Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
No exhaustion either, interesting.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by simsurf
To everyone saying oh its an adaption, you cant put al the rules in a video game. The only problem with these arguments is that Solasta exists, its a faithful reproduction of the table top and its bloody fun, instead of been DOS 2.5 with some DnD thrown in.

You don't have to use subjective opinion on a budget game to make a point. Much of Larian's home brew is objectively bad. It's incentivizes cheesy unimmersive gameplay that oftentimes are micromanagement heavy, predictably boring, and unbalanced and unbalancing, besides being largely superfluous if Larian had bothered to crack open a D&D book or to show a modicum of humility. It's like they're not even trying. I don't think I've seen a valid argument as to why the cheese is good for the game from the people defending it or being neutral to it, beyond "lolz" and "doesn't bother me". All other considerations be damned.

I love much of the roleplaying aspects of the game, but it is always, *always* the boring repetitive gameplay that makes a large majority of players give up on Larian games before most of these even reaching the half-way mark. I'm already wondering how long I as a casual gamer will last this time.

Joined: Oct 2020
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Seraphael
I don't think I've seen a valid argument as to why the cheese is good for the game from the people defending it or being neutral to it, beyond "lolz" and "doesn't bother me". All other considerations be damned.
Well, I have read many times that barrelmancy, aoe surface spam, height and backstab advantage would add extra layers of complexity to the game. Then there were many people painstakingly pointing out that this '+1 extra layer to complexity' was actually more of a '+1 -10' to complexity because of dozens of spells and abilities being absolutely devalued by these fundamental using-the-sledgehammer-method changes. But those kind of objections are being blissfully ignored for the most part.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Seraphael
I don't think I've seen a valid argument as to why the cheese is good for the game from the people defending it or being neutral to it, beyond "lolz" and "doesn't bother me". All other considerations be damned.
Well, I have read many times that barrelmancy, aoe surface spam, height and backstab advantage would add extra layers of complexity to the game. Then there were many people painstakingly pointing out that this '+1 extra layer to complexity' was actually more of a '+1 -10' to complexity because of dozens of spells and abilities being absolutely devalued by these fundamental using-the-sledgehammer-method changes. But those kind of objections are being blissfully ignored for the most part.
Literally +1 to complexity for Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger, and a -10 to all other classes. The player has the most strategic choice in Baldur's Gate 3 playing fighter, picking Eldritch Knight, utilizing scrolls, tossing barrels, chasing backstab, eating food, shoving, dipping, jumping, hiding, and using high ground, etc.

Most other classes are railroaded into trying to do the same thing, but they lack the stats to thrive.

Why use Fireball when Fighter can do better with barrels?

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Seraphael
I don't think I've seen a valid argument as to why the cheese is good for the game from the people defending it or being neutral to it, beyond "lolz" and "doesn't bother me". All other considerations be damned.
Well, I have read many times that barrelmancy, aoe surface spam, height and backstab advantage would add extra layers of complexity to the game. Then there were many people painstakingly pointing out that this '+1 extra layer to complexity' was actually more of a '+1 -10' to complexity because of dozens of spells and abilities being absolutely devalued by these fundamental using-the-sledgehammer-method changes. But those kind of objections are being blissfully ignored for the most part.
Literally +1 to complexity for Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger, and a -10 to all other classes. The player has the most strategic choice in Baldur's Gate 3 playing fighter, picking Eldritch Knight, utilizing scrolls, tossing barrels, chasing backstab, eating food, shoving, dipping, jumping, hiding, and using high ground, etc.

Most other classes are railroaded into trying to do the same thing, but they lack the stats to thrive.

Why use Fireball when Fighter can do better with barrels?

Backstabing each turn exploiting the TB system (going behind, they can't see me, they're frozen !) doesn't add any complexity to melee classes.

An advantage VS the ennemy's reaction (AOO) is definitely not a complex decision to make in 95% of encounters. This is what would happen if jump/turning arround was fixed.

Backstab could also be a +1 or +2. There it would make sense both trying to have an advantage AND trying (or not) to increase a bit more your %to hit.

Jump/disengage also reduce the complexity of melee. Ennemies never have any "zone of control".

Last edited by Maximuuus; 11/03/21 07:13 AM.

French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus
Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Backstabing each turn exploiting the TB system (going behind, they can't see me, they're frozen !) doesn't add any complexity to melee classes.

An advantage VS the ennemy's reaction (AOO) is definitely not a complex decision to make in 95% of encounters. This is what would happen if jump/turning arround was fixed.

Backstab could also be a +1 or +2. There it would make sense both trying to have an advantage AND trying (or not) to increase a bit more your %to hit.

Jump/disengage also reduce the complexity of melee. Ennemies never have any "zone of control".

I would also like to add, you also never have any zone of control against enemies too, besides hiding behind many layers of cheese. For the most part, the amount of complexity that BG3's combat could have had was ripped out by the homebrew mechanics that are rather shallow at the end of the day, replacing that complexity with cheese that can end a fight in 1-2 turns if set up correctly rather than make a player think and react tactically.

I mean, there's a reason why ambush strategies are incredibly popular in this game, and that a common observation is just how difficult some fights end up being if said ambush strategies outright fail, largely because the proactive defensive mechanics that exist in tabletop do not exist in BG3. The lead developer experienced it first hand on their very own stream, after all. And all signs are currently pointing to them never being implemented due to engine limitations because anything remotely similar to the mechanics I speak of did not exist in D:OS2 either.

The proactive defensive mechanics are mostly referring to the dodge action, player-based reactions, and ready actions - all three of them equally important, the first allowing you to buy time by imposing disadvantage on everything that tries to attack you for a turn, the second allowing you to utilize defensive or offensive options with absolute precision, and the last enables you to more effectively utilize or create chokepoints by punishing enemies as they come to you. The lack of them means BG3's current combat philosophy is essentially 'everyone gets to move, gets an action, and gets a bonus action, and if you can't do anything with them, then your turn is more or less completely wasted'. And the cynical side of me recognizes that Larian gives players and the humanoid enemies so many throwable grenades and special arrows precisely as a flashy attempt to distract the playerbase from noticing the tactical shortcomings of BG3. Take them away, and what do we really have left?

Going back to the topic of the stream, it's obvious the lead developer had no strategy beyond a mix of ambush mechanics and repeated shove attempts, and when that failed, there was nothing they could realistically do to salvage the situation. It's rather concerning that people somehow think this is cute and endearing because it's a realistic showcase of what a normal player can go through when things go bad. To that, I say, they need to re-read the second half of that previous sentence again, and again, until they finally get the point. Justifying something like that is basically the ultimate admission that there is something deeply flawed with this game's combat design.

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 11/03/21 08:35 AM.
Joined: Jan 2017
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Jan 2017
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
I would also like to add, you also never have any zone of control against enemies too, besides hiding behind many layers of cheese. For the most part, the amount of complexity that BG3's combat could have had was ripped out by the homebrew mechanics that are rather shallow at the end of the day, replacing that complexity with cheese that can end a fight in 1-2 turns if set up correctly rather than make a player think and react tactically.

I mean, there's a reason why ambush strategies are incredibly popular in this game, and that a common observation is just how difficult some fights end up being if said ambush strategies outright fail, largely because the proactive defensive mechanics that exist in tabletop do not exist in BG3. The lead developer experienced it first hand on their very own stream, after all. And all signs are currently pointing to them never being implemented due to engine limitations because anything remotely similar to the mechanics I speak of did not exist in D:OS2 either.

The proactive defensive mechanics are mostly referring to the dodge action, player-based reactions, and ready actions - all three of them equally important, the first allowing you to buy time by imposing disadvantage on everything that tries to attack you for a turn, the second allowing you to utilize defensive or offensive options with absolute precision, and the last enables you to more effectively utilize or create chokepoints by punishing enemies as they come to you. The lack of them means BG3's current combat philosophy is essentially 'everyone gets to move, gets an action, and gets a bonus action, and if you can't do anything with them, then your turn is more or less completely wasted'. And the cynical side of me recognizes that Larian gives the humanoid enemies so many throwable grenades and special arrows precisely as a flashy attempt to distract the playerbase from noticing the tactical shortcomings of BG3. Take them away, and what do we really have left?

Going back to the topic of the stream, it's obvious the lead developer had no strategy beyond a mix of ambush mechanics and repeated shove attempts, and when that failed, there was nothing they could realistically do to salvage the situation. It's rather concerning that people somehow think this is cute and endearing because it's a realistic showcase of what a normal player can go through when things go bad. To that, I say, they need to re-read the second half of that previous sentence again, and again, until they finally get the point. Justifying something like that is basically the ultimate admission that there is something deeply flawed with this game's combat design.

Posts like this really make me wish this forum had some kind of thumb button. +1 for sure.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
The REAL issue with me, is that all the changes end up making the classes lacking flavor. They now longer have any strong identity bound to them. I can barely tell the difference between my rogue and warrior, or my cleric and wizard in the game.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Seraphael
I don't think I've seen a valid argument as to why the cheese is good for the game from the people defending it or being neutral to it, beyond "lolz" and "doesn't bother me". All other considerations be damned.
Well, I have read many times that barrelmancy, aoe surface spam, height and backstab advantage would add extra layers of complexity to the game. Then there were many people painstakingly pointing out that this '+1 extra layer to complexity' was actually more of a '+1 -10' to complexity because of dozens of spells and abilities being absolutely devalued by these fundamental using-the-sledgehammer-method changes. But those kind of objections are being blissfully ignored for the most part.

I think these people have a fundamental "moar is betta"-mindset pretty much void of nuance. They see something they had fun with once, and it's all good in their book. Added complexity isn't necessarily a good thing though, to the contrary, I would say much of it, the needless parts, is a negative given how ENORMOUSLY complex D&D already is. That said, I don't mind the core premise of much of this, it's just the enforced, clumsy implementation of these things as core mechanics that I object to.

For instance when it comes to height and flanking advantage. Incentivizing tactical movement is a GOOD thing. This is something D&D used to have, but that is largely lacking in 5e. This was the not-so-secret-sauce that made combat in DOS2 so fun. However, incentivizing it to the point of making dozens of spells and class abilities redundant, is clumsy.

Flanking in particular comes with an additional set of immersion and balancing issues. Firstly, how consistently the enemy AI fails to exploit it, while they prioritize height advantage too much - as to run far away from near melee to climb to a high vantage point. Secondly, how the AI is unresponsive to flanking which kind of highlights that turn-based combat (which I prefer) is a really unrealistic approximation of real combat.

I would love to see enemy/friendly AI react to flanking -even not on their turn- by pivoting around to face a -single- flanking threat, as to require two threats or surprise to gain a tactical bonus (smaller than advantage). When a bonus is all but guaranteed, having to repeatedly micromanage to get it, feels like an annoying waste of time. Entitlement sneaks in. If you have at least to make a tactical effort requiring more than jumping in or moving at the back with a single character, you feel appropriately rewarded.

Barrelmancy is largely fine too. Just scale it back from being a core mechanic to be a situational tactic (this involves fewer placements and much less room in inventory to carry these around). Dipping weapon could be less cheesy and micromanagement heavy by scaling it back to affect arrows/bolts only, while also including any of the dozen alternative ways in D&D to enflame weapons. Anything but the ever-burning candle that can be fetched from your endlessly large inventory in the midst of combat! smile

Last edited by Seraphael; 11/03/21 09:38 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by simsurf
To everyone saying oh its an adaption, you cant put al the rules in a video game. The only problem with these arguments is that Solasta exists, its a faithful reproduction of the table top and its bloody fun, instead of been DOS 2.5 with some DnD thrown in.

You don't have to use subjective opinion on a budget game to make a point. Much of Larian's home brew is objectively bad. It's incentivizes cheesy unimmersive gameplay that oftentimes are micromanagement heavy, predictably boring, and unbalanced and unbalancing, besides being largely superfluous if Larian had bothered to crack open a D&D book or to show a modicum of humility. It's like they're not even trying. I don't think I've seen a valid argument as to why the cheese is good for the game from the people defending it or being neutral to it, beyond "lolz" and "doesn't bother me". All other considerations be damned.

I love much of the roleplaying aspects of the game, but it is always, *always* the boring repetitive gameplay that makes a large majority of players give up on Larian games before most of these even reaching the half-way mark. I'm already wondering how long I as a casual gamer will last this time.

To be fair, if somebody likes something, they like it. "I like it because I enjoy it" may not be a very intellectually defensible argument because of it's subjectivity but in a discussion of entertainment it is still the be all end all of arguments.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Seraphael
I don't think I've seen a valid argument as to why the cheese is good for the game from the people defending it or being neutral to it, beyond "lolz" and "doesn't bother me". All other considerations be damned.
Well, I have read many times that barrelmancy, aoe surface spam, height and backstab advantage would add extra layers of complexity to the game. Then there were many people painstakingly pointing out that this '+1 extra layer to complexity' was actually more of a '+1 -10' to complexity because of dozens of spells and abilities being absolutely devalued by these fundamental using-the-sledgehammer-method changes. But those kind of objections are being blissfully ignored for the most part.
Literally +1 to complexity for Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger, and a -10 to all other classes. The player has the most strategic choice in Baldur's Gate 3 playing fighter, picking Eldritch Knight, utilizing scrolls, tossing barrels, chasing backstab, eating food, shoving, dipping, jumping, hiding, and using high ground, etc.

Most other classes are railroaded into trying to do the same thing, but they lack the stats to thrive.

Why use Fireball when Fighter can do better with barrels?

Backstabing each turn exploiting the TB system (going behind, they can't see me, they're frozen !) doesn't add any complexity to melee classes.

An advantage VS the ennemy's reaction (AOO) is definitely not a complex decision to make in 95% of encounters. This is what would happen if jump/turning arround was fixed.

Backstab could also be a +1 or +2. There it would make sense both trying to have an advantage AND trying (or not) to increase a bit more your %to hit.

Jump/disengage also reduce the complexity of melee. Ennemies never have any "zone of control".
We've talked about this before, keep in mind I referenced the total package as a +1 and a -10.

Another way to look at it is 3 classes out of 12 possible benefit from the changes, but the rest lose out. 3 - 12 = -9

I thought it would be fun to roll with Marajango's +1 - 10 (also -9).

Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

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