Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jul 2014
T
tx3000 Offline OP
banned
OP Offline
banned
T
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Mangoose
Uh, no, it's called communication and compromise. You're not telling, you're asking and asserting. Do you ever leave the house?

Um no, it's not compromise in this case, it's called getting your way by saying I won't play if you are using (Insert whatever) sounds like a 4 year old throwing a tantrum. If someone says they're going to use Glass Cannon and I say I prefer them not to and then they don't, then they aren't using what THEY want to use, they're using what I told them to use.

When it comes to this game, I strongly take a stand against builds being made based off what another player suggests. Builds are supposed to be a personal aspect. If a player says hey I have 2 things (A and B) what should they choose, I simply say the pros and cons of each and then tell them to pick whatever one they want that fits their character better.

Originally Posted by Mangoose
So... you waste your own time rolling characters and then quitting, instead of communicating beforehand and not only saving the trouble, but possibly convincing your partner to play the way you like if it's not that big of a deal to him.

That doesn't make any sense, why would I roll my character FIRST? Not sure how you missed the part where I stated how one of the first things I ask is what they plan on doing.

Last edited by tx3000; 07/08/14 04:19 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: New Mexico
A
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
A
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: New Mexico
High initiative is what makes GC so powerful.

In the battles I've fight with 2 LW/non-GC characters, when one character gets CC'd (especially at the beginning of a fight), I start to get a little nervous. When the second character gets CC'd, chances are a reload is imminent. So the solution for GC or LW/GC is to increase the probability of that happening.

So, (putting the lore of LW and GC aside for a moment) make GC ignore/not benefit from the +5 initiative from Leadership. This should put a GC character behind a lot of enemy creatures in the turn order, and would increase the impact of the vitality drawback. Combined with LW, this would increase the chance that 1 or more PCs are CC'd, thus increasing the chances of the entire party being CC'd, which usually ends badly.

Hell, why not just remove +5 Initiative from Leadership altogether? I bet that would increase difficulty all around.

Joined: Aug 2014
H
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
H
Joined: Aug 2014
I doubt anything can cc you ay 8-9 bodybuilding and willpower

Joined: Aug 2014
F
stranger
Offline
stranger
F
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by ScrotieMcB
Originally Posted by eskuche
Oops, you are right. I recant! I guess this means if you're using haste with GC you should have CON = 3 + SPD or something like that.
At least Speed +2. With GC, I normally pump Con until Con=Speed+4, then pump speed until Speed=Con-2, then pump Con again.

But we digress. The thread's original topic is, essentially, complaining about partying with people who use Lone Wolf and/or Glass Cannon. In my opinion, Lone Wolf isn't overpowered at all, but Glass Cannon definitely is, and I could definitely see how co-op with someone using GC, when you don't, could make you very aware of that imbalance, as they get these really long turns doing everything under the sun, while your non-overpowered character feels meek in comparison. Not to mention the whole "same partner every time" feeling.

So yeah, Glass Cannon needs to be beaten with a nerf bat. Obviously. Hopefully that would improve build diversity to the metagame and fix OP's problem.


I enjoy playing LW/GC (I don't play multiplayer btw)--if it was nerfed, yes, it would force me to just play with 4 characters instead, otherwise it'd really only be useful as an artificial difficulty increase (and less fun). But that's not really a solution.

The LW/GC combo is essentially sacrificing 2 extra party members for 2 more powerful characters. Your LW/GC characters have to carry the load of 4 characters--plus, 1) each of your LW/GC characters have around a third less HP (and GC also halves +hp bonuses from gear/etc., not just base HP), 2) you don't get the versatility of 4 characters inside and outside combat which obviously disadvantages you in a myriad of ways, 3) it limits your playstyle (for better or worse depending on your goals), and 4) debuffs/CC's are lethal, not just an annoyance, to your party. Keep in mind also that 4 character parties have more AP, more HP, more abilities, more skills, more talents, etc. total than 2 LW/GC characters.

Essentially, without GC, LW is broken unless you just want a tank and don't mind slashing your offense by 1/4 through the loss of a character, not to mention the loss of versatility. Without LW, GC is still really good, but from experience, the 50% debuff to HP pretty much means you have to keep them far away from any of the action. For instance, Braccus Rex's initial meteor storm = 1 shot kill for GC users without LW. Which means if you followed the 1 LW tank and 2 GC characters, your LW tank will have to wait until their second turn to have enough AP to res one of them, then hope he's not CC'd or dead before he can get enough AP to res the other--meanwhile you're 4 turns in and you've done 0 damage. Keep in mind that not all players, including myself, metagame to be able to avoid these types of situations, like meticulously stacking resists so that fire/other element heals you by level 8-9.

Long story short, I don't think it's overpowered. I prefer to play with 2 stronger characters than 4 standard characters. Plenty of people prefer 4 characters over just 2, and both 2 and 4 character parties can be overpowered.

Joined: Aug 2014
H
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
H
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by freerealestate
[quote=ScrotieMcB][quote=eskuche]
The LW/GC combo is essentially sacrificing 2 extra party members for 2 more powerful characters. Your LW/GC characters have to carry the load of 4 characters--plus, 1) each of your LW/GC characters have around a third less HP (and GC also halves +hp bonuses from gear/etc., not just base HP), 2) you don't get the versatility of 4 characters inside and outside combat which obviously disadvantages you in a myriad of ways, 3) it limits your playstyle (for better or worse depending on your goals), and 4) debuffs/CC's are lethal, not just an annoyance, to your party. Keep in mind also that 4 character parties have more AP, more HP, more abilities, more skills, more talents, etc. total than 2 LW/GC characters.


Doesn't matter. 2 LW/GC 2 handers. Step 1: Ram. Step 2: Nullify. Step three: whirlwind. Step 4: idk, collecting loots?
Can you provide a more effective tactic? Protip: you can't.

Edit: and at 8-9 willpower and bodybuilding CC is a joke. I can't even cc my own toons. A.I CCs are even more useless. I watch 5 archers use 3 special arrows on one of my 2 handers, and wonder why the heck such useless class even exist. No cc, no damage, no mobility no defense no nothing.

Last edited by haxingW; 07/08/14 09:21 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: New Mexico
A
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
A
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: New Mexico
Originally Posted by haxingW
I doubt anything can cc you ay 8-9 bodybuilding and willpower

True.

So let me put it another way, and elaborate.

Right now, every single person complaining about LW/GC and/or the difficulty of the game has multiple characters in their party with at least Leadership 1 (I think making such a claim is pretty damn safe). As well, most probably have at least Leadership 4 on one character.

Leadership 1--in terms of Initiative--is the equivalent of 5 Intiative-granting, non-slot filling magical items. Viewed alternatively, Leaderhip 1 effectively grants ~10 free Attribute points (speed/perception) for the purposes of determining initiative. These attritube points can, likewise, be translated into 10 attribute-granting, non-slot filling magical items, or even 20 level advancements, if you'd prefer that.

What grants this awesome boost? Saying "No" to a fish thief at level 2! (And this is not an optional trait conversation)

Scenario 1:
So now we take those 10 free attribute points/20 level advancements/5 non-slot filling magical items into combat with two LW/GC characters, where this boost to initiative allows the two PCs to act first. These two characters are facing 6 AI units.

After 1.5 turns (Player, AI, Player), the player has fought with 7-9 "characters" and the AI has fought with 6. After 2 full turns (Player, AI, Player, AI), the player has fought with 7-9 "characters" and the AI has fought with 12 units. Sounds good, even challenging... but it's not.

Either from damage or CC, the player has reduced the enemy AI to (let's say) 3 creatures on his first turn. That means, after 1 full turn (Player, AI), the player has fought with 3-5 "characters" and the AI has fought with 3. After 1.5 turns, the player has presumably killed/CC'd the next three AI units. That means that after 2 full turns, the player fought with 7-9 "characters" and the AI fought with 3. The AI, NO MATTER HOW WELL PROGRAMMED, never had a chance.

Scenario 2:
No Initiative bonus from Leadership! If this does not straight away give the AI the Initiative with most of its units, then it would at least puts pressure on the player in terms of equipping Initiative gear (which comes with its own opportunity costs), and speed and perception investment (which also has opportunity costs). But let's assume the AI does have the initiative.

After 1.5 turns, the AI has fought with 9 units (if we assume the player killed/CC'd the same number of AI units from Scenario 1) and the player has fought with 4-5. After 2 full turns, the AI has fought with 9 characters and the player has fought with 7-9. After 3 full turns, the AI has fought with 9 characters (assuming the player finishes off the last 3 AI units) and the player has fought with 11-14.

Now, these aren't amazing numbers... but they do show that Initiative matters! (Which should be obvious since combat is turn based)

The second scenario also assumes that the PCs are not CC'd because they have godly Bodybuilding and Willpower. However, what Scenario 2 does not take into account is the damage the player receives and the effect that lost HP has on the player's AP. In Scenario 2, instead of the player spending all of his turn 1 AP on DD/CC, he's now spending a portion on healing or helping his comrade. Which means he is, in a way, fighting with fewer "characters" and the AI is fighting with more (since they're not being DD'd or CC'd).

Addition: To those who will respond that resists can very easily become OP, I have two things to say. First, crafting resists to the point of becoming near-invulnerable requires some player effort, whereas the Initiative benefits of Leadership requires player effort TO AVOID. Second: my god, do you not even have the slightest bit of self discipline to limit your power in this game (by just a little bit) to make it more fun and challenging?


And what creates the difference between Scenario 1 and 2? Picking "bad fish thief, bad".

So this is my challenge: pick whatever class/talents/etc that you want, but Leadership can never get above 0 on any character in the group. Does the game seem different?

Last edited by Armakoir; 07/08/14 10:14 PM.
Joined: Aug 2014
H
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
H
Joined: Aug 2014
I don't disagree. That's why I suggest a hardmode where you have -5 on both bodybuilding and willpower and -75% resist. And impossible mode with Ai having +50 ini and +5 movement. Sure it's a cheap way to fix it and it will require the most OP builds imaginable to beat, and most people will whine. But that is how I played the game before lvl 7, it was challenging because the CC sticked and some enemies had a chance to react. Of coz, I had ways to cheese the fights...

Scenerio 2: it really doesn't matter. I have 115% tenebrium resistance now nvm the rest. And you know about how cc works on my toons...

Edit: I do restrain myself. Like I use the pretty mail armors on both instead of the fugly plate which has more armor and way more resist.

Also, tempting to use spears instead of scythe but my god who is the idiots that give spear +3dex bonus? I refuse to cope with stupid design.

Last edited by haxingW; 07/08/14 10:45 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: New Mexico
A
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
A
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: New Mexico
Originally Posted by haxingW
I don't disagree. That's why I suggest a hardmode where you have -5 on both bodybuilding and willpower and -75% resist. And impossible mode with Ai having +50 ini and +5 movement. Sure it's a cheap way to fix it and it will require the most OP builds imaginable to beat, and most people will whine. But that is how I played the game before lvl 7, it was challenging because the CC sticked and some enemies had a chance to react. Of coz, I had ways to cheese the fights...

Scenerio 2: it really doesn't matter. I have 115% tenebrium resistance now nvm the rest. And you know about how cc works on my toons...

The goal of my post (and, hopefully, any suggestive post on the developer's forums) is to suggest the least time consuming and widest ranging adjustment. I don't think hardcore or impossible settings accomplish that (ie they might not be time consuming, but they aren't going to effect the most possible players). Removing Initiative from Leadership fits the criteria.

And, honestly, if players can't discipline themselves even a little bit, then Larian shouldn't be worrying about their complaints anyway.

Joined: Aug 2014
F
stranger
Offline
stranger
F
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by haxingW
I don't disagree. That's why I suggest a hardmode where you have -5 on both bodybuilding and willpower and -75% resist. And impossible mode with Ai having +50 ini and +5 movement. Sure it's a cheap way to fix it and it will require the most OP builds imaginable to beat, and most people will whine. But that is how I played the game before lvl 7, it was challenging because the CC sticked and some enemies had a chance to react. Of coz, I had ways to cheese the fights...

Scenerio 2: it really doesn't matter. I have 115% tenebrium resistance now nvm the rest. And you know about how cc works on my toons...

Edit: I do restrain myself. Like I use the pretty mail armors on both instead of the fugly plate which has more armor and way more resist.

Also, tempting to use spears instead of scythe but my god who is the idiots that give spear +3dex bonus? I refuse to cope with stupid design.


I like the WP/BB debuff idea. Another way to do that might be to just not pump so many points into WP and BB.

And I don't understand--I haven't beaten the game (keep restarting)--are you really so powerful by a certain level (excluding endgame) that you're killing 50% or all enemies in any given group in the first turn? What level does this become an issue?

Joined: Aug 2014
H
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
H
Joined: Aug 2014
After leaving Cyseal, you will start to snowball hard.

Edit: @Armakoir: those modes are for people that like to exhaust all mechanics to beat the game. For some people, like me, once they can see the most optimal route to beat something, it's very... unsettling to something less effective. It's just how it is. Besides, if the mechanics exist, all is fair. Like it makes no sense to take Morning Person to replace Leech.

Last edited by haxingW; 08/08/14 03:16 AM.
Joined: Jan 2011
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jan 2011
Originally Posted by Armakoir
High initiative is what makes GC so powerful.

In the battles I've fight with 2 LW/non-GC characters, when one character gets CC'd (especially at the beginning of a fight), I start to get a little nervous. When the second character gets CC'd, chances are a reload is imminent. So the solution for GC or LW/GC is to increase the probability of that happening.

So, (putting the lore of LW and GC aside for a moment) make GC ignore/not benefit from the +5 initiative from Leadership. This should put a GC character behind a lot of enemy creatures in the turn order, and would increase the impact of the vitality drawback. Combined with LW, this would increase the chance that 1 or more PCs are CC'd, thus increasing the chances of the entire party being CC'd, which usually ends badly.

Hell, why not just remove +5 Initiative from Leadership altogether? I bet that would increase difficulty all around.


There is a lot of truth in that. I modified the game so I have -6 initiative just so I don't always go first. This games "Directors Cut" could be magnificent, since there is a lot of room a game balance tweaking that could be done.

Joined: Jul 2014
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by freerealestate
Essentially, without GC, LW is broken unless you just want a tank and don't mind slashing your offense by 1/4 through the loss of a character, not to mention the loss of versatility.
I agree.
Originally Posted by freerealestate
Without LW, GC is still really good, but from experience, the 50% debuff to HP pretty much means you have to keep them far away from any of the action.
I disagree. Two-handed melee? Doesn't matter, still better with GC. You're going to be acting before the enemies every time anyway.

The way I look at it is that LW+GC is only a "combo" for people who haven't realized you can give everyone Picture of Health (or just a bunch of Constitution, that works too). Once you realize that, LW goes back to being what it was before: an underpowered talent which you should never use. Glass Cannon is the OP part of the combo.
Originally Posted by Armakoir
High initiative is what makes GC so powerful.

In the battles I've fight with 2 LW/non-GC characters, when one character gets CC'd (especially at the beginning of a fight), I start to get a little nervous. When the second character gets CC'd, chances are a reload is imminent. So the solution for GC or LW/GC is to increase the probability of that happening.
As I was just saying, it's not really a LW thing... but yes, high Initiative means that life matters less and damage and/or CC matter more. Damage and/or CC happens to be precisely what GC provides.

However, I don't think there is a good argument that "lowering player Initiative balances GC." Such a change would mean that GC wouldn't be a good choice anymore for front-row characters (such as tanks), but it would still be stupidly overpowered for back-row characters who aren't likely to be early targets, even if the enemies do get some kind of initiative advantage. It wouldn't be a question of "do I want to use GC?" Of course you'd want to use it. You'd just be cynically calculating how many in the front of your formation need to not take GC in order to provide support for those who do.

Last edited by ScrotieMcB; 08/08/14 05:40 AM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: New Mexico
A
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
A
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: New Mexico
Originally Posted by haxingW
@Armakoir: those modes are for people that like to exhaust all mechanics to beat the game. For some people, like me, once they can see the most optimal route to beat something, it's very... unsettling to something less effective. It's just how it is. Besides, if the mechanics exist, all is fair. Like it makes no sense to take Morning Person to replace Leech.

And I'm sure modders will be creating some really difficult (more specialized) content/settings. I'd personally like to see some extra areas/content/bosses that are designed to be unbeatable.

I get that "exhaust all mechanices" mentality. It seems well suited to games like Borderlands or Dark Souls where each runthrough gets harder and harder. But D:OS isn't one of those games, and isn't trying to be. And by people coming on here and saying "you guys screwed up, this game is too easy", they're basically demanding standards that Larian isn't trying to meet.

It's kind of like you and some kid are on the basketball court. He's standing near the hoop, so you charge the lane and slam dunk right over the top of him. You land, turn to him and say "damn kid, you suck!" and he says "hey, what game ya' playin'?"

I'm not saying "exhaust all mechanics" players should take a hike, but I am saying they should try to appreciate what D:OS is trying to do (old school CRPG standards), and if they share their opinions about how to improve the game, those opinions should be tempered by an understanding of their own mismatched expectations.

Last edited by Armakoir; 08/08/14 05:37 AM.
Joined: Jul 2014
D
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
D
Joined: Jul 2014
On the playthrough I am doing right now, Lone Wolf is an extremely valuable talent.
1 Rogue (lone wolf), 1 Ranger, Madora
No magic on anybody

Madora 7 Con = 294 hp (with 3/5 Picture of Health)
Ranger 6 Con = 210 hp
Rogue 8 Con = 582 hp (443 hp with 6 Con)

Clearly the Rogue is easily the tankiest character. Madora and the Ranger have both died a lot. It's starting to turn around, now that I have more options, but I have frequently been left with only my Lone Wolf Rogue left alive, deciding whether to flee, resurrect, or reload. Combining Madora and my Ranger into a single, tankier person could well be worthwhile. I can definitely say that my LW Rogue is the immovable rock of my group.

When you give up summons, elemental shields, and reliable healing, the huge HP boost from Lone Wolf is definitely a major boon.

Joined: Aug 2013
K
stranger
Offline
stranger
K
Joined: Aug 2013
Is the game still playable? Is the game still fun?

These are questions I ask myself whenever things like class/item/skill balance etc. comes up. D:OS is not a competitive vs game so immediately the question of 'fairness' is thrown out the window. What is more important is whether the game is still fun with the variety of options available? In my book, the answer is emphatically: yes!

Some combinations are going to be easier than others, and that just means I've got incentive to try different ones and find the ones that are most fun for me. And what's fun for me might be different from what's fun for someone else.

This game is very freeform in solutions and builds. That naturally gives some very easy ways through things if you want, but you also have the freedom not to. I'd much rather have the option to play how I like, giving me the respect to use my own discipline to avoid making things too easy, than have that freedom taken away.

The OP expressing a personal preference that (s)he won't game with a certain build is fine as long as (s)he is explaining why it's not fun for him/her, not saying it's something inherently broken with the game. I saw another thread from the same person saying something about archers, which I didn't understand because I'm have a great deal of fun playing with an archer, but we're allowed to have our preferences as long as we respect the choices of others too.

But back on topic. Should LW/GC be changed? Depends on why you want to change it. Would any suggested changes make LW/GC more fun to play? Remember, this isn't competitive, so saying it's more powerful per se isn't an answer in itself, only if they become so much less fun to play as a result of being too powerful would it be a concern. Maybe there just needs to be more scope in the difficulty adjustment to enable people who like playing these characters to create their own challenge - D:DC had a great custom campaign mode where you could adjust a lot of things to create your own challenge, maybe something similar for D:OS would go down well.

Joined: Aug 2014
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Aug 2014
"I personally think Glass Cannon Sucks, I get the same exact result from Casting haste without the health loss."

Then why not cast haste and be happy with it? Or don't play with people you don't like (just play with friends for example). Or play singelplayer.



This is not a competitive multiplayer game. If they nerf GC and LW I will be very sad, because I prefeer to play the game that way, with only two characters. I don't want to be forced to have a part of four.

Play the game the way you want and let the rest play the game the way the want.

Last edited by xpanterx; 08/08/14 08:40 AM.
Joined: Aug 2014
E
stranger
Offline
stranger
E
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by kalniel
Is the game still playable? Is the game still fun?

These are questions I ask myself whenever things like class/item/skill balance etc. comes up. D:OS is not a competitive vs game so immediately the question of 'fairness' is thrown out the window. What is more important is whether the game is still fun with the variety of options available? In my book, the answer is emphatically: yes!

Some combinations are going to be easier than others, and that just means I've got incentive to try different ones and find the ones that are most fun for me. And what's fun for me might be different from what's fun for someone else.

This game is very freeform in solutions and builds. That naturally gives some very easy ways through things if you want, but you also have the freedom not to. I'd much rather have the option to play how I like, giving me the respect to use my own discipline to avoid making things too easy, than have that freedom taken away.

The OP expressing a personal preference that (s)he won't game with a certain build is fine as long as (s)he is explaining why it's not fun for him/her, not saying it's something inherently broken with the game. I saw another thread from the same person saying something about archers, which I didn't understand because I'm have a great deal of fun playing with an archer, but we're allowed to have our preferences as long as we respect the choices of others too.

But back on topic. Should LW/GC be changed? Depends on why you want to change it. Would any suggested changes make LW/GC more fun to play? Remember, this isn't competitive, so saying it's more powerful per se isn't an answer in itself, only if they become so much less fun to play as a result of being too powerful would it be a concern. Maybe there just needs to be more scope in the difficulty adjustment to enable people who like playing these characters to create their own challenge - D:DC had a great custom campaign mode where you could adjust a lot of things to create your own challenge, maybe something similar for D:OS would go down well.


I really want to sign this. There is no reason to overdo the balance in a PvE only game. Your PC are demi-gods ffs so you want to feel like that at some point in the game. If not- just stop min/maxing.

Last edited by Escadin; 08/08/14 12:21 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
D
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
D
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Escadin
I really want to sign this. There is no reason to overdo the balance in a PvE only game. Your PC are demi-gods ffs so you want to feel like that at some point in the game. If not- just stop min/maxing.


Well... except you're FALLEN demigods. Everyone who recognizes you says some version of "wow you look weak as hell".

Until the end of the game, at which point you're actually fighting against people on your level.

Joined: Nov 2003
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2003
Originally Posted by tx3000
I'm so sick and tired of joining people or having people join me....where no one can think for themselves...What a bunch of childish douche bags.
Wow, I didn't realise Larian had implemented player personality matching on their multiplayer service.

Nice one guys - now you can go and put OKCupid and Match.com out of business. smile

Joined: Feb 2014
Location: California
R
RtM Offline
member
Offline
member
R
Joined: Feb 2014
Location: California
Originally Posted by Stargazer
Originally Posted by tx3000
I'm so sick and tired of joining people or having people join me....where no one can think for themselves...What a bunch of childish douche bags.
Wow, I didn't realise Larian had implemented player personality matching on their multiplayer service.

Nice one guys - now you can go and put OKCupid and Match.com out of business. smile


lolz

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5