Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Why break such a great game?!

To be honest, if Larian really wants to mess with "balance" they need to take their time, so they can adjust the whole game to those changes.

We don't need talents that give 25% elemental resistance in one specific school, the talent would be horrible. 25% resistance in one element or 2 attribute points... I wonder what the majority of people will take...

Also no need for a gain/loss resistance system, if they wanted that, they should have tested it in BETA. It would make weather the storm add 12,5% to each element making it not worth it, to take it. Although atm it already has lost it's use.

Larian just needs to rethink their strategy on how they will do this, since it affects major parts of the game. If they are hellbent on balancing the resistance issue they will need to redo a lot of stuff.

"Easiest" balance "fix" at the moment would be something along the following lines:

-Adjust overall resistance gained from elemental essence/rubies.
-Adjust overall resistances on equipment.
-Adjust overall resistances gained from spells.
-Adjust overall resistances on potions.
-reconsider removing the 20% resistance debuff from wet/burning/poisoned etc.
Hardcap 100% so immunity is attainable.
-consider implementing talents that would raise the hardcap from a SPECIFIC BASIC element to 200% with the drawback that you can not attain it for the opposing element or a similiar drawback.

In overall this would lead to a more well balanced resist gain from 1-20+, it would mean that items/skills/spells/abilities/etc would have all been adjusted. It would keep rubies/elemental essences valuable so players finding rubies can still be happy or players going on there essence round on level up, still have something to spend gold on. It would also keep some value to crafting. With a 100% hardcap that allows immunity I'm sure it would keep a lot of players happy and finally allowing 200% hardcap with a specific talent would allow players to still experiment with different builds and it would use up a talent slot on something else then feeding it to the demon for 2 attribute points.

It would also make sure that weather the storm would keep it's value and sword of the planets would again be a viable choise for a 1hander on certain levels.

Atleast team Larian would have to pull something like that of, in terms of truely balancing it, while making it interesting for different groups of gamers while still making sure versatility on builds is safeguarded.

Ofcourse doing something like this would take a long time to pull off and for a finished product it would be considered a big change. However as I stated in my earlier post, rather something well thought that takes time an will work then a hasty change with undesired results.

With kind regards,

Rashar.

I would take talents that increase my resistance to individual elements by 25% over increases to attributes if they helped me gain immunity / healing with the cap removed. Weather the Storm doesn't need to have a loss to each opposing element, but it does need to have another drawback, such as -10% or -15% block and armour.

I don't think you are willing to understand anything.

Well 2 attribute points is way more valueable then 25% resistance in one specific elemental type, however that just my preference.

That makes weather the storm still not worth it, -15% block simply means I won't be using a shield and -10% armour is actually a hefty penalty since it will also increase the opponents chances to hit you.

Basicly each talent should be measured against having 2 extra attribute points and as that stands over 85% of talents already fail that measurement. Some because they are plain bad, some because while they are decent having 2 attribute points is just way better and then there's the tier 1 talents that are worth more then 2 attribute points and they form the staples of the builds.

With kind regards,

Rashar.

This was already addressed two days ago:


http://www.larian.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=546961

I want to; I want to understand an objective singleplayer game balance system that's for everyone.

Go learn how to read english...

1. I never said I hated games, it is you that is making a stupid assumation about something you have no basis for.
(Hell I have most likely been playing game since your were born...)

2. I never said I didn't care for challenges, which is yet again, another asuumation that you are making.

Apparently so - I thought we were talking about the balance of the outcome of choices in a general sense (either mechanical, the progression of story, etc).

If you are talking about pure mechanical balance, then I absolutely, vehemently disagree that it is necessary, or even relevant at all, to single player games. If two mechanical decisions have the same outcome - then there is no choice.

If all choices are equal, then that is the same (functionally) as saying that there is a "right" way to play the game. If that is true then playing the game is no different then "playing" a book where you click to turn the pages rather than to make real decisions about gameplay.

My example with the "imbalance" of Cyseal was to indicate the enjoyment that some people (like me) receive from not playing a game the way it was intended - which should still be a valid method of enjoying the game.

To pointlessly illustrate with intentionally narrow examples:
Example 1:
a) Choose to exclusively use found or dropped items
b) Choose to exclusively use your own crafted items
If choices a) and b) are balanced, either exactly or within what I have seen to be generally regarded as the acceptable range of values, then there is no point in choosing between a) and b), making the entire choice meaningless.
[Slippery Slope] The game might as well automatically increase your stats every time you open a chest, kill an enemy, or visit the correct combination of shops - that would at least save time.

Example 2:
a) Choose to leave Cyseal proper via the NW gate
b) Choose to leave Cyseal via the beach gate
If choices a) and b) are balanced - e.g. you will find the same enemies, loot, and types of encounters, then there is no real choice between the two.
[Slippery Slope] The game might as well be a tunnel from Cyseal to the end of the area. That would at least save time.

Example 1 is a decision with regards to mechanics, while Example 2 is a decision with regards to plot progression. Either can exist in two states in a given game: balanced or unbalanced. The former negates choice, while the latter encourages it. The only "right" or "proper" state of each decision can only be determined by the individual gamer - either is perfectly valid. I obviously favour the latter state, because I am a strong proponent of free will, and would rather read a real book than click my way through a stylized, expensive graphic novel.

I understand that this may come across as a very black-and-white view of a subject that is generally considered to be greyscale. However, this is how I would explain my disappointment of Larian's direction with this game (thank the Seven they haven't patched out modding yet), and my disagreement with the views of others on balance in single player games: long-winded (Edit:) and polarizing.

Leadership is hard to AVOID, because at level 2 stopping the fish thief results in PCs getting Leadership 1 (and +5 Initiative).

What makes non-Initiative Leadership a viable player sided balance option is: 1) it's hard to avoid because it's part of the personality and trait system, 2) Leadership is not the focus of character builds and won't break saved games, 3) it would require fewer developer man "hours" than adjusting all the higher level mob entries.


Careful being the operative word.


I disagree. Overpowered does no necessarily mean there's a problem. There's an important question to be asked when thinking about balancing overpowered mechanics: can the in game effect that that mechanic tries to implement be accomplished in another way?

If so, the mechanic shouldn't be fixed because the player can choose another option. If not (if the mechanic is the ONLY way to accomplish the desire effect), then it should be fixed, because in this case the player is forced to use the overpowered mechanic.

ADDITION:

I don't necessarily agree that getting ludicrous resists is too easy, but if it is, it might fall into the latter category above and require balancing. However, if these ludicrous resists are coming from unimproved dropped gear, then the player could always use crafted gear which undermines the necessity for the balance change.

Wbat a bunch of nonsensical whining and screaming from mass market "players" who blindly stumbled upon the fact that the game dishes out elemental resistances way too easily (a clearly unbalanced feature that didnt make the final release cut) - took that as a sign of their own personal superiority - :lol: - and ego affirmation - :lolcopter: - and now someone has taken away that from them.

How dreadful.


btw, just to point out;



This only shows a drastic misunderstanding and ignorance about what kind of gameplay an RPG game is supposed to provide and be.
(you dont even mention an RPG in that tirade, just a "game")

The balance in SP RPG games does not mean that all choices produce the same result or outcome. Or give same amounts of XP for that matter. It only means that all options you have should be similarly viable.

Not the same. Not producing exact same results.

You only jumped to that initial completely wrong assumption because of fear logic and denial of a unbalanced feature being so easily achievable (while its still easily achivable even like this, for extra laughs), and then get your whole logic distorted because of it.

And its not like its a new issue. The same ignorant, misguided, incorrect and laughably wrong assumption have been repeated for Pillars of Eternity since its kickstarter.

..usually by people who cannot understand simple sentences.

For example - you are able to through different gates in Cysael and do different quests in somewhat different order - only because the game is balanced enough to allow it. Mate.

If it wasnt. You couldnt.


But then again all this just shows fundamental misunderstanding and ignorance about a whole genre and, generally speaking a completely different spoiled brat screaming mindset.

When you try and lecture people you might want to practice what you preach. And as friendly advice you might want to change the overall "tone" in your post(s). Personally I am not too bothered with it, however with an underlaying tone like that it makes it a lot harder to reply on your posts in an objective and structural way, especially on the internet.

Not saying I agree or disagree with your point(s) of view though, I will leave that in the middle for now.

With kind regards,

Rashar.

+1

If having a previous version is a big deal to you, you can always make use of a downloaded version for now. Since you have the game bought, it shouldn't even be a bad thing! Just a thought

What horrible advice, since you never know what might come bundled with such a version. The better choice is to rely on mods. That goes for both sides of the argument, in my opinion.

Are you... talkin to me?

And you sign your every post with your nickname? For what? So you dont forget it?
Or is it to try to give a presentation of some kind of eau of nobles?

:lol:

how pathetic and false.


Look buster, when you try to lecture people about what they should do or not do and what fucking tone you like or not, you could at least, very least try not to be laughable before that.
While also being mindful that the person you are supposedly replying to with your incoherent personal "opinions" and "feelings" doesnt really give a damn about what you want, you clown.

got that?

Additionally, either reply to the points of the issue being discussed here or try avoiding falling on your face that bad in the attempt to avoid addressing actual issue by defaulting to personal attacks.

That just doesnt end well.

Hmm, I kinda feel that I could just copy paste my older post again. However since you sadly missed the point the first time, I will leave it at this.

Since the topic got kinda carried away (Which is my fault aswell) here is a link to page 4 for reference.

http://www.larian.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=547817&page=4

With kind regards,

Rashar.

cognitive functions arent your forte, obviously so ill let this slide. but dont address me ever again.


btw, we are still on the same page.

Another one for the ignore list.

I have put forth a constructive argument, and Hiver apparently wishes to refute it with a fallacious, albeit impassioned attempt at an argument. Against my better judgement:



Relevance? A single-player game is a single-player game.



Actually, truly balanced choices require the same or similar outcome, or else one outcome would be more viable than another, and be the better, "overpowered" option.



The fact that you have defeated a straw man does not contribute to your argument.



See the refutation above your straw man.



Ad hominem attacks are not an argument.



More irrelevant ad hominem.



Ad hominem.



Petitio principii. You assume your conclusion, "Cyseal is balanced," and then try to prove it with your evidence, that "You have a choice in quest order." Which, by the way, is evidence that contradicts your conclusion.



... Finishing off with more ad hominem.

And, perhaps the greatest fallacy you have committed is that your argument is a massive ignoratio elenchi - you have missed the entire point of my post: that balance is not necessary in a single player game.


Now, if you like balance, that is fine - however you wish to play your single-player games is totally valid. However, I shall continue to support my ability to choose in my games. It's a shame that Larian is removing it from the vanilla game, though.

Please note that I am not trying to belittle you or your argument... I am merely informing you that it neither strong nor cohesive. Try sticking more to your point, and pay more attention to what the argument is about instead of making ad hominem attacks and constructing straw men. If you need help constructing an argument, I would suggest starting your research here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation

As an aside, you may wish to calm your passionate attempts at rhetoric slightly - while Rashar and I certainly have thicker skin than the general populace, there are others who may find your manner offensive and rude.

No, you are wrong here. All options SHOULD be VIABLE not similarly viable, just viable.

But it seems to me you are only talking about combat here because talking your way or sneaking past all enemies is not possible in this game. In fact how many RPGs have a non aggressive path through the game as a viable way to finish it?

You don't need 120% resistance to everything to beat the game but it was an option that was open for those people who WISH to have that.