Remove Restrictions and let this game breath

[Valci]

And you're completely entitled to your opinion Goddard... Just, don't expect everyone else to agree. You know what they say... Opinions are like arseholes... Everybody's got one

[Goddard]

And you're completely entitled to your opinion Goddard... Just, don't expect everyone else to agree. You know what they say... Opinions are like arseholes... Everybody's got one

I think you might be confusing discussing the ramifications of different systems and just saying "I like that".  Not the same thing.

[Valci]

Well you just said "I like that" in regard to the way tabletop translated to BG. Some of us happen to think certain things were less then ideal (to put it mildly)... So I was responding to exactly what you said... An "I like that" statement.

[Goddard]

Well you just said "I like that" in regard to the way tabletop translated to BG. Some of us happen to think certain things were less then ideal (to put it mildly)... So I was responding to exactly what you said... An "I like that" statement.

Yeah was just trying to break up meme guy.  :D

 

I mean and I also have said so many things that people are boiling down to a "preference-off" which isn't the case.

 

Thanks for staying on topic though. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by Goddard

[smjjames]

Dang you should of told me, I would of made you a script that would automatically cast healing spells after a fight and only in those instances and you can control it the rest of the time.

 

Speaking of which, there is going to be much more advanced AI scripting for party AI or specific character AI (not sure if it's whole party or specific companion) and you can create your own, so, you should very well be able to do that. Not a huge lot of details on it atm, some mentions in places and Josh Sawyer teased a screenshot of the UI, but it's definetly a thing.

Edited October 22, 2017 by smjjames

[Goddard]

 

Dang you should of told me, I would of made you a script that would automatically cast healing spells after a fight and only in those instances and you can control it the rest of the time.

 

Speaking of which, there is going to be much more advanced AI scripting for party AI or specific character AI (not sure if it's whole party or specific companion) and you can create your own, so, you should very well be able to do that. Not a huge lot of details on it atm, some mentions in places and Josh Sawyer teased a screenshot of the UI, but it's definetly a thing.

 

Yeah for some people that might be really cool, I am one of those people that actually likes to select each party members actions.  Suffice it to say I do a lot of pausing.  :D

 

I will test it out though for sure.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Goddard

[Lephys]

I really liked how everything translated over in BG personally.  The over controlling or lazy might disagree.

 

 

I am not worried about clicking a couple buttons to heal players after a fight.  Resting is always more important in time limiting factors which I think should be explored.  I mean again you could of always put it into a macro, script bound to a hot key, or if you are really smart you could just have the computer play it completely and you could go have a sandwich. :D

 

It may be unintentional, but you're accusing people of dismissing your posts as purely preferential, but then you're saying that the only way one could possibly have a problem with this is to be lazy or over controlling. Do you no see how that's irrationally dismissive?

 

I realize that some people have not made magnificently eloquent posts about their problem with it, so it may come across as just "I don't want to have to click" laziness. But, valid points have been made.

 

Essentially, the only thing Health is really doing in the BG games is giving you a buffer between death and life. You have to get hit to die, but you have to get all the way down to 0 from whatever your max health is to be dead. So, the game is inherently telling you that less health is bad, and more health is good. That's just how the system works. There's never a time when any of your characters would be like "You know what? I'm about to die at the next strong gust of wind, but we should probably give no consideration to that at all. Let's all just go fight some dragons right now." Only if you had no other choice would you continue on without patching up wounds and such. It'd be just like crossing a desert when low on water. You wouldn't just venture out into the desert without replenishing your water vessels, unless you absolutely had to (urgency, no access to water, etc.).

 

So, if the game says "rejuvenating = good," then gives you the means to rejuvenate your party, why would you not do it? And if you're going to use healing spells to do it, every single time, why not allow for that to be an option? "After combat, have people heal up." It's no longer a tactical decision. It doesn't matter WHEN you heal, outside of combat. You're either going to convert X amount of resources into health (be it potions, spells, etc.), or you're not, before the next combat instance.

 

Really, though, this all comes down to pacing design. You either want people to be at full health for every encounter, or you don't. If you don't, then the absolute best way to accomplish this is to hard-limit the ability to heal back up/replenish spells, etc. (if you're going with Vancian spell limitations, etc.). It's not just preference. Preference is beside the point. It's about the goal of the design, and the effectiveness of that design toward that goal. The BG designers decided that the threat of possible ambush was enough to soft-limit resting. Well, the fact is, you can still rest-spam if you want. Also, how feasible is it to just power through entire areas without healing up or replenishing spells? This also depends on difficulty, etc. You could say "Well, if you're having trouble without resting a bunch, just lower the difficulty." But maybe people want a certain level of combat challenge in each combat instance, but still want to be full health at each one. I feel that's reasonable.

 

So, it's really a question of the goal of the design. And, if the goal is X, then WHY is the goal X? Should the goal be different? These are all principles of design, and they inherently matter, by the nature of design's goal-oriented existence. You want to make a game that people like, but that's more than just a giant amalgamation of a bunch of lesser things people like. Human psychology is more complex than that. Our brains use logical processing to arrive at our opinions, even. Even if sometimes we misuse all the little numbers in our brains logic-math. It doesn't make logical decisions for us, but it uses logic to get there. Like "This thing happened, and now my arm hurts. I do not like my arm hurting, as it is unpleasant, so therefore I do not want that thing to happen." That makes SENSE, even if you didn't actually go far enough to figure out whether or not that thing happening CAUSED your arm to hurt or not. It's how animals work. Experience, feel/think, react.

[1varangian]

Pre-buffing in Infinity engine games was pretty dumb but it was mostly because there were so many buffing spells you could just stack on top of another.

 

I would prefer a system where instead of a passive "Shield" that lasts for 10 minutes after casting, Wizards would have an active "Shield" that requires concentration to maintain and hinders you from casting other spells requiring concentration. Or you would use a "Telekinetic Push" to knock attackers back rather than have Stoneskin on 24/7 - active defenses / buffs instead of passive ones.

Edited October 23, 2017 by 1varangian

[Goddard]

Pre-buffing in Infinity engine games was pretty dumb but it was mostly because there were so many buffing spells you could just stack on top of another.

 

I would prefer a system where instead of a passive "Shield" that lasts for 10 minutes after casting, Wizards would have an active "Shield" that requires concentration to maintain and hinders you from casting other spells requiring concentration. Or you would use a "Telekinetic Push" to knock attackers back rather than have Stoneskin on 24/7 - active defenses / buffs instead of passive ones.

 

That does sound like an interesting road to go down.  You could still have a rest mechanic and the number of spells cast could be limited by abilities and level(experience).

 

I love the absurdity in the Infinity Engine games and I am not against trying different systems.  The game allowed you to become insanely powerful, or to follow the story and play a normal party.  I am just against insane restrictions that don't seem realistic in a fantasy world.

 

I don't know how a writer would tell the story, and the mage heard the sounds of scratching on the cave ground ahead of him, but couldn't cast a shield spell because he can only cast spells in combat because......reasons. *wiggling fingers in the air*

 

 

Elminster was tired, but his party was unable to rest to regain their endurance because they needed a special set of ingredients that look like logs for a fire to rejuvenate them, oh and fatigue is different then endurance and all our spell casters are unable to effect the endurance of a person despite our amazingly fantastical magical abilities and it is because......reasons. *wiggling fingers in the air*

[Ad Hoc]

I would prefer a system where instead of a passive "Shield" that lasts for 10 minutes after casting, Wizards would have an active "Shield" that requires concentration to maintain and hinders you from casting other spells requiring concentration. Or you would use a "Telekinetic Push" to knock attackers back rather than have Stoneskin on 24/7 - active defenses / buffs instead of passive ones.

 

Dragon Age: Origins had something like this. Buffs reduced your maximum mana and made casting spells more difficult. It was a flexible system that let you choose between firepower or passively enhanced stats. I don't know how such a mechanic would work in a more traditional cast per rest/encounter system, though.

[Guest 4ward]

 

wouldn‘t be surprised if an eventual pillars3 ends up being dragon age

movement of your chars was one key ability in IE. It wasn‘t popular using amongst most of you though i believe. Yet e.g. kiting is a valid tactic, it requires effort and the more enemies you‘re facing the harder it is to pull off effectively. You can‘t win BG2 with using movement only, you can‘t win it by using abilities only. It‘s the mix that does it. 2D allows for that, with 3d camera you can‘t pull that off effectively. IE games were supposed to be played with that possibility known from rts games.

 

Knowledge about encounters was supposed to be ideally found out by the player and not always with the help of a faq. And that knowledge didn‘t limit the player but opened up new ways to get the most out of the game. Some guys have 2hours playsessions, some 1 hour and so on.. If you play planar sphere amd then finally end up in the golem machine room you might go with cloudkill which takes longer than simply attacking, but it‘s up to you, to your mood.

 

Manual movement also solves pathfinding issues and even though devs will program a good AI that will always only account for abilities never for how they should move.Only for some very few encounters casting spells like death ward isn‘t a bad idea, but moving/repositioning will reduce the need for buffs and help you manage resources.

 

What is annoying to the player is also IMO very subjective, there‘s no need to make elephants out of flies. When you decide to rest that could be an ogre group that ambushes you so you can go on auto-attack, but it could be a party having also casters and requiring more input from the player. There‘s a trade-off, not everywhere will you be able to rest easily like after defeating the shade lord. Stop asking for ways how to limit the player in BG2, start accepting movement as a tactic to manage your resources and make the game more fun.

[Skaddix]

 

I would prefer a system where instead of a passive "Shield" that lasts for 10 minutes after casting, Wizards would have an active "Shield" that requires concentration to maintain and hinders you from casting other spells requiring concentration. Or you would use a "Telekinetic Push" to knock attackers back rather than have Stoneskin on 24/7 - active defenses / buffs instead of passive ones.

 

Dragon Age: Origins had something like this. Buffs reduced your maximum mana and made casting spells more difficult. It was a flexible system that let you choose between firepower or passively enhanced stats. I don't know how such a mechanic would work in a more traditional cast per rest/encounter system, though.

 

 

 

So it wouldn't change much for Wizards or Druids from Pillars of Eternity where the best move was to buff and/or drop a big AoE spell and then get down and dirty with a summoned weapon or animal form in melee range. 

[Lephys]

Pre-buffing in Infinity engine games was pretty dumb but it was mostly because there were so many buffing spells you could just stack on top of another.

 

I would prefer a system where instead of a passive "Shield" that lasts for 10 minutes after casting, Wizards would have an active "Shield" that requires concentration to maintain and hinders you from casting other spells requiring concentration. Or you would use a "Telekinetic Push" to knock attackers back rather than have Stoneskin on 24/7 - active defenses / buffs instead of passive ones.

 

Yeah, although it was not executed as well as it could have been, the general idea behind Dragon Age: Origins buffs fits with this. Even Fighters had their stances or what-have-you. For example, you could activate "Indomitable," which would make you immune to knockdown. It didn't cost any one-off resource consumption. Instead, it reduced your Stamina pool by like 10% (or 15%? *shrug*). Anywho... all the buffs worked like that. So, a Mage's buff might affect your whole group, but it was a sustained thing that you toggled and it cost your Mage like 20% of his mana pool. So, you could, if you so chose, have 3 or 4 of these active all at once, but you'd basically have like 5% of your max mana to cast with, rendering you unable to cast any other spells in combat (most spells cost about 10% or more of your mana at any given point).

 

Again, not perfect execution. I think with 4 party members, there were too many things allowed to be active at once. BUT, the tradeoff actually worked pretty nicely, and you could tactically toggle things on and off as-needed or to shift roles in combat.

 

I know Pillars had/has modals, so they've already got the setup for some similar cost-system. I guess every class would need something akin to an ability "casting" pool, though, for that to work globally.

[1varangian]

 

 

I would prefer a system where instead of a passive "Shield" that lasts for 10 minutes after casting, Wizards would have an active "Shield" that requires concentration to maintain and hinders you from casting other spells requiring concentration. Or you would use a "Telekinetic Push" to knock attackers back rather than have Stoneskin on 24/7 - active defenses / buffs instead of passive ones.

 

Dragon Age: Origins had something like this. Buffs reduced your maximum mana and made casting spells more difficult. It was a flexible system that let you choose between firepower or passively enhanced stats. I don't know how such a mechanic would work in a more traditional cast per rest/encounter system, though.

 

 

 

So it wouldn't change much for Wizards or Druids from Pillars of Eternity where the best move was to buff and/or drop a big AoE spell and then get down and dirty with a summoned weapon or animal form in melee range. 

 

Buffing spells in PoE are really annoying to use because of their ridiculously short durations.

 

Lets say the party is fighting monsters with a confusion mind attack. You need to constantly spam pause to examine status effects and cast resistance / suppression which really kills the flow of combat.

 

A much more elegant solution would be for the spellcaster to choose an active "mind protection mode" for that fight, that would require concentration. Choose one buff kind of deal. Or if you have crazy concentration skills or some Abjurer subclass, could maybe concentrate on two simultaneous protections. There could be an added downside that offensive spells could have slower casting times or be generally weaker.

 

A long lasting circle of protection that would give immunity to mind effects would also be a much more interesting way to handle defensive buffs. Tactics would be suddenly limited to standing inside the circle and you could even get knocked out of it.

 

Short durations are really annoying, hope they fix that.

Edited October 24, 2017 by 1varangian

[1varangian]

 

Pre-buffing in Infinity engine games was pretty dumb but it was mostly because there were so many buffing spells you could just stack on top of another.

 

I would prefer a system where instead of a passive "Shield" that lasts for 10 minutes after casting, Wizards would have an active "Shield" that requires concentration to maintain and hinders you from casting other spells requiring concentration. Or you would use a "Telekinetic Push" to knock attackers back rather than have Stoneskin on 24/7 - active defenses / buffs instead of passive ones.

 

Yeah, although it was not executed as well as it could have been, the general idea behind Dragon Age: Origins buffs fits with this. Even Fighters had their stances or what-have-you. For example, you could activate "Indomitable," which would make you immune to knockdown. It didn't cost any one-off resource consumption. Instead, it reduced your Stamina pool by like 10% (or 15%? *shrug*). Anywho... all the buffs worked like that. So, a Mage's buff might affect your whole group, but it was a sustained thing that you toggled and it cost your Mage like 20% of his mana pool. So, you could, if you so chose, have 3 or 4 of these active all at once, but you'd basically have like 5% of your max mana to cast with, rendering you unable to cast any other spells in combat (most spells cost about 10% or more of your mana at any given point).

 

Again, not perfect execution. I think with 4 party members, there were too many things allowed to be active at once. BUT, the tradeoff actually worked pretty nicely, and you could tactically toggle things on and off as-needed or to shift roles in combat.

 

I know Pillars had/has modals, so they've already got the setup for some similar cost-system. I guess every class would need something akin to an ability "casting" pool, though, for that to work globally.

 

Yeah DAO mages had a modal Arcane Shield that was quite cool. The penalty in addition to standard mana cost was increased Fatigue that meant your other spells cost 5% more. Elegant.

[Skaddix]

 

 

 

I would prefer a system where instead of a passive "Shield" that lasts for 10 minutes after casting, Wizards would have an active "Shield" that requires concentration to maintain and hinders you from casting other spells requiring concentration. Or you would use a "Telekinetic Push" to knock attackers back rather than have Stoneskin on 24/7 - active defenses / buffs instead of passive ones.

 

Dragon Age: Origins had something like this. Buffs reduced your maximum mana and made casting spells more difficult. It was a flexible system that let you choose between firepower or passively enhanced stats. I don't know how such a mechanic would work in a more traditional cast per rest/encounter system, though.

 

 

 

So it wouldn't change much for Wizards or Druids from Pillars of Eternity where the best move was to buff and/or drop a big AoE spell and then get down and dirty with a summoned weapon or animal form in melee range. 

 

Buffing spells in PoE are really annoying to use because of their ridiculously short durations.

 

Lets say the party is fighting monsters with a confusion mind attack. You need to constantly spam pause to examine status effects and cast resistance / suppression which really kills the flow of combat.

 

A much more elegant solution would be for the spellcaster to choose an active "mind protection mode" for that fight, that would require concentration. Choose one buff kind of deal. Or if you have crazy concentration skills or some Abjurer subclass, could maybe concentrate on two simultaneous protections. There could be an added downside that offensive spells could have slower casting times or be generally weaker.

 

A long lasting circle of protection that would give immunity to mind effects would also be a much more interesting way to handle defensive buffs. Tactics would be suddenly limited to standing inside the circle and you could even get knocked out of it.

 

Short durations are really annoying, hope they fix that.

 

 

I think switching to encounter spells from rest spells basically does that for the spellcasters. Your buffs wont be lost in a time it takes you to get to the next fight. Should be fine if you only have one spell you really need at each spell level. If you need two it could be a problem depending on how long the fights last but that is more an issue for boss fights. That is assuming buffs arent massively nerfed to compensate but a smaller party suggests that is not the case.

[1varangian]

So there will only be per encounter spells??

 

That sounds like casters are going to spam their most powerful spells in every single fight since its free. Which gets repetitive. Which makes casting spells less awesome and more of a chore rather than an intelligent tactical choice.

 

And spells will have be less powerful and less impressive because you cast much more.

 

Please prove me wrong.

Edited October 24, 2017 by 1varangian

[Lephys]

1varangian:

 

While I get what you're saying, I think you might be knee-jerking a bit. It's not "free." You still have a limit to spell-casting. In a way, it's MORE restrictive. Before, if you could cast 5 Tier 3 spells, for example, then you could just cast all 5 in one encounter if you so chose. Then rest and do it again in another, etc. Now, you are simply limited at the encounter level. It doesn't mean you get to cast all the exact same quantities of various-level spells, just per-encounter instead of per-rest. It's just a different way of limiting it. Basically, you'll be more limited in what you can do per-encounter, but your spells will replenish more often now (after every encounter). Like any tool, if it's used properly and the encounters are generally balanced around this limitation, it can be pretty awesome.

[1varangian]

1varangian:

 

While I get what you're saying, I think you might be knee-jerking a bit. It's not "free." You still have a limit to spell-casting. In a way, it's MORE restrictive. Before, if you could cast 5 Tier 3 spells, for example, then you could just cast all 5 in one encounter if you so chose. Then rest and do it again in another, etc. Now, you are simply limited at the encounter level. It doesn't mean you get to cast all the exact same quantities of various-level spells, just per-encounter instead of per-rest. It's just a different way of limiting it. Basically, you'll be more limited in what you can do per-encounter, but your spells will replenish more often now (after every encounter). Like any tool, if it's used properly and the encounters are generally balanced around this limitation, it can be pretty awesome.

If I know all my spells replenish after every battle, of course I will open up with the most powerful ones. Every time. And then work my way down gradually to lower level spells. To maximise efficiency and minimize the risk of injury. That can get predictable and boring very fast. Unless the encounter designs are always smart and unpredictable and give you something else to consider.

Edited October 24, 2017 by 1varangian

[Lamppost in Winter]

 Spells are going to be more powerful, but have longer cast times, which can be interrupted, losing you that spell cast. Also from all the videos I've seen we seem to only have 2 casts per spell level, even at higher levels.

[Skaddix]

 

1varangian:

 

While I get what you're saying, I think you might be knee-jerking a bit. It's not "free." You still have a limit to spell-casting. In a way, it's MORE restrictive. Before, if you could cast 5 Tier 3 spells, for example, then you could just cast all 5 in one encounter if you so chose. Then rest and do it again in another, etc. Now, you are simply limited at the encounter level. It doesn't mean you get to cast all the exact same quantities of various-level spells, just per-encounter instead of per-rest. It's just a different way of limiting it. Basically, you'll be more limited in what you can do per-encounter, but your spells will replenish more often now (after every encounter). Like any tool, if it's used properly and the encounters are generally balanced around this limitation, it can be pretty awesome.

If I know all my spells replenish after every battle, of course I will open up with the most powerful ones. Every time. And then work my way down gradually to lower level spells. To maximise efficiency and minimize the risk of injury. That can get predictable and boring very fast. Unless the encounter designs are always smart and unpredictable and give you something else to consider.

 

 

I think the difference is Boss Fights vs Mob Fights.

Since you pretty much always rest before going into a boss fight. Under the old system you have way more spells to use in the boss fight and can thus nova for the fight. However, per rest means you have to manage your spells much more carefully across a dungeon crawl since while you have more spells per encounter in the abstract you have less per rest.

 

The new system means Boss Fights are going to be harder you cant cast nearly as much I think its about half as much. However, for clearing your mobs well you can drop your best AoEs and nuke all of them every single fight. Granted Paladins, Fighters, Rangers and Rogues can also run out of resources since only Monks, Ciphers and Chanters build up a spendable resource now.

[Lephys]

If I know all my spells replenish after every battle, of course I will open up with the most powerful ones. Every time. And then work my way down gradually to lower level spells. To maximise efficiency and minimize the risk of injury. That can get predictable and boring very fast. Unless the encounter designs are always smart and unpredictable and give you something else to consider.

 

Not necessarily. There could be a tactical reason, within a combat encounter, not to cast your most powerful spells first. What if you open with your most powerful spells, then you're out of them, and the enemy just regens or heals? Or what if the enemy is shielded at first?

 

Again, I get what you're saying, but you're exaggerating the effect of this. IF you had a batch of 6 different combat encounters in a stretch of map, and before, you had 6 casts of a given level of spell per rest, then you could still just open up with that spell every encounter. Now, change that to 1 cast per encounter... See? The fact that you can now definitely cast X spells of each level per encounter is something that is considered when designing the encounters. What you're imagining is going to be problematic is only problematic if you have bunch of encounters that were for some reason designed with "Oh no, I'd better preserve my big spells!" in mind, then the player is suddenly granted a guaranteed refresh of these every fight.

 

To look at it another way, a big problem in RPGs is the hoarding tendency of limited consumables. At the beginning of a game, if I find a healing potion, I have no idea how often I'll find these, or how powerful that potion is in relation to other available potions/items in the game. Same with defense-boost items, etc. So, a human mind naturally thinks "I better save this until I REALLY need it." Well, what if you find 20 of them per 10-minute session? Later on, you realize that you could've just used one or two per combat and been fine. Well, now the game tells you "This is how many spells you'll be able to cast," so you're not thinking "Man, what if I need another fireball 4 encounters from now, REALLY badly?!".

 

Is something lost? Yes. An aspect of resource management is lost. However, you still have to decide which spells to spend your "cast ammo" on per encounter. So, it's not a matter of "Do I cast Tier 1 Cone of Flames, or do I cast CELESTIAL METEOR STRIKE OF DOOOOOOM?". It's more "Do I cast this Tier 4 buff on my group, or do I cast this Tier 4 attack spell? Once I've cast, that's it." So, it's a bit different, yes, but you're not magically getting uber power for free, and/or tactical choice is not somehow tossed out the window just because you definitely get to cast spells every combat encounter.

[Wormerine]

To look at it another way, a big problem in RPGs is the hoarding tendency of limited consumables. At the beginning of a game, if I find a healing potion, I have no idea how often I'll find these, or how powerful that potion is in relation to other available potions/items in the game. Same with defense-boost items, etc. So, a human mind naturally thinks "I better save this until I REALLY need it." Well, what if you find 20 of them per 10-minute session? Later on, you realize that you could've just used one or two per combat and been fine. Well, now the game tells you "This is how many spells you'll be able to cast," so you're not thinking "Man, what if I need another fireball 4 encounters from now, REALLY badly?!".

 

Yes, thank you. That is so me and probably one of the reasons I am looking forward to the change. I am a guy who finishes Tomb Raider games with 100+ healthpacks in an inventory. I think I can count on fingers on my hands times I used highest lvl spells in my Baldurs Gate playthrough. In Pillars I would mostly stick to low levels spells and “per encounter” spells in later stages.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Wormerine

[Goddard]

What do you guys think?

[Sedrefilos]

That's a nice little video to quickly watch and drop an opinion