Vancian magic

[Zenbane]

But in any case, cooldowns are probably the worst option out there: unlike per-rest/per-encs, cooldowns just encourage a mindless spammy 'tactic' where you just fire everything that is ready, and then you run around waiting for the cooldown on the next thing. If abilities tend to have short cooldown cycles you just play like a stimulus-response monkey, pressing the hotkeys when you see the cooldown timer fill

You just described about a years worth of my entire winning strategy as Annie in League of Legends. How dare you, sir!

 

You're right tho, as you also described the primary reason I haven't played anything DoTA related since 2010.

[Sedrefilos]

 

Even Wizard's doesen't like their old magic system, especially implemented in video games. Proof is they licensed Sword Coast Legends which has only cooldowns ;P

 

I don't know if SCL reflects anything, since it was evidently a trashy B-grade game trying to cash in on other games. But in any case, cooldowns are probably the worst option out there: unlike per-rest/per-encs, cooldowns just encourage a mindless spammy 'tactic' where you just fire everything that is ready, and then you run around waiting for the cooldown on the next thing. If abilities tend to have short cooldown cycles you just play like a stimulus-response monkey, pressing the hotkeys when you see the cooldown timer fill; if abilities have longer (e.g. 180 seconds) cycles, they are basically per-encs anyway, with the added silliness of waiting around in-between fights for cooldown resets, using them basically as per-encs, etc. 

 

I think POE trying to combine per-enc and per-rest is nice, as it conserves some longer-term resource management aspect, but the balance between the various abilities needs a lot of tricky rethinking.

 

I didn't say it was a good mechanic, I was joking about Wizards not liking their old magic system. Anyway, I personally think Pillars manages pretty well the limited spellcasting system, making spellcasters usefull all the time and tying it with the limited rest, thus making it more meaningful and immesrive. I used to hate resting in olader DnD games (although I loved the idea 'cause it was more adventury!) because it was mandatory to do after each combat if you wanted to use your spellcaster effectively in every combat situation, so I always prefered mana-based systems. Pillars did it well

[gkathellar]

Wait a second. Some spells in PoE can only be used "per rest" and others "per combat." Wouldn't that imply that  once a spell is cast, it was forgotten and needed to be replaced in the casters mind? Before the next battle and after a full rest?

 

Since all spells are interchangeable and the limit to (uses)/(whatever) is for all spells of a given level rather than a particular configuration of spells-to-slots chosen when resting, they're pretty clearly neither memorized nor forgotten.

[archangel979]

 

 

Even Wizard's doesen't like their old magic system, especially implemented in video games. Proof is they licensed Sword Coast Legends which has only cooldowns ;P

 

I don't know if SCL reflects anything, since it was evidently a trashy B-grade game trying to cash in on other games. But in any case, cooldowns are probably the worst option out there: unlike per-rest/per-encs, cooldowns just encourage a mindless spammy 'tactic' where you just fire everything that is ready, and then you run around waiting for the cooldown on the next thing. If abilities tend to have short cooldown cycles you just play like a stimulus-response monkey, pressing the hotkeys when you see the cooldown timer fill; if abilities have longer (e.g. 180 seconds) cycles, they are basically per-encs anyway, with the added silliness of waiting around in-between fights for cooldown resets, using them basically as per-encs, etc. 

 

I think POE trying to combine per-enc and per-rest is nice, as it conserves some longer-term resource management aspect, but the balance between the various abilities needs a lot of tricky rethinking.

 

I didn't say it was a good mechanic, I was joking about Wizards not liking their old magic system. Anyway, I personally think Pillars manages pretty well the limited spellcasting system, making spellcasters usefull all the time and tying it with the limited rest, thus making it more meaningful and immesrive. I used to hate resting in olader DnD games (although I loved the idea 'cause it was more adventury!) because it was mandatory to do after each combat if you wanted to use your spellcaster effectively in every combat situation, so I always prefered mana-based systems. Pillars did it well

 

Older games never made resting too often have a penalty. NWN were especially bad at this.

 

This is why I love how new Torment is going to be doing it. Time does not pass during the game (except in scripted events) but only once you go and rest (which you cannot do anywhere) and when time does pass things change, quests change, NPCs change and you get a different experience.

It is not punishing or penalty (but it can be if after rest there are more enemies waiting for you in next battle), but gives you a different game experience in a logical way (things change with passage of time, who would guess that.. :D).

[Sedrefilos]

 

 

 

Even Wizard's doesen't like their old magic system, especially implemented in video games. Proof is they licensed Sword Coast Legends which has only cooldowns ;P

 

I don't know if SCL reflects anything, since it was evidently a trashy B-grade game trying to cash in on other games. But in any case, cooldowns are probably the worst option out there: unlike per-rest/per-encs, cooldowns just encourage a mindless spammy 'tactic' where you just fire everything that is ready, and then you run around waiting for the cooldown on the next thing. If abilities tend to have short cooldown cycles you just play like a stimulus-response monkey, pressing the hotkeys when you see the cooldown timer fill; if abilities have longer (e.g. 180 seconds) cycles, they are basically per-encs anyway, with the added silliness of waiting around in-between fights for cooldown resets, using them basically as per-encs, etc. 

 

I think POE trying to combine per-enc and per-rest is nice, as it conserves some longer-term resource management aspect, but the balance between the various abilities needs a lot of tricky rethinking.

 

I didn't say it was a good mechanic, I was joking about Wizards not liking their old magic system. Anyway, I personally think Pillars manages pretty well the limited spellcasting system, making spellcasters usefull all the time and tying it with the limited rest, thus making it more meaningful and immesrive. I used to hate resting in olader DnD games (although I loved the idea 'cause it was more adventury!) because it was mandatory to do after each combat if you wanted to use your spellcaster effectively in every combat situation, so I always prefered mana-based systems. Pillars did it well

 

Older games never made resting too often have a penalty. NWN were especially bad at this.

 

This is why I love how new Torment is going to be doing it. Time does not pass during the game (except in scripted events) but only once you go and rest (which you cannot do anywhere) and when time does pass things change, quests change, NPCs change and you get a different experience.

It is not punishing or penalty (but it can be if after rest there are more enemies waiting for you in next battle), but gives you a different game experience in a logical way (things change with passage of time, who would guess that.. :D).

 

I didn't know that detail of resting in TToN. Sounds very interesting. It ties to the game's style too. Hope they do it right.

In pillars it wouldn't be a good idea though, given the ammount of encouters there is compared to TToN's (as they plan it to be, at least).

[Nonek]

I liked the Vancian system, it made BG2 the game which it was and was enormously enjoyable. I think that TSR were wise in adapting this system from Mr Vance's books, and I always liked the little nods to this when Vecna appeared. In all of the IE games apart from Torment the Vancian system worked for me, magic felt powerful and useful though as is usual with modern games there was far too little environmental interaction, all those great spells left unused, a pity.

[Zenbane]

This is why I love how new Torment is going to be doing it.

The finished product isn't being released until next year, so you can't really love it just yet. You have a mild reputation for posting views of PoE based on the fact that it didn't deliver on everything it promised; or more specifically, didn't meet your expectations. That "love" you are describing about the new Torment is clearly an expectation of an unreleased product. There's a pattern here.

 

This how it starts. The occasional post about the utopia a soon-to-be-released video game is going to be, and then when it's finally made public, bam! It wasn't quite what we thought, our expectations weren't meant, yada-yada-yada, angry posts on the general discussion board, etc.

 

I have the original Torment game in its original box in my closet. I do hope that the insanely overdue sequel lives up to the hype. Due to the cult following the original game has, coupled with the amount of time it has taken to create a sequel, even if Torment 2 makes few promises and tries to limit expectations, the reality is that fans will likely be expecting RPG bliss and revolution.

 

EDIT:

Re-reading this it seems like I might be calling out a specific person, but I am just trying to address that thing we've all discussed in previous threads, where expectations get the better of us. That one quote from archangel reminded me of that; but not to be interpreted as a callout or anything similar.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Zenbane

[anameforobsidian]

I thought the same thing.  TToN is promising a lot of reactivity, stuff that well exceeds many older RPGs.  Pillars barely managed to live up to its promise of being a next generation IE game, certainly didn't live up to its promise to have the best parts of every IE game, and I love Pillars.  I would say caveat emptor, but I backed TToN too.

Edited December 13, 2015 by anameforobsidian

[KDubya]

I think PoE would have been a better more balanced game if they had all casters follow a system similar to the Cipher, instead of having some classes based upon per rest spells. They had a blank slate and were not tied to the legacy of Vancian AD&D. Instead they fall into the same traps that plagued the IE games - a sleeping bag being the most powerful item in the world combined with god-mode Gandolph.

 

I would have preferred a system where the different classes are differentiated by what their powers do and how they generate focus to fuel them.

 

Ciphers - a hybrid mage/fighter where physical damage fuels focus that can be used for mental style spells. What they have now works well.

 

Wizard - focus generated by casting spells, maybe some sort of set up spell that returns focus faster or gives bonus focus for stacking spells. Spells would be based around the elements, maybe reward specialization. maybe something where you'd need to build up focus by casting something basic that would let you go nova if you built up enough or you could expend it earlier on a lesser spell.  Basically something new and refreshing like the Cipher but have it powered by casting itself. Keep weapons in the hands of ciphers, have wizards cast stuff.

 

Druid - have wereform attacks generate focus for spells that are cast while in wereform. I'd make a wereform the cornerstone of the Druid instead of something to do with trash mobs and at low level.

 

Priests - have something where different deities generate focus differently? Not sure how you could set up something more interactive than the current rest based system.

[PrimeJunta]

I find ciphers rather dull compared to wizards, druids, and priests. They play almost exactly like cooldown-based characters, only you have to auto-attack to make the timer run down.

 

One thing Pillars does really well is differentiation between classes -- most of them look different, play differently, have different capabilities, and generally provide a different gameplay experience. Making all casters like the cipher would take that away and turn Pillars into just another MMO-esque clickfest. No thanks.

[PrimeJunta]

@Nonek Vecna = Vance -> :mindblown:

 

I never realized that.

[Sedrefilos]

Pillars gave me a glimpse of what it might have been if the stat/reputation/skills were used more in conversations and scripted interactions. A 10/10 game. But I believe it did mixed the best of the older IE games and did some more (mechanics are way way way better than IE games used to be).

 

Did I enjoyed the game? Very very very much indeed (I've posted a review back at April of what I liked and what I didn't and what needed more work imo). Did it make feel like how I felt when I played BG2? No. But why? Because it is an inferior game? Not even close.

The thing is, when I played BG 2 I've never had played something like it before. I came back after a 5-year break from games and computers in genral and I was 21 when I played it in 2001. I didn't play any RPGs in the 80's and 90's 'cause they looked unappealing to me. Anyway, while I was playing BG 2 I couldn't believe such a game could exist. That much I liked it. Years passed and I played many other rpgs that I liked. Did they make me feel like I felt when I was playing BG2? Nope. None of them. Last summer I decided to re-play BG 2. Did it make feel like I felt when I played it in 2001? Not even close! Gameplay sucked, some dialogues and characters felt cheesy and the areas felt much emptier that they felt back then! If I didn't play it in 2001 and played it now for the 1st time I'd be like "why everybody talks about this game in the forums all the time?".

I still have in my heart the feeling of my 1st playthrough but I also have the feeling of my second. Is BG2 the best rpg of all time? Not any more (though it still is a very good game).

 

What I'm trying to say is, even if we deny it, nostalgia playes a huuuuuuge role to how we see Pillars compared with older IE games. At least to me.

 

*Made a couple edits.*

Edited December 13, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[PrimeJunta]

I only learned to play BG2 properly -- and appreciate just how good it is -- while waiting for Pillars, although I had finished it a couple of times back in the day. Pillars clearly doesn't reach its highest summits -- Defiance Bay is no Athkatla, and the Master Below is no Firkraag. But then nothing else does either.

 

However, I also think BG2 fails in many really stupid and entirely avoidable ways, and a big part of learning to really like it was all about finding ways around them, and Pillars avoids just about all of these pitfalls. If you graphed the peaks and the troughs and then took the average, Pillars' line would probably be higher than BG2. But for most of us I think the peaks count for more than the average; that's certainly true for me.

 

 

 

For example? Consider the time/event system. The game features unlimited resting and overland travel which takes time and causes fatigue. Game events however are tied to passed game time. So, even if you don't rest-spam the bejeezus out of it (which BTW is an entirely natural and obvious thing to do, given the unlimited resting), a couple of overland jaunts and a drinking binge in the tavern (e.g. to spend a couple rests memorizing and casting Identifys, then re-memorizing your combat loadout) will suddenly have you flooded with events: it seems like everyone and their cat (and notably your cmpanions!) wants you to do something for them, plus some of those quests (notably the companion ones!) are on timers with serious consequences for allowing the timer to run out (companion walks off).

 

Tying the quest start triggers to, say, quests completed instead of game time spent would have simply and cleanly solved that problem, spreading the content more evenly over the game. Restricting resting would've been even better, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.

 

 

[Sedrefilos]

I only learned to play BG2 properly -- and appreciate just how good it is -- while waiting for Pillars, although I had finished it a couple of times back in the day. Pillars clearly doesn't reach its highest summits -- Defiance Bay is no Athkatla, and the Master Below is no Firkraag. But then nothing else does either.

 

However, I also think BG2 fails in many really stupid and entirely avoidable ways, and a big part of learning to really like it was all about finding ways around them, and Pillars avoids just about all of these pitfalls. If you graphed the peaks and the troughs and then took the average, Pillars' line would probably be higher than BG2. But for most of us I think the peaks count for more than the average; that's certainly true for me.

 

 

 

For example? Consider the time/event system. The game features unlimited resting and overland travel which takes time and causes fatigue. Game events however are tied to passed game time. So, even if you don't rest-spam the bejeezus out of it (which BTW is an entirely natural and obvious thing to do, given the unlimited resting), a couple of overland jaunts and a drinking binge in the tavern (e.g. to spend a couple rests memorizing and casting Identifys, then re-memorizing your combat loadout) will suddenly have you flooded with events: it seems like everyone and their cat (and notably your cmpanions!) wants you to do something for them, plus some of those quests (notably the companion ones!) are on timers with serious consequences for allowing the timer to run out (companion walks off).

 

Tying the quest start triggers to, say, quests completed instead of game time spent would have simply and cleanly solved that problem, spreading the content more evenly over the game. Restricting resting would've been even better, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.

 

 

Yeah Defiance Bay was a huge let down for me     and it definately wasn't Athkatla, though Athkatla 2014 wasn't Athkatla 2001 either 

Replaying BG2 I found other things more interesting now that didn't make me an impression back then and things that impressed be back then didn't impress me again as much now. Strange how age and time makes you see things differently even in video games

Edited December 13, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[archangel979]

Defiance Bay is not even Baldur's Gate.

[Fenixp]

 

Defiance Bay is not even Baldur's Gate.

Agreed, it doesn't have half a million copy pasted interiors with nothing in them.

 

Defiance bay is way more interesting than Baldur's Gate. I have postponed my playtrough of BG because of reaching that damn city...

Edited December 13, 2015 by Fenixp

[Teioh_White]

I'd agree with the hating on Baldur's gate (the city, not the game). Reaching that city has killed more of my replays than the ones that make it through. I do think Defiance Bay tries to mimic Baldur's Gate, and I really hate that portion of the game for similar reasons. It does a much better job than Baldur's gate, so I usually make it through, but it's a close call. About the only thing I found better in the original Baldur's Gate was it seemed....larger? More like a city and not just a stacked collection of side quests and merchants for the PC.

[archangel979]

 

Defiance Bay is not even Baldur's Gate.

Agreed, it doesn't have half a million copy pasted interiors with nothing in them.

 

Defiance bay is way more interesting than Baldur's Gate. I have postponed my playtrough of BG because of reaching that damn city...

 

Better that than only being able to enter 1/10 of shown houses. Also you lie, most of enterable houses in BG have something inside, only if little of it. Beregost is the one that has many empty houses.

[Fenixp]

Better that than only being able to enter 1/10 of shown houses.

As far as I'm concerned, when content is pointless, it should be cut. 90% of content in city of Baldur's Gate is pointless. Sadly, it's mixed in with content which does have a point, so if you actually want to find the worthwhile stuff, you need to shovel trough the 90% of other crap.

 

Also you lie, most of enterable houses in BG have something inside, only if little of it. Beregost is the one that has many empty houses.

Oh I'm sorry, should have said "Half a million copy pasted interiors with nothing of note in them"

[why]

I think Bioware wanted people to get the feeling of exploring and provided opportunities.  I guess they also wanted to make it more 'real' in that there were houses with working doors.  That doesn't seem as useful to me because it still amounted to a Hollywood set with a few props.  It was difficult to completely buy in to the idea that this was a vibrant and living city just because there were a lot of doors leading to more or less empty locations with sterile environments.  However, I think it was a great attempt.  It was an experiment that didn't work out as well in theory as it might have seemed when conceived.

 

For my purposes, I can't help but think that sometimes trying to create a more vibrant feel by promising more exploration that amounts to aimless wandering works counter to the plan.  A world where I'm allowed to go anywhere only to find that most places are in the middle of nowhere with nothing much to do only draws attention to the fact that it's all fabricated, kind of like walking out of the bar on Cheers only to see the cameras and work crews.

 

Of course, if you could go into those houses and rest long enough to learn your spells, you would have a perfect hideway to practice your Vancian magic!

[Zenbane]

a sleeping bag being the most powerful item in the world combined with god-mode Gandolph.

lol, this is a great quote. Granted, we have a couple things to keep in mind: 1) other high rated RPG's grant unlimited rest, like Wizardry 8; 2) Someone unlocked the "no rest" achievement in PoE for beating it with only 7 uses of the sleeping bag,

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/83364-im-just-here-to-brag/?p=1756342

 

Of course, counters can be made to this counter argument. Like maybe not everyone loves Wizardry 8, and ooh look the "no rest" achievement was done on easy mode. However, the focus here is on the fact that for some reason, PoE tends to make people believe that they absolutely have to do things in extremes just because the game allows it to be done in moderation (rest, food, power builds).

 

It's hard to tell if PoE is too easy or too hard, on any difficulty mode. Some threads talk about how it was already too easy, and the White March expansions make it even easier. Other threads talk about how the game forces you to "play bad" in order to be successful, by having to rest spam and eat "every damn chicken in this place."

 

If I were to point at one thing causing all the confusion, it would be the fact that PoE somehow managed to blur the line between Story-driven gaming and Sandbox gaming. It's not entirely one or the other, hence the complaints on both sides of the spectrum.

 

Personally, I find the blurred line to be superb.

 

 

Pillars gave me a glimpse of what it might have been if the stat/reputation/skills were used more in conversations and scripted interactions. A 10/10 game. But I believe it did mixed the best of the older IE games and did some more (mechanics are way way way better than IE games used to be).

 

Did I enjoyed the game? Very very very much indeed (I've posted a review back at April of what I liked and what I didn't and what needed more work imo). Did it make feel like how I felt when I played BG2? No. But why? Because it is an inferior game? Not even close.

The thing is, when I played BG 2 I've never had played something like it before. I came back after a 5-year break from games and computers in genral and I was 21 when I played it in 2001. I didn't play any RPGs in the 80's and 90's 'cause they looked unappealing to me. Anyway, while I was playing BG 2 I couldn't believe such a game could exist. That much I liked it. Years passed and I played many other rpgs that I liked. Did they make me feel like I felt when I was playing BG2? Nope. None of them. Last summer I decided to re-play BG 2. Did it make feel like I felt when I played it in 2001? Not even close! Gameplay sucked, some dialogues and characters felt cheesy and the areas felt much emptier that they felt back then! If I didn't play it in 2001 and played it now for the 1st time I'd be like "why everybody talks about this game in the forums all the time?".

I still have in my heart the feeling of my 1st playthrough but I also have the feeling of my second. Is BG2 the best rpg of all time? Not any more (though it still is a very good game).

That was a great read. Insanely accurate and better represents what a Generation X RPG gamer should wholeheartedly experiences while playing PoE. Halfway through reading that I instantly thought to myself that it is rare for a forum post to properly pinpoint the fact that "nostalgia" drives the disheartened critic of a quality game.

 

You got that covered too though, "nostalgia playes a huuuuuuge role to how we see Pillars compared with older IE games."

 

Completely agree. Nostalgia and unrealistic expectations are key ingredients for most cynics. Then again, the younger generation of RPG gamers don't really have much to be nostalgic about either, which is why we need newer games (like PoE) to meet our unrealistic expectations; ah and the circle of contradiction is complete lol

[Sedrefilos]

Come on. Baldur's was an old game. Bioware was unexperienced back then (they even mention it in the intro of BG2 manual!). Defiance Bay has no excuse whatsoever. Obsidian has much more experience now. Twin Elms was a far better city. It was very good actually! So why DB is not as good? Who knows. Hope next time they work better their large city.

[Fenixp]

Probably because Twin Elms is supposed to work as a contrast to Defiance Bay - in other words, Defiance Bay is supposed to feel like an ordinary, down-to-earth location while Twin Elms is this alien place you're supposed to explore. I loved both, then again, I've always had huge issues finding any actual problems with Pillars of Eternity.

 

And as far as RPG cities go, Defiance Bay was above average. You might say that's not good enough for a game of Pillar's caliber, but ... Eh.

[why]

I liked Defiance Bay. Of course, despite the flaws, I liked the City of Baldur's Gate. Those flaws are certainly not the same in every way, so maybe the reality is that I'm just easy.

 

Also, completely agree about BG2. I've had the same feeling about PS:T. I loved the game and it's still on my top five, but my 40+ year old eye sees flaws that could use correction that I missed or simply accepted in my early twenties. Great game, though, and I still enjoy it immensely.

[Sedrefilos]

Probably because Twin Elms is supposed to work as a contrast to Defiance Bay - in other words, Defiance Bay is supposed to feel like an ordinary, down-to-earth location while Twin Elms is this alien place you're supposed to explore. I loved both, then again, I've always had huge issues finding any actual problems with Pillars of Eternity.

 

And as far as RPG cities go, Defiance Bay was above average. You might say that's not good enough for a game of Pillar's caliber, but ... Eh.

 

There are very specific reason why I dodn't like DB. It's not bad just for Pillars, it is very poorly designed.

 

Here is a link to my review after I finished the game. If you want to see my points of DB being the worst thing in Pillars, scroll down to the "things I didn't like" section (is highlighted); that is, if you're interested in the first place, of course

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/77841-i-finally-finished-the-game-and-heres-what-i-liked-and-didnt-like-about-it/?do=findComment&comment=1664797