Baldur's Gate PoE vs IE: Do wizards need to have more stuff to do in combat? DISCUSS!

[Copper]

Well, it's not like Melee AoE makes any sense in realist terms, especially since you can do it with any weapon, so I think arguing Intelligence isn't realistic is missing the forest for the tree.

 

[Mangoose]

Well, it's not like Melee AoE makes any sense in realist terms, especially since you can do it with any weapon, so I think arguing Intelligence isn't realistic is missing the forest for the tree.

Intelligence != intellect

 

[GordonHalfman]

I suppose it's not too hard to code, but let's look at the effects besides coding time.

Assume they have a single class AttributeCalculation, with a set of methods that increase/decrease certain values, e.g. a method setIntEffects (int Intellect) where you have a couple lines of code that relate your Intellect to Will, area of effect size, and effect duration. At this point, whenever you create a new instance of class Character, all the object has to do is call on the methods within AttributeCalculation, no matter what player class he is. Pretty simple. Two classes and you can create a character that its Damage, Fortitude, Healing, Stamina, Accuracy, Reflexes, etc. set.

Now, you want to change it so Barbarian INT does not affect AoE. To modify the code, you create a subclass BarbAttributeCalculation that extends the original class AttributeCalculation.

I doubt anyone has ever written code like that. Try applying the same approach to the complexity of a real game, where attribute calculations depend on all kinds of things.

In practice the AoE of some particular ability will be defined in a script or data file, and whether the attribute scaling is applied to it or not can be decided by the designer on an ability by ability basis.

 

[Raghar]

Assume they have

Hahaha

I doubt anyone has ever written code like that. Try applying the same approach to the complexity of a real game, where attribute calculations depend on all kinds of things.

In practice the AoE of some particular ability will be defined in a script or data file, and whether the attribute scaling is applied to it or not can be decided by the designer on an ability by ability basis.

That would be a bugfest. Can we fire him out on hour notice? 'K thanx bye.



Now that you received honest review from someone who actually did that stuff, can we continue with talking about design and what more stuff can by done in combat?

 

[Mangoose]

I suppose it's not too hard to code, but let's look at the effects besides coding time.

Assume they have a single class AttributeCalculation, with a set of methods that increase/decrease certain values, e.g. a method setIntEffects (int Intellect) where you have a couple lines of code that relate your Intellect to Will, area of effect size, and effect duration. At this point, whenever you create a new instance of class Character, all the object has to do is call on the methods within AttributeCalculation, no matter what player class he is. Pretty simple. Two classes and you can create a character that its Damage, Fortitude, Healing, Stamina, Accuracy, Reflexes, etc. set.

Now, you want to change it so Barbarian INT does not affect AoE. To modify the code, you create a subclass BarbAttributeCalculation that extends the original class AttributeCalculation.

I doubt anyone has ever written code like that. Try applying the same approach to the complexity of a real game, where attribute calculations depend on all kinds of things.

In practice the AoE of some particular ability will be defined in a script or data file, and whether the attribute scaling is applied to it or not can be decided by the designer on an ability by ability basis.

The point of the post is not the code. First off, your Attributes are the six values of Might, Dexterity, Constitution, Perception, Intellect, and Resolve. Sawyer's intentional design is that each of those Attributes affects the same respective derived Stats for every single Class. For example, Might increases Damage, Healing, and Fortitude for every class, whether you are a Priest, Fighter, Rogue, or Wizard. Now, the pseudocode is an example to illustrate what happens when we try what Lambchop wanted, making Attributes affect different derived Stats based on your Class choice (e.g. Barbarians NOT gaining AOE size from Intellect). To do this requires not just an addition to the code but a change in the code structure and complexity, and this results in further consequences in terms of balance consideration and QA.

Now to get back off track, the example I wrote only calculates the specific effects the six primary Attributes affect their derived Stats and returns those Stats to the character object. That does not prevent additional calculations to be made in another script/class/method/whatever to further affect those derived stats, for example due to level, equipment, spells/abilities, talents, etc. Neither does it prevent specific spells and abilities being defined separately in another class/script/data file (whatever Unity semantics are). Attribute scaling applies to every ability, by the way. The designer said so.

P.S. You know that a class can be a script or can be data file, right? A Java class named "Foo" is (after being compiled) a file named "Foo.class." This file could be a class full of methods and functions or a class that is used to store data/stats/attributes.

 

[Mangoose]

Wait, do you even know that we're talking about PoE's design? Not just any ol' hypothetical game?

Here ya go: http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Attribute

 

[Copper]

Well, it's not like Melee AoE makes any sense in realist terms, especially since you can do it with any weapon, so I think arguing Intelligence isn't realistic is missing the forest for the tree.

Intelligence != intellect

Semantic schemantic when it's an abstract label that means whatever the designer wants.

 

[Mangoose]

Well, it's not like Melee AoE makes any sense in realist terms, especially since you can do it with any weapon, so I think arguing Intelligence isn't realistic is missing the forest for the tree.

Intelligence != intellect

Semantic schemantic when it's an abstract label that means whatever the designer wants.

Intellect = Genius

 

[Zombra]

As far as attributes "making sense", there's an incredibly easy fix. Just stop reading the statistic names as English words and read them as game terms instead. There is no longer an "Intellect" stat, just a "Stat Blue" that determines AOE and duration of all game effects. There is also a "Stat Yellow" that affects hitting and dodging and a "Stat Red" that affects damage and carrying capacity, and some others. There, now it all makes sense.

So instead of thinking about my dimwitted meat shield and my dextrous but charisma-free Rogue I can now think of a character strong in red stat but a bit weak in yellow stat? Sounds like the next step in the evolution of role-playing games alright... someone censor that post before Sawyer sees it and implements it in POE2!

You can think about your characters however you want, but in a CRPG, it's smart to recognize stats as representing what they actually do. A high Intellect will get you extra spell slots and languages, but it isn't going to make your character behave any "smarter"; that's up to you.

Personally, I role-play as much as the next guy and more than most; and yes, I often tailor my stats to how I envision the character based on stat descriptions, even if they have no bearing on actual gameplay. I just get aggravated when people rage about fluff not being mechanical enough, and can't recognize the difference between an English word and a game term.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Personally, I role-play as much as the next guy and more than most; and yes, I often tailor my stats to how I envision the character based on stat descriptions, even if they have no bearing on actual gameplay. I just get aggravated when people rage about fluff not being mechanical enough, and can't recognize the difference between an English word and a game term.

...

Larping fag.

 

[Johannes]

The PoE "Blast" stuff for wizards is lame as fuck. How is it any different from shooting a sling in IE, other than in effectiveness? Yet it makes the magic of the wizard actually more mundane than shooting a crossbow or sling, what with the blasting being everpresent. If you want to make the wizard feel more worthwhile when not dropping spells, simply make him, or give the player the option to make him, better at mundane combat - be it ranged or melee.

If I wanted to make my IE wizard blast stuff with wands, I'd give him a Wand of Fireballs. As I did, of course.

 

[eremita]

Like others stated, i'm fine with having my mage hang back and occasionally use their sling while saving their spells for important encounters or emergencies. Giving them an "awesome button" trivializes the satisfaction of starting as a low lvl glass cannon with only one or two measly spells into a god that rapes everything in sight end-game.

I don't know about others, but I never said mages need awesome button. IMHO, in real-time combat with 6 fucking characters, they all should have something useful to do. Even though I'm pretty sure I can't back this up with something irrefutable, I still feel there's something inherently wrong with combat where you're doing nothing. "Doing nothing" is the keyword here; because you could say that waiting often plays an inseparable part of combat (armies wait for better intel, boxer saving his energy etc.). Unfortunately, this aspect (doing jack shit as part of the strategy or tactics) is not present in IE games combat system. Here we'are talking about pure idleness. And I think that's a flaw. You could again argue that saving spells is part of your strategy in case of the whole area (dungeon) - you have the "Big picture" in your mind. But then we're not talking about the combat system itself here. The encounter design doesn't change the fact that you mage is scratching his ass in this particular fight.

SOMETHING USEFUL is such an abstract and vague notion, that immediate reaction throwing around stuff like "more attacks", "useful basic attacks", "awesome buttons" is a fundamental reduction of that notion. 2nd Bard is never idle. Forget he's Jack of all trades; he's a specific class anyway. When he's done with casting, he can play his music.

 

[Copper]

SOMETHING USEFUL is such an abstract and vague notion, that immediate reaction throwing around stuff like "more attacks", "useful basic attacks", "awesome buttons" is a fundamental reduction of that notion. 2nd Bard is never idle. Forget he's Jack of all trades; he's a specific class anyway. When he's done with casting, he can play his music.

A good point there - having casters alternate between instant blaster effects and maintained, aura-like effects (which could be tied into resource management, building power to unleash a disintegrate against a tough foe, etc.) could be more interesting.

 

[Mangoose]

1. In IE games, when your health hit 0, you were out of battle and dead. In POE, you are out of battle when your stamina hits 0. This means what POE calls "stamina" is actually a health bar. But, it regenerates, and when it depletes, you are not dead and end up waking up (resurrecting) after battle, and every class has it's own way of recovering stamina. So stamina is an auto regenerating, easily replenishable, universally healable health meter.

2. In POE, as long as you have health left, you can resurrect after battle ala NWN2. There is no equivalent to this in any old school RPGs, certainly not the IE games. What is being termed "health" is actually a new kind of resurrection resource. It allows your characters to be eliminated from combat and still keep coming back to life.

You're right on stamina but they've changed the mechanics for health and "Maiming." The first time you reach 0 health, you can be resurrected, and you will carry a "Maimed" status. If you reach 0 health with a "Maimed" status, you die. However, resting will removed the "Maimed" status.

In Expert Mode, the first time you reach 0 health you die. There is no "Maimed" status. You can also enable this option in "standard play," in any difficulty. You can actually enable/disable any of the Expert Mode elements during a standard play. Expert Mode just forces all of those options to be enabled.

 

[eremita]

Of course it does. It means you are always at full health all the time.

Do you believe that if you consider two 'fighter' characters, one taken from PoE and another from the IE games, the former's stamina bar can take as much punishment as the later's hitpoints?

WTF?! What does that even mean? Of course your fighter won't fall unconscious after 3 hits. We don't know anything about these numbers (damage, "hit points" etc.) yet...

 

[Mangoose]

Like others stated, i'm fine with having my mage hang back and occasionally use their sling while saving their spells for important encounters or emergencies. Giving them an "awesome button" trivializes the satisfaction of starting as a low lvl glass cannon with only one or two measly spells into a god that rapes everything in sight end-game.

I don't know about others, but I never said mages need awesome button.

Maybe he thinks the Blast effect is an awesome button? To clarify, it's not. It's just a passive, probably low damage autoattack.

However I think I agree with Johannes. The idea seems like it will make casting "real" spells feel mundane.

 

[eremita]

Well, it's not like Melee AoE makes any sense in realist terms, especially since you can do it with any weapon, so I think arguing Intelligence isn't realistic is missing the forest for the tree.

Intelligence != intellect

Semantic schemantic when it's an abstract label that means whatever the designer wants.

Intellect = Genius

Uhhhhh, now those are notions that really need clarification, sir!

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Unfortunately, this aspect (doing jack shit as part of the strategy or tactics) is not present in IE games combat system. Here we'are talking about pure idleness. And I think that's a flaw. You could again argue that saving spells is part of your strategy in case of the whole area (dungeon) - you have the "Big picture" in your mind. But then we're not talking about the combat system itself here. The encounter design doesn't change the fact that you mage is scratching his ass in this particular fight.

Someone just mentioned that part of their strategy in early IE levels is using their spells sparingly, with mages sometimes just using the sling or avoiding combat... then you say this aspect is "not present" in the IE combat system? Then you just dismiss this approach because "we're talking about the combat system here"?

Well, I have to disagree because the limited resources at level one, having to decide when to use these previous resources, is part of the charm of early-level combat for me. You soon level up though and in a few levels time have plenty of spells, for those who want more "action". That progression is also quite enjoyable. But adding "more stuff to do apart from a sling" changes that balance. So the strategic approach referred to above can only happen with a combat system like this. Adding more abilities so the mage is not "scratching his ass" occasionally in early levels means that you resources aren't as limited any longer, because you can spam a "Sawyer's cone of condescension" or something every round once you've cast your one spell.

To me, it's all interrelated so acknowledging the strategy and then ruling it out of the discussion on the combat system seems strange.

 

[Mangoose]

Well, it's not like Melee AoE makes any sense in realist terms, especially since you can do it with any weapon, so I think arguing Intelligence isn't realistic is missing the forest for the tree.

Intelligence != intellect

Semantic schemantic when it's an abstract label that means whatever the designer wants.

Intellect = Genius

Uhhhhh, now those are notions that really need clarification, sir!

These notions cannot be clarified, they can only be revealed.

 

[Raghar]

I'd give him a Wand of Fireballs. As I did, of course.

This is better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdiPtG4i8Mk#t=507

 

[eremita]

Unfortunately, this aspect (doing jack shit as part of the strategy or tactics) is not present in IE games combat system. Here we'are talking about pure idleness. And I think that's a flaw. You could again argue that saving spells is part of your strategy in case of the whole area (dungeon) - you have the "Big picture" in your mind. But then we're not talking about the combat system itself here. The encounter design doesn't change the fact that you mage is scratching his ass in this particular fight.

Someone just mentioned that part of their strategy in early IE levels is using their spells sparingly, with mages sometimes just using the sling or avoiding combat... then you say this aspect is "not present" in the IE combat system? Then you just dismiss this approach because "we're talking about the combat system here"?

Well, I have to disagree because the limited resources at level one, having to decide when to use these previous resources, is part of the charm of early-level combat for me. You soon level up though and in a few levels time have plenty of spells, for those who want more "action". That progression is also quite enjoyable. But adding "more stuff to do apart from a sling" changes that balance. So the strategic approach referred to above can only happen with a combat system like this. Adding more abilities so the mage is not "scratching his ass" occasionally in early levels means that you resources aren't as limited any longer, because you can spam a "Sawyer's cone of condescension" or something every round once you've cast your one spell.

To me, it's all interrelated so acknowledging the strategy and then ruling it out of the discussion on the combat system seems strange.

Why is it strange? Would you say that it is impossible to change the combat system itself without neglecting the mentioned strategy? I guess not, so they're not interrelated at all. (Only time is imperative here, nothing else; if you have a cooldown system, but you still want to preserve the "Big picture" here, you just adjust the frequency of encounters . The outcome is the same: you're forced to think about when you really have to use you big guns... But you don't wanna constant action and micromanagement, do you? You want your exploration, some time between fights etc... So you just adjust the system accordingly... But don't tell me you have only two options here; a) Wizard doing nothing b) awesome buttons... )

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Only time is imperative here, nothing else; if you have a cooldown system, but you still want to preserve the "Big picture" here, you just adjust the frequency of encounters . The outcome is the same: you're forced to think about when you really have to use you big guns... But you don't wanna constant action and micromanagement, do you? You want your exploration, some time between fights etc... So you just adjust the system accordingly... But don't tell me you have only two options here; a) Wizard doing nothing b) awesome buttons... )

No, at level 1 I don't view a wizard using a sling as "nothing" and yes, I do think that adding other abilities with cooldowns will change the playstyle at level 1. Planning when to use a magic missile won't be as crucial if I can spam something with 3 damage whenever I want. To me it becomes a different game and I didn't have a problem with the original system. Clearly you do, fair enough. I'll just summarise my concerns and leave it at that.

- I enjoyed the combat at early levels in BG/IWD. A ragtag bunch of adventurers with shit equipment, one or two spells, missing most of the time. It was satisfying to overcome enemies getting the absolute max out of my limited resources.
- This was a very short stage, for those who seem to dislike the "wizards not being awesome" stage. Soon you were leveling up and then for most of the game you have plenty of stuff to hurl at anyone you encounter. This progression felt satisfying.
- Noone is awesome at level one. Your mage may miss most of the time with his sling, but so does your rogue. Cleric is not much better. But even a hit with a slingstone is not meaningless in level one hp terms.
- When you do unload your sleep or other spells they make a huge difference in this part of the game and can turn the tide in a significant battle. It seems reasonable to me that the character who has this power won't be as good in other areas, like slaying endless kobolds in trash mobs which a fighter is perfect for.
- There are up to 6 members of your party. I really don't see it as a big deal if one of them is "only" firing sling stones, again my cleric may be "only" trying to hit someone with a wooden club.

I worry that:
- Adding new abilities to the mage to give him "something more to do" will change the feel of this early, resource-restricted stage.
- Where does it end? Will the rogue now be the shittest party member who "only" fires arrows with a crap bow, better give him magic abilities too? Prizes for everyone, everyone is a winner.
- Balancing a party depending on your preferred playstyle will change, if everyone becomes a variant of a jack-of-all-trades.
- Instead of a contrast between the mage tactics in early game with limited resources, and later game with powerful spells, we may end up spamming "blast" every round at level one, "improved blast" every round at level two, "epic blast" at level five. Could be a bit MMO'ish.

Anyway, we're probably just repeating our preferences now so I'll leave it there. Sounds like Sawyer's approach is just up your street, I guess we'll soon see how enjoyable combat and party progression turn out to be.

 

[Zombra]

I don't know about others, but I never said mages need awesome button. IMHO, in real-time combat with 6 fucking characters, they all should have something useful to do.

I wanted to clear this up because I'm not sure how to read it. You're saying that 6 characters is not very many? Seems like that's the only way your complaint makes sense. For me, if I have 5 guys on the screen all doing interesting stuff, it's OK if there is a 6th guy waiting for an opportunity. Turn-based would be a different story.

 

[Mangoose]

- Adding new abilities to the mage to give him "something more to do" will change the feel of this early, resource-restricted stage.

At low levels they are not adding new abilities to the Wizard. At low levels, you have a limited number of spells and they are all per rest. It's only when the Wizard reaches high levels that low level spells become At-Will and medium level spells become Per-Encounter while the highest level spells still only regenerate on Rest. That's off the top of my head, so I may be wrong on specifics, but I'm pretty sure it's a spectrum like that.

- Where does it end? Will the rogue now be the shittest party member who "only" fires arrows with a crap bow, better give him magic abilities too? Prizes for everyone, everyone is a winner.

No, the Rogue is a melee character that currently seems to have the best ability to escape Melee Engagement.

- Balancing a party depending on your preferred playstyle will change, if everyone becomes a variant of a jack-of-all-trades.

I don't know how jack-of-trades the classes are in terms of party roles, but in terms of playstyle it seems every class is pretty unique: http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Class

- Instead of a contrast between the mage tactics in early game with limited resources, and later game with powerful spells, we may end up spamming "blast" every round at level one, "improved blast" every round at level two, "epic blast" at level five. Could be a bit MMO'ish.

Blast is a passive autoattack. It's just what happens when you autoattack with a wand/scepter/rod. It's almost the same thing gameplay-wise as an IE mage using a sling, the only difference is that it does some AOE damage.

Sounds like Sawyer's approach is just up your street

I think you should do some more research, because most of what you say is not what Sawyer has said.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

- Where does it end? Will the rogue now be the shittest party member who "only" fires arrows with a crap bow, better give him magic abilities too? Prizes for everyone, everyone is a winner.

No, the Rogue is a melee character that currently seems to have the best ability to escape Melee Engagement.

I was actually referring to rogues in BG1 here, in response to all the criticism and proposed improvements of that game. Apologies, I should have been clearer. Posts in this thread have been jumping around between the two games.

- Instead of a contrast between the mage tactics in early game with limited resources, and later game with powerful spells, we may end up spamming "blast" every round at level one, "improved blast" every round at level two, "epic blast" at level five. Could be a bit MMO'ish.

Blast is a passive autoattack. It's just what happens when you autoattack with a wand/scepter/rod. It's almost the same thing gameplay-wise as an IE mage using a sling, the only difference is that it does some AOE damage.

Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned 'blast', I brought that up because this whole thread started with Infinitron suggesting that having an attack like that would have been better than using a sling in BG1. In this sense I meant it as a hypothetical ability to give mages something more to do which is what some have been arguing for.

The jack-of-all-trades comment was relating to Sawyer's views on BG mage duels, where he wanted characters to be "involved" in most situations and not be excluded because of their class.

As I said above, I guess we'll find out how well it works soon.