Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 10 1 2 6 7 8 9 10
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by daMichi
I have to admit I am also rather pessimistic.

What was stated in an interview regarding e.g. the spell 'Bless' it seems to me that Larian will hold in to their current design philosophy.

We will get higher levels with more powerfull spells, then they will not be used that much, because it's far easier to get similiar effects by just running around an enemy.
Then Larian wants to change these spells to make them more appealing, and in the end we get something that ist a DnD game only by name and nothing else.

I sure hope I am wrong, though.

So am I reading that Larian thinks Bless is unnecessary because they notice people don’t use it? Is it perhaps the game has so many broken balance issues that you don’t need to use it? Why waste a spell for bonuses when you can easily gain advantage anytime?

So the solution is to make Bless more OP? Not try to balance combat?

That’s a huge problem. They should have built around 5e and made small changes. Instead they built around DOS and made small 5e changes.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
I made sort of the same observation back in the thread I linked, so I'm not going to make it again. But yes, it seems like that.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Austria
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Austria
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by daMichi
I have to admit I am also rather pessimistic.

What was stated in an interview regarding e.g. the spell 'Bless' it seems to me that Larian will hold in to their current design philosophy.

We will get higher levels with more powerfull spells, then they will not be used that much, because it's far easier to get similiar effects by just running around an enemy.
Then Larian wants to change these spells to make them more appealing, and in the end we get something that ist a DnD game only by name and nothing else.

I sure hope I am wrong, though.

So am I reading that Larian thinks Bless is unnecessary because they notice people don’t use it? Is it perhaps the game has so many broken balance issues that you don’t need to use it? Why waste a spell for bonuses when you can easily gain advantage anytime?

So the solution is to make Bless more OP? Not try to balance combat?

That’s a huge problem. They should have built around 5e and made small changes. Instead they built around DOS and made small 5e changes.

Yes, that's exactly what they did, because it seems that they think that DnD 5e mechanics are inherently boring and need to be more flashy, at least that's what's coming across in various interviews.

It's their game and their decisions, we can can only voice our wishes to make it more like DnD, and hope we will be heard.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Dexai
I made sort of the same observation back in the thread I linked, so I'm not going to make it again. But yes, it seems like that.

Don't know if you read that interview before giving your opinion about "numbers and statistic" but it looks you were right.

That's a shame... People like flashy things in their game because that's the only things they're doing well...

Do these guys play other RPG than theirs ?
Of course people won't use buffs if they're useless...

That's another reasons why they should more stick to D&D.
Same about many others spells that don't require concentration... If spells lasts for 2 rounds instead of 10... Why would we use them ?(in D&D 1 minute = 10 rounds = 10 Times everyone's turn)

Last edited by Maximuuus; 08/01/21 05:42 PM.
Joined: Apr 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2020
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
[quote=daMichi]What was stated in an interview regarding e.g. the spell 'Bless' it seems to me that Larian will hold in to their current design philosophy.

Oh ?! Can someone give me a link to that interview ?

The Bless spell is one the major offenders, as far as my problems with the current spells go. ...

One thing that we learned from the statistics is that people are completely uninterested in a lot of buffing and debuffing spells – we have stats where you can see how many people are using what spell and how often they’re using it, and that made us realise every magic spell that we put in an RPG needs to have this ‘oomph’ factor.

You have to want to click it, or you’ll never click it. You cannot sell a bless spell to people. It’s boring. They don’t care – they want to see fireworks, they want to see damage. If you talk to someone about balancing in the Original Sin games, they’ll say the buffing and debuffing is overpowered, but we make it overpowered on purpose because otherwise people are not going to click it.

We make them want to click it. We keep on changing the description and the balance until we see in the statistics that usage of that particular spell is going up. So yeah, we really learn a lot of our own game by
putting it in Early Access
.
[/spoiler]

I for one use Bless a lot. The only other spell I have Shadowheart cast as much is Spiritual Weapon. But I am using the D&D Rebalance mod; so backstab is out, and Bless is very useful. Disengage (an action now) is separate from Jump, and Dodge has been added. Jump is part of movement in my current playthrough, and you can't jump if you are threatened. There is still Advantage from height. I assume because there is no real cover mechanic in BG3 yet. I also find Blindness useful as a de-buff now. It will be even more useful when I can up-cast it. Funny how changing just a few things can completely change the game.

Joined: Dec 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Merlex
I for one use Bless a lot.

And you good, Sir, are a good player.
Ironic though, that many still have no understanding, let alone, utilize pre-buffing just prior to an engagement/encounter.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Dexai
I made sort of the same observation back in the thread I linked, so I'm not going to make it again. But yes, it seems like that.

Don't know if you read that interview before giving your opinion about "numbers and statistic" but it looks you were right.

I'm not sure what you mean -- I just quoted the part of the excerpt I thought was relevant.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Jan 2017
C
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Jan 2017
Originally Posted by daMichi
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by daMichi
I have to admit I am also rather pessimistic.

What was stated in an interview regarding e.g. the spell 'Bless' it seems to me that Larian will hold in to their current design philosophy.

We will get higher levels with more powerfull spells, then they will not be used that much, because it's far easier to get similiar effects by just running around an enemy.
Then Larian wants to change these spells to make them more appealing, and in the end we get something that ist a DnD game only by name and nothing else.

I sure hope I am wrong, though.

So am I reading that Larian thinks Bless is unnecessary because they notice people don’t use it? Is it perhaps the game has so many broken balance issues that you don’t need to use it? Why waste a spell for bonuses when you can easily gain advantage anytime?

So the solution is to make Bless more OP? Not try to balance combat?

That’s a huge problem. They should have built around 5e and made small changes. Instead they built around DOS and made small 5e changes.

Yes, that's exactly what they did, because it seems that they think that DnD 5e mechanics are inherently boring and need to be more flashy, at least that's what's coming across in various interviews.

It's their game and their decisions, we can can only voice our wishes to make it more like DnD, and hope we will be heard.

So basically fudge Larian, since they have only plans to make DoS3 out of this. Wonderful . . .

Last edited by CamKitty; 08/01/21 09:33 PM.
Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Merlex
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
[quote=daMichi]What was stated in an interview regarding e.g. the spell 'Bless' it seems to me that Larian will hold in to their current design philosophy.

Oh ?! Can someone give me a link to that interview ?

The Bless spell is one the major offenders, as far as my problems with the current spells go. ...

One thing that we learned from the statistics is that people are completely uninterested in a lot of buffing and debuffing spells – we have stats where you can see how many people are using what spell and how often they’re using it, and that made us realise every magic spell that we put in an RPG needs to have this ‘oomph’ factor.

You have to want to click it, or you’ll never click it. You cannot sell a bless spell to people. It’s boring. They don’t care – they want to see fireworks, they want to see damage. If you talk to someone about balancing in the Original Sin games, they’ll say the buffing and debuffing is overpowered, but we make it overpowered on purpose because otherwise people are not going to click it.

We make them want to click it. We keep on changing the description and the balance until we see in the statistics that usage of that particular spell is going up. So yeah, we really learn a lot of our own game by
putting it in Early Access
.
[/spoiler]

I for one use Bless a lot. The only other spell I have Shadowheart cast as much is Spiritual Weapon. But I am using the D&D Rebalance mod; so backstab is out, and Bless is very useful. Disengage (an action now) is separate from Jump, and Dodge has been added. Jump is part of movement in my current playthrough, and you can't jump if you are threatened. There is still Advantage from height. I assume because there is no real cover mechanic in BG3 yet. I also find Blindness useful as a de-buff now. It will be even more useful when I can up-cast it. Funny how changing just a few things can completely change the game.

Well, if things need to be fixed with a mod, at least they CAN be fixed with a mod?

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Going back to my original post, maybe I did over-mentioned Solasta, but I real do feel it is a valid comparison to BG3 since the game play also uses D^D5th, and arguably uses it to a fuller extent.
Right now the BG3 gameplay/combat feels lacking something...its totally not BG2, not really D^D5th, and not really DOS2...

Like someone else mentioned in DOS2 you had many more action points..this opened so much more possibilities during your turn : FUN. And it works with environment/ Larian style effects. Having very few doable actions a turn and mixing in tons of DOS2 type effects really kills the gameplay for me.

Simply putting it, do you think having more actions during a turn would improve the gameplay and overall fun of BG3? Hence a very simple fix that could go a long way.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 10/01/21 08:32 AM.
Joined: Dec 2020
B
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Dec 2020
that quote is disturbing...so unless abilities/spells/objects have an 'oomph' factor they won't be in the final game? Many people may not realise how useful something is because they are new to 5E, so that stats-only analysis is a really bizzare an ill conceived way of designing/evolving a game... Many spells and abilities are highly situational - it is more than likely that the broken 5E mechanics we have now render these things less useful (or so it would seem). I always used bless for tougher combats when I did my playthroughs. I really hope that Larian looks at forum feedback more than they do at aggregated data from their game. If they simply stuck to 5E proper, and people didn't have access to overpowered non 5E abilities and incendieries, they'd more than likely end up using these 'uninteresting' buffs/debuffs. I really hope that point gets through.

Last edited by booboo; 10/01/21 09:34 AM.
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Simply putting it, do you think having more actions during a turn would improve the gameplay and overall fun of BG3? Hence a very simple fix that could go a long way.

I do not. My point is, either try to abide by 5e rules or do not. Creating a blend of two systems is what is causing all the balancing issues. 5e core design is action economy to prevent certain classes to be more powerful than others. Even with that, balance falls apart as levels increase.

If people think balance is bad now, just wait till level 5 and up.

Larian needs to pick. DOS or 5e style combat. Trying to please everyone ends up pleasing no one. Pick a side.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Simply putting it, do you think having more actions during a turn would improve the gameplay and overall fun of BG3? Hence a very simple fix that could go a long way.

I don't think so, depending why you consider it could improve the gameplay.

More action points for the players and ennemies won't solve anything if we're talking about the speed of combats.

Discussions about the implementation of the rules aside, the only solution I see for more fluent and more enjoyable combats is to increase the party size.

At the moment I'm trying a playthrough with 6 companions and it's way more fun.
I have many things to do and everything is more fluent.
I HAVE more actions during a round but I'm not breaking the rules even more.

Of course it's way more easier... And it's probably too easy but the difficulty of the game isn't especially a matter of number of ennemies/companions.

- Increased party size = more action during 1 round
- Better implementation of the rules = better balance
- Well balanced custom mechanics (>< Larian's homebrew) = better control of our %to hit.

Want something more difficult ? Just improve ennemie's damages and/or AC a bit.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 10/01/21 06:57 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by booboo
that quote is disturbing...so unless abilities/spells/objects have an 'oomph' factor they won't be in the final game? Many people may not realise how useful something is because they are new to 5E, so that stats-only analysis is a really bizzare an ill conceived way of designing/evolving a game... Many spells and abilities are highly situational - it is more than likely that the broken 5E mechanics we have now render these things less useful (or so it would seem). I always used bless for tougher combats when I did my playthroughs. I really hope that Larian looks at forum feedback more than they do at aggregated data from their game. If they simply stuck to 5E proper, and people didn't have access to overpowered non 5E abilities and incendieries, they'd more than likely end up using these 'uninteresting' buffs/debuffs. I really hope that point gets through.

Absolutely! That would be a horrible call.

The saving grace is the modding community, who will promptly put it back.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
Originally Posted by Dexai
@Dexai : Thanks a lot for the link to the interview.


Reading what they said in that interview made my palm want to fly violently into my forehead. But after encountering many stupid things in the EA versions so far, my palm and my forehead have become like an old couple. They don't need to get physical all the time, they can nearly communicate through a mere look.

At first, what disappointed me the most was what they were saying specifically about Bless and spells. But when I think about it, really, it's a difference of vision and philosophy. They want the combat to be "Kaboom" et "omg, lol, that worked" (which leads to memes, and overall a better streamer-watching experience, I guess). I prefer a deep and meaty combat system. At least, now they have communicated more on their vision, and communication isn't what I would put first on the list of things Larian is doing very well in BG3/the EA phase. I'm glad I wasn't planning to be playing this game chiefly for the combat.

But after reflection, what is the most disappointing are the following two things.


a) Their use of player-data.

This is the (dawn of the) era of big data. Everyone and their neighbour is collecting vast amounts of data. But a secret about data, that most statisticians (and scientists in general) are happy to shout around as much as they are allowed to, is that big data doesn't give good insights on its own. Just like good ingredients in a kitchen don't turn themselves into good dishes without a good cook.

The data that they are collecting is obviously biased in so many ways. I don't want to repeat too many things that have already been said, and to devote too much space to massively obvious things, so I'll try the shortest way I can formulate this : the data is influenced by all the current game parameters. Given that the combat system is currently half built and broken as a result (with Bless being possibly a perfect example), it's obvious that any combat data must be manipulated with extreme caution.

So, seeing them have good fun and re-recreate the average Custom Characters is amusing, seeing them monitor how many people side with goblins is one of the very instructing things the data can be used for, seeing them seemingly give importance to a spell's usage rate at this point ... impresses me in the wrong direction.


b) What they say on experiencing the story vs what they say on combat.

I haven't played a Larian game before, but I've heard they indeed care about player choices. Here they state that when in comes to the story, and player decisions, they want to program something nice for all possibilities, even if a small percentage of players use any given one. That's one of the main things I'm excited about in BG3.

So it's kind of disappointing that, when it comes to combat, they apparently rather want to make all spells appealing all the time. I don't how many spells were in DOS, but 5E has over 200 spells. They can't be equally valuable all the time. In fact, many of them are very situational. But most players will have a very satisfying experience overcoming a difficulty (combat or not) by thinking of using that obscure spell they rarely ever use. Maybe they'll click the spell twice in a playthrough, but these two clicks might be strongly remembered.


Hoping we'll be able to create great assumptions-free Custom Characters and be given great roleplay options.
Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
I like the game a lot more than DOS but I still have gripes with it.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
T
enthusiast
Online Content
enthusiast
T
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Going back to my original post, maybe I did over-mentioned Solasta, but I real do feel it is a valid comparison to BG3 since the game play also uses D^D5th, and arguably uses it to a fuller extent.
Right now the BG3 gameplay/combat feels lacking something...its totally not BG2, not really D^D5th, and not really DOS2...

Like someone else mentioned in DOS2 you had many more action points..this opened so much more possibilities during your turn : FUN. And it works with environment/ Larian style effects. Having very few doable actions a turn and mixing in tons of DOS2 type effects really kills the gameplay for me.

Simply putting it, do you think having more actions during a turn would improve the gameplay and overall fun of BG3? Hence a very simple fix that could go a long way.
Well here comes answer from a none DOS2 fan (I do not hate that game not saying that felt more like average to me and I did not even finish that game though I did play through Pillars of Eternity 1 despite it not being DD) and I have done my fair share of Pen and Paper DD gaming and have played DD games on PC.

No I certainly do not want this game to take more further steps away from DD rules and that we get more actions.
I have not played Solasta I admit that so can not comment on that.

About the graphics. I am generally fairly fine with them though Elves could look slightly more Elven perhaps. In addition did not like that my Wood Elf default skin color green, but there is quite a bit what you can change in character creation example skin color. I changed Wood Elf green skin color to white.

No lol I am not racist towards exotic races that did not exist in say older DD versions or BG1 and BG2. I like Lae Zel find her attractive as well as I feel Shadowheart attractive. Well though romance in BG3 has so far been to me a bit half done at best I would like it to be all the way like content made for adults.

I would not say I am very romantic though. I like Action and Horror in movies and games and I want to play this game on harder challenge level then Normal when full release is done. That being said of course they should add an Easy challenge level for those people that want it.

Last edited by Terminator2020; 20/01/21 09:41 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
I like the game a lot so far, but:
  • The combat system & mechanics need fixes/changes - either by being MORE like D&D 5e (which I'd prefer) and LESS than DOS, or vice versa (though licensing problems may prevent that).
  • Tone down the romances - seriously, this should not be that obnoxious and forced onto players as it is now. Feels almost like Witcher 1 card-collecting, except you can only collect one card and the game reminds you multiple times that you SHOULD collect it.
  • The approval system and points allocations are weird (and abusable, if you're not a hard-core roleplayer) - and I'm not talking about the infinite approval bugs, those will get fixed for sure. I would rather make approval a hidden value and make the companions voice their disapproval, rather than seeing "X (dis)approves" (and probably make them generally less judgemental to balance that change).
  • Environments, locations - awesome, this is the one part that actually resembles BG1/2, as far as environments, colors etc. are concerned.
  • Companions - I generally like them (aka "consider them well-written") for the most part, at least after patch 3. The "everything happens at the camp" dynamics feels a bit overused, perhaps.
  • Story - So far so good!
  • Character creation - It's OK, though there are some (already well-documented elsewhere) gripes I have, like half-elves looking more elven than actual elves, tieflings looking all basically the same (there used to be lore reasons for that, but not anymore)
  • Buuuugs, glitches ,etc. - that's to be expected, though there are many bugs from the very first available versions that should be really easy to fix, but aren't - e.g. Ranger's Two-Weapon Fighting Style or Wizard's learning (all) spells, but that not being reflected on level ups - I would really like for the devs to focus on these quick win fixes.
  • Level cap is a bit obnoxious at later stages, maybe give us higher levels even if not all corresponding abilities/spells aren't implemented yet?

Last edited by DiDiDi; 23/01/21 04:21 PM.
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
T
enthusiast
Online Content
enthusiast
T
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
I like the game a lot so far, but:
  • The combat system & mechanics need fixes/changes - either by being MORE like D&D 5e (which I'd prefer) and LESS than DOS, or vice versa (though licensing problems may prevent that).
  • Tone down the romances - seriously, this should not be that obnoxious and forced onto players as it is now. Feels almost like Witcher 1 card-collecting, except you can only collect one card and the game reminds you multiple times that you SHOULD collect it.
  • The approval system and points allocations are weird (and abusable, if you're not a hard-core roleplayer) - and I'm not talking about the infinite approval bugs, those will get fixed for sure. I would rather make approval a hidden value and make the companions voice their disapproval, rather than seeing "X (dis)approves" (and probably make them generally less judgemental to balance that change).
  • Environments, locations - awesome, this is the one part that actually resembles BG1/2, as far as environments, colors etc. are concerned.
  • Companions - I generally like them (aka "consider them well-written") for the most part, at least after patch 3. The "everything happens at the camp" dynamics feels a bit overused, perhaps.
  • Story - So far so good!
  • Character creation - It's OK, though there are some (already well-documented elsewhere) gripes I have, like half-elves looking more elven than actual elves, tieflings looking all basically the same (there used to be lore reasons for that, but not anymore)
  • Buuuugs, glitches ,etc. - that's to be expected, though there are many bugs from the very first available versions that should be really easy to fix, but aren't - e.g. Ranger's Two-Weapon Fighting Style or Wizard's learning (all) spells, but that not being reflected on level ups - I would really like for the devs to focus on these quick win fixes.
  • Level cap is a bit obnoxious at later stages, maybe give us higher levels even if not all corresponding abilities/spells aren't implemented yet?
Romantism they could have options in menu.
A. Keep it soft romantism as it is currently.
B. Ramp it up to full nudity.
C. Disable it no romantism in game.
It is funny we are polar opposite sides of romantism. If they would inlcude in B option as extra sub option under B a specific woman Elf that behaves likes celebrity Belle Delphine she sometimes dress up like an Elf in real life (I do not mean all her actions selling some bathwater, but the smiles, facial expressions and way to act) I would be all for that.

I am pretty sure there are no license preventing them making it more according to the core rules. The rest of your comments I have nothing to add to them you said them fine.

Last edited by Terminator2020; 23/01/21 05:11 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Terminator2020
Romantism they could have options in menu.
A. Keep it soft romantism as it is currently.
B. Ramp it up to full nudity.
C. Disable it no romantism in game.
That's not what I meant - I don't mind the erotic scenes (as long as they fix the glitches, armor clipping etc.). Having an option to disable romances is dumb, you should be able to do it through, you know, role playing. The romances just need to be scripted/written better. Although an option to reduce nudity/erotica, like disabling gore/blood, might make sense for some - e.g. some Americans are completely preposterous in regards to nudity, although hectolitres of blood & gore is fine by their standards.

Originally Posted by Terminator2020
I am pretty sure there are no license preventing them making it more according to the core rules.
I meant the opposite - a game set in Forgotten Realms that does not really use D&D rules.

Last edited by DiDiDi; 23/01/21 05:18 PM.
Page 8 of 10 1 2 6 7 8 9 10

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