Combat is now mostly a dull chore

[tdphys]

 

 

 

 

 

The whole games is based on RNG....  that's what the whole deflection/accuracy mechanic is.  

Sure, but getting random injuries just from getting hit doubles it. It's like taking random, undodgeable homing bullets in an FPS game that cripple your aim just to make the game harder. There are ways to introduce consequence and difficulty. This isn't it. This is simple random inconvenience and annoyance that's outside of the player's influence other than by upgrading armor—and even then you're at the mercy of RNG.

 

 

The consequence and difficulty comes from mitigating the chance of injury.  It makes in combat buffing important,  it makes in combat healing more important.   You might need to make the injuries a little less... injurious,  but  I think in this sense it increases consequence of actions ( where healing and per encounter actions have reduced them).

 

However,  I get what your saying that if it's low probability and somehow the computer rolls 3 graze injuries in a row, that would leave someone fuming. 

 

Dota 2 has an interesting mechanic where each hit modifies RNG chance, so you're guaranteed a "random chance" in a certain numbere of hits, something similar could be done. IE , 5 crits increase injury chance.

 

I still see that as a bad thing because it would pigeonhole the player into always beginning combat with the same sequence of buffs. It would undermine more aggressive openings and other playstyles by necessitating defensive buffing or running the risk of suffering random injuries. I simply fail to see how that would be a good addition in any way, especially with the game not allowing pre-buffing or long-term buffing. 

 

 

The same mechanics still exist currently,  either buffing is meaningful or its not,  whether or not that means more crits for you or less grazes for the enemy (currently)  or more injuries (suggested).    I think its the magnitude of the injury that puts you off,  and that can be mitigated by making injuries not autokill and maybe nerfing them a bit.   The most important thing is somehow adding more elements to the current combat that are meaningful for the next one.  

 

I'm also a big fan of making combat results thematically meangingful, rather than having an auto health bar go up and down,  injuries are far more interesting.   It links the combat to the story  to have your character push through a broken rib and a bruised eye to finish of a deep dungeon, rather than auto healing each time.

 

How about every time a character suffers 3 crits,  ( with 3 hits being 1 crit and 3 grazes being 1 hit )  =  one injury?

 

Yes, I prefer the current state. 

 

It's not the magnitude; it's the whole idea of receiving random injuries from normal blows in a game where fights are spent mostly standing still and trading blows. You're doing nothing more than introducing yet another RNG-element which the player can only minimally influence by casting defensive buffs and upgrading armor. It adds nothing more than a redundant inconvenience of an RNG-lottery into the game. It adds no tactical depth whatsoever. There's no "fun" here nor does it incorporate any interesting gameplay. All it adds is a potential annoyance that occurs every now and then, that the player then has to deal with or be hindered by. 

 

The only counterplay to that is casting defensive buffs and equipping armor, both of which you will probably do anyway. So all your suggestion essentially adds is a chance to receive random injuries for the sake or what? Artificial difficulty? Artificially increased use for medical supplies in order to remove the injuries? I see no gameplay added whatsoever unless you count opening the resting menu and removing the random injuries gameplay. 

 

Adding elements is one thing, but adding for the sake of adding is not conducive to good combat.

 

As for your second point, yes, I can see how that makes sense from a realism standpoint; I mean, you should get injured in combat. But I'm afraid it doesn't contribute enough in terms of interesting gameplay to warrant this change.

 

(IMO. I'm not trying to assert absolute truth here. These are all just ideas after all)

 

 

Nah,  a good counter argument helps to refine ideas.    I agree that too much randomness makes a game less fun.  If you ask me to play chess or monopoly,  I'll take chess everytime for that reason.   I still contend that you can mitigate random injuries, same as mitigating regular damage,  but you're right that this is adding somewhat redundant randomness.  

 

Maybe a character should get an injury every time they're critted and below half health? 

Edited May 18, 2018 by tdphys

[flamesium]

What you really remember, what really has you on the edge of your seat, is when only your wizard is left standing in BG1 and out of arrows, you're firing off every consumable you ever found in your inventory at the hulking enemy hoping your stoneskin won't run out. It's when the dungeon has bled your health and spells dry, and you're trying to figure out how to take on that last group of shadows with only two scrolls of Fan the Flames - instead of fighting every single fight with the same abilities over and over again. It's when you think you've just about taken out this tough enemy, and then they roll a crit on your guy and smash him to pieces, pulling off a heroic victory for the wrong side.

No reason you can’t have this ‘scraping the barrel’ scenario with a ‘per encounter’ system once it’s balanced correctly. Actually it should be more likely to happen with ‘per encounter’ because you can’t save 10 fights worth of top abilities to spam on the ‘hard’ fight even if you want to, plus you should be able to end up running on fumes in any given fight, not only the last one or two in an area.

 

The only thing preventing that right now is difficulty level being miles off and the fact that being able to use ‘Empower’ to replenish resources is basically cheating.

[tela2k]

tdphys: The pseudo-rng injury system would make deflection king. I would never ever play a melee rogue (my favourite playstyle) ever again in that system. So it also changes game balance quite radically. And like Multihog pointed out it would be much better, if it were tied to something you could avoid and thus when you get an injury you'd say "ah man I messed up" instead of "nice rng osfrog." I get where the need comes from, and like the idea of seeing realistic wear and tear on my party, but I don't think you can tie it to deflection and then what else do you tie it to? Even if it's something actively avoidable like interrupts causing injuries, you'd have to concentration condom your team all the time again making that resolve + concenration buff the only spell you ever cast with your priest. My guess is, great on paper, impossible to implement.

Tigranes: You can still have those tough fights where you used all your class mana, you have three guys down and are using consumables trying to kite the last monsters hoping your wizard can tank with that last arcane veil you got the mana from with that last empower. It's still possible if the balance is right. But the thing you and OP are right about is that the old system had inbuilt control on peak power. You have that massive (on casters not on anyone else unfortunately) pool of abilities, but you want to save them, and thus self impose difficulty on easy fights. And then you can suddenly have a really tough fight but, if you've been saving your per rests, you can dig into your ability stores. So there's a lot of variance in how strong the player can be at any given moment, which does make encounter design a lot easier I guess. Now the variance is smaller, but it is not non-existent. But it does put a lot more emphasis on encounter design, which in it's current state is garbage, but I'm interested to see what they come up with.

On encounter design: Someone already brought up Diablo, which has zero variance in player peak power. You're always exactly as powerful. So now that PoE is moving closer to it with less VIPP   maybe it should be said (even though I suspect some will want to lynch me for even comparing the two series), that diablo 2 and 3 both have pretty much just one trick to differentiate tough fights from normal ones: dodging bullets. Ground target aoe dmg that fills the room in the end, instakill projectiles, you get into melee you get gibbed, that kind of stuff. Some of that stuff we already have and I think we saw it more in Deadfire too (the megaworm actually oneshot Eder). The traditional IE solution to enemy attacks is buff up and tank through it, position backline out of the way to begin with. The action RPG solution is dodge or die. Kind of less emphasis on player intellect and more on player dexterity? So I dunno, we might be seeing more of that in the future. Whether Deadfire mechanics are up to the task remains to be seen.

It's just really hard to break down the pros and cons of everything, since the low difficulty makes fights in the game feel like mush and everyone has their own explanations why combat sucks.

Edit: bad englando

Edited May 18, 2018 by tela2k

[whiskiz]

"And again, I think you should trust me on this. The "fun" of seeing "all the awesomeness of your characters" in *every single* fight is not going to be a sustainable kind of fun, at least imo."

 

If you end up finding the combat boring and need to severely restrict yourself and your characters arbitrarily, to find enjoyment from the combat, that's on you. I can guarantee that wouldn't be the majority opinion, as evidenced by the devs changing it.

 

Hell the hack 'n slash genre is already a testament to per encounter combat, that not being arbitrarily restricted on your character is much better and more fun gameplay. As well as almost any other game and genre ever made, for that matter.

 

"Yup, absolutely. When you do "awesome stuff" every battle it stops being awesome, it becomes pointless and boring. No matter how good a fireball looks I'm not going to be entranced by it 800 times."

 

TIL that nevermind about multiclasses, subclasses, skill trees containing both active abilities and passives, multiple attack and defense stats that you need target as well as other combat depth - you will just be spamming fireball the entire game. *rolls eyes*

 

"What you really remember, what really has you on the edge of your seat, is when only your wizard is left standing in BG1 and out of arrows, you're firing off every consumable you ever found in your inventory at the hulking enemy hoping your stoneskin won't run out"

 

Since it's already been said as good as it could be:

 

"No reason you can’t have this ‘scraping the barrel’ scenario with a ‘per encounter’ system once it’s balanced correctly. Actually it should be more likely to happen with ‘per encounter’ because you can’t save 10 fights worth of top abilities to spam on the ‘hard’ fight even if you want to, plus you should be able to end up running on fumes in any given fight, not only the last one or two in an area."

 

Imagine playing a properly balanced PotD difficulty and having a bottom-of-the-barrel epic last-stand, where it took using everything in your power just to have a chance, every encounter. Perfect.

 

Apparently only the per rest system can be challenging, have you scraping the bottom of the barrel and generally make for some epic stories. Restriction = great gameplay.

 

You guys are just too set in your way, just plain refusing to see the logic of how not only is everything of per rest attainable with per encounter (when the game has actually been balanced) but that it's much less restrictive, fun and just flat out better.

 

Which is unfortunate.

Edited May 18, 2018 by whiskiz

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

Important point that think needs be made is POE 1 was more for the tactical thinker and the casual player could tone level down to play. POE 2 more for causal player cause having no real limits and no progression in one fight to next you can throw everything then rest if need and throw everything in next fight no tactics no thought needed.

 

Now the important point we need casual players and we need the tactical thinkers. I myself am a tactical thinker and like to think and have limits to try get best out myself but I understand that a company and a franchise can not exist without casual player, games take money to make and tactical thinkers not majority of gamers. Without causal players we will lose games and franchises. As a tactical thinker its not fun cause only few games are made for us, most are just cheese fest for casual gamers with tricks.

 

I honestly don't see how POE 2 can be made challenging as no limits mean having to make really massive changes to game already out. Adding in more bad guys or other things not really going to make game of tactical choices and if we fudge it with bad idea we could make it unplayable for casual players and possibly kill franchise.

 

I hope that game can be balanced and  given time be better. I hope that it will be good for all types of players. I honestly don't think it going be perfect.

 

I think obsidian need think hard for POE 3 if they are going make it. I think they need option in game start that gives you choice of style 1 geared for tactical thinker and one for casual player. 

 

Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person. Most people not going want to admit I complete game on story mode only. Why would anyone want to admit that in world where people can be judging and nasty. I think therefore having a casual or tactical choice at start makes better sense both sets players can complete game on hardest level and feel good and not worry about been judged. It will also be better as your splitting the two groups apart enabling game shine for all. Remember lot of causal players just children and kids are very competitive.

 

As is one shine for tactical thinker and 2 shines for casual player. I truly hope 3 shine for all!

[Lord_Mord]

Play PotD and never rest outside of taverns. That's the ways I do it. Problem solved.

[Sarakash]

I prefer Deadfires combat, mostly because I don´t need to hack my way through enemy group after enemy group. For me, it became meaningless and a detriment to the overall atmosphere and setting rather then an asset. Just to quote sentence which stuck with me: "Whenever you get to a section of your game which requires me to kill 10 or more people, stop for a second and consider wether it´s reinforcing the goal you are going for".  I also prefer deadfires more slow approach of combat.

 

On the other hand, Deadfire feels to easy for me it it´s current state. I just hope the change doesn´t include to add more enemies to an area, but to fine tune the game based on encounters. From what I could take away from the latest developer stream, the later is what´s going to happen and I welcome this approach.

 

I have to admit tho, I never played PoE 1 on PotD, veteran was the right balance for me as someone who likes a challenge, but is more focused on the story. Enemy distribution was the main reason I didn´t bother with PotD.

[whiskiz]

Important point that think needs be made is POE 1 was more for the tactical thinker and the casual player could tone level down to play. POE 2 more for causal player cause having no real limits and no progression in one fight to next you can throw everything then rest if need and throw everything in next fight no tactics no thought needed.

 

Now the important point we need casual players and we need the tactical thinkers. I myself am a tactical thinker and like to think and have limits to try get best out myself but I understand that a company and a franchise can not exist without casual player, games take money to make and tactical thinkers not majority of gamers. Without causal players we will lose games and franchises. As a tactical thinker its not fun cause only few games are made for us, most are just cheese fest for casual gamers with tricks.

 

I honestly don't see how POE 2 can be made challenging as no limits mean having to make really massive changes to game already out. Adding in more bad guys or other things not really going to make game of tactical choices and if we fudge it with bad idea we could make it unplayable for casual players and possibly kill franchise.

 

I hope that game can be balanced and  given time be better. I hope that it will be good for all types of players. I honestly don't think it going be perfect.

 

I think obsidian need think hard for POE 3 if they are going make it. I think they need option in game start that gives you choice of style 1 geared for tactical thinker and one for casual player. 

 

Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person. Most people not going want to admit I complete game on story mode only. Why would anyone want to admit that in world where people can be judging and nasty. I think therefore having a casual or tactical choice at start makes better sense both sets players can complete game on hardest level and feel good and not worry about been judged. It will also be better as your splitting the two groups apart enabling game shine for all. Remember lot of causal players just children and kids are very competitive.

 

As is one shine for tactical thinker and 2 shines for casual player. I truly hope 3 shine for all!

 

"I honestly don't see how POE 2 can be made challenging as no limits mean having to make really massive changes to game already out. Adding in more bad guys or other things not really going to make game of tactical choices and if we fudge it with bad idea we could make it unplayable for casual players and possibly kill franchise."

 

Um, this is what multiple difficulties are for.

 

There are 5 difficulty settings in Pillars.

 

"Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person."

 

I think that's neither a realistic thing, nor something that should be supported - sacrificing the entire rest of the playerbase and quality and depth of the game because:

 

"Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person."

 

The entire gaming industry is centered around them.

 

Let us at least have one thing. Just one difficulty.

Edited May 18, 2018 by whiskiz

[tela2k]

I prefer Deadfires combat, mostly because I don´t need to hack my way through enemy group after enemy group. For me, it became meaningless and a detriment to the overall atmosphere and setting rather then an asset. Just to quote sentence which stuck with me: "Whenever you get to a section of your game which requires me to kill 10 or more people, stop for a second and consider wether it´s reinforcing the goal you are going for".  I also prefer deadfires more slow approach of combat.

 

On the other hand, Deadfire feels to easy for me it it´s current state. I just hope the change doesn´t include to add more enemies to an area, but to fine tune the game based on encounters. From what I could take away from the latest developer stream, the later is what´s going to happen and I welcome this approach.

 

I have to admit tho, I never played PoE 1 on PotD, veteran was the right balance for me as someone who likes a challenge, but is more focused on the story. Enemy distribution was the main reason I didn´t bother with PotD.

 

They actually changed that a lot at some point. My first playthrough in 2015 I remember a lot of trash everywhere around PoE1, but felt like they had made some big changes to monster density somewhere between 1.0 -> 3.0. All playthroughs are PotD and I rarely felt in my most recent playthrough that there's too many enemies around. Or maybe yeah they could reduce the density even more and just make every encounter more interesting. It's just that filling an area with mobs is easy, designing an interesting encounter is a lot harder.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

 

Important point that think needs be made is POE 1 was more for the tactical thinker and the casual player could tone level down to play. POE 2 more for causal player cause having no real limits and no progression in one fight to next you can throw everything then rest if need and throw everything in next fight no tactics no thought needed.

 

Now the important point we need casual players and we need the tactical thinkers. I myself am a tactical thinker and like to think and have limits to try get best out myself but I understand that a company and a franchise can not exist without casual player, games take money to make and tactical thinkers not majority of gamers. Without causal players we will lose games and franchises. As a tactical thinker its not fun cause only few games are made for us, most are just cheese fest for casual gamers with tricks.

 

I honestly don't see how POE 2 can be made challenging as no limits mean having to make really massive changes to game already out. Adding in more bad guys or other things not really going to make game of tactical choices and if we fudge it with bad idea we could make it unplayable for casual players and possibly kill franchise.

 

I hope that game can be balanced and  given time be better. I hope that it will be good for all types of players. I honestly don't think it going be perfect.

 

I think obsidian need think hard for POE 3 if they are going make it. I think they need option in game start that gives you choice of style 1 geared for tactical thinker and one for casual player. 

 

Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person. Most people not going want to admit I complete game on story mode only. Why would anyone want to admit that in world where people can be judging and nasty. I think therefore having a casual or tactical choice at start makes better sense both sets players can complete game on hardest level and feel good and not worry about been judged. It will also be better as your splitting the two groups apart enabling game shine for all. Remember lot of causal players just children and kids are very competitive.

 

As is one shine for tactical thinker and 2 shines for casual player. I truly hope 3 shine for all!

 

"I honestly don't see how POE 2 can be made challenging as no limits mean having to make really massive changes to game already out. Adding in more bad guys or other things not really going to make game of tactical choices and if we fudge it with bad idea we could make it unplayable for casual players and possibly kill franchise."

 

Um, this is what multiple difficulties are for.

 

There are 5 difficulty settings in Pillars.

 

"Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person."

 

I think that's neither a realistic thing (most casual players i know or hear of, are quite happy on their normal/hard maybe vet etc) nor something that should be supported, sacrificing the entire rest of the playerbase because:

 

""Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person."

 

 

Yes there are 5 levels difficulty and for lot of people played PotD on pillars 1 non of those difficulties are difficult cause the mechanics been changed to more causal gamers style that's my point 1 is more tactical and 2 more causal based. We need system for pillars 3 that caters to both groups. That's what this whole thread is about causal gamers like combat in pillars 2 and tactical thinkers like combat from 1.

 

Neither side is wrong and I hope pillars 3 will be happy places for all. Point is take best bits from pillars 1 combat add in some good changes needed for tactical players and for causal players take best of combat from pillars 2 add in some good changes it needs to then give the choice at game start either choose tactical combat or causal combat style and everyone's happy.

 

Adding more bad guys to each combat not making game harder or tactical just thin out enemy by using choke points.

[lonelornfr]

My most memorable moment in POE1 was on my first playthrough in the endless path. There are xaurips guarding a huge pit on level 1 or 2, i killed them and then i had the brilliant idea to just jump in the pit. Now i'm on level 5, all my characters are injured, i have no idea where the exit is or what kind of monsters i can expect and i have only 1 camping supply.

That was stressful and a dozen playthroughs later, that's what i remember the most.

 

When all your most powerfull abilities are per encounter, and you can rest pretty much anywhere and as many times as you need, it takes away something from the game.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

My most memorable moment in POE1 was on my first playthrough in the endless path. There are xaurips guarding a huge pit on level 1 or 2, i killed them and then i had the brilliant idea to just jump in the pit. Now i'm on level 5, all my characters are injured, i have no idea where the exit is or what kind of monsters i can expect and i have only 1 camping supply.

That was stressful and a dozen playthroughs later, that's what i remember the most.

 

When all your most powerfull abilities are per encounter, and you can rest pretty much anywhere and as many times as you need, it takes away something from the game.

 

I remember reaching that thinking to myself what's worse that can happen and jumping in realise only had 2 camping supplies left. So yes I totally get what you mean and for me pillars 1 combat is better as yes makes fun memories.

 

But I do understand casual gamers to thinking it boring to be limited wanting use full powers all the time. I also get that for some players they like long interesting story but don't have time to manage every tiny aspect of combat.

 

that's why think we need combat choice at start which gives either tactical combat or casual combat both sides are happy then.

[Sarakash]

 

Important point that think needs be made is POE 1 was more for the tactical thinker and the casual player could tone level down to play. POE 2 more for causal player cause having no real limits and no progression in one fight to next you can throw everything then rest if need and throw everything in next fight no tactics no thought needed.

 

Now the important point we need casual players and we need the tactical thinkers. I myself am a tactical thinker and like to think and have limits to try get best out myself but I understand that a company and a franchise can not exist without casual player, games take money to make and tactical thinkers not majority of gamers. Without causal players we will lose games and franchises. As a tactical thinker its not fun cause only few games are made for us, most are just cheese fest for casual gamers with tricks.

 

I honestly don't see how POE 2 can be made challenging as no limits mean having to make really massive changes to game already out. Adding in more bad guys or other things not really going to make game of tactical choices and if we fudge it with bad idea we could make it unplayable for casual players and possibly kill franchise.

 

I hope that game can be balanced and  given time be better. I hope that it will be good for all types of players. I honestly don't think it going be perfect.

 

I think obsidian need think hard for POE 3 if they are going make it. I think they need option in game start that gives you choice of style 1 geared for tactical thinker and one for casual player. 

 

Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person. Most people not going want to admit I complete game on story mode only. Why would anyone want to admit that in world where people can be judging and nasty. I think therefore having a casual or tactical choice at start makes better sense both sets players can complete game on hardest level and feel good and not worry about been judged. It will also be better as your splitting the two groups apart enabling game shine for all. Remember lot of causal players just children and kids are very competitive.

 

As is one shine for tactical thinker and 2 shines for casual player. I truly hope 3 shine for all!

 

"I honestly don't see how POE 2 can be made challenging as no limits mean having to make really massive changes to game already out. Adding in more bad guys or other things not really going to make game of tactical choices and if we fudge it with bad idea we could make it unplayable for casual players and possibly kill franchise."

 

Um, this is what multiple difficulties are for.

 

There are 5 difficulty settings in Pillars.

 

"Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person."

 

I think that's neither a realistic thing, nor something that should be supported - sacrificing the entire rest of the playerbase and quality and depth of the game because:

 

"Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person."

 

The entire gaming industry is centered around them.

 

Let us at least have one thing. Just one difficulty.

 

 

I have to agree at least to some degree. The overall problem in my opinion is that a lot of people are confusing  beeing able to beat a game on higher difficulties with an overall worth of a person (casual and hardcore gamers alike). But beeing able to beat any game on higher difficulties doesn´t reflect on ones overall worth or intelligence, but on a particular skillset which is needed to do so. It´s a skewd perspective.

 

In a lot of cases, it comes down to two things in my opionion: Determination and time. The later affects a lot of people, at least people I use to talk about games. Most of them have demanding jobs, families or other hobbies which keep them ocupied. Those people don´t need to or rather haven´t the time to finish a game on harder difficulties.

 

This is what difficulty settings are for. It´s the most or rather the best option a developer has to be as most inclusive as possible.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

 

 

Important point that think needs be made is POE 1 was more for the tactical thinker and the casual player could tone level down to play. POE 2 more for causal player cause having no real limits and no progression in one fight to next you can throw everything then rest if need and throw everything in next fight no tactics no thought needed.

 

Now the important point we need casual players and we need the tactical thinkers. I myself am a tactical thinker and like to think and have limits to try get best out myself but I understand that a company and a franchise can not exist without casual player, games take money to make and tactical thinkers not majority of gamers. Without causal players we will lose games and franchises. As a tactical thinker its not fun cause only few games are made for us, most are just cheese fest for casual gamers with tricks.

 

I honestly don't see how POE 2 can be made challenging as no limits mean having to make really massive changes to game already out. Adding in more bad guys or other things not really going to make game of tactical choices and if we fudge it with bad idea we could make it unplayable for casual players and possibly kill franchise.

 

I hope that game can be balanced and  given time be better. I hope that it will be good for all types of players. I honestly don't think it going be perfect.

 

I think obsidian need think hard for POE 3 if they are going make it. I think they need option in game start that gives you choice of style 1 geared for tactical thinker and one for casual player. 

 

Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person. Most people not going want to admit I complete game on story mode only. Why would anyone want to admit that in world where people can be judging and nasty. I think therefore having a casual or tactical choice at start makes better sense both sets players can complete game on hardest level and feel good and not worry about been judged. It will also be better as your splitting the two groups apart enabling game shine for all. Remember lot of causal players just children and kids are very competitive.

 

As is one shine for tactical thinker and 2 shines for casual player. I truly hope 3 shine for all!

 

"I honestly don't see how POE 2 can be made challenging as no limits mean having to make really massive changes to game already out. Adding in more bad guys or other things not really going to make game of tactical choices and if we fudge it with bad idea we could make it unplayable for casual players and possibly kill franchise."

 

Um, this is what multiple difficulties are for.

 

There are 5 difficulty settings in Pillars.

 

"Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person."

 

I think that's neither a realistic thing, nor something that should be supported - sacrificing the entire rest of the playerbase and quality and depth of the game because:

 

"Even a casual player wants to complete game on hardest level, no one wants feel inferior to another person."

 

The entire gaming industry is centered around them.

 

Let us at least have one thing. Just one difficulty.

 

 

I have to agree at least to some degree. The overall problem in my opinion is that a lot of people are confusing  beeing able to beat a game on higher difficulties with an overall worth of a person (casual and hardcore gamers alike). But beeing able to beat any game on higher difficulties doesn´t reflect on ones overall worth or intelligence, but on a particular skillset which is needed to do so. It´s a skewd perspective.

 

In a lot of cases, it comes down to two things in my opionion: Determination and time. The later affects a lot of people, at least people I use to talk about games. Most of them have demanding jobs, families or other hobbies which keep them ocupied. Those people don´t need to or rather haven´t the time to finish a game on harder difficulties.

 

This is what difficulty settings are for. It´s the most or rather the best option a developer has to be as most inclusive as possible.

 

 

I agree what difficulty person finishes game on doesn't matter. unfortunately achievements seem be helping push mind sets of people trying achieve hardest settings and getting all the achievements, this does spoil games for people cause can lead to insults and one upping others and lot of what best path get the achievements rather then enjoy game.

 

I mean more for it to be about casual style and tactical style so all are more happy. Pillars 1 was more tactical in combat and 2 currently feels more casual in combat I think simply having option in start the game give either tactical combat like pillars 1 or casual combat like pillars 2 will make more gamers happy, so not so much about the difficulty can still have levels of difficulty but more a choice in combat style. Also having this choice should allow casual players to complete game on harder levels to. Currently in Pillars 1 PotD really only for those that like manage every little thing so only really for tactically minded players. 

[Farsha]

Most of the issues you described are not even actual combat mechanics.
Deadfire combat is focused lot more on using abilities and spells, in POE you still autoattacked a lot. Here you can acually have fun microing abilities constantly. Yea it's more power fantasy now, since you can exloit high lvl abilities often, but that is also lot more fun.
Also movement abilites are lot better in Deadfire mainly escape is super fun to use just to jump around.
For me combat mechanics itself are vastly improved.

 

Resting in POE was cumbersome you did not conserve abilities or health, that is a lie. You just had to travel back to town like an idiiot when you had to use them. That mechanic was not really all that good.
Per encounter abilities allow you to go crazy in each encounter. How is that dull, when you can use the system in it's whole potentioal every fight?
Not to metion that most people just did no ever take per rest abilites on lvl-up, because they knew the would not use them often.
New system is better combat is more active, more mobile, more varried, and bit of power fantasy.
Per rest stuff and camping was waste of time and made the combat way to restricted.

 

Yes the game is too easy (Obsidian confirme Veteran and POTD are not balanced yet), but restricting combat will not make the game better, it will make it just more dull. Wasn't that you orginal problem? They need to improve Ai srcipting to use abilities better and to focus targets better.



 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Farsha

[Sarakash]

 

 

I agree what difficulty person finishes game on doesn't matter. unfortunately achievements seem be helping push mind sets of people trying achieve hardest settings and getting all the achievements, this does spoil games for people cause can lead to insults and one upping others and lot of what best path get the achievements rather then enjoy game.

 

I mean more for it to be about casual style and tactical style so all are more happy. Pillars 1 was more tactical in combat and 2 currently feels more casual in combat I think simply having option in start the game give either tactical combat like pillars 1 or casual combat like pillars 2 will make more gamers happy, so not so much about the difficulty can still have levels of difficulty but more a choice in combat style. Also having this choice should allow casual players to complete game on harder levels to. Currently in Pillars 1 PotD really only for those that like manage every little thing so only really for tactically minded players.

 

I agree with your assessment on achievements in regard of helping to form certain behavior patterns or habits rather. It´ s a really good point to make.

 

I disagree on designing the highest difficulty around the lowest common denominator though. ~Obligatory Dark Souls reference ~ I love the Dark Souls series. One (but not the only) draw for me and many others I guess is the "hard, but fair" approach regarding the difficulty. It is an integral part to the feel of the game and tuning it down would dimish it`s beauty as a whole.

 

In an ideal world, the highest difficutly should be for those who are determined enough to pull through without the need to constantly brag about it aka the "Git Gud" mentallity. On the other hand, people who aren´t wiling or able to do so should stop thinking that it diminishes their worth. It´s a problem in introperspection, not in design philosophy.

 

It´s the same for almost all activities availabe to humankind. It´s likely not to be the fastest runner on the world or the best soccer player or whatever hobby one might persue. That doesn´t mean that you cannot or should not strive to become better, but the constant need to beeing "the best" or "among the best" is something everyone should reflect on in my opinion.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Sarakash

[Dorftek]

Do it like xcom. A death is a death and it's permanent. U can always hire more mercs. If the watcher dies it's game over. I'd really love that. THAT would make every fight feel more exciting

[tela2k]

I agree what difficulty person finishes game on doesn't matter. unfortunately achievements seem be helping push mind sets of people trying achieve hardest settings and getting all the achievements, this does spoil games for people cause can lead to insults and one upping others and lot of what best path get the achievements rather then enjoy game.

 

I mean more for it to be about casual style and tactical style so all are more happy. Pillars 1 was more tactical in combat and 2 currently feels more casual in combat I think simply having option in start the game give either tactical combat like pillars 1 or casual combat like pillars 2 will make more gamers happy, so not so much about the difficulty can still have levels of difficulty but more a choice in combat style. Also having this choice should allow casual players to complete game on harder levels to. Currently in Pillars 1 PotD really only for those that like manage every little thing so only really for tactically minded players. 

 

 

If tactical means having to save your scarce resources then:

1. The per rest saving in PoE didn't really matter all that much in the first place. Most fights in the game you can do just fine with per encounter abilities, especially after you get masteries. And when you did have to use your abilities there is such a massive difference between party power that you can just absolutely crush any fight you want to if you just empty your stores. What it does do it allows for a greater discrepancy between encounters, the toughest fights can be ten times tougher than a normal fight in the same dungeon, just because your party can peak to incredible power if necessary. But the price for that is one camping supply, of which you have two, and every dungeon is filled with those. Not very tactical.

 

2. The health/endurance system, I already said this earlier in this thread, but it doesn't do anything. Forces you to rest at some point maybe after using dangerous implement for too long. Costs you one camping supply. No matter what you'll still rest before every boss fight since you'll want to have that +10/15 ACC. Also not very tactical.

 

 

Does casual mean getting to use your abilities in every fight instead of trying to win fights without using / minimal usage of your abilities? Gameplay wise as a player I know which one I'd choose, and if that makes me a casual then I'm a happy casual. The only problem is how well they'll be able to differentiate encounters from each other since you use the same abilities every time. In the first game it was very binary, you either used no/minimal abilities or you threw everything and the kitchen sink at them.

[Littlebob86]

I too am undecided.. But there's one fight in a crypt that's totally different and awesome as I never expected the enemies coming! That is more of the kind of fights they need, rather than the straight up fights..

 

Although the difficulty is way to easy now on veteran.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

Firstly @sarakesh My idea not make PotD to easy. I will do my idea in more graphical way to show what I meaning

 

Game start 

Tactical combat like pillars 1 limited rest and limited uses on abilities with improvements by asking tactical players what they improve and iked about pillars 2

 

or

 

Casual combat unlimited rest and ability uses and improvements casual player wants.

 

Difficulty 

 

Story mode

 

easy

 

normal

 

veteran

 

Potd

 

That's what I mean by having that one extra option PotD can be made run for both casual player or tactical player not make it one level fits all.

 

@Tela2k yes tactical would be more like pillars 1 limited rest and limited abilities usage, casual would be more freedom on rest and abilities like pillars 2, this should  make it more fun for everyone as keeps all sides happy.

[lonelornfr]

 

I agree what difficulty person finishes game on doesn't matter. unfortunately achievements seem be helping push mind sets of people trying achieve hardest settings and getting all the achievements, this does spoil games for people cause can lead to insults and one upping others and lot of what best path get the achievements rather then enjoy game.

 

I mean more for it to be about casual style and tactical style so all are more happy. Pillars 1 was more tactical in combat and 2 currently feels more casual in combat I think simply having option in start the game give either tactical combat like pillars 1 or casual combat like pillars 2 will make more gamers happy, so not so much about the difficulty can still have levels of difficulty but more a choice in combat style. Also having this choice should allow casual players to complete game on harder levels to. Currently in Pillars 1 PotD really only for those that like manage every little thing so only really for tactically minded players. 

 

 

If tactical means having to save your scarce resources then:

1. The per rest saving in PoE didn't really matter all that much in the first place. Most fights in the game you can do just fine with per encounter abilities, especially after you get masteries. And when you did have to use your abilities there is such a massive difference between party power that you can just absolutely crush any fight you want to if you just empty your stores. What it does do it allows for a greater discrepancy between encounters, the toughest fights can be ten times tougher than a normal fight in the same dungeon, just because your party can peak to incredible power if necessary. But the price for that is one camping supply, of which you have two, and every dungeon is filled with those. Not very tactical.

 

2. The health/endurance system, I already said this earlier in this thread, but it doesn't do anything. Forces you to rest at some point maybe after using dangerous implement for too long. Costs you one camping supply. No matter what you'll still rest before every boss fight since you'll want to have that +10/15 ACC. Also not very tactical.

 

 

Does casual mean getting to use your abilities in every fight instead of trying to win fights without using / minimal usage of your abilities? Gameplay wise as a player I know which one I'd choose, and if that makes me a casual then I'm a happy casual. The only problem is how well they'll be able to differentiate encounters from each other since you use the same abilities every time. In the first game it was very binary, you either used no/minimal abilities or you threw everything and the kitchen sink at them.

 

 

You have a point but only if the game doesn't force you out of your comfort zone.

 

If you can go back to the tarven any time you want, or if you find enough camping supplies everywhere that resting is a non issue, then you're absolutely right.

 

But if the game takes those options from you at certain points, like if you enter a dungeon and you can't go back the way you came and have to find another exit, then it's very different. You have to start thinking about resources management and it becomes a lot more stressful. At least it is the first time around.

[tela2k]

-snip-

 

@Tela2k yes tactical would be more like pillars 1 limited rest and limited abilities usage, casual would be more freedom on rest and abilities like pillars 2, this should  make it more fun for everyone as keeps all sides happy.

 

There are a lot of ideas for making Deadifire's challenge to suit different people here 

If they add Berath's Curses, or call them whatever you want, then surely there's going to be something to make resources more scarce in the game, less empowers, maybe you can only rest on the boat as has been suggested, whatever. I don't think your two ability resource systems wish is ever going to be fulfilled unfortunately, since it's most likely just way too much work. I don't know if the devs read that thread but adding my ideas there at least made me feel a bit better.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

 

 

I agree what difficulty person finishes game on doesn't matter. unfortunately achievements seem be helping push mind sets of people trying achieve hardest settings and getting all the achievements, this does spoil games for people cause can lead to insults and one upping others and lot of what best path get the achievements rather then enjoy game.

 

I mean more for it to be about casual style and tactical style so all are more happy. Pillars 1 was more tactical in combat and 2 currently feels more casual in combat I think simply having option in start the game give either tactical combat like pillars 1 or casual combat like pillars 2 will make more gamers happy, so not so much about the difficulty can still have levels of difficulty but more a choice in combat style. Also having this choice should allow casual players to complete game on harder levels to. Currently in Pillars 1 PotD really only for those that like manage every little thing so only really for tactically minded players. 

 

 

If tactical means having to save your scarce resources then:

1. The per rest saving in PoE didn't really matter all that much in the first place. Most fights in the game you can do just fine with per encounter abilities, especially after you get masteries. And when you did have to use your abilities there is such a massive difference between party power that you can just absolutely crush any fight you want to if you just empty your stores. What it does do it allows for a greater discrepancy between encounters, the toughest fights can be ten times tougher than a normal fight in the same dungeon, just because your party can peak to incredible power if necessary. But the price for that is one camping supply, of which you have two, and every dungeon is filled with those. Not very tactical.

 

2. The health/endurance system, I already said this earlier in this thread, but it doesn't do anything. Forces you to rest at some point maybe after using dangerous implement for too long. Costs you one camping supply. No matter what you'll still rest before every boss fight since you'll want to have that +10/15 ACC. Also not very tactical.

 

 

Does casual mean getting to use your abilities in every fight instead of trying to win fights without using / minimal usage of your abilities? Gameplay wise as a player I know which one I'd choose, and if that makes me a casual then I'm a happy casual. The only problem is how well they'll be able to differentiate encounters from each other since you use the same abilities every time. In the first game it was very binary, you either used no/minimal abilities or you threw everything and the kitchen sink at them.

 

 

You have a point but only if the game doesn't force you out of your comfort zone.

 

If you can go back to the tarven any time you want, or if you find enough camping supplies everywhere that resting is a non issue, then you're absolutely right.

 

But if the game takes those options from you at certain points, like if you enter a dungeon and you can't go back the way you came and have to find another exit, then it's very different. You have to start thinking about resources management and it becomes a lot more stressful. At least it is the first time around.

 

 

Thanks good point 

 

That's why think having choice between tactical style and causal style is important and then having level choice story mode to PotD enables much more choice find exact balance for all people and doesn't limit people either.

 

You can choose style and difficulty therefore always be comfortable/stressed as much you want enjoy.

 

Also stops highest difficulty been for only those that like manage every little thing.

 

If someone is achievement and difficulty loving person they can please there ego.

 

Tactical mind fun is beating those limits that are in place but yes has be done in levels of difficulty so not only for 1% of gamers.

Casual player like use everything and doesn't want lots of limits and maybe having back track for supplies.

Game can cater for both if done in right way and stop lot fighting between players want game go one way while another set of players want it go in different direction.

[cokane]

 

Hell the hack 'n slash genre is already a testament to per encounter combat, that not being arbitrarily restricted on your character is much better and more fun gameplay. As well as almost any other game and genre ever made, for that matter.

 

....

 

 

Apparently only the per rest system can be challenging, have you scraping the bottom of the barrel and generally make for some epic stories. Restriction = great gameplay.

 

You guys are just too set in your way, just plain refusing to see the logic of how not only is everything of per rest attainable with per encounter (when the game has actually been balanced) but that it's much less restrictive, fun and just flat out better.

 

Which is unfortunate.

 

 

I cannot disagree more with this post. First of all, hack and slash games rely upon testing the player's skill in a realtime setting. However, realtime with pause is not the same thing. Realtime with pause is designed to test thoughtful tactics and strategy, it is essentially a less tedious way of having turn-based combat. Hack and slash games are about testing quick reflexes and quick thinking. This is a significant thing to misunderstand.

 

Second, restriction can indeed equal great gameplay. If all the pawns on a chessboard could move like a queen, the game would not have the same level of strategic depth and never would have become a timeless classic. Games are *all* about restricting the player. Too much restriction or too little restriction isn't a virtuous characteristic of a game in of itself. Whether restrictions or freedoms work for the game is what matters. Again, this is a significant thing to misunderstand.

Edited May 18, 2018 by cokane

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

 

-snip-

 

@Tela2k yes tactical would be more like pillars 1 limited rest and limited abilities usage, casual would be more freedom on rest and abilities like pillars 2, this should  make it more fun for everyone as keeps all sides happy.

 

There are a lot of ideas for making Deadifire's challenge to suit different people here 

If they add Berath's Curses, or call them whatever you want, then surely there's going to be something to make resources more scarce in the game, less empowers, maybe you can only rest on the boat as has been suggested, whatever. I don't think your two ability resource systems wish is ever going to be fulfilled unfortunately, since it's most likely just way too much work. I don't know if the devs read that thread but adding my ideas there at least made me feel a bit better.

 

 

I see your point did say earlier might be that my idea only work for Pillars 3 as games already out and my idea might require to much work. Thanks for posting that thread might be good idea post my idea there. As for devs I imagine if idea was really good lot people liked it they probably read it. So guess upto people choose what they like fight for it..

 

Thanks to all that replied to my idea helped me think about it and make it clearer.