Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - Suggestions and Feedback Armor System Comics :)

https://image.ibb.co/c3Gxab/DoS.png

Nice comic, but to many people seem to dispise dice rolling also it looks pretty complicated for casual gamers.

50% likes dice rolls and tabletop RPG
50% dont like

50% lazy casuals
50% hardocre gamers

So where is the truth?
If u want to be good for all u should create Classic mode w/o RNG for cassuals and Tactic mode or harder with RNG for non-casuals

There are several issues with the combat in this game, hopefully the get fixed either by Larian or mods in the future but I'm not sure most of these problems are even seen as actual problems by some players.

I've seen this solution to the armor/marmor on the forums a few times now and I really think it should be implemented alongside a system that makes CC locking harder. The system presented on the image where the % of the respective armor left is the character's chance to resist the CC is a simple solution that I really like.

I'm not really sure why anyone likes the complete lack of RNG on a tactical RPG, it just makes the game a complete cakewalk, even on the hardest difficulty, but hey... To each their own I guess...

Fixing this and the plethora of in combat repositioning tools (Its a tactical combat where EVERYONE can blink/fly/teleport/whatever, doesn't really help it much) would make the combat system way more interesting than it currently is.



I just hope they end up managing to deliver on the mod friendliness of the game's engine (currently not the case), that way modders can do this if they don't.

I think that the RNG should have only a small effect (for example the damage rolls), because a game gets less tactical if the effect of the RNG is too strong.

It is amazing that Larian has reduced the strength of the RNG in DOS2. Another great example of a tactical game without a RNG is Invisible Inc.

Btw, its not hard to add checkbox in options menu for players who want hard lock on 100% and 0% (even if they dont understand that we have tons of another RNGs in the game, or dont know how to shred armor to zero for lovely 0% CC resist)

and both sides of "Holly war" will be happy

anything would be better than current system.

Hey do you see that your party problem is on my image?
And lone mage still help ur partymembers with some reduction of CC resist, and even some dmg to vitality

The argument of "it gets less tactical if RNG is too strong" is pretty much void of meaning, there is no correlation there.

Divinity 2 currently has no RNG on crowd control and there is absolutely no tactic required on the combat part of it. There are too many ways to reposition and whoever is out of armor will be stuck on permanent CC.

What the game does to fake balance it is allow enemies to cheat, by giving every creature in the game all information about the player characters (It will always know resistances, who has glass cannon, imunities, etc.), and through a completely nonsensical turn order, the worst part is: even with that, it's still too easy.

No RNG on a game like this would be fine when playing against players, not so much against the AI, unless it is bound by the same rules and is actually good.

On the other hand, it is possible to be RNG heavy while still requiring tactical thinking.

Compared to most tactical combat systems out there, X-Com (probably the most played tactical combat game out there) is rather RNG heavy. The idea that it would requires less tactical thinking is dubious, at best.



The checkbox option is very unlikely to happen, I do have my hopes high for a mod adding this, Larian not so much, they deliberately designed the game this way (and aparently a lot of it is currently hardcoded too).

For a deterministic design, CC could be divisible instead of having RNG.
How could that work for the binary CC effects? If a character is 50% charmed, he could freely decide how to spend half of his AP points at that turn, the enemy get to decide how to spend the other half.

Yes, easy difficulty is another problem. But better to solve 1 by 1.



With all my love to Larian Studio... i think they cheated with DOS2... they took all from DOS1, spend alot of time to draw and create a story...and didnt even want to try to create good and new mechanic... hope i am wrong.

the first rule of fight club is you do not talk about fight club

In a game with a strong RNG luck is as important as tactical decisions, because your perfect plan can be ruined by a single dice roll.

It is great that the crowd control abilities of DOS2 have no RNG, but you are right, that they do not have much tactical depth, because the armor has to be removed first.

Have u play BloodBowl?
I do. And i can say even with strong RNG u have some problems only in the beginning while u learn game mechanic.
Few minutes/hours and FUN is beginning RNG becomes like ocean, and u are the shark)

As a tactician u should callculate all possible results. Even criticaly bad for u. Thats the real tactic. And u are prepeared even for unlucky rolls.

If there was a definition for unelegant design, this would be it.
Ps. i still love you

Love it.

There needs to be SOME RNG, otherwise fights get a bit too mechanical. It's very enjoyable, in my opinion, to try a "risky" move, and be rewarded with 3 knocked down targets! Without RNG, there is no risk... it's all contrived. Enough said about CC lockdown on plenty of other threads. I think most grievances have been laid out about current system.

I do very much enjoy the current armor system for one reason, though. It makes support classes (healing) more robust than simply healing life. Keeping characters good on various defenses adds another dimension.

This comic seems to be the best suggestion I've seen so far. Bravo. Also adds the increased appeal of different defensive attributes (willpower, etc) to bolster cc defense despite your armor deteriorating (something i really liked in D:OS 1). Armor and such can also have built in physical/magical resistance (comic uses the term "absorb"). This adds another VERY cool dimension.

You also have the ability to have increased points in particular skills reduce the effectiveness of the targets CC resist. VERY COOL. You can play a CC based illusionist (or whatever) with perks to "pierce" CC resist chance.

I understand attributes/skills/gear can become overly complicated, but in my opinion the game suffers from exacty the opposite currently. Combat is contrived, and sometimes not as interesting as D:OS1. Character defenses and attributes are not as robust...

Bravo indeed. If this does not become a reality, I'd be tempted to mod it. Don't know how moddable the underlying combat/damage code would be.

It's called bad luck. Sometimes the best made plans go wrong.

Also, if this happens to you alot, maybe, just maybe, your plans aren't as good as you think they are. In games with die rolls and/or percentages there are usually ways to improve your odds through careful planning. If you're ignoring that aspect of the planning stage then yes you'll often find yourself on the wrong side of the die roll. Calling die rolls RNG, isn't really true either, as your bonuses through stats, abilities, talents, and environment should improve or hurt your odds given the unique circumstances of the encounter, which takes the randomness out of the equation. A random die roll wouldn't take anything into account, it would just be a set chance that's completely unaltered. That would be random. A die roll that takes your bonuses into account is not random.

Sometimes stuff happens, and as humans we tend to focus on the times stuff goes badly than when things go well, but I find that my character is DOS 1 makes his saving throws quite often. If I ignored it or didn't realize how often I make my saving throws I'd think it was random too, but that's not the case.

Removing chance from the equation makes the game stale and repetitive. It's boring to have things go as expected every time just because you met a certain criteria. It removes those heroic moments where you overcome the odds too.

All it did is just dividing turns into smaller parts, AP points can be seen as smaller parts within a turn, seems pretty elegant to me.

Thanks a lot

I do not have anything against people liking a tactical game without RNG elements, that is fine, you can enjoy whatever the hell you want. What I do have a problem with is illogical arguments.

There are plenty of arguments to be made in favour of a game with tactical combat without RNG elements, however, the ones that imply "more rng = less tactics", or anything of that sort, are just factually wrong.

There are plenty of examples to showcase that there is absolutely no correlation between those two factors. It is possible to have no RNG and no tactics, it is possible to have a lot of RNG and a lot of tactics (frankly there are dozens of examples of both).



The beauty of combat in a tactical game is giving the player the tools to overcome the possibility of randomness, that is when you know it was well done. I've yet to see a really good tactical combat game without any rng elements (or very little of them really), mainly because those do have the tendency of going bland. This specifically could be a case of personal prefference though.

Anyhow, great infograph. CC should take stats into account too, but it's a great start.

Well, I am of the opinion that there should not be a single CC resist. I think there should be CC resist for physical attacks (knockdown, etc), and CC resist for magical attacks (charm, etc). I think I should be able to build a character (and the associated defensive resists) for particular types of CC.

Regardless, whether one CC resist value, or two), some UI feedback would be nice. I don't see why CC resist cannot be your physical/magical absord value (+ other sources such as defensive attributes, etc).

Stop that. It is annoying.

Your ideas aren't bad - I agree with some. They are just rather poorly expressed.

If you then decide to belittle others as well, well, it makes your posts unpleasant to read - and this is before you add your bizarre hashtags.

because we need more class cooperations
to create more simple but not primitive system - 1 is less then 2?
and even if u shred full p.armor enemy still have portion of CC resist cos of m.armor - total armor rocks)

i will repeat it again and again
some people refuse to understand clear things
and they are repeating 100 times in a day about "RNG is not tactic"

repeat vs repeat

btw i tired too

Arguments against RNG:

The current video game market do not like RNG much, Julian Gallop's remake of Chaos: The Battle of Wizards, one of the best RNG management strategy game in history, got bad reviews by players largely because of this.

For singleplayer, the player would usually reload battles lost by bad luck, but not the ones won by good luck. He ends up cheating in a sense even without save scumming.

For multiplayer, to get a fair outcome you may need multiple matches to approximate statistical average, which is several times more time consuming.

Calculation by a player in any complex game is already largely statistical even without RNG, have you seen how a advanced Go/Baduk/Weiqi AI, such as the ones beat the top players work?

Heartstone? LoL with random mates, etc.?

Yes, its gamers mentality - not to solve but to go easy ways.
Never to use healing bottles, ressurecting scrolls, granades, dispels... better to load saved game...

Anyway almost every game have Hardcore mode to counter save scumming

A game that has RNG got bad reviews is not an argument against RNG in games - If anything the market shows the exact oposite, easily checked by looking at which games with tactical combat have a higher player base, and this is not an argument in favour of RNG either, just sales.

A player can reload battles lost by bad luck is also not an argument against RNG, you can do the same without RNG, this is just illogical on several levels. Not to mention that savescumming is a player side choice, the game has nothing to do with it.

Multiplayer is not the case at hand. But this statement was also false, there are several multiplayer games competitive and not competitive that rely on luck on different levels. That are widely played, and that are not so much.

Realism is actually an argument in favour of RNG, combat does not have deterministic results or foreshadowing. Not to mention that those AIs have very specific purposes and you won't see them in complex games in the near future.

What does that have to do with anything?

If players want to save-scum, they probably aren't playing on hardcore mode to begin with, so the existence won't do anything to those who don't pick that difficulty.

And making hardcore mode the ONLY mode would be a disaster. Many people, myself included, have no interest in playing an 80+ hour RPG where if you screw up you have to start all over. I would not buy or play a game like this if it could only be played in hardcore mode.

its give me an option to play like i want. And i dont want to think about possibility to save/load every second in fight

there is a difference between "save every second on good moves in fight" and "save on checkpoint" or "one save every fight"
DarkSouls is good exemple of playing w/o save/loads

It is generally good practice to read the post someone is answering to, or you risk taking things completely out of context. Roamer was answering this:

"For singleplayer, the player would usually reload battles lost by bad luck, but not the ones won by good luck. He ends up cheating in a sense even without save scumming."

Which was portrayed as an argument against RNG, but is completely illogical.

I don't think it's hard to understand. Reloading battles would cause statistical bias just like reloading a CC check. And it's difficult to avoid unless the player examine the statistical distribution carefully, or save far apart. He doesn't necessarily cause it intentionally.

You right, qwerty3w
Players should understand that even if one party member died or lost to much HP or CCed cos of unlucky roll - game still have many instruments to deal this it (and its not save/load).

The argument is completely illogical for the point you are trying to convey. I already explained why.

Savescumming is not restricted to games with RNG. Not only that, but it is also player side issue, not a game issue.

Portraying it as a factor against the type of RNG being discussed is dishonest, to be light about it.

Note that this is not a critic to what you are pointing out about savescumming creating bias, that much is correct, but it doesn't support what you're trying to say it does, at all.

Why would I use knock down arrow if I have the same chance to trigger the charm arrow, but better CC?

Or assuming I have no charm arrow, why would I use normal attack if I can always use knock down arrow on every attack and deal the same amount of damage with chance of CCing? The amount of arrow is near infinite in Act 2 anyway.

Why would I bother with non-CC spell if damaging enemies with CC spell will always be the better choice?

There's nothing tactical about RNG CC. All it does is make me maximize my roll by pouring every stat I have into the point that boost my RNG chance while preventing it. Look at games like Pillar of Eternity. What's the strongest strat in the game? Start with immunity to CC buff and Accuracy buff. Have whoever can't deal insane damage just learn Lore master and throw in all the CC scroll to perma CC the whole enemy team. Even if it graze, doesn't matter, keep using it and chain it until the entire team is CC'd long enough for your DPS to wipe all the key targets.

Same will happen here. What will become the best strat? A bunch of ranger using KD arrow on every attack and just restock every hour to never run out. It won't even take a hardcore player to figure this out. Deal huge damage AND chance to CC every hit.

Fights where you cannot perma CC the whole team right on turn 1 will always be more tactical than fights you can perma CC starting on turn 1 with a bit of luck. Just imagine the battle where you start with everyone using earthquake and hope it procs on half of the enemy team after 3 casts.

The game gives the player too many way to gain access to CC with no real trade off for RNG CC to be a thing, just like how Pillars' RNG CC games become a joke once you have access to AoE Paralysis and knock down scroll. The only way to make fight challenging after that is outright giving enemies immunity to CC.

U could use your Knokdown arrow all the time in current system too. just do some hits to shred armor in early game
and knokdown even with full armor in late game

Only after you shred armor.

Which is better than right before you shred armor.

RNG CC removes my reasons to play with any Strat that doesn't slap the word "CC" on top of it.

Why play any normal oil combo without impalement? you might get a chance to cripple!

Or maybe always use lighting attack instead of fire. Burn is disappointing. Go for stunned!

All depends of armor given
Mobs with high armor dont care about ur 10% chances to CC few first rounds.
And dont forget about armor repearing
CC chance on spells like knockdown arrow will be calculated before it deals dmg

10% chance to CC is stronger than 0% chance.

I already gave you a scenario. 3 Geo mage with Earthquake. That thing is ridiculous with good build.

First one takes away like 30% magic armor with 15% chance to CC everything
Then it becomes 30% chance on the 2nd cast
And it becomes a 45% chance on the 3rd cast.

While also applying slow.

Each enemy have less than 30% chance to not get knocked down on all 3 casts. You have a 70% chance to lololrolf the whole turn with "Tactical" spam play.

Edit: okay, let's say it's CC then armor.

0%, 15%, 30%,

40.5% chance on each target to get knocked down. That's not low. That's stupidly high on an attack almost guaranteed to hit everything with slow field attached.

And that damage doesn't even count the fact that I can be using a crit build on mage.

Wrong again
U are shreding m.armor
But alot of p.armor still lowering ur CC chance
If enemy have 1000 p.armor and 200 m.armor even if u shred m.armor to zero ur CC chance will be 16.6%

all depends of armor given, of spells balance. Not only of suggested system
and my very first topic was with a suggestion to increase all armors from 20% in early game to like 200% in late game in a purposes of new system so u will have the same as it is - few first rounds with good ressists to CC

enemies are in the same conditions - they have low chance to cripple u for example. So if u and opponent are lucky = two crippled in both teams :)))

Even 0.1% is stronger than 0%.

Edit : And there, we just fall right into the "rebalance the whole game around it" hole again.

The idea that the proposed system (even with its current simplicity) would allow MORE CC than the game currently allows is frankly pretty laughable...

Don't use completely arbitrary numbers for your "calculations" and expect to be taken seriously.

Not to mention that you are ignoring several other factors that are already present in the game.



Currently you have 100% chance of stunlocking from the beggining of a fight with Phoenix Dive overpower, then afterwards you can use those same earthquakes you used as an example to stunlock the entire map...

I don't think creating this sort of arbitrary scenarios prove anything, I use it as an example of how it will not always be true (If anything both the current situation and the proposed "solution" point out to the obvious problem currently in the game).

But, I can't really see how any change to the current system would allow MORE CC. The only enemies that currently don't stay down from beggining to end are the imune ones.

... and late someone will write "why are u repeating it all the time... its anoying"

I already cleared the game on tactician so I know exactly what damage I will be doing across the game to make a joke out of it.

Phoenix Dive - Overpower doesn't even work unless you are fighting in Act 2 with way better gear and it crits. Unless you're using that level 18 unique weapon in Act 3, your chance of it happening is less than 15% on a normal enemy and if you hit level 20 with that weapon, the crit won't even break the armor because of scaling.

if the whole 100% CC chance happens to a SINGLE TARGET because of a source skill dealing too much damage right off the bat, maybe his whole "Increase armor" he mentioned will completely fix it too? And it will even be more tactical because my next hit will still have 0% chance to CC, not 50-75% on everything that isn't a mage because of how auto-scaling of mobs work. (Something like 75-25, 50-50 and 25-75 on resist based on role with 100-0 and 0-100 on some creatures depending on their role).

It's far more tactical to learn to spread and plan your damage so Earthquake can knock multiple targets and be chained than to just use it for the damage anyway and hope it works. RNG CC will just make me roll multiple crit-mages and spam the largest damaging + CC AoE in the game, or a bunch of ranger with CC on every hit. Scoundrel? LOLwhoplaysthem?

Haha, thats again U are not the first
Its far more tactical to plan and take all possible risks and die and resurect but win! :)))


Btw, give us some numbers from ur build, cos i cant belive u


Ofc with over 3000% possible multipliers... who playsthem?
just with 70 FIN, 20 warfare, 20 scoundrel and Guerilla
its like x4.5x2x2.5x1.4 =x31.5 (3050%) and u still could have +from Huntsman, Dualwield, runes, gears and some other dmg multipliers and boosts.
2 Daggers with 155-165 dmg = (160+80)x31.5 = 7440 - the lowest possible dmg of whoplaysthem

You do know you can prebuff characters right? And enemies don't.

I finished it on tactician, there was never a scenario where phoenix dive overpower couldn't knockdown, not EVER (unless the enemy was immune but that is an entirely different story.), overpower doesn't need to crit, it only needs the character to have more armor than the enemy (so always). I was running only one character with it though, the game is already easy enough.

And don't get me started on how enemies can only try to keep up (and they still fail) by cheating both the turn order and "loremaster".

You don't even need the number if I say

"Highground Meteor Shower/Arrow storm"

Anyone that cleared the game will laugh at the difficulty when those are mentioned.

But if you want exact numbers,

Enemies at level 20 tactician have like 1673 armor 7803 magic and 9838 for mages. Range sits at 5k 5k armor/mr and sword just flip the mages armor and magic.

Boss have like 8k 8k 20k health.

a TANK mage, not crit mage with maxed int does 1.5k earthquake per cast at 2 + 3 Geomancer.

If I remove that leadership and use another +2 Geo ring and +1 Geo hat on my Fane, I can go for 10 + 6 Geomancer which boost the damage from +25% to +75%, jumping to about 2.2k damage. (I have all th egears btw)

And get Wits
And get + Crit chance weapon (since mage don't need weapon, they just get crit weapon)
and +10 crit chance from hot head.
And +5% from Ingenious (fane is a human mage)
And +12% from fire rune necklace slot

my level 21 Fane can easily be spec'd to deal 4k damage per earthquake since it's almost guaranteed to crit. The only thing keeping me from doing that is their magic resist but even that is not enough if I make 2 mages or to abuse the "RNG CC" even more, 3 mages.



Wish I have that much multiplier in the real game too because you went over so many stat caps. Actually, all of them.



If you're abusing Anathema, that's another story. That thing is made to break the game.

Or you're using pre-buff Fortify then that's a different min-max better. (Where pre-hasted eyed Highground ARrowstorm + Balistic is way stronger)

Lone wolf. Do u know? in my exemple i spend 20 points on schools(that is possible on lvl 20) and 30 points on FIN (that is possible on lvl 15). I Have even more to reach maybe x88? Yeah, assasin creed, jump from highground = x63 (15120 min dmg)... +runes+gear+buffs lets reach 100 000 form 1 hit :))

I don't think you realise how overpower works. Your weapon is completely irrelevant using it, Anathema serves no purpose there.

And again, you're not talking about a system, you're making arbitrary assumptions.

As flawed as it is, there is no situation where the proposed system would allow more CC than the game currently allows.

Lone wolf is broken and we all know it. Don't balance the game around something that is obviously busted. That's like saying current Arrow storm is fair.

And if that is high for you, do Archer. Same damage, bigger range, more CC since highground and crit shares the same multiplier.



I already did the math for earthquake in the final fight as the dude requested WITHOUT lonewolf. You can knock down 1 char with buffed overpower or I can just cast Earthquake twice and be given 50%-75% chance to knock down all of them with the proposed system. I went and checked the number for this and 4k per earthquake crit isn't over the top.

Pls again
so u hitting 4000 EQ vs how many phys and mag armor?

Enemies at level 20 tactician have like 1673 armor 7803 magic and 9838 for mages. Range sits at 5k 5k armor/mr and sword just flip the mages armor and magic.

You clearly skimmed the thing.

9838 is vit btw.

Imagine if I bust out the ezmodolonewolves too so the first cast deal 8k instead and break the entire thing. The second one might as well just kill.

so in 2 EQ u shred 7800 m.armor to zero and have 100% cc on second EQ? (edited. forgot about p.resist vs knokdown, my bad) cos in current system CC works not before but after dmg

So what is ur problem? U want that 100% on second hit or not?
Cos even with ur low dmg, seems like u always have 100% cc in current system

Non lone-wolf run will not break the armor until the 2nd cast and even if it breaks, it doesn't knock because knock is a physical CC. That's how the skill is kept in powercheck. You either get massive AoE damage or massive CC. Removing the limitation and adding RNG instead just make the skill a "Use and forget" which is the opposite of tactical. Many CC-related and magical skill will suffer from this.

And Lone wolf should never be used for balance. That thing is an issue on an its own and should be nerfed. I don't even need to EArthquake CC that fight with RNG. The darn thing already kills.

I see
Can u shred 1600 p.armor? or ur party is bad with it?
Or maybe after 2 EQ use some magic CC?

Anyway as u see its possible to 100% CC in the first round in current system

In suggested system ur chances to CC in first round will be less then 100%

Then I get to use Earthquake for CC but not for Damage. See? Tradeoff. Tactical.

You're trying to nit pick so hard you're missing the points.

If RNG cc becomes a thing, non-CC abilities will suck unless we nerf all the CC-related skill damage to be wayyy less than non-cc. Why would I ever use move that deals the same damage but doesn't have bonus attached?

You're not asking for just an armor change. You're also asking for an entire game rebalanced around it. Might as well be a new game.

Dont want to offtop about rebalancing all things

SO...
In current system its possible to have 100% CC in first round even with not perfect builds or party compositions (and, btw, some builds dont need secind roun - like Pyro: Phoenix dive -> firesurface under u -> -1 AP cost for fire spells, adrenaline rush, flesh sacrifice -> nova, laser,fireboll -> executioner +2ap... some other spells = GG in half round)

In Suggested - its imposible to have 100%. (and, btw, it emulating realistic dmg absorbtion)

Why do we need that gray and blue HP bars?

You're also missing that 0.1% is still better than 0%.

And specific cc protection is a thing.

And you completely ignore the part about my Earthquake ccing MULTIPLE targets in the suggested system while the current one will only work on the chosen focused target. RNG dice roll on AoE breaks the game even more than focus-fire CC while being nowhere near tactical as moves become "Fire-and-forget".

Why even ask me to bring up the flaw if the whole thing is going to be brickwall'd.

who said that? or do u know exect numbers of armors in suggested system?

Even with current 1600 and 7800

- first cast of EQ will have 0% CC chance, as it counts before DMG.
- second cast will have:
1 - (1600+7800-4000)/(1600+7800) = 43% so u could CC Half of all enemies.
- third cast (like chainlightning+Rain or another AOE CC even third EQ) u will have:
1 - (9400-8000) /9400 = 85%

In 3 casts u cant 100% CC all enemies in suggested system

In current system u could CC with 100% chance in 3 or less casts

I just bolded the problematic part for you.

If you can't see why being able to shut the entire team instead of a limited amount of enemies from your combo, it's hard to talk about being tactical.

Not to mention you're using a low physical armor target to make it easy to say "Break armor and CC multiple targets with knock down".

Again actual enemies with a 4-man non lonewolf abusing comp, game-winning skills like Earthquake is almost never used before T2 to guarantee maximum efficiency. When you actually have to consider when to use what skill for best effect, that is tactical. When you just drop multiple of them because "lololtheymightwork", that's not tactical.

Its not my combo. Its yours
I just add third EQ or another AOE CC
And we are compearing 2 systems not tactical dessigions right now


Btw, i dont see text fromating on this site (bold or something) maybe some browser problem

Have u read my edited msg about Pyro?
Sorry for tonns of edits my english is on school level

Current system, Earthquake combo only works if you take the extra step to break physical armor. This means the game winning strat require set-up for it to be used.

Proposed System, multiple Earthquake destroy everything so you can just spam it. Situational and set-up combo turns into "Fire-and-forget" because the limitations all have been removed, just with dice roll slapped on top of them.

If the system is designed without even keeping tactical decisions in mind, why even try to bring it up in a game that is supposed to be about tactic? The game needs more situational combo and viable winning strat, not less of them.

If you want RNG CC back, then it's time to remove majority of the CC from AoE mage tree and make most of CC single-target.

So u dont agree with my calculations that in current system u dont even need CC and could kill all things in first round like Pyro, or u could CC everithing in first round with 100% chance

and in suggested system u cant CC with 100% chance for the same period of time (even with current armor numbers)

And pls, no more "RNG is less tactical". Just read the full tread

(Ur tactical dessigions: CC or DMG)
(My - CC or if not, then some escape, or better cryostasis, then some dmg and CC again...if all goes bad and enemy will CC me with 1% chance i will try to dispell it... if things will be even worse i will use resurection scroll and continue my fight)

Stuffs like Arrow storm, meteor Shower and Lone wolves are seperate issues, especially lone wolves. Item scaling needs to be addressed and that will directly nerf Arrow storm. They have nothing to do with the armor system.

And even if you can't CC 100% of the time, what matters is that it allows you to CC before the intended turn ON MULTIPLE ENEMIES. That's the problem. MULTIPLE ENEMIES.

In the current system, you have 100% CC chance on that target, this target and 0 on the rest.

In the proposed system you have a range of 25-60% on every targets in the area after using a single AoE.

If there are a lot of AoE CC to choose from, RNG CC immediately becomes a big no. If skills like Earthquake can be spammed and on average, shut off half of the enemy team, that's just BS, not tactical. If RNG CC is to come back, skills like Earthquake, Chain Lighting and any large multi-hit skill in the game must all have their CC removed and toned down to soft-cc to make the game playable and not be a total joke.

Damn)) stop it) let me watch my movie)

Yeah u could CC MULTIPLE ENEMIES (not single) with 100% chance in current system in the first round with different builds w/o any tactic (and yes there are enought AOE CC in Aero and Hydro schools)

and u COULD NOT 100% CC in suggested system (even in round#100, cos of diminishing returns if not ROUNDED)

all other ur suggestions - just NO. You dont understend what problems we are trying to solve here. And its not just one you talk about.

P.S. Enemies could CC u too

i've seen a poll somewhere here. Around 60% of players think that something NEEDS to be changed. With minor or major tweaks.So...
I suggest to buff vitality and make a single CC-shield bar with no RNG which will decrease simultaneously with damage to vitality at some %. Add some spells\skills that will burn that CC-shield directly with no damage to vitality.
This would let you decide - try to kill fast with no CC or try to CC enemy. There still would be a CC protection as it is now but would let lone mages do not feel that some of them are worthless in party of 3 physical DD.

That number does not mean anything. That poll was most certainly mostly answered by the people who don't like the system. Other people are busy playing instead of whining.

You guys are all taking this way too seriously. This is a single/coop narrative driven RPG. Not a competitive e-sports game.

You have all the right to dislike the system but stop acting like this is serious business, and trying to play game designers.

Enjoy the game or don't, but stop acting entitled and all knowing while you have 0 ideas what it means to create such a huge and complex game.

I can't even imagine what's happening in your life in general to make you lose your time fighting on a forum for that stuff.

PS: I just came here to post about a bug I got. I m going back playing the game and won't check back this thread. You should do the same. Life is more agreeable when you stop being bitter and all revolted about everything.

We discuss the topic because we're invested and interested in the game and want to see it get even better. I play the game and think about what could make it even better because I enjoy it, and I assume most people here do as well despite our different ideas and solutions.

Don't teach me(us) how to live or how to relate to something. Got nothing constructive? Just move along.

Sure. Always the same answer.
20000+ treads in General/Tips and tricks
vs 8000 in Suggestions and Feedback




It is not just a toy from your childhood
Its a result of work and business
If some Baker will create bad Bread
Or some Device developer will create bad Smartphone
... dont take all too seriously just use bad products

If it is the goal to take the randomness out of the equation with careful planning it would be better to remove the randomness in the first place and replace it with important tactical choices. Chess is an example of such a game



Exactly.

I think that one of the following systems should improve the current situation:

Every character gets a physical ward and a magical ward:
- The physical ward should be either inactive or active
- The magical ward should be either inactive or active
- Status effects should be applied if the corresponding ward is inactive
- The physical ward should be active at the beginning of every turn
- The magical ward should be active at the beginning of every turn
- Physical weapons should have the basic skill "Shatter" to set the physical ward to inactive
- Elemental weapons should have the basic skill "Dispel" to set the magical ward to inactive
- Both skills should cost 2 ap and they should have the same range as the equipped weapon
- Armor should increase the resistance against physical, air, earth, ... damage by x %


The following solution would be probably easier to implement:
- Reduce the current armor values by 25 %
- Remove the Perseverance skill
- A character should regenerate 25 % of his magic armor when he is frozen or stunned
- A character should regenerate 25 % of his physical armor when he is knocked down or petrified

Guys, really, tell me please about ur important tactical choices in a game u could play w/o any CC or play it with 100% CC from the first round.
Cos i think with RNG ull have even harder chains (trees) of tactical choices.

This game is not a chess - u dont need to plan your next 20 turns.

With RNG the choices boil down to risk management "This is statistically giving me the best outcome so is the best choice, but it costs XX and YY so if I do happen to roll low I'm screwed"

The best choices are already there with or without RNG, but with RNG you can... randomly get neutered by no fault of your own.

There is nothing to complain about in a game that lets you re-spec early and in a game that you can save/load. CC or no-CC the combat is fun. I prefer DOS2 system over DOS:EE, but that doesn't mean DOS2 couldn't be fun with a different CC system. My gripe is that fans don't understand how much work it takes to put together a game like this when they ask to make these huge changes. We were given an Editor and GM mode, even Arena. Be thankful.

Its took alot of time to create a supercar too... but if its broken or made of wood?

Many players dont belive Larian would change something, and just showing them their misstakes - i.e. "Guys, dont think we will buy EA next time"

Roamer, I have to admit I have not read all the responses so far. I want to address your position to a single CC resist vs 2 CC resists for physical and magical.

Picture an ememy who has 1 magic armor and 99 physical armor (a beefy warrior for example). My party is comprised of magic damage dealers. I am in trouble here.. I cannot effectively magically CC this enemy. He will have a CC resist of 99 percent. Seems odd... the cleche achilles heel of a phsyically imposing, plate wearing warrior is his weakness to magic controlling effects. your system models this backwards. Just my 2 cents.

Oh. Okay, then I guess those bugs with instantly closing dialogue windows with certain NPC's are not actually bugs but working as intended.

(There is absolutely zero relation between saving/reloading, respeccing, and the armor system. The existence of respecs and saving/reloading does not automatically mean there are literally zero issues with the game and no one should complain about anything. That is a completely idiotic statement and you should be ashamed for making that claim.)

this is not ingame numbers - 1 and 99
But mages can deal with it cos they have INT scaled phys dmg spells like mosquitoes and others
mages could use warfare INT scaled skills with equiped wands or stufs

and as i know the easiest solution for ur exemple is not to use CC and just kill everything (pyro mage with phoenix dive (-1 ap cost for fire spells standing on fire) +nova,laser,fireboll +exectioner (+2 ap per kill) + adrenaline+ elf + other spells = 1 round of the fight w/o any CC)

CC is not the main problem
Gray and Blue HP bars are doing almost nothing in current system. Almost - cos they could only ruine party cooperations, they dont decrease incoming dmg to HP like armors should do, they could easely be shreded in first round for 100% CC, they are two illogical walls right now etc...

This thread is about the armor system, not bugs. I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills and an understanding of context.

Implementing an armor system you don't like is not giving you a broken product.

Before digital downloads and EA people bought a game and if they didn't like it, that was too bad. At least with EA you have the opportunity to be disappointed at a discount.

I'm probably one of the few people that couldn't care less if this game had the armor system or not. I would still enjoy it. DOS2 has a few fatal bugs and some balancing issues, for example I thought 1AP combat sneak was too cheap, so they made it 4AP, which is insane to me...then I saw a mod for a 2AP version. The greatest thing about this game is not the solo, campaign, it's the amazing replay value we get with the other modes.

this topic is about 1 problem
there are many others



My equation is REPLAYABILITY = 0
Even if i did not saw all Origins quest lines, i saw alot to know that i dont want to play again and try different builds or something.

The core point is there is practically forced tradeoff between save frequency and statistical fidelity in a game with RNG. High save frequency is useful for players who are not that good at the game but also dislike experiencing the same contents repeatly, it's not ideal if it's hard to achieve without creating bias as a byproduct. So it's a design issue.

Save scumming is certainly possible in a deterministic game if it is information incomplete or reaction focused, but that's mostly irrelevant in this context.

This is a terrible idea. You could have a billion magic armour, but because it's only 50% of your max magic armour. You suddenly have the same chance to be charmed as someone with 1/2 magic armour.

The whole point of armour is to shift the focus onto healing and targeting weak armour. This system means you dumb shit on the enemy and set it on fire and hope it works.

If you think rng is somehow the epitome of strategy, you're deeply mistaken. "Always bet on black" isn't something a game aspiring to have strategic combat should aim to focus on. Betting on rng isn't a good strategy it's a sign of gambling addiction.

The system is fine as is, it may need some number tweaks (and more aoe armour restore skills), but having a degrading chance to resist cc would be terrible.

Igniz13. you are completely wrong, read topic more carefully and calculate better
and dont post something like that again

P.S. with full armor everybody have 100% resist, 100000/100000 or 1/2, but if u have more then 2 dmg can u callculate chances for both ur exemples? You suddenly have the same chances? or not?

These are ingame numbers, but they demonstrate a problem of the system: If an enemy has for example 200 magic armor and 800 physical armor it would have a cc resist chance of 80 % if the magic armor has been removed. The system works only if the armor values are roughly equal, because the attacker has to damage both armors if one of them has a much higher value. This increases only the length of the combat encounters.

Its not like the maths you use are particularly clear, but if you have 50% of your armour, you have the same chance to be affected by cc no matter the values. It's a terrible system because the game is built around the amounts mattering. Loosing a portion of your armour should not make you vulnerable when cc is everywhere and can be applied just by taking a step.

I already answered that kind of questions
that is why i said - read forum

Mages have alot of physical dmg spells
Even with 80% resist its good to fight vs such enemy
etc
etc
read forum

Really? i will broke ur shoulders, helmet and some other parts of ur armor - and u think u still immune cos u have ur metal pants left?

Btw - taking a step on ice even with full armors is RNG. or Not?

Suggested system will help enemies even more then players - cos players have no problems in eazymod fights. Players dont even need to CC enemies in mid game+(same as in DoS1: 20% of the game is a bit chellenging and 80% - easy mod)

Those people who don't want RNG back must be those who cry at RNG game like Xcom. (lol).
Finite encounter, finite enemy. Think about it a little.

W/o RNG this game will be seen as failure few months from now when people already finished the story and onward for a combat replay.

RNG element is what make game like D:OS feel alive (though i admit i got bored half way with OS EE because my char can miss that CC but still deal enough damage (with that skill) to guarantee the waste - in other word, overpowered so fast that you don't really care about the mild percentage to CC).

OS2 may as well remove the HP bar because w/o armor you are as good as dead (like how glass cannon is a shit talent when every enemy has blink like ability so you can't never escape them).

Armour is an abstract, it's not specifically something being broken, if your hazmat suit has a hole in it, it's not going guy stop any air born disease until util patch it, but until it gets that hole, it's not going to strangely decay just because you're standing in noxious fumes.

Slipping on ice is rng, but it's not dependable and only affects people moving through it. It also doesn't care if you have no armour, it's one ofa few cc affects that works despite your armour values. What you can't do is force people to be affected by it, it's not the same as having an aoe that knocks down.

I don't really care what you think about the difficulty of the combat, because all your suggestion does is make it even dumber. It's not hard to understand, with your system you just dump on the enemy and luck factors more into things than before. That's not a good thing.

The enemy has to win once to get a game over, you have to go through hundreds of fights. If fights devolve into, who gets lucky with rng, then you're going to lose more than not, and any time you win is going to be about luck rather than strategy.

Xcom is a completely different game built around improving odds, which is it's own problem with games like darkest dungeon where it's more about gaming the game than just playing it.

There is no luck that kill you outright in this game.
Know about a thing called GLOWING IDOL OF REBITH? yeah right, that thing is a self-rez full health and easy to make. Don't speak crap about lucky or not. Real tactic involve minimize the odd against you, a.k.a things you cannot accounted for; not completely remove it then call "oh no, rng is dumb and should not ever been in a game".

Anyone can play a static game, even a toddler.

Why do we need an abstract gray and blue bars if in medieval-like virtual worlds players want to feel more medieval-like armors and its not hard to create that feeling

And an Abstract arrows w/o RNG accuracy should be like this

No, it's the difference between wanting to use an axe that has a 50% chance of doing 100 damage and a sword that has a 100% chance chance of 50 damage, then being asked to hit a guy with 75 health.

If you're that guy with 75 health, you'd rather face the guy with the sword, especially if you might get healed and survive. If you get one shotted by the axe, you've got shit all for counter measures, healing doesn't matter, you're just waiting to see if you get 1 shotted.

You might prefer using the axe, but you'd hate to face him and there'd be no great strategy behind the axe, it'd just be the axe. That's why systems dictated by rng are bad. Even if you can reduce the odds of getting hit by 20%, it's not a great strategy on either end.

Death, healing and life are what the game is built around. Ressurection is a part of the game. The game is built around life bar management. It's not a difficult concept

50%-100 dmg and 100%-50 dmg...
Devs in a games with RNG will never add an enemy with 75 hp - it would be like 750 hp

Hypotetical exemples that never happens in good games is not something we should talk about

And why u are not asking to remove all RNGs?
(dmg, dodge, crit, liquid appearence, unpredictible terrain, ice stepping, move cost accidently stepping on oil, random autoTP, aviability of TP spots (on highground too), etc)

Seems like u love 13 ingame spells for relocating urself in combat almost 100% chance in any time to be where u want to be - tactic!

That is still how the game works. All weapons have a max and min damage, and even more there is always a chance of crit. So not sure, what you are trying to prove with that argument.

Also it not RNG, it is chances. It is part of the tactical gameplay to change the battlefield situation, so that the odds are in your favor, and not in your enemies. If there is no risk, there is also no tension, making fights just long lasting and boring, easily calculatable.

Anyhow D:OS2 is about armor management, not about life management. It is only life management if you failed with armor management. Because if your armors are gone, you are getting CCed.

If you want your combat to carry danger and tension, it needs to have risk. There is no risk in divinity 2. I hit a guy with my arrow with 100% hit rate, then shoot with a knockdown arrow with a 100% knockdown rate. Taking the RNG and risk out of battles changes them from fights into puzzles, or worse, a checklist. The battlefield is supposed to be unpredictable to some extent, plans should succeed, or fail. To see my house of cards fall only to have my backup plan save me, THAT, is satisfying combat.