Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Hormalakh]

I believe that Sawyer's conclusion is flawed where I bolded. His conclusion that it is less satisfying is not based on anything that he might have seen in Let's Plays or anything of that sort - it's based on his own prejudices on how he likes playing DnD games.

It's also based on seeing people get frustrated when they build parties that don't have the hard counter to move forward.

So you're saying frustration is a bad thing?Why don't we just change the game to a movie and then people don't have to get frustrated. Frustration has rewards, once you can overcome the challenge. As Karellen so aptly put it, as long as the tools are available, there shouldn't be a deadend, then it's golden.

Needing a certain spell, ability, class, item, or whatever to progress in a RPG = garbage.

Honestly, you think EVERYTHING is garbage because you're a hipster who just likes shitting on everything, so please excuse me when I don't value your opinion on these sorts of things.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Any combat encounter is a puzzle under a blanket, it's just that with something like immunity to normal weapons you learn instantly that you need to work on adjusting tactics, while in modern game same enemy would just have 2000 hitpoints - here, burn through those however you like - awesome tactical battle.
And there wasn't a time in IE when you could't circumvent particular effect without using a specific spell, either by items or class abilities.

Hormalakh why are you even arguing with her?

I believe that Sawyer's conclusion is flawed where I bolded. His conclusion that it is less satisfying is not based on anything that he might have seen in Let's Plays or anything of that sort - it's based on his own prejudices on how he likes playing DnD games.

It's also based on seeing people get frustrated when they build parties that don't have the hard counter to move forward.

Needing a certain spell, ability, class, item, or whatever to progress in a RPG = garbage..

Name such an instance where unless you have a spesific spell, ability, class, item, or whatever you could not progress in the game.

It might be less satisfying to him, but it's been a clear crowd favorite as has been noted both here on the 'dex as well as on Obsidian's own forums. The people loved the mage battles. Yes, it was a combat puzzle, but players liked that sort of puzzle.

Some people liked them. He's not making a game for them.

So you are moving the goalposts i see. I thought Sawyer's design was Universal and the "correct one".
And Sawyer is making a game for the IE audience, not Roguey and a couple of autists that like 4E D&D. If a significant part of that audience likes these things, Sawyer will fail to his goal to please them.

Oh man, this constantly re-enforces the feeling that P:E will play like Arklash Legacy. I was kinda looking forward to something similar to BG2 combat. Welp.

 

[Abelian]

I believe that Sawyer's conclusion is flawed where I bolded. His conclusion that it is less satisfying is not based on anything that he might have seen in Let's Plays or anything of that sort - it's based on his own prejudices on how he likes playing DnD games.

It's also based on seeing people get frustrated when they build parties that don't have the hard counter to move forward.

Needing a certain spell, ability, class, item, or whatever to progress in a RPG = garbage..

Name such an instance where unless you have a spesific spell, ability, class, item, or whatever you could not progress in the game.

I've had to think for a bit, but the Emphatic Manifestation in the temple of the forgotten god could count. However, it was an optional quest, so it didn't really block the game progress.

Moving back to combat puzzles, I'm in favor to surprises in the form of a wake up call boss, where you realize that doing your regular tactical approach is not enough and you need to step in using character abilities rather than attacking something until it dies. It doesn't even have to be a boss, just a new monster or existing monsters in larger numbers.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't think that Sawyer's approach is necessarily bad, but he's not really communicating well how he envisions it to work. How much impact does correct preparation have? If party composition, spell choice and all that stuff is basically just a matter of aesthetics or preference, and the game is about "playing your build well" or whatever, that sounds kind of terrible, since it arguably makes it harder to produce interesting encounters that would encourage or force the player to switch strategies. Doing the things that your character or party are good at over and over again is banal; having to come up with new ways to overcome their limitations is interesting. This is why going out of your way to avoid roadblocking players is a double-edged sword; it's not a bad idea in absolute terms, but involves dangerous tradeoffs.

I don't see any contradiction between "playing your build well" and "switch strategies". A given build is capable of participating in various different strategies.

I believe that Sawyer's conclusion is flawed where I bolded. His conclusion that it is less satisfying is not based on anything that he might have seen in Let's Plays or anything of that sort - it's based on his own prejudices on how he likes playing DnD games. It might be less satisfying to him, but it's been a clear crowd favorite as has been noted both here on the 'dex as well as on Obsidian's own forums. The people loved the mage battles. Yes, it was a combat puzzle, but players liked that sort of puzzle.

I would argue that the reason players loved the BG2 mage duels wasn't because they were puzzles, but because they involved spells and abilities that were conceptually "cool".

It is simply COOL to imagine yourself playing a badass archmage fighting in a mage duel, dispelling your opponent's force fields while struggling to maintain your own, trying to one-up each other until one of you can finally break through and strike the killing blow.

These things would be cool EVEN IF they were not puzzly hard counters. Argue in favor of the coolness aspect, not the puzzle aspect, and maybe in PoE2 you'll get BG2-like mage abilities. Properly balanced, of course.

 

[Dorateen]

Regarding the comment on "playing your build well" vs. "switching strategies" , I read that as different party members being a component of switching to a more viable strategy. The idea of creating moments where various builds would shine. A cleric that proves invaluable in a setting infested with undead. However, this is less easy to do if all character builds can perform equally in all situations. I thought that was what Karellen was implying.

Of course, this has the potential to lead into the dreaded area of encounters that are not passable without a certain type of build (they should remain beatable, only more punishing) and that frustrates people.

 

[Karellen]

I don't think that Sawyer's approach is necessarily bad, but he's not really communicating well how he envisions it to work. How much impact does correct preparation have? If party composition, spell choice and all that stuff is basically just a matter of aesthetics or preference, and the game is about "playing your build well" or whatever, that sounds kind of terrible, since it arguably makes it harder to produce interesting encounters that would encourage or force the player to switch strategies. Doing the things that your character or party are good at over and over again is banal; having to come up with new ways to overcome their limitations is interesting. This is why going out of your way to avoid roadblocking players is a double-edged sword; it's not a bad idea in absolute terms, but involves dangerous tradeoffs.

I don't see any contradiction between "playing your build well" and "switch strategies". A given build is capable of participating in various different strategies.

Well, that's actually true. But again, there's one of those small semantic thing here. I think your build, party composition and so forth should impact what good strategy is for your party - that's what builds are for - but it seems to me that thinking in terms of "builds" and solutions that "support" those builds often produces this situation where people don't consider options that fall outside the expertise of those builds.

To illustrate this, let's take Dark Souls. It's a game in which character builds are by no means trivial, and the game does reward specialization by making your character more effective at doing the things he's good at, but efficient play in the actual game often calls for flexibility. A lot of people have trouble with the game because they're stuck with their build. "I'm playing two-weapons-fighting, fast DEX build, and now the Capra Demon and those dogs keep killing me because there's no rooms to maneuver! Shouldn't the game support my build? This game sucks!"

Right, but Dark Souls is built in such a way that it rewards thinking outside your build from time to time. Even for a DEX character, sometimes - not all the time, but sometimes - it's simply best to do things you didn't plan your build for, like use a heavy, blunt STR-scaling weapon, switch to the biggest shield you've got, put on the heaviest armour you have found, or get some spells, and so on. Figuring out the best way to do things, within the scope of your character's stats and the equipment available to you, is a huge part of the charm of the game, and it would never be there if the game worried about things like making Capra "balanced" for DEX builds. This is why there's merit in having situations in which a particular character build or type is strictly sub-par; it's by far the best way to make players consider alternative strategies beyond that characters' strong points.

Now, as I understand, PoE is already halfway there; after all, PoE has no arbitrary restrictions like, say, wizards being unable to wear plate mail. What worries me is that it seems like Sawyer looks at this largely in terms of freedom and internal consistency - you can do this and the system supports it because arbitrary restrictions are bad, but only if you feel like it - the game's not forcing you or giving you any advantage if you do. Well, Dark Souls doesn't force you either, but from time to time you have a really good reason to do things like that, because sometimes you're going to a fight where it's just plain good sense to put some nice heavy armour on. This is the kind of thing I really hope to see from PoE - that sometimes, one of the smartest things you could do with the party wizard is to slap some armour on him and have him stab people. Not in every fight, obviously, but from time to time, enough to keep the player considering options like that.

 

[Infinitron]

Karellen I think I understand what you're talking about, and I asked Sawyer about it myself, in a different context: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65...abilities-but-will-we-truly-need-to-use-them/

Check that thread out, he replied to it.

That said, in any party-based game you're obviously going to have more "areas of competence" than in a single character game. It's just that in the AD&D games you generally have to build the "canonical AD&D party" (three fighters, a cleric, a mage, and a thief, or some variant of that) to achieve that wide-ranging competence.

 

[BBMorti]

If I could complete BG1-Bg2-BG ToB with a solo assassin without reloading once (Dying), then I think it makes little sense to cry about 'hard counters' 'impossible mage battles' and 'needing a canon party of 3 fighters, a cleric, a mage and a thief'. I have seen it done by pretty much any (single) clas, solo with difficulty enhancing mods. The people complaining about aspects that has to do with difficulty are usually the bad players, or the lazy ones who doesn't wan't to put a bit of time into understanding the game. It is why we have hand holding films on rails, mainly made for consoles as the norm by now.
That people are lazy, or bad, is fine. But it gets old when they can't admit they are, and start whining about other aspects like "It is not perfectly balanced" "Mage battles is a PUZZLE, it is impossibleh!" and crap like that, that it gets old.

It is as old as when you see excuses for not getting certain things done because 'I don't have time' nah, it comes down to priorities and a bit of skill and time investment (understanding the game you weep about).

 

[Infinitron]

If I could complete BG1-Bg2-BG ToB with a solo assassin without reloading once (Dying), then I think it makes little sense to cry about 'hard counters' 'impossible mage battles' and 'needing a canon party of 3 fighters, a cleric, a mage and a thief'. I have seen it done by pretty much any (single) clas, solo with difficulty enhancing mods. The people complaining about aspects that has to do with difficulty are usually the bad players, or the lazy ones who doesn't wan't to put a bit of time into understanding the game. It is why we have hand holding films on rails, mainly made for consoles as the norm by now.
That people are lazy, or bad, is fine. But it gets old when they can't admit they are, and start whining about other aspects like "It is not perfectly balanced" "Mage battles is a PUZZLE, it is impossibleh!" and crap like that, that it gets old.

It is as old as when you see excuses for not getting certain things done because 'I don't have time' nah, it comes down to priorities and a bit of skill and time investment (understanding the game you weep about).

The existence of "hard counters" doesn't mean it's impossible to win without using a hard counter, just that it's inefficient to the point of stupidity

You can also learn how to beat somebody at chess with one less piece, and if you're good enough you might succeed a lot. You can feel proud of yourself for this, but that doesn't make it desirable game design.

 

[BBMorti]

So when a mage put up, say a death ward (that hard counters death spells) Then it is stupid that another mage might need to breech that ward, before using a death spell? Or maybe having to use an elemental spell instead? People complaining about hard counters are essentially complaining about not being able to use flames against something flame proof, while still having plenty of other options available to them.

 

[tuluse]

If I could complete BG1-Bg2-BG ToB with a solo assassin without reloading once (Dying), then I think it makes little sense to cry about 'hard counters' 'impossible mage battles' and 'needing a canon party of 3 fighters, a cleric, a mage and a thief'. I have seen it done by pretty much any (single) clas, solo with difficulty enhancing mods. The people complaining about aspects that has to do with difficulty are usually the bad players, or the lazy ones who doesn't wan't to put a bit of time into understanding the game. It is why we have hand holding films on rails, mainly made for consoles as the norm by now.
That people are lazy, or bad, is fine. But it gets old when they can't admit they are, and start whining about other aspects like "It is not perfectly balanced" "Mage battles is a PUZZLE, it is impossibleh!" and crap like that, that it gets old.

It is as old as when you see excuses for not getting certain things done because 'I don't have time' nah, it comes down to priorities and a bit of skill and time investment (understanding the game you weep about).

The reasoning is this.

There are a lot of people who wanted to enjoy IE games, and put in a good amount of time trying to learn them, yet still failed to. The system should be flexible enough or easy enough to learn to support these people. I don't think it's impossible to let these people be able to beat the game while still providing a challenge on higher difficulties for players who better understand the system and play better.

 

[Infinitron]

So when a mage put up, say a death ward (that hard counters death spells) Then it is stupid that another mage might need to breech that ward, before using a death spell? Or maybe having to use an elemental spell instead? People complaining about hard counters are essentially complaining about not being able to use flames against something flame proof, while still having plenty of other options available to them.

Not using the breach spell would be stupid. Not impossible, not unbeatable, certainly worthy of a gimmick playthrough where you're house-ruling yourself to play inefficiently on purpose, but it wouldn't be smart gameplay.

So the question is, is it a good thing for there to be only one single or very few ways to play "smartly" in a game? According to Sawyer, in a game where party composition flexibility is a goal, the answer is "no".

 

[BBMorti]

If they struggled too hard on easy, then the discussion should be how low you want to raise the bar to not 'frustrate' poor players. It will affect the whole game when you make it too simple, especially since harder difficulties usually are solved through a bit more damage and hp on certain AI controlled mobs.. which is hardly an impressive solution for the rest.

 

[BBMorti]

So when a mage put up, say a death ward (that hard counters death spells) Then it is stupid that another mage might need to breech that ward, before using a death spell? Or maybe having to use an elemental spell instead? People complaining about hard counters are essentially complaining about not being able to use flames against something flame proof, while still having plenty of other options available to them.

Not using the breach spell would be stupid. Not impossible, not unbeatable, certainly worthy of a gimmick playthrough where you're house-ruling yourself to play inefficiently on purpose, but it wouldn't be smart gameplay.

So the question is, is it a good thing for there to be only one single or very few ways to play "smartly" in a game? According to Sawyer, in a game where party composition flexibility is a goal, the answer is "no".

If all single classes can complete Baldur's Gate trilogy solo, then I would say that proves to some extend that there are plenty of ways to handle the different situations put before you, throughout the game. Do you disagree with that?

 

[tuluse]

If they struggled too hard on easy, then the discussion should be how low you want to raise the bar to not 'frustrate' poor players. It will affect the whole game when you make it too simple, especially since harder difficulties usually are solved through a bit more damage and hp on certain AI controlled mobs.. which is hardly an impressive solution for the rest.

The only difference between difficulty levels in BG2 is a damange multiplier and the lowest two you get max HP per level.

If you're struggling to understand the system, these settings will not help you. On the otherhand, if you have mastered the system, the increased difficulty isn't much more challenging.

 

[Infinitron]

If all single classes can complete Baldur's Gate trilogy solo, then I would say that proves to some extend that there are plenty of ways to handle the different situations put before you, throughout the game. Do you disagree with that?

Sure, there are "plenty of ways", but many/most of them are inefficient to the point of painfulness, and perhaps impossible in practice on one's first playthrough.

I mean, let's take an extreme example. You can steal a million potions and potion spam past your way past everything. That's also a way to handle situations. In fact, it's a method of winning battles that's quite common/expected in certain JRPGs. But I wouldn't point my fingers and laugh at anybody who said "Fuck you, this is not good game design" to that. "You just need to MASTER THE SYSTEM, you noob! Stop ruining our genre!" See what I mean?

 

[aleph]

really, if someone struggles to understand Ad&d, maybe he should spent his time differently, like learning to read or count....

 

[Shadenuat]

Sure, there are "plenty of ways", but many/most of them are inefficient to the point of painfulness, and perhaps impossible in practice on one's first playthrough.

On one's first playthrough one would probably buff Minsc/Korgan/Keldorn and whack-a-mole instead of trying to figure out all the defences and contingencies, summon fuckton of cannon fodder, gulp magic resistance pot, spam elemental damage/Chaos, blast enemies with imba traps or make Jaheira cast Insect Plague which is an ultimate answer to any non-lich spellcaster in the game.
These are all valid tactics which are more straightforward, easier and are effective enough to deal with mages without Breach. I used them when I was 13 years old and couldn't figure out exactly what do I need to remove all the shiny stuff from wizards.

 

[Infinitron]

summon fuckton of cannon fodder...spam elemental damage/Chaos...blast enemies with imba traps

I'm not sure I'd consider those tactics so straightforward and easy. They're pretty spammy, crude and unreliable.

 

[Shadenuat]

What do you mean, "unreliable"? Game features a ton of different summons, some immune to physical damage, some to magic, some even have spellcasting of their own (druidic Nymph being particularly great). Wizards under stoneskin/PfnW are still vulnerable to elemental damage and control spells - thus 3 webs can destroy even a party which guards Celestial Fury. And traps without fixes/mods are the largest win-button ever.

Infinitron what exactly is your problem? How is Breach reliable, unless you also crudely (by that I mean, fill all slots with it on rest) and spam it from 2 wizards (with addition of Lower Resistance - just to be sure) or know beforehand how many sets of defensive spells wizard has?

It's just a spell which removes one particular set of defensive spells. You don't win fights just by having it. Say you have a lich, you have your wizards with Breaches and removed shit - well, now what? Liches are quite resistant to magic, and immune to particular spell levels. You can try to throw fireballs at him, and pray he won't roll his MR (although I think liches are immune to level 3 spells, but I don't remember), but it's a lot better to send in a few warriors to hit him and kill him.

This is what BG2 was about, classes worked together to win.

 

[Koschey]

You don't understand! Targetting enemies with stuff they're not warded against is stupid and inefficient!

 

[tuluse]

I'm pretty sure there is no way to look at the stats of monsters before you summon them in BG which means you have to know what their capabilities are from meta knowledge.

 

[Roguey]

Name such an instance where unless you have a spesific spell, ability, class, item, or whatever you could not progress in the game.

I always used hard counters because that's the Thing to Do. But when it comes to enemies who cast hold person, fear, level drain, charm, domination, maze, confusion, flesh to stone, or any kind of save or die spell, you either need a hard counter or rely on the luck of the roll to make them completely ineffective. Both are awful.

So you are moving the goalposts i see. I thought Sawyer's design was Universal and the "correct one".

It is. It just happens to be that some people enjoy playing bad games.

And Sawyer is making a game for the IE audience, not Roguey and a couple of autists that like 4E D&D. If a significant part of that audience likes these things, Sawyer will fail to his goal to please them.

Of all the IE games and their expansions BG2 was the outlier in this regard, so I'm sure he'll have no problem.

Also at the idea that I'm the autistic one here. Grognard projecting.

So you're saying frustration is a bad thing?Why don't we just change the game to a movie and then people don't have to get frustrated. Frustration has rewards, once you can overcome the challenge. As Karellen so aptly put it, as long as the tools are available, there shouldn't be a deadend, then it's golden.

Strawmanning, discussion over.

 

[Infinitron]

This is what BG2 was about, classes worked together to win.

Hey, I'm not saying BG2 was bad. I'm just saying it could be better.

For the majority of players, their enjoyment of mage duels would not be diminished if other classes had more efficient ways to participate in them.

This is a "Why not?" question, not a "Why?" question.

 

[Rake]

Of all the IE games and their expansions BG2 was the outlier in this regard, so I'm sure he'll have no problem.

Also the most popular.

Also at the idea that I'm the autistic one here. Grognard projecting.

You forget, i'm a storyfag. My enjoyment of the game doesn't depend on Sawyer at all.

I just took issue with Saywer's stated goals being the "true ultimate design blueprint" when some of the said goals are...questionable to say the least.
Infinitron
I agree with that, but i'm not sure this is what Sawyer is trying to do. Granted, i make my assumptions based on IWD2, but hey, this is what i've got.