|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
and it's not, in principle, unreasonable to want them gone. And this is where we disagree ... Maybe not underasonable, but to us (yes im quite sure im not the only one) it simply doesnt seem necesary.  --- If this is your point, here's my counterpoint: Combat starts with your first PC in initiative, their hotbar clearly in "combat mode". The flow then follows initiative, going from hotbar in "combat mode" to hotbar in "combat mode". If I just click End Turn instead of manually selecting a PC who's not in combat, the game doesn't show me a hotbar that's not in "combat mode" before combat is over. Yes ... and that is somehow bad or something? Since it seems like this what you described here is quite litteraly exactly what that bar is supposed to do ... ergo its working by design ... threrefore good, well, corect, *insert positive word here* ... Point was the UI is changing > therefore you KNOW you entered combat, even if that was unintentional ... Once you know combat was initiated ... you have several graphical indicators for who is in combat and who isnt ... Therefore (and i would once again say duh) if you really and i mean REALLY have problems with "often leaving party members out of combat without noticing it" (even tho i dont believe its possible, but we are doing "if" here) ... as it was presented by GM4Him ... then all you need is to create synopsis: "Combat initiated => Check party members" I claim and keep claiming that the game does good job in showing you who is, or isnt, in combat, all you need to do is pay atention to it ... And i simply dont believe (and maybe this is harsh from me, but at least its honest) that is indeed possible to actualy "not notice" you were fighting with half of your team ... So it seems like really cheap excuse to me. Sory, not sory. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --- Who says they're not intended? You seem to be jumping to a conclusion here, assuming all these things you don't prefer are mistakes.
Mistakes that Larian found and thought, "Oh well, what a happy accident, let's leave it."
If these things are there on purpose then they are not, by definition, mistakes. They are features and options you don't like. [img] https://scontent-prg1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...dRJCoFVF-Zb4_f-VGISeyO2A&oe=634D7912[/img] And that my dear friends it how games are created. :3 --- If it's an exploit that's so obscure and only being used by players that min-max the hell out of their game, then yes it should probably be fixed because they'd feel they HAVE to utilize it to play "optimally". Personaly i cant agree with this statement ... If someone feels like he "have to" use something he despite, concider that stupid and ruining his enjoyment of his own game ... that person should think about his priorities, not dictate to others what they should or should not do. Sometimes i wonder how would it work other way around. Can you imagine? If i would get to their tabletop games and demand to throw potions, get completely undetectable by stealthing bcs im "behind the guard" despite having fullplate armor, throwing barells of explosives several dozen of yards away, learn every and any spell with my Wizard, ... What would happen i wonder. No thats a lie ... i know exactly what would happen and i think we all do ... they would call me an idiot, kill my character, or act like it ever existed, show me the doors and never ever ever would allow me to join them again. Ever! And yet here we are ... endlessly arguing about that they demand that this game should be tuned for them and everything that dont fits their rules should be imediately removed bcs "they feel urge to use it". O_o I smell hypocrites. --- What's the point of EA and working in the game further? It doesn't matter if the ruleset works, it is MEANT to be broken! Answering for Tandi while speaking for myself ... I dont think his point was to "dont fix anything bcs things are supposed to be broken" ... Its more like "lets concider how split the comunity is about things" ... i mean you listed it yourself, there was allready several things Larian changed ... why? Bcs there was almost nobody defending them, the community agrees (as far as possible) on this opinion! Or at least i really dont remember anyone beging for keeping free Advantage from High Ground, ground effects from cantrips, jump/disengage in single button, etc. Free to corect me ... but as far as i remember even i (and i disagree with lots of things around here) was supporting all of theese.  In therms of some exploits ... its not 99/1 ... its much closer to variety between 70/30 and 30/70 (just to be clear those are % not numbers ) depending on specific topic ... And that is exactly as Tandi said, pleasing one in expense of another ... or other way around ... Of course we would all like to believe that we are part of that "silent vast majority" ... but sometimes, even tho its hard, we simply must accept that we are not. Still, invest time and resources into changing things, so you just piss off different group of people that can have almost same size, while doing something that is completely different from what your games are known for ... Not exactly smart move if you ask me. :-/
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 20/09/22 03:53 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings.  Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2021
|
Edit : added comments by Ragnarok At the end of the day if a player keeps doing this, all I can ask is, "How's that working out for you?" Is it possible things might work better if you adopted a different playstyle, one that included checking to see who all is in the initiative order? all you need is to create synopsis:
"Combat initiated => Check party members" You're both right, I need to adapt my minset. It's not easy for me to form a habit around something that doesn't always happen. I usually need to get burned repeatedly to learn, even in real life. For me, it's like saying, "When combat starts, I always neglect to equip my fighter with a weapon. So it takes me a round or two to realize he's fighting with his bare knuckles." Weapons matter every combat and require infrequent attention. Checking who's in initiative needs to happen every combat and matters infrequently. Purely subjectively, I enjoy the first kind of design more than the second. Regarding a line in the combat log... while I'm not against it, I can't help but think that if someone isn't paying attention to which characters they have in combat then they're probably not reading the combat log at the start of every fight. That's a fair point. I was thinking of Solasta's combat log, which I check compulsively. There are other solutions, like giving a pulsating glow to party portraits of those characters left out of combat. I know I said I never look at those during combat, but a pulsating glowy thing would catch my attention without me having to remember to look for it. All in all, I'd welcome any UI change that cuts down the mental checklist I need to go through to avoid playing incorrectly. And i simply dont believe (and maybe this is harsh from me, but at least its honest) that is indeed possible to actualy "not notice" you were fighting with half of your team ...
So it seems like really cheap excuse to me.
Sory, not sory. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ No need to be sorry. I've written posts about how I forget I'm casting Misty Step halfway through and click absent mindedly on the screen, sending Gale somewhere awful. My stupidity needs no excuses! If Larian don't want morons like me forgetting about Wyll's imp in the first few fights, then they should heed my counsel.
Last edited by Flooter; 20/09/22 04:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
But if the exploit is tied to a core game mechanic and is very obviously noted by casual players, then that's stronger reasoning for it to be changed if a large number of those casuals dislike it. Two things: 1) There is no "large number" here ... We are at best few dozen people still active on this forum, i wouldnt even believe we can reach a thousand.  Statisticaly speaking, for our numbers ... we can be neglected. 2) I dont think that "how easy exploit can be found" is relevant ... Puting aside the fact that this cant be measured and different people can find different exploits differently hard to find accidentaly or by themselves. To me, quite honestly (and feel free to disagree ofcourse), main question is if that exploit is forced on you or not ... In other words: As long as there is easy way around it, no NPC can use it against you, you dont need to use it, and every single encounter or situation is perfectly manageable without it ... Then there is no reason to remove it. Yes, the same old sentence over and over ... You dont want it > dont do it. Someone else want it > dont take it away from them. And everyone is happy as a rainbow. //Edit: And if you want to tell them to mod it, use the same logic on yourself. :P
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 20/09/22 03:41 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
But if the exploit is tied to a core game mechanic and is very obviously noted by casual players, then that's stronger reasoning for it to be changed if a large number of those casuals dislike it. Two things: 1) There is no "large number" here ... We are at best few dozen people still active on this forum, i wouldnt even believe we can reach a thousand. Statisticaly speaking, for our numbers ... we can be neglected. Except you can make conclusions from our responses because that is how surveys work. A sub-sample of a population (e.g., forum users) are surveyed and assumed to be relatively close to matching the true populations. For most surveys, you only need a sample size of ~400 in order to make high-confidence conclusions applicable to any-sized full populations (thousands, millions, even billions). But even only 100, or 50, respondents still can provide useful information - albeit with higher margins of error. The fact that, on this forums, we are roughly 50-50 (at the very least, the overwhelming majority isn't in favor of these exploits) means that it is reasonable to conclude that many (not necessarily most) BG3 players will want these exploits addressed. To me, quite honestly (and feel free to disagree ofcourse), main question is if that exploit is forced on you or not ...
In other words: As long as there is easy way around it, no NPC can use it against you, you dont need to use it, and every single encounter or situation is perfectly manageable without it ...
Then there is no reason to remove it.
Yes, the same old sentence over and over ...
You dont want it > dont do it.
Someone else want it > dont take it away from them. I agree that it is worse if the exploit is forced on you. But if avoiding the exploit also prevents you from using a core mechanic that you might otherwise want to use (it it were better/more reasonably implemented), then it also becomes an issue. I don't need to use stealth in BG3. But I might want to play stealthy characters/party, and if stealth is implemented poorly then that makes my experience less enjoyable. If changing the stealth rules would make more players happy than it would make players unhappy, then it should be changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
...and assumed to be relatively close to matching the true populations. First, the amount of folks here don't make for a good sample size. Especially when you have no idea how many of the people here might have more than one name. The data isn't anywhere near trustworthy enough for a serious poll. Second, let's face it. The people who regularly hang around here aren't representative of the casual BG3 player. We are way more obsessed with this stuff than most people, and we know *way* more about the ends and outs of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
This is really very simple:
- Combat situation begins, maybe while I was sneaking with a scout who got seen while the others are hanging back no more than a dash away, to be safe.
- Initiative is rolled.
- My scout is NOT at the top of the initiative that includes them and a half dozen or more other creatures.
=> The game Plays Itself, giving me NO control, NO ability to react, NO ability to bring my other characters in, NO opportunity to do anything because all of my controls and the UI itself is completely LOCKED OUT until my scout's turn comes around.
=> The characters that would have reacted can't, and the game doesn't give them a chance to, and I do not have the ability to tell them to in any way, because I have no control while the game is busy playing itself without checking.
Immersion breaking situation 1: The rest of my party stands by in idle animations watching on while the AI plays rapidly to gank my scout, potentiality even standing by while the game kills that character, if the AI rolled their initiative well enough.
=> IF my scout gets a go, and let's assume they do...
Immersion breaking situation 2: The game now FORCES me to deal with their ridiculous frozen-time/not-frozen time juxtaposition as I break from the situation and switch to my other characters, moving them into the combat from outside the flow of time... and I am just blithely left to select how and when they jump back into the flow of time, and in what order; I can't ignore this because I have to manually select it myself, and make that choice. It IS forced on me here, in a way that I literally could not have avoided, simply from playing the game in a reasonable and normal manner without any desire or intent to cheat or be cheated.
==
The system is broken, poorly designed and flawed in execution. Yes, I will blame the system; the system, and the supporting UI are there to be a seamless interface between me and the world I'm playing in, and to operate those elements smoothly and fairly in a way that does not call attention to themselves, but handles events in a way that compliments my actions and choices as a player. That is what a game system and a UI are FOR. If I have to actively book-keep myself in order for things to work correctly without breaking - if I must step out of the world and fight against the UI to achieve a flow that makes sense - if NOT stopping to struggle with the UI and book-keep for it leads to the game acting contra to the spirit of its own rules, then the The System Has Failed.
The System Has Failed.
You can defend it if you want to; you can make excuses for the poor design, you can do half of its job for it and claim that that means it works, and you can blame other players for Not Playing It Right... but none of that excuses or makes acceptable the system's poor design and failure at its job. If you want to make extra work for yourself, doing the jobs that the system should be doing and is failing to, that's your call, but don't act like other people are in the wrong for expecting a better standard of quality and design in their games than you do; it's not a very high bar to be expecting met.
This is Niara, it's 2am, and I am just feeling so Done with apologists foisting recriminations and blame onto players who are providing feedback in a feedback forum about elements that they found made the game difficult for them to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Except you can make conclusions from our responses because that is how surveys work. IF you would ... then all you would get is that there are some people who really hates it, and some other people that really loves it, and then lots of another people somewhere in between. I dont think you need survey to get such results. ...and assumed to be relatively close to matching the true populations. Well ... you can "assume" whatever you want. Thats no statistic ... Aswell as you can "assume" that this forum users can match all playerbase for this game ... I can "assume" its the small group of people who are bothered with something they dislike so much, so they come here and start complaining ... while others didnt, therefore they either are not bothered by it at all ... or simply not enough to be worth investing any energy for them. And both those assumes are perfectly fine ... Except none of them have any value, since we have litteraly no data to support them. As in every other topic this theory was brought up ... and marked as false, it is just as false even here. Repeating the same misstake dont fix it ... Problem with our forum is that we are interested in the matter, therefore our "sample" is not random enough, (feel free to think about it as "unclean") and therefore any result you get from the given survey will not be conclusive. As stated before ... several times. That is just same as making on Metalfest survey about what is the best music in the world ... chances for brass bands to be popular there are quite slim ... 99% of people will take the same answer. And yet, is that true that less than 1% of the world listen to litteraly anthing but Metal? And that is why if you want small sample, you need random sample ... and as divergent as possible ... the more focused your target group is, the less acurate your results are. Now back to our situation ... First question is: Why are we here? Not just forum, specificaly in this topic ... bcs we either like, or dislike exploits ... there isnt much other reasons. Next question is: Are majority of forum users (yes, im taking here sample of sample of sample) in this topic ... or just few veterants, too interested or stubborn (im stubborn, feel free to pick your group ) to let it go? :P And final question then is: How many (in %) of your sample is therefore personaly interested in topic of the survey? The more you get ... the "uncleaner" results. Here i would say 90-100%. I agree that it is worse if the exploit is forced on you. But if avoiding the exploit also prevents you from using a core mechanic that you might otherwise want to use (it it were better/more reasonably implemented), then it also becomes an issue. And i would agree on this ... in theory. Problem is transfer it to practice for me. :-/ I cant imagine exploit that would prevent you from using something while avoiding it. You used stealth as an example ... it would be good one ... IF the only way to avoid stealth exploit would be not stealth at all ... But that isnt the case here, all you need to do is either not stealth in Heavy Armor ... or, if you do, dont stealth two millimeters behind your enemy ass. Nobody as far as i know said "dont use any mechanic that could potentialy be exploited" ... that would prevent you from even starting the game. We urged people do simply "dont use exploits" ... and there is important difference. See? Thats my problem, please give me some example i can work with. What i see is: You dislike that you can stealth in touch proximity of people? > Dont get so close. You dislike that you can stealth through battlefield while your party is locked in different time due to combat? > Dont do ... exactly that. You dislike that your Wizard can learn any spell? > Dont, its that simple. You dislike that you can heal your friends by throwing potion at them? > Well NPCs do that ... therefore i agree it should be adressed. You dislike that Shove is Bonus Action? > Well NPCs do that ... therefore i agree it should be adressed. Etc. etc.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
all of my controls and the UI itself is completely LOCKED OUT until my scout's turn comes around. This sounds like a bug ... bcs when my scout initiated combat, litteraly nothing was preventing me from switching to another party member and control them. So ... nope, certainly not "completely LOCKED OUT". :-/ => The characters that would have reacted can't Im sory, but i feel lost ... How would they react? O_o I mean they are far, arent they? So if the solution that was suggested here (force Turn-based mode, and include to initiative everyone) were implemented ... What would they do? Run > Sprint > Run even little futher? They can do that as far as i know. Immersion breaking situation 1: The rest of my party stands by in idle animations watching on while the AI plays rapidly to gank my scout, potentiality even standing by while the game kills that character, if the AI rolled their initiative well enough. I dont even get how is that immersion breaking ... your scout get ahead, he was ambushed while alone and defeated bcs he had no chance alone. Seems pretty immersive to me. O_o Immersion breaking situation 2: The game now FORCES me to deal with their ridiculous frozen-time/not-frozen time juxtaposition as I break from the situation and switch to my other characters, moving them into the combat from outside the flow of time... and I am just blithely left to select how and when they jump back into the flow of time, and in what order; I can't ignore this because I have to manually select it myself, and make that choice. It IS forced on me here, in a way that I literally could not have avoided, simply from playing the game in a reasonable and normal manner without any desire or intent to cheat or be cheated. This seems a little self-contridictional ... Your party either is close enough to get there in single turn ... Or they are futher away and all you get is to get there in single "turn" instead all turns it would take. I mean yeah, you *can* stealth there ... and then you are right, you indeed need to deal with "their ridiculous frozen/not-frozen time thing" ... But you really want to claim you get into that situation accidentaly? That there was absolutele NO INTENTION entering stealth with other characters? Come on. -_- There are ways for you to get (at least close to, if not exactly) what you want ... You just refuse to use them. :-/ If you want to make extra work for yourself, doing the jobs that the system should be doing and is failing to, that's your call That seems a little too dramatic ... We simply pointed out that the indicators are present and by our honest opinions they are working just fine ... Yes, UI should work smoothly with player ... But it also means that player needs to recognize it WHOLE ... not just those parts that suits him. :-/ Doesnt really matter how huge red arrow you make on left side of the screen, it would be useless if player will keep looking on right side of the screen ignoring everything beyond middle.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
To me, quite honestly (and feel free to disagree ofcourse), main question is if that exploit is forced on you or not ...
In other words: As long as there is easy way around it, no NPC can use it against you, you dont need to use it, and every single encounter or situation is perfectly manageable without it ...
Then there is no reason to remove it. Fair enough. My stance on exploits is that removing them should be the default assumption, and there needs to be compelling reasons NOT to. Because if they're mistakes, they're still mistakes and should be corrected unless correcting them would make for an overall worse product somehow. And it's kind of my opinion that if these things were never included in the first place, no one who enjoys them would be asking for them or would consider the game lesser for their exclusion, which is a sign that the game wouldn't really be worse for their loss. Sure, people wouldn't have some things they find fun, but that's different from the game being meaningfully worse. Fundamentally my biggest issue with these exploits is who is to blame when they detract from the experience. And I think that Larian is to blame for allowing so many fixable mistakes into the game, and they shouldn't get credit because people happen to enjoy them. I don't think it truly matters if they're forced on you or not when you take a broad view. Taken as a whole with all those exploits, the game is littered with holes and broken things. The fact that people can enjoy them speaks more to the players than it does the quality of Larian's design, in my opinion. It's their job to design the game, not ours. I've never encountered this kind of discussion about any other game I've played, BG3 is an aberration in this respect. And as an aberration, it's on Larian to sell its differences as features rather than bugs. Maybe by the time of full release, they'll be doing that, but I don't think it's occuring at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
...and assumed to be relatively close to matching the true populations. First, the amount of folks here don't make for a good sample size. Especially when you have no idea how many of the people here might have more than one name. The data isn't anywhere near trustworthy enough for a serious poll. Second, let's face it. The people who regularly hang around here aren't representative of the casual BG3 player. We are way more obsessed with this stuff than most people, and we know *way* more about the ends and outs of the game. Problem with our forum is that we are interested in the matter, therefore our "sample" is not random enough, (feel free to think about it as "unclean") and therefore any result you get from the given survey will not be conclusive.
As stated before ... several times. See this line of my post: The fact that, on this forums, we are roughly 50-50 (at the very least, the overwhelming majority isn't in favor of these exploits) means that it is reasonable to conclude that many (not necessarily most) BG3 players will want these exploits addressed. Aside from the fact that my original claim was that "a large number of BG3 players will dislike these mechanics" (not "all", not "most"), you both are making assumptions as well: that the "silent majority" agrees with you. Why is this better than my assumption that the forum broadly captures general player sentiment? What evidence do you have to support this claim? I acknowledge that the forum is likely biased and not perfectly representative of the general players, but "being obsessed [with BG3]" doesn't necessarily equate with "preferentially disliking this specific mechanic." After all, you two are here (and thus by your own words, obsessed) and yet you are advocating for this mechanic. With a rough forum ratio of 50% like, 50% dislike, in order for the full population to dominantly, conclusively (>90%) like the mechanic, the margin of error of the forum would have to be 40% AND fully biased towards negative nancys. This would mean that for every 2 forum responders (1 for like, 1 for dislike), there are 8 other silent people who like the mechanic. This assumption is equally, if not more, unlikely than assuming that the silent population of BG3 players is relatively close to matching with forum respondents. Edit: @Wormerine's post reminded me of this. I'm being generous by saying that 50% of forum respondents like it. In reality, 50% (roughly) of forum posters are arguing in favor of keeping the mechanic, but not all necessarily like the mechanic(s) itself. Some just seem to be arguing the case of "Don't like? Don't use." These ambivalent responses shift the average toward "dislike." Edit2: And with this post, I'm done with this chain of exchanges. We're just going in circles. I've said my piece and hopefully people will listen to it. It's also getting somewhat off-topic.
Last edited by mrfuji3; 20/09/22 06:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
What's the point of EA and working in the game further? It doesn't matter if the ruleset works, it is MEANT to be broken! Answering for Tandi while speaking for myself ... I dont think his point was to "dont fix anything bcs things are supposed to be broken" ... Its more like "lets concider how split the comunity is about things" ... i mean you listed it yourself, there was allready several things Larian changed ... why? Bcs there was almost nobody defending them, the community agrees (as far as possible) on this opinion! Or at least i really dont remember anyone beging for keeping free Advantage from High Ground, ground effects from cantrips, jump/disengage in single button, etc. Free to corect me ... but as far as i remember even i (and i disagree with lots of things around here) was supporting all of theese. Well, I don't see many people defending stealth either - more like attempting to shame people for bringing up the issue up instead of restricting themselves. I remember there there being deflective responses similar to what can find in this thread: "but you can just not use iot, if you don't like it". When it comes to stealth, you were one exception, that I can think of, listing a beneficial effect current implementation had for your playstyle earlier in this thread. For that I thank you. Immersion breaking situation 1: The rest of my party stands by in idle animations watching on while the AI plays rapidly to gank my scout, potentiality even standing by while the game kills that character, if the AI rolled their initiative well enough. Yeah, that happened to me handful of times. Not an issue I run into too often, but then again, I don't utilise stealth that often due to reasons listed earlier in the thread. Esencially, if only part of your party engages in combat and they don't get to lock the progression of turn-based combat things can get out of hand rapidly. And unfortunately, it is not a game that supports deft real-time reactions.
Last edited by Wormerine; 20/09/22 05:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
Why is this better than my assumption... I don't think I made an assumption about what the silent majority prefers. I just said that I didn't think the regulars here are representative or overly useful for polling purposes. And when I said that folks here were obsessed... what I meant by that is certain people here seem to care passionately about certain issues. So it's natural that there's going to be vocal disagreement and lengthy discussion. As opposed to the more casual player who just enjoys the game and doesn't care passionately enough to engage in forum feedback on a nearly everyday basis. For instance, you can say that fifty percent of the people hate widgets and fifty percent love them based on the comments of folks talking about widgets. But the more likely scenario might be that eighty percent of people don't care about the widgets at all, certainly not enough to talk about them or complain about them or advocate for them. My guess is the casual player likes shove as a bonus action because it's something to do. But that same casual player probably wouldn't think twice about it if shove were an action instead. Whereas people around here are willing to die on the hill one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Sep 2022
|
I feel like you have it backward. If an exploit is obscure and only being used by the most extreme min-maxing players, then it's by definition not affecting most players and thus doesn't need to be changed. But if the exploit is tied to a core game mechanic and is very obviously noted by casual players, then that's stronger reasoning for it to be changed if a large number of those casuals dislike it.
I agree it should be looked at on a case-by-case basis; for each mechanic, ask: "would changing this exploit to be less OP increase overall enjoyment and engagement in our game." And for myself and many others, the answer to that question is "yes," which is the reason why we're posting on this forum to say so.
Many of the exploits present in BG3 either cannot be avoided, make the player have to create rules for themselves, which isn't fun, and/or remove a possible playstyle from the player's repertoire of options. I guess I'm not understanding alot of the issues people have with this then; I apologize. Reading through this thread and others I sometimes read how people have issues with these types of exploits. So changing this would only benefit players who min-max and nothing would change for more casual players. The one described by OP is not one I would consider casual players come across often and utilize but maybe I'm wrong. However I also often see people describe game mechanics as exploits because it doesn't 100% follow the D&D ruleset or whatever but I kinda like those mechanics. Either way I don't feel too strongly about these things one way or another, I only replied because of the title of this topic, discussing why the game is so easy to cheese and not so much all the individual mechanics people have an issue with.
Last edited by Tandi; 20/09/22 06:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
So changing this would only benefit players who min-max and nothing would change for more casual players. So its a win-win situation, then. Those who care, get what works for them, those who don't, don't mind either way. I also think it is a rather reductive thing to divide player base into just min-maxers and casuals. Most will be neither. I am neither. In general, I am not the one to spot or recognise exploitative systems but quite a few of those poped up during my time with BG3. Thankfully some of those were addressed. Hopefully more will be in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
What evidence do you have to support this claim? Either of us have none ... that was the point when i said: And both those assumes are perfectly fine ... Except none of them have any value, since we have litteraly no data to support them. See? We both just asume ... there is nothing deeper. When it comes to stealth, you were one exception, that I can think of, listing a beneficial effect current implementation had for your playstyle earlier in this thread. For that I thank you. OH thank you! ^_^ You made my evening a bit happier. Even tho even i must admit that there are some things on Stealth that could be better ... i would rate curent implication as 5/6 out of 10. Its acceptable, but still have potential to be so much better. So changing this would only benefit players who min-max and nothing would change for more casual players. So its a win-win situation, then. Those who care, get what works for them, those who don't, don't mind either way. That seems incomplete ... Those would care, gets what works for them ... Those who dont, wouldnt mind either way ... That is both true ... But none of them uses it ... so ... and pardon my rudeness, why even take them under concideration? O_o I mean, if there even is any thinking about removal of something ... shouldnt main concern be about people who actualy use that thing and therefore have something to loose? Rather than people who wants it gone and people who dont care?
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
But none of them uses it ... so ... and pardon my rudeness, why even take them under concideration? O_o I mean, if there even is any thinking about removal of something ... shouldnt main concern be about people who actualy use that thing and therefore have something to loose? Rather than people who wants it gone and people who dont care? Nay, that just adds a third group - people who actively use those features and would find the game weaker without it. The post I replied to didn't mentioned such group, and it was convenient for myself to not suggest that such group, unreasonable as they may be, might exist.
Last edited by Wormerine; 20/09/22 10:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
|
I feel like you have it backward. If an exploit is obscure and only being used by the most extreme min-maxing players, then it's by definition not affecting most players and thus doesn't need to be changed. But if the exploit is tied to a core game mechanic and is very obviously noted by casual players, then that's stronger reasoning for it to be changed if a large number of those casuals dislike it.
I agree it should be looked at on a case-by-case basis; for each mechanic, ask: "would changing this exploit to be less OP increase overall enjoyment and engagement in our game." And for myself and many others, the answer to that question is "yes," which is the reason why we're posting on this forum to say so.
Many of the exploits present in BG3 either cannot be avoided, make the player have to create rules for themselves, which isn't fun, and/or remove a possible playstyle from the player's repertoire of options. I guess I'm not understanding alot of the issues people have with this then; I apologize. Reading through this thread and others I sometimes read how people have issues with these types of exploits. So changing this would only benefit players who min-max and nothing would change for more casual players. The one described by OP is not one I would consider casual players come across often and utilize but maybe I'm wrong. However I also often see people describe game mechanics as exploits because it doesn't 100% follow the D&D ruleset or whatever but I kinda like those mechanics. Either way I don't feel too strongly about these things one way or another, I only replied because of the title of this topic, discussing why the game is so easy to cheese and not so much all the individual mechanics people have an issue with. For me, it's actually more about realism and the game not functioning in a common-sense fashion. Here's what I mean: My MC locks in conversation with a character. That character now faces away from his own goods, or a door he's supposed to be guarding or whatever. I switch to Astarion and sneak. Because said character locked in dialogue or combat or whatever is no longer facing in that certain direction, I could literally sneak Astarion all over the place and said character is frozen in time with 0 ability to attempt to spot Astarion robbing him or anything. 0. None. Why? The character is frozen in a weird time freeze. Perfect example was during one PFH. Swen just had 1 character lock the Hag in dialogue and combat. Then he went to other unfrozen in time characters and spent obscene amounts of time positioning them just right while the hag could do nothing about it. They could free Mayrina, rob the hag of all her belongings and the hag is still frozen in time. They were outside the entire hag lair before combat started, and he brought them all the way into it. So, it's weird, unreal, and I literally can't play with a decent working stealth system which would have enemies potentially spot you if you sneak around DURING someone's combat to try to save the damsel in distress. There is no stealth roll. You just lock the enemy in combat or dialogue and sneak outside of their cones. It makes no sense for 1 character to be locked in 6 second rounds while every other character is moving in real-time. Every turn-based game I've played draws the whole world into turn-based if 1 is drawn in because the world is slowed down, not just a select group of characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
all of my controls and the UI itself is completely LOCKED OUT until my scout's turn comes around. This sounds like a bug ... bcs when my scout initiated combat, litteraly nothing was preventing me from switching to another party member and control them. So ... nope, certainly not "completely LOCKED OUT". :-/ Ah, so, when combat engages, and the camera jumps out of my immediate control, shifts its UI plane, and then while it is still in the process of doing so begins to move rapidly around every two to three seconds showing me different things that are occurring in a clearly turn-based system, while my character UI, being still on the scout I was on, is dimmed and unresponsive, and the rapid shifting of the camera focus is obfuscating of my cursor position... I actual DO have control... is what you're saying... And somehow it's NOT a failing of the system that all evidence points towards the contrary... And... in order to use the system 'correctly', and have the combat occur in a way that matches the intent of the game system (i.e. characters engaged in turn based combat), what I have to do, is to step back, actively wrest control of the camera Away from what the game is showing me, fight with the UI to move the camera elsewhere and select my other party members, which I have no fast and easy way of doing with any precision, and then move them into the combat or otherwise get them engaged... and I must do this in a real-time Rush, focusing on what I'm trying to do, and not what the game is doing At The Same time, while it is busy taking monster turns and actively doing other things, which, without my interference, it would be trying to show me properly right now. Well, thank you for at least proving my freaking point to the fullest extent any one example could hope. And you are defending that absolute disaster garbage fire trainwreck of a system? No, stow that; it's freaking indefensible... nobody defending this is doing so in good faith, they're just being pedantic, contrary for the sake of it, or sycophantic, and trying to talk constructively with such people is an absolute waste of time and energy. => The characters that would have reacted can't Im sory, but i feel lost ... How would they react? O_o I mean they are far, arent they? No. Read the post you're responding to then correct your mistake. The party is less than a dash away, as I said, and are waiting, listening, focused on what's happening, and the moment they hear something go wrong, they are going to react; they are not surprised, they're literally focused on this event. What they might do doesn't matter - the fact is they would act. Maybe the wizard would cast dimension door, maybe the druid would wildshape; maybe the cleric would bless the others as they start to move, maybe the sorceress would cast storm sphere in the middle of the camp, maybe the ranger would start shooting as fast as possible, maybe the party would attempt to engage closer targets, or cause a distraction nearer to them, to save the scout by drawing attention - who know what they might try; they might try anything. They can, would and should be able to react in a timely manner; they can't, because of different elements of the system fighting against itself and undermining itself, while the player is forced to actively fight what their UI is trying to do in order to do something else. Right now, any one action the other party members take will functionally take long enough that it doesn't matter, the entire enemy turn up to the scout will get their goes before anything can be affected, because they aren't initiative while trying to act. I dont even get how is that immersion breaking ... your scout get ahead, he was ambushed while alone and defeated bcs he had no chance alone.
Seems pretty immersive to me. O_o That is not the situation I described. Read the post you're responding to then correct your mistake. Your party either is close enough to get there in single turn ...
Or they are futher away and all you get is to get there in single "turn" instead all turns it would take.
I mean yeah, you *can* stealth there ... and then you are right, you indeed need to deal with "their ridiculous frozen/not-frozen time thing" ...
But you really want to claim you get into that situation accidentaly?
That there was absolutele NO INTENTION entering stealth with other characters?
Come on. -_-
There are ways for you to get (at least close to, if not exactly) what you want ...
You just refuse to use them. :-/ I don't know how far I have to water this ridiculous farce of a conversation down for you to understand it, but I'll try.... I'm playing a video game! Yay! My party want to scout an enemy position! Oooh! We don't want to get seen! Yikes! We all hide! Shhh! The Scout tries to creep forward a bit and gather intel! Sneaky! The others wait back, out of sight, but not so far that they can't jump in to help if things go wrong! Cautious! The Scout gets part way in but gets seen! Oh No! No-one is trying to cheat or abuse a mechanic here, this is normal, reasonable play from someone attempting to play a video game like a regular person, immersed in the space that they're playing in. This is normal play! This is something you would reasonably expect players simply enjoying your game at face value to do! - The system now jumps into initiative. - It shifts it UI plane to bring in the combat elements. - The primary UI element of the character you were controlling is dimmed out and locked. - The camera begins jumping around, focusing on the creatures whose turn it is, and what they are doing - This coupled with the above point is indicative of a turn-based game system, where you are not meant to be inputting actions on other creature's turns and while the game is showing you what's going on! - The game UI camera is actively zipping away from your character to show you other things - things which, because it is taking time and action to show you, it is reasonable to assume that you should be paying attention to! - The rest of the party have not been rolled in! They will NEVER get a turn if this continues! - If the scout rolled poorly, or the enemies rolled well, he might die before his turn comes around! - If he gets knocked out or incapacitated in any way, the game will skip over his turn entirely, and the flow will not stop or pause, or invite me to interact with it at all - the enemies will just go again without delay. - In a normal circumstance, the rest of the party, who was waiting for the scout and poised to jump in if things went badly, would jump in, because things have clearly gone badly! - WHAT they might do literally does not matter in any way for this conversation, and brining that up as a question is a pedantic waste of time that only seeks to dissemble from the issue and obfuscate it, so stow that. - If I want my other party members to be involved, and to do something to save my scout, I now have to break out of my immersed game space, and I have to actively wrestle with the game's conflicting systems and conflicting UI directly. - The game is trying to move the camera around to show me important things - I have to interrupt it and pull the camera away from the information it's trying to convey. I at very least have to do this enough to stop it jumping about, so that I can see my cursor properly. - The game is taking turns in rapid succession, in a turn-based system, but I have to pull it away from that, and interact with characters that are not in the initiative and are in an out-of-time state instead, and I have to engaged them in the combat, which involves directly confronting the juxtaposition of their out-of-time state, with the turn-base time state of the monsters and the scout. - I can't avoid having to deal with this; I'm forced to reconcile the two directly, and the game does not smoothly do this for me or cover over the system break. The UI is fighting against elements of the system, the system elements are fighting against each other, both the system and the UI are fighting against the player, and the entire relationship here is utterly antagonistic. It literally doesn't freaking MATTER if you can make it work by taking on extra tasks yourself and bending over backwards to ensure that you juggle all the little things that the game trips over itself failing to do properly (and even then, you can't, not to the degree that it should reasonably be expected to work). It doesn't freaking matter at all. The system is still a broken failure of an implementation, and it is NOT acceptable in its present form. This entire conversation has become a farce, and I'm done with it. Folks are encouraged to submit their complaints to Larian directly; trying to talk to the apologist crowd is a waste of effort when they are determined to be dismissive of feedback in this feedback forum, and want to blame the majority of the systemic failures of the game and its design choices on the players for 'not playing it right'.
Last edited by Niara; 21/09/22 04:17 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
My MC locks in conversation with a character. That character now faces away from his own goods, or a door he's supposed to be guarding or whatever. I switch to Astarion and sneak. Because said character locked in dialogue or combat or whatever is no longer facing in that certain direction... This is something a lot of players really like. I'm sorry you don't enjoy it, but unfortunately changing it would disappoint others who do. Some people screech about "bad design" like it's an engineered bridge that can't carry a load of cars and will inevitably collapse. But that's a fundamental misunderstanding based on a singular and narrow point of view. It's not how it works. The truth is: Some people like it. Some people don't. Everyone can't be pleased by everything. It's not a broken design or a flaw. It's a feature of the game. Luckily, for players who don't like this feature, most of these examples can be avoided in play. For example, the game doesn't require anyone to talk to an NPC before sneaking. That's not a prerequisite of progressing the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
I'm playing a video game! Yay!
My party want to scout an enemy position! Oooh!
We don't want to get seen! Yikes!
We all hide! Shhh!
The Scout tries to creep forward a bit and gather intel! Sneaky!
The others wait back, out of sight, but not so far that they can't jump in to help if things go wrong! Cautious!
The Scout gets part way in but gets seen! Oh No! XD I don't have any intention of getting re-involved with the "how valid is the forum sample" discussion, but I wanted to correct something I said earlier. I had estimated that the responses were roughly 50-50 for liking vs disliking cheese, because going by # of responses ITT it looks that way at first glance. But actually, when counting up unique usernames: - 15 unique posters are against the severity and/or quantity of exploits in BG3 ( at least, this specific stealth+initiative exploit, but often more) - 4 posters are specifically in favor of exploits--at least this specific stealth+initiative one--remaining in the game (e.g., "don't take away playstyles from others/I want the freedom to use these strategies") - 4 posters are ambivalent (e.g., "I don't use it and no one has to, but it'd probably be fine if implemented differently"). - a final ~2 posters flip-flop, are discussing different topics, and/or have lengthy conversations over multiple pages which makes it difficult to ascertain their exact stance on exploits. Just a (hopefully) useful and corrected data point for any lurking Larian community managers. Make of it what you will. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
