Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity Original Sin - Beta Combat Ideas

i like the system so far.
i HATE prohibitive resource systems, b/c they take the fun out of magic. and i have never seen a system which is not reduced to absurdity b/c of the needed refreshing system (like one-button-sleeping in NWN2) or is bothering the crap out of game play (like 'i dont have enough mushrooms for a much needed spell in the next fights so i have to grind like 2 hours just to be able to fight in the first place').

whats wrong with cooldowns that prevent using uber-spells more than once in a regular fight but let us use such spells in every fight? if there is a one-shot spell, nerf the spell but do not include a dump, silly and foolish resource system which nobody really needs.

btw: have us walking 2 hours back to an inn (or 'sleeping place') in order to refresh spells (b/c using teleports would again reduce such a system to absurdity)? lets say every fight or every second fight (if not as often, then why have such a system at all)? yeah, that sounds like a lot of fun.

seriously, do you guys who sugguest something like that think before posting in the first place?

another suggestion:
make all spells very basic (in respect to damage, duration, AOE etc. BUT NOT in respect to their 'nature' (like teleporting or over all utility)) BUT buff-able via ingredients/resources (e.g. (complicated version) garlic or silver make spells more damaging to undead or (simpler version) a general ingredient like firestone buffs all fire spells in some way (again: damage, duration and/or AOE etc.).

baseline spells still need to be at least moderately viable for general fights (like they do less damage than average bows or swords or something) but use a simple AP and cool down system and can be used more often. in harder fights (like bosses) one can use the buffed versions costing hard to get (but NOT finite) resources every time/cast/use.

Well, there is not so much wrong with this system. However, there are some situations in which such a system could be abused or make the game far too easy. Let us imagine that we have a big dungeon with lots of enemies, so that the frequency of encounters is very high. Now, let us also say that in each encounter we have to fight just against a few skeletons, but we must fight very often. So, if we know a very powerful spell, there is nothing which would prevent us from casting it in every single fight killing all the enemies with just one blow. And we would be able to use this spell really in each and every fight which would render the whole dungeon just trivial. Now, some players could of course enjoy such an over-powered character but some other players also like challenge and would like some limitations for such powerful spells (also between the fights). If D:OS had a real-time combat, this could be limited by means of mana or so. Here, we were just discussing some ideas how some kind of the limitation system between the fights could be implemented into the turn-based system.

Yeah I can imagine this working great: "Mere goblins? I'm gonna save my infinite ressource that make my spells stronger, just in case I need it later."

Currently i reached level 5 with my Characters (and finished the main Alpha quest). All i can say so far is: a mage with 50 Skill Points is able to deal lot more damage than a Ranger or a poor Warrior.

Even with Mana or "On SpeelUsage per Sleep", this wouldn't change, because most of the enemies are "one hit wonders". With Flares and Ligthing at level 13, you deal way more damage then any other melee attack (known to me)

There are two things, who seemes strange or "subject to change":

• Mages have lot more skills to learn/use
• every point in intelligence leads to more an additional skillpoint with the next level.

Already discussed in the ruleset topic: intelligence is hands down the most overpowered stat and a cap to the amount of points you can spend in a certain skill at a given level is the most urgent fix.
Everything we've discussed here implies a serious balancing pass (or even more than one).

Probably the fact that being able to cast your uber-spell on any 1 level goblin that crosses your way is dump, silly and foolish combat gameplay? Of course, maybe I'm wrong: this is just an hypothesis .

PS: by the way, I can't understand why people that can't stand to resource management bother to play an Ultima-like RPG in the first place? The mainstream market is full of Dragon Age-like crap that allows you to cast your uber-spells as much as you want. If I were you, I would look to Inquisition for having "fun" with magic.

It could possibly be because no games are perfect, and liking an Ultima game does not mean that one automatically likes every single thing about it and its mechanics.

Ultime VII is far from perfect (its combat system sucks, for instance). Point is, resource management is not exactly a secondary element in its gameplay formula.
It's ok to play soccer without liking any single element of a soccer match. If you don't like kicking a ball you should pick another sport, though.

For those that want longer cool down times you can easily implement those yourself. Don't use that skill again until your predetermined time is up. But in a game about choice you can't say that Joe Gamer can't use the same skill as much as he wants as long as the game allows it. If the developers want it to be usable every ten seconds then it's working as designed. If you want a longer cool down don't use it. For those that want to add things like reagents for spells then you are impacting more than just your game. You are affecting everyone's gameplay. In a game with random loot you want to add something new to keep track of. Say Joe Gamer decides to use his powerful skill on the giant orc and uses all his reagents. Then he goes to fight Arhu's experiment and didn't find any reagents on the way. You are punishing him for his gameplay actions. This is a game about choice and playing how you want. So how can you tell someone they were wrong for using a skill at a certain time? And for those talking about other games that use that mechanic, guess what, this isn't one of those games. Just because the developers liked that game doesn't mean every aspect of it need to be in their game. Again, if you feel like the skill is too powerful for use every 5 turns or whatever, implement your own cool down times, but don't try to change the game to what you want and making everyone else have to play by your rules.

You're basically saying players should have the freedom of making choices that have no consequences, preferably with godmode enabled.

You can kill everyone in the game and still finish it. Isn't that technically the same thing as your godmode? Why isn't the player punished for killing quest givers? It's a game about choice, that's why. You can choose when and if you want to use the skill. But don't say that another player has to play by your rules. We play by the developers rules and if they want the skill to be used every turn then we should be able to.

No, it's a game about Choices and Consequences, like any other decent RPG out there. Being able to beat the game killing everybody has nothing to do with the lack of consequences you're asking for (It was a feature in Ultima VII, a game which is 100% about consequences).
In D:OS, if someone spots you while stealing, guards come. If you waste your best spell with a level 1 goblin, you're supposed to lack that spell when you fight a level 10 goblin king. Choices and consequences in both cases.
If you want to play a brainless roaming game with stats (asking other players to impose themselves all the limits you don't want in your game, which is the stupidest thing I've ever read about game mechanics - don't take it personally), you have plenty of options: I suggest to start with a Bethesda game.
Orignal Sin is another kind of game, and not because I'm saying that. Because Larians said that...

Being able to finish the game if you kill everyone does not mean that it won't have any consequences and that you will be able to get and finish each and every quest. So, if you kill a merchant, you won't be able to trade with him anymore. If you kill a quest giver then his quest may be lost for you or you do not get any hints which might be useful for you for other quests - and a punishment you do not get any quest-related XPs.

Besides, nobody forces anyone here to play by anyone's rules. It is still an alpha stage and we are just discussing here any game mechanics which strike us as inefficient, unbalanced or just odd and are making suggestions. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and preferences. Larian might or might not read this thread and pick up some ideas which they think would be good for the game.

And the consequence for killing everyone is? You can still finish the game. Not that great of a consequence. You seem ok with that aspect of the game but want more consequences when dealing with using a skill. Seems a tad off to me. I think the combat works well. Who knows how powerful the skills will be once balanced? But if Larian says the consequence for using a skill is you wait 5 seconds before you can use it again then it's working as intended. You can't ask for high consequences in one area but lax ones in another.

There is a shitload of consequences for killing people, both in Orignal Sin and Ultima VII. See above if you don't get what I'm talking about.
Again, if you want to play a brainless roaming game with stats instead of a full fledged RPG I can give you a few names.

Which is understandable. I'm just pointing out that by adding things such as reagents will restrict the choices one can make. Who cares if Joe Gamer uses his most powerful skill on a level one mob? Does his game affect anyone else's? No. I'm offering suggestions like any other person. Mine just happen to be implement your own restrictions in your own game if you don't think they are hard enough.


This isn't Ultima as I've stated before so that argument is null and void. But yes you may lose some quest xp or you might turn in the quest then kill the quest giver getting both quest xp and xp for killing him. But if you want harsher consequences for skill use why not also suggest upping the consequences in other areas. Why not add permadeath? I'm being sarcastic with that suggestion btw. But my point is the choice is up to Larian and so far they seem ok with it. I pledged for this game same as you and I like the way it plays currently (minus a few bugs and quirks). So why should I have to play a game changed from what it originally was? It then wouldn't be the game I pledged for. You may like the idea of reagents and such but everyone else may not. You have to be open to their opinions as well. And to tell someone to go play another game because they disagree with you is a tad childish. We all pledged for this game and all have the right to say whether we like or dislike something. I dislike the suggestion of reagents and have given possible solutions to those that want longer cool downs that don't impact everyone's game and the enjoyment thereof.

1) Originally the game had mana. Now it hasn't. Did you know that when you pledged it? In the fist alpha build there was no spell preparation. Now we are going to have it. That's the purpose of an Alpha: improving the game quality through iteration. The only null argument here is: "I like the game how it is (totally unbalanced, for the record), so nobody has to change it".
2) Again, don't take it personally, but: "You should impose yourself all the limits you want and leave other players free to enjoy the game as they want" is the wrongest idea I've ever heard about game design. Games DO have rules. Designers are paid to conceive these rules, and players are supposed to play according these rules. That's why we are having a debate about what rule would make this game better.
3) Being able to finish the game killing everybody is 100% about choices and consequences. Developers basically are saying: "you want to be a moron? Be my guest! We don't give you a game over. We give you the full consequences of your moronic actions".

This IS an old-school-RPG inspired by one of the best RPGs ever made.
This IS therefore a game with choices and consequences and complex systems.
If you want a consequence-free game, you've pledged the wrong game...

1) I'm fine with a mana system as my fav games are J-RPGS. So casting time and mana management is second nature. And you can't put quotes around something you're misquoting, since it's not a direct wrote anymore. And I did say minus bugs and quirks. The system in place is good as is. Once balanced a skill that once was uber powerful may be toned down. As Larian stated it's not balanced.

2) If a developer makes the rules and you think they are too lax why not implement your own? That's what I'm suggesting. If they say you can use your most powerful skill once every 5 seconds will that mean people will? Some will, some won't. Their choice and it's condoned by game design. Now if the intent is once every 5 minutes and it's usable every 5 seconds then it's broken. But to say that the rules set by the developer are wrong and should be your rules is wrong.

3) Who are you to say a choice is moronic though? If game design says I can use this skill as long as I have the AP, mana, what have you, and I use it every time who's to say I'm wrong? Not the developer as they allow it. Now if the game says you do this and then bad things will happen and you still do that's your choice. All due to game design. But your idea of what is good game design and mine or the next person or the developers will differ. As I have stated we all play by the developers rule.

And claiming that Ultima is one of the best RPGs is your opinion. I may not agree with you but I'm not claiming you're wrong and should go elsewhere.

In any debate you need to listen to the other side and offer points as to why it should be your way. I've offered a compromise for the suggestion of longer cool down if it isn't implemented. Could there possibly be a better system to implement instead of reagents?