Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12
Joined: Nov 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Niara
To say Crawford agreed with the current direction is a big stretch, Spectral.

I put up a synopsis of the panel itself (Here), but for Jeremy's bit, it was very disrespectful to him and he spent the entire time wearing his PR-plaster smiling face, and only actually looked like he was engaging or growing animated as a person when he was talking about background druid lore. He gave "safe" answers, when offered incredibly loaded, back-handed questions, especially given that he was on a publicity panel for the game that Wizards has already endorsed, and wasn't actually given any real opportunity to speak about his actual forte (being that he is lead for rules design, his entire segment had one single, largely rhetorical question about rules that was worded and loaded in a such a way that he didn't really have much room to answer it, and nothing else).

Sometimes what was not said tells the story more than what was said. Crawford never argued against any of the changes. Yes, they were safe answers. Why was he even there if he wasn't going to answer any meaningful questions? My guess? To put credence and confidence to Swen and company; a sign of official support. Surely if WotC and Crawford aren't against what Larian is implementing, then they are okay with it. That's what I perceived. If that's not what they were hoping for, well, that's not what I got from the panel.

Perhaps personally Crawford may not like it but his personal preferences don't matter if corporate is good with what Larian is doing with the game.
WotC is part of Hasbro, which is a giant corporation. It is likely this entire panel run along a pre-agreed scenario, and that they have decided beforehand what they would speak about and what not.

I remember when HotU (the expansion to Neverwinter Nights) came out and at some point players discovered that it was supposed to have several endings. They were still left in the actual module, just blocked with a comment that it was removed on request from WotC. Frankly, I doubt WotC has a different deal with Larian now, and that they would now hesitate to interefere in game development when they didn't before.

I think it is possible that this reimaging of tabletop rules for a digital game is actually WotC's corporate strategy for this segment of products (that is computer & console gaming).

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by GM4Him
It was marketed as a Turn Based Close to Tabletop D&D Experience. We are not getting that. End of story.

Is there a source that says Larian wanted to create an authentic TT RPG? [...] I don't remember Larian guaranteeing or even promising such a thing.

I tried to answer that question in that post, a little while ago (motivated by a similar question from someone else). My understanding of Larian's vision has probably improved since then, but the core of my post was looking at 4 interviews Larian gave, where they talked about the rules and the DnD/tabletop feel, and what they said won't change.

I wasn't able to provide a definite, clear-cut, yes/no answer to the question. But I found their communication to send mixed signals, saying both "it will be quite close/just some tweaks" and "oh we only focus on a game we'll enjoy playing, not so much on the RAW". And I think that it is very understandable that, as a result from Larian's communications, some players were expecting more faithfulness to the rules.

After I read your post, I thought more about the fact that they directly said that all DnD rules will be changed. I think the main argument is that they never said that would be absolutely accurate, so any change on their part can be justified. It is likely that the players only saw what they wanted to see.

Also about this guy from stream...

I watched the entire stream, obviously they called him in to show that WotC supports their direction. And in fact, BG3 really helps them, many people who were not interested in FR will now be interested more.

Last edited by Nyloth; 18/04/21 08:35 AM.

I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Sep 2017
G
member
Offline
member
G
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Seriously. Bottom line. Larian created expectation. Larian has yet to deliver on the expectation. Larian has not told us whether they are actually going to deliver on the expectation.

So, the bottom line is: Let Down Expectation + No Word About Whether They Will Deliver On Expectation = Lots of Angry D&D Fans = A Huge Chunk Of The BG Fan Base Not Happy = Many Complaints In Forums = Many Potential Players Not Buying The Game Because They Think It Sucks = Less Money For Larian = No Future BG Titles Created = 1 Very Sad Gm4Him

I think the people pushing for closer 5e mechanics are actually in the minority. This game was hyped and backed by Larian off the overwhelming success of DOS2, which is where the most of its player base is going to come from.

Those like us that want a 5e experience are in the minority. Of course, many of us have already paid for the game and will probably give it at least 1 full run on release but I have no doubts this game will be commercially successful because the DOS base is so large and wants another release from Larian.

We are just bonus revenue and headcount. That is the reason I feel Larian will not abandon their homebrew to shift away from RNG, resource management, and 5e mechanics because they want their DOS2 returning customers not to be alienated.

If the 5e players were in the majority, we would not still be asking them to remove height advantage over 6mo. into EA when it could easily be turned off.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Icelyn
Originally Posted by GM4Him
For so many of us to have expected 5e, that says it all. They marketed so that it would appeal to 5e players who have been wanting an authentic D&D experience on PC. They certainly were not marketing it as a game similar to DOS or Xcom or Baldurs Dark Alliance or even Neverwinter or whatever. I remember specifically it was supposed to be as close to 5e as possible because that was one of the things that drew me in. I like BG1 and 2. I liked Dark Alliance. I had no problem with them because I knew what I was getting.
Do you have any links to where they said that? No one yet has been able to provide one.
I don't ever remember Larian promising to faithfully recreate 5e in BG3. The pitch as far as I remember was: "We want to be as close to 5e, but we are not afraid to make changes to make it more fun". It's just that portion of audience disagrees if changes they made result in better experience. I can't think of an instance when Larian could be accused of misleading their audience.

Joined: Feb 2021
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2021
This is pointless. Why are we debating this? It doesn't matter what any of us thinks they said or meant. No amount of defending Larian matters. None of this matters except 1 thing.

This game is a D&D game. D&D fans want D&D 5e rules. If they don't put a setting in to make D&D 5e rules more strict, D&D fans are going to be upset. Thus, they will lose D&D fans. Just go back and look at the post history. See how many posts are from people upset about not getting true 5e rules. It's not the minority.

Joined: Nov 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
This is pointless. Why are we debating this? It doesn't matter what any of us thinks they said or meant. No amount of defending Larian matters. None of this matters except 1 thing.

This game is a D&D game. D&D fans want D&D 5e rules. If they don't put a setting in to make D&D 5e rules more strict, D&D fans are going to be upset. Thus, they will lose D&D fans. Just go back and look at the post history. See how many posts are from people upset about not getting true 5e rules. It's not the minority.
This forum is quite small and you don't get that many posters here, though. The amount of posts here don't say much, at least not compared to big data from steam sales & charts. I'd not expect a corporation Hasbro's size to make commercial decisions based on forum posts. Consider that the other big name game WotC ic currently marketing for is Dark Alliance, which happens to be a co-op PC / console action game. My guess is that why WotC went with Larian; their target is the co-op gaming market, especially consoles, which is where you get the big sales.

Last edited by ash elemental; 18/04/21 12:42 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2021
Sigh. The point is that it is a D&D game. Upsetting D&D fans by not giving them what they are expecting is just silly. It's like creating a trilogy of Star Wars movies and not giving Star Wars fans what they were hoping for just so they can appeal to non-Star Wars fans.

Oh wait! I think Disney did that, didn't they. I wonder how that turned out. Oh yeah. Lots of upset Star Wars fans who have given up on the franchise and Disney isn't quite sure what direction to go in now.

But whatever. I don't know why there are so many who are resistant to the idea of Larian creating a 5e authentic difficulty setting. It wouldn't harm anyone's gaming experience and it would shut D&D fans up and make them happy. We're talking an optional setting. So why resist it and argue about it? If Larian is wise, they'll give us the option. If not, whatever. I guess we'll see how the poop storm is that will follow. Maybe it wont be that bad. Who knows?

But the ask should still be made. Please give us a 5e option.

Joined: Nov 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Dark Alliance is called a D&D game too (in fact it's in the game title), yet combat looks very different to both BG3 and Solasta.

Joined: Jan 2021
L
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
L
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by ash elemental
I remember when HotU (the expansion to Neverwinter Nights) came out and at some point players discovered that it was supposed to have several endings. They were still left in the actual module, just blocked with a comment that it was removed on request from WotC. Frankly, I doubt WotC has a different deal with Larian now, and that they would now hesitate to interefere in game development when they didn't before.

Wait What? HoTU has cut endings? I have never heard of this, but it sounds really fascinating.

WoTC interfering with games is not new though. Obsidian was infamously blocked from implementing the ability to end the Wall of the Faithless in NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer by WoTC, which was awful since so much of that campaign revolved around what a horrific cosmic injustice its existence was. But they *did* let you eat Myrkul's soul. Fast forward to 5e and here we have references to the Wall quietly scrubbed from the books and Myrkul spontaneously reappearing and back in the spotlight. WoTC.

Joined: Apr 2013
R
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
R
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Sigh. The point is that it is a D&D game. Upsetting D&D fans by not giving them what they are expecting is just silly. It's like creating a trilogy of Star Wars movies and not giving Star Wars fans what they were hoping for just so they can appeal to non-Star Wars fans.

Oh wait! I think Disney did that, didn't they. I wonder how that turned out. Oh yeah. Lots of upset Star Wars fans who have given up on the franchise and Disney isn't quite sure what direction to go in now.

But whatever. I don't know why there are so many who are resistant to the idea of Larian creating a 5e authentic difficulty setting. It wouldn't harm anyone's gaming experience and it would shut D&D fans up and make them happy. We're talking an optional setting. So why resist it and argue about it? If Larian is wise, they'll give us the option. If not, whatever. I guess we'll see how the poop storm is that will follow. Maybe it wont be that bad. Who knows?

But the ask should still be made. Please give us a 5e option.

I think Iron Man 3 might be a fairer comparison. Marvel comic fans HATED the changes, they complained loudly and constantly and the film was still a critical and commercial success because companies aren't under the thumb of tiny niche audiences.

If Larian make a bad system then that will cost them, critically and commercially. If they make a good system that has a handful of Very Important Differences to 5E that makes a small number of people very angry then no-one else is going to care.

Joined: Feb 2021
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2021
Whatever. You guys are relentless. Argue all you want. Im done.

I don't understand why you guys feel the need to shoot down people's suggestions that won't hurt you at all. There is literally no reason for you to defend Larians decisions. If they give people a 5e difficulty option, it won't hurt you. If they don't, it won't hurt you, so either way, it won't hurt you, so why do you feel the need to argue endlessly against having a 5e difficulty that would make more people buy the game? I just don't get it.

But whateves. Im wasting too much of my life arguing pointlessly with all of you.

Larian, I really humbly ask you give us 5e difficulty. For the sake of all of us who like the 5e game, pretty please. Thank you.

Love BG3. Can't wait for more.

Joined: Mar 2020
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Mar 2020
Just my 2 cents.
Personally I don't really care how they were marketing the game and how D&D 5e accurate the rules should be in general. But I think a quite big portion of people are criticising the homebrew rules and saying that Larian should have a good reason for any changes they implement, and that the changes should make the game better - and i fully agree with this statement.

Based on my understanding of the original D&D rules, the changes made to BG3 EA (and well, based on my experience with Solasta) i have to say im in the camp who would like to see options (or as others said a 5e difficulty mode) to be able to alter/revert some changes. The reason im saying this is not because then it can be a true d&d game or it can be what they said they plan to make (i will leave these arguments for others), i just feel some of the Larian changes made the EA less tactical and less fun for myself and that these are not related to BG3 being a videogame. I completely agree that in a videogame things should be more fluid than in tabletop and hence, changes need to be made but i dont like the current approach to resting and combat 100% (i really like some things they added like the weapons specific skills and the shared initiative thing). BG3 does a lot of things outstandingly in my eye and I was open minded for ruleset changes, but at this point (after 3 EA playthroughs) i feel that the long rest spam and current action economy balance - even as it felt like something cool and modern thing at first, because yeah you can play however you want - eventually took away from the overall experience and challenge. Based on many posts and threads here and on Reddit as well around topics like healing food, jumping, disengage, OP high ground bonus, scrolls used by everyone etc... it seems im not alone. The game obviously has very positive steam review ratio because it looks and sounds gorgeous and has a very good introduction to the world and story, but one has to consider many people like myself did not leave a steam review at all yet (i gave feedback via the launcher though) because i have some gripes which i expect to alter my experience on the long run and i save my final steam review for full game.

What i want to say, its okay to alter things/add new stuff by them but its important to make them think what some of the homebrew changes can mean for a 100 hour game, designed for multiple playthroughs, because something can look/sound cool at first (hey i can do this with all my characters any time so cool!) but it can also mean that it takes away from building really cool class-specific tactics and party dynamics through that and while i agree not everything needs to be balanced, some things being really OP can mean tactics used over and over again can make the second half of the game repetitive over time (im looking at you DOS2 with the lot of teleportation skills, the armor system and the number bloating). Keep things as they are would not necessarily be reflected in sales or reviews when its releasing as the game would be still really cool, but in the eyes of many I think these could be something holding it back to become a legendary RPG.

I do trust Larian though and I believe its a really good choice they put this game to EA first, so we can give feedback like this and they can look into making the game more cool. Im sure that they see these complains (these are popping up constantly now, its impossible not to see) and i think we will see at least some options added or more of their comments around this topic in the near future. As many others said, we also want the game to turn out to be amazing and to be enjoyed fully by as many people as possible (which includes players who would like to have more challenges and tactics in the future state of the game, as myself).

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Here's an example of the combat mechanics in Divinity Original Sin II. Load an ornate chest or backpack with as much weight as possible (literally 1000's of kg), spec into telekinesis (to lift 1000's of kg), and wits and scoundrel (to guaranty over 100% critical chance) and throw the chest at enemies, doing 10K damage with one attack. It's guarantied to one shot any enemy in the game with every attack. Dozens of other broken mechanics are rife in every Larian game. A year after the release of Divinity Original Sin II, Larian made a massive balance patch just to try to make their game somewhat balanced for the none cheese tactic players, and I considered it too little, too late. The game was still highly imbalanced regardless of cheese, and cheese strategies: whether features or exploits still existed, and they were numerous, and game breaking balance wise. Larian make the most mechanically broken games I've ever played in the genre. I could never imagine Larian making a game as nuanced, strategic, and balanced as Tower of Time. It took D&D decades of refinement to get to 5e, and while its not perfect, most would agree it's fairly mechanically balanced. Which is the exact opposite of anything Larian has ever developed to date.

The only reason I gave this game a chance was because I figured if Larian stayed faithful to the core mechanics of 5e D&D, they would have the foundation for a balanced game. I really hoped they stayed true to the numbers and mechanics of 5e, not because I am a fan of 5e, but because it was an opportunity for Larian to make their first mechanically balance game. All the numbers, all the math, and all the balancing was already done for them, how could they mess that up? I hoped that was Larian's intentions behind using the D&D licence, and 5e mechanics. Using 5e core mechanics would give Larian an opportunity to make a game on the foundations of a mechanically solid system. Instead, they made a 5e and DOS chimera, and it's a monstrosity.

Joined: Nov 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Leucrotta
WoTC interfering with games is not new though. Obsidian was infamously blocked from implementing the ability to end the Wall of the Faithless in NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer by WoTC, which was awful since so much of that campaign revolved around what a horrific cosmic injustice its existence was. But they *did* let you eat Myrkul's soul. Fast forward to 5e and here we have references to the Wall quietly scrubbed from the books and Myrkul spontaneously reappearing and back in the spotlight. WoTC.
I think the dialogues for the cut NWN endings you can read with the toolset. In one ending you could use the true name on the big bad to make him your companion as you wander the planes.

And I am not surprised WotC prevented the best good MotB ending. Yet in the evil ending you are allowed to kill gods, somehow that was not a problem for the setting.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by ReaLMoisan
Here's an example of the combat mechanics in Divinity Original Sin II. Load an ornate chest or backpack with as much weight as possible (literally 1000's of kg), spec into telekinesis (to lift 1000's of kg), and wits and scoundrel (to guaranty over 100% critical chance) and throw the chest at enemies, doing 10K damage with one attack. It's guarantied to one shot any enemy in the game with every attack. Dozens of other broken mechanics are rife in every Larian game. A year after the release of Divinity Original Sin II, Larian made a massive balance patch just to try to make their game somewhat balanced for the none cheese tactic players, and I considered it too little, too late. The game was still highly imbalanced regardless of cheese, and cheese strategies: whether features or exploits still existed, and they were numerous, and game breaking balance wise. Larian make the most mechanically broken games I've ever played in the genre. I could never imagine Larian making a game as nuanced, strategic, and balanced as Tower of Time. It took D&D decades of refinement to get to 5e, and while its not perfect, most would agree it's fairly mechanically balanced. Which is the exact opposite of anything Larian has ever developed to date.

The only reason I gave this game a chance was because I figured if Larian stayed faithful to the core mechanics of 5e D&D, they would have the foundation for a balanced game. I really hoped they stayed true to the numbers and mechanics of 5e, not because I am a fan of 5e, but because it was an opportunity for Larian to make their first mechanically balance game. All the numbers, all the math, and all the balancing was already done for them, how could they mess that up? I hoped that was Larian's intentions behind using the D&D licence, and 5e mechanics. Using 5e core mechanics would give Larian an opportunity to make a game on the foundations of a mechanically solid system. Instead, they made a 5e and DOS chimera, and it's a monstrosity.

Honnestly I'm not sure at all they're interrested in "balancing" their games.
I mean... It looks obvious that the game couldn't be balanced at all if they designed unbalanced mechanics as base mechanics...

Players : "Will there be a lone wolf mode like in DoS" ?
Larian : "Yes, that's something players asked a lot" "No, using a few base mechanics will allow you to solo'd the game"

Last edited by Maximuuus; 19/04/21 12:21 PM.
Joined: Sep 2017
G
member
Offline
member
G
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by ReaLMoisan
Here's an example of the combat mechanics in Divinity Original Sin II. Load an ornate chest or backpack with as much weight as possible (literally 1000's of kg), spec into telekinesis (to lift 1000's of kg), and wits and scoundrel (to guaranty over 100% critical chance) and throw the chest at enemies, doing 10K damage with one attack. It's guarantied to one shot any enemy in the game with every attack. Dozens of other broken mechanics are rife in every Larian game. A year after the release of Divinity Original Sin II, Larian made a massive balance patch just to try to make their game somewhat balanced for the none cheese tactic players, and I considered it too little, too late. The game was still highly imbalanced regardless of cheese, and cheese strategies: whether features or exploits still existed, and they were numerous, and game breaking balance wise. Larian make the most mechanically broken games I've ever played in the genre. I could never imagine Larian making a game as nuanced, strategic, and balanced as Tower of Time. It took D&D decades of refinement to get to 5e, and while its not perfect, most would agree it's fairly mechanically balanced. Which is the exact opposite of anything Larian has ever developed to date.

The only reason I gave this game a chance was because I figured if Larian stayed faithful to the core mechanics of 5e D&D, they would have the foundation for a balanced game. I really hoped they stayed true to the numbers and mechanics of 5e, not because I am a fan of 5e, but because it was an opportunity for Larian to make their first mechanically balance game. All the numbers, all the math, and all the balancing was already done for them, how could they mess that up? I hoped that was Larian's intentions behind using the D&D licence, and 5e mechanics. Using 5e core mechanics would give Larian an opportunity to make a game on the foundations of a mechanically solid system. Instead, they made a 5e and DOS chimera, and it's a monstrosity.

Honnestly I'm not sure at all they're interrested in "balancing" their games.
I mean... It looks obvious that the game couldn't be balanced at all if they designed unbalanced mechanics as base mechanics...

Players : "Will there be a lone wolf mode like in DoS" ?
Larian : "Yes, that's something players asked a lot" "No, using a few base mechanics will allow you to solo'd the game"

Larian promotes cheese/imbalance/exploits under the guise of creativity and problem-solving. That is just their brand.

Swen said in an interview they were skeptical and hesitant when first getting into taking on BG3 because they feared WoTC would make them be as faithful to 5e as possible, but they later found out they was some wiggle room.

A lot of their employees are quirky and very jovial, sticking to pre-made source material with minimal deviation would be a slow death for them. For better or worse, they enjoy experimentation through their creations but that is not what is needed in BG3 in excess.

Really wish they would limit that to the Divinity-verse and truly isolate this game from the rest of their library. And if the opportunity comes for more 5e content, so be it.

Who knows now if there will be a DOS3. Remember Larian was going to do Divinity: Fallen Heroes which has a lot of features they bundled into BG3. The shared initiative and new TB adaptations were all things that were going to be in their next Divinity game.

Once they got the green light for BG3, they announced the indefinite pause on Fallen Heroes and began working on BG3.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by gaymer
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by ReaLMoisan
Here's an example of the combat mechanics in Divinity Original Sin II. Load an ornate chest or backpack with as much weight as possible (literally 1000's of kg), spec into telekinesis (to lift 1000's of kg), and wits and scoundrel (to guaranty over 100% critical chance) and throw the chest at enemies, doing 10K damage with one attack. It's guarantied to one shot any enemy in the game with every attack. Dozens of other broken mechanics are rife in every Larian game. A year after the release of Divinity Original Sin II, Larian made a massive balance patch just to try to make their game somewhat balanced for the none cheese tactic players, and I considered it too little, too late. The game was still highly imbalanced regardless of cheese, and cheese strategies: whether features or exploits still existed, and they were numerous, and game breaking balance wise. Larian make the most mechanically broken games I've ever played in the genre. I could never imagine Larian making a game as nuanced, strategic, and balanced as Tower of Time. It took D&D decades of refinement to get to 5e, and while its not perfect, most would agree it's fairly mechanically balanced. Which is the exact opposite of anything Larian has ever developed to date.

The only reason I gave this game a chance was because I figured if Larian stayed faithful to the core mechanics of 5e D&D, they would have the foundation for a balanced game. I really hoped they stayed true to the numbers and mechanics of 5e, not because I am a fan of 5e, but because it was an opportunity for Larian to make their first mechanically balance game. All the numbers, all the math, and all the balancing was already done for them, how could they mess that up? I hoped that was Larian's intentions behind using the D&D licence, and 5e mechanics. Using 5e core mechanics would give Larian an opportunity to make a game on the foundations of a mechanically solid system. Instead, they made a 5e and DOS chimera, and it's a monstrosity.

Honnestly I'm not sure at all they're interrested in "balancing" their games.
I mean... It looks obvious that the game couldn't be balanced at all if they designed unbalanced mechanics as base mechanics...

Players : "Will there be a lone wolf mode like in DoS" ?
Larian : "Yes, that's something players asked a lot" "No, using a few base mechanics will allow you to solo'd the game"

Larian promotes cheese/imbalance/exploits under the guise of creativity and problem-solving. That is just their brand.

Swen said in an interview they were skeptical and hesitant when first getting into taking on BG3 because they feared WoTC would make them be as faithful to 5e as possible, but they later found out they was some wiggle room.

A lot of their employees are quirky and very jovial, sticking to pre-made source material with minimal deviation would be a slow death for them. For better or worse, they enjoy experimentation through their creations but that is not what is needed in BG3 in excess.

Really wish they would limit that to the Divinity-verse and truly isolate this game from the rest of their library. And if the opportunity comes for more 5e content, so be it.

Who knows now if there will be a DOS3. Remember Larian was going to do Divinity: Fallen Heroes which has a lot of features they bundled into BG3. The shared initiative and new TB adaptations were all things that were going to be in their next Divinity game.

Once they got the green light for BG3, they announced the indefinite pause on Fallen Heroes and began working on BG3.

They can totally allow such things in a balanced game...
The problem is that they're balancing their games arround unbalanced mechanics.

I'm laughing when they're talking about creativity and thinking out of the box.
Like if using consumables, base mechanics/buttons was "thinking out of the box and being creative".

The worst part of it is that players are proud to "think out of the box" when they use a 7D6 poison damage to kill the bulette in 1 turn, when they use a void bulb found in the tutorial to damage lot of ennemies or when they use thunderwave to OS the matriarch spider...

D&D have tons of options/spells/actions/features to encourage creativity and Larian just overshadowed them.
If their mechanics were balanced arround the balanced rules they're using, everyone could enjoy the game as they want : a tactical game that has tons of possibilities or a game you can cheese.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 19/04/21 02:15 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ReaLMoisan
Here's an example of the combat mechanics in Divinity Original Sin II. Load an ornate chest or backpack with as much weight as possible (literally 1000's of kg), spec into telekinesis (to lift 1000's of kg), and wits and scoundrel (to guaranty over 100% critical chance) and throw the chest at enemies, doing 10K damage with one attack. It's guarantied to one shot any enemy in the game with every attack. Dozens of other broken mechanics are rife in every Larian game. A year after the release of Divinity Original Sin II, Larian made a massive balance patch just to try to make their game somewhat balanced for the none cheese tactic players, and I considered it too little, too late. The game was still highly imbalanced regardless of cheese, and cheese strategies: whether features or exploits still existed, and they were numerous, and game breaking balance wise. Larian make the most mechanically broken games I've ever played in the genre. I could never imagine Larian making a game as nuanced, strategic, and balanced as Tower of Time. It took D&D decades of refinement to get to 5e, and while its not perfect, most would agree it's fairly mechanically balanced. Which is the exact opposite of anything Larian has ever developed to date.

The only reason I gave this game a chance was because I figured if Larian stayed faithful to the core mechanics of 5e D&D, they would have the foundation for a balanced game. I really hoped they stayed true to the numbers and mechanics of 5e, not because I am a fan of 5e, but because it was an opportunity for Larian to make their first mechanically balance game. All the numbers, all the math, and all the balancing was already done for them, how could they mess that up? I hoped that was Larian's intentions behind using the D&D licence, and 5e mechanics. Using 5e core mechanics would give Larian an opportunity to make a game on the foundations of a mechanically solid system. Instead, they made a 5e and DOS chimera, and it's a monstrosity.

You know what's funny? I would never have guessed this method if you hadn't written it. These are things that you may NOT WANT TO USE, because this is not an online game or something like that, where you definitely need to use the most "strong way". It always amazes me how people ruin their own game. How they come up with the idea of carrying barrels or something like that.

You know, Larian can have problems with strategy or interface, but when people here talk about things like "I'm carrying 300 barrels, it ruins my game" I'm amazed. Just don't do it. I have 100+ hours in DOS2, I have never used it, I did not even think about it.

And I do not want to speak for everyone, but my opinion is that many people will not even guess that it is possible and necessary to do...

Speaking about DOS2, game can be played without these methods. So why you don't do it? Because someone on YouTube showed you what could be easier? Larian doesn't force you to use it.

Speaking about BG3 there are situations that are still really difficult to get through without it...

....BUT

this is EA, we have only 4lvl. For example, it is very difficult for me to protect grove without blowing up barrels. This is only place where game told you to "use barrels".

Another problem for me - gits 5lvl, after 4th patch they became more difficult, but thats mean Larian changes something. Cuz I dont have problem with gits on patch 3.


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Nyloth
You know what's funny? I would never have guessed this method if you hadn't written it. These are things that you may NOT WANT TO USE, because this is not an online game or something like that, where you definitely need to use the most "strong way". It always amazes me how people ruin their own game. How they come up with the idea of carrying barrels or something like that.

You know, Larian can have problems with strategy or interface, but when people here talk about things like "I'm carrying 300 barrels, it ruins my game" I'm amazed. Just don't do it. I have 100+ hours in DOS2, I have never used it, I did not even think about it.

And I do not want to speak for everyone, but my opinion is that many people will not even guess that it is possible and necessary to do...

Speaking about DOS2, game can be played without these methods. So why you don't do it? Because someone on YouTube showed you what could be easier? Larian doesn't force you to use it.

Speaking about BG3 there are situations that are still really difficult to get through without it...

....BUT

this is EA, we have only 4lvl. For example, it is very difficult for me to protect grove without blowing up barrels. This is only place where game told you to "use barrels".

Another problem for me - gits 5lvl, after 4th patch they became more difficult, but thats mean Larian changes something. Cuz I dont have problem with gits on patch 3.
That backpack, telekinesis mechanic was something I came up with myself. I only used it once, because I had an idea it would work, and I had to try it. Out of curiosity I made a save and edited it to test the tactic as if I actually specked into using that strategy because I had to know what the numbers and feasibility would be. I couldn't imagine having to teleport and telekinesis that backpack to every encounter, because that doesn't sound like fun to me. Why are you presuming I used this exploit or any others through the game, because I certainly didn't say that. I've played every game Larian has released, and I've never completed any of them. I tried DOS II again after they released their massive balance patch, and I still found the gameplay extremely lacking. I've been playing these types of games since before the release of Pool of Radiance in 1996. I was also an Alpha and Beta tester for such games during that time, so finding the limitations and exploits of game mechanics, and determining game balance is something I am familiar with. Even though I no longer playtest professionally, finding interesting strategies within game mechanics is ingrained into the way I approach any game. Also, game balance isn't about challenge and difficulty. Game balance is about the core mechanics in the game, and how they're balanced with all aspect of the game.

Besides, the issue isn't even with these extreme examples. The issue is with the the changes Larian have made to the core mechanics of 5e, and how these changes fundamentally alter game balance. You can't just ignore most of these changes to the core mechanics of the game, and choose not to use them. Here's an example: do I stop using every damage cantrip that requires an attack roll? Larian has universally lowered enemy AC, and increased hit points to compensate, so using such cantrips feels like an exploit now. Which leaves a few cantrips that require a saving throw and not an attack roll to pick from. It's a good thing spells like magic missile still exist, they're an auto hit (without shield spell), it's too bad enemy's now have around double the hit points, so such spells really feel neutered now. So what do I do about not wanting to take advantage of using high ground, just never use it? That's an insane proposition. High ground sure makes spells like Bless and many other fundamental spells, feats, and class features feel utterly useless now. What's a 5% increase to a chance to hit while also using a spell slot, when I can move the character three blocks to high ground, and statistically get around a 20-25% increase to my chance to hit, all without even using a spell slot. Which is probably why Larian removed Bless from the game. Too bad the Bless spell isn't the only game balance issue to result in adding the high ground mechanic. What about my disengage options, or using backstab? I can point out dozens of changes Liarian have made to the core mechanics of 5e that now all feel like exploits. Some feeling almost as ridiculous as the DOS II backpack exploit I mentioned earlier. So what are my options now for playing the game without using these game mechanics? The issues with this game (or any Larian game) aren't as simple as not using fast travel in Skyrim if you don't like the game mechanic. These fundamental issues and exploits are baked into the core of the game, and they drastically influence game balance.

I currently just finished with Trials of Fire, and it's a very interesting game. My last run after getting familiar with the game was an all magic run on hard difficulty. I beat the game with no defence cards (the games only damage mitigation), no range, and no melee cards in any of the decks. No melee was interesting since the game has a strong mechanic that utilizes free melee strikes when adjacent to an enemy you're attacking with another hero. While using no defence cards fundamentally and drastically alters how you have to play the game. I didn't do this as some challenge, or to brag. Hard isn't even the highest difficulty setting, and I suspect thousands have bet the game on the hardest difficulty with far more unconventional tactics. I did it because my three favourite heroes were primarily magic attack users, and I wanted to enjoy the game playing with those heroes. I didn't have to remove all melee, range, and defence cards from my heroes decks, but I figured it would be interesting to try. Enjoying the game for me personally means no exploits and no cheese, just understanding the mechanics, and creating a strategy that works. I never even grinded the game long enough to unlock all the cards, but I really enjoyed the game. Like Tower of Time I mentioned in the original post, it's a strategic game with RPG elements, both are well balanced, and a challenge to play. Which certainly isn't like any game Larian has developed.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by ReaLMoisan
Game balance is about the core mechanics in the game, and how they're balanced with all aspect of the game.

Just quoting what is pertinent to my reply.

This is the gist of it, isn’t it?

It’s easy to say to not to choose cheese options in the game but when the developers expect you to use them, it’s a problem. Goblins almost always rush to high ground. There’s explosive barrels and special arrows everywhere. Larian expects you to use those homebrew mechanics.

It’s the reason why at the grove you have a huge height advantage against the raiders. It why they decided to put barrels in strategic locations. It’s why you can jump and attack with advantage from behind with minimal cost.

You literally have to hamstring yourself to attempt to play this game using 5e rules. If players have to police themselves to maintain some form of balance in the game, that’s not player options. That’s just bad game design.

Page 4 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12

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