IE games after they explicitly said they would avert it. Edited September 17, 2015 by gkathellar

[Pelmaleon]

They are neither balanced nor needed, but, while PoE is a game, people invested their very real time leveling up their characters. Pulling the rug from under their feet at this point wouldn't be cool at all.

I'd rather the devs brought everyone else roughly on par and focused on making every class equally effective and exciting, adjusting those who lag behind upwards rather than making the MVPs weaker.

By all means keep in mind that, whenever PoE 2 hits, they might have to rethink or remove the feature, but there's no need to do it now.

 

I don't know about you guys, but I'm more likely to start a new playthrough when a cool feature is released for an underpowered class than I am to reroll and/or keep playing when a character I enjoy is nerfed to the ground.

By all means strive to achieve balance, but balance should be a means to achieve fun, not an end.

When a new patch hits, I want to be excited about the new content it might bring, I want to think that I'll enjoy the game, and my characters, more.

I don't want to dread that every new patch might kill a PC I've invested a bunch of time playing and leveling up.

 

Yea, let's just make the game even easier for the small playerbase of tactical adventure fans by buffing all other classes. /s.

 

Stop endeavoring to force feed the devs and other players your perfect world scenario where everyone is equal and the land is filled with sunshine and rainbows as you traverse across the land one-shotting dragons and solving all the problems of every village. Classes should be different with varied power curves. Races should be very different and make people react extremely differently to you. Villages should still have unsolvable problems after you are done attempting to aid their denizens. Dark humor on epitaphs should be allowed to add some spice and variety to the game, while simultaneously forcing SJWs to develop a more lighthearted mindset in their day-to-day approach to multifarious situations and stimuli. But no, these things won't occur because the vocal minority wants it their specific, narcissistic way, great game be damned.

[Pelmaleon]

 

This is a single player game. Why do you minmaxing mooks care so much about balance. If you think a spell is too broken/imbalanced and you play mostly for a challenge, then don't use it.

Difficulty settings should be a function of difficulty settings, not one of metagame self-restrictions. This is especially true when options are presented behind a veneer of equivalency, which PoE's are. Saying balance is unimportant in a game where spells are divided up by tiers of power is absurd - balance concerns are inherent to and inseparable from the very mechanics of the game.

 

Moreover, the pejorative and unjustified claim that anyone who cares about balance is a "minmaxing mook," betrays a complete misunderstanding of game balance as a concept. A well-balanced game has a variety of options that are asymmetric but basically equivalent in value, eschewing a game of "correct" choices for "different" choices. Power gaming is less important in such a game, because players know with relative confidence that any coherent set of decisions will give them a fun play experience. Power gaps increase minmaxing, worsen the learning curve for new players, and create opportunities for a player to become alienated from the game or its mechanics.

 

If you don't have enough willpower to do this, then stop playing video games and work on your real life ego/willpower because it is obviously a more outstanding issue.

ITQ: "People who disagree with me obviously do so because of deep-rooted character flaws, and should not be taken seriously because I say so."

 

Would you like some retorte with that ad hominem, sir?

 

A single player game doesn't need virtually flawless balancing to make it a fun, immersive, and challenging game.

No, but it helps.

 

If a wizard is better than other classes at high levels, then I applaud the devs for giving most crpg players a nostalgia boner because that's how wizards worked in the other infinity engine games.

I don't really understand why we should congratulate them for including one of the worst things about the IE games after they explicitly said they would avert it.

 

 

Strawman after strawman after strawman. I'm not going to waste my time debating someone who incorrectly inferred basically everything I said.

 

Edit: I would like to address this one statement though: "Power gaps increase minmaxing, worsen the learning curve for new players, and create opportunities for a player to become alienated from the game or its mechanics." You forgot to mention the plethora of invigorating, unparalleled pros that come with a delicate touch of power curves (lol @ "gaps" - such a pessimistic, partisan load of doublespeak), whilst only focusing on the cons. This is a single player game. Go back to playing League of Legends if you want everyone to be equally trite and vapid. You obviously don't know the first thing when it games to designing a great, timeless single player game.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Pelmaleon

[Zherot]

 

They are neither balanced nor needed, but, while PoE is a game, people invested their very real time leveling up their characters. Pulling the rug from under their feet at this point wouldn't be cool at all.

I'd rather the devs brought everyone else roughly on par and focused on making every class equally effective and exciting, adjusting those who lag behind upwards rather than making the MVPs weaker.

By all means keep in mind that, whenever PoE 2 hits, they might have to rethink or remove the feature, but there's no need to do it now.

 

I don't know about you guys, but I'm more likely to start a new playthrough when a cool feature is released for an underpowered class than I am to reroll and/or keep playing when a character I enjoy is nerfed to the ground.

By all means strive to achieve balance, but balance should be a means to achieve fun, not an end.

When a new patch hits, I want to be excited about the new content it might bring, I want to think that I'll enjoy the game, and my characters, more.

I don't want to dread that every new patch might kill a PC I've invested a bunch of time playing and leveling up.

 

Yea, let's just make the game even easier for the small playerbase of tactical adventure fans by buffing all other classes. /s.

 

Stop endeavoring to force feed the devs and other players your perfect world scenario where everyone is equal and the land is filled with sunshine and rainbows as you traverse across the land one-shotting dragons and solving all the problems of every village. Classes should be different with varied power curves. Races should be very different and make people react extremely differently to you. Villages should still have unsolvable problems after you are done attempting to aid their denizens. Dark humor on epitaphs should be allowed to add some spice and variety to the game, while simultaneously forcing SJWs to develop a more lighthearted mindset in their day-to-day approach to multifarious situations and stimuli. But no, these things won't occur because the vocal minority wants it their specific, narcissistic way, great game be damned.

 

 

Yes... i mean if Wizards existed in real life they would be OP, not even the greatest fighter on earth could do the damage that a Wizard could do.... people complain about the damage, yeah... well i bet if you took that meteor in the face you would be dead instantly, no hp bars, no BS, DEAD immediately, at least the game dosent let that happen to the enemies or your party... 

[gkathellar]

Yea, let's just make the game even easier for the small playerbase of tactical adventure fans by buffing all other classes. /s.

Sure, sounds good. That'll allow the game's difficulty to be bumped up overall without having to worry about the less powerful classes.

 

Stop endeavoring to force feed the devs and other players

So, let me see if I understand. When someone else expresses their opinion in a public space meant for opinion-sharing, it's "force-feeding?" And when you tell other people to shut up because they disagree with you, that's totally kosher?

 

your perfect world scenario where everyone is equal and the land is filled with sunshine and rainbows as you traverse across the land one-shotting dragons and solving all the problems of every village.

That's a very elaborate scenario Njall has constructed there. I'm surprised that I missed it. Can you please link me to the post where it's outlined?

 

Classes should be different with varied power curves.

Emphasis mine. Why? Justify your claim. Make a coherent argument for why this enhances the game.

 

Races should be very different and make people react extremely differently to you.

Sure, sometimes. Not sure what this has to do with class balance, though.

 

Villages should still have unsolvable problems after you are done attempting to aid their denizens.

O...kay. I feel like this is getting off topic.

 

Dark humor on epitaphs should be allowed to add some spice and variety to the game, while simultaneously forcing SJWs to develop a more lighthearted mindset in their day-to-day approach to multifarious situations and stimuli.

Crass, tactless jerks should stop pretending that people who call them crass, tactless jerks for the things they say are somehow violating their freedom of speech.

 

But no, these things won't occur because the vocal minority wants it their specific, narcissistic way, great game be damned.

Wow. That sounds like just the kind of thing that someone from a narcissistic vocal minority would say.

 

Protip: claiming that you're correct because you're in the majority is a fallacy, even when you are in the majority, which you have no evidence for.

[Gfted1]

So how about them per encounter spells!

 

Lets move this thread back on topic and leave the personal attacks out, please.

[gkathellar]

Strawman after strawman after strawman. I'm not going to waste my time debating someone who incorrectly inferred basically everything I said.

I'm sorry if you feel I mischaracterized or misunderstood your remarks. I would appreciate it if you could clarify the four points, I quoted, specifically, and how I misconstrue them.

 

Unless, of course, you're just using the word strawman as a kind of strawman to dismiss my arguments without confronting them. But please, demonstrate your sincerity.

 

You forgot to mention the plethora of invigorating, unparalleled pros that come with a delicate touch of power curves

Which are? Be specific.

 

I'm honestly curious. You've made this claim several times. I'd like to hear your reasoning.

 

(lol @ "gaps" - such a pessimistic, partisan load of doublespeak),

I could say the same of your word choice. I mean, except for the "partisan" part, because that's not what partisan means.

 

I say "gaps" because if classes are of unequal utility, there is a divide between their utility value - a gap, so to speak. You yourself assert that such divides exist, even if you characterize them as positive.

 

This is a single player game.

And? This isn't news. I've already asserted that I think balance is good for single-player games. What is the point of this statement?

 

Go back to playing League of Legends if you want everyone to be equally trite and vapid.

It should be pretty clear from my posts that I want everyone to be equally compelling and interesting. I'm not sure what the point in ascribing me sinister motives is, aside from possibly making yourself feel somehow morally superior in disagreeing with me about video game design.

 

Also, for the record, I've never played a MOBA, so I don't even really understand why your accusation would be a black mark on my character. Can you clarify that?

 

You obviously don't know the first thing when it games to designing a great, timeless single player game.[/size][/font]

Well, that makes two of us.

[Teioh_White]

On topic, yes, it's easy for anyone to see per encounter spells are out of balanced with the rest of the game. Even without per encounter spells, those classes would still likely be on the top of the power curve. If balance is a concern for devs, it's something to look into. I'll just mention again, while balance and tightly tuned gameplay is great for those of us who want to play a game for years, for the vast majority of folks buying the game, its not a big deal at all, so I couldn't recommend a ton of time spent on it.

 

Of course, it's been mentioned a player can always just rest to refresh, and this just sorta is a compromise between that reality and trying to balance a rest system with the fact there is no real limitation on resting if a player wishes to spend the time to backtrack. Not much to do about that without a new system in place.

 

In broader strokes, it's a poor argument to say the player can self police themselves to make gameplay better. It both and acknowledgement of a problem, but try to foist the solution on the player. It's a lot less fun to take a system, and you, as the player, cut parts off and keep choosing to ignore them as they ruin the game, compared to a finely tuned system when the player wants to try to eek every advantage out of the system possible.

 

The latter is great, and makes interesting gameplay and discussions about the best plan. The former is tiresome, and while in small doess on minor issues is fine, the more and more the player has to ignore, the worse it gets and hurts the games longterm appeal.

 

 

As for RPGs and balancing in general, the best solutions I've seen in the modern era come from Mass Effect 2 and Dragon age 2, where the highest difficulties actually changes the core mechanics of the game. So you can have the first 2-3 difficulties be for the majority who just want to roll through a game and have a good time, and the can real down and dirty with some more complex and punishining mechanics that more thorough and interesting gameplay for those who want to spend hours figuring it out.

 

Edit: Never did respond to Pi2, which is pretty much what I thought it was. Resting only limited by how much the play wants to be inconvienced, so might as well give the lower level ones to play with so they aren't tempted to constantly run back to town/rest as much as they want. It's not a strong argument for tight gameplay, but is a good idea for the game, as most people don't want tight gameplay. Which is why I really liked the sort of thing with Bioware did in Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2, with pretty some pretty big shifts in gameplay mechanics on the highest difficulty, to appeal to both crowds. But if you have to choose one, you definitely go for the former.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Teioh_White

[curryinahurry]

 

 

 

Wrong again. Per encounter makes the "degenerate" playstyle less likely to occur, as players are more able to stay adventuring instead of pusillanimously trekking back to town to rest and re-up their camping supplies. The only thing which would stop these "degenerate" (I laugh every time I sarcastically type this - it's a blatant appeal to emotion buzzword) playstyles would be to give a reward to players resting less (immersion-breaking stat bonuses or time-based (better) quest rewards) or punish players who rest more often (way higher cost at inns and of camping supplies). But this is beside the point, seeing as my entire point regarding going back to town frequently was to substantiate a declaration regarding the potency of the spells I listed, not convince you that this "degenerate" playstyle aligns with the game's mechanics.

 

You failed to answer my previous question so I'm going to stop replying to you now, seeing as normal conversations are give and take, while you are merely giving extraneous retorts without taking my contentions into serious consideration.

 

 

This game was deigned with certain specific goals.  Some of those goals for Caster classes included casters being more powerful at lower levels, but with a smoother power curve (no quadratic mages).  The point behind having stronger low level spells, as I stated before, was to avoid the problems in the IE games with Caster classes being marginal until 5th level when they get more powerful spells and enough casts to have a reasonable impact on combat.  That is why Fan of Flames is as strong as it is.  It serves a specific design purpose at lower levels (make wizards effective damage dealers) but at a cost of putting them in the front lines (trade-off).  It continue to be a solid option throughout the game.  Therefore it is well designed.  Until of course, you can spam it starting at level 9.

 

The point I made about avoiding Degenerate gameplay is related because spells were also designed to be fairly powerful at lower levels to keep the adventuring day from being stopped by the Casters not having viable spell options after 1 encounter at lower levels as in the IE games.  Thus, at lower levels, even if you misuse a spell like fan of flames, you have multiple casts/ other option available to keep you wizard in the mix and not have to rest spam.  This gets thrown out the window after level 9 because the spells that were designed to keep caster classes viable/ competitive now allow one to steamroll the last part of the game because resource usage is no longer an issue.  Thus my point to it running counter to stated design goals.

 

In fact, I did the entire Russett Wood location including 2 caves a few days back on Hard without resting largely on the strength of Hiravais and Durance's ability (at level 9, became 10 towards end of a particular cave) to cast their level 1 spells per encounter.  

Edited September 18, 2015 by curryinahurry

[Stoner]

I seriously don't think that it's a problem worth discussing. 99% of game content isn't really challenging, especially when you know what you can tackle and when. This game has literally unlimited rest option which can be done almost everywhere and there's no penalty for it (like random monsters spawning that destroy your group during sleep) so I imagine most players running out of health faster than spells and other Per Rest abilities.

 

In my opinion it just gives a player more variety in combat, making it visually more appealing and let loose some fireworks. All spells (even endgame) aren't really that powerfull. I actually like that most abilities and spells don't give you godmode or devastate-everything-around powers like in some other RPGs (Divinity OS), it just gives you an edge, some buffs, etc, nothing that can completely win you a fight. And toughest challenges are Dragons and maybe some contracts (not really tho...) which this Per Encounter thingy doesn't help even a little.

[Dongom]

I don't think the solution is to destroy encounter spells, since that is more of a convenience and growth thing anyways. No one wants to use auto attack too often as a Wizard.

 

Maybe just balance the more crazy spells for future expansions.

 

Per encounter Shadowflame Cold Nuke in expansion2 would just be ludicrous lol!

Edited September 18, 2015 by Dongom

[Zherot]

I seriously don't think that it's a problem worth discussing. 99% of game content isn't really challenging, especially when you know what you can tackle and when. This game has literally unlimited rest option which can be done almost everywhere and there's no penalty for it (like random monsters spawning that destroy your group during sleep) so I imagine most players running out of health faster than spells and other Per Rest abilities.

 

In my opinion it just gives a player more variety in combat, making it visually more appealing and let loose some fireworks. All spells (even endgame) aren't really that powerfull. I actually like that most abilities and spells don't give you godmode or devastate-everything-around powers like in some other RPGs (Divinity OS), it just gives you an edge, some buffs, etc, nothing that can completely win you a fight. And toughest challenges are Dragons and maybe some contracts (not really tho...) which this Per Encounter thingy doesn't help even a little.

 

At least Dvininity Original sin has a 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 times better combat than this game AND has a 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 better magic system than this game, magic in this game is redundant, damaga/control/buffs and thats it the only thing that changes is the color of the effects.

 

BTW becoming powerful in an RPG is perfectly fine an expected, or then there is no reward.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Zherot

[KDubya]

I don't think the solution is to destroy encounter spells, since that is more of a convenience and growth thing anyways. No one wants to use auto attack too often as a Wizard.

 

Maybe just balance the more crazy spells for future expansions.

 

Per encounter Shadowflame Cold Nuke in expansion2 would just be ludicrous lol!

 

 

But even with auto attacks a Wizard is better off than anyone else. With three talents you get AoE, DR penetration, and +25% damage with a minor raw damage effect. No one else can add AoE to their attacks besides a Barbarian with Carnage. Everyone else who wants DR penetration has to take a -20% attack speed malus. No other  talent adds +25% damage. Implements do the same base DPS as every other ranged weapon.

 

You could make an effective implement using Wizard who would probably lead in damage  done just with using your auto attack, let alone using the Blights which also benefit from all the same talents. Add in penetrating shot for more DR bypass, the cross class sneak attack which would be applied with the AoE, enchant a lash and add in the appropriate elemental damage booster. Sure it'd be boring, but it just goes to show what lengths the game goes to, in order to make Wizards fun and useful at lower levels.

 

I hated Wizards in IE games before 5th or even 7th level unless they were Fighter/mages who could fight as well. I really like low level Wizards in PoE, they nailed the useful but fragile aspect. At higher levels Wizards can overcome any of their inherent weaknesses with spells which are limited by uses per rest. You had to choose when to expend the resource. The per encounter makes you not even have to choose to expend the resource, the only limit is the time it takes to cast which can be overcome when you get Alacrity at level 3.

 

Perhaps the answer is to not have any per rest abilities or spells in the game. People will just rest abuse if needed so why even have the mechanic. Just tone  spells down sufficiently on the assumption that the most powerful will be spammed, add in a cooldown timer on the more powerful abilities and there you go.

 

Any limitation on resting is a tedious anti-fun measure, so how else do you apply any limits on use of really powerful per rest abilities and spells other than to remove them?

 

At least in PoE Wizards aren't required to defeat other Wizards like in the IE games. I can just choose to not use them once their power curve goes quadratic.

[Zherot]

 

I don't think the solution is to destroy encounter spells, since that is more of a convenience and growth thing anyways. No one wants to use auto attack too often as a Wizard.

 

Maybe just balance the more crazy spells for future expansions.

 

Per encounter Shadowflame Cold Nuke in expansion2 would just be ludicrous lol!

 

 

But even with auto attacks a Wizard is better off than anyone else. With three talents you get AoE, DR penetration, and +25% damage with a minor raw damage effect. No one else can add AoE to their attacks besides a Barbarian with Carnage. Everyone else who wants DR penetration has to take a -20% attack speed malus. No other  talent adds +25% damage. Implements do the same base DPS as every other ranged weapon.

 

You could make an effective implement using Wizard who would probably lead in damage  done just with using your auto attack, let alone using the Blights which also benefit from all the same talents. Add in penetrating shot for more DR bypass, the cross class sneak attack which would be applied with the AoE, enchant a lash and add in the appropriate elemental damage booster. Sure it'd be boring, but it just goes to show what lengths the game goes to, in order to make Wizards fun and useful at lower levels.

 

I hated Wizards in IE games before 5th or even 7th level unless they were Fighter/mages who could fight as well. I really like low level Wizards in PoE, they nailed the useful but fragile aspect. At higher levels Wizards can overcome any of their inherent weaknesses with spells which are limited by uses per rest. You had to choose when to expend the resource. The per encounter makes you not even have to choose to expend the resource, the only limit is the time it takes to cast which can be overcome when you get Alacrity at level 3.

 

Perhaps the answer is to not have any per rest abilities or spells in the game. People will just rest abuse if needed so why even have the mechanic. Just tone  spells down sufficiently on the assumption that the most powerful will be spammed, add in a cooldown timer on the more powerful abilities and there you go.

 

Any limitation on resting is a tedious anti-fun measure, so how else do you apply any limits on use of really powerful per rest abilities and spells other than to remove them?

 

At least in PoE Wizards aren't required to defeat other Wizards like in the IE games. I can just choose to not use them once their power curve goes quadratic.

 

 

Translation : Nerf wizard plz QQ too OP

 

Then you say you are anti-tedious and anti-fun yet you are bassically suggesting the murder of a class fun factor because its "OP", you dont even mention the other spell casters, everything you throw is against the wizard, you dont fool me dude, your feelings are still hurt by the cipher nerf, i didnt asked for it and probably you were like me back then, trying to prevent that to happen and since you couldnt do that then you have to get revenge on the class that is on top now, whisch supposedly is the Wizard.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Zherot

[Teioh_White]

Wizards really are set up to be really good auto attackers, and my first play through, I spent all 6 of my Wizards talents towards that goal. Only, at the end of the game, by the time he had his fancy rod and all the talents, I had no reason to auto attack, as I could be more effective by just firing off 14 spells each fight instead, and dip into the reserves if somehow it wasn't over with those.

 

As for per rest things, it's never really been tuned well in any IE game. If folks are dead set on keeping (which I think it's a workable system), just leave minimal restrictions on lower difficulties, so folks can go at their own pace. On a higher difficulty, I don't know how to work it, but somehow try to group a dungeon into an 'adventure' or something, and you have to clear the place to keep any of the loot. If you leave the zone before whatever 'clearing' is, the mobs and traps will all be back, so you'll have to ration your resources to the end. It's not really a system you see much of in WRPG, outside of the Wizardy series.

 

Another option is just go entirely per encounter, which is what most modern WRPG's seem to do. Downside to that is it depends entirely on the devs to have to design each encounter to be interseting, as otherwise with no restraints, you just use the same plan every time. Maybe sorta could take the current low level per encounter spells, per rest high spells system right now, and just for 'boss' fights, everyone gets some new, stronger skills to use, to make the fights more exciting, and open up new strategies for a fight?

 

Either way, I think it's too much work for too little show for Devs to really be worried about.

[KDubya]

 

 

I don't think the solution is to destroy encounter spells, since that is more of a convenience and growth thing anyways. No one wants to use auto attack too often as a Wizard.

 

Maybe just balance the more crazy spells for future expansions.

 

Per encounter Shadowflame Cold Nuke in expansion2 would just be ludicrous lol!

 

 

But even with auto attacks a Wizard is better off than anyone else. With three talents you get AoE, DR penetration, and +25% damage with a minor raw damage effect. No one else can add AoE to their attacks besides a Barbarian with Carnage. Everyone else who wants DR penetration has to take a -20% attack speed malus. No other  talent adds +25% damage. Implements do the same base DPS as every other ranged weapon.

 

You could make an effective implement using Wizard who would probably lead in damage  done just with using your auto attack, let alone using the Blights which also benefit from all the same talents. Add in penetrating shot for more DR bypass, the cross class sneak attack which would be applied with the AoE, enchant a lash and add in the appropriate elemental damage booster. Sure it'd be boring, but it just goes to show what lengths the game goes to, in order to make Wizards fun and useful at lower levels.

 

I hated Wizards in IE games before 5th or even 7th level unless they were Fighter/mages who could fight as well. I really like low level Wizards in PoE, they nailed the useful but fragile aspect. At higher levels Wizards can overcome any of their inherent weaknesses with spells which are limited by uses per rest. You had to choose when to expend the resource. The per encounter makes you not even have to choose to expend the resource, the only limit is the time it takes to cast which can be overcome when you get Alacrity at level 3.

 

Perhaps the answer is to not have any per rest abilities or spells in the game. People will just rest abuse if needed so why even have the mechanic. Just tone  spells down sufficiently on the assumption that the most powerful will be spammed, add in a cooldown timer on the more powerful abilities and there you go.

 

Any limitation on resting is a tedious anti-fun measure, so how else do you apply any limits on use of really powerful per rest abilities and spells other than to remove them?

 

At least in PoE Wizards aren't required to defeat other Wizards like in the IE games. I can just choose to not use them once their power curve goes quadratic.

 

 

Translation : Nerf wizard plz QQ too OP

 

Then you say you are anti-tedious and anti-fun yet you are bassically suggesting the murder of a class fun factor because its "OP", you dont even mention the other spell casters, everything you throw is against the wizard, you dont fool me dude, your feelings are still hurt by the cipher nerf, i didnt asked for it and probably you were like me back then, trying to prevent that to happen and since you couldnt do that then you have to get revenge on the class that is on top now, whisch supposedly is the Wizard.

 

 

Not sure what you are going off on here. In other threads you complain about how the game sucks and you call people Fanboy as a childish insult but when the discussion is about your favorite class you get real defensive.

 

I talk mainly about the Wizard because I use them more. I don't like buffing classes so I leave the Priest behind and like Aloth more than the Druid. They probably have broken abilities as well but I'd guess not as much as the Wizard does.

 

I actually like the changes to Cipher, makes it more fun and unique than the other casters.

 

My personal solution is probably just going to involve not using Wizards after a certain point. The Devs are not going to change anything so I will do whatever in order to keep my game fun and interesting for me.

[Zherot]

 

 

 

I don't think the solution is to destroy encounter spells, since that is more of a convenience and growth thing anyways. No one wants to use auto attack too often as a Wizard.

 

Maybe just balance the more crazy spells for future expansions.

 

Per encounter Shadowflame Cold Nuke in expansion2 would just be ludicrous lol!

 

 

But even with auto attacks a Wizard is better off than anyone else. With three talents you get AoE, DR penetration, and +25% damage with a minor raw damage effect. No one else can add AoE to their attacks besides a Barbarian with Carnage. Everyone else who wants DR penetration has to take a -20% attack speed malus. No other  talent adds +25% damage. Implements do the same base DPS as every other ranged weapon.

 

You could make an effective implement using Wizard who would probably lead in damage  done just with using your auto attack, let alone using the Blights which also benefit from all the same talents. Add in penetrating shot for more DR bypass, the cross class sneak attack which would be applied with the AoE, enchant a lash and add in the appropriate elemental damage booster. Sure it'd be boring, but it just goes to show what lengths the game goes to, in order to make Wizards fun and useful at lower levels.

 

I hated Wizards in IE games before 5th or even 7th level unless they were Fighter/mages who could fight as well. I really like low level Wizards in PoE, they nailed the useful but fragile aspect. At higher levels Wizards can overcome any of their inherent weaknesses with spells which are limited by uses per rest. You had to choose when to expend the resource. The per encounter makes you not even have to choose to expend the resource, the only limit is the time it takes to cast which can be overcome when you get Alacrity at level 3.

 

Perhaps the answer is to not have any per rest abilities or spells in the game. People will just rest abuse if needed so why even have the mechanic. Just tone  spells down sufficiently on the assumption that the most powerful will be spammed, add in a cooldown timer on the more powerful abilities and there you go.

 

Any limitation on resting is a tedious anti-fun measure, so how else do you apply any limits on use of really powerful per rest abilities and spells other than to remove them?

 

At least in PoE Wizards aren't required to defeat other Wizards like in the IE games. I can just choose to not use them once their power curve goes quadratic.

 

 

Translation : Nerf wizard plz QQ too OP

 

Then you say you are anti-tedious and anti-fun yet you are bassically suggesting the murder of a class fun factor because its "OP", you dont even mention the other spell casters, everything you throw is against the wizard, you dont fool me dude, your feelings are still hurt by the cipher nerf, i didnt asked for it and probably you were like me back then, trying to prevent that to happen and since you couldnt do that then you have to get revenge on the class that is on top now, whisch supposedly is the Wizard.

 

 

Not sure what you are going off on here. In other threads you complain about how the game sucks and you call people Fanboy as a childish insult but when the discussion is about your favorite class you get real defensive.

 

I talk mainly about the Wizard because I use them more. I don't like buffing classes so I leave the Priest behind and like Aloth more than the Druid. They probably have broken abilities as well but I'd guess not as much as the Wizard does.

 

I actually like the changes to Cipher, makes it more fun and unique than the other casters.

 

My personal solution is probably just going to involve not using Wizards after a certain point. The Devs are not going to change anything so I will do whatever in order to keep my game fun and interesting for me.

 

 

Oh!, you are following me now, good to know im too important for you to be noticing every little thing i say. Thing is you like any other person that wants to attack for the sake of attacking are taking all what i said out of context, let me quote myself from another thread:

 

 

Yeah the combat in this game is pretty bad, though they added AI maybe that will help you, but i understand you tottally, same reason i stoped playing, that and i didnt liked to micro manage every damn thing, like srsly.

 

Is a bit better to me in the micro management thing, now its less and you only really need to do it when in a hard battle, but the overall combat of the game its the same, still kind of crappy.

 

 

 

I will add that even if the combat itself its crap, like i said it gets better with AI but the game has also other interesting matters, has very good writing IMO, i am really enjoying some of the sidequests and tasks, the main story line i havent advanced it that much precisely because i get so easily sidetracked by this sidequests, i like how your companions banter with each other and talk to you and have something to say in the story or in the sidequests, i also like how the world really akcnowledge how you are behaving in it, you build your reputation and the people will acknowledge it and comment on how the world sees you, thats pretty good.

 

Dont judge the game only on the combat, i know it sucks it dosent have a better combat but it has more to offer, its truly a shame but its not a total disaster either, it just dosent feel that good compaed to other RPGs i played.

 

I TOTTALLY said the game sucks as a whole, (sarcasm).

 

You knw what?, the only ones that cant get in their minds someone not liking the entire package and criticizing things are... gues what?: FANBOYS.

 

BTW fanboy its a qualitative adjetive, its a way to describe a behavior, the only ones taking offense on that word are... gues what again?: FANBOYS.

 

I go real defensive when people is trying to push their BS on me or on others specially when there is already a solution for them if they dont like what they are receiving, there is also no need for the developers to drastically change game mechanics at this point they will only waste resources and time doing so, if they want to change something then do it on the next game or whatever, its too late and not needed.

 

And then you AT LEAST recognize that you yourself can just change the things you dont like and stop trying to keep pushing this forward, took you long enough to address what i said to you in my... like first post about this matter, dont worry dude you dont need to stop using Wizard there is this amazing mod that will prevent you to gain per encounter spells AT ALL, there you go, you can stop crying and enjoy your game at least.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Zherot

[KDubya]

 

 

 

 

I don't think the solution is to destroy encounter spells, since that is more of a convenience and growth thing anyways. No one wants to use auto attack too often as a Wizard.

 

Maybe just balance the more crazy spells for future expansions.

 

Per encounter Shadowflame Cold Nuke in expansion2 would just be ludicrous lol!

 

 

But even with auto attacks a Wizard is better off than anyone else. With three talents you get AoE, DR penetration, and +25% damage with a minor raw damage effect. No one else can add AoE to their attacks besides a Barbarian with Carnage. Everyone else who wants DR penetration has to take a -20% attack speed malus. No other  talent adds +25% damage. Implements do the same base DPS as every other ranged weapon.

 

You could make an effective implement using Wizard who would probably lead in damage  done just with using your auto attack, let alone using the Blights which also benefit from all the same talents. Add in penetrating shot for more DR bypass, the cross class sneak attack which would be applied with the AoE, enchant a lash and add in the appropriate elemental damage booster. Sure it'd be boring, but it just goes to show what lengths the game goes to, in order to make Wizards fun and useful at lower levels.

 

I hated Wizards in IE games before 5th or even 7th level unless they were Fighter/mages who could fight as well. I really like low level Wizards in PoE, they nailed the useful but fragile aspect. At higher levels Wizards can overcome any of their inherent weaknesses with spells which are limited by uses per rest. You had to choose when to expend the resource. The per encounter makes you not even have to choose to expend the resource, the only limit is the time it takes to cast which can be overcome when you get Alacrity at level 3.

 

Perhaps the answer is to not have any per rest abilities or spells in the game. People will just rest abuse if needed so why even have the mechanic. Just tone  spells down sufficiently on the assumption that the most powerful will be spammed, add in a cooldown timer on the more powerful abilities and there you go.

 

Any limitation on resting is a tedious anti-fun measure, so how else do you apply any limits on use of really powerful per rest abilities and spells other than to remove them?

 

At least in PoE Wizards aren't required to defeat other Wizards like in the IE games. I can just choose to not use them once their power curve goes quadratic.

 

 

Translation : Nerf wizard plz QQ too OP

 

Then you say you are anti-tedious and anti-fun yet you are bassically suggesting the murder of a class fun factor because its "OP", you dont even mention the other spell casters, everything you throw is against the wizard, you dont fool me dude, your feelings are still hurt by the cipher nerf, i didnt asked for it and probably you were like me back then, trying to prevent that to happen and since you couldnt do that then you have to get revenge on the class that is on top now, whisch supposedly is the Wizard.

 

 

Not sure what you are going off on here. In other threads you complain about how the game sucks and you call people Fanboy as a childish insult but when the discussion is about your favorite class you get real defensive.

 

I talk mainly about the Wizard because I use them more. I don't like buffing classes so I leave the Priest behind and like Aloth more than the Druid. They probably have broken abilities as well but I'd guess not as much as the Wizard does.

 

I actually like the changes to Cipher, makes it more fun and unique than the other casters.

 

My personal solution is probably just going to involve not using Wizards after a certain point. The Devs are not going to change anything so I will do whatever in order to keep my game fun and interesting for me.

 

 

Oh!, you are following me now, good to know im too important for you to be noticing every little thing i say. Thing is you like any other person that wants to attack for the sake of attacking are taking all what i said out of context, let me quote myself from another thread:

 

 

Zherot, on 17 Sept 2015 - 11:46 PM

 

 

By your own reasoning per encounter spells could be removed, spells could all be changed to slow casting speed and their effects severely downgraded and that would be fine since you could just get a mod instead of whining about it.

 

Thanks for showing me the light. I now see that the correct answer to everything is STFU, Learn to play NooB and get a mod if you don't like it.

 

 

 

 

Edit - It chopped off part of your post, not sure why?

Edited September 18, 2015 by KDubya

[Zherot]

 

 

By your own reasoning per encounter spells could be removed, spells could all be changed to slow casting speed and their effects severely downgraded and that would be fine since you could just get a mod instead of whining about it.

 

Thanks for showing me the light. I now see that the correct answer to everything is STFU, Learn to play NooB and get a mod if you don't like it.

 

 

 

 

Edit - It chopped off part of your post, not sure why?

 

 

Except my reasoning dosent include the devs changing what already is in the game to please my tastes and my visions, if the game were like that and i could modify it you bet your ass i wouldnt be crying on the forums to demand a change to everybody because i dont like how the game works, i would just mod the game and be done with it, i already did someting like that since to me its too later when you get per encounter spells so i changed the levels at what you get them, did you saw me making a HUGE complaint post about that and trying to impose that on others?, no.

 

I never said git gud or anything like that, you keep looking more and more like a butthurt fanboy by releasing those false accusations to me.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Zherot

[curryinahurry]

 

But even with auto attacks a Wizard is better off than anyone else. With three talents you get AoE, DR penetration, and +25% damage with a minor raw damage effect. No one else can add AoE to their attacks besides a Barbarian with Carnage. Everyone else who wants DR penetration has to take a -20% attack speed malus. No other  talent adds +25% damage. Implements do the same base DPS as every other ranged weapon.

 

You could make an effective implement using Wizard who would probably lead in damage  done just with using your auto attack, let alone using the Blights which also benefit from all the same talents. Add in penetrating shot for more DR bypass, the cross class sneak attack which would be applied with the AoE, enchant a lash and add in the appropriate elemental damage booster. Sure it'd be boring, but it just goes to show what lengths the game goes to, in order to make Wizards fun and useful at lower levels.

 

I hated Wizards in IE games before 5th or even 7th level unless they were Fighter/mages who could fight as well. I really like low level Wizards in PoE, they nailed the useful but fragile aspect. At higher levels Wizards can overcome any of their inherent weaknesses with spells which are limited by uses per rest. You had to choose when to expend the resource. The per encounter makes you not even have to choose to expend the resource, the only limit is the time it takes to cast which can be overcome when you get Alacrity at level 3.

 

Perhaps the answer is to not have any per rest abilities or spells in the game. People will just rest abuse if needed so why even have the mechanic. Just tone  spells down sufficiently on the assumption that the most powerful will be spammed, add in a cooldown timer on the more powerful abilities and there you go.

 

Any limitation on resting is a tedious anti-fun measure, so how else do you apply any limits on use of really powerful per rest abilities and spells other than to remove them?

 

At least in PoE Wizards aren't required to defeat other Wizards like in the IE games. I can just choose to not use them once their power curve goes quadratic.

 

 

 

There may be a solution by combiningsome of the suggestions made by Elric Galad, Infinitron and Tigranes.  It may look something like this:

 

At level 9 Druids, Priests and Wizards get one per encounter casting of any first level spell, beyond that all other spells (including first level) come out of the per rest numbers.

 

At Level 11 Druids, Priests and Wizards all First level Spells casting becomes fully per encounter.  Any Second level spell can be cast be cast once per encounter, any additoinal casts are per rest.

 

At Level 13, Second Level Spells become fully per Encounter, 3rd level spells once per encounter

 

At level 15, Third Level spells fully per encounter.  The 3 caster classes can choose a talent for the same ability with 4th level spells at this point.  Alternatively, they can choose to cast An empowered version of any 5th level spell that has 150% effectiveness (AOE, Damage, Buff, Duration, etc.) at the cost of all per encounter casting of first level spells.

 

Same up the line.  I would put a cap on per encounter spell talents at level 5.

 

This could work and allow Obsidian do implement these alterations with minimal implications to the current set up.  The trickiest part is UI related, but it could be that it's as simple as a symbol when the spells of a given level can be cast once per encounter free, then become per rest

Edited September 18, 2015 by curryinahurry