Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

i found two longswords of action +4

245

Comments

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    edited November 2014
    RAM021 said:

    Is it really such a problem to find the second sword in the last 5% of the game?

    No it is not, but it is also clear he does not really know what he is talking about either... so no biggie :\
    i don't have an obligation to be correct but you have an obligation not to flamebait and disparage other people. at least i'm trying to contribute something meaningful to the best of my knowledge and ability

    @Abel
    they *are* supposed to. level 9 is the required level to go there and it's perfectly doable at that level since you get tons of exp doing the sidequests

    @Lord_Tansheron‌
    beamdog should not make the game much more imbalanced, they should keep the challenge level similar to the original. this isn't a good change on a very fundamental level.

    @Sed
    IWD was a very cheese-free game and frankly seemed much more carefully designed in terms of tactics than bg2 (since it's mostly a tactical game after all). These changes compromise this.

    you all should remember that two wrongs don't make one right and that pointing to a problem isn't worthless because there are also other problems. as long as something can be easily solved such as this (just move the 2nd sword from HoW to a later point in the IWD campaign) it should be regarded as an actual issue.
    there might be arguments to the contrary but you're not presenting real arguments in my view.

    elminsterKenjiineth
  • AbelAbel Member Posts: 716
    I get what you mean, but...

    If Beamdog somehow decides to remove the LSoA, it's a design decision that, for balance reason, must concern the whole game. So, if you decide to do so, because it precisely imbalances the game, then you must coherently do the same for all other contents that have at least the same effect.

    That was my point in my previous message. If you compare LSoA to some spells or some combinations like the well known Web + Ring of Free Action, then the former problem seems like a non issue.

    So, if LSoA is removed, that wouldn't be coherent not to remove or modify the spells, abilities, etc. that have way more balance breaking potential.

    That's why you can't just change things like this. You have to think globally and apply the same policy to every aspect of the game.

    Developers are also trying to be very faithful to the original plans. So, unless it's a bug, there won't be any tweaks or rebalancing. This is the domain of mods.

    RAM021jackjackJuliusBorisov
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    edited November 2014
    they don't *have to* do anything. their contractual obligation to the customer is fulfilled.

    what they *should* do is provide reasonable support and response to people's feedback especially in regard to some finer aspects and polish which often gets neglected during beta testing because during that stage more serious issues usually arise and have to be dealt with.

    this is one of those finer points but it's still really important in my opinion.

    the biggest reason why it is a good feature request for a future patch is because it's so easy to do - just a small alteration will fix this imbalance.

    devs already stated that original items are not to be altered (which is not what happened in bg2 but okay, i won't push that point) - well they can at least be moved right? it's as simple as that.

    edit: so to restate and emphasise - instead of removing it (i haven't seriously advocated that in this thread btw) just *move* it

  • SedSed Member Posts: 788
    edited November 2014
    bob_veng said:


    @Sed
    IWD was a very cheese-free game and frankly seemed much more carefully designed in terms of tactics than bg2 (since it's mostly a tactical game after all). These changes compromise this.

    But if you have read the replies from the devs you will see that the two swords are in there from the start, and were so in the original. You are the one asking for a change...
    I prefer to leave the game as it is :)

    RAM021elminsterjackjack
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    edited November 2014
    @Sed
    i admit to that, i was in error when i said that one of them was restored content and i stand corrected

    but the problem still remains

    the game is not "as it is" because of dual wielding. this is a radical alteration and some small adjustment should be made to restore the spirit of the original.

    i want the game to be more as it was in a fundamental rather than superficial way, do you get what i'm saying?

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    many (i'd dare say most) people including me don't want to be bound by such self-made improvised restrictions.

    it's okay to come up with some restrictions outside of the gameworld. for example i don't do endless rerolls and i don't minmax on party creation but once you are in the gameworld such conscious interventions on your own playing experience are something i don't feel comfortable with. it ruins immersion and feels like another kind of cheesy self-gratification.

    "wow i'm so disciplined i can make up provisional rules and obey them!"

    one can easily reduce your reasoning to an absurd situation where there are no desirables and undesirables in designing a game and everything's left to players improvisation.

  • RamzaRamza Member Posts: 111
    What is unbalancing about two long swords of action?

    In the original a Ranger got an extra APR for not using a shield with a one handed weapon. If he was using the given sword, he'd still get 4.5 APR. 1 base + 1 from warrior levels + 1/2 spec +1 dual wield + 1 weapon. The only thing added by dual wielding them is it would go up an extra 1/2 per round (because 5 APR is the max). But this was already achievable through the gauntlets or the ring.

    RAM021elminsterjackjack
  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 393
    bob_veng said:

    RAM021 said:

    Is it really such a problem to find the second sword in the last 5% of the game?

    No it is not, but it is also clear he does not really know what he is talking about either... so no biggie :\
    i don't have an obligation to be correct but you have an obligation not to flamebait and disparage other people. at least i'm trying to contribute something meaningful to the best of my knowledge and ability
    It is quite clear that in this thread you are not. One could go so far as to claim that demanding nerfs be inflicted upon everyone is the definition of trolling...
    bob_veng said:


    IWD was a very cheese-free game and frankly seemed much more carefully designed in terms of tactics than bg2 (since it's mostly a tactical game after all). These changes compromise this.

    Cheese free? While we grant you that there does not seem to be any dairy in the game, the original was anything but a "very cheese-free game".
    bob_veng said:


    you all should remember that two wrongs don't make one right and that pointing to a problem isn't worthless because there are also other problems. as long as something can be easily solved such as this (just move the 2nd sword from HoW to a later point in the IWD campaign) it should be regarded as an actual issue.

    However three lefts do make a right! Regardless, it is not a problem and therefore, it need not be solved.
    bob_veng said:

    there might be arguments to the contrary but you're not presenting real arguments in my view.

    You have effectively stated that no argument is real in your view: either we must agree with your indignation or we are wrong. Does not leave much in the way of leeway in this debate...
    bob_veng said:


    beamdog should not make the game much more imbalanced, they should keep the challenge level similar to the original. this isn't a good change on a very fundamental level.

    Now here you have an actual point worth debating, and a very interesting one at that. If we accept that IWD:EE would only be done using the EE Infinity Engine, then where does that leave us?

    Certainly one option would have been to remove the new classes & kits, and while that would probably help maintain balance closer to the original we are skeptical it would have accomplished that goal very well. There are simply too many other differences between the engines. Also that then begs the question of the class/kit balance in BG... which is an entirely crazy can of worms to open! Of course, even without the kits you can still make very powerful characters in the original: insane 29/30 dual-classes and 30/30(/30) multi-classes!

    One place we feel that there was significant room for improvement was in caster AI: all these great new spells (which would not have been able to be added if the original balance was to be maintained) and they barely use them, and even then only in response to player actions. Sure we can appreciate that BG2 is arcane duel heavy, but as there are not massive numbers of mages in IWD would it have been so bad to have them be comparable challenges?

    Indeed, some IWD flavour has been maintained (Grandmastery for instance) and it impacts the BG class/kit balance!

    Overall, we think they have done a fairly good job, but lean the opposite direction and would have preferred that IWD:EE get the full BG1:EE treatment and have a single engine experience across all three games.

    We are interested in hearing your thoughts and suggestions on this matter.

    Abel
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    edited November 2014
    Ramza said:

    What is unbalancing about two long swords of action?

    In the original a Ranger got an extra APR for not using a shield with a one handed weapon. If he was using the given sword, he'd still get 4.5 APR. 1 base + 1 from warrior levels + 1/2 spec +1 dual wield + 1 weapon. The only thing added by dual wielding them is it would go up an extra 1/2 per round (because 5 APR is the max). But this was already achievable through the gauntlets or the ring.

    good observation. the differences go like this:

    1. fighter instead of ranger - with longsword grandmastery this means a difference of: +2 thaco and +3 dmg
    2. now you can have 5 apr even with only +1/2 apr from lvl 7 warrior (not +1 apr from warrior levels like you mention). this is important because players can go to HoW as soon as level 9 and fight the luremaster and/or icasaracht some time before they reach level 13.
    3. the second weapon gives you +15% slashing resist and +1 ac
    4. the ring is found later, after HoW


    so in total, in a scenario that i describe (go to HoW sooner rather than later which is recommended anyway in order to get spells for your mage) the score is:

    +2 thaco
    +3 dmg
    +1 apr
    +1 AC
    +15% slashing resistance

    this means 10 attacks instead of 8 with improved haste. if you count one average fighter attack as 20 dmg, that's 40 and there's 10x+3 from grandmastery over spec difference
    70 dmg is gross damage increase per round and it's positively affected by the to hit chance increase (figures importantly in this part of the game especially).

    30% slashing resist from both blades is much more useful than 15% on two characters.

    all this translates to spectral guards being incredibly easy where earlier they were incredibly hard.

    a small change to physical damage mechanics goes a long way in this game.

  • ZyzzogetonZyzzogeton Member Posts: 526

    beamdog should not make the game much more imbalanced, they should keep the challenge level similar to the original. this isn't a good change on a very fundamental level.
    Let's not pretend the BG and IWD games weren't incredibly easy to cheese.

    The challenge level is similar. Having 50 game breakers instead of 25 doesn't mean an easier game.

    RAM021jackjack
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    iwd wasn't incredibly easy to cheese on standard difficulty. it wasn't super hard but it was sorta hard.

  • ZyzzogetonZyzzogeton Member Posts: 526
    5 Multiclass Fighters
    1 Bard

    RAM021
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    stop it pls. this is a serious discussion

  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 393
  • ZyzzogetonZyzzogeton Member Posts: 526
    You seriously think 5 Fighters with access to buffs and debuffs from Mage and Cleric spellbooks and a Bard giving them constant regen didn't break IWD's difficulty to pieces?

    People did HoF with fresh parties with pretty much minimal difficulty (past the early game) Difficulty in IWD is a joke for anyone who doesn't limit themselves.

    RAM021
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    even with 5 multiclassed fighters it was still sort of unpleasant in some places, especially if you'd play it for the first time. remorhaz fire instakill for example or totl final battle.
    nowadays new players won't experience some of the original difficulty spikes the proper way.

  • DarkcloudDarkcloud Member Posts: 302
    How random are the drops anyway? I thought it was mostly some points where there is a chance between two different magical items.

  • ZyzzogetonZyzzogeton Member Posts: 526
    You mean like how players back then finished the IWD campaign without going into HoW because it was released over half a year later?

    If we're going to talk about playing the game "properly" and "originally" HoW should be done after IWD not in the middle because that's how players "originally" experienced it.

    RAM021
  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 393
    bob_veng said:

    even with 5 multiclassed fighters it was still sort of unpleasant in some places

    Well 5 Ftr => Thieves dualed after the point of no recovery was probably not a wise move... Curse that nefarious 1.8 million XP cap!

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259


    If we're going to talk about playing the game "properly" and "originally" HoW should be done after IWD not in the middle because that's how players "originally" experienced it.

    it's not the only way to play it, but going to how as soon as you can is something that many people have done for years. it's intuitive for players of rpg games to do available sidequests before proceeding with the main quest. heart of winter really just features as a big sidequest.

  • ZyzzogetonZyzzogeton Member Posts: 526
    it's not the only way to play it,
    Having to use game breakers is not the only way to play it.
    but going to how as soon as you can is something that many people have done for years.
    People who don't like game breakers have been ignoring game breakers for years too.
    it's intuitive for players of rpg games to do available sidequests before proceeding with the main quest. heart of winter really just features as a big sidequest.
    You mean like how it's intuitive for people who don't like games becoming too easy to avoid things that make the game too easy?

    RAM021
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    please you are dilluting the discussion with repeating this same point i have fully responded to on this very page. this is not a philosophical topic, it's all really just about an item.

    jackjack
  • ZyzzogetonZyzzogeton Member Posts: 526
    Which the player has the option of not using.

    Removing one randomly dropped game breaker would mean removing every game breaker. It's pointless to remove the second Long Sword of Action because it makes the game easy but leave the ability to create a party of multi class Fighters.

    RAM021
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    you do't have to persuade me, i don't make any decisions you depend on.
    an online forum is not a democracy. i've stated my opinion and criticism of this edition of the game, you disagree, i agree to disagree and i've moved on, why can't you?

    the point you are pushing is really off-topic. you shouldn't try to dilute the discussion in rhethorical questions and abstract ruminations about how people experience games. it's an immature passive aggressive strategy to relativise the other side's position.

    Gotural
  • ZyzzogetonZyzzogeton Member Posts: 526
    Because you think the game only "begins" after characters are rolled?

    It does not. The game had already begun when characters are being rolled. Designing a party and setting limits to what the player is doing is as much part of the game as limiting what items to use or not.

    And you're limiting your discussion to some subset of players who are somehow incapable of breaking immersion for a few seconds and shrugging it off without any real data that every player who gives a crap about immersion is like that.

    RAM021
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    The character creation screen is not a part of the gameworld. it is a certain stage of the game, yes - but it's not a part of the game's fictional reality.

    It's an abstraction of the fictional reality's past - what your created characters have been doing all their lives is reflected in the stats and abilities that you choose and roll.

    But you don't get to experience and immerse into this via the game as a medium because the game doesn't feature this in a substantive way, it only abstracts it. You might also do the same thing on paper or in your head. the medium here is actually the abstract RPG ruleset, not the concrete CRPG product - you might feel otherwise, but whatever immersion happens in this phase is all a part of the players imagination and not the game itself.

    So this experience doesn't pertain to features of the presented, current gameworld in terms of what it's supposed to provide to the player.

Sign In or Register to comment.