|
Wizard Styles posted:
Nothing about that makes me happy.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Can someone explain to me why you would pick a low-pen weapon? Because even if you fiddle with the enemy armor values, as long as one point of pen makes the difference between 100% and 30% or 130% that's never going to seem like a good idea to me. Sure, you can cast Expose Vulnerability or what-have-you, but a) the time and spell slot used to cast that could be used to cast something else and b) Expose Vulnerability can miss or expire, at which point you're back to being useless. True, casting Expose benefits your entire party, but that's true whether your weapon is low-pen or high-pen; the difference is that for high-pen weapons it's an optional strategy to increase your damage, whereas with low-pen it's basically mandatory if you want to deal any reasonable amount of damage. What theoretical benefit could low-pen weapons provide to make up for the fact that they're inherently unreliable? Sabers deal +20% damage to some enemies... and -50% to others. Am I the only one that thinks that's a really bad tradeoff? I mean, unless enemies with even moderate armor are vanishingly rare, and in which case why even have the system?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Random rear end in a top hat posted:Can someone explain to me why you would pick a low-pen weapon? Because even if you fiddle with the enemy armor values, as long as one point of pen makes the difference between 100% and 30% or 130% that's never going to seem like a good idea to me. Sure, you can cast Expose Vulnerability or what-have-you, but a) the time and spell slot used to cast that could be used to cast something else and b) Expose Vulnerability can miss or expire, at which point you're back to being useless. True, casting Expose benefits your entire party, but that's true whether your weapon is low-pen or high-pen; the difference is that for high-pen weapons it's an optional strategy to increase your damage, whereas with low-pen it's basically mandatory if you want to deal any reasonable amount of damage. What theoretical benefit could low-pen weapons provide to make up for the fact that they're inherently unreliable? Sabers deal +20% damage to some enemies... and -50% to others. Am I the only one that thinks that's a really bad tradeoff? I mean, unless enemies with even moderate armor are vanishingly rare, and in which case why even have the system? there are tons of armor values. very rarely will you find an enemy that has high defenses for pierce blunt fire frost etc all at the same time armor types are generally really good at 1-2 defenses and shite at the others as long as you have a blunt weapon and a pointy weapon you're probably gonna do OK
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:I think trying to cater to both the "wanna date an elf" and the "wanna date a combat-spreadsheet" is never going to make either group happy in the end. Isn't this why we have Bioware on one side and Obsidian on the other? I'm only half joking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:I think that just proves that there was an untapped (at the time) market for "date an elf" games, these days there are any number of them on the market. Have you considered the possibility that the fanbase for these games specifically plays them because they do the thing you don’t want them to do, both combat emphasis and story? For the vast majority of Obsidians fanbase story is the biggest draw. Yet they also like CRPG combat. For many of us that’s because investment in one enhances the other. You’ve made it abundantly clear you don’t share that perspective but when you consider that that’s the majority position in the fanbase it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that things aren’t going the way you’d want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:There isn't really a lot of options for "tactical-lite, iso-view squad-based combat" out there so it's kinda frustrating to see a series that I really enjoyed moving in a direction I am less interested in. I genuinely don't get the point of "tactical-lite." Tactical-lite sounds like Action RPG to me, there's a whole category for that. And it's good sometimes, it's fine it exists. One day you'll see the light and go tactical-heavy and realize PoE PotD and XCOM2 Commander difficulty are the only true beacons of light in the otherwise morose video game landscape.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Meyers-Briggs Testicle posted:there are tons of armor values. very rarely will you find an enemy that has high defenses for pierce blunt fire frost etc all at the same time Same question though: Why would I want to have two low-pen weapons and have to switch between them when I can have one high-pen one that's actually reliable and doesn't require switching?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
I like great stories and and worlds and exploring them in ways beyond littering the ground with corpses. I always find that the most interesting part of tabletop role playing games are when you use your characters abilities in ways that aren't strictly related to combat. I also like having a challenging combat system, however, that rewards me for looking at and using the numbers to my advantage. I would prefer if Pillars did both. Pillars 1 was definitely towards the combat side but Deadfire seems to be adding at least some possibilities for interesting things to do outside of combat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
yeah, I mean I think the point ropekid was trying to make with the mandela effect post was that contemporaneously we had baldur’s gate, which you’re more critical of, and icewind dale, which is more in line with what you’re describing. one of the two still has a very loud, active, and engaged audience. there other is reflected well upon when it comes up, but doesn’t have the fandom of the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Furism posted:I genuinely don't get the point of "tactical-lite." Tactical-lite sounds like Action RPG to me, there's a whole category for that. And it's good sometimes, it's fine it exists. I meant "tactics-lite" in comparison to like Advanced Squad Leader and computer games trying for that kind of experience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Random rear end in a top hat posted:Same question though: Why would I want to have two low-pen weapons and have to switch between them when I can have one high-pen one that's actually reliable and doesn't require switching? because it won't be high pen against everything plus ideally low pen weapons will deal more damage to compensate. You'll be high and mighty with your 9 pen spear which is perfectly fine for most encounters, until you go up against an enemy with high pierce defense, which is the 10% of the time you switch
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Wizard Styles posted:Also: *boos loudly*
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Meyers-Briggs Testicle posted:because it won't be high pen against everything plus ideally low pen weapons will deal more damage to compensate. You'll be high and mighty with your 9 pen spear which is perfectly fine for most encounters, until you go up against an enemy with high pierce defense, which is the 10% of the time you switch Okay, but if I need an offhand weapon I would still pick a high-pen one, because what if the enemy I'm fighting has high pierce resist but also moderate crush resist? Not to argue in a circle here, but why would I pick a low-pen weapon over a high-pen one, for either slot? Random Asshole fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Nov 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Random rear end in a top hat posted:Okay, but if I need an offhand weapon I would still pick a high-pen one, because what if the enemy I'm fighting has high pierce resist but also moderate crush resist? Not to argue in a circle here, but why would I pick a low-pen weapon over a high-pen one, for either slot? Different modals or riders presumably. Not in the beta, but if they have different actives like buffs or debuffs they can inflict that could matter a lot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Random rear end in a top hat posted:Okay, but if I need an offhand weapon I would still pick a high-pen one, because what if the enemy I'm fighting has high pierce resist but also moderate crush resist? Not to argue in a circle here, but why would I pick a low-pen weapon over a high-pen one, for either slot? Because it seems far more efficient to go with one high Pen/low damage and one low Pen/high damage weapon than two high Pen/low damage ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Meyers-Briggs Testicle posted:because it won't be high pen against everything plus ideally low pen weapons will deal more damage to compensate. You'll be high and mighty with your 9 pen spear which is perfectly fine for most encounters, until you go up against an enemy with high pierce defense, which is the 10% of the time you switch That's not any different that running into an enemy with immune to pierce in POE1. I think the main question is more along the line of dagger vs stilletto or great sword vs estoc. Why would you go for the weapon with less penetration within the same weapon group? If the only answer that some enemies will have high armor vs pierce or whatever then the choice becomes using two low pen weapons and switching often or having a high pen pierce main weapon and a high pen crush weapon as a backup and only needing to switch on a rare occasion. Both of those scenarios suck. I don't want to be restricted in the weapons my characters use just because I don't want to be switching weapons mid-fight all of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Furism posted:Isn't this why we have Bioware on one side and Obsidian on the other? I'm only half joking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Couple random questions: Has anyone here tried the Defense-lowering weapon modals to apply Afflictions more reliably? Could be good on a Barbarian. Has anyone, ever, for any reason, used Cleaving Stance? It seems incredibly niche. Wildrhymers: sassy pose because it's objectively the best or stoic for the b-boy stance? Wizard Styles fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Nov 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
CFox posted:That's not any different that running into an enemy with immune to pierce in POE1. I think the main question is more along the line of dagger vs stilletto or great sword vs estoc. Why would you go for the weapon with less penetration within the same weapon group? If the only answer that some enemies will have high armor vs pierce or whatever then the choice becomes using two low pen weapons and switching often or having a high pen pierce main weapon and a high pen crush weapon as a backup and only needing to switch on a rare occasion. Both of those scenarios suck. I don't want to be restricted in the weapons my characters use just because I don't want to be switching weapons mid-fight all of the time. why do both scenarios suck though you're asking for every weapon to be good in every scenario and that's explicitly what this is meant to prevent. I played through all of POE1 on veteran without switching weapons at all ever. The point is for you the player to do a bit of thinking and compare the advantages of armor pen vs. the added damage from a low pen high dps weapon. If the enemy has armor 6 and your high pen is 9, you're still doing 1x damage. If your low pen is 4 you can swap to it to still do 1x damage but more of it. That means you can still faceroll with one weapon but if you're an uberelite on potd you would want to switch.  I dunno man
mbt fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Nov 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Zore posted:Different modals or riders presumably. Not in the beta, but if they have different actives like buffs or debuffs they can inflict that could matter a lot. But that doesn't remotely seem worth the cost of potentially not being able to damage an enemy. For example, the enemy has 14 Pierce armor or whatever and my Exceptional Estoc can't properly damage him, so I switch to my Exceptional Club... except he has 8 Crush armor, so it's useless too. So then I have to debuff him, which is a pretty big opportunity cost for my wizard or whoever, that isn't guaranteed to work... or I could just use a Mace instead, which is much more likely to be able to actually damage enemies that my main-hand can't. Samuel Clemens posted:Because it seems far more efficient to go with one high Pen/low damage and one low Pen/high damage weapon than two high Pen/low damage ones. A 'high-damage' low-pen weapon isn't high damage if it doesn't penetrate. Like I said in my post above, the saber does %20 extra damage to some enemies, and %50 less when it can't penetrate. The magic number in the Beta seems to be 8 pen, which means you need a Superior Sabre to beat the typical enemies' slash armor. Without that, you have to debuff their armor... which nullifies the saber's benefit, because while it starts dealing it's %120 damage, high-pen weapons have started over-penetrating and dealing %130. It's not a better option without debuffing, and it's not a better option with debuffing. Meyers-Briggs Testicle posted:why do both scenarios suck though Because we've turned low-pen weapons into trap options, when I thought one of the main design goals was to remove those? Edit: Meyers-Briggs Testicle posted:If the enemy has armor 6 and your high pen is 9, you're still doing 1x damage. Minor quibble, but wouldn't you be over-penetrating and doing 1.3x damage at that point? Random Asshole fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Nov 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
After reading this thread these last days I don't know if I'm gonna love or hate actually having to constantly pay attention to my Weapons/Armor now I liked rushing to get Tidefall and not have to change weapons ever again on some characters...
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
I don't want every weapon to be good in every scenario, every weapon should have a niche, but the penalty from failing to meet or beat penetration right now is so severe that it does strongly encourage you to focus on high penetration weapons. It doesn't really matter if theoretically that dagger does 20-40% more dps than a stiletto if that dagger is suffering from low penetration half the time while the stiletto does full damage 90% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Proposed change; Change the way penetration works so that weapons do normal damage when not penetrating armor and 3x damage when penetrating. Triple enemy HP. I guarantee most people would be fine with that. I think a lot of this is a psychological thing where hitting for less damage than normal 'feels bad'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Zore posted:Triple enemy HP.  that poo poo was annoying as gently caress in Tyranny and I don't want to see it ever again
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Zore posted:Proposed change; So instead of trying to actually demonstrate that this change makes sense mathmatically, you're going to be an rear end in a top hat? Okay, sure! I'm super convinced now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Wizard Styles posted:Couple random questions: I've been using cleaving stance on my fighter barbarian mace guy whose sole job is spreading the mace debuff around. More hits = better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Random rear end in a top hat posted:So instead of trying to actually demonstrate that this change makes sense mathmatically, you're going to be an rear end in a top hat? Okay, sure! I'm super convinced now. The change to the math makes it work out very similarly to how it does now with 2 important changes. 1; it makes the 'not-penetrating' the baseline and penetration a bonus instead of the norm. 2; it slightly increases the amount of damage you do when not penetrating compared to penetrating. I wasn't being an rear end in a top hat when I said how something 'feels' is important. People planning around trying to get a buff instead of negating a debuff is a huge thing. Like imagine in Pillars 1 if, instead of casting a +accuracy buff, you had to cast a spell to counteract negative accuracy debuffs to consistently hit certain targets like the Adra Dragon. It'd feel pretty lovely even if the math was identical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Random rear end in a top hat posted:
You might want to use the weapon for it's modal. For example pikes lower deflection, and maces lower enemy armor. . . .oh wai As the math stands now from what I can tell stacking penetration is the dominant strat, you're correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
I've been reading this thread with one eyebrow skeptically raised ever since the beta dropped. Having to do constant inventory juggling, or "Woops, you forgot to pack a weapon that deal X damage, time to reload now" sort of situations doesn't sound all that appealing to me. Right now I'm hoping that having to optimize for the penetration system is only required on the higher difficulties and on Normal I will be able to get away with doing stuff that's not optimal, but still cool like I did in PoE1. I mean, I will spend hours trying weapon, shield, armour, hat combinations to find the one that's perfect. Don't make me switch armors.  Please think of the Fashion.Speaking of fashion: Will wearing a hat still make you bald in Deadfire?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Zore posted:The change to the math makes it work out very similarly to how it does now with 2 important changes. But it hasn't actually changed anything, because with enemies having triple the HP the game is still balanced around getting the penetration bonus. The only way this changes is if you make enemies WAY less lethal to compensate for doing the same to players, and then you've just made fights three times longer. And you still haven't addressed my issue with the whole system, which is that there doesn't seem to be a compelling mechanical reason to use low-pen weapons over high-pen ones. Edit: I do want to apologize for calling you an rear end in a top hat though. That was uncalled for. Random Asshole fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Nov 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
ydwinmancers of the world unite
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Raygereio posted:Speaking of fashion: Will wearing a hat still make you bald in Deadfire? you very carefully tuck your hair up under the hat and shave your hair below the hat
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
that said, we're all bitching about armor and penetration but once they get some good explanations of how the afflictions work i don't think there's anything else im super concerned about
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:Defining themselves as a corrective to Bioware, as many fans want, would be extremely limiting for Obsidian, commercially and creatively I don't think that's what I said or implied. Like, gourmet chefs are not correctives of McDonald's, to make a (very hyperbolic) comparison. It's two different things that can serve two different purposes and people can go to both depending on what they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
I think there's a large gap to exploit between "you can develop a romance between your PC and a companion character" and "this is a dating sim game."
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Furism posted:I don't think that's what I said or implied. Cold I'd have gone with like "you can like Italian food one night and want a Mexican-style meal on another" or something
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I think there's a large gap to exploit between "you can develop a romance between your PC and a companion character" and "this is a dating sim game." Yeah but it lets me act smug and superior if I act like maybe 2% of game content is it’s entire raison d’etre. Any inclusion whatsoever is full scale surrender to the hated Other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Yeah but it lets me act smug and superior if I act like maybe 2% of game content is it’s entire raison d’etre. This is bad news for anyone replaying Baldur's Gate 2
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I think there's a large gap to exploit between "you can develop a romance between your PC and a companion character" and "this is a dating sim game." I'd like at least some kind of long-term character development in the party, romance or otherwise. Ending slides are cool, but I'd like to not just see Bob turn from idealistic farm boy into a battle-hardened war veteran, but also have some time to pal around with said war veteran, for example. Turn Alice the shy thief into a confident conwoman, and have that reflected in her combat barks and incidental dialogue, that kind of thing. Edér post and past finding out about his brother doesn't seem all that different to me. I mean, the whole drat reason I play and look forward to Obsidian games is the narrative- otherwise I might as well play a hack-and-slash or something. Not knocking those games or their fans, but that's not what I look for in an RPG. Also, I think the thinking that a narrative would somehow draw resources from the people thinking about combat calculations is somewhat overdramatic, unless one thinks that they're the same people. EDIT: With regards to weapons and Pen, how difficult would it be to implement a 'familiarity' system similar to how soulbound weapons worked, but instead of specific weapons it's weapon types? Every 10 enemies you kill with a Greatsword you get a perk, the first X-1 being generic perks like +Damage, +Pen etc. and the final being a unique bonus, like the Greatsword doing an AoE (and increasing a barbarian's AoE), a blunderbuss getting a proper cone attack, that style of thing? CommissarMega fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Nov 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Bongwizzard is an insane person who has been given a plethora of games that would completely fit their whole weird schtick, and they refuse to look into any of them because all they actually do is hang out here and whine that interpersonal relationships exist. You can honestly stop taking them seriously. Piercing (which is waaaay better a name then penetration for this) and armor and damage largely feels like it's going to come down to the numbers being involved. If a non-piercing weapon ends up doing less damage then a piercing weapon even against an enemy they can pierce the armor of, then just about all non-piercing weapons were just made pretty dang obsolete in ways they were in PoE1. If enemies throughout the game have high enough armor that low piercing weapons or even "medium" piercing weapons can't penetrate them, then you've again made a lot of stuff obsolete. Though again it's worth knowing that this isn't all being compared to a single number. Some guys are going to be good against bashing club weapons, some good against piercing weapons, and if PoE 1 taught me anything, loving everything good against slashing weapons. This isn't a bad thing - it means the dual type weapons are more viable in a much more visible way - but it does add yet more complexity. One last thing I will note is that this actually plays into the whole "not all classes have access to weapon fighting styles." Consider: if most characters do not have access to specifically "two weapon fighting" and the like, that means you cannot specialize in that fighting style, which yes is bad for customization, but it also means you have way more reason to mix up your weapon types and have, say, your two sabers in one slot, and then just a pike in the other, without worrying about wasting your specialization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2017 23:08
|
|
