DraQ
Arcane
Can't break what's already broken.Swen, what are you trying to tell us?
Makes sense.
Can't break what's already broken.Swen, what are you trying to tell us?
they're retardedI have seen everyone and their mothers shit-talk the armor system, but I can't understand why.
It encourages damage stacking and it denies you the CC they gave out like candy. Pure damage is the only solution to any combat encounter.I can't understand the widespread hatred for this specific detail. I need someone to enlighten me on this one.
Generally I agree on justifying everything with the retardedness of people (myself included), but there must be something behind the rampant hatred for D:OS 2 armor system.they're retardedI have seen everyone and their mothers shit-talk the armor system, but I can't understand why.
They're upset that they can't just CC everything immediately in the first round like in D:OS1Generally I agree on justifying everything with the retardedness of people (myself included), but there must be something behind the rampant hatred for D:OS 2 armor system.they're retardedI have seen everyone and their mothers shit-talk the armor system, but I can't understand why.
Maybe I'm blind and I can't see the problem, but to me it just seems a very quick and simple way to add an additional thin layer of complexity to a combat system that, at its core, is as simple as it gets. Influenced by countless opinions expressed over and over on this forum, I expected never-ending encounters where you had to slowly chip away defences after defences just to see them instantly replenished. Instead, in the worst case, you need two rounds to take down an enemy. I just escaped from Fort Joy and I can count on the fingers of one hand the encounters that lasted more than three rounds: Griff, the second group of skeletons in the Withermoore's Soul Jar quest and the group of magisters where the paladin joins your side.
I expect it to get worse, but, at least for the first 8 levels, the armor problem is just a myth.
I'm playing on Classic difficulty and I can't say I've experienced this. Usually, two skills are enough to take down the shield and consequently apply statuses on the enemy: with the first one you damage the shield and create a "puddle", with the second one you break the shield and apply the status.It encourages damage stacking and it denies you the CC they gave out like candy. Pure damage is the only solution to any combat encounter.I can't understand the widespread hatred for this specific detail. I need someone to enlighten me on this one.
Dishonorbru!I'm playing on Classic difficulty
It's a ridiculous solution and it only targets the symptom, not the disease. Even if it was 100% balanced and thought-through in every single encounter, it's still an inelegant design decision that could've been handled better. I suggest using the armor to "saving throw" mod maybe.I'm playing on Classic difficulty and I can't say I've experienced this. Usually, two skills are enough to take down the shield and consequently apply statuses on the enemy: with the first one you damage the shield and create a "puddle", with the second one you break the shield and apply the status.
To me, it seems far more balanced than the first game, where you could control with statuses every single enemy in every single encounter for the entirety of the fight. At least, here you have to strip their defence before perma-stunlocking them.
How does it deny the CC ? If anything it makes it 100 % clear when you are able to disable a target. If anything it completely removes the chance to fail a CC. I don't mind the armor system but it made the game easier in my opinion since it becomes easier to predict what will happen.It encourages damage stacking and it denies you the CC they gave out like candy. Pure damage is the only solution to any combat encounter.I can't understand the widespread hatred for this specific detail. I need someone to enlighten me on this one.
You know how fantasy rpgs usually advocate for some balance between physical and magical firepower in your party?I have seen everyone and their mothers shit-talk the armor system, but I can't understand why
What? It does the complete opposite.You know how fantasy rpgs usually advocate for some balance between physical and magical firepower in your party?I have seen everyone and their mothers shit-talk the armor system, but I can't understand why
DOS 2 doesn't, you're better off stacking all physical or all magic damage. It's boring.
It kills them faster.You guys realize you don't have to have all your party members attacking the same enemy
And you still are far better off stacking one or the other type of damage instead of spreading. Did a rogue/ranger run on tactical or whatever it's called, it wasn't even close.You typically have enemies with either high physical or high magic armor and most encounters contain both types of enemies.
no?It kills them faster.
Before I can increase the difficulty I need to master the system, so I probably need at least to reach high level skills. Right now, I'm allocating level up points almost at random because I really don't know what I'm doing. Classic difficulty is a breeze 90% of the times even with pseudo-random builds, but it still manages to offer the occasional punishing encounter.Dishonorbru!I'm playing on Classic difficulty
Restart on tactician.
I really enjoyed combat in D:OS 2, but it does have a lot of problems including the one pointed out there. That issue is a symptom of multiple things brought together though. Here are a list of (mechanical) problems with combat in D:OS 2:What? It does the complete opposite.You know how fantasy rpgs usually advocate for some balance between physical and magical firepower in your party?I have seen everyone and their mothers shit-talk the armor system, but I can't understand why
DOS 2 doesn't, you're better off stacking all physical or all magic damage. It's boring.
yeah just stack one type then encounter enemies with high armor vs that type. Derp.
You guys realize you don't have to have all your party members attacking the same enemy, right? I'm trying to understand your thought processes here.
no?It kills them faster.
Most fights will have enemies of both armor types, very few fights will reward stacking a single damage type.
Right now I have two characters with high magic and low-medium physical damage potential (a Geomancer/Pyromancer/Necromancer and an Aerotheourge/Hydrosophist/Summoner) and two characters with high physical and low-medium magic damage potential (a Warfare/Polymorph and a Warfare/Huntsman/Scoundrel). Usually, I find myself focusing two different targets with two characters each. The low-medium damage choice is still useful for the rare occasion when I need an extra attack to take down an enemy. I don't think focusing a single enemy would be more optimal, because with this approach I can disable two or more enemies on the first round instead of just taking one down. But, again, I really don't know what I'm doing, so maybe I'm doing everything wrong.You know how fantasy rpgs usually advocate for some balance between physical and magical firepower in your party?I have seen everyone and their mothers shit-talk the armor system, but I can't understand why
DOS 2 doesn't, you're better off stacking all physical or all magic damage. It's boring.
Right now I have two characters with high magic and low-medium physical damage potential (a Geomancer/Pyromancer/Necromancer and an Aerotheourge/Hydrosophist/Summoner) and two characters with high physical and low-medium magic damage potential (a Warfare/Polymorph and a Warfare/Huntsman/Scoundrel). Usually, I find myself focusing two different targets with two characters each. The low-medium damage choice is still useful for the rare occasion when I need an extra attack to take down an enemy. I don't think focusing a single enemy would be more optimal, because with this approach I can disable two or more enemies on the first round instead of just taking one down. But, again, I really don't know what I'm doing, so maybe I'm doing everything wrong.You know how fantasy rpgs usually advocate for some balance between physical and magical firepower in your party?I have seen everyone and their mothers shit-talk the armor system, but I can't understand why
DOS 2 doesn't, you're better off stacking all physical or all magic damage. It's boring.
Dual Lone Wolf is the easiest the game gets. Any combination works in Dual Lone Wolf. In order from hardest to easiest its Solo, no LW -> 2 man, no LW -> 3 man -> Solo, LW -> Party of 4 -> LW party of 2. There is no circumstance aside from solo where you need to go 1 damage type, but it is optimal.Right now I have two characters with high magic and low-medium physical damage potential (a Geomancer/Pyromancer/Necromancer and an Aerotheourge/Hydrosophist/Summoner) and two characters with high physical and low-medium magic damage potential (a Warfare/Polymorph and a Warfare/Huntsman/Scoundrel). Usually, I find myself focusing two different targets with two characters each. The low-medium damage choice is still useful for the rare occasion when I need an extra attack to take down an enemy. I don't think focusing a single enemy would be more optimal, because with this approach I can disable two or more enemies on the first round instead of just taking one down. But, again, I really don't know what I'm doing, so maybe I'm doing everything wrong.You know how fantasy rpgs usually advocate for some balance between physical and magical firepower in your party?I have seen everyone and their mothers shit-talk the armor system, but I can't understand why
DOS 2 doesn't, you're better off stacking all physical or all magic damage. It's boring.
That is very similar to how i played the game and it worked perfectly fine throughout the whole game. I never did dual lone wolf, which is pretty much the only case where i think that you need to go for one damage type.