The loss of Vancian casting?!

[taviow]

My main concern is that we're back to the drawing board on so many essential things, when we have something that played very well in 3.0 (after all the patching PoE was left is in a really good state imo) which is now seemingly being disregarded by making sweeping changes to important systems. Personally, these changes don't strike me as being natural progressions of what was achieved in 3.0 but rather we're starting over again. A bit disappointing for that which was supposed to be (or at least I imagined it to be) a BG2-esque sequel.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

The thing I'm more worried about is the sheer number of tools per-encounter casting will give casters at higher level. A fighter - even a fighter purposefully built to rely on active abilities - usually has no more than 6-8 total uses of active abilities. With a level cap of 18 and presumably the introduction of 9th level spells, by the end of the game, casters can throw 9 abilities around per encounter at minimum, and up to 36 if the current system (4 uses of spells per level) holds. To me, that doesn't sound like a system that promotes carefully considered tactical decision-making, it sounds like a convoluted mess where I won't - and really, can't - use most of my abilities to their full extent.

 

is a pretty big "if," no?  and ciphers are current only bounded by their focus generation.  a current poe cipher can cast infinite spells if the encounter lasts long enough.  also, keep in mind you aren't actual using an actual encounter as an example. can you think o' any battle where you had the opportunity to cast spells 36 times?  

 

Well yeah, that is pretty much what I meant by "can't use most of my abilities to their full extent". Even 9 is way too many, in fact. I'm not against the new system, but to me, it feels like the current design is not particularly concerned about problems that will emerge in high-level gameplay.

[morhilane]

The thing I'm more worried about is the sheer number of tools per-encounter casting will give casters at higher level. A fighter - even a fighter purposefully built to rely on active abilities - usually has no more than 6-8 total uses of active abilities. With a level cap of 18 and presumably the introduction of 9th level spells, by the end of the game, casters can throw 9 abilities around per encounter at minimum, and up to 36 if the current system (4 uses of spells per level) holds. To me, that doesn't sound like a system that promotes carefully considered tactical decision-making, it sounds like a convoluted mess where I won't - and really, can't - use most of my abilities to their full extent.

Josh example of per-encounter on the SA forum showed 2/2/1 which means the current plan is to max to 2 cast per spell level while you'll have probably around 6+ spells to choose from for that level.

[Gromnir]

 

 

The thing I'm more worried about is the sheer number of tools per-encounter casting will give casters at higher level. A fighter - even a fighter purposefully built to rely on active abilities - usually has no more than 6-8 total uses of active abilities. With a level cap of 18 and presumably the introduction of 9th level spells, by the end of the game, casters can throw 9 abilities around per encounter at minimum, and up to 36 if the current system (4 uses of spells per level) holds. To me, that doesn't sound like a system that promotes carefully considered tactical decision-making, it sounds like a convoluted mess where I won't - and really, can't - use most of my abilities to their full extent.

 

is a pretty big "if," no?  and ciphers are current only bounded by their focus generation.  a current poe cipher can cast infinite spells if the encounter lasts long enough.  also, keep in mind you aren't actual using an actual encounter as an example. can you think o' any battle where you had the opportunity to cast spells 36 times?  

 

Well yeah, that is pretty much what I meant by "can't use most of my abilities to their full extent". Even 9 is way too many, in fact. I'm not against the new system, but to me, it feels like the current design is not particularly concerned about problems that will emerge in high-level gameplay.

 

am not actual seeing the problem as you do.  but am also not starting with the assumption we will see the same kinda spell advancement as poe 1.  for all we know, you might have a total pool of 8 or 9 spells you might cast per encounter, regardless o' level.  

 

but am thinking you have backwards. the thing is, currently, following a rest, your wizard, priest and druid have their full range o' spells available to them.  so in poe 1 is where we is certain a wizard can cast literal dozens of spells during a single high-level battle.  the current mechanic is the one which is busted for high-level gameplay.  a wizard, immediate following rest is a whole different order o' magnitude o' power than one following a couple encounters.  you gotta see how that reality makes encounter design and challenge more difficult, yes?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

The thing I'm more worried about is the sheer number of tools per-encounter casting will give casters at higher level. A fighter - even a fighter purposefully built to rely on active abilities - usually has no more than 6-8 total uses of active abilities. With a level cap of 18 and presumably the introduction of 9th level spells, by the end of the game, casters can throw 9 abilities around per encounter at minimum, and up to 36 if the current system (4 uses of spells per level) holds. To me, that doesn't sound like a system that promotes carefully considered tactical decision-making, it sounds like a convoluted mess where I won't - and really, can't - use most of my abilities to their full extent.

 

is a pretty big "if," no?  and ciphers are current only bounded by their focus generation.  a current poe cipher can cast infinite spells if the encounter lasts long enough.  also, keep in mind you aren't actual using an actual encounter as an example. can you think o' any battle where you had the opportunity to cast spells 36 times?  

 

Well yeah, that is pretty much what I meant by "can't use most of my abilities to their full extent". Even 9 is way too many, in fact. I'm not against the new system, but to me, it feels like the current design is not particularly concerned about problems that will emerge in high-level gameplay.

 

am not actual seeing the problem as you do.  but am also not starting with the assumption we will see the same kinda spell advancement as poe 1.  for all we know, you might have a total pool of 8 or 9 spells you might cast per encounter, regardless o' level.  

 

but am thinking you have backwards. the thing is, currently, following a rest, your wizard, priest and druid have their full range o' spells available to them.  so in poe 1 is where we is certain a wizard can cast literal dozens of spells during a single high-level battle.  the current mechanic is the one which is busted for high-level gameplay.  a wizard, immediate following rest is a whole different order o' magnitude o' power than one following a couple encounters.  you gotta see how that reality makes encounter design and challenge more difficult, yes?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I think the current system is also pretty thoroughly busted, yes. I actually like the proposed changes! But that doesn't mean it's a magical cure-all or that it will solve the problems of the current system without spawning a dozen issues of its own.

[Insidous]

One point I do very much like about the proposed system is to streamline per rest for all the classes. I never had a problem with vancian casting, but I get that it could feel like a burden to have single classes in your group being so reliant on rests. While others don't really care or only had them as a minor feature. Why skilling something as a rouge you could only do 2/r when you could have a passive or per encounter.

[Ninjamestari]

I don't really like the idea of power charges. The concept feels half baked and divorced from the fantasy world it is supposed to represent. Vancian magic isn't perfect, but I think it worked well enough in the first PoE that it shouldn't be replaced unless the system that replaces it is truly thought through and not just something gamey aimed at fixing a problem that isn't really there.

 

To me, the character mechanics of the game should all represent aspects of the fantasy world the game is trying to portray; this is why I like mana systems. Mana is so easy to tie into the game world as a natural energy with mana potions, spells that drain or burn mana, or transfer mana from one caster to another or maybe even to a device that needs this mana to be powered up. Mana systems are also more easy to balance than most people think, the problems modern mana systems have is that in newer games mana has ceased to be a real resource as it regenerates so rapidly that it no longer serves as the limiting factor in spellcasting. If there is mana regeneration in a game, it should come from something really special and not just be handed to anyone.

 

I'm not saying that Mana is the way to go for PoE2 (although it could be), but my point is that what ever mechanics you come up with should have strong ties to the fantasy 'reality' of the game world and not just be game-mechanics. Good game mechanics reinforce the fantasy, bad game mechanics do not.

[rheingold]

My main concern is that we're back to the drawing board on so many essential things, when we have something that played very well in 3.0 (after all the patching PoE was left is in a really good state imo) which is now seemingly being disregarded by making sweeping changes to important systems. Personally, these changes don't strike me as being natural progressions of what was achieved in 3.0 but rather we're starting over again. A bit disappointing for that which was supposed to be (or at least I imagined it to be) a BG2-esque sequel.

Yup, I really don't mind changes but it seems they want to reinvent the wheel. POE was a mess to start with, so to end up going through this again is frustrating. I'd much rather they changed things incrementally than pretty much starting over. That way they could work more on the story and world rather than redoing all the mechanics. Seems to me they are trying to please everyone - as in there is a long wishlist or even complaints about the first game and they are trying to address every one of them by changing just about everything. You can't please everyone. And yeah, there where things in Pillars that really bugged me. Doesn't mean that I want to change the entire game.

Just build on the previous game...

[Gromnir]

 

I think the current system is also pretty thoroughly busted, yes. I actually like the proposed changes! But that doesn't mean it's a magical cure-all or that it will solve the problems of the current system without spawning a dozen issues of its own.

 

possibly, but at the very least you gotta recognize that the problem you identified for high-level gameplay is actual already an issue precise 'cause of vancian casting.  yeah, we suspect there is gonna be all kinda problems with poe2 being balanced, but your immediate concern o' +30 spells being available to a high-level caster and robbing tactical consideration 'cause o' the bloat is actual more acute and real 'cause of vancian.

 

the arguments 'gainst per-encounter keep coming at us all inverted and backwards.

 

but yeah.  there will be problems.  am less concerned with per-encounter, but multi-class will clear be an issue, and there will be dozens o' other problems.  no cure-all neither.  regardless...

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Eurhetemec]

I'd be pretty skeptical if it wasn't Sawyer behind this. He's pretty great at reasoning this kind of thing through, and people rarely give him enough credit when he makes a change that appears risky, assuming it's just a random bad idea like it would be with a lot of devs.

[Chairchucker]

This sounds like a major step down from PoE tbh...

 

More per encounter abilities = more spamming the same things every fight. Pillars of Eternity already had a problem with that, why change it to be worse?

If a game encourages you to always use the same spells, it is the encounters and the stats of the spells that are encouraging this, not how frequently your spells replenish.

[Ninjamestari]

 

This sounds like a major step down from PoE tbh...

 

More per encounter abilities = more spamming the same things every fight. Pillars of Eternity already had a problem with that, why change it to be worse?

If a game encourages you to always use the same spells, it is the encounters and the stats of the spells that are encouraging this, not how frequently your spells replenish.

 

 

I agree with this 100%

If the only reason you change from spell a) to spell b) is that you ran out of spell a), then the encounter never needed spell b) to begin with. That's why a simple system with simple spells is better; it puts the focus on planning the encounters. A Simple strategy will always outperform a complicated strategy in a simple situation. The problem with games today is that the encounters are simple and the tools you have are clumsy and complicated. A good game has simple tools and complicated encounters.

[Silent Winter]

 

 

4. There are other factors that we are working into combat. Josh and I were just talking about the importance of longer cast times for certain abilities. This is something we are going to be working on. It will help to vary abilities and will allow for some really hard hitters. It also increases the usefulness of interrupting and magnifies risk vs reward in what ability you choose in moment to moment gameplay.

As much as this makes sense, I don't like super-long cast times (battle-speed in PoE1 was such that lengthy chants evocations (4-5) didn't get used much if at all as the battle was over already - summon drake to deal with the one ooze that's left).

 

that's the kinda trade-off being proposed though, yes? is more powerful, but takes longer, so why would you use your tactical nuke to deal with the single ooze? with per encounter, your are less likely to have exhausted all of your useful solitary ooze killing spells during your previous two encounters. 

 

You wouldn't use it on a single ooze - is my point (added emphasis to 'that's left' above for clarification).  At the start of battle there were a number of enemies more dangerous that would make that summon useful - by the time it became available, it was useless (except when facing the uber-dragons who could last that long.)

If it takes too long to cast a spell, that spell almost never gets used.  I can understand that from a purely balance perspective - but not from a fun/variety perspective

 

Not that I think uber-nukes should be available for every encounter either - it's a balancing act.

Of course it depends on how long is 'long' - may be they hit the sweet spot that I think is perfect, maybe not.

 

It's why I like my idea of being able to defend the caster at the expense of attacking - it'd be a tactical decision 'wail on an enemy physically and cast faster spells' or 'defend the caster for a while and wait for a big boom'

Edited February 3, 2017 by Silent Winter

[MaxQuest]

Losing Vancian magic will basically just mean every combat will devolve into a player following a certain recipe of best buff in the game+best debuff in the game targeting their will/fortitude score, followed by "best will/fortitude exploiting ability" targeting their will/fortitude score," and each party pretty much following that recipe for the entire game.

I am already guilty of doing it in PoE1...

 

Open fight with:

- priest casting: Painful Interdiction (Weakened + Dazed)

- wizard casting: Aspirant's Mark + per-encounter Ghost Blades (Hobbled)

- 2 ciphers start with two Mental Bindings (bigger threats are now Paralyzed, other are Stuck) and two Treasons thrown in enemy backline (Charm)

 

And follow-up with Barbarian + Blasts + Mental Bindings/Wave/Amplified Wave fiesta.

 

---

4. There are other factors that we are working into combat. Josh and I were just talking about the importance of longer cast times for certain abilities. This is something we are going to be working on. It will help to vary abilities and will allow for some really hard hitters. It also increases the usefulness of interrupting and magnifies risk vs reward in what ability you choose in moment to moment gameplay.

 

5. We are working hard on creatures and encounters being more unique and a fair amount less frequent. You can see some of that work in the White March expansions and we are pushing to do more of that on both the system and level design front.

Thank you for sharing your vision on the vancian aspect.

We really love getting a reply from the dev team, on these forums.

 

I'd just like to point-out few potential problems: (probably already taken into consideration, but who knows)

4. If there will be few really hard-hitting abilities with a long casting animation; there is a small risk of imbalance, as the player can cc his enemies right before starting the cast, while the AI might not be as enlightened. At the same time I hope it won't lead to nerfing crowd-control abilities, as cc-aspect is fun, and was much more meaningful in PoE1 than in Tyranny.

 

5. Creatures indeed require to be very unique. Nobody wants to cast the same spell-sequences over and over again. To avoid this:

- different creatures could have different immunities (I really liked that part in PoE1, as it forces you to use different approaches)

- some creatures could be tagged as 'smart', and programmed to focus-fire an enemy together.

- different creatures need to have a higher variance in their defenses. If a monster has very high fortitude, it will stimulate us to use spells that target other defences instead, changing our usual spell 'rotation', and hence bringing some variation.

- attack resolution kept as it is in PoE1. No weird Tyranny-like thresholds. Otherwise enemy defenses won't matter as much.

 

And in order to make spell-casting even more varied, some of empowered spells could get secondary effects attached (e.g. empowered fireball can knockdown, empowered ghost blades can reduce enemy DR, empowered kalakoth's sunless grasp can paralyze). At least it's a minor hope of adding an extra decision layer (of cast now vs save for later).

Edited February 3, 2017 by MaxQuest

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Losing Vancian magic will basically just mean every combat will devolve into a player following a certain recipe of best buff in the game+best debuff in the game targeting their will/fortitude score, followed by "best will/fortitude exploiting ability" targeting their will/fortitude score," and each party pretty much following that recipe for the entire game.

I am already guilty of doing it in PoE1...

 

Open fight with:

- priest casting: Painful Interdiction (Weakened + Dazed)

- wizard casting: Aspirant's Mark + per-encounter Ghost Blades (Hobbled)

- 2 ciphers start with two Mental Bindings (bigger threats are now Paralyzed, other are Stuck) and two Treasons thrown in enemy backline (Charm)

 

And follow-up with Barbarian + Blasts + Mental Bindings/Wave/Amplified Wave fiesta.

 

 

Yeah, this will most likely not be affected by the proposed changes. I've been doing stuff like this since the start. I really hope that the encounters in PoE2 will be more varied, and challenge us in different ways, because my parties easily become successful one-trick ponies pretty early in the game.

[draego]

5. We are working hard on creatures and encounters being more unique and a fair amount less frequent. You can see some of that work in the White March expansions and we are pushing to do more of that on both the system and level design front.

 

I get that white march had more unique encounters but less frequent? I dont see white march as an example of this. In fact i found white march to be a slog sometimes. I hope the less frequent part of this statement is considered. I wouldn't like the entire game to be a dungeon crawl which at times white march felt like. 

[Blarghagh]

 

 

 

4. There are other factors that we are working into combat. Josh and I were just talking about the importance of longer cast times for certain abilities. This is something we are going to be working on. It will help to vary abilities and will allow for some really hard hitters. It also increases the usefulness of interrupting and magnifies risk vs reward in what ability you choose in moment to moment gameplay.

As much as this makes sense, I don't like super-long cast times (battle-speed in PoE1 was such that lengthy chants evocations (4-5) didn't get used much if at all as the battle was over already - summon drake to deal with the one ooze that's left).

 

that's the kinda trade-off being proposed though, yes? is more powerful, but takes longer, so why would you use your tactical nuke to deal with the single ooze? with per encounter, your are less likely to have exhausted all of your useful solitary ooze killing spells during your previous two encounters. 

 

You wouldn't use it on a single ooze - is my point (added emphasis to 'that's left' above for clarification).  At the start of battle there were a number of enemies more dangerous that would make that summon useful - by the time it became available, it was useless (except when facing the uber-dragons who could last that long.)

If it takes too long to cast a spell, that spell almost never gets used.  I can understand that from a purely balance perspective - but not from a fun/variety perspective

 

Not that I think uber-nukes should be available for every encounter either - it's a balancing act.

Of course it depends on how long is 'long' - may be they hit the sweet spot that I think is perfect, maybe not.

 

It's why I like my idea of being able to defend the caster at the expense of attacking - it'd be a tactical decision 'wail on an enemy physically and cast faster spells' or 'defend the caster for a while and wait for a big boom'

 

 

I agree with you. This cooldown system has some issues, though currently the vancian system does too. But also, ideally there should be something preventing you from using your nukes on a random pair of trash xuarips, I just think the Vancian system's a pretty poor way to do that. Ask yourself, are you being encouraged me to ration your spells for encounters because it's interesting or rewarding? Or are you simply being discouraged from using spells because what you have to do to replenish them is inconvenient and boring as sin? Any mechanic that can easily be worked around if you're willing to be bored or inconvenienced for a bit (slogging back to an inn or paying for more camping supplies) isn't a very meaningful mechanic, IMO. Judging by judicious use of rest-spamming in IE games and even PoE (like I said, it's only a slight inconvenience) not a very immersive one either. Seems to me the Vancian system is currently failing to reach its intended goals on all accounts.

 

Something that might work is like the health/endurance split. Per encounter spells combined with per rest magic points. Higher level spells cost more points, running out doesn't stop you from casting but causes some kind of fatigue (like injury except for using too many spells instead of taking too much damage) that makes you much weaker. Still managing your resources, keeping the rest mechanic, and not using nukes on goblins, but also no reason to sleep between every fight because you used up your daily alloted usage of Slicken and your mage isn't completely useless when you've used up his spells. Possibly combined with some kind of soft cooldown on resting, something that gets removed in case of injury or fatigue but otherwise a perfectly healthy party can't sleep for 8 hours 20 minutes after they slept for 8 hours. I dunno, just spitballing right now.

Edited February 3, 2017 by TrueNeutral

[Merany]

Josh's mentions of keywords for spells + drop of vancian casting gives me a Divinity: Original Sin vibe. Like combining different elements / afflictions for greater effects.

 

Despite my reticence on them reworking the PoE1 system, at least, I like the mentality Bobby Null described of being determined to iterate until they find something they're happy with. Now, as someone else mentioned, beta needs to be of big enough scope.

[Ninjamestari]

I agree with you. This cooldown system has some issues, though currently the vancian system does too. But also, ideally there should be something preventing you from using your nukes on a random pair of trash xuarips, I just think the Vancian system's a pretty poor way to do that. Ask yourself, are you being encouraged me to ration your spells for encounters because it's interesting or rewarding? Or are you simply being discouraged from using spells because what you have to do to replenish them is inconvenient and boring as sin? Any mechanic that can easily be worked around if you're willing to be bored or inconvenienced for a bit (slogging back to an inn or paying for more camping supplies) isn't a very meaningful mechanic, IMO. Judging by judicious use of rest-spamming in IE games and even PoE (like I said, it's only a slight inconvenience) not a very immersive one either. Seems to me the Vancian system is currently failing to reach its intended goals on all accounts.

Something that might work is like the health/endurance split. Per encounter spells combined with per rest magic points. Higher level spells cost more points, running out doesn't stop you from casting but causes some kind of fatigue (like injury except for using too many spells instead of taking too much damage) that makes you much weaker. Still managing your resources, keeping the rest mechanic, and not using nukes on goblins, but also no reason to sleep between every fight because you used up your daily alloted usage of Slicken and your mage isn't completely useless when you've used up his spells. Possibly combined with some kind of soft cooldown on resting, something that gets removed in case of injury or fatigue but otherwise a perfectly healthy party can't sleep for 8 hours 20 minutes after they slept for 8 hours. I dunno, just spitballing right now.

 

 

There could be more consequences for just skipping 8 hours. I liked the beginning of Tyranny, where you had to really think on when to rest in order to complete the conquest before the Day of Swords.

 

Another solution could be a mana system where mana doesn't regenerate naturally at all, and you'll have to invest in mana potions.

 

Or if you have wandering monsters and slowly regenerating mana, you'll have to be careful and avoid contact with hostiles when you're low on mana and health.

 

The point is, no system can be built perfect, it's the game content that needs to be created in a way that discourages rest spamming and the like. When the game content is really well made, Mana systems are superior to cooldowns and Vancian magic due to the added fantasy value; mana system is so easy to forge into a part of the fantasy world, where as vancian and cooldowns are kinda silly no matter how you explain them.

[tinysalamander]

The issue here is not just whether Vancian is good or bad. It's also that the suggested replacement for it, full-blown per-encounter spellcasting, has already proven to be a pain in the ass - see PoE1 before Spell Mastery.

 

I’ve found it much less boring than wand autoattacking, TBH.

[Casper]

this casting setup can really only be judged by trying it out, imho. it could be good or not... so i have to hold off on making my own opinion, till after i've actually played with it a bit.

[floredon]

sticking with tradition on everything really doesn't make sense, especially since they aren't tied to any specific roleplaying system - Obsidian is creating their own.

[PugPug]

In one of the surveys that went out to POE1 backers and owners, I said vancian casters need a reason to stay awake after expending their per-day abilities. I'm glad to see this.

 

I am sure resource management will still be very important. You're bonkers if you think they are going to make that easier. If anything, Empower adds more resource management challenge to the game because every class gets it.

 

In sounds like the perfect solution: a big gun you only bring out for the big encounters. How is that functionally so different from a big spell you only bring out for big encounters?

Edited February 3, 2017 by PugPug

[Casper]

In one of the surveys that went out to POE1 backers and owners, I said vancian casters need a reason to stay awake after expending their per-day abilities. I'm glad to see this.

 

I am sure resource management will still be very important. You're bonkers if you think they are going to make that easier. If anything, Empower adds more resource management challenge to the game because every class gets it.

 

In sounds like the perfect solution: a big gun you only bring out for the big encounters. How is that functionally so different from a big spell you only bring out for big encounters?

 

i have to agree with pugpug here.

[Fenixp]

In sounds like the perfect solution: a big gun you only bring out for the big encounters.

Which should also resolve the issue I perceived with PoE, that being all easy fights being easy with all classes, whereas all difficult fights were a lot easier with Vancian casters. By nature, when Vancian casters go nuclear, they're able to dish out a lot more punishment than casters who do not depend on per rest resource, as you tend to rest before difficult fights start.

 

But then we'd get back into 'Balance in SP games' discussion...