Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,771
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by SlamPow
"I beat this encounter because of my own effort and initiative"

I have yet to feel this in any D:OS2 battle... and there were quite a few of them... Annoyingly many of them infact. Combat really gets boring fast in this game, and with there being way more than in D:OS1...

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
Yeah... but the AI cheats with 4 ranged attacks on the player for example. Try doing that with each costing 2AP and 6AP max.
Things like that are fairly common in D:OS2 already.

@ Messenger: Do you actually read my points? Let me repeat... "Well, yeah, IF YOU IGNORE THE ENTIRE EACH COMBAT IS RATHER BORING AND POINTLESS CURRENTLY"... Or is that not a good argument from my point?

@ SlamPow: That's not my argument against this. Difficulty can be balanced, as you already say yourself it says nothing of the system. So I talk about the system. Please don't go all "you just say this cause you think game is easy > system is broke", I never use anything about the current difficulty in my system.
I'm not quite sure how else I could exploit that 100% chance to stunlock enemy is boring, with or without OP skills. Fixing OP skills will just make killing the stunlocked character longer (ooooh, fun... nope), it will not fix the system being boring, which is what I'm saying.

And I will repeat once again, I agree with aj0413 that I would like the armor system supplemented by a way for both friend and foe to not be 100% chicken to be slaughtered if armor goes down, that really is my only beef with the system.


Let me break this down.

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter

And I will repeat once again, I agree with aj0413 that I would like the armor system supplemented by a way for both friend and foe to not be 100% chicken to be slaughtered if armor goes down, that really is my only beef with the system.


You're not, though. Stun? Armor of Frost. Petrify? Armor of Frost. Frozen? Phoenix dive. Searing daggers. Eventually, haste. Curse? Teleport your friend away. Enemy too close to you? Use Netherswap instead. Again, I run glass cannon and simply do not understand this line of thinking, as I have never been CC'd to death in this game.

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
I'm not quite sure how else I could exploit that 100% chance to stunlock enemy is boring, with or without OP skills. Fixing OP skills will just make killing the stunlocked character longer (ooooh, fun... nope), it will not fix the system being boring, which is what I'm saying.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by the first sentence, as it's not put together properly. But I won't blame you for that. Let me try to discern meaning from and address the rest of it:
100% stunlock will not be boring, with or without OP skills, because as Messenger, Limz and I have already stated, there is an abundance of ways that enemies will be able to get around this. Sure, you might find it boring right now. But what about when you had to chew through 200 magic armor to get through to Alexander? Did you find outwitting him until it was down to be boring? What about CC immune enemies? Are they more fun to you? Why are you under this untenable opinion that CC is going to continue to be 100% effective 100% of the time? Have you not read what I've said on the matter? At the least, you have yet to address it. And besides that,

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
boring


is an opinion. It does not say a single thing about the current system, other than "I don't like it". It does not convince me of anything. It does not change our minds. It does not even add anything of value to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter

@ SlamPow: That's not my argument against this. Difficulty can be balanced, as you already say yourself it says nothing of the system. So I talk about the system. Please don't go all "you just say this cause you think game is easy > system is broke", I never use anything about the current difficulty in my system.


So say something about the system, then! All you've said is things like

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
I'm saying stunlocking is easy and boring


Where you are literally, literally only commenting on the fact that stunlock is

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
easy


which is directly addressing the difficulty, not the system. You have not said a single word directly addressing the system. The system is one by which CC is guaranteed, and can be played around and dealt with. One where magic armor is the first line of defense, preventing turn 1 CC without concerted and concentrated effort. The current system has an obvious point to it - reducing turn 1 CC, making CC something to be played around instead of chanced - but you have not said a word about any of that! The closest thing I have seen to you saying a word about the system itself is

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
you and all the others will very likely sing the other way once the AI can stunlock YOU till kingdom comes. Then 100% stunlock isn't so fun anymore, is it?


Which is baseless and blatantly ignoring what so many others and myself have said. If you are being stunlocked to death, then it is you being stunlocked to death. I will not sing a different tune, because I feel that if I did die in such a system, such a death will be earned, not RNG'd. In such a system, there will be plenty of ways to play around it. Heck, there already are. But again, you have not said a word about any of this. So let's keep going:

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
@ Messenger: Do you actually read my points? Let me repeat... "Well, yeah, IF YOU IGNORE THE ENTIRE EACH COMBAT IS RATHER BORING AND POINTLESS CURRENTLY"... Or is that not a good argument from my point?


The entire combat is rather boring and pointless currently. You keep saying this, in different ways, over and over. Now give us a reason to listen to you. Make us believe this. Because, with my own eyes and around 150 hours of gameplay, my experience has been nothing like this. Because it is an opinion; it proves nothing, and more importantly, it says nothing, other than how you feel. So no, it is not by any stretch of the imagination a good argument, because it is not an argument. Say something objective, like "stuns are going to be too reliable, causing the flow of combat to revolve around those who have them." This statement says something factual and concrete, which I can debate. This is adding value to the conversation. Up until this very second, and yes I am refreshing the thread and reading what you are saying, every word you have typed has been an opinion, with one exception. There is absolutely no evidence being given to support what you are saying, and plenty being given by me, by messenger, by Limz to refute it.

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
Yeah... but the AI cheats with 4 ranged attacks on the player for example. Try doing that with each costing 2AP and 6AP max.


Ah, finally! Something factual! Err, almost. It is entirely plausible that the AI could have more AP than you can, but again, you are saying things that I have not experienced in 150 hours of gameplay and over a dozen victories. Do you mean wand attacks? Because 1 single handed wand attack costs 1 AP. If you mean bow or crossbow attacks, then, well, you'll want to post a bug report in the respective forum, because I've never experienced something like this. And even if I had, people like Alexander, the son of the divine (whom I have only ever seen use 6 AP total) should probably have more AP than some slave, than some gangster, than some run-of-the-mill "Chosen One" type person. Having 4 ranged attacks is something I can easily achieve on Sebille anyways, with higher damage and range, so I'm not too concerned if one archer can get in one extra basic attack.

Now. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the current system.

Last edited by SlamPow; 02/10/16 07:10 PM.
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 32
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
I have yet to feel this in any D:OS2 battle... and there were quite a few of them... Annoyingly many of them infact. Combat really gets boring fast in this game, and with there being way more than in D:OS1...


Did we play the same alpha? For me, this was the first game in a long time that didn't have any meaningless trash encounters. This alone made combat more fun than OS1, which was already pretty great, as long as you don't just CC every enemy in the fight on the first turn.

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 464
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 464
So I'll adress both points at once from those arguing for the current system:

1) The pint of AI not being smart enough to effectively use the system as well as a player is kind of something I addressed. It'll never happen and that detracts from difficulty and the game as a whole majority. The game is built around single player and thus AI plays a big part in that. The system used should be just as beneficial to the AI as the player. Not showing the clear disparity is does. PvP isn't a good argument in this case as it's the AI the player will fight against and there's no way I see the AI ever being as good as a player with things as they are.

2) Not everyone likes mechanics of combat playing out like chess. Also, the idea that chance D20 takes away from determinism is wrong since you have the option to build RNG in your favor or not. While building 90% chance to resist isn't the same as denying the chance for CC completely it's sufficiently powerful enough that your choice matters. Adding elements of surprise retain replay value and the ability to make each turn impactful and pressured since you're never 100% certain. Further, I'm arguing to keep the armor on top of this chance system. Thus your ability to prep plan and gear isn't hindered. Nor am I taking away from your determination to optimize your party a certain way at all. I'm just adding another element of depth on top of it for after the armor is gone.

Edit: Let me be clear, I'm not saying the D20systen was best (CC was god mode after all for much of the game) but I am saying that combining both systems so that you have too layer determinism and bottom layer chance adds much more depth to the game and would improve everything. It's also improve ability options and solve the shield sword debacle in part

Edit2: It also gives more tactical options as you plan both your armors and gear and whether or not that's your only line of defense or your first and how strong that second line is at the cost of other abilities. We also have skills that penetrates types of armor. This would a second layer of tactical thinking in how that works and whether or not we should go for it or if we want to ensure the same cant happen to us. There's also the fact that'd promote use of loremaster as it compels players to check status checks the AI might have beyond the armor we can obviously see.

Last edited by aj0413; 02/10/16 07:20 PM.
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 68
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by aj0413
So I'll adress both points at once from those arguing for the current system:

1) The pint of AI not being smart enough to effectively use the system as well as a player is kind of something I addressed. It'll never happen and that detracts from difficulty and the game as a whole majority. The game is built around single player and thus AI plays a big part in that. The system used should be just as beneficial to the AI as the player. Not showing the clear disparity is does. PvP isn't a good argument in this case as it's the AI the player will fight against and there's no way I see the AI ever being as good as a player with things as they are.


I don't think anyone expects the AI to ever be as good as human players. I am saying the AI right now is pretty bad. Like worse than DOS1 (non-EE) bad. We all know what happened to that AI by now, right? If you aren't going to hold the DOS1 saving throw system at fault judging by the inability of its AI to deal with CC spam, then you shouldn't hold the DOS2 armor system at fault with the current state of affairs, either. Doing otherwise is called double standard with rose-tinted glasses on.

Quote

2) Not everyone likes mechanics of combat playing out like chess. Also, the idea that chance D20 takes away from determinism is wrong since you have the option to build RNG in your favor or not. While building 90% chance to resist isn't the same as denying the chance for CC completely it's sufficiently powerful enough that your choice matters. Adding elements of surprise retain replay value and the ability to make each turn impactful and pressured since you're never 100% certain. Further, I'm arguing to keep the armor on top of this chance system. Thus your ability to prep plan and gear isn't hindered. Nor am I taking away from your determination to optimize your party a certain way at all. I'm just adding another element of depth on top of it for after the armor is gone.


Well this is more down to personal taste. I like chess-like mechanics, you don't like it. It's a he-said-she-said. In the end really only what Swen said matters. He must've liked the chess approach otherwise he wouldn't put the armor system here. Give him time to work kinks out?

Last edited by M3SS3NG3R; 02/10/16 07:24 PM.
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by aj0413
So I'll adress both points at once from those arguing for the current system:

1) The pint of AI not being smart enough to effectively use the system as well as a player is kind of something I addressed. It'll never happen and that detracts from difficulty and the game as a whole majority. The game is built around single player and thus AI plays a big part in that. The system used should be just as beneficial to the AI as the player. Not showing the clear disparity is does. PvP isn't a good argument in this case as it's the AI the player will fight against and there's no way I see the AI ever being as good as a player with things as they are.

2) Not everyone likes mechanics of combat playing out like chess. Also, the idea that chance D20 takes away from determinism is wrong since you have the option to build RNG in your favor or not. While building 90% chance to resist isn't the same as denying the chance for CC completely it's sufficiently powerful enough that your choice matters. Adding elements of surprise retain replay value and the ability to make each turn impactful and pressured since you're never 100% certain. Further, I'm arguing to keep the armor on top of this chance system. Thus your ability to prep plan and gear isn't hindered. Nor am I taking away from your determination to optimize your party a certain way at all. I'm just adding another element of depth on top of it for after the armor is gone.

Edit: Let me be clear, I'm not saying the D20systen was best (CC was god mode after all for much of the game) but I am saying that combining both systems so that you have too layer determinism and bottom layer chance adds much more depth to the game and would improve everything. It's also improve ability options and solve the shield sword debacle in part


Hassat, for the love of god, READ THIS. AJ is saying things like

Originally Posted by aj0413
Adding elements of surprise retain replay value and the ability to make each turn impactful and pressured since you're never 100% certain.


This is something tangible. I can go into the game, load up a save in DOS, and play a a round of combat to experience this for myself. He is providing factual information to prove a point. Whether or not he is wrong is not even relevant (although, I think he's right) because he is at least trying to contribute to the discussion.

As to your points, AJ, I will take the determinism over surprise defeats and uncertain engagements any day. I agree that building resistances has an impact, I agree that the original game's system has merit. However, I much preferred to play EE on Tactician Mode, where enemy CC chances went well over 100%, and I had resistances well over 100% myself. Because everything was guaranteed. I could beat an encounter because I was good, and had a good build, not because I was lucky. But it still bothered me that I could have well over 100% chance to stun, and not stun something, and have to reload because I could not CC the biggest bad there with a maxed chance to do so. It added the tedium of saving, reloading, and doing things exactly the same way expecting a different result. It made me feel as though my strategies were failing, even though they were solid, and it was just the inherent chance to fail that was screwing me. I really hope that honour mode will be less of a crapshoot this time for that reason.

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,771
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,771
And whereas he used 22 words I simply compacted it into "it's boring"... cause that's what methetically calculated combat is. Nobody plays Microsoft Excel RPG for fun.
And boardgames popular ones are games like Colonists of Catan, exactly dice and randomness, always another game. Always something new. Not just a variation of whack-a-mole each D:OS2 combat turns out to be.

EDIT: Also for the love of god, I don't say "artificial AI will pawn you" I just say if AI understands armor they will likely 100% CC you (due to cheating and numerical benefit) in SP, making even boring battles more boring. Which has nothing to do with how AI can play human or not-human but all about how baddly a 100%/0% system will work for the fun of the gamer. Getting CC-locked very frequently is never fun, it's why most modern action-RPG's even made it impossible for enemies to CC you, so people actually can respond rather than just having to watch and not play.

Last edited by Hassat Hunter; 02/10/16 07:38 PM.
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
And whereas he used 22 words I simply compacted it into "it's boring"...


No, you didn't.

You made a statement that requires 0 thought, 0 effort and says nothing about the state of the game. You didn't tell us anything about the combat. You didn't mention what differentiates the systems. It seems that you are trying to debate with us, while failing to bring anything to the table. You are blatantly lying about your own words, ignoring very valid and very relevant arguments, and just generally not contributing. Why are you here?

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 464
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 464
My stance on this remains that you'd still have your determinism and maybe the second later chance defense can be smaller than last time.

However, chance really really bothers you, save scumming is a thing? Under a combined system in fairly certain you'd be satisfied with your armor and you could ignore the defensive abilities and just use skills. If your argument is that once the enemy armor is gone you want a guaranteed CC than .... that's really a fundamental difference in opinion. Your saying you only want chess like matches and I'm saying I'd like it if it was chess with some elements of chance. Anyone play starcraft or Warcraft the board game? Where you'd move your pieces around but combat always had some surprises in store? That's what I'm getting at really.

I'm not a fan of RPGs and tactical games playing strictly like chess. If I wanted I'd play chess for that. In fact I love chess at times. I collect chess sets in fact.

Combat isn't a guaranteed thing. The fact that it is here just........really takes away from making it feel like combat for me

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
We'll have to agree to disagree, then, as it seems this is a matter of preference and opinion.

Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 2
M
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 2
Quite a discussion this sparked! I see both sides of the argument and won't counter anyone's personal opinions, but here's one avenue that hasn't been considered yet: Scaling.

The scaling of enemy armor ramps up quite quickly over the course of the first chapter, and it is expected that it will continue to ramp as you progress further. Fights started to consist of some 'trash' enemies with little to no armor, and a few 'elite' enemies, who had higher armor pools. Decisions could be made to try to focus down the elite's armor to trap him into CC for a turn or two while dealing with the trash, or spend the AP to deal with or CC the trash. I can see the progression slowly dropping down the number of trash and increasing the elites, and increasing their armor pools, making it more and more difficult to drop the crowd control.

This leads to a natural difficulty progression wherein crowd control becomes less and less important, and is used more as a finishing move, or on a specialist who is adept at clearing one type of armor on a specific target. It is also highly likely that bosses or minibosses would have more armor than could be conceivably reduced in a single turn, who can then protect themselves with counter magic, or have support units able to restore their armor or cleanse crowd control effects. Some enemies could also have an innate trait to make resist rolls against CC, much like the old system, but loudly declared through some form of buff indicator. It's not likely we would see this level of enemy progression this early in the content, but I would be surprised if Larian was not already planning this for future chapters.

These factors, though not proven yet due to the content limits of Early Access, could make a big difference in how a non-random CC system is perceived.

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by MichaelMayhem
Quite a discussion this sparked! I see both sides of the argument and won't counter anyone's personal opinions, but here's one avenue that hasn't been considered yet: Scaling.

The scaling of enemy armor ramps up quite quickly over the course of the first chapter, and it is expected that it will continue to ramp as you progress further. Fights started to consist of some 'trash' enemies with little to no armor, and a few 'elite' enemies, who had higher armor pools. Decisions could be made to try to focus down the elite's armor to trap him into CC for a turn or two while dealing with the trash, or spend the AP to deal with or CC the trash. I can see the progression slowly dropping down the number of trash and increasing the elites, and increasing their armor pools, making it more and more difficult to drop the crowd control.

This leads to a natural difficulty progression wherein crowd control becomes less and less important, and is used more as a finishing move, or on a specialist who is adept at clearing one type of armor on a specific target. It is also highly likely that bosses or minibosses would have more armor than could be conceivably reduced in a single turn, who can then protect themselves with counter magic, or have support units able to restore their armor or cleanse crowd control effects. Some enemies could also have an innate trait to make resist rolls against CC, much like the old system, but loudly declared through some form of buff indicator. It's not likely we would see this level of enemy progression this early in the content, but I would be surprised if Larian was not already planning this for future chapters.

These factors, though not proven yet due to the content limits of Early Access, could make a big difference in how a non-random CC system is perceived.


I feel that Limz already covered the scaling of armor, albeit briefly and without elaboration, but yes, I too see that as a feasible limiting factor as well. As it is, the most magic armor you can shred in a single turn, without Source skills or hail strike, is like 400 with savage sortilege crits and 6 AP (magical poison dart, fireball, fossil strike), so I don't really see people chewing through magic armor in one turn later on. And yeah, CC-cleansing enemies are going to play a huge part, I believe, as there are already some set up throughout the game (such as in the High Judge Orivand boss fight), they just don't operate properly yet.

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 32
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 32
Honestly, combining both systems sounds pretty reasonable.

OS1's CC resists were pathetic, since they cease to exist as soon as you'd start pumping Int. I had to yell at my co-op buddy to stop using all of the Blind spells entirely, because they snap the game in half.

OS2's CC needs some improvements. From increasing their cooldowns and AP costs, to reducing chances from 100%, especially for non-Source spells. Armor prevents you from disabling all of the enemies on the first turn, yet it's not enough.
One example: Alexandar is kind of a badass, both lore-wise and in gameplay... but as soon as you strip him of his armor, he's done. He's never getting up or attacking you ever again. This shouldn't be a thing, especially for boss types.

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,771
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,771
Why am I here? Let's see... well, maybe I backed the game, want it to be fun, but feel dragged down by the dull combat? How is that for a reason for participation?

Or is that not good enough for the ivory tower?

And to repeat I think the armor system itself is fine. What I *don't* agree with is the 100% chance once armor is down. The proposed system of armor + willpower/bodybuilding for when armor is down rather than 100% seems perfect to me, and I would love to see that ingame. So I can play this GAME, not this SPREADSHEET. And yes, I really feel D:OS combat develoved into that.

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Klavi
Honestly, combining both systems sounds pretty reasonable.

OS1's CC resists were pathetic, since they cease to exist as soon as you'd start pumping Int. I had to yell at my co-op buddy to stop using all of the Blind spells entirely, because they snap the game in half.

OS2's CC needs some improvements. From increasing their cooldowns and AP costs, to reducing chances from 100%, especially for non-Source spells. Armor prevents you from disabling all of the enemies on the first turn, yet it's not enough.
One example: Alexandar is kind of a badass, both lore-wise and in gameplay... but as soon as you strip him of his armor, he's done. He's never getting up or attacking you ever again. This shouldn't be a thing, especially for boss types.


Once again, once that magister mage learns Armour of Frost and Haste, I don't think that this will be the case. Certain CC abilities could certainly do with a nerf, namely the hydrosophist ones, but I would hate to return to OS1, where a boss could beat my whole party down in a single turn because of a lucky dice roll.

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
Why am I here? Let's see... well, maybe I backed the game, want it to be fun, but feel dragged down by the dull combat? How is that for a reason for participation?

Or is that not good enough for the ivory tower?

And to repeat I think the armor system itself is fine. What I *don't* agree with is the 100% chance once armor is down. The proposed system of armor + willpower/bodybuilding for when armor is down rather than 100% seems perfect to me, and I would love to see that ingame. So I can play this GAME, not this SPREADSHEET. And yes, I really feel D:OS combat develoved into that.


Well, that's a good reason for participation. As for the rest of your post, I disagree that this feels like a spreadsheet. You see? An opinion cannot be refuted. It cannot be debated. It leaves no room for discussion.

I can talk about willpower and bodybuilding, though,
I suppose. So what you're proposing is that CC has a chance to work after armor is down? How would this affect glass cannon? What would affect the chances? Would it just be OS1 all over again, where you max your main stat to guarantee that you overcome it? That would just lead to the same devolution. Would there be no way to raise it? That just leads to using the same strategy over again if you happen to get unlucky, because you could potentially lose solely due to chance, and not due to any fault of your own. Again, I hate this. Many people hate this. It's why armor was implemented in the fashion that it is in DOS 2. I believe that CC would be made useless through the changes you are proposing, and this would only further encourage a strategy of building maximum damage to one shot everything, which is what Tactician mode in the EE devolved into and what DOS 2 combat is right now.

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 464
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 464
I'd like to point out SlamPow that the current state is basically the same as having a maxed out main stat and casting CC once armor is gone. That's pretty much what my issue is. They can always weaken chance to CC/increase chance to resist. No one is saying take armor away though; that's an improvement that should stay.

Glass cannons would also be stronger since they'd effectively have two health bars and still a chance to resist CC. As it stands I find the lack of ability to resist CC on glass cannons a horrible design choice and makes the talent horrible. Too easy to be locked out of combat by an enemy.

You're point on Ai learning to use other skills also realise on good AI. I'm trying to say, as someone somewhat informed on this, that you shouldn't. Good AI and a good system that supports AI is needed. AI isn't advanced enough to be good on it's own.

Also, in what way would combining the systems do anything but add layers to combat? Better Ai adds layers, combing systems adds layers, ect... at what point is this wrong? Your opinion on chance is relevant but I fail to see how bringing back the old system to work with the new one would detract from your determinism enough to really be noticeable to you by much unless you choose to rely on it or you choose to not biuld up your main stat

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by aj0413
I'd like to point out SlamPow that the current state is basically the same as having a maxed out main stat and casting CC once armor is gone. That's pretty much what my issue is. They can always weaken chance to CC/increase chance to resist. No one is saying take armor away though; that's an improvement that should stay.

Glass cannons would also be stronger since they'd effectively have two health bars and still a chance to resist CC. As it stands I find the lack of ability to resist CC on glass cannons a horrible design choice and makes the talent horrible. Too easy to be locked out of combat by an enemy.

You're point on Ai learning to use other skills also realise on good AI. I'm trying to say, as someone somewhat informed on this, that you shouldn't. Good AI and a good system that supports AI is needed. AI isn't advanced enough to be good on it's own.

Also, in what way would combining the systems do anything but add layers to combat? Better Ai adds layers, combing systems adds layers, ect... at what point is this wrong? Your opinion on chance is relevant but I fail to see how bringing back the old system to work with the new one would detract from your determinism enough to really be noticeable to you by much unless you choose to rely on it or you choose to not biuld up your main stat


First of all, your point about the AI never being good enough is incorrect. There are Starcraft AIs that can beat professional players, and if that can be managed, then I'm sure Larian could make an AI that puts up a fight. I say this as a computer science/history double major, who's almost through college, and has been focused on game design their entire life. So, I'd say my opinion is pretty informed as well.


Second of all, combining systems may add layers, but it is a bad layer. It is one that discourages CC. Imagine this: what would happen if you were to implement this change into the game in its current state? The answer is that mages would be totally written off, and noone would play anything other than a warrior or an archer for the killing power. In honour mode, in the EE, CC was chance based, and what happened? Everyone started using two hander warriors, lots of crafting, and made swords that could four shot bosses. That, and pumped up INT to the point where, in tandem with Drain Willpower, chances to CC were always over 100%. So it devolves builds and detracts from the game directly, by forcing casters to invest in a certain stat. Where a warrior only has to get enough strength to hit, and then can invest in memory or CON, a caster would need absolute maximum intelligence with good gear. that's just bad design, IMO. Not to mention, why would anyone want a caster that has a chance to succeed on CC, when warriors can break armor faster than a mage can break magic armor, still have CC, and be tanky enough to survive direct hits? Barring warrior balance, do you think mages would be brought into honour mode at all if they only had a chance to CC, with no way to guarantee it like in DOS?

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 464
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 464
The problem with your Ai example is that it's real time strategy. I'm actually a CS major finishing up as well (AI is what I'd like to specialize in and AIs in relation for games is a graduate class I just finished) so we have that in common, interestingly. RTS games give AIs a significant advantage in how fast they're processing and deciding actions; there's also the sheer breath of options to consider at any given moment. It's not that AI is inherently better than the player.....it's that the player can't keep up with the AIs processing power. In an effort to keep up, a player prioritizes and must be faster at deciding, this creates error propagation over time. Comparing AI for RTS to a turn based game is in error. There's also the fact that the type of AI used and how it's developed comes into play. Machine learning is generally how the best RTS AIs are made (correction: I'm not 100% sure on this as they might also use another method for just calculating risk and gains based on what they know so far given player actions)....we don't exactly have that advantage in EA where the devs are planning to try out different systems and permutations; the machine won't have enough time to develop high level skills for a given permutation if the devs are tru to the desire to try new things alot in EA.

Also, the air ability is their for a reason for mages to destroy mage armor and field control is more important than straight damage. Bodybuilding would regelate warrior CC the same way mage CC would get treated. And I think that it creates diversity to have a player decide whether they want to build up CC chance, damage, field control, and so on.

The only reason the last game devolved is cause of how powerful CC was. The armor system already mitigates this. Different skills and anilties also effect how this would effect things. Leaving out drain willpower would be an option, for instance. Or placing in options that increase chance to resist along side chances to cause effects.

If the defensive abilities were directly changed out and the chance system placed along side the armor in the current system, right this moment? ... I think a lot of people would feel better, myself among them. I'm not quite sure how'd it effect peoples build choices but thats what the EA is for. I actually think more diversity would open up, in some respects.

Would you concede that implementing the system combination for an amount of time right now while they'er trying things would shed light on what works better for all involved? Obviously the current system needs work cause it's not satisfying for many people....and not everyone wants the old system. Trying a quick permutation of both and other systems would help quickly narrow down whats best rather than constantly tweaking one. Think Big O: n^2 vs logn vs nlogn .... at the moment going through every possible tweak of a system type starting from the starting one sounds like it'd take n^2 time since it means we introduce a system then go through permutations and then do the same with another.

Last edited by aj0413; 02/10/16 10:11 PM.
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 68
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 68
I'm not an AI programmer and I have no real credential in game development to throw around, but I just want to point out some "facts":

1. The current AI we have is its first, barebone iteration.

2. Swen specifically said AI is going to be a big focus going forward during EA.

3. We have no fucking clue on just how capable the AI will be or how much resources & time Larian will dedicate to its development. Any "guesses" using complexity theories etc are conjectures at best, especially for an application in an extremely limited environment like strategic decisions in a turn-based video game.

So can we agree to at least wait for them to work on it a bit first before screaming "IT'S GOING TO BE SHIT"? Who knows. They said AI playing Go competitively is impossible. Well now they're all eating their words, aren't they? Not saying Larian is gonna build something that puts AlphaGo to shame, but can't we at least reserve our judgment until you know, when we actually have something to judge?

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 464
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by M3SS3NG3R
I'm not an AI programmer and I have no real credential in game development to throw around, but I just want to point out some "facts":

1. The current AI we have is its first, barebone iteration.

2. Swen specifically said AI is going to be a big focus going forward during EA.

3. We have no fucking clue on just how capable the AI will be or how much resources & time Larian will dedicate to its development. Any "guesses" using complexity theories etc are conjectures at best, especially for an application in an extremely limited environment like strategic decisions in a turn-based video game.

So can we agree to at least wait for them to work on it a bit first before screaming "IT'S GOING TO BE SHIT"? Who knows. They said AI playing Go competitively is impossible. Well now they're all eating their words, aren't they? Not saying Larian is gonna build something that puts AlphaGo to shame, but can't we at least reserve our judgment until you know, when we actually have something to judge?


Wasn't arguing how good the AI will be smirk Just that I wouldn't place all the impetus on it for deciding how good the combat system it in a single player game.

The time complexity was in reference to how slow or fast it could take to find the best permutation of a combat system everyone likes. That has nothing to do with game mechanics and is more a in relation to game development.

People keep bringing up how we need to wait to see how AI develops to judge better a given system. While this is true, in part, it doesn't mean we should blindly accept that AI would solve all the problems or that there aren't methods to narrowing down a better system over a given user base faster as long the devs are willing to experiment with different ones

Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

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