The loss of Vancian casting?!

[Yonjuro]

 

... In my view, sacrificing strategic resource management on that altar is rather too much. ...

 

Can you explain to me how it's strategic? I've never understood this claim. It seems to me that the choice you refer to as tedious is the only choice you're making. It's convenience rather tactical. You ration your magic because the game gives you mind-numbing boredom if you don't, not because rationing it gives you a tactical edge anywhere because in practice, resting before every encounter always gives you the tactical edge. It's a punishment mechanic, not a tactics mechanic.

 

 

 

 Yes, exactly. I have the same question: How is it strategic? It looks more like rationing spells due to perceived probability of needing them later (or due to metagaming knowledge after the first play through). It might be a good policy decision, but it doesn't strike me as a strategic one (more like logistics). I think of strategy more in the sense of scouting, pre-combat positioning, attempting to divide enemies etc.

 

 For example, Alexander the Great attacking Darius' army on their left flank because he saw archers there (protecting the weaker troops) would be strategy. Alexander saying "Yo Ptolemy, we're running out of salt." is logistics. No?

Edited February 3, 2017 by Yonjuro

[morhilane]

 

 

... In my view, sacrificing strategic resource management on that altar is rather too much. ...

 

Can you explain to me how it's strategic? I've never understood this claim. It seems to me that the choice you refer to as tedious is the only choice you're making. It's convenience rather tactical. You ration your magic because the game gives you mind-numbing boredom if you don't, not because rationing it gives you a tactical edge anywhere because in practice, resting before every encounter always gives you the tactical edge. It's a punishment mechanic, not a tactics mechanic.

 

 

 

 Yes, same question: How is it strategic? It looks more like rationing spells due to perceived probability of needing them later (or due to metagaming knowledge after the first play through). It might be a good policy decision, but it doesn't strike me as a strategic one (more like logistics). I think of strategy more in the sense of scouting, pre-combat positioning, attempting to divide enemies etc.

 

 For example, Alexander the Great attacking Darius' army on their left flank because he saw archers there (protecting the weaker troops) would be strategy. Alexander saying "Yo Ptolemy, we're running out of salt." is logistics. No?

 

What Alexander the Great did by attacking that flank was a tactic. Strategies are long term plans, tactics are what you do to resolve the current issue. In a RPG video game, your strategy is how you build your characters, your party composition and the decision of keeping or not stuff. A tactic is whatever you do to win a fight.

 

Using CC a lot in a fight is a tactic, building a character to abuse using CC is a strategy. Just like using Empower in a fight is a tactical choice, but deciding to not use it so it is available later is a strategy.

 

The issue with strategy is that in real life it evolve based on "in advance information" which you get via spying, scouting, specialist analyses, etc. In a video game though, meta-knowledge and wikis is your "advance information". Games are rather crap at telling you that you might want to keep X because in a few map you'll need it.

[Yonjuro]

 

.... 

 

 For example, Alexander the Great attacking Darius' army on their left flank because he saw archers there (protecting the weaker troops) would be strategy. Alexander saying "Yo Ptolemy, we're running out of salt." is logistics. No?

 

What Alexander the Great did by attacking that flank was a tactic. Strategies are long term plans, tactics are what you do to resolve the current issue. In a RPG video game, your strategy is how you build your characters, your party composition and the decision of keeping or not stuff. A tactic is whatever you do to win a fight.

 

 

 Fair enough. I have always thought of Alexander's first battle with Darius as an example of strategic decision making because it relied on knowledge gained from prescouting the enemy, but it isn't really central to my point.

 

Using CC a lot in a fight is a tactic, building a character to abuse using CC is a strategy. Just like using Empower in a fight is a tactical choice, but deciding to not use it so it is available later is a strategy.

 

 Surely, deciding not to use Empower is only a strategy if you have scouted ahead and realized that you will need it later, yes? If you consider it a strategic decision because it is prudent to save resources when you don't know what is coming next, fine, but it isn't an interesting strategic decision.

 

The issue with strategy is that in real life it evolve based on "in advance information" which you get via spying, scouting, specialist analyses, etc.

 

 I agree completely. That was exactly my point. A strategic decision is an informed choice based on whatever knowledge you have gathered and how you interpret it. Either you are gaining information and planning ahead strategically or you are not. Saving things for later is not a strategy (or, at least, it isn't an example of interesting strategic thinking) unless you have looked ahead and made an informed prediction rather than saving things out pf prudence.

 

 In a video game though, meta-knowledge and wikis is your "advance information". Games are rather crap at telling you that you might want to keep X because in a few map you'll need it.

 

 Well, ok, but on a single map you may be able to learn the positions, types and numbers of enemies through stealth/scouting and, over multiple maps, from talking to knowledgeable NPCs; strategy without meta-gaming.

[JerekKruger]

What Alexander the Great did by attacking that flank was a tactic. Strategies are long term plans, tactics are what you do to resolve the current issue. In a RPG video game, your strategy is how you build your characters, your party composition and the decision of keeping or not stuff. A tactic is whatever you do to win a fight.

 

Well, it's likely that before the battle begun Alexander formed a plan for it, part of which might have been "focus the attack on the weaker flank". If so, I'd say that's strategy, though the actual execution of that plan is of course tactical.

[Guest Blutwurstritter]

I liked the vancian system when i first played Baldurs Gate 1 because it gave you a great sense of progression as mage. At the beginning you could only use a measly lvl 1 spell that barely stoped a diseased gibberling while later on you could devastate whole groups with fireballs and lightning. But the system was never limiting or overly tactical since you could always save before a fight and simply check which spells you would need and then reload, adjust your spell book and then take a nap. The only tactical part of the system was the maximum limit of spells in a single encounter which is actually pretty much the same as per encounter spells.

The same goes for Pillars, the camping supplies certainly were never a limit while playing on hard, although i cant speak about Path of the Damned. The only way to make the vancian system meaningful would be time limits, truly rare supplies or limited resting places, otherwise its no different to per encounter usage of spells. 

[Flouride]

 

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...

 

 You know, different people work on the game mechanics and the story. So just because Josh, Dave and Bobby are going through the mechanics it doesn't mean that Carrie, Paul and Megan stop working on the story. Unlike Pillars 1, they actually have had a lot of time to figure these things out.

 

If they were trying to please everyone, they would not remove Vancian spell system. That resulted in so much butthurt the 1st time and they budged and gave Vancian spell system to those whining about it.

 

You say PoE was a mess, yet you whine when they try to correct what you think is a mess. Makes perfect sense?

Edited February 3, 2017 by Flouride

[Ninjamestari]

I don't think anyone is saying that it has to be Vancian magic, people are just sceptical on the proposed alternative. I've said it before and I say it again, I think mana based systems would work best in a crpg environment. It's no longer feasible for PoE due to the lore choices, but other types of Spellpoints could work just as well.

[morhilane]

 

What Alexander the Great did by attacking that flank was a tactic. Strategies are long term plans, tactics are what you do to resolve the current issue. In a RPG video game, your strategy is how you build your characters, your party composition and the decision of keeping or not stuff. A tactic is whatever you do to win a fight.

 

Well, it's likely that before the battle begun Alexander formed a plan for it, part of which might have been "focus the attack on the weaker flank". If so, I'd say that's strategy, though the actual execution of that plan is of course tactical.

 

A strategy will win you a war (campaign), a tactic will win you a battle.

Edited February 3, 2017 by morhilane

[zorb42]

Okay, my opinion on the change nonwithstanding. What is the wizard class mechanic now? Grimoire is a bonus giver, but it was already said that there will be more class trinkets serving the same role of a broad class bonus giver, so What that leaves Wizard with?

[Ganrich]

Okay, my opinion on the change nonwithstanding. What is the wizard class mechanic now? Grimoire is a bonus giver, but it was already said that there will be more class trinkets serving the same role of a broad class bonus giver, so What that leaves Wizard with?

I expect Wizards pick spells that they can cast at level up, and they have access to these regardless of Grimoire. I expect they will pick less spells than in PoE1, but we will see. It seems more like Sorcerers in BG2, but with these added Grimoire mechanics.

 

Grimoires are supposed to still come with some spells, and you will still be able to swap them out. This makes grimoire switching a thing, and will give wizards a way to slightly change what their spells at later levels and mid combat. A little more versatility, if you will.

[Casper]

in regards to the tactics vs strategy discussion...

 

strategy is what tells you what objectives you must take, objectives that must be held, and the resources (manpower, equipment & supplies) you can afford to "expend" to achieve said goals.

 

tactics are about taking or holding those objective, and minimizing your casualties and maximizing your opponent's.

 

as to the op.

now that i've actually gone over the spell casting changes... i find i'm thinking about them in a more positive... as opposed to a negative light. though like i said earlier, i still say only time will tell. 

[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'

 

 

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?

In my case?  The former.  It's a roleplay aspect.

Maybe it's the way I play, but at the moment, I'm using those low-level spells in easier encounters and high level spells in hard encounters and balancing between.  Going as long as I can without resting, only when people are seriously injured (or complaining about needing a rest).

Being told I can't use my high-level spells because they take too long, isn't my idea of roleplaying.

 

I'm reserving judgement til I've played it - might be the new system is great.  Just expressing my concerns.

 

 

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.

 

Some kind of mana idea ('per rest magic points') might work, but like anything else, it would depend on how it fits with the rest of the game.

 

We can wait til the beta to get feedback on how well the time v. effect spells work for making people balance their spell casting.

I do like the idea of lower-level spells getting some scaling ('empower' a minor missiles to get more missiles, etc)

Edited February 4, 2017 by Silent Winter

[Archaven]

 

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.

 

 

I'm getting the feeling that they are following suit on Divinity Original Sins footsteps as well. Environment plays a big role in DOS. It would be similar too in PoE2 if i'm reading it right. Casting rain in a targeted area and then a simple lightning would stun everyone in the area. This will only benefits range classes to get a few hits from those few seconds of stun. But it wont seem to benefit melee characters.

[Fardragon]

I was never a fan of vancian casting, and PoE never even attempted to justify it in the game lore.

[Caeyrii]

Vancian systems should just be left in the crypt and only be brought up in nostalgia.

 

There's really nothing wrong with a mana bar/cooldown combo. Just add a penalty to maximum *resource name* like how fatigue did for maximum HP, dependent on both spell level and character level, only going back to full value after resting. Add longer cooldowns to spells as fights go on. If you cast a REALLY high-level spell, have *resource name* completely(or mostly) drained and add a tapering penalty as it refills, having epic spells look really tiring to cast.

[Tigranes]

Vancian systems should just be left in the crypt and only be brought up in nostalgia.

 

There's really nothing wrong with a mana bar/cooldown combo. Just add a penalty to maximum *resource name* like how fatigue did for maximum HP, dependent on both spell level and character level, only going back to full value after resting. Add longer cooldowns to spells as fights go on. If you cast a REALLY high-level spell, have *resource name* completely(or mostly) drained and add a tapering penalty as it refills, having epic spells look really tiring to cast.

 

"I don't like something and it's old, I'll just call it outdated, there, no rational argument needed."

 

Drained and other secondary mechanics are cool. I don't see what interesting decisions cooldowns add, while you have to take a lot of care not to turn it into a hamster at the wheel game. I feel like a braindead monkey pressing the shiny buttons in Tyranny. Mana doesn't change it much - if it's very hard to regenerate then it's basically per encounter, if it regenerates fast you kite until it does, if it requires mana pots you're looking at the inevitable late game of everybody with 8000 mana pots.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Tigranes

[gibonez]

Is this going to be true for all classes or only for wizards and other casters ?

 

Will other classes have per rest abilities ?

[Archaven]

I really like this change. It's such an annoyance that my wizard/priest/druid couldn't catch up with the pace of my cipher. Not only that, if you were in ruins where there's aplenty of wraiths and the best spells against it is fire based spell, and with just 1-2 encounter you could possibly end up using most of them. If you don't rest, your wizards just isn't going to be able to do anything at all. And i refused to rest because i have many, many non-fire based spell being unused yet and resting seems putting those to waste. Per encounter is great because it's the same as per rest, it's just eliminate the annoyance. Since per rest also ties to camping supplies, it only make frustration even worst. You end up traveling back from a dungeon to a town simply to replenish your supplies to go back down and continue.

 

However, i hope they don't put this feature to waste if fatigue and injuries may still imposed the same annoyance. I'm not sure if this was improved in the expansion, as i didn't play them. Basically, if i'm still required to rest by just traveling 1-2 maps or 1-2 battles, this per encounter wouldn't have helped much.

[Odoakar]

I'm glad they are moving away from this system. I'm right now replaying BG:EE and whenever my mages run out of spells, I just rest. Early game when my main mage hero had only 3 spells, that meant resting between each encounter. So why not make it per encounter? Makes more sense than to camp in the middle of bandit camp, during high noon.

[JerekKruger]

Will other classes have per rest abilities ?

 

As I understand it, per rest abilities are being done away with altogether. They are being replaced by per rest "empower" points, each of which can be used to boost the power of your per encounter powers.

[JerekKruger]

I'm not sure if this was improved in the expansion, as i didn't play them. Basically, if i'm still required to rest by just traveling 1-2 maps or 1-2 battles, this per encounter wouldn't have helped much.

 

The fatigue system was overhauled in one of the later patches. You no longer gain fatigue from travelling or from battles, instead fatigue is one of several injuries a character can pick up when they are knocked out.

[gibonez]

 

Will other classes have per rest abilities ?

 

As I understand it, per rest abilities are being done away with altogether. They are being replaced by per rest "empower" points, each of which can be used to boost the power of your per encounter powers.

 

 

This is great news then. It means it opens up the possibilities of many of the classes to be used in different ways.

 

Take the rogue for example, in POE 1 shadowing beyond was a per rest abilitity, making it not viable to be used in every fight.

 

This in turn meant that Backstab dagger rogues were not very viable or atleast not as viable as other rogue builds.

 

Now if shadowing beyond is a per encounter ability, having a class or subclass dedicated to backstab crits would function wonderfully due to being able to return to stealth mid battle and engage in a second , third or even fourth backstab crit during a fight.

 

I love this move.

[Archaven]

 

I'm not sure if this was improved in the expansion, as i didn't play them. Basically, if i'm still required to rest by just traveling 1-2 maps or 1-2 battles, this per encounter wouldn't have helped much.

 

The fatigue system was overhauled in one of the later patches. You no longer gain fatigue from travelling or from battles, instead fatigue is one of several injuries a character can pick up when they are knocked out.

 

 

This is great news. I have already bought both expansions quite some time ago. Still haven't get the time to play it yet. I'm currently forcing myself to complete Farcry 4 so that i can do a fresh start for a new playthrough of PoE with all the expansions. I'm seriously going to miss PoE as it seems PoE2 has many significant changes. Some that i really like such as this change and also multi-classing and dual-classing. There is also a very significant change i really hate.. and you should know what that is. 

 

At this point, i really like that they show us some UI screen, gameplay with combat and inventory screen. I really like UI design of first PoE. But i'm getting a feeling that it may look significantly different or "simplified" and possibly end up bad for my taste.

 

Also.. regarding empowerment that ties to per rest.. I'm not sure if this is going to be "situational" or maybe on higher difficulties, this spell empowerment is simply required when encounters are way too tough. Then this spell empowerment basically end up as per rest annoyance.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Archaven

[A6M Zero]

It'll still be a popular move; even though Vancian systems have their defenders, most people prefer non-vancian (especially if they have little/no history with D&D or IE games). Tyranny's system was a success, especially the spell customisation factor that doesn't really mesh with the D&D setup of IE/PoE1.

 

I think a big part of the change in system is that they want to head away from just emulating the IE games and male their own identity; I'm pretty sure they cited that as a reason behind the move from 6 to 5 party size. Still, we'll have to wait and see how it holds up against PoE1's system. I'd personally be in favour of a split system; the most significant, powerful abilities being per-rest but with a greater selection of per-encounters than PoE1. It would feel less limiting and over-managed than pure Vancian, but would still include an element of tactical resource management.

[Fenixp]

Tyranny's system was a success

"Success"? In most reviews I've even seen combat system mentioned (not that many, which would make it simply unremarkable), it's been mentioned in a negative light. There were some positive ones, but certainly not nearly enough to call it a "Success"

 

Good reason for that mind you, the combat in Tyranny was dull as dishwater

Edited February 4, 2017 by Fenixp