Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 20 of 32 1 2 18 19 20 21 22 31 32
Joined: Oct 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by Tuco
Nope, not a "better analogy" at all.

It's a much better analogy.

You don't like the way you can teleport to rest? Then walk.

The rest of us will teleport.

In other words, you use your clock and other people will play without it.

Last edited by JandK; 20/02/22 04:14 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by JandK
Originally Posted by Tuco
Nope, not a "better analogy" at all.

It's a much better analogy.

You don't like the way you can teleport to rest? Then walk.

The rest of us will teleport.

In other words, you use your clock and other people will play without it.

You're ignoring that the game becomes boring and all pieces unimportant simply because of the absence of 1 restriction

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by JandK
Originally Posted by Tuco
Nope, not a "better analogy" at all.

It's a much better analogy.

You don't like the way you can teleport to rest? Then walk.

The rest of us will teleport.
No, it's not a better analogy because it's completely unrelated.
And incidentally the point is not "liking to walk, teleport, fly or swim" either.
The point is that restrictions and eventual inconveniences need to be put in places to prevent a system balanced around these restrictions to break down entirely at every little push.

A game should be designed to work properly with the systems it uses in mind.
If people want a convenient way around them, cheating (or a "for teh story" difficulty setting that will undoubtedly be there) is always an option for them.

Asking for a game to be purposefully designed as broken because having a proper balance would be too inconvenient for some is ridiculous.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by JandK
Originally Posted by Tuco
Nope, not a "better analogy" at all.

It's a much better analogy.

You don't like the way you can teleport to rest? Then walk.

The rest of us will teleport.

In other words, you use your clock and other people will play without it.
This is still relying on players to provide the limitations of the game that the designers should have. Which we as players can't really do, because we don't know how many encounters Larian intended for us to fight before resting. 1? 2? 5? Setting restrictions on yourself can be fun or interesting, but in an rpg video game I want to play against the game, not against myself.

Not to mention all the game balance issues created by Larian's design philosophy to not implement long rest restrictions, which means they're likely not balancing encounters so that the players face ~3-6 per long rest. These issues are unavoidable even if I do set restraints on myself - if we're expected to fight 1 or 2 encounters between long rests, then either playing as a martial character or warlock feels much shittier compared to the long-rest caster classes, or I have a much more punishing gameplay experience than intended.

D&D is designed around the Adventuring Day. Which has its problems, I'll definitely agree with that. But just ignoring the Adventuring Day without addressing the gameplay aspects that were designed with it in mind creates different problems.

Joined: Oct 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by Tuco
No, it's not a better analogy because it's completely unrelated.
And incidentally the point is not "liking to walk, teleport, fly or swim" either.
The point is that restrictions and eventual inconveniences need to be put in places to prevent a system balanced around these restrictions to break down entirely at every little push.

A game should be designed to work properly with the systems it uses in mind.
If people want a convenient way around them, cheating (or a "for teh story" difficulty setting that will undoubtedly be there) is always an option for them.

Asking for a game to be purposefully designed as broken because having a proper balance would be too inconvenient for some is ridiculous.

It's entirely related.

Time restrictions are needed in chess because it keeps the player from having the luxury of thinking too long about the next move, which would break the game.

But, says someone, I don't want that time restriction.

Well, the proper thinker says, the game would be broken without that restriction.

Hmm. Why don't you restrict your game, and I'll play my game without your restriction.

What? No, impossible. How can my game be restricted when yours is not?

Um, by using this clock?

*

Exact. Same. Thing.

You can restrict your game by walking. So your game isn't broken.

Meanwhile, other people will teleport. You are free to think they are playing a broken game. I doubt they care overly much about your subjective opinion on the matter.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
You're ignoring that the game becomes boring and all pieces unimportant simply because of the absence of 1 restriction

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not bored. Thus "the game" does not become boring. *You* may be bored, but that's a personal issue.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by JandK
Originally Posted by Tuco
Nope, not a "better analogy" at all.

It's a much better analogy.

You don't like the way you can teleport to rest? Then walk.

The rest of us will teleport.

In other words, you use your clock and other people will play without it.
This is still relying on players to provide the limitations of the game that the designers should have. Which we as players can't really do, because we don't know how many encounters Larian intended for us to fight before resting. 1? 2? 5? Setting restrictions on yourself can be fun or interesting, but in an rpg video game I want to play against the game, not against myself.

Not to mention all the game balance issues created by Larian's design philosophy to not implement long rest restrictions, which means they're likely not balancing encounters so that the players face ~3-6 per long rest. These issues are unavoidable even if I do set restraints on myself - if we're expected to fight 1 or 2 encounters between long rests, then either playing as a martial character or warlock feels much shittier compared to the long-rest caster classes, or I have a much more punishing gameplay experience than intended.

D&D is designed around the Adventuring Day. Which has its problems, I'll definitely agree with that. But just ignoring the Adventuring Day without addressing the gameplay aspects that were designed with it in mind creates different problems.

And this is touching on a whole another reason why the current system doesn't work for us. Right now, it isn't that we have the option to Long rest as frequently as we want. In order to beat most battles, you are encouraged to Long rest between every fight. Try defeating everything from the red caps to Ethel without long resting even once. I've tried multiple times. Ethel is nearly impossible without long resting before you fight her all by herself, especially when I first played the game and didn't know what I was expecting.

The game right now is designed to fight, long rest, fight. It is not designed to battle five or six fights and then long rest, which is what an intelligent adventurer would do especially if they have a tadpole in their head.

As it stands, unless I use all of the broken gimmicks, I have to adventure for 10 minutes and then rest for 24 hours. That is not good game design for RPG adventure.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by JandK
CUT
Yeah, and you can even like using Google to pick your next move, when you are playing in your living room. So? Who the hell cares?
But in a tournament you will play by the rules, and the game needs to be designed with these rules in mind and put a system in place to make these rules have meaning and be enforced, rather than being a matter of self-restriction.

You are REALLY trying to be disingenuous about this, uh.
What's next, your good old "appeal to popularity"? Dismissing what forum dwellers and D&D nerds think because "The majority of the casual players will be happy anyway"?

Last edited by Tuco; 20/02/22 04:50 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Oct 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
This is still relying on players to provide the limitations of the game that the designers should have.

You wanting the designers to limit the game in a particular way doesn't mean the designers should limit the game in that particular way. Do you see how those are two different things?

In essence, I'm saying be the limitation that you want to see in the world.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Which we as players can't really do, because we don't know how many encounters Larian intended for us to fight before resting. 1? 2? 5?

Who cares? Go as long as you can. Walk to your campsite instead of teleporting. Eat only apples.

I mean, seriously, if Larian came out and said that you should be able to handle four encounters between every rest, there'd be people arguing that four should be five or six or three or ten... and other people arguing that it depended on the type of encounter. You just reach a point where the whole thing is ridiculous.

You know what I don't want? To feel like I'm being railroaded. I only get enough supplies to rest every four encounters. That tells me I'm not playing in an open world. I'm playing on a railroad and being forced down a childlike linear path. I have no interest in that.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Not to mention all the game balance issues created by Larian's design philosophy to not implement long rest restrictions, which means they're likely not balancing encounters so that the players face ~3-6 per long rest.

What? You just said ... because they don't restrict long rests ... then they're not balancing encounters per long rest.

Meaning what? That every long rest isn't balanced precisely between x number of encounters? Meaning sometimes you might need a long rest after one encounter and other times you might make it seven encounters before needing a long rest?

What exactly is wrong with that? I mean, if you actually think about it, what is wrong with that? You'd prefer an arbitrary same number of encounters then long rest every time? How does that make sense and seem organic at the same time. Some encounters are tougher than other encounters, and that's the way it should be.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
These issues are unavoidable even if I do set restraints on myself - if we're expected to fight 1 or 2 encounters between long rests, then either playing as a martial character or warlock feels much shittier compared to the long-rest caster classes, or I have a much more punishing gameplay experience than intended.

Um. Different classes have different strengths and weaknesses. This is not a bad thing.

All I can say is that we definitely disagree. The vision of the game you present sounds stilted and boring and predictable to me.

Joined: Oct 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by Tuco
Yeah, and you can even like using Google to pick your next move, when you are playing in your living room. So? Who the hell cares?
But in a tournament you will play by the rules, and the game needs to be designed with these rules in mind and put a system in place to make these rules have meaning and be enforced, rather than being a matter of self-restriction.

You are REALLY trying to be disingenuous about this, uh.
What's next, your good old "appeal to popularity"? Dismissing what forum dwellers and D&D nerds think because "The majority of the casual players will be happy anyway"?

You can use a clock or not. That's self-restriction.

I don't think there are any BG3 tournaments.

But in a tournament, all the players agree to the established rules. You are free to establish rules with other players you might want to multiplayer with.

You are not, however, free to establish rules for other players you aren't playing with.

Nothing I have said is disingenuous. It all makes sense. It's not difficult to parse.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by JandK
You know what I don't want? To feel like I'm being railroaded. I only get enough supplies to rest every four encounters. That tells me I'm not playing in an open world. I'm playing on a railroad and being forced down a childlike linear path. I have no interest in that.
You DO realize that there's a (VAST) middle ground between "being railroaded hardcore" and being left completely unchecked with no limitation, restriction or inconvenience whatsoever, right?
And that finding that middle ground is precisely the role of any half-competent game designer?

Taking your fairly absurd example, you worry about "HAVING JUST ENOUGH SUPPLIES TO REST X TIMES" when in reality the current build of the game has in the first half of act 1 enough supplies for arguably the entire three-acts final game.
AND that's being wasteful with it and resting plentifully.
How is that a fine-tuned experience? It makes camp supplies literally an irrelevant resource from a mechanical standpoint.
Your fearmongering here is ridiculous, no game designer of any triple A product is ever going to leave you starving for essential resources.

Also, I know you love to be dismissive of what the core audience may think, but incidentally your opinion is not even shared by the devs here.
Did you watch Swen Vincke's post mortem of DOS 1 and 2? Did you hear him talk about how "they panicked, they literally panicked" when at the release of DOS 2 they realized the game got way too easy way too quickly and that was making a lot of early players disappointed? To the point they had to rush an update out fo the door to raise difficulty across the board in some areas?

Last edited by Tuco; 20/02/22 05:01 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by JandK
Originally Posted by Tuco
Yeah, and you can even like using Google to pick your next move, when you are playing in your living room. So? Who the hell cares?
But in a tournament you will play by the rules, and the game needs to be designed with these rules in mind and put a system in place to make these rules have meaning and be enforced, rather than being a matter of self-restriction.

You are REALLY trying to be disingenuous about this, uh.
What's next, your good old "appeal to popularity"? Dismissing what forum dwellers and D&D nerds think because "The majority of the casual players will be happy anyway"?

You can use a clock or not. That's self-restriction.

I don't think there are any BG3 tournaments.

But in a tournament, all the players agree to the established rules. You are free to establish rules with other players you might want to multiplayer with.

You are not, however, free to establish rules for other players you aren't playing with.

Nothing I have said is disingenuous. It all makes sense. It's not difficult to parse.

You keep talking like the clock is a fundamental element of chess. Resting is a FUNDAMENTAL element of D&D. DMs do not allow players to long rest after every battle because it doesn't make sense to do so in an adventure story. Characters should do a TON of stuff per day, not adventure 5-10 minutes and HAVE to long rest in order to continue. That's a terrible system.

Again, it's like taking a fundamental rule of chess and removing it. This isn't just a convenience or a matter of playing the game however you like. At level 5, mages and clerics WILL become damage monsters, blowing everything away.

Imagine facing the phase spider Matriarch fight, but you got to level 5 first. Gale has fireball. Matriarch stands on web. Gale fireballs it. 8d6 damage. She falls because web is burned up. Another 3d6 damage. You're playing a sorcerer. You also have fireball. 8d6 again to matriarch while she's prone. She ports up to another web. Wash, rinse repeat. She does it again. Wash, rinse, repeat. She's dead or close to dead.

And why was I able to do this? Because I fought the ettercaps and previous phase spiders, long rested, and fought the Matriarch. I used fireballs like crazy with the previous battle, slept in their home, and fought the Matriarch and did the same thing again.

Without SOME sort of restriction, the queen becomes OP in chess and all other pieces are useless. The queen MUST have restrictions or no other pieces matter. Likewise, a wizard and/or cleric without Long Rest restrictions make all other classes useless.

Last edited by GM4Him; 20/02/22 05:13 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Yeah, that's why I said it's an irrelevant comparison that doesn't match the case.
The equiivalent of a clock in chess would be... A clock in BG3 too.

Instead, asking for resting restriction to be completely removed/overlooked is the equivalent of asking for license to move your chess pieces twice in a row, because "you felt really restricted by having just that one move".

Last edited by Tuco; 20/02/22 05:13 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
We're not even asking for hard restrictions. Just something to discourage abuse and encourage not abusing.

By providing rest areas, it encourages moving forward and not going back. It encourages keep going and don't long rest. A rest area may be just around the corner.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by JandK
You wanting the designers to limit the game in a particular way doesn't mean the designers should limit the game in that particular way. Do you see how those are two different things?
D&D is designed in a certain way, and Larian has cut out an essential aspect (The Adventuring Day) and hasn't replaced it with...okay actually they have at least partially replaced it with their bonus actions. Which, if they wanted to commit entirely to cutting out the adventuring day would be fine! But there still remain many features of classes that were designed for 3-6 encounters per day that Larian hasn't adjusted. So either Larian should try to restrict long resting to match the adventuring day, or they should adjust classes to be more based on per-encounter cooldowns/uses instead of per-day abilities.

This matters especially because it's a co-op game. One class being significantly less powerful than others because BG3 doesn't have long rest restrictions will make some players feel underpowered and they'll have less fun.

Originally Posted by JandK
I mean, seriously, if Larian came out and said that you should be able to handle four encounters between every rest, there'd be people arguing that four should be five or six or three or ten... and other people arguing that it depended on the type of encounter. You just reach a point where the whole thing is ridiculous.
This is exaggerating/slippery slope/"perfect is the enemy of the good".

Originally Posted by JandK
You know what I don't want? To feel like I'm being railroaded. I only get enough supplies to rest every four encounters. That tells me I'm not playing in an open world. I'm playing on a railroad and being forced down a childlike linear path. I have no interest in that.
BG3 isn't in an open world and already has railroading. There are branching quest paths, sure, but you certainly can't go anywhere in the world at any time. And the mechanics of gameplay can be separate things from railroading. Railroading refers more to storylines, exploring, and ways of resolving conflicts. You're not being railroaded by only having a single standard action in combat, or by the fact that barbarians don't natively get spells. Similarly, you wouldn't be railroaded if there were limited rest locations in BG3. It would just be a game mechanic to play around.

Originally Posted by JandK
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Not to mention all the game balance issues created by Larian's design philosophy to not implement long rest restrictions, which means they're likely not balancing encounters so that the players face ~3-6 per long rest.

What? You just said ... because they don't restrict long rests ... then they're not balancing encounters per long rest.

Meaning what? That every long rest isn't balanced precisely between x number of encounters? Meaning sometimes you might need a long rest after one encounter and other times you might make it seven encounters before needing a long rest?

What exactly is wrong with that? I mean, if you actually think about it, what is wrong with that? You'd prefer an arbitrary same number of encounters then long rest every time? How does that make sense and seem organic at the same time. Some encounters are tougher than other encounters, and that's the way it should be.
Yes. Larian's philosophy of unrestricted long rests leads to them balancing encounters assuming you're frequently long resting. As GM4Him said, many combats in the game seem to expect you to have and use full resources.

You're exaggerating my point to argue against a strawman. I said "~3-6" encounters, not "5 every day." Some days would be more frequent combats against weaker enemies, some days would be less frequent against strong enemies. And my "~" allows for even more flexibility. Some days might even have 2-3 weak encounters, and some really hard days might have 5 hard encounters. But on average, you'd get ~3-6 encounters in a day. This seems like exactly what you want, and is allowed in the Adventuring Day, so there's no problem here.
Edit: And again, you'd always be able to return to the previous camp if you do need a rest. But the *very slight* punishment would incentivize players to push on, maybe conserve resources more, strategize more in combats. Idk that sounds like more interesting gameplay to me. (and again again, if players are finding ^ too difficult they can just lower the difficulty)

Last edited by mrfuji3; 20/02/22 05:33 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by GM4Him
We're not even asking for hard restrictions. Just something to discourage abuse and encourage not abusing.
Something that incidentally could be easily side-stepped at lower level of difficulty or through modding, by the way.

But no, let's make the game significantly worse and more imbalanced for everyone for the sake of these people who really, really don't like to be denied the "I WIN" button on a silver plate.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by JandK
It's a much better analogy.
Agreed ...


Originally Posted by mrfuji3
we don't know how many encounters Larian intended for us to fight before resting.
True we werent told ...
But we kinda do know, since after some time our characters starts to complain that they want to rest ... observe that for a while and you can discover some pattern there.

My personal guess is that its tied to real time and not amount of encounters at all.


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
But we kinda do know [how many encounters Larian expects us to fight before resting], since after some time our characters starts to complain that they want to rest ... observe that for a while and you can discover some pattern there.

My personal guess is that its tied to real time and not amount of encounters at all.
What I've heard is that these voice barks are/were used to express that a companion has new dialogue. I dislike that implementation, but it makes a bit of sense. Voice barks tied to real time, however, is super useless.

I would be in favor of voice barks where characters express tiredness after X encounters/events or you reach Y new locations.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
I would be in favor of voice barks where characters express tiredness after X encounters/events or you reach Y new locations.
Yeah that would make more sense ...


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Right. I hate how characters will say they are tired and needed to call it a day when you haven't even done anything. Oh I fought a few goblins. I guess I need to take a nap.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
I allways felt like this is yet another effect of map being actualy a lot biger than we see ...

I mean, if there would be some "traveling" animation between fallen Nautiloid and Druid Grove ... and some tooltip would say to us that we just spend 8h traveling through the forest ...
Nobody would raise even eyebrow. laugh


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Page 20 of 32 1 2 18 19 20 21 22 31 32

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