Larian Studios
Posted By: Littlebob86 Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 28/09/17 11:10 PM
Hey guys,

So heaps of reviews are saying the game is amazing (which is it), but the way armour blocks a ton of stuff (mainly cc mages), really annoys me. It makes me feel like I need to focus magic dealing otherwise it's just useless?

I feel that it's harder to have a mixed team, and not in a good way.

Can someone please explain if I'm missing something that makes it good?
The armor system essentially removes a huge component of RNG in the combat system and shifts it to a more tactical approach on every turn.

As for mixed party, there's advantages and disadvantages. One advantage, obviously, is the ability to ignore one armor type entirely. However, you never have a say in what armor type you want to whittle down. If that one guy has 500 armor and you're full physical, you're going to have to deal with that 500 armor first. A mixed party, however, can split into two and effeciently have the casters take down the front line and the physical damage dealers hit the mages.

Each approach has different tactical value and, in my experience, depends on preference.

I, personally, prefer a mixed party. In addition, there's ways to mitigate the disadvantage of a mixed party. Locust swarm, corrosive touch(if you can manage to get it, recipe currently bugged), touch of decay, shield lob are all excellent ways of dealing physical damage that scales well for a caster. Medusa head, marksman's fang, bull rush are all ways a physical damage dealer can assist the casters and bypass physical armor.

Nothing is useless...It just depends on how you use it....

As my point of view.
This armour system perform the concept "Breaking" really well.
So I do like the new system than the old one.

And I think if Physical and Magical Armour could exchange in some percentage when one of it is zero, then this concept of "breaking" could be performed better.


And if you think this system makes enemy harder to be taken down, why don't you focus on how this system could also benefit your team?

also there are some effects that could not be blocked by armour, you may try to use it well as a real intelligent mage.
Posted By: Zherot Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 02:35 AM
Originally Posted by Johnny_Devo
The armor system essentially removes a huge component of RNG in the combat system and shifts it to a more tactical approach on every turn.



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
Originally Posted by Johnny_Devo
The armor system essentially removes a huge component of RNG in the combat system and shifts it to a more tactical approach on every turn.

As for mixed party, there's advantages and disadvantages. One advantage, obviously, is the ability to ignore one armor type entirely. However, you never have a say in what armor type you want to whittle down. If that one guy has 500 armor and you're full physical, you're going to have to deal with that 500 armor first. A mixed party, however, can split into two and effeciently have the casters take down the front line and the physical damage dealers hit the mages.

Each approach has different tactical value and, in my experience, depends on preference.

I, personally, prefer a mixed party. In addition, there's ways to mitigate the disadvantage of a mixed party. Locust swarm, corrosive touch(if you can manage to get it, recipe currently bugged), touch of decay, shield lob are all excellent ways of dealing physical damage that scales well for a caster. Medusa head, marksman's fang, bull rush are all ways a physical damage dealer can assist the casters and bypass physical armor.



Of course, that comes at the expense of nuking your own front line, who in OS2 are much less likely to have high resists or magic armor than they did in OS1 (where you could get 100% resist fairly easily).

Since magic damage is almost entirely AOE based you end up "wasting" it on high magic armor targets whether you want to or not, and it just so happens that low-magic-armor targets tend to be front liners, meaning they want to be standing right next to you and your own low-magic-armor characters.

Personally I ended up going through the game without any characters dedicated to magic damage, and my second playthrough looks to be about the same. AOE damage just doesn't work so well for breaking armors efficiently, which is the most important thing as once armor is broken you can stop an enemy from ever taking another turn. Also physical hard CC is much easier to apply anyway. Frozen and Stunned both take a two-part combo (must either be shocked/chilled twice or wet), wheras Knockdown works just as well (better, actually) and can be applied safely with non-friendly-fire AOEs in a single hit.
Posted By: Zherot Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 03:08 AM
Originally Posted by Sotanaht
Originally Posted by Johnny_Devo
The armor system essentially removes a huge component of RNG in the combat system and shifts it to a more tactical approach on every turn.

As for mixed party, there's advantages and disadvantages. One advantage, obviously, is the ability to ignore one armor type entirely. However, you never have a say in what armor type you want to whittle down. If that one guy has 500 armor and you're full physical, you're going to have to deal with that 500 armor first. A mixed party, however, can split into two and effeciently have the casters take down the front line and the physical damage dealers hit the mages.

Each approach has different tactical value and, in my experience, depends on preference.

I, personally, prefer a mixed party. In addition, there's ways to mitigate the disadvantage of a mixed party. Locust swarm, corrosive touch(if you can manage to get it, recipe currently bugged), touch of decay, shield lob are all excellent ways of dealing physical damage that scales well for a caster. Medusa head, marksman's fang, bull rush are all ways a physical damage dealer can assist the casters and bypass physical armor.



Of course, that comes at the expense of nuking your own front line, who in OS2 are much less likely to have high resists or magic armor than they did in OS1 (where you could get 100% resist fairly easily).

Since magic damage is almost entirely AOE based you end up "wasting" it on high magic armor targets whether you want to or not, and it just so happens that low-magic-armor targets tend to be front liners, meaning they want to be standing right next to you and your own low-magic-armor characters.

Personally I ended up going through the game without any characters dedicated to magic damage, and my second playthrough looks to be about the same. AOE damage just doesn't work so well for breaking armors efficiently, which is the most important thing as once armor is broken you can stop an enemy from ever taking another turn. Also physical hard CC is much easier to apply anyway. Frozen and Stunned both take a two-part combo (must either be shocked/chilled twice or wet), wheras Knockdown works just as well (better, actually) and can be applied safely with non-friendly-fire AOEs in a single hit.


Yeah they did their best to over nerf mages.

Way to shoot themselves in the foot.
Originally Posted by Zherot
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA


Excellent contribution to the discussion.
[quote=Zherot]
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA [/quote]

There's nothing wrong with what he said... it does remove a large (not all) portion of RNG from combat so that the focus isn't trying to get "20% chance to knockdown" or "50% chance to freeze" on attacks to "is resisted until X armor is broken".

Armor has 2 benefits OP.

The first is it's a debuff guard, and allows you to resist physical debuffs and some less physical ones like poison or decay or disease.
The second is that it's a physical health buffer, and absorbs most physical damage as a guard before you can take actual health damage. Additionally, you can increase total armor/magic armor far more readily than you can regular health, as well as heal yourself while maintaining armor/physical armor.

A practical use of armor would be this:

You get into a fight with a mage, a rogue, and a warrior. The warrior needs to take 2 whole turns to get to you, and you kill the mage after 1 turn and the rogue is still beating on you. The mage remove all your magical armor, and does some health damage as a result, but you still have half your physical armor by the time the warrior gets in range of you.
Since you still have your physical armor, the warrior cannot put any of his debuffs on you while you kill the rogue, and the warrior uses some of his abilities with debuffs trying to drop your armor, putting those abilities on cooldown. So by the time you kill the mage and the rogue, you have no armor or magic armor, but the warrior couldn't cripple you, taunt you, or knock you down while you had armor up.

edit: quoting apparently won't function for me, oh well.
Posted By: aj0413 Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 03:35 AM
The short answer is: there really is none and most people grit their teeth and deal with the new system

The longer answer is: some people hate RNG to the point that they'd prefer a mostly broken and tedious binary system that's full of issues because they hate the classic gaming sense of rolling some dice with modifiers.

Does it make it more 'tactical'? In a sense, yes. Does it makes it more fun? Depends on who you ask. Though I think it's clear what my stance on it is.

The binary system limits party coordination and build effectiveness, makes health a dump stat that means nothing no matter what the number is, and makes most niche builds and tactics and environment stuff mean little to nothing since armor blocks it all anyway. Oh, and it makes the game more like Diablo and Borderlands where loot is king and your actual build matters very little in the end...which also causes mages to lag behind physical damage dealers do to weapon scaling.

In an effort to mitigate the CC = King problem of mages being 'too' good (which is entirely subjective since you could make an unkillable warrior that could one shot anything in the game) in DOS1 they went way too far the other way.

Also, I'm having the sneaking suspisicion that where they originally seemed to have taken ques from D&D for game one, the stat inflation and loot priority and lack of focus on special effects imply inspiration from things like Diablo, Grim Dawn, or Path of Exile.
Stats and loot had all the same importance in OS1, it just so happened that you could craft most of the best equipment, so finding it was never an issue. That of course lead to the opposite problem where the loot you could find or buy was never anything but trash and it was only the materials you ever cared about.

And it is much more strategic. It's the difference between reloading until something works (either reload the instant it fails or reload when you lose the fight, same difference either way), or finding a proper strategy that doesn't fail. The difference between solving a jigsaw puzzle and forcing the pieces together to call it solved. It has some flaws but the way hard CC is handled isn't one of them.

Also, I found that the AI likes to focus targets with lower HP, so balancing Con has the benefit of making the enemy spread their damage rather than focus one target to death. The exact mechanics of the game's aggro system are beyond me though. There are also ways other than armor to provide immunity to certain CC, including potions and the rested status.
I don't even give a crap about high armor values though they are helpful. I go glass cannon and stack immunities and on my melee characters too and they have over 20k health. Diner = 30% Dinner heal = 3 AP nearly full instant self heal, a dinner heals my fighters for 6400 health.

If you can't win just by using the environment alone, win by bloating health and CON!

FIGHT stat bloat with stat bloat!

FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE!
Posted By: Qiox Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 04:14 AM
Originally Posted by Littlebob86
Can someone please explain if I'm missing something that makes it good?


There is nothing good about it. It is a terrible system that complete destroys the need for any strategic planning.

This is the case because there is only 1 strategy required:
- max your dps on 1 armor type until it is gone
- chain cc until it is dead

That's it. Anyone who talks about more strategy, or creating the need for a diverse party is an example of someone who has no idea what they are talking about. If you do anything other than the 2 steps above you are gimping yourself.

A physical only focused group destroys this game with ease.
A magic only focused group destroys this game with ease.

To anyone who gets it, the combat is dumbed down so drastically that it is tedious and boring unless you intentionally gimp your party to artificially create a challenge.

DOS1 combat has it's flaws but this system is not a fix in any way shape or form. 100% success for CC was too easy to get in that game. Simple solutions, cap CC chances significantly below 100% and disable save scumming. Now your decisions actually matter. Is it worth spending 2 AP on a cc that may not work? You actually will have to make a decision and weigh the benefits.

Now, we have no decisions needed. They have armor -> Max dps. They have no armor -> CC.

That is the exact opposite of strategy being needed.
Thanks for all your replies!

I'll be using mods that remove most of the armour system as well as reducing the stat bloat (I hate having 20k health when having 2000 would do the job as well).

I rage quit initially when I set up for an encounter, rain, attacked, lightning the pool, and every one of their melee characters run through the huge pool, and were in amongst my guys..

I much preferred the stat points from dos 1 that increased the percentage to resist. Made you focus on tactics, as well as building your characters better in resisting stuff, rather than just getting the biggest armour..

I dunno.. I've been so hyped for dos 2 and feel really sad about how I'm not loving it as much as the first frown
Posted By: Naqel Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 07:06 AM
The armor system has sever issues with tuning and implementation.

To be honest, that applies to the entire character progression: it's functional, but it's in no way interesting.
Posted By: geala Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 07:14 AM
It's a bit funny to read people complaining about the bad new armor system with the evil removal of randomness fun while at the same time mourning the loss of the good old times of getting 100% resists.

It's a different system and wether you like it or not is personal bias. I could live with the old, I prefer the new one.
Posted By: Draba Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 08:07 AM
Originally Posted by aj0413
The longer answer is: some people hate RNG to the point that they'd prefer a mostly broken and tedious binary system that's full of issues because they hate the classic gaming sense of rolling some dice with modifiers.


The problem with that line of thought is that chanced based or deterministic all-or-nothing aren't the only options.
You could also scale the magnitude of the effect(and that scaling could also be fully deterministic, fully random or random with some kind of scaling base).
An example I've used earlier:

Hard disables always work but duration can be reduced a lot with some kind of armor/stat/resistance system. 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).

An example based on the current armor system, fully deterministic:
- 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

Other way would be making CON reduce physical effect duration, INT magical, attacker uses WIT to counter those(not fully without an extreme difference)
Randomize the final effect between 50% and 100% of the modified strength to add some variance.
This would also make the currently weak CON/WIT a bit more attractive choices.


Originally Posted by aj0413
Also, I'm having the sneaking suspisicion that where they originally seemed to have taken ques from D&D for game one, the stat inflation and loot priority and lack of focus on special effects imply inspiration from things like Diablo, Grim Dawn, or Path of Exile.


The system reminded me of Diablo 3, too.
That game was designed with online only multiplayer and an auction house in mind, really feels out of place here.
Posted By: Bokajon Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 10:06 AM
Originally Posted by Johnny_Devo
The armor system essentially removes a huge component of RNG in the combat system and shifts it to a more tactical approach on every turn.

As for mixed party, there's advantages and disadvantages. One advantage, obviously, is the ability to ignore one armor type entirely. However, you never have a say in what armor type you want to whittle down. If that one guy has 500 armor and you're full physical, you're going to have to deal with that 500 armor first. A mixed party, however, can split into two and effeciently have the casters take down the front line and the physical damage dealers hit the mages.

Each approach has different tactical value and, in my experience, depends on preference.

I, personally, prefer a mixed party. In addition, there's ways to mitigate the disadvantage of a mixed party. Locust swarm, corrosive touch(if you can manage to get it, recipe currently bugged), touch of decay, shield lob are all excellent ways of dealing physical damage that scales well for a caster. Medusa head, marksman's fang, bull rush are all ways a physical damage dealer can assist the casters and bypass physical armor.


This.
Very basic calculation:

hp = vitality
ma = magical armor
pa = physical armor
ma = magical damage
pd = physical damage

Suppose you have a balanced team 1:
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 0 pa 1 ma 1 md mage
2 hp 0 pa 1 ma 1 md mage

Against a purely physical team 2:
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter

Assuming simultaneous turns:
In the first turn, team 1 can deal 2 magical damage and 2 physical damage. In the best case, through focus fire it can take down 1 fighter and reduce another fighter's hp to 1.
Team 2 can deal 4 physical damage, it can take down 2 mages. So you end up with:

Team 1:
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter

Team 2:
1 hp 0 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter

Team 2 is clearly at a advantage.

Of course it is a very simplified model and does not take other factors into account, but it should help explain the problem a bit.
Originally Posted by Littlebob86
Thanks for all your replies!

I'll be using mods that remove most of the armour system as well as reducing the stat bloat (I hate having 20k health when having 2000 would do the job as well).

I rage quit initially when I set up for an encounter, rain, attacked, lightning the pool, and every one of their melee characters run through the huge pool, and were in amongst my guys..

I much preferred the stat points from dos 1 that increased the percentage to resist. Made you focus on tactics, as well as building your characters better in resisting stuff, rather than just getting the biggest armour..

I dunno.. I've been so hyped for dos 2 and feel really sad about how I'm not loving it as much as the first frown


I think you have gotten some really good feedback in this thread.

I've been pondering the armor system intensively, mostly by the discussion fueled on this forum.

I am just finishing Act 1, so I really have no opinion on the entire game yet. However, from an act 1 perspective only, the new armor system is better for me.

I don't think the armor system is a perfect solution; I can understand the arguments against it. But I think the armor system they created was in response to the lack of difficulty past level 10 in the first game.

By level 10 in DOS1, I had near full resists and the game was too easy. I mean walk into a fight, crowd control, kill everything, fight over.

I am hoping the new armor system is addressing the decreased replay-ability issue that DOS1 had.

Also, as a die hard Diablo fan, I don't see how these two games are that much alike. Fantasy rpg, yes. Outside of that I am just not seeing it. Again, I haven't been past Act 1 yet, so that opinion could change. The stat inflation I am hearing about does sound like diablo to me. I hope that's not true for this game, because I use Diablo to fulfill a different type of gamer in me.

My opinion on the two games:
Diablo - Get powerful, kill as fast as possible, get the best loot, climb the leaderboard, go brain dead and zone out completely

DOS1&2 - Explore, role-play, complete quests, crafting, modding, thinking about combat and skills, immersing myself in a fantasy world away from my responsibilities as an adult

These are just my current opinions of course. They're highly likely to change as I progress in the game and think on it some more. horsey
Posted By: Bokajon Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 12:28 PM
Originally Posted by qwerty3w
Very basic calculation:

hp = vitality
ma = magical armor
pa = physical armor
ma = magical damage
pd = physical damage

Suppose you have a balanced team 1:
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 0 pa 1 ma 1 md mage
2 hp 0 pa 1 ma 1 md mage

Against a purely physical team 2:
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter

Assuming simultaneous turns:
In the first turn, team 1 can deal 2 magical damage and 2 physical damage. In the best case, through focus fire it can take down 1 fighter and reduce another fighter's hp to 1.
Team 2 can deal 4 physical damage, it can take down 2 mages. So you end up with:

Team 1:
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter

Team 2:
1 hp 0 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter

Team 2 is clearly at a advantage.

Of course it is a very simplified model and does not take other factors into account, but it should help explain the problem a bit.

Like you say yourself your example is very simplified. Against a team of enemies with high physical armor and low/no magical armor Team 2 has a harder time than Team 1. Team 1 can CC/kill them quickly, whereas Team 2 needs to attack physical armor first before they can CC/kill.

Team 1 is more flexible, at the cost of taking longer to kill balanced armor enemies.
Team 2 is great against low physical armor, at the cost of taking longer to kill high physical armor / low magical armor enemies.

It's a tradeoff. To get back to the original question, this is the whole concept of the armor system imo. You can choose to do only physical damage or only magical damage with your team, or you can mix your damage types. All these choices have different advantages and disadvantages depending on the enemies you will face throughout the game.
Originally Posted by Bokajon
Originally Posted by qwerty3w
Very basic calculation:

hp = vitality
ma = magical armor
pa = physical armor
ma = magical damage
pd = physical damage

Suppose you have a balanced team 1:
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 0 pa 1 ma 1 md mage
2 hp 0 pa 1 ma 1 md mage

Against a purely physical team 2:
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter

Assuming simultaneous turns:
In the first turn, team 1 can deal 2 magical damage and 2 physical damage. In the best case, through focus fire it can take down 1 fighter and reduce another fighter's hp to 1.
Team 2 can deal 4 physical damage, it can take down 2 mages. So you end up with:

Team 1:
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter

Team 2:
1 hp 0 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter
2 hp 1 pa 0 ma 1 pd fighter

Team 2 is clearly at a advantage.

Of course it is a very simplified model and does not take other factors into account, but it should help explain the problem a bit.

Like you say yourself your example is very simplified. Against a team of enemies with high physical armor and low/no magical armor Team 2 has a harder time than Team 1. Team 1 can CC/kill them quickly, whereas Team 2 needs to attack physical armor first before they can CC/kill.

Team 1 is more flexible, at the cost of taking longer to kill balanced armor enemies.
Team 2 is great against low physical armor, at the cost of taking longer to kill high physical armor / low magical armor enemies.

It's a tradeoff. To get back to the original question, this is the whole concept of the armor system imo. You can choose to do only physical damage or only magical damage with your team, or you can mix your damage types. All these choices have different advantages and disadvantages depending on the enemies you will face throughout the game.


Awesome example. Very clarifying for me. Thank you for sharing! smile
But your own characters also tend to have skewed armors. Items with high physical armor tend to have more strength requirement, items with more magical armor have more intelligence requirement. Enemy fighters that usually have more physical armor are not more of a threat to your own fighters than enemy mages, since fighters mostly deal physical damage.

Most enemy groups in the game are relatively balanced. Against a balanced enemy group, a pure physical/magical party can take down the more vulerable half of the enemies much faster. In a strategy game less units = less damage per turn. Then the party can handle the remaining half more safely.
If u met more enemy with high physical resistance, you won't think that pure physical or magical team is a good idea anymore.

So please don't make stupid comparison between mixed-damage team or pure-damage team.
Posted By: Lightzy Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 02:05 PM
It's a shitty stupid system but the sense of it is exactly what you said.
To make sure that combat doesn't end on turn 1 because everything is knocked down or polymophed etc.

A much much better idea would have been to simply return to D:OS1 system which was better in every conceivable way and allowed you to resist such stupidities through stats, but whatever. I think they were trying to make stats as useless as possible this time.
Originally Posted by Lightzy
It's a shitty stupid system but the sense of it is exactly what you said.
To make sure that combat doesn't end on turn 1 because everything is knocked down or polymophed etc.

A much much better idea would have been to simply return to D:OS1 system which was better in every conceivable way and allowed you to resist such stupidities through stats, but whatever. I think they were trying to make stats as useless as possible this time.


But I do agree this new system.
Why should I take the control effect when I defense well?
If enemy doesn't break my defence( or armour), then I could resist thier control.
Is it really that hard to be understood?
Originally Posted by July_chang


But I do agree this new system.
Why should I take the control effect when I defense well?
If enemy doesn't break my defence( or armour), then I could resist thier control.
Is it really that hard to be understood?

What kind of nonsense to resort to "logic" in such a matter?
Then let's remove health altogether - in fact for killing one blow on an open body without armor is enough.
Ugh! Another little grip I have is hitting someone in melee, their blood spilling, and setting yourself on fire (or whatever element), seems like it needs to be dialled down a touch!
Originally Posted by July_chang
If u met more enemy with high physical resistance, you won't think that pure physical or magical team is a good idea anymore.

If we talk about challenges to a specific party makeup, the toughest enemies in the game are bosses, they tend to have more balanced armors, and a balanced party would have more trouble handling them. So it's likely easier to get stuck because of game difficulty if your party is balanced.

There is rock paper scissors for skewed characters in the game:
pa and pd > ma and pd > ma and md > pa and md > pa and pd
pa/ma = physical armor/magical armor
pd/md = physical damage/magical damage
I feel it's not a good idea to have such counter relationships in an RPG game, it's difficult to design encounters and make them fun no matter what your party makeup is under such system.


Originally Posted by geala
It's a bit funny to read people complaining about the bad new armor system with the evil removal of randomness fun while at the same time mourning the loss of the good old times of getting 100% resists.

It's a different system and wether you like it or not is personal bias. I could live with the old, I prefer the new one.


So far I like the new system better overall, but can totally see people on all sides. To me it seems more refined, like a Fantasy XCom take on it. The DOS1 system was a system of excess, cool in its own way to, but so many big options over and over, the gluttony system. I like how Init works as well, much more reasonable switching turns between player/AI. The old system too many times was all or nothing.

For people playing DOS2 that haven't played DOS1, the differences in combat are real and gives the games a different feel, DOS1 isn't just a different story, it's a more a wild west take on combat.

So for those not wanting the armor part of this. Are we thinking, whatever is removed from armor, add that to overall Vitality? I can totally see that to and that alone would be a different play through, cc affects become a thing from the start.

Man I see several play-through experiences:
1. All the main chars.
2. Coop.
3. 6 man team mod.
4. 1 man team mod.
5. Different game mechanic mods. (Low scaling mods, no armor mods etc)

The modding and the scene is way ahead of where it was at last time around.

I think this could be the new pinnacle point for fantasy crpg's.

Good times ahead.

NOTE TO MODDERS:
We need to devise a way to test our changes out throughout the entire game. Right now we have some pretty sweeping change mods out, but there is no real certainty how these play out from start to finish, unless you play the entire game out.





Originally Posted by ExecutiveCivic
I don't even give a crap about high armor values though they are helpful. I go glass cannon and stack immunities and on my melee characters too and they have over 20k health. Diner = 30% Dinner heal = 3 AP nearly full instant self heal, a dinner heals my fighters for 6400 health.

If you can't win just by using the environment alone, win by bloating health and CON!

FIGHT stat bloat with stat bloat!

FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE!


There are so many ways to have a successful build for this game. It is sort of funny trying to lasso in a method that "Can do it", there are probably 100's if not 1000's of ways for success in game. Not pointing at you, just reading peoples takes, "This build", "This tactic", there are so many, it is more like "go find your happy place and have fun".
Posted By: Zherot Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 03:37 PM
Originally Posted by Sotanaht
Stats and loot had all the same importance in OS1, it just so happened that you could craft most of the best equipment, so finding it was never an issue. That of course lead to the opposite problem where the loot you could find or buy was never anything but trash and it was only the materials you ever cared about.

And it is much more strategic. It's the difference between reloading until something works (either reload the instant it fails or reload when you lose the fight, same difference either way), or finding a proper strategy that doesn't fail. The difference between solving a jigsaw puzzle and forcing the pieces together to call it solved. It has some flaws but the way hard CC is handled isn't one of them.

Also, I found that the AI likes to focus targets with lower HP, so balancing Con has the benefit of making the enemy spread their damage rather than focus one target to death. The exact mechanics of the game's aggro system are beyond me though. There are also ways other than armor to provide immunity to certain CC, including potions and the rested status.



1-lie, never bothered with crafting in the first game, everything i equiped i found and i finished the game no problems.

2-lie again, stratagey doesn't mean cheese the AI until you are able to win, you will still be reloading like crazy until a fight plays in a certain way so you are able to win it.

3-AI is psychic it will focus characters with traits like glass cannon or undead without knowing shit about that, so yeah, there goes your fucking strategy, the AI outright cheats.
Posted By: HUcast Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 08:22 PM
I'd like to throw in my two cents about random chance and what it means for a game like divinity.

In an RPG, especially one like divinity, the game is about going into the unknown, and taking what comes to you. There should always be an element of danger to combat, a lucky strike leaving you floored out of nowhere, a miss leaving you in a bad spot, things that make you look at the computer for a few minutes to consider your options. RNG adds this to a game, plain and simple.

Divinity 2 has seemingly gone on the war path against random numbers though, offence and defense ratings are out and miss change is very seldom encountered. But I feel like they are trying to direct the game into a path more suited for a multiplayer game than a crpg. In Dos1, when your CC failed when you thought you had a high chance, or you missed the critical shot, a true RPG player would savor the tension. The thoughts and tough choices they had to make in that moment being enjoyable experiences unique to this kind of game. The playerbase that div 2's changes seem to be directed to are different, however. People who, put in the same situation, would throw their hands in that air, proclaim "This is bullshit!", and reload a quicksave they made 10 seconds prior.

In a turn based game, reacting to bad situations getting worse and savoring when everything goes right are equal parts of what makes it enjoyable, and I feel div 2 removed half of that with gutting almost all RNG.
Posted By: Zherot Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 29/09/17 08:40 PM
Originally Posted by HUcast
I'd like to throw in my two cents about random chance and what it means for a game like divinity.

In an RPG, especially one like divinity, the game is about going into the unknown, and taking what comes to you. There should always be an element of danger to combat, a lucky strike leaving you floored out of nowhere, a miss leaving you in a bad spot, things that make you look at the computer for a few minutes to consider your options. RNG adds this to a game, plain and simple.

Divinity 2 has seemingly gone on the war path against random numbers though, offence and defense ratings are out and miss change is very seldom encountered. But I feel like they are trying to direct the game into a path more suited for a multiplayer game than a crpg. In Dos1, when your CC failed when you thought you had a high chance, or you missed the critical shot, a true RPG player would savor the tension. The thoughts and tough choices they had to make in that moment being enjoyable experiences unique to this kind of game. The playerbase that div 2's changes seem to be directed to are different, however. People who, put in the same situation, would throw their hands in that air, proclaim "This is bullshit!", and reload a quicksave they made 10 seconds prior.

In a turn based game, reacting to bad situations getting worse and savoring when everything goes right are equal parts of what makes it enjoyable, and I feel div 2 removed half of that with gutting almost all RNG.


You know what?, it makes perfect sense now considering there is pvp in the game they "balanced" the game around stupid MP and killed the fun of the game.

Another example of multiplayer ruinning single player games.
Nah, I doubt it was the Arena mode. They just wanted a change to how things worked.

I think it made the game less exciting, and didn't address the biggest thing that they wanted to address. Hard CC is still hecka busted and the game still revolves around it. Reduce chances, bring back stats to reduce the chances even less, make statuses that don't skip turns hit through armor, put in physical resists... and I think you're in a very interesting place.
Originally Posted by Lebrucht
Originally Posted by July_chang


But I do agree this new system.
Why should I take the control effect when I defense well?
If enemy doesn't break my defence( or armour), then I could resist thier control.
Is it really that hard to be understood?

What kind of nonsense to resort to "logic" in such a matter?
Then let's remove health altogether - in fact for killing one blow on an open body without armor is enough.


Are u sure it's not u who suggeste a nonsense condition?
U could disable the cc or rebuild the armour by teammates or anyother way, if u play game by using brain.
No, it really is the PvP. I recall the "epic battles" (and insults, so many insults) I got thrown about with by PvP players when complaining about armor in EA.
And no one listening that what works for 10m PvP matches might not do so in a 100H SP-game.

Now playing the game I do keep 2 physical/2 magic just because I want to. But it's always having to put these 2 on different targets since sharing is pointless. And a lot of times one of these groups just throws up buffs instead of fighting since fighting is pointless. It doesn't feel great.

Also stats distribution is lame. STR/INT/FIN it is, no point spreading out. I often wonder what to put my stat-points in since, wow, 5% extra, so great. But what's the alternative? It's all so meh, the real actual buff of your characters being in getting in more armor or better weaponry. My Ifan is OP since he got an OP crossbow, meanwhile the rest is stuck with avarage weapons and do avarage. Couldn't do the arena fight until I cleared the whole fort since before that I didn't have enough magic armor points to not just be blinded till dead smirk

It's a good thing the game has other things going for it (but I HATE it at the moment for the Gargoyle Maze) cause it's combat system; it's not very interesting.
(But questing is also hampered by lots and lots of issues, but that's another discussion)
Posted By: Gaidax Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 30/09/17 11:06 PM
Originally Posted by Littlebob86
Hey guys,

So heaps of reviews are saying the game is amazing (which is it), but the way armour blocks a ton of stuff (mainly cc mages), really annoys me. It makes me feel like I need to focus magic dealing otherwise it's just useless?

I feel that it's harder to have a mixed team, and not in a good way.

Can someone please explain if I'm missing something that makes it good?


In D:OS1 a lot of various CC and debuff effects had a chance to occur, which was very frustrating RNG at times both ways, you could have been utterly gutted with a pure RNG CC rolling on and shitting on your parade or reverse - all your control planning failed because your CC/stuff simply would not land.

This caused a lot of reloads just because your carefully constructed house of cards could have been ruined by simple RNG and there was a lot of it.

I find this armor system to be a big improvement simply because you can now plan around with more consistent experience, you can plan your control chain and you can also plan your defenses too, instead of praying for RNG CC sticking/not sticking depending on which side you are.


Other than that I like that armor provides a cushion against small annoying damage that caused you in first game to waste time healing up. It's a convenience.


Now, I am not here claiming it is best mechanic ever, but it is an improvement, in my opinion. The problem with it is that "classic" mixed fighter/magic groups suffer somewhat, but honestly the game outside first zone and a half is not that difficult even on tactician - you eventually snowball so hard that you end up stomping things almost with any composition and it ends up something like a difference between you killing a chunk of the enemy force turn 1 or you messing around a bit and killing them anyway in the end.

For D:OS3 or whatever it will be called, I'd stay with armor system, but make some sort of adjustments to encourage mixed teams more.
Posted By: Zherot Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 30/09/17 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by Gaidax


I find this armor system to be a big improvement


hahaha
Originally Posted by Zherot
Originally Posted by Sotanaht
Stats and loot had all the same importance in OS1, it just so happened that you could craft most of the best equipment, so finding it was never an issue. That of course lead to the opposite problem where the loot you could find or buy was never anything but trash and it was only the materials you ever cared about.

And it is much more strategic. It's the difference between reloading until something works (either reload the instant it fails or reload when you lose the fight, same difference either way), or finding a proper strategy that doesn't fail. The difference between solving a jigsaw puzzle and forcing the pieces together to call it solved. It has some flaws but the way hard CC is handled isn't one of them.

Also, I found that the AI likes to focus targets with lower HP, so balancing Con has the benefit of making the enemy spread their damage rather than focus one target to death. The exact mechanics of the game's aggro system are beyond me though. There are also ways other than armor to provide immunity to certain CC, including potions and the rested status.



1-lie, never bothered with crafting in the first game, everything i equiped i found and i finished the game no problems.

2-lie again, stratagey doesn't mean cheese the AI until you are able to win, you will still be reloading like crazy until a fight plays in a certain way so you are able to win it.

3-AI is psychic it will focus characters with traits like glass cannon or undead without knowing shit about that, so yeah, there goes your fucking strategy, the AI outright cheats.

1. All that means is the first game was too easy. There were a lot of ways that worked, most of them revolved around a single simple tactic that works 90% of the time, like knockdown spam.

2. That's not cheese. It's the very definition of strategy to find individual tactics tailored to the encounters. Cheese would be if a single simple tactic worked 90% of the time, which it doesn't.

3. It's not cheating. The player can inspect enemies with Loremaster skill and see their undead traits too (if it wasn't obvious) as well as their resistances. They would be able to see glass cannon just as easily if any enemies actually had it. The AI isn't using any information here that isn't also available to the players.
Posted By: Zherot Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 01/10/17 12:27 AM
Originally Posted by Sotanaht
Originally Posted by Zherot
Originally Posted by Sotanaht
Stats and loot had all the same importance in OS1, it just so happened that you could craft most of the best equipment, so finding it was never an issue. That of course lead to the opposite problem where the loot you could find or buy was never anything but trash and it was only the materials you ever cared about.

And it is much more strategic. It's the difference between reloading until something works (either reload the instant it fails or reload when you lose the fight, same difference either way), or finding a proper strategy that doesn't fail. The difference between solving a jigsaw puzzle and forcing the pieces together to call it solved. It has some flaws but the way hard CC is handled isn't one of them.

Also, I found that the AI likes to focus targets with lower HP, so balancing Con has the benefit of making the enemy spread their damage rather than focus one target to death. The exact mechanics of the game's aggro system are beyond me though. There are also ways other than armor to provide immunity to certain CC, including potions and the rested status.



1-lie, never bothered with crafting in the first game, everything i equiped i found and i finished the game no problems.

2-lie again, stratagey doesn't mean cheese the AI until you are able to win, you will still be reloading like crazy until a fight plays in a certain way so you are able to win it.

3-AI is psychic it will focus characters with traits like glass cannon or undead without knowing shit about that, so yeah, there goes your fucking strategy, the AI outright cheats.

1. All that means is the first game was too easy. There were a lot of ways that worked, most of them revolved around a single simple tactic that works 90% of the time, like knockdown spam.

2. That's not cheese. It's the very definition of strategy to find individual tactics tailored to the encounters. Cheese would be if a single simple tactic worked 90% of the time, which it doesn't.

3. It's not cheating. The player can inspect enemies with Loremaster skill and see their undead traits too (if it wasn't obvious) as well as their resistances. They would be able to see glass cannon just as easily if any enemies actually had it. The AI isn't using any information here that isn't also available to the players.


hahaha
Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
No, it really is the PvP. I recall the "epic battles" (and insults, so many insults) I got thrown about with by PvP players when complaining about armor in EA.
And no one listening that what works for 10m PvP matches might not do so in a 100H SP-game.

It's probably a bad system for PVP actually. As I explained, if both teams are equal on everything else, a skewed team has some inherent advantage over a balanced team, and depend on makeups, a skewed team can counters another skewed team. So PVP outcome is significantly influenced by pre-game decisions on armors and damage types.

Consistency from the armour system really allow you to come up with more creative battle. The sad part is that there's a very limited amount of fights like that in the game. Larian failed to take advantage of a modern system that allows for much better scripted battles.

The easiest one being the final boss fight of Act 1. You have a bunch of hard enemies to deal with and sudden spawn of the 3rd faction that everyone must defeat. The map layout also allow you to be creative. That's the kind of scripted fight we need more in the game.

The armour system is fine. Lack of variety in combat is the main issue created by lack of creative skills and interactive battles. There's not a single time in the game you get to use the Balista they showcased. Man, imagine if there's a proper Kraken battle on the sea where you have to keep killing the adds it spawn and use balista to damage it while getting buffed by Lady Vengeance.

TOO BAD IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. When your entire gameplay is all about using the same attacks and strat, people will just find an easy target to complain about and atm, it's the armor system because that's where the strat of the entire game stems from. As there's only 1 strat in this game, enjoy using your most damaging combo to beat 99% of the fight.
Posted By: Gaidax Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 01/10/17 01:06 PM
On the above, I think that tunneling tactic is just a bit too effective and NPCs seem to not have ways to deal with it effectively enough, that's why you can focus and nuke down biggest threats there are first turn or two in the fight after which it's cake. I do think NPCs should have more tools and abilities to prevent this, like using repositioning tools to get away instead of just closing gap 100% of the time and there should be more NPC enchanter/cleric pure buff/defense types with a lot of shields and HP that can save the guys that get focused.

And each NPC should have some sort of combo breaker ability that gives it a turn of grace.

All that may be annoying, but right now nuke shit down in two turns simply infallible tactic just because there is not much there that can prevent it. Maybe damage output from players needs to be toned down at higher levels, especially pure melee teams which are just unstoppable. I'd slash player melee damage 40% really to begin with, because it really gets out of hand level 15+ and makes any sort of tactic aside nuke shit down a waste of time.
Posted By: HUcast Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 01/10/17 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by Ellezard
Consistency from the armour system really allow you to come up with more creative battle. The sad part is that there's a very limited amount of fights like that in the game. Larian failed to take advantage of a modern system that allows for much better scripted battles.

The easiest one being the final boss fight of Act 1. You have a bunch of hard enemies to deal with and sudden spawn of the 3rd faction that everyone must defeat. The map layout also allow you to be creative. That's the kind of scripted fight we need more in the game.

The armour system is fine. Lack of variety in combat is the main issue created by lack of creative skills and interactive battles. There's not a single time in the game you get to use the Balista they showcased. Man, imagine if there's a proper Kraken battle on the sea where you have to keep killing the adds it spawn and use balista to damage it while getting buffed by Lady Vengeance.

TOO BAD IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. When your entire gameplay is all about using the same attacks and strat, people will just find an easy target to complain about and atm, it's the armor system because that's where the strat of the entire game stems from. As there's only 1 strat in this game, enjoy using your most damaging combo to beat 99% of the fight.


No matter how I look at it I really can't see that to be true, even if the battles were scripted well. The act 1 boss was amazing, but I feel that was because of the scripting and interesting terrain. It would have been good with or without the armor system, which in my opinion only served to make the first half of the fight worse.

In d1, when a fight starts, you had to choose. Do you buff first, because buffs were actually useful? Do you try to cc the enemy, or do you try to apply damage immediately? In divinity 2 buffs are useless, and armor blocks every single useful effect and the enemies have massive amounts of it. The only remaining option is to start the battle applying max damage.

This is of course not even touching on the 4 ap/turn limit imposed as well. But I think that one example shows my opinion on how the new armor system limits options, not expand them. RPGs have always been about risk management, there is always a chance for battles to go awry. That's what makes them dangerous and fun. Having to think of a backup to your backup in case your house of cards falls is fun.

Having 100% chances of everything and battles going the same way every time might prevent the frustration of some. But the people who this is made for are those who don't want to even think of what to do if things don't work out perfectly, and would rather reload a save. Those are not the kinds of people I want the game to appeal to, personally.
Originally Posted by HUcast

No matter how I look at it I really can't see that to be true, even if the battles were scripted well. The act 1 boss was amazing, but I feel that was because of the scripting and interesting terrain. It would have been good with or without the armor system, which in my opinion only served to make the first half of the fight worse.

In d1, when a fight starts, you had to choose. Do you buff first, because buffs were actually useful? Do you try to cc the enemy, or do you try to apply damage immediately? In divinity 2 buffs are useless, and armor blocks every single useful effect and the enemies have massive amounts of it. The only remaining option is to start the battle applying max damage.

This is of course not even touching on the 4 ap/turn limit imposed as well. But I think that one example shows my opinion on how the new armor system limits options, not expand them. RPGs have always been about risk management, there is always a chance for battles to go awry. That's what makes them dangerous and fun. Having to think of a backup to your backup in case your house of cards falls is fun.

Having 100% chances of everything and battles going the same way every time might prevent the frustration of some. But the people who this is made for are those who don't want to even think of what to do if things don't work out perfectly, and would rather reload a save. Those are not the kinds of people I want the game to appeal to, personally.



There are bigger issues and they all stem from Larian failing to capitalize on the advantage that comes from using the game system. They could have used consistency to create new and unique environment. Most of the combat can easily be replicated in even a GM mode with no effort. Just place units with their skills and stat and put them on the same side.

I remember when Enrage used to be useful as both a debuff and a buff. You used to be able to enrage enemies to grant your mages massive damage from the negative resist. They went and removed that because they wanted Enraged to be a damage booster with risk. Then they went and nerf it so it is no longer a good damage booster. This kind of situation is why certain tactic in the game now feels like trash and it's not because of the armor system.

The 2 to 4 AP itself could have been used to make more interesting skills. Armor piercing could have been on a 3 AP and 4 AP could be a game changer. Shame skills just deal more damage based on AP spent and get a large AoE on 3 or 4 AP.

The current armor is like moving from to a new and fancy but empty house. That's the problem. The house is currently empty because Larian forget to add the furniture. People just don't spot this and instead of demanding that furniture be added, they try to burn down the new house and demand Larian reopen the old one for them to live in.
So your sollution to the armor system being bad is spells that ignore the armor system?

Don't you kinda make our point?
Posted By: Zherot Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 01/10/17 07:05 PM
Originally Posted by Ellezard
Consistency from the armour system really allow you to come up with more creative battle.


hahaha
Posted By: Zherot Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 01/10/17 07:10 PM
Originally Posted by HUcast
Originally Posted by Ellezard
Consistency from the armour system really allow you to come up with more creative battle. The sad part is that there's a very limited amount of fights like that in the game. Larian failed to take advantage of a modern system that allows for much better scripted battles.

The easiest one being the final boss fight of Act 1. You have a bunch of hard enemies to deal with and sudden spawn of the 3rd faction that everyone must defeat. The map layout also allow you to be creative. That's the kind of scripted fight we need more in the game.

The armour system is fine. Lack of variety in combat is the main issue created by lack of creative skills and interactive battles. There's not a single time in the game you get to use the Balista they showcased. Man, imagine if there's a proper Kraken battle on the sea where you have to keep killing the adds it spawn and use balista to damage it while getting buffed by Lady Vengeance.

TOO BAD IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. When your entire gameplay is all about using the same attacks and strat, people will just find an easy target to complain about and atm, it's the armor system because that's where the strat of the entire game stems from. As there's only 1 strat in this game, enjoy using your most damaging combo to beat 99% of the fight.


No matter how I look at it I really can't see that to be true, even if the battles were scripted well. The act 1 boss was amazing, but I feel that was because of the scripting and interesting terrain. It would have been good with or without the armor system, which in my opinion only served to make the first half of the fight worse.

In d1, when a fight starts, you had to choose. Do you buff first, because buffs were actually useful? Do you try to cc the enemy, or do you try to apply damage immediately? In divinity 2 buffs are useless, and armor blocks every single useful effect and the enemies have massive amounts of it. The only remaining option is to start the battle applying max damage.

This is of course not even touching on the 4 ap/turn limit imposed as well. But I think that one example shows my opinion on how the new armor system limits options, not expand them. RPGs have always been about risk management, there is always a chance for battles to go awry. That's what makes them dangerous and fun. Having to think of a backup to your backup in case your house of cards falls is fun.

Having 100% chances of everything and battles going the same way every time might prevent the frustration of some. But the people who this is made for are those who don't want to even think of what to do if things don't work out perfectly, and would rather reload a save. Those are not the kinds of people I want the game to appeal to, personally.


Yep to all you said...

About the boss battle, i think you are talking about the Fort Joy one with the big void thing that appears.

I cheesed that battle so bad... (MUH TACTICS!!!)

All you needed to do was to engage from the right side of the place and put a barrel infront of the stairs or even oil... the stupid AI will just go all the way around to get you and in the mean time you will just wait for them 1 by 1, and they will not even get there in time because the big void or whatever is gonna spawn, so they are going to GO BACK to were they started and they will kill that thing for you while you get rid of the archer, the bitch with the wings will never do anything to you EVER, in fact she is the last one to die.

SO MUCH FUN!!!

NOPE.


Try to engage normally and see how many times you have to reload until you just rage quit, also has to do with my party which is half physical half magical which makes everything harder than it should be.
Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
So your sollution to the armor system being bad is spells that ignore the armor system?

Don't you kinda make our point?


We already have em, Piercing attacks.

We just don't have enough of em to make it armor-pen a viable strat.

See what I'm getting at? If armor penetration is expensive compared to direct damage then people will have to choose which situation to use which. That is what the game needs to capitalize on. Add more stuff to introduce more viable strat instead of just trying to revert everything back to old "CC them with RNG until it works".

Again I appreciate everyone's input.. But I feel there still isn't any compelling argument for the armour system.. I don't agree with people saying it helps against cc and increases tactics because I ferl it limits your options as a bunch of abilities are blocked while armour is up. I hadn't considered that it was maybe implemented due to pvp.

Also, what is your feelings about the constant sprouting of blood in melee that increases the status on the floor? Do you think it's over the top?
RNG limit tactics more than it helps. Why would I use anything if I can roll a dice and get a chance to CC my enemies? Every turn, I will dedicate my AP to using AoE CC. I will use the bought Charm arrow nonstop and if it hits, I will laugh because I just RNG my enemy to victory.

What will they do? Make the chance so low it doesn't work unless the armor is broken? Why even change it then?
Originally Posted by Zherot

Try to engage normally and see how many times you have to reload until you just rage quit, also has to do with my party which is half physical half magical which makes everything harder than it should be.


Well…Since they will attack the void monster first, I only reload one time to check if there's something happened if I kill the monster first.
Posted By: Zherot Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 02/10/17 02:39 AM
Originally Posted by July_chang
Originally Posted by Zherot

Try to engage normally and see how many times you have to reload until you just rage quit, also has to do with my party which is half physical half magical which makes everything harder than it should be.


Well…Since they will attack the void monster first


Not true. And the monster will attack you too.
Originally Posted by Zherot
Originally Posted by July_chang
Originally Posted by Zherot

Try to engage normally and see how many times you have to reload until you just rage quit, also has to do with my party which is half physical half magical which makes everything harder than it should be.


Well…Since they will attack the void monster first


Not true. And the monster will attack you too.


Not True. And the Monster didn't attack me.
(Maybe that's just because I'm too powerful and not getting my brain hot to rush close enough LOL. So the monster choose those stupid Magister)
Posted By: geala Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 02/10/17 05:07 AM
Originally Posted by Littlebob86
Again I appreciate everyone's input.. But I feel there still isn't any compelling argument for the armour system.. I don't agree with people saying it helps against cc and increases tactics because I ferl it limits your options as a bunch of abilities are blocked while armour is up. I hadn't considered that it was maybe implemented due to pvp.

Also, what is your feelings about the constant sprouting of blood in melee that increases the status on the floor? Do you think it's over the top?


I'm not sure what you'd like to hear. There is this armor system of different armor protecting against different weapons till it's gone, also used in some space battle games, and the armor mitigating damage plus resists plus random effects.

The second system we are used to from diverse games. It is mostly garbage from a look how armor works in reality, if you are hit with a sword in the lower belly, your plate armor does not take out 5 of 8 points damage to yours guts. Usually it is "deflect or hole in the body". The armor-till-it's-gone is not much better, armor is not diminished part after part in reality, it is holed.

In games both systems have their merits. If you don't like the current system, it's ok. But it is like it is in this game. It removes a lot of randomness above all, that's it.

The views of DOS1 sound a bit like unrealistic nostalgia. Hard to imagine this allgedly extremely better system was in a game often said to have become very boring relatively soon because of no-difficulty-after-x.

Sometimes I have the feeling many posters are playing partly different games. One wrote, in DOS1 you had to decide to buff or cc or damage, in DOS2 it's only damage, the rest is useless. That's not entirely true because buffs do count, sometimes a lot. Ok, you cannot CC iimediately (hmm, unless you use oil, but let's avoid it), so damage it is. Until the armor is gone.

That does not mean that no decisions and tactics have to be made. They differ sometimes from the decisions of the first game, partly they are only to be made later. For example to focus or the recuce armor on more than one foe to CC earlier? The decisions in the other system are not better or more interesting, just partly different.
Posted By: Kalrakh Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 02/10/17 08:53 AM
There is not only 'deflect or hole', it could aswell get dented before you manage to get through. And even if the weapon breaks through and makes a hole, the armor would have still damped the impact. Mainly piercing weapons are more likely to break through armor, because they concentrate all force on one spot. But armor preventing you, to lose your footing or deflect a taunt, sounds really odd. Armor is no exoskeleton, that improves your balance.

As far as I read, D:OS2 is not really different from D:OS2, it's more worse regarding difficulty later on. The start is harder compared to D:OS1 and the difficulty in the endgame only depends on the fact, if you have appropiate level and actual gear for that level. There are no different built sets fpr attribute, because there is only damage possible.


In D:OS1 you could split up your fire power to keep different enemies occupied. If you managed to CC someone, you were able to ignore him for a while, and focus your damage on someone else. In D:OS2 you are more forced to group enemies up and mass-aoe them to get rid of armor of as many as possible. There is never a tension after armor is gone, because your CC can't fail. In D:OS1 CC could always fail so you had to be prepared for that case.
Posted By: Limz Re: Can someone explain the armour benefits? - 02/10/17 10:18 AM
Originally Posted by Kalrakh
There is never a tension after armor is gone, because your CC can't fail. In D:OS1 CC could always fail so you had to be prepared for that case.


It's because everyone's defensive options suck; El-whatever-the-fuck-his(or her)-name-is made a good point about the house being empty.

Larian half-assed the abilities and load-outs (player and environment side), coupled with a few other questionable decisions (scaling of gear, AP economy etc) leads to odd pacing.

The current armor system can work, but it is 100% dependent on abilities not being so... bleh. However, that would have required a lot more testing, iterations, and other resources (graphics and otherwise).
© Larian Studios forums