Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - Suggestions and Feedback Replace crowd control with more interesting effect

You ... *sigh* whatever, goodnight for what that's worth.

If you missed the point of everything entirely. But here let me make it as simple as possible

You: make armor interesting, make "causing" CC interesting
Me: this is fine, but I'd like CC "effects" to be interesting in itself....which is the thread focus

These aren't mutually exclusive but switching focus from one to the other (one that's discussed to death everywhere) negates the chance for contrastive discussion of the former

'These aren't mutually exclusive but switching focus from one to the other (one that's discussed to death everywhere) negates the chance for contrastive discussion of the former'

Wut???

I can't believe I'm still wasting my time on this, but you seem determined to keep going.

Let's put it all another way: who gives a flying vaulting somersaulting fuck if I raised a point that's perceived, subjectively by you, to be in tangent to the original purpose of the thread? It's a forum about a computer game. That you seem so injured about the fact that I may have shifted gears on the topic is incredulous to say the least.

The workmanlike manner in which you articulate your points doesn't help. But either way, who cares??? It's a computer game forum. Where people make informal opinions about everything and anything. You haven't objectively disqualified anything I've said, but even if you did, the fact remains that it's just a place people go to have a dialogue about a video game. If in future you feel someone is off topic in their posts, just remember that that's just your opinion, and someone else may think differently. Either way, Larian studios is not going to collapse and the game will still be made.

Jesus Christ, mate. Give it a rest.

Elemental armour to counter CC FTW!! I say it loudly and clearly, in this thread, whatever the hell it's about at this stage, and I don't bloody care. Capiche?

Lol you do realize I hardly care, yes? I type alot. It's common with me. I also do it relatively quickly. The grammar errors are cause it's on my phone and I don't feel a need to be eloquent.

I haven't dropped it cause you seem so determined to invalidate something you can't and it costs me two seconds of my time to formulate a response as I go about other tasks.

I've also handidly proven in a near as I can objective manner the original focus of the thread. No subjectivism. Hell, I asked a question about the seeming tangent and you decided you had a point to prove and to put me in my place.

I also offered why I cared about such focus.

The only thing you've honestly managed to say is that you feel strongly about your idea about armor (which is fine) and you have a freedom to say it (which is fine) and that as a video game forum people shouldn't care whether it's on point or not (which is technically an opinion and also fine thusly)

I've deconstructed your points and logic to the summation of: "You want to loudly proclaim your idea concerning the armor system and have a freedom to do that wherever you please"

Which funnily enough answers my original questions on the reasons for the armor tangent

Edit:
Because this apparently need pointing out; me saying that your on a tangent isn't me screaming bloody murder. It's just an implication that maybe we should move back to the focus. If you had simply said "well, I think this is important too and the discussion seems to be going well" or anything akin those lines we wouldn't be here. This entire debate is of your own design

Don't feed the troll guys, best thing you can do is ignore them.

You deconstructed nothing I said. You realised you couldn't do that, so you went and stated I've gone on a tangent to the topic of the thread. Which is your subjective opinion. If you want it even simpler, CC is mentioned in the thread, so anything based on, or around, CC is valid. The armour suggestion was based around CC. You've basically turned somersaults trying to say armour is not a valid topic here because you don't have the wits to counter me directly on it.

There's a thread called 'Game was great then this happen...' in the general forum, which was about how enemy ambushes was frustrating the OP. Your last post on this thread is about CC.

Do you not see the irony in this? You couldn't have been more off topic by bringing CC into a thread that had nothing to do with CC, and yet you twist yourself in knots trying to childishly outdo me by saying my post about CC & armour has nothing to do with a post that was about CC in the first place.

Hypocrite, much?

Your grammar is irrelevant. It's your inability to fluidly and efficiently form a logical sentence that's the problem. You mostly make no sense whatsoever. And I also suspect that you're aware you've shot yourself in the foot, but just aren't man enough to admit it. Ho-hum. No skin off my back, mate.

So you really want to play the hypocrite card?

Alright, just so it's clear:
The OP complained about an ambush
In said ambush he was CCd to death
Discussion following the fact that this is bad took place
Discussion on how to prevent said event from repeating took place

See how that flows? Also, take note of the fact that I didn't deign to create a debate on the validity of my discussions. I wouldn't have. You apparently feel the need to do.

I make no sense? Riiiiiight. Cause you cant follow billet point thoughts. You need a step by step by play between each that's a paragraphing to explain the transition.

And the most amusing part? You keep falling into the same trap. You can't refute my points so you ineffectually try to invalidate the fact that they can/should be made at all.

You're desperately arguing a non-point. Something not even worth consideration cause it holds no baring on the current topic of conversation: was the armor system discussion on point to the original focus of the thread?

It's a simple question.

Now you want to say it's subjective. That is so non substansive it's hilarious. I readily backed up my view with a critical analysis of the original post. The whole thing I might add. Not one or two words (i.e. "CC" and "manageable") taken out of context and thrown into a vacuum.

In your very generally, non-contextual, interpretation? Those words can mean whatever you want.

By that same logic I can bring up elemental talents and discuss why I think the fire demon talent needs more work.

Your entire inane, repetitive rant continuously boils down to the point you've summed up in this sentence:

'was the armor system discussion on point to the original focus of the thread?'

You're obsessed!

Does the armour system have to be mentioned by the OP for me to bring it into the conversation to improve CC? If so, where does it say that in the 'rules'? If not, how in your opinion is it problematic to constructive opinion about the game?

I've given ideas for improving a game mechanic.

All you've done is whinge about the fact that armour wasn't mentioned by the OP.

The only reason I brought in the other thread was because in your little square box of a world, the nasty man whose ideas I can't challenge didn't say [insert irrelevant word here] that was in the OP. Therefore the nasty man is wrong.

Reading the innumerable posts of the others on the 'Game was great then this happen...' thread, the majority of them certainty did not interpret CC as the problem the OP mentioned. Are you going to disqualify all of them too?

Know when you've lost an argument, mate. I've made my contribution to the making the game better. All you're doing is snapping at my heels.

How?

Well to be honest, you have not conveyed your elemental armor idea well enough for me to know how you see it working. So some of my assumptions might be incorrect. But they are all I have to go on.

So I am using the assumption that each piece of equipment will have some amount of armor for one element.

In that case, when you are facing enemies which have, say, two types of elemental attacks, your elemental armor will be divided into roughly four different types, two of which are not contributing anything, and two of which are contributing at one quarter the value that they would as a unified magic armor.

Your idea for active skills to boost armor completely and utterly fails to take into account Memory.



My armor doesn't have to be "interesting". It just has to work. A piece of armor which has a 25% chance to explode for 25-125 damage when struck might be "interesting", but I wouldn't want to wear it.



You said that you want 5 pools of magic armor, and under your system, doesn't that mean that a mage will need points into all 5 schools in order to be able to deal with certain enemies?

That is literally the OPPOSITE of "forcing diversity", that is forcing all mages into a five-school build. Worse still, that's forgetting about both Memory and Cooldowns. A spell typically has a 3-turn cooldown, so if I use a Necro spell to chip away part of an enemy's necro armor, I can't do anything else to them for 3+ turns. And I need to have at least one damage spell equipped of each type.




So you want to take an ability which is effective protection against 4-5 types of damage, and replace it with 5 different abilities which are only effective against 1 type of armor. That is worse than it is now. Why would I want such a change?

A skill which boosts one of your magic armor types runs into issues with needing to spend lots of Memory slots.




Change for the sake of change is not good by default. Change is only good if it is a good change. I see nothing in your idea which looks like a good change.

Your idea is bad.

@Stabbey

I love how you've proven my whole argument for the elemental armour through your own attempt to disprove its effectiveness.

The whole idea is that you CAN'T make a character who has perfect armour for all 5 types. Memory has nothing to do with anything. Where on earth are you pulling that one from? Memory doesn't come into this at all.

This is a separate tab, with it's own separate point system. Nothing to do with primary attributes, completely unaffected by primary attributes.

You can chose to create a character who has good overall elemental armour. Or one who has really strong fire armour, for example, at the expense of strong ice armour. It's like constitution points, except you assign them to an armour type.

You aren't supposed to be able to make a perfectly elementally immune character. That's where you get the diversity. You have a character strong in one or two elemental armours, and weak or average in others. Therefore, you need to adapt your strategies accordingly.

Why would I be arguing against your idea? I think the idea is fine.

Why would I be referring to rules? There are none.

How am I obsessed when i simply find the idea that you think you can win this argument you won't let drop amusing? Hint: just go to bed. You don't have to argue it. For me this is just entertainment

Why would I disqualify all the other discussions in that thread? They all more or less had something to do with the original post. Your the one trying to prove my own discussion there wasn't on point. There were several threads within that one branching off but staying related. I can pull up all the posts on CC that aren't mine to make a point I wasn't the only one if ya want; even ones by the original poster.

You have given constructive feedback. I grant you that freely. And it wasn't necessarily bad at that. I jut find it sad that the original focus of the thread was offering a unique view on how to improve the game without rehashing old territory. I attempted to move back to that.

You were the one who had to make a point that I was remiss in trying to move things back to the focus. I decided to take you up on that challenge

Now you want to say "cause it's not mentioned in the OP?" Have you heard of inference? It's a thing. Something doesn't have to be explicitly stated to be understood or related. All I've made a point of showing is that whatever version of inference you were working on was definitely in error

There's a whole wide forum of many threads; many of them handily inviting discussion of the armor system. Why you feel the need to argue the validity of:

"All threads are about construive game feedback, therefore I can give any kind of constructive feedback in all threads."

Is lost on me.

You keep moving the goal post if the argument. Whether the argument matters or not isnt really the issue. hint hint: it doesn't matter.


Edit:
Correction: the existence of your idea is fine

Peace, mate. I'm not here to start fights with anyone. I'm not holding any grudges against you. It's too late for me (here) to interpret where things spiraled out of control, but let's just forget the whole clash, yeah? You've at least proven yourself big enough to give the idea some credit - that's a cool thing, and fair play to you for doing so. It tells me you can forget the other mess too. I certainly will be.

I feel the elemental armour business needs its own thread to keep things chilled. Maybe next Sunday I'll get around to doing that.

Now, I'm off to the leaba...

Sure *thumbs up* get some sleep. I have absolutely nothing against your idea being discussed. Nor am
I holding a debate on the forums against anyone.

Flesh it out a bit more and make your own thread I'd be more than willing to discuss it as a focus and see what exactly you have in mind and why

Did everyone make up? Good, I can get on with my coffee in peace then.

If we're going to add a new bar, let's go in the direction of GW2: Stability. With CC so stupidly accessible to both the player and Ai, having a stat that ABSORBS a certain number of CCs would be lovely. (I think the number of abilities that have a stun tied to them is around 30%+. That's insane.)

Or, we can just go in the direction someone mentioned earlier and have different CC do DIFFERENT things. Having a character be stunned the exact same way with 14 different color options on top is just silly.

Oh, OH! Me, ME! I said that, it's in the OP!

Lol, Naqel, nice!
So, back to the original post.

I think that 1-2 steps differentiating CC would be great.

-I like knockdown as an AP eater -> we could even simplify it by removing the 'choice' of getting up and instead phrase it as, you character loses X (likely 1 maybe 2) AP to stand up at the beginning of their next turn.

I don't think we need the change to stun/shock. Instead. Shock can be a 1 turn/application hard CC that leaves a shocked 'rebuff' or resistance for 1 round - effectively ending peoples complaints (it still hasn't happened to me) of lightningpuddlelock.

I liked in D:OS when being frozen granted increased physical armor, essentially petrify and frozen could work the way they do but grant an amount of armor (phys for frozen, magic for petrify?) in exchange for being immobile for 2 rounds. Immunity, as was possibly suggested can be easily exploited and can be detrimental to the person applying the effect..
This is a step in the right direction without too many added mechanics.

In addition to removing CC and because I loved the bless idea
-> Blessing a shocked person or surface -> Gives everyone touching the surface increased movement and on a person only + AP.
-> Blessing a frozen person grants lots of magic armor. -> Frost armor (the reverse of what the CC granted)
-> Blessing a petrified person grants lots of physical armor -> Fortify (the reverse of what the CC granted)

Finally, I remember D:OS CC moving slower. From wet/chilled to frozen. From warm to fire. The current skills in game apply conditions in a single step (maybe they are higher level or sample crafting abilities that are just being tested at low level). I would like a return to this form. So after magic armor is gone, frost applies chilled and then frozen. And attacks that hit multiple times i.e. hail strike, should only apply cold in a blast to all in the AoE. If it's like flaming daggers and is supposed to create the fire condition - the damage should be toned down.

Sorry for the double post but I just thought of this.
Remove CC from electrical attacks. Instead add an on hit electrical damage bonus for people who are shocked.
This will help with the CC stunlock problems.

so it would look like this - Character A is shocked and B uses an air wand on him. A takes X bonus damage (either dependent on level or +50% of the air attack causing the shock)

Actually, that's the worst offender, and puddle shock is exactly why the specific functionality was suggested.

A: Stunned is a pretty generic term, and it would be nice to have that released for an effect that doesn't necessarily involve electricity, hence "Stun 2: Shocked".

B: It's the most likely effect to be applied continuously, and as such it should be changed specifically to something that can be actively managed over however long it would take to get out of an electrified puddle.

C: Making the effect manageable is a much more intuitive and elegant solution than making the player immune to it on occasion(that's what Magic Armor is for).

Okay.
I just don't like the 'all actions require an additional action point.' Even if it works and is better than current.

I think my - add an on hit electrical damage bonus for people who are shocked that are hit by magic.
is more fun, because.. it's my idea of course!
If the damage is significant and it works with clouds and puddles then it has elements similar to fire but has a different emphasis (emphasis on reapplication on one target for air magic) and combos with different elements.

They could provide a paralysis condition in the air magic school if they really wanted it, but with petrify and frozen it probably isn't needed.

The proposal:
Earth provides slow on hit - has a petrify condition that causes hard CC and adds some magic/physical armor.
Fire provides warm on hit and can light fires. Condition burning causes periodic DoT and fields cause damage on contact.
Water provides wet/chilled on hit - has a frozen condition that causes hard CC and adds some magic/physical armor.
Air provides shocked/electrocute on hit and upon reapplication refreshes debuff and causes burst damage, fields cause damage through the same mechanism.

Air/Water CC from water + damage from air combos together. Earth/Fire CC from earth + damage from fire, combos together.

That and the bless changes.

-_- You.....you could've jumped in to stop the long and pointless argument I ended up having anytime. *sigh*