Jump to content
Infinitron

Confirmed - per-encounter spells are getting nerfed

Recommended Posts

I think its time to stop trying to tie this game to the predecessors and just go ahead and keep pushing ahead with designs like per encounter.

 

I absolutely love the new mechanic of scripted events and the story is great but the combat and itemization and all the arguments revolving around them tend to be wanting to adhere to the old days.  Which we all may have nostalgia when thinking back but we are in a very distinct new age of gaming where it is time to take it to the next level.

 

I know Divinity: Original Sin may not be everyone's cup of tea but that game is doing exactly that and pushing boundaries and setting a foundation for evolution.

 

Per encounter is an evolution just like not having to rest to scribe spells every time you change the spells in your book.  And when it was changed there was complaints about how it would wreck things.  Now who the hell would even want that system or even defend it.

 

Luckily they are not entirely doing away with per encounter spells so the design and system will stay in place.

 

Is there anyone that can explain the logical reason why people are upset about per encounter to begin with?

If I utilize my low level spells in a spam fest I do not do nearly as much damage because I forego my higher tier spells in favor of something that has the illusory appearance of being more abundant.

If I camp a lot or go to inns (even if I stop my dungeon crawling) I end up with the same amount of spells per encounter.

If my caster is helping me win the battle isn't that a good thing?

 

Is the issue centering around overall difficulty and an issue that combat becomes trivial or something with a large number of per encounter spells?

Because I am playing on PoTD and sometimes I forget to cast spells because I am micro managing my rogue and the battles are often extraordinarily trivial at times simply using some auto attack and endurance buffing.

 

I am glad they are taking the vocal nature of the community around the issue to heart.

I just think that vocal nature could be focused on a more robust system rather than a nerf.

Similar to the argument that "crafting sucks and needs to be removed." because it totally breaks the game.

 

I just do not understand nerfs and really never will.  Even if it takes longer to add more power to other classes that type of solution increases the core flexibility and allows for more creativity and robust mechanics.  Relying on nerfs is meh... It has shown it never pleases the people who are vocal because they just move onto another thing to be vocal about.  And it can create a greater degree of homogenization in the game play.  Where like an MMO you end up having less and less difference between classes.

Edited by sapientNode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system that I would prefer is quite different than what is in the game, and since this was funded to pay homage to IE games this system would never be implemented however I think it would be a superior system (btw I do enjoy the game, just think this would be better.) Also I know that many of these mechanics can be found in other games and that I am not creating some brand new system.

 

So I would do away with the rest mechanic completely. Everything would be per encounter with of course restrictions. We can stick with Wizards for the example. I would make it so you can cast 3 spells for each spell level and once you reach a certain level, you can say 9 or whatever would fit, you gain an extra use for the lowest spell level. So now you would be able to cast 4 level 1 spells. And similar to now, every other level you gain an extra spell use for the next lowest spell level.

 

I would then address fatigue and health/injuries with fatigue potions and injury kits. I would have it so each character can carry a maximum of each one, so lets just say 5 potions and 5 kits as an arbitrary number. In order to minimize traveling back to towns and restocking I would make those items limited within the game world. So maybe each town only has one vendor that sells those items and each vendor only carries a relatively small amount...lets say like 10 or 15 of each and those vendors are not able to restock those items. You can also gain those items through looting corpses and chests but they would not be abundant. Also you can get a recipe for each item to craft them, but the ingredients would not be abundant nor easy to get. Then I would add some sort of temple or structure that you can go to within each major town and each character would get one use to restore fatigue and health completely but once it is used for that character, he/she would not be able to use it again (obviously.)

 

Obviously this is just a short summary of the basic fundamentals of the system and it would need a lot of work and adjustments to make work as well as figuring out how to explain some of these things within the lore. However I think it addresses a lot of issues we currently find in the game. Also the numbers I used for examples are arbitrary and could be adjusted to whatever works best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reducing the power, or nerfing, one class is a lot easier than trying to increase the power of ten other classes and then try to increase all the enemies to make it some what challenging. Unfortunately this change does not address the issue.

 

If it is four per rest + one per encounter it does the worst of all possible solutions. In the tough fights you are stronger and in the trash fights you will cast less or rest more.

 

The three original classes, the Cipher with focus, the Chanter with their chants/invocations and the Monk with wounds, are great. New and refreshing takes on how a class will play. Easy to balance, they get stronger but in a linear type fashion. They should have expanded on this mechanism for all the casters instead of bringing in Vancian casters.

 

PoE did solve the issue of casters being too weak in the beginning but did nothing to solve the quadratic issue at high levels.

 

Blame the backers for this, they wanted the god-mode mages from BG and PoE delivered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what I DO want to know is why a dev of this game does not announce a change of this nature ON THIS FORUM.  I have no clue what that forum is, and I'm not about to mess with ANOTHER forum in addition to this one.

Too many threads here I think. Any mention of something would be lost in the mass and a real nightmare to search for later. SA only has one thread dedicated to Pillars of Eternity and you can get a list of all posts by one member for any specific thread, so searching is easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame the backers for this, they wanted the god-mode mages from BG and PoE delivered.

Hey, don't blame me back when it was still being debated I was pro-mana system over Vancian! :p  Though I wanted to keep the ability to find and scribe new spells, but dunno if that would work with a mana system.  Anyway, there were some decisions the backers made that I have to admit were rubbish, such as the protests against the durability system that was proposed when most of them clearly had not even read about the system being proposed (it did NOT destroy or break weapons as most of them were crying about, it actually provided a very minor penalty when the durability ran out, something like -1 to accuracy or something, and it's main effect was that it was going to provide a cosmetic effect of the weapons and armour looking worn out, which would have been cool when deep in the dungeons, so basically people cried about a cosmetic effect).


"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But what I DO want to know is why a dev of this game does not announce a change of this nature ON THIS FORUM.  I have no clue what that forum is, and I'm not about to mess with ANOTHER forum in addition to this one.

Too many threads here I think. Any mention of something would be lost in the mass and a real nightmare to search for later. SA only has one thread dedicated to Pillars of Eternity and you can get a list of all posts by one member for any specific thread, so searching is easier.

 

That and I think the developers (of any company) quite often avoid their own forums due to the number of haters that seem to frequent them.  After Pillars was released the amount of hate that came from posters here about anything and everything, including personal attacks on the devs themselves.  I noticed the devs seemed to become less present over time during development too, partly because they were working on the game but also I think some of the responses they were getting from backers kinda put them off.  It's like when people put videos up on Youtube: you never look at the comments if you value your own self-esteem and sanity.


"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, there were some decisions the backers made that I have to admit were rubbish, such as the protests against the durability system that was proposed when most of them clearly had not even read about the system being proposed (it did NOT destroy or break weapons as most of them were crying about, it actually provided a very minor penalty when the durability ran out, something like -1 to accuracy or something, and it's main effect was that it was going to provide a cosmetic effect of the weapons and armour looking worn out, which would have been cool when deep in the dungeons, so basically people cried about a cosmetic effect).

 

So, it's not just a money sink. It's annoying money sink you can't opt out from :skeptical:

  • Like 1

Pillars of Bugothas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily the dev's (and moderators) have the ability to "pin" threads which forces the thread to stay at the top of page 1 of the respective forum. Any information they wished to deliver to us on this website would be easily identifiable and searchable. :)

  • Like 1

image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any information they wished to deliver to us on this website would be easily identifiable and searchable. :)

 

Therein lies the gripe.

  • Like 2

If I'm typing in red, it means I'm being sarcastic. But not this time.

Dark green, on the other hand, is for jokes and irony in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyway, there were some decisions the backers made that I have to admit were rubbish, such as the protests against the durability system that was proposed when most of them clearly had not even read about the system being proposed (it did NOT destroy or break weapons as most of them were crying about, it actually provided a very minor penalty when the durability ran out, something like -1 to accuracy or something, and it's main effect was that it was going to provide a cosmetic effect of the weapons and armour looking worn out, which would have been cool when deep in the dungeons, so basically people cried about a cosmetic effect).

 

So, it's not just a money sink. It's annoying money sink you can't opt out from :skeptical:

 

It was another resource management, and a minor one.  One that would have added to the atmosphere without being too intrusive mechanics-wise.  Yet had you spoken with the backers back then it was like Obsidian had asked them to shag their own mothers.  Now you have players asking to replace a straightforward magic system progression with one that will drag out mob fights while actually making boss fights easier despite their intentions to the contrary.  People are weird.


"That rabbit's dynamite!" - King Arthur, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

"Space is big, really big." - Douglas Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

If it is four per rest + one per encounter it does the worst of all possible solutions. In the tough fights you are stronger and in the trash fights you will cast less or rest more.

 

 

One thing I want to clarify about the whole rest spamming complaint I have been seeing on this thread and other threads. The camping/resting system is designed to work around the concept of attrition in line with the difficulty setting the player chooses.  Thus the lower levels of difficulty (easy/normal) are set up to have copious opportunities for the player to rest.  At the higher difficulties, resource management is meant to be a significant strategic factor.  Thus, if you are playing on Hard/ POTD, you should be able to progress through the game using the camping supplies you carry/ find in any area you explore.  If you need to rest spam to get through these difficulty levels, whether it is through mods or slogging back to an inn, you are playing on a level that is too hard for you (or deliberately altering the game to make it appear easier than it is intended to be).  Either way, that play style isn't something the designers can eliminate in this type of system without making everything completely per encounter.  I won't comment about whether that is the direction they should have gone in or not, but I will say that they really have no reason to design the game to accommodate  those that will meta game or outright cheat to make the game easier for themselves.

 

BTW, I do agree that the 3 original classes are the most interesting in the game, and I hope that Obsidian gets a chance to develop an original IP that moves further away from the old IE games.

Edited by curryinahurry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time I reach level 9, I don't know if ever cast all of my level 1 spells in a single fight.  In tough fights I use my strong spells instead, in easy fights they go too fast or aren't worth the effort.  I don't think giving a fifth cast really makes a difference the vast majority of the time.

 

I do however often use 2-3 slicken/chill fog against a single mob and it makes the fights trivial and I think it should have more of a cost.

 

I still think that if they are going to weaken the amount of per encounter spells though, they should be available much earlier, like level 5 or 6. Maybe give them out at 5, 9 and 13 instead of 9, 11 and 13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was another resource management, and a minor one.  One that would have added to the atmosphere without being too intrusive mechanics-wise.

 

 

Not really, not for me anyway. I've played games with it. In one game, where I had an option, I've chosen only weapons which couldn't break even though they were inferior (not sure how that works).

  • Like 1

Pillars of Bugothas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Let me straighten this out. Currently, casters could nova with their low-level spells several times per rest. Now, casters will instead have additional castings of their low-level spells to throw on top of their existing nova, making it even bigger than it was before. Wizards will also get to fit an extra low-level spell in their grimoire, presumably because they couldn't already do absolutely everything at a time.

 

So ... they're addressing something which many people don't even see as a problem by aggravating a larger and more systemic issue.

 

*jazz hands*

I believe it replaces the nova rather than adds to it.

About that:

 

A mastered spell can be cast 1/Encounter in addition to all other uses.

Emphasis mine. What you're saying would be more reasonable, yes, but it's not what Josh said.

 

Wait, am I understanding you right?  I think you were saying that they would continue to be able to blast out spells per encounter in addition to this change, but from my reading the quote says " the current switchover of low level spells to per encounter is going to be changed. Instead, the "Vancian" casters will pick a spell of that level or lower as a mastered spell." with the bold bit indicating this is a replacement not an addition.

 

 

this will only encourage more rest spamming like in BG series... *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It was another resource management, and a minor one.  One that would have added to the atmosphere without being too intrusive mechanics-wise.

 

 

Not really, not for me anyway. I've played games with it. In one game, where I had an option, I've chosen only weapons which couldn't break even though they were inferior (not sure how that works).

 

True dat.

 

The big case study in durability is probably Fire Emblem. As a mechanic, it works really well in the games where you have a limited set of missions and the whole game is really an exercise in fight-to-fight resource management. In the games where you have more freedom to explore and grind and do sidequests, it becomes a real encumbrance and impediment to fun.

  • Like 2

If I'm typing in red, it means I'm being sarcastic. But not this time.

Dark green, on the other hand, is for jokes and irony in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we really need is a spell that summons a djinni of immense power who you can negotiate with to make it as if your party had just rested and re-memorised all spells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.

 

If it is four per rest + one per encounter it does the worst of all possible solutions. In the tough fights you are stronger and in the trash fights you will cast less or rest more.

 

 

One thing I want to clarify about the whole rest spamming complaint I have been seeing on this thread and other threads. The camping/resting system is designed to work around the concept of attrition in line with the difficulty setting the player chooses.  Thus the lower levels of difficulty (easy/normal) are set up to have copious opportunities for the player to rest.  At the higher difficulties, resource management is meant to be a significant strategic factor.  Thus, if you are playing on Hard/ POTD, you should be able to progress through the game using the camping supplies you carry/ find in any area you explore.  If you need to rest spam to get through these difficulty levels, whether it is through mods or slogging back to an inn, you are playing on a level that is too hard for you (or deliberately altering the game to make it appear easier than it is intended to be).  Either way, that play style isn't something the designers can eliminate in this type of system without making everything completely per encounter.  I won't comment about whether that is the direction they should have gone in or not, but I will say that they really have no reason to design the game to accommodate  those that will meta game or outright cheat to make the game easier for themselves.

 

BTW, I do agree that the 3 original classes are the most interesting in the game, and I hope that Obsidian gets a chance to develop an original IP that moves further away from the old IE games.

 

 

I understand that some people see the rest mechanic as an actual strategic system and based on the fact that they do in fact reduce your camp supplies by a good amount from Normal to PoTD I agree that the intention was to have the rest mechanic as a strategic aspect.

 

However I do not see it working that way at all with the other added mechanics.

 

Any person who wants to use strategy is going to go get the buffs from an inn before tackling a dungeon and unless they are for more than 1 or 2 rests per buff bonus the attribute bonuses from inns are just screaming to be utilized.  So to keep our buffs which are often very helpful per encounter is quite useful.  And if I lose my buffs because they want me to camp out more to get my spells up I will just use iemod or potentially trudge my way back to the inn.  Which ultimately is me clicking map button clicking by exit to map.  Running party in fast mode to exit click click click and click then back to the map.  That just gets old and tired.  And without any variance like encounters between maps or random encounters popping up on maps already visited its absurdly tedious even if I am rping.

 

You state this commonly posted statement about cheating and meta gaming.  I never quite understand when people say this.  Its pretty much like if I had taxes and decided to use the tax code to write something off that is obscured from the public in general.  And because of this I am cheating the system in some way.  I tend to view cheating in a game as hex editing the code or manipulating the data on that level.  Or using the console to god mode your party or to gain access to otherwise unavailable skills/attributes/powers in the base game.

 

All I see is that people get upset because they did not figure out how to optimize the available variables in the game for winning and would rather eliminate things so they feel like they are on more even ground with those who can readily see how to capitalize on them.  Or they want to have rules put upon them and everyone else when they could easily apply the rules to themselves with the proper discipline.  I mean if you feel per-encounter is too abusive of a system or OP.  Do not use it.  If you feel a certain spell is too amazingly powerful dont scribe it in your book.  Or choose something in the middle of that disciplined application and go suggest that iemod offers up a method to switch per encounter off or in a different variance than what it is now.

 

Ultimately if you remove per encounter you just use more resting for tougher fights.  And if you want some incredible challenge this game is not it even on PoTD.  However if you are trying to forcibly challenge yourself and have the discipline to not use inns or camping supplies then anyone can do that regardless of how the game is designed.  Turn on PoTD and RP that camping supplies no longer exist or that there is some lingering poison that is emitted from a Watcher that will kill your party on rest.

 

If they wanted the rest mechanic to be truly a strategic system they would add encounter probability as well as a cool down to being able to camp or rest.  At the very least add camping options in the expert mode settings.  If they wanted to really make casting spells a more robust a strategic system they would add cool downs and other intricate systems that had you using more foresight.  Per encounter on/off is really not the problem that seems be really being discussed here.

 

Soon though iemod will have a more direct avenue of ability tweaking and hopefully that will grow into something where we can have more direct access to the difficulty and game mechanics.  Then everyone can be happy and we can post things about additions instead of eliminations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

.

 

If it is four per rest + one per encounter it does the worst of all possible solutions. In the tough fights you are stronger and in the trash fights you will cast less or rest more.

 

One thing I want to clarify about the whole rest spamming complaint I have been seeing on this thread and other threads. The camping/resting system is designed to work around the concept of attrition in line with the difficulty setting the player chooses.  Thus the lower levels of difficulty (easy/normal) are set up to have copious opportunities for the player to rest.  At the higher difficulties, resource management is meant to be a significant strategic factor.  Thus, if you are playing on Hard/ POTD, you should be able to progress through the game using the camping supplies you carry/ find in any area you explore.  If you need to rest spam to get through these difficulty levels, whether it is through mods or slogging back to an inn, you are playing on a level that is too hard for you (or deliberately altering the game to make it appear easier than it is intended to be).  Either way, that play style isn't something the designers can eliminate in this type of system without making everything completely per encounter.  I won't comment about whether that is the direction they should have gone in or not, but I will say that they really have no reason to design the game to accommodate  those that will meta game or outright cheat to make the game easier for themselves.

 

BTW, I do agree that the 3 original classes are the most interesting in the game, and I hope that Obsidian gets a chance to develop an original IP that moves further away from the old IE games.

 

 

I understand that some people see the rest mechanic as an actual strategic system and based on the fact that they do in fact reduce your camp supplies by a good amount from Normal to PoTD I agree that the intention was to have the rest mechanic as a strategic aspect.

 

However I do not see it working that way at all with the other added mechanics.

 

Any person who wants to use strategy is going to go get the buffs from an inn before tackling a dungeon and unless they are for more than 1 or 2 rests per buff bonus the attribute bonuses from inns are just screaming to be utilized.  So to keep our buffs which are often very helpful per encounter is quite useful.  And if I lose my buffs because they want me to camp out more to get my spells up I will just use iemod or potentially trudge my way back to the inn.  Which ultimately is me clicking map button clicking by exit to map.  Running party in fast mode to exit click click click and click then back to the map.  That just gets old and tired.  And without any variance like encounters between maps or random encounters popping up on maps already visited its absurdly tedious even if I am rping.

 

You state this commonly posted statement about cheating and meta gaming.  I never quite understand when people say this.  Its pretty much like if I had taxes and decided to use the tax code to write something off that is obscured from the public in general.  And because of this I am cheating the system in some way.  I tend to view cheating in a game as hex editing the code or manipulating the data on that level.  Or using the console to god mode your party or to gain access to otherwise unavailable skills/attributes/powers in the base game.

 

All I see is that people get upset because they did not figure out how to optimize the available variables in the game for winning and would rather eliminate things so they feel like they are on more even ground with those who can readily see how to capitalize on them.  Or they want to have rules put upon them and everyone else when they could easily apply the rules to themselves with the proper discipline.  I mean if you feel per-encounter is too abusive of a system or OP.  Do not use it.  If you feel a certain spell is too amazingly powerful dont scribe it in your book.  Or choose something in the middle of that disciplined application and go suggest that iemod offers up a method to switch per encounter off or in a different variance than what it is now.

 

Ultimately if you remove per encounter you just use more resting for tougher fights.  And if you want some incredible challenge this game is not it even on PoTD.  However if you are trying to forcibly challenge yourself and have the discipline to not use inns or camping supplies then anyone can do that regardless of how the game is designed.  Turn on PoTD and RP that camping supplies no longer exist or that there is some lingering poison that is emitted from a Watcher that will kill your party on rest.

 

If they wanted the rest mechanic to be truly a strategic system they would add encounter probability as well as a cool down to being able to camp or rest.  At the very least add camping options in the expert mode settings.  If they wanted to really make casting spells a more robust a strategic system they would add cool downs and other intricate systems that had you using more foresight.  Per encounter on/off is really not the problem that seems be really being discussed here.

 

Soon though iemod will have a more direct avenue of ability tweaking and hopefully that will grow into something where we can have more direct access to the difficulty and game mechanics.  Then everyone can be happy and we can post things about additions instead of eliminations.

 

I try and approach the game as if there was a real human DM running the game instead of the game engine.

 

I would call keeping an Inn bonus or prostitute in effect all the time as being a 'rules lawyering' approach. It is allowed but is against the spirit of the game in my opinion. I believe that a real DM would have consequences for you if you left all the time or rested too frequently. The game doesn't have those types of consequences and that is fine. I can have any 'house rules' that I want and I do.

 

As I said before, or at least at the end of the other thread after reading and re-thinking my original premise, per encounter spells are not the problem. The problem is Vancian casters. The only solution I have is to just not use them, or at least stop at mid level. This I can fix on my own and I do.

 

I'm just disappointed that the Devs did not take the bold step of making everything like the Cipher and Chanter. Maybe in PoE2 they can break free but now their is a legacy of Vancian casters here so they will probably do the same thing again.

 

It's like the Civilization games, CiV is a great game but limited to human history. When they announced Beyond Earth I thought that they could really stretch the boundaries since the future is not written. They could have gone to extreme possibilities like Eugenics or what ever without being tied to what really happened. Instead of something bold they went with bland pastels and just gave you more of the same, except not as good as CiV.

 

The best I can hope for is that PoE2 is not a console port. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh.... I subscribe to the belief system wherein a mage knows what she knows because she's lived her bread and butter since she first realized she could manipulate life, the world, and everything simply by concentrating.

 

I don't actually have any particular issue with any given game in re mages and casting.  Though I must say that I've never fully agreed with the artificial limits placed on mages in the later versions of AD&D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we really need is a spell that summons a djinni of immense power who you can negotiate with to make it as if your party had just rested and re-memorised all spells.

It won't work because characters don't have wisdom anymore, so they'll end up surrounded by Fampyrs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I understand that some people see the rest mechanic as an actual strategic system and based on the fact that they do in fact reduce your camp supplies by a good amount from Normal to PoTD I agree that the intention was to have the rest mechanic as a strategic aspect.

 

However I do not see it working that way at all with the other added mechanics.

 

Any person who wants to use strategy is going to go get the buffs from an inn before tackling a dungeon and unless they are for more than 1 or 2 rests per buff bonus the attribute bonuses from inns are just screaming to be utilized.  So to keep our buffs which are often very helpful per encounter is quite useful.  And if I lose my buffs because they want me to camp out more to get my spells up I will just use iemod or potentially trudge my way back to the inn.  Which ultimately is me clicking map button clicking by exit to map.  Running party in fast mode to exit click click click and click then back to the map.  That just gets old and tired.  And without any variance like encounters between maps or random encounters popping up on maps already visited its absurdly tedious even if I am rping.

 

You state this commonly posted statement about cheating and meta gaming.  I never quite understand when people say this.  Its pretty much like if I had taxes and decided to use the tax code to write something off that is obscured from the public in general.  And because of this I am cheating the system in some way.  I tend to view cheating in a game as hex editing the code or manipulating the data on that level.  Or using the console to god mode your party or to gain access to otherwise unavailable skills/attributes/powers in the base game.

 

All I see is that people get upset because they did not figure out how to optimize the available variables in the game for winning and would rather eliminate things so they feel like they are on more even ground with those who can readily see how to capitalize on them.  Or they want to have rules put upon them and everyone else when they could easily apply the rules to themselves with the proper discipline.  I mean if you feel per-encounter is too abusive of a system or OP.  Do not use it.  If you feel a certain spell is too amazingly powerful dont scribe it in your book.  Or choose something in the middle of that disciplined application and go suggest that iemod offers up a method to switch per encounter off or in a different variance than what it is now.

 

Ultimately if you remove per encounter you just use more resting for tougher fights.  And if you want some incredible challenge this game is not it even on PoTD.  However if you are trying to forcibly challenge yourself and have the discipline to not use inns or camping supplies then anyone can do that regardless of how the game is designed.  Turn on PoTD and RP that camping supplies no longer exist or that there is some lingering poison that is emitted from a Watcher that will kill your party on rest.

 

If they wanted the rest mechanic to be truly a strategic system they would add encounter probability as well as a cool down to being able to camp or rest.  At the very least add camping options in the expert mode settings.  If they wanted to really make casting spells a more robust a strategic system they would add cool downs and other intricate systems that had you using more foresight.  Per encounter on/off is really not the problem that seems be really being discussed here.

 

Soon though iemod will have a more direct avenue of ability tweaking and hopefully that will grow into something where we can have more direct access to the difficulty and game mechanics.  Then everyone can be happy and we can post things about additions instead of eliminations.

 

 

My point is that the game developers can't and shouldn't try to anticipate gameplay that either goes to extreme lengths to ensure a fully loaded party; whether those extremes are trudging back and forth to an inn (what I would consider meta-gaming) or changing the rules (using Mods or cheating via console).  The people who post on this forum represent a very small fraction of the people playing the game.  Currently, the IE Mod on Game Nexus has been downloaded about 54,000 times.  That represents about 7% of game owners +/-.  Not every one is using the mod to rest spam, but even if they are, that is a fairly small number.  I think people posting here tend to forget that the discussions on these forums are significant to, but not definitive of the overall gameplay experience of most owners.  

 

Your tax example doesn't really apply here because finding loopholes in taxes are still within the rules of the system, and yield a real tangible good.  Mods basically re-write the rules (not applicable) and meta-gaming, while sort or what you are describing, is a whole lot of extra work just to be a a bit stronger; and not necessary to winning the game...in other words, the is no real extra benefit.  Your tax analogy is more appropriate to power gaming and building uber characters.

 

BTW, I'm not at all a fan of the current spell system, and this discussion is largely the reason.  If they had really wanted to institute a Vancian derivative system for the 3 caster classes in question, they should have more closely followed D&D 4e which has both per encounter and per rest spells from level 1.

 

Better still, as KDubya just posted, is to make all casters work via a form of resource usage, but the nerd rage when people suggested mana or cooldowns, or resource building was overwhelming.

Edited by curryinahurry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ressource usage is the major topic of gamedesign nowadays.

 

Take the example of how Diablo 3 failed miserably at creating different ressources : they are all just mana variants.

 

PoE had some nice ideas. Monks design was very criticized in the beginning, but it's now very well accepted. Ciphers are cool. Chanters are cool too, but their scaling is broken. Yes, it's very hard to design original ressource mechanics that are not too "circonstancial".

 

I loved cooldown, especially in Guild Wars 1. This could have been included in PoE. The only things that currently look like CD are chanters...

 

And people backed for BG nostalgia. It might be a "mispelled wish" but it's what they wanted. I like the vancian system, maybe for bad reasons but I like it. It is in line with my meta, so I feel it is ok.

 

There might be different playstyle, of course.

 

I don't hope so much for PoE changes, but there might be one day a PoE mod that will just be the most perfect design ever... let's hope...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice thing about this game is that if you don't like Vancian, you don't have to use it. You can build a perfectly good party without a Vancian caster or what I usually do is limit myself to one vancian who works as my big gun for tough fights. 

 

I would like to see the vancians do a little more per encounter at lower levels, though or least wizards, Druids at least have spiritshift and priests have radiance and interdiction, arcane assault I think gets old pretty fast though even if it's pretty decent, it's a boring ability; Grimoire slam is often limited applicability.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really enjoyed being able to cast a lot during encounters at later levels so personally i am a fan of per encouter spells and dont like this change one bit. i find it quite a bit less fun to have my mage autoattack with his silly harry potter wand as oposed to cast spells. if preventing spaming of certain spells why not introduce a cooldown system instead?

 

hopefully the iemod guys are able to work their magic and reintroduce per encounter spells after this change goes live!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really enjoyed being able to cast a lot during encounters at later levels so personally i am a fan of per encouter spells and dont like this change one bit. i find it quite a bit less fun to have my mage autoattack with his silly harry potter wand as oposed to cast spells. if preventing spaming of certain spells why not introduce a cooldown system instead?

 

hopefully the iemod guys are able to work their magic and reintroduce per encounter spells after this change goes live!

 

Because Obsidian and this community eschews any game design improvement that happened after BG, because BG was perfect. /s

Edited by junki
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...