Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General Issues as according to me

Except this is not a fucking strategy game.

Not to mention that "ingenious plan" of making or imagining a game where quality of gameplay is dependent on players bad memory is - 1. completely inapplicable here, 2. completely idiotic.

Don't want to have endless quotes but basically qwerty3w and Draba yeah I hear you on resource management stuff. I can see now how people wouldn't like that aspect.

I guess maybe what they want is that feeling where a player should feel rewarded for not taking something others didn't, you know? Imagine you're playing with buddies and you got an insane weapon in a barrel for someone else. Pretty cool when you give it to them.

That puddle of water weapon was a good one though. Admittedly the game does lack that feeling. Like when you get Carsomyr from Firkraag in Baldur's Gate 2, you know this thing is badass and it's always going to be badass. If you didn't cheese Firkraag it felt incredibly rewarding as well.



Do you have an example of an RPG where this is better? Outside of DOS I mean.



You quote the whole OP and then you come up with this gem. Good grief...



Well put. Chess doesn't have as many variables as DOS2.

In any case to even reach that level in chess you have to sit there constantly similar games and moves or you have to study and practice the hell out of it.

Gameplay quality of any game is depend on the limits of memory and calculation. For a game with randomness, if you memorized the optimal strategies in all conditions, all there left is mere gambling.

D:OS 2's combat part is a strategy game, and it has far more elements than chess. It can certainly be done in a way that would give a good player surprises without randomness, especially if the enemies AI use some machine learning or fuzzy logic.

Just semantics. It's not a strategy game like SC2, but it makes large use of strategy in the gameplay.

Is there a game where you don't need to have good memory of what's what in order to do well at the game?

Here i am criticizing mass market dimwits for their influence on this genre over years... and immediately two extreme examples jump in not only to confirm everything i said but to push it into even greater absurdity and unbelievable retardation.



This is one of the most idiotic proclamations about gaming i have ever seen. And ive been around.

Its hard to even imagine an answer to this, since nothing reasonable or logical can ever even come close to penetrating such a humongous amount of retardation and stupidity.

Maybe someone should bash your skull in with a hammer or otherwise critically damage your brain and then you will enjoy every game as best one ever. There will be no end to most amazing games for you.

memento gaming... ffs...



First of all there is no randomness in RPG games. There are probabilities and chances, not randomness. The fact you are apparently too stupid to understand the difference doesnt change this.

And there is also no "memorization of optimal strategies in all conditions either" - thats only done in games for retards you usually enjoy. Because such games are so superficial and dumbed down that usually you quickly figure out one optimal approach to all of the gameplay and then repeat the same thing over and over like a good pavlovian doggie.

Such games are BAD games. And such RPGs are utter crap.
and thats what you want to play, apparently...

In an RPG a player learns to use limited options of his chosen character build slowly, first by using only one or two skills in easiest encounters and quests during early levels, then slowly increases the number of skills while progressing and leveling up through slowly increasing complexity of gameplay - thus you gradually learn to use a limited amount of capabilities or skills of your character build.

You can learn an optimal TACTICS for your specific build, but even then in good RPGs you have to adjust to different encounters and quests, but you are never EVER required to "learn all optimal strategies for all possible conditions".

The enjoyment in gameplay comes from learning and figuring out different combinations and options, NOT from being a brain damaged imbecile who cannot remember how to play.



Who said anything about chess?
And no, RPGs have elements of strategic gameplay but their core is tactical and character driven gameplay.


What the fuck are you talking about? What machine learning, what fuzzy logic? Is that something that exists?
And how would that remove "randomness" - which doesnt exist as such in RPG games?

The sentences that keep falling out of your head are not logically connected to each other.



Yes, different genres and gameplay mechanics are "just semantics".


There is no game where quality of gameplay is dependent on being too retarded and stupid to remember basic mechanics or options you have, except maybe in your world.

Thats an entirely different matter then the fact you naturally have to remember and understand basic mechanics and options, but i guess you cannot comprehend that.

A reminder to everyone to play nice, please.

No, it definitely didn't work that way.
IIRC knockdown from slipping was the one exception, that could be what you remember.



Sorry, I mostly agree with you but that delta of randomness thingie gets on my nerves
Seen it repeated a lot nowadays, it's perfectly fine to use plain english for the specific cases instead of an arbitrary catchphrase that's too abstract to be useful.

For example, the problem with OS:EE:
- 1 aero 1 hydro gives 4(!) low CD hard disables, it's only getting worse from there
- you can cast a lot of them in 1 turn so failing isn't too big a problem
- damage output is so high that anything disabled is dead by the time it wears off(that includes end bosses)

In OS2 damage is still so high that a hard disable getting through means the target is dead.
Both your quoted suggestions could work, but only if overall durability of enemies goes up(or the silly damage output of a munchkin party is toned down).


My preferred solution would be some kind of resistance system(possibly tied to armor percentage if you want to be close to the current one), where hard disables always work but duration can be reduced a lot.
They could last for <1 turn, by removing some AP from the target and bumping its initiative down(for the next turn if it already finished its move).
The reduction can be either deterministic or chance-based.

An example that doesn't stray too far(asspull numbers ofc):
- target has totally intact 50 armor, hard CC only has 20% base effectivenes so a 2 turn disable only takes away ~2 action points(from 8) and reduces initiative to 60%
- after doing 30 damage target has 20 armor, effectiveness goes from 20 to 68% so a 2 turn disable works for 1 turn and takes away ~1 action point/reduces initiative to 64% in the second




For me an example of a good stat system would be Fallout's SPECIAL and the perks/skills/traits that tie into it(1-2 and tactics, NOT the Bethesda ones).
Even that does have some hard and fast rules but it's very involved and interesting.


I don't think chess is a good parallel, it's full information while OS games aren't(could randomize parts of an encounter/parts of abilities to make sure it doesn't get stale).
While you can anticipate some moves it's also unrealistic to know what'll happen in a 4 vs many situation 3+ turns in advance. Doubly so if damage rolls/crits are still random.
Don't have a problem with RNG and my favorite games usually utilize it a lot but IMO it's silly to flat-out reject deterministic mechanics.


Hiver try to reason, don't think many people are interested how you'd like to bash their skulls in with hammers.
You could start by explaining how there is no randomness in RPGs

I agree at every word in OP but the truth is devs are not interested in making a good game, especially if it requires a total reconstruction of existing system.

Well, any talk is gibberish if you don't understand it. Randomness in English includes concepts like uncertainty, probability and chance, especially when the context is about game mechanics. Strategy Game and Tactical Game are often used interchangeably, Frozen Synapse call itself a turn based strategy game, for example. Tactical RPG like X-COM and Fire Emblem are often considered strategy games too.

With more gameplay elements it's easier to design combat in a way to make it hard to predict in advance without randomness, but then the predictability of AI behaviours would become a more evident problem. Better make sure the player can't beat the same enemies twice using exactly the same strategy.

I just wanted to chime in and say I agree with most of the OP's points. The arguments made are very well written and I hope Larian takes some of them to heart, especially the initiative system...wow I had no idea how bad it was until now.

I'd like to mention another problem though and that is inventory management. For OCD people like myself, it can eat up a ridiculous amount of time and detract from my overall enjoyment of the game. Filters were a great addition, but it's still such a pain to move items between bags and characters ONE BY ONE in a game where you can easily accumulate a TON of items. There are already posts up made by others giving suggestions, so I'll leave it to them.

Oh, and tying into inventory management, crafting somehow feels even worse in this game compared to the first. Skill book crafting is the only neat idea to come out of it, in theory, but in execution those skill books may as well be added to the vendors. It serves no purpose other than to bar people from getting some neat skills that they can look up the combination of online and to prevent more casual players from ever knowing it exists.

His point was exactly that: in a good deterministic game with decent depth you simply can't see very far ahead as there is too much information to process.
No matter how exceptionally smart you think you are, human brainpower will be the limit.
Calm down and actually read what you are replying to, it's just basic english.

Every time I see you post it's like you have a giant dump inside you which you can't get out. Difficult to take anything you say seriously as a result.



I like this one.



Fallout is a nice example I guess. Although in Fallout 1 + 2, if I remember correctly (it's been a while), you only have combat interaction through weapons, there are much less surfaces and there is no higher/lower ground.

DOS2 could get pretty nuts if you start to add in more factors. I think the complexity would increase exponentially with each layer you add. Adding more depth to primary attributes could make the game insanely amazing, or it could just break it. At any rate, I'd be curious to know what the actual logic was that Larian used.

I am surprised that you haven't been banned from this forum yet.

I'm surprised you can still breathe without a respirator, but you don't see me writing posts about that.

Guys, for the last time, quit sniping and stick to the topic.

vometia be all like...





As it should be, too much noise, not enough signal. Welcome to the interwebz! Although this forum is definitely not as toxic as most of what is out there.

High amount of RNG is mostly a tradition of American tabletop game industry that had been carried to early video game industry. Tabletop games from other places may use less RNG, there is a more deterministic class of tabletop games called Eurogame, for instance. Just because many old-school hardcore RPGs (that have been influenced by American tabletop games such as D&D) use a lot of RNG, doesn't mean there is anything inherently hardcore about it.

I didn't follow development so a bit out of the loop: is there any word from Larian about whether or not a larger balance pass will happen?
If the official stance is "everything is working as intended" throwing the alternatives out there is kinda a waste anyway.

I think the disconnect is when you base the ENTIRE game around "American tabletop game" as you phrased it, then throw out these Japanese RPG style static (and huge) damage numbers and stats, it is very jarring. Pick a design philosophy and stick to it! If we are going to be arbitrary why not 100 in each stat to match the inflated vitality, armour, etc?

I know this wasn't your exact point and you were more about the RNG but they are related in that they seemed to cherry pick multiple design strategies and smush them all together, but not necessarily in the most coherent way. I think a couple of patches will resolve the issue, IMHO. It is not as "we r DOMED!1!!" as many are making it out to be.

You actually just did write a post about that. Way to go

As for the original topic I think you are way too dramatic and negative and treat minor issues as huge problems, but they really aren't. Also, most of the stuff you mention can be modded.

The AI does dumb things at times, welcome to video games, but more often than not the AI surprises me with challenging moves. "Retarded" is certainly not the right word for it.
Attributes: I don't see your problem. They give small boosts that add up over time. Nothing wrong with that.
Memory is one of my favorites. It can change the playstyle completely. It's not tax, it's a great choice to have.
Initiative: I agree. The way it works is stupid.
Talents: The talents are cool. Sure some are stronger for minmaxing, but not every player minmaxes. There are loads of people who play this game to roleplay. They want to play the grenade throwing dwarf, no matter if there are better minmax-choices. Check out any pen & paper game and you will see the same thing there.
Binary outcomes: I think the system works well. It makes combat more strategic and you can plan much better how to go about it. Definitely better than the RNG system from DOS1.

Overall I believe that you create a lot of fuss and big words about minor things. I'm having such a blast with this game - coop and solo - and I find it weird to see such a long article filled with negativity and drama.