Asking for a favor from the Hivemind

[Johannes]

Bullshit. Protection From Magic Weapons lasts 4 rounds, not enough to last a full combat. And recasting protections did happen also after stuff getting dispelled. Or with Invisibility for example, quite simply because you become visible once you attack. And mind you, both you and the enemy is casting/dispelling/recasting the buffs. Though SCS makes those things much more obvious than the vanilla game which you can just blast through with a method of your choosing.

Invisibility isn't a hard counter, SCS isn't an actual game (Sawyer is in fact not making a spiritual successor to a mod), and I don't think I cast protection from magic weapons once.

So is having an unchallenging AI a design goal of PoE?

 

[GordonHalfman]

I'm not sure what's meant by "hard counter", it's either "X is completely sufficient to counter Y" or "X is completely necessary to counter Y". I'm not sure why the latter would be considered a good thing really. The former I have no problem with, there's no reason why counters of that kind can't be tactical and interesting, usually if they are balanced some kind of opportunity cost. Which was sometimes lacking in BG2 and high level D&D in general. The opportunity cost issue is sort of what the pre-buffing change in PoE is supposed to address, and I think it does work albeit in a rather heavy handed way.

 

[GordonHalfman]

I think it's Deflection, not Damage Reduction: http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Mirrored_Image

The principle is the same - the caster becomes very hard to hit but becomes progressively less so as he's attacked. Actually, the mirror images in the classic spell are probably easier to hit (though I'm not sure what their AC actually is, trying to look this up).

The way mirror image seems to work in PoE is the deflection bonus drops by 4 for each attack, even if it misses. This might be a bug but I'm not sure it matters if the "image" is meant to disappear on a graze anyway, since misses aren't common.

In any case I think the actual miss chance for the caster is significantly worse in the PoE version of the spell unless you have a large deflection advantage to start with, which is unlikely. The principle behind the spell isn't necessarily bad but I think it needs some good old halving and doubling.

 

[Infinitron]

The way mirror image seems to work in PoE is the deflection bonus drops by 4 for each attack, even if it misses.

Is that so? Might be worth reporting as a bug if it hasn't been, just to see if it's intended behavior or not.

 

[tuluse]

So is having an unchallenging AI a design goal of PoE?

Probably. The design goals are for people who played the games vanilla.

 

[Visperas]

IMO soft counters are good, almost essential to "force" the player to change tactics once in a while but what do hard counter have to offer? You either have it or you don't, if you don't, you need to go get it. Usually, that means go to x shop and buy the y scroll. That's not an exciting endeavour by any means. I don't get why some people like them so much. I'd be very much in favor of designing one or two hard counter encounters per game where getting the counter meant an awesome quest.

 

[Lhynn]

IMO soft counters are good, almost essential to "force" the player to change tactics once in a while but what do hard counter have to offer? You either have it or you don't, if you don't, you need to go get it. Usually, that means go to x shop and buy the y scroll. That's not an exciting endeavour by any means. I don't get why some people like them so much. I'd be very much in favor of designing one or two hard counter encounters per game where getting the counter meant an awesome quest.

Adventuring is all about preparation mate.

 

[Johannes]

IMO soft counters are good, almost essential to "force" the player to change tactics once in a while but what do hard counter have to offer? You either have it or you don't, if you don't, you need to go get it. Usually, that means go to x shop and buy the y scroll. That's not an exciting endeavour by any means. I don't get why some people like them so much. I'd be very much in favor of designing one or two hard counter encounters per game where getting the counter meant an awesome quest.

No, that's not what it means. Just because you can get total immunity to X, doesn't mean it's necessarily mandatory to beat a certain enemy. Or that an enemy would turn into a pushover if you get a relevant immunity, it'll mean they're forced to switch to another type of attack/spell or dispel your immunity somehow.

 

[Visperas]

IMO soft counters are good, almost essential to "force" the player to change tactics once in a while but what do hard counter have to offer? You either have it or you don't, if you don't, you need to go get it. Usually, that means go to x shop and buy the y scroll. That's not an exciting endeavour by any means. I don't get why some people like them so much. I'd be very much in favor of designing one or two hard counter encounters per game where getting the counter meant an awesome quest.

No, that's not what it means. Just because you can get total immunity to X, doesn't mean it's necessarily mandatory to beat a certain enemy. Or that an enemy would turn into a pushover if you get a relevant immunity, it'll mean they're forced to switch to another type of attack/spell or dispel your immunity somehow.

But that's what soft counters are, right? I like that. I think hard counters mean there's only one precise object/spell that works.

Also, preparation being important usually works with me but probably more in line with soft than hard counters.

 

[Lhynn]

But that's what soft counters are, right? I like that. I think hard counters mean there's only one precise object/spell that works.

Also, preparation being important usually works with me but probably more in line with soft than hard counters.

Soft counters would be akin to increased resistances, hard counters would be immunities. Soft counters are banal shit boring, only way they are interesting is if they are really really high, but by that point the difference between that and an immunity is cosmetic at best.

Tell me one thing, did you ever bother carrying all those potions of 11% resistance to poison or that ring of 6% fire resistance in Skyrim (or any game with similar mechanics)? On the other hand objects that gave 100% resistance to something usually tend to stay in my inventory, just in case, even if i never use them, because thats how good adventurers do.

 

[Weirdstuffinspace]

Asking a favor from the dev team: Just fucking start over.

 

[AN4RCHID]

 

[Visperas]

But that's what soft counters are, right? I like that. I think hard counters mean there's only one precise object/spell that works.

Also, preparation being important usually works with me but probably more in line with soft than hard counters.

Soft counters would be akin to increased resistances, hard counters would be immunities. Soft counters are banal shit boring, only way they are interesting is if they are really really high, but by that point the difference between that and an immunity is cosmetic at best.

Tell me one thing, did you ever bother carrying all those potions of 11% resistance to poison or that ring of 6% fire resistance in Skyrim (or any game with similar mechanics)? On the other hand objects that gave 100% resistance to something usually tend to stay in my inventory, just in case, even if i never use them, because thats how good adventurers do.

I kinda agree. In my mind, a soft counter are really high resistances and things as such. Increased resistances to some things and lower to others is simply what every game should do. I loathe the 6% resistances from randomized loot and itemizations but an almost mandatory need of a 100% resistance to overcome an obstacle and simply having to go to a shop to get it is not really fun either.

 

[Lhynn]

I kinda agree. In my mind, a soft counter are really high resistances and things as such. Increased resistances to some things and lower to others is simply what every game should do. I loathe the 6% resistances from randomized loot and itemizations but an almost mandatory need of a 100% resistance to overcome an obstacle and simply having to go to a shop to get it is not really fun either.

Then get it before you go out. Plus hard counters doesnt mean the encounter is unbeatable, it just means that X approach to said encounter is not valid. Think of something else, unless your character is a 1 trick pony it should never be an issue, just try something else.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Asking a favor from the dev team: Just fucking start over.

wait wait wait, I know how to respond to this one in Codex fashion!

Joined:
Sep 20, 2014

 

[Roguey]

When you quoted my hard counters section, all you did was just find the J.E. Sawyer quote that most closely relates to it and paste it, without actually considering what I was saying.

I don't care why it is the way it is (and I already know why it is the way it is), I am saying that the way it is isn't fun after playtesting it.

What you were saying was wrong. You also can't see the forest for the trees. Good thing Josh Sawyer is a big picture guy. Sometimes a bit too farsighted at times.

 

[Johannes]

When you quoted my hard counters section, all you did was just find the J.E. Sawyer quote that most closely relates to it and paste it, without actually considering what I was saying.

I don't care why it is the way it is (and I already know why it is the way it is), I am saying that the way it is isn't fun after playtesting it.

What you were saying was wrong. You also can't see the forest for the trees. Good thing Josh Sawyer is a big picture guy. Sometimes a bit too farsighted at times.

Let's see that quote again.

Hard counters are tactical, actually. They require you to acknowledge that you need to counter something, and then you have to counter it via whichever method. That is tactics. Sometimes they can be implemented poorly and there is always a best way of dealing with something, and it is always better if there is more than one way to handle a situation.

I don't overly care that there are no hard counters in Pillars of Eternity, but the lack of them and the current implementations has certain negative effects on the gameplay compared to IE using them.

Save or die effects are really easy to abuse offensively (as a player) and they require either luck or hard counters to defend against as a player -- neither of which are very interesting, tactically.
...
Hard counters in a single-player RPG are obnoxious, IMO because either you're prepped for them or you aren't. If you aren't, you reload and voila, you are. If you prepared save-or-die tactic that the enemy is immune to, you're hard countered through no fault of your own. If not, you steamroll the enemy. Or you do what many players do, which is reload until the primary target fails its save and the entire tactical challenge of the fight is rendered trivial/pointless.
...
I believe this does make the game better. It's not second-guessing; it's simple observation. If players can use save-or-die effects against an enemy as a tactic that has a 10% chance of success, many would rather reload repeatedly until the target drops than develop adaptive tactics to deal with the specific threats posed by the enemy. Why should a player bother attempting to adapt when they have a big hammer with a 10% chance of ending the fight each time it's swung? We give them the tools. But we don't have to include save-or-die effects, and the game isn't made worse by doing so, IMO. Luck is an element of conflict resolution, but the larger element in A/D&D as levels rise is, of course, BONUSES. In 3E/3.5, saves progress in such a way that at higher levels, many classes have virtually no hope of making saves against their weak save categories and it can be extremely difficult to shore up against the numerical disadvantage. When the effect is a save-or-die (or equivalent), it can immediately remove the character from combat. If the saves are hopelessly improbable, the solution becomes a hard counter (like Death Ward) which typically relies on post-reload metagaming to make the deadly effect completely impotent. Even in tabletop, where reload is not an option, the virtual absence of save-or-die effects from 4E was never missed by our gaming groups in over 2 years of play and two different campaigns (albeit one much longer than the other).

Sawyer has spoken, thus it is so.

Sensuki quote here talks about hard counters. Sawyer quote here talks about save-or-die effects most of all, only mentioning hard counters in relation to those. So yeah your quotation is totally off the mark, it's not relevant here at all.

I haven't really seen anyone clamor to bring save-or-die effects back actually. I'm sure someone has, but it's a very small minority compared to the people wishing for more tactical hard counters.

 

[Bester]

Activating and deactivating various modal abilities is a kind of pre-buffing.

Yeah, just like swapping main weapon to secondary weapon is kind of pre-buffing. Cool story.

The IE games were always "limited" RPGs, where you basically either 1) clicked on dialogue options or 2) fought battles. IMO the pickpocket ability was an attempt to add some "simulation flair"

Those good old days when people attempted things, knowing they can't bring you perfection. The lost knowledge now it seems. It's so good that they're not attempting anything anymore, such improvement.

 

[Lhynn]

Volourn has, in away i can understand why youd want save-or-die effects. They are intimidating, they demand and preparation to face them and in party based games you may not have enough protections to go around, so you have to thread with care and try to avoid exposing those you couldnt afford to protect. In single character RPGs they are often a bad idea, but in team based games they can give depth to areas and enemies and provide an interesting challenge.

 

[Sensuki]

Classic Roguey not reading what people are saying and just pasting a Sawyer quote. Obviously since not having played the beta, has no idea what I'm talking about.

 

[Infinitron]

Those good old days when people attempted things, knowing they can't bring you perfection. The lost knowledge now it seems. It's so good that they're not attempting anything anymore, such improvement.

Larian attempted. They had over 3 years to do it - just like Bioware did when they made Baldur's Gate. Lucky them.

It may be that ultimately, a lot of the issues people have with games like Wasteland 2 and Pillars of Eternity are the inevitable result of demanding 4-year development cycle results from 2.5-year development cycle games

 

[Sensuki]

Besides probably sub-par Area design (Looots of Area Designers, probably not many of them IE players), I honestly doubt there'll be anything wrong with the content side of the game.

 

[tuluse]

Besides probably sub-par Area design (Looots of Area Designers, probably not many of them IE players), I honestly doubt there'll be anything wrong with the content side of the game.

You don't remember all the complaining about funneled story points and *completely* open world?

 

[Bester]

Those good old days when people attempted things, knowing they can't bring you perfection. The lost knowledge now it seems. It's so good that they're not attempting anything anymore, such improvement.

Larian attempted. They had over 3 years to do it - just like Bioware did when they made Baldur's Gate. Lucky them.

It may be that ultimately, a lot of the issues people have with games like Wasteland 2 and Pillars of Eternity are the inevitable result of demanding 4-year development cycle results from 2.5-year development cycle games

1) The programming part of making games is much less time consuming than it used to be. Maybe not twice less consuming, but 1.5 times - certainly. The rest can be outsourced to professionals to speed things up too. And there you have it - 2 years instead of 3. Pillars of Eternity development - 2 years and a half. And no stealing??? That's a clear DECLINE to me.

2) This incessent praise for Divinity, my god. Imagine Divinity coming out in 2000 with appropriate graphics for those days. It would've been just another mediocre-shit rpg that people would hardly notice. It would have had zero impact and would've been forgotten a few months later. It would've had nothing on Nox, and Nox is now basically forgotten. See where it leaves Divinity?
Of course now when RPGs are inexistent, Divinity receives praise. Just like VtmB didn't receive any praise because back in 2004 everyone thought that a new baldur's gate was going to come out every year and that RPGs were still alive. As far as I'm concerned, Divinity is mediocre shit and can't be used as an example of something good. I rate it like this because I don't have problems with memory and can still remember what good games are supposed to do to you.

 

[Sensuki]

You don't remember all the complaining about funneled story points and *completely* open world?

I remember posting that I thought it was going to be funneled story points, and it is. There are three of them. Pretty typical of Obsidian games and not out of place for the Infinity Engine games. I'm not 100% sure that Wilderness Areas will be plot-gated, but I'm almost certain. For instance it doesn't appear like you'll be able to go to the Dyrford until sometime during Chapter 2, because as soon as you arrive there, they basically assume you've come from Defiance Bay (which you have).

That's probably Josh's answer to making sure that players can't do all the content in one Act/Chapter and be overleveled, but yeah the downside is less explorative freedom.

After seeing 80% of the maps in the game, I now know what my preference for expansion type definitely is, too - TotSC style.