A query on combat gameplay

[Sensuki]

I am no longer a player of this game, but after recently reading many of the threads around here it seems that there are many players with a good knowledge of the mechanics that seem to be talking about the same core issue that I find with the combat in this game. I have put this issue into the following hypothesis:

 

If the player has a good understanding of the Pillars of Eternity system design and competently builds and equips a full or close to full party of characters, controls their party in combat effectively and makes little to no mistakes, combat in Pillars of Eternity becomes a repetitive exercise where the player performs the same sequence of rote actions throughout almost every combat encounter in the game.

 

This rote sequence entails a pre-encounter setup where the player uses Stealth to scout ahead and detect the location, makeup and line of sight of enemy compositions which allows the player to dictate the exact terms of engagement in the majority of encounters in the game. This is followed by optimally positioning party members for combat, usually in a very similar arrangement of designated tanking characters forward, melee strikers (if applicable) further back and then ranged and support characters in the rear, just inside their range limit. Once characters are in position, the player will initiate their ‘alpha strike’ where the player uses one or more active per-encounter abilities to inflict damage and debuffs on the enemy composition before combat begins.

 

After the pre-encounter setup and alpha strike phases are completed and units have engaged each other in melee combat, the field will stabilize. If the player correctly performs their stealth, initial positioning, alpha strike, opening set of abilities and controls the targeting of enemies, there is little to no chance that the player will lose that encounter, let alone suffer any casualties. The player will then spend the rest of the encounter keeping their advantage by using up the remaining per-encounter abilities of their characters, usually in a very similar order every encounter.

 

Encounters that do require players to break this rote sequence are usually against specific creatures or creature types that have powerful disables, can charm player units or have very high damage special attacks, and instances where the enemy AI targeting clauses for specific types of enemies prioritize weaker party members. Most of these challenges are optimally dealt with by a change in encounter strategy and/or opening actions. The player may alter their equipment (such as changing armor to lower or increase DR to alter enemy targeting priorities), use alternate initial positioning, leave particular characters out of the encounter until certain enemies are dealt with or use a specific character to soak up all initial enemy targeting.

 

Due to the nature of the system design, a player that successfully executes such an encounter strategy will almost never have to vary from this formula and will rarely have to pay much heed to the actions performed by enemies after the opening set of actions taken in combat.

 

The hypothesis does not mention the recent addition of affliction immunities, but they are largely a strategical consideration and may fall into the instances mentioned in the fourth paragraph where the player may have to alter their encounter strategy but still proceed with the rote sequence.

 

I have pondered on this issue for a long time now, and I'm thinking of producing a piece that will closely examine this problem, and other problems related to the game's combat and system design and present some feedback and possible solutions that might be of interest for the sequel IF there is any acknowledgement of this issue and intent to try and solve it - and by this I mean intent to design a combat system that is more reactive and requires more tactical diversity from the player.

 

Explanations as to why you agree or disagree and discussing the points I made in the hypothesis would be welcome, thankyou in advance.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Sensuki

[MunoValente]

Most encounters dont require nearly that much preparation. I think that if prepare that much for each encounter you are both wasting a bunch of time and making the game more boring by making easy encounters even easier. I feel like the game was largerly balanced for players that just kind of run around without much caution. If youre reckless, you're likely to end up interesting tactical situation, but if you're careful they are almost always easily avoidable.

 

I do think the expansion encounters are better, particularly against the more mobile enemies.

[Tigranes]

You've mentioned that very issue about a thousand and one times, so I would welcome a piece where you lay down specifics about how you think they can be solved or mitigated. In my personal experience with POTD, it is not particularly 'rote', and no more than most other RPGs of this type (including IE games), but that's not an excuse and a more diverse and less predictable tactical challenge is certainly called for. So I don't really see the point of this poll or advertising your soon-to-come 'piece', there's not much to talk about until we start talking specifics. 

 

I don't have much time to write, but I suspect possible solutions can be found along the lines of:

 

(1) more diversified enemies and enemy composition - POE actually has a very good variety of enemies for a new franchise game on a limited budget, but they are clumped without a thought for presenting complex tactical packages. 

(2) rejuggling per-enc and per-rest ability systems altogether - having both was important to achieve class diversity in POE, but it's also led to many niggling balance issues, and more broadly contributes to a repetitiveness. I don't think full per-rests is viable while retaining class diversity, but there will need to be a clearer design about what gets to be per-enc and what gets to be per-rest, etc.

(3) the initial wailing and gnashing of teeth about engagement was uninformed and short-sighted. Engagement did make the battles more static, but only because it was poorly implemented - i.e. too little incentive to break engagement, too few enemies that use the space manipulation abilities that already existed. Further work needs to be done to make AI usage of engagement and space robust - and there need to be more ways to manipulate space, and level design needs to build in more interesting terrain than 'open ground' and 'doorways'. When all these things are combined, engagement will finally shine as an improvement to IE style "everybody run around everywhere", instead of being an interesting but incomplete and frustrating feature that it is currently.

[Sensuki]

Most encounters dont require nearly that much preparation. I think that if prepare that much for each encounter you are both wasting a bunch of time and making the game more boring by making easy encounters even easier.

Oh, I know. "Trash encounters" don't require all of that but if you do some of it you can minimize your damage taken quite significantly.

 

I feel like the game was largerly balanced for players that just kind of run around without much caution. If youre reckless, you're likely to end up interesting tactical situation, but if you're careful they are almost always easily avoidable.

Yes, I agree. If you make a mistake, you can put yourself in a situation where you need to do something different. If you're a good player though, this generally doesn't happen unless you're being kinda lazy, and it has ramifications - loss of resources = shorter adventuring day, if that means anything to you.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Sensuki

[Sensuki]

So I don't really see the point of this poll or advertising your soon-to-come 'piece', there's not much to talk about until we start talking specifics.

Simply to start a discussion, to generate more thoughts and ideas. Most of the ideas I've had have arisen from discussing and arguing things with people, which I find very constructive for getting the thought process going.

 

(1) more diversified enemies and enemy composition - POE actually has a very good variety of enemies for a new franchise game on a limited budget, but they are clumped without a thought for presenting complex tactical packages.

To be brief think that the design constraints put over enemies prevents instances where anything really stands out, unless you do something super extreme like the Adra Dragon. The system design also makes it difficult for things to not feel similar and also the lack of "unique" enemies.

 

(2) rejuggling per-enc and per-rest ability systems altogether - having both was important to achieve class diversity in POE, but it's also led to many niggling balance issues, and more broadly contributes to a repetitiveness. I don't think full per-rests is viable while retaining class diversity, but there will need to be a clearer design about what gets to be per-enc and what gets to be per-rest, etc.

I'm not entirely sure which direction the developers would take in a sequel but from what I've read it sounded like elimination of per-rest abilities in favor of per-encounters only or unique resource pools like the Cipher, Monk, Chanter etc - in other words resources that only replenish over a short period of time.

 

I think that characters can have too many active abilities with virtually no resource cost, so combat essentially becomes spamming of these abilities with not very much thought involved. Take Rogue's Crippling Strike for instance. You get two of these every encounter, and you're mad to not use them every encounter, and it makes the most sense to use them first because they deal higher damage and they also debuff - so your other party members attacks that target whatever Crippling Strike debuffs (I forget) have a higher chance to hit. You also may have many other characters that have 2 or more of these abilities each.

 

In contrast, this never happened in the Infinity Engine games. I found that combat had a much better feel, and mix of active and passive characters. I have heard devs say "if you don't want to play an active character, make a passive one" but my issue is not the fact that characters are active, it's that I'm just performing rote active abilities rather than the use of those abilities having much tactical consideration. Active abilities in the IE games felt more tactical to me - being per day, I had to consider when to use them, and a lot of abilities were not the kind of abilities you would open combat with, you'd wait and use them during the encounter.

 

Changing the resting / resource system is likely warranted, such as to how it's handled in D&D 5E with the short and full rest. I have a few suggestions there including less active abilities overall, mutually exclusive choices and/or a limit of overall per-encounter uses rather than a per-ability limit but yeah I'd like to write up something more comprehensive rather than just throw an idea out there without any reasoning.

 

(3) the initial wailing and gnashing of teeth about engagement was uninformed and short-sighted.

I vehemently disagree. The very concept itself (AoOs in Real-time combat) is uninformed and short-sighted, and I have a stronger argument as to why.

 

It's not just about battles being static. The system is non-reactive and combined with the movement recovery penalty together, the game promotes moving in combat as little as possible if your intention is to perform non-movement actions on that character. Movement as a reaction to enemy actions is penalized - in other words moving when you don't have to is a mistake and thus you plan around not using movement as a tactical reaction to enemy actions. This makes combat overall a less tactical and reactive experience (this is not the full argument).

 

It is my belief that movement in combat should be controlled actively just as it is in every real-time game with combat in this style, through crowd control abilities themselves - that is reactive. You the player have to actually identify when you need to control enemy movement and then use crowd control abilities as a reaction to enemy movement, rather than the game snagging people for you, and then dealing free damage when they move [because the AI is dumb] and you simply avoiding movement if you can. And then if you are also controlled by CC, you have a situation to think about and react to as well.

 

Active control of movement occurs in the vast majority of real-time games. It works, and it's fun.

 

The system is not a major contributor to the overall problem, but it is a problem as it simply penalizes legitimate tactical options, thus reducing overall tactical reactivity.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Sensuki

[rheingold]

If you don't like the game/don't play the game why do you insist on posting?

[Teioh_White]

I've never understood the dislike of Engagments myself; if anything, the system is negligible to the point it doesn't influence how I play the game at all. The biggest impact it has on my gameplay is if I'm planning on kiting a mob, I have to start kiting sooner than later. Though kiting is terrible gameplay, so it would've been nice if something had been done for it, but this ain't it. I'd barely notice if engagements weren't part of the game.

 

As for punishment for movement, yeah, this game does heavily punish movement, but the engagement system isn't what causes it. It's more that every single thing in the game is basically a 'channel' type attack, even an auto attack. A lot of games use 'channel' to add more layers to balance, letting some attacks do more/better/different things, at the cost of having to stand still. Here, everything is standing room only. 

 

You noted that yourself, of course, it's just the engagement system's never seemed to largely been the impetus. As for this being a good/bad thing, I'm okay with it here, mostly because we're controlling 6 people. Games micro heavy enough without me having to try to constantly be moving 6 units for optimal gameplay.

 

As for the game being rote, it sorta is. The vast majority of the fights, it's the same plan. Of course, the vast majority of combat is just trash. There's probably a link somewhere there. So much so, that I now pick party composition based on mitigating the need for me to micro in those rote encounters. At least it's not quite so awful as it was in 1.x, where repetitive micro got two of my friends to quit (the lackluster story got two more, the last one just was never going to be an IE guy).

 

Certain strategies, of course, are so cheesy even the 'designed' fights are over powered by them, and make even those fights rote, but not much to do about those but avoid using those taciics in lieu of better design.

[Cantousent]

Sensuki does sometimes come on a bit strong, but he did back the game and he put in a lot of work on it. I don't agree with everything he says, but he does have the right to vent a little. Hell, I pretty much think everyone should have the chance to air grievances, backers and non-backers and even folks who haven't played. I have to admit that I don't take arguments made by folks who haven't played quite as seriously. :Cant's broad grin icon: lol However, I agree with Tigranes about the fact that all games, once you get to know them, become rote after a bit. Hell, I loved mage battles in the IE games, but talk about a heavily formulaic dance between magic users! Not an excuse complacency, though.

[Fenixp]

All right, I don't think I need to specify more of my thoughts on the subject, I mean we have already talked about this a lot. What I came here to say is that the way the poll is set up is horrible and you should probably drop it. 

a) You want your answers from a specific kind of player, which in itself makes the poll sort of useless - if only the actual group you are interested in would answer, it would be useful, yes, but the definition of "Good player who understands mechanics and doesn't make mistakes" will vary based on ability of individual people to reflect on their skill. You'll absolutely get a bunch of "Oh sure, I'm great, I never made mistakes, I killed that big dragon with only losing half my party!"

b) Making an "I agree with assessment" question is only useful if you provide a long set of questions.

c) If you do insist on creating a single "Thoughts on a hypothesis" question, you absolutely need to play the Devil's Advocate and provide arguments of the opposing site - it might even end up gaining you more votes.

d) The question is far too vague. Even if a person agrees with every single one of your arguments, he might not agree with the combat being a rote exercise. I'm playing Baldur's Gate right now and I would absolutely say that the combat is a rote exercise - 99% of the time I'm not even doing anything, just tell my dudes what to attack, watch them and occasionally pop a heal (or/and a buff, but that doesn't actually mix up the playstyle at all, yet I actually enjoy most of it)

e) Generally speaking, by putting a term with negative connotation like "rote exercise", you'll force emotional response as opposed to objective or honest response.

 

You'd need to make the poll more granular and drop the 'skill' requirement, like: Do you enjoy combat in Pillars? Do you find the combat monotonous? Do you find the combat too easy? What kind of skill level do you perceive yourself to be? What difficulty are you playing on?

[Sensuki]

The engagement system isn't what causes it. It's more that every single thing in the game is basically a 'channel' type attack, even an auto attack. A lot of games use 'channel' to add more layers to balance, letting some attacks do more/better/different things, at the cost of having to stand still. Here, everything is standing room only.

 

That's not true. Attacks in the Infinity Engine games are mechanically similar to Pillars of Eternity but what determines how quickly you can perform actions differs.

 

In the IE games, characters perform non-movement actions based on their number of attacks per round. The attacks per round dictates how many non-movement actions they can perform over the span of 6 seconds @ 30 FPS (and 4 seconds @ 40 FPS, so on and so forth). If you have one attack per round and you use it, you have to wait until you can perform a non-movement action again just like you do in Pillars of Eternity when you're in action recovery.

 

It's the fact that when you move in Pillars of Eternity your recovery is slowed down by a percentage simply because you moved and because if you move when engaged you suffer a disengagement attack. In the IE mod, you can disable the movement recovery penalty (and Melee Engagement) and both of these problems are eliminated, but it doesn't do much to fix the repetitiveness of performing actions in combat. As I previously said, it is a problem but it's a smaller problem in the grand scope of things that make the game play how it does.

 

More important are things like the rote active ability spam, and the fact that there's barely a cost or consideration to using them.

 

What I came here to say is that the way the poll is set up is horrible and you should probably drop it.

Sure.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Sensuki

[Infinitron]

IF there is any acknowledgement of this issue and intent to try and solve it 

 

 

Acknowledgement from who, the developers?

 

If I was a developer, I would probably want you play the game as it is now, first.

 

It is my belief that movement in combat should be controlled actively just as it is in every real-time game with combat in this style, through crowd control abilities 

 

 

These crowd-control abilties, should they be per-encounter? They seem like the kind of thing you'd want to use often.

 

But if you want to use active abilities to do "movementy" stuff, well, there are plenty of abilities you can use to break yourself out of an engagement.

 

Building characters as dedicated "engagement breakers" is a role that the "hardcore" players don't seem to have experimented with much. Instead it seems they'd rather try to micro-manage movement and formations perfectly so that they never have to.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Infinitron

[rheingold]

Sensuki does sometimes come on a bit strong, but he did back the game and he put in a lot of work on it. I don't agree with everything he says, but he does have the right to vent a little. Hell, I pretty much think everyone should have the chance to air grievances, backers and non-backers and even folks who haven't played. I have to admit that I don't take arguments made by folks who haven't played quite as seriously. :Cant's broad grin icon: lol However, I agree with Tigranes about the fact that all games, once you get to know them, become rote after a bit. Hell, I loved mage battles in the IE games, but talk about a heavily formulaic dance between magic users! Not an excuse complacency, though.

Absolutely everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

I understand where he is coming from, or at least I think I do. I've also had high expectations of games and then ended up being disappointed. I'm just not sure why you keep posting on forums after you've made your points.

 

Regarding combat in the olde ie games, it was terrible. I loved those games, but the strong point was the world building, story and companions. The computer games based on pnp never translated well in combat. For example, playing a non caster type character was boring as all hell. You had maybe one per day ability and I hat was it. Paladins had a turn undead, smite and lay on hands. Very situational and once they where used that was that.BG2 was even worse with some of the kits, an inquisitor had a powerful dispel and that was it. I felt that you where really forced into playing casters preferably mages. But even they had issues, at low level they were a pain and at high level you had to abuse the rest mechanic. So overall, while the games where great, I don't think the combat mechanics where good.

 

Combat in games generally (with few exceptions) becomes old fast. Which is why I prefer story side of things. Part of the problem is you cannot get away from the fact that in a computer games encounters are placed and can't be changed. So you know what monsters are where and what their strong and weak points are to the most minuscule detail. In pnp a good dm could change things on the fly, add different encounters, it was unpredictable. The only way around the combat becomes repetitive is to have a good random encounter system. It's got very little to do with the game mechanics, rather it's all about changing the encounters or adding random ones. I might also add that the computer ai has a huge role to play here. I wouldn't blame obs, or any other devs though, we still have a long way to go before the ai thinks for itself and learns from previous encounters.

Edited November 7, 2015 by rheingold

[Sensuki]

These crowd-control abilties, should they be per-encounter? They seem like the kind of thing you'd want to use often.

The game already has heaps of stuff that can be used to control movement - anything with a disable. The Fighter can have three knock downs. The usefulness of this ability does not change with Engagement on or off, in fact arguably it's more useful because you might use the ability to drop people to control their movement (knocks enemy prone .. no longer moving) rather than just to make them not attack you, whereas with the Engagement system, simply attacking that unit stops them and makes them attack you. Slows also become more useful as well.

 

Building characters as dedicated "engagement breakers" is a role that the "hardcore" players don't seem to have experimented with much. Instead they'd rather try to micro-manage movement and formations perfectly so that they never have to.

The ones that are related to disengagement defense are pointless IMO unless you're doing one of those Triple Crown Solo builds. They do not guarantee no damage, your movement recovery is still slowed and they cost character advancement points (like if you picked something for that reason, you're giving something up instead) and they only benefit you when disengaging. There is no incentive to disengage with movement anyway because of the move recovery penalty. Instead, you could just stand still and be more effective (like, why would I ever take Zealous Charge over Zealous Focus? The only reason is to stay out of engagement range when kiting, and that's what TCS players sometimes do).

Edited November 7, 2015 by Sensuki

[Infinitron]

By "engagement breaker", I don't mean a character who can walk out of an active engagement without getting hit by the disengagement attack. I mean a character who has abilities that allow him to outright remove engagement, both from himself and from others. 

 

 

The game already has heaps of stuff that can be used to control movement - anything with a disable. The Fighter can have three knock downs. The usefulness of this ability does not change with Engagement on or off, in fact arguably it's more useful because you might use the ability to drop people to control their movement (knocks enemy prone .. no longer moving) rather than just to make them not attack you, whereas with the Engagement system, simply attacking that unit stops them and makes them attack you. Slows also become more useful as well.

 

Are you saying that you're okay with Knock Down being per-engagement, then?

Edited November 7, 2015 by Infinitron

[Sensuki]

I don't have a problem with per-encounter abilities (the concept). I think that there could be less of them and less overall uses of them per character or per-short rest (with a different name) in a short and full rest system.

[Zenbane]

Sensuki does sometimes come on a bit strong, but he did back the game and he put in a lot of work on it. I don't agree with everything he says, but he does have the right to vent a little. Hell, I pretty much think everyone should have the chance to air grievances, backers and non-backers and even folks who haven't played.

 

I do enjoy reading your posts, especially your "middle of the road" replies lol; you have that down to a science.

 

In Sen's case, I do not believe that the fact that he 'was' a Backer entitles him to this incessant posts about the same 'ol point of view. And it's incessant because, as  Tigranes pointed out, Sen does it, "about a thousand and one times."

 

Being a Backer doesn't entitle anyone to unproductive spam. Besides, the term Backer only really meant something before the game was released. We are beyond that now, the game was released, and we are all Backers since we have purchased the retail game. More appropriate terms should be used instead of "backer" ... like Promoter and Detractor.

 

I consider myself (and others) to be a Promoter because we not only purchased the retail game, but we continue to promote its purchase (highly recommended to others). Whereas Sen is definitely a Detractor. Each of his "thousand and one" posts works more towards deterring someone from purchasing PoE. At this point, I no longer consider him a Backer, he's a Detractor.

 

 

 

 

Regarding combat in the olde ie games, it was terrible. I loved those games, but the strong point was the world building, story and companions.

Blasphemy! Combat was quite awesome unless the genre itself isn't your cup 'o tea. It seems like you don't like gaming in general since you also state, "Combat in games generally (with few exceptions) becomes old fast."

 

Either you secretly hate video games, or you get bored fast. I'm gonna assume you hate video games since you have nearly 300 posts thus clearly don't get bored fast.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Zenbane

[AndreaColombo]

Besides, the term Backer only really meant something before the game was released. We are beyond that now, the game was released, and we are all Backers since we have purchased the retail game.

 

I strongly disagree with this.

 

The game exists because backers threw in their buck o' five before the game script was even drafted up. In Sensuki's case, he put in over $200 to fund development based on the developers' promises. I did the same (the difference being I don't regret doing so.) People who bought the game after it was released put in a lot less cash and knew exactly what they were buying. Nothing wrong with that, but if everyone had chosen that path, this game would not exist; I still think backers are entitled to some recognition.

 

To put some more facts into the blender while I'm at it, Sensuki was the single most active beta tester during the backer beta. He did extensive bug-hunting sessions and several bugs were found and fixed before release largely thanks to his effort. The IE Mod also exists largely thanks to him. He feels particularly bitter about the game because it turned out wildly different from what he expected, thus making all the time, money, and effort he put in it effectively useless from his perspective (his return on investment was zero.)

 

I myself don't necessarily agree with all his views, but he's not exactly a clueless nobody when it comes to PoE.

Edited November 7, 2015 by AndreaColombo

[Zenbane]

$200 is an exceedingly small amount. Im sure the dev's are grateful but to use that amount to justify his repeated negativity is wrong, imo. Also, I never stated that he is a clueless nobody. He is someone who did something in the past to promote a game, now he is someone who does things to negate the game.

[Guest 4ward]

 

i do agree with the points you raised Sensuki and i do hope that some of the devs read them and consider them when developping the sequel (assuming there'll be one). IMO combat design in PoE is such that it's geared mainly towards doing damage. That's ok when compared to modern rpgs but the IE combat was special in that that it was very reactional/tactical during combat. In PoE the counterspells 'prayer vs' 'suppression' can be cast before enemies reach your entire party which to me resembles pre-buffing in BG2.

 

The classes have all been reduced to damage dealers only. In BG2 special abilities for martial classes were available as well like whirlwind for fighters, just the player got them around lvl 18 and before having them had gear like celestial fury katana which the player had to earn in combat. In PoE the special abilities are handed out already on level1 and they're per-encounter. Why? Perhaps because of the melee system which the player has to deal with from the first fight in the game and which is crowd control in itself.

 

On top of that the durations of status effects are effected by rolls/stats so you can pretty much negate them in combat. Even if i had single-target dispells why would i want to use them when the time to perform the action may last longer than simply waiting it out. I believe people who are on this forum also never took a sorcerer in BG2, i never did have to rest in BG2 because running out of spells, my sorc together with a supporting caster like Jan and a multiclass char like Jaheira were more then enough to handle multiple battles before resting and there were potions/good gear in BG2 as well.

 

Drinking potions in PoE is also not something that i'd do, they're not that much of a tactical option as they were in the old games, just like again nothing is much of an option doing in PoE unless it's about doing damage. I do think that believning that the melee system can be implemented in such fashion that it will please everyone is naive and dangerous. Before 2.0 a group of players liked how melee worked, after 2.0 they didin't, but at the same time another group of players liked it and still now people on this very forum describe it as frustrating (Tigranes) – all of this after nearly 3 years of implementing it in the game system.

[Sensuki]

I think a lot of people discount the combat in the IE games because it was possible to rest-spam, pre-buff and trivialize most fights into requiring not much attention, and thus, they missed out on the really enjoyable gameplay that was there.

 

Definitely agree on the potion drinking thing, I notice that too. In IE combat, reactional potion drinking for healing, debuffing and sometimes buffing is something I did very often. I'm not a fan of the move away from this gameplay either, it's just one of the things they've removed that makes the combat require less attention and less thinking from the player after the opening.

 

Virtually no counter-spelling is another thing which really impacts the combat feel. There is very limited counter-spelling available - delaying of negative buffs and reducing the duration with the Prayer spells, but I honestly never used the Prayer spells, and I used the one that delays affliction durations maybe three times. Due to this, you may as well just ignore 99% of enemy actions if there's nothing you can do to stop the effects and/or the effects themselves aren't worth stopping, or moving to get in range to stop, if engaged.

[Fenixp]

I think a lot of people discount the combat in the IE games because it was possible to rest-spam, pre-buff and trivialize most fights into requiring not much attention, and thus, they missed out on the really enjoyable gameplay that was there.

Sensuki, do you realize what you're saying here is that playing Pillars of Eternity in a certain way really trivializes its combat, and a bunch of posts later say that you need to avoid playing Infinity Engine games in a certain way to not trivialize combat?

 

In Baldur's Gate: The Original Saga, 90% of combat I just click in the genral direction of a trash mob and wait until my dudes end the combat. I literally don't do anything, most of the time I don't even need to prioritize targets. I just sit here, watching screen while painstakingly slow combat occurs. The other 7% I use a buff before the combat, remaining 3% I use a buff and a spell or two. The hugely reactive real-time battles largely consist of "Minsc is dying, I should probably heal him."

Edited November 8, 2015 by Fenixp

[Sensuki]

Sensuki, do you realize what you're saying here is that playing Pillars of Eternity in a certain way really trivializes its combat, and a bunch of posts later say that you need to avoid playing Infinity Engine games in a certain way to not trivialize combat?

I do, but they're not the same. To fix that problem in the IE games you simply don't rest spam. In Pillars of Eternity you have to play badly.

[Zenbane]

 

Sensuki, do you realize what you're saying here is that playing Pillars of Eternity in a certain way really trivializes its combat, and a bunch of posts later say that you need to avoid playing Infinity Engine games in a certain way to not trivialize combat?

I do, but they're not the same. To fix that problem in the IE games you simply don't rest spam. In Pillars of Eternity you have to play badly.

 

 

Of course they are not the same; that didn't need clarification. They are obviously different, but different in that way that shows you completely contradicted yourself. Different in that way that illustrates the fact that consistency and sensibility are "optional" during your forum crusades.

 

So not only did you contradict yourself by making two opposing arguments, you then tried to reconcile your contradiction by saying "different things are not the same." lol

 

Also, "resting" occurs outside of combat whereas your contradictory statements clearly address tactics taking place during combat.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Zenbane

[Sensuki]

No.

 

Firstly, they're not two opposing arguments.

 

Not rest-spamming limits your per-rest spells, and you won't have them for every fight. Meaning that you only use them when you think that you need them, and you do the rest with the bare minimum or nothing and roll with it. You opt-in to the strategical resource management. The act of resting itself occurs outside of combat but it affects the resources you have available for combat. You still play as effectively as you can.

 

You can rest spam in Pillars, but it's superfluous to due to the Health system, per-encounters and Monk, Cipher, Chanter resource systems. Fights play differently to IE where instead of how well you react to enemy actions, fights are won mostly due to pre-encounter setup and alpha strike. To make fights somewhat more interesting you have to what? Deliberately do bad positioning or deliberately don't use per-encounter actives at the start of combat? Lol.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Sensuki

[Zenbane]

I've already read your thoughts on 'rest spam' in other threads where you broadcast your opinion. I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with it, but you should maybe consider coming up with some other arguments because you're applying it as a default response far too often. Example...

 

Question: "Are there too many immunities in PoE?"

Sensuki's answer: "If you dont rest spam you wont reset your spells"

 

Question: "Whats a good Tank build?"

Sensuki's answer: "Rest spam is superfluous because Chanters have hitpoints"

 

There is a hefty amount of facts that you just abandon, like the fact that a player does not have to use all of their skills/spells for every single battle in PoE. Half the time my group does exactly what Fenixp described:

 

I just click in the genral direction of a trash mob and wait until my dudes end the combat. I literally don't do anything, most of the time I don't even need to prioritize targets.

 

 

Only in key (eg, "boss battle" like situations) moments do I need to consider resting so that my team is at full health/endurance. But even that rarely happens since I tend to have all my "per rest" skills and spells available anyway. But according to you - someone who hasn't played the game since April yet is approaching 10,000 forum posts - players have to rest spam and play badly. You might as well claim that PoE forces players to pay money for in-game items while you're at it. I'm sure there is an online "RPG Complaint" generator somewhere that could help you come up with more creative yet equally non-applicable retorts.

 

You did completely contradict yourself with the whole "trivialize combat" fiasco; which I assume is the reason you now can't stop typing "rest spam." I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make, I just know that if one were to draw out the logical flow of your arguments... the end result would be something that closely resembles the shape of oatmeal.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Zenbane