Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - Suggestions and Feedback problems and stuff and things list

Do you see what you're doing though? You're naming things that meshed with the silly animations, things that reinforced it in the world. In this game the animations are alone in a world that doesn't support them. I'm sure there are ways to pull off a very serious and also very silly story, but even then it hints at some kind of insanity on the part of the story teller. (Which would be the player character, in Divinity's case.)

What kind of character would always perform an acrobatic trick at the top of a ladder? In a world like this, that character would be a sociopath, because with all these awful things happening and the somber mood they would have to be seriously disconnected from any kind of normal range of emotions or feeling of community to do something like that. If this really, really must be kept in the game the way the story is now, then it would have to be in the form of a tag added for "Lunatic", so that when you have both "Lunatic" and "Jester" you will perform acrobatic tricks.

Whatever form it comes in, unless the story is planning to be changed drastically, it should be reserved to an option.

I'm not familiar with the game, maybe I'll have to check it out, but I think the problem I'm having with it is similar to the uncanny valley. (Uncanny Valley) Hiding in a bush isn't silly enough to be acceptable, but it also isn't serious. Just a thought.

The only issue with the current armor system is that all forms of CC boil down to being a stun. This has been said before and it needs to be said again. Until the stat system changes and CC becomes more diverse in their effects, this kind of argument will keep popping up.

That about sums it up. I wish you could sticky posts; the CC issue has been discussed to death. It should just be pinned somewhere so everyone can easily read the consensus thus far, especially since so many combat/stat systems are affected by it.

The problem is, not everyone is here on the same train.

This armor system is an awful idea for more reasons than just cc. Idk if you already read what I wrote earlier in response to someone but it was basically saying the problem is the number of actions per turn and the prevalence of cc in almost all moves, not the way armor works. Armor how it is now is a reaction that only creates more problems. It's an illogical idea. Armor should be reverted to normal (divinity original sin) and cc and actions per turn should be balanced.



That's not a problem, I really don't want us to all be on the same train. There's no point in talking if we all already magically agree. I know I personally hope all dwarves die in a fire but I don't hope the people who like dwarves die in a fire.

The cc forums have already tackled the idea of changing defenses. It's not practical. Changing CC needs to be the priority. Having every different cc boil down to the same effect is toxic for game design. It just results in every move being a stun with a different name.

The goal needs to be changing the cc to something that isn't a stun. Freezing could be a snare that prevents movement or gives the character a shield that absorbs both damage types and they remain stunned until it breaks, but would also lose a percentage of the shield each time their turn starts. Blind should set hit chance to 50% or lower.

We need changes like this. A new armor system is fine by me, because it makes sense. As a battle rages, armor is going to become damaged and less effective. If anything, I hope this new system stays.

Except CC was equally overpowered and omnipresent in DOS1. Stun, freeze, knockdown, petrify...all do the same thing and are easy to inflict. Air elementals were ludicrously overpowered because they stunned on hit and aoe stunned on death. Between those 4 hard CC's and slow/cripple, the enemy will never get to do anything. I'm not sure why you're acting like that needs to return to this game.

Likewise lone wolf playthroughs were brutal because with only two characters, if the enemy got the first turn you'd often be immediately obliterated since they could just CC your two heroes and then you're screwed.

The 100% immunity to debuffs while the shield is up completely removes any debuff focused build from the game

Having your armor take the form of temporary hp rather than defensive stats gives no opportunity for scaling with tanks, the scaling will always just be more hp, since there is no mitigation build

With the immunity there is no playstyle for ranged to use to keep enemies from just walking straight up to them, other than using ground effects, which should be an avoided gameplay behavior since it's just a gimmick in it's current form. In most games tanks would have ways of approaching ranged enemies with cc, usually related to an ability which entails some risk once it is used, since it will be on cooldown after the effect has worn off. The immunity and damage shield isn't tactical and involves no risk since it is out of the players control.

After the tank has reached the ranged, the ranged will have been able to chop through whatever shield the tank has. Now the tank is suffering movement penalties from armor that is no longer providing any bonus, has lost any way to stop themselves from being cc chained, and there was no player choice involved in the use of the immunity since it is mandatory and mitigation equipment doesn't exist.

The armor system is bad for everyone, created because hp pillows with debuff immunity stop you from being one shot. Ground effects shouldn't be everywhere, cc shouldn't be everywhere, players should be able to use two attacks in a turn at the most, or even just one attack per turn; and armor should just provide mitigation and otherwise be as it was in the first game. The ap system is interesting but it is the source of almost all problems within the combat, and it needs to be addressed.



I said cc wasn't the only problem, not that it wasn't a problem.

Sounds like you want it play like XCOM, with a move/attack sequence instead of AP.

Which I see no reason to since while XCOM is pretty baller, DOS's combat was highly praised by both players and critics. Why would they gut the system by removing AP?

I don't want them to remove ap, it's interesting. It's just causing a lot of problems and it needs to be addressed, something has to change, there's too many actions in a turn.

Again, actions per turn only seem overwhelming because of Warlord and the sheer amount of CC. Let's hypothetically remove CC from the equation. What are we left with? Character that can damage multiple targets per turn. So how would we balance that? Increase the AP cost of AoE moves, which effectively let you hit multiple targets at once.

The complaint isn't wrong, but it's also based on an alpha combat system, poor cc design and unfinished stat systems. You're complaining about the symptom, not the cause.

Give them time to smooth out the core systems before we complain about a brand new feature that hasn't had enough time to be fairly judged. Don't be so eager to return to something familiar so quickly.

aoe is an easily avoidable problem, the issue comes from hitting the same target over and over again in one turn. There shouldn't be so many actions in a turn, an enemy can attack me in melee four times in one turn no warlord involved, it's too much.

what is the cause, if so many actions per turn is the symptom? You haven't actually responded to any of my points you're just saying my complaint isn't valid since the game is in alpha.

The "don't complain because its in alpha" is a bad way to think, as an alpha player, wanting the game to improve. It's important to complain about things as they are when they are in the current build so that the devs can see that when it's happening.

The system is bad, I'll judge it right away, and I'll talk to people about it and remain open to changing my opinion. But you aren't talking about why it's okay to remove a playstyle, or why it's okay to have no risk or player choice involved, or why it's ok for tanks to have no scaling and suffer penalties from armor that is offering no bonuses.

But multiple actions is the entire point of AP instead of a move/act system. You can spend all your AP on moves, buffs, items, attacks, or any combination thereof. You can't increase AP costs across the board because then it essentially becomes a move/act system. You COULD increase AP for aoe attacks (as I think they should; a basic attack should always be your cheapest option) but I see nothing wrong with characters who are already in melee range striking 2-3 times per turn.

There's a lot wrong with it it's too much potential damage for one character to have in a tactics game. Every action should create room for a reaction, things like 3+ basic attacks per turn are bad since it has no cooldown and no counterplay.

High damage in one turn should always come with a risk. Basic attacks are inherently without risk and getting a majority of your damage from 3+ basic attacks in a single turn isn't good gameplay.

For a ranger to deal high damage from a large range the risk is that they are immobile on their high ground roost, they are weak in close range (there should be penalties for using a bow as a melee weapon), and preferably they would have low mobility and no spells like tactical retreat. Since there are finesse weapons it adds another nice layer of reaction and risk, allowing them to still be useful if they're forced into melee range while punishing them if they weren't thinking ahead or if the attacker was sneaky.

For a wizard to deal high damage from a medium range the risk is that they are extremely weak and have long cooldown's, so it's important to use the spells effectively. A spellcaster would have utility spells to mitigate the risk of them being extremely weak in a medium range, but these things would need to be planned in advance.

For a warrior to deal high damage from melee range the risk would be that they are in melee range, and that they would have to forgo some tank stats to achieve their high damage. This could either be in their overall build or with a move that deals high damage to an enemy at the cost of self inflicted cc or stat loss.

For an assassin to deal high damage from melee range they would have to play smartly and bide their time in most fights waiting for the proper moment to strike. The risk with assassins is always that once they go in, immediately after they are weak to all forms of retaliation, making the planning of their extremely high damage important if they want to live past one hit. This means that assassins shouldn't be able to move or stealth or anything after a heavy damage move, their turn should just end.

I'm not good with coming up with this shet but these are pretty vague so there ya go. Things need risk, everything needs risk because it creates gameplay and advantages and disadvantages. Anything that has no risk should either be weak or removed.

Fair enough. I apologize for being too absolute in my answers and dismissing your points.

Single wielding and the ap cost has always been weird. How do you balance having only one weapon and no offhand against dual wielding? The lower AP cost just results in a scoundrel stabbing you 6 times in the rectum. Making it do the same damage as dual wielding would just invalidate dual wielding.

In addition, a lot of spells only cost 1 ap, but also have huge effect, such as making fields.

Ap costs need to be looked at.

iagreeiagreeiagreeyesyesyes

But yes ap is weird I can't say I know the solution beyond "it needs changes"

I read in an interview with a dev (I forgot who) that they were trying things out, like giving us no gear in the beginning of the game and flooding us with gear later and seeing how we react to that. Maybe the devs could try some changes to the system in this vein as well, like give us a week where we only have enough ap to fit walking a short distance and using one move, or not walking and fitting a larger move or two smaller ones. then the next week experiment with different ap values. see how everyone likes not being one shot.

(and by the way my reaction is that i love being a naked scavenger ty devs)

Dual wielding never really existed in real life, so theres definitely the option of "just remove it", but I think I feel that way because I'm confused on how to make it balanced. Dual wielding is just a weird in between, but they did some really creative stuff with elves maybe they could think of some weird playstyle involving dual wielding that isn't just another form of damage

ive always felt personally that (say were only talking about daggers here) one handed meant you wanted damage and utility, dual wielding meant you wanted damage and speed, and two handed meant (why are you two handing a dagger) that you just wanted tons of damage

i guess that in a rogues case one handed would just have 'tons of damage' and 'normal damage plus utility' as options since theres no two handed rogue build cause thats silly willers

I guess the biggest issue is, like you said, the COMPLETE lack of a build path for dual wielding. Scoundrel encourages single daggers for optimal damage and butt poking, while Warfare heavily encourages massive, bulky weapons that only Thor himself could logically lift.

While I know we'll never get it: A Berserker Tree. Take a few from Warfare and make a rage-based, all-in build path that rewards diving enemy lines like an idiot.

Warfare should be disciplined and focused damage. Right now it's just a chaotic mess. Give Dual Wielding a viable path and make Warfare more logical.

And honestly, just make Single Wielding have some other benefit and still cost 2 AP. For exaple: If you only have 1 weapon and no offhand, you start the turn with 1 extra AP, up from 4.

...Dual wielding did exist in real life. The rpg version of two swords wasn't very common (sword and dagger was the go-to dual wielding combination) but it was sometimes done by skilled fighters.

If we were to take queues from real life though, one handed with no offhand with be accurate at the expense of damage, mainhand and shield would be defensive at the cost of accuracy, dual wielding would have consistency problems (both, one, or none of your attacks may connect), and two handers would hit hard and have long reach at the expense of being slow (so more AP I suppose)

You're probably right, but do you have a source on why we wont be getting any non magic trees? Because giving warfare more variety would be great, and could allow for interesting combinations with how weapons typically perform. Something like beserker and duelist trees would make melee almost as complex as magic.