As for the argument that bug fixes were essentially cancelled because of nostalgia, that's nonsense. The bug here was an inconsistency between the Oil of Speed's description and mechanics. Changing either of the two to be consistent with the other fixes the bug. The bug is fixed either way.
that's true. i hope everyone understands that.
Except that this fix isn't consistent with original functionality.
As for the argument that bug fixes were essentially cancelled because of nostalgia, that's nonsense. The bug here was an inconsistency between the Oil of Speed's description and mechanics. Changing either of the two to be consistent with the other fixes the bug. The bug is fixed either way.
that's true. i hope everyone understands that.
Except that this fix isn't consistent with original functionality.
doesn't mean that it's not a fix
Its not, they didn't fix the potion. They changed the description text, so that it matches the bugged item. Choosing to keep a bug, and fixing one are two different things.
As for the argument that bug fixes were essentially cancelled because of nostalgia, that's nonsense. The bug here was an inconsistency between the Oil of Speed's description and mechanics. Changing either of the two to be consistent with the other fixes the bug. The bug is fixed either way.
that's true. i hope everyone understands that.
Except that this fix isn't consistent with original functionality.
doesn't mean that it's not a fix
Its not, they didn't fix the potion. They changed the description text, so that it matches the bugged item. Choosing to keep a bug, and fixing one are two different things.
Beamdog has changed quite a lot in the game compared to vanilla. I should know, I keep embarrassingly dorky lists about it. What makes you think this particular change is a bug and not an intended change?
As for the argument that bug fixes were essentially cancelled because of nostalgia, that's nonsense. The bug here was an inconsistency between the Oil of Speed's description and mechanics. Changing either of the two to be consistent with the other fixes the bug. The bug is fixed either way.
that's true. i hope everyone understands that.
Except that this fix isn't consistent with original functionality.
doesn't mean that it's not a fix
Its not, they didn't fix the potion. They changed the description text, so that it matches the bugged item. Choosing to keep a bug, and fixing one are two different things.
Beamdog has changed quite a lot in the game compared to vanilla. I should know, I keep embarrassingly dorky lists about it. What makes you think this particular change is a bug and not an intended change?
Because Beamdog DID fix it in the beta until people complained about it.
Because Beamdog DID fix it in the beta until people complained about it.
No, they change it to the BG1 behavior and then revert it to the BG2 behavior. The beta is there to collect feedback from player and based on it, Beamdog choose the BG2 behavior.
As for the argument that bug fixes were essentially cancelled because of nostalgia, that's nonsense. The bug here was an inconsistency between the Oil of Speed's description and mechanics. Changing either of the two to be consistent with the other fixes the bug. The bug is fixed either way.
that's true. i hope everyone understands that.
Except that this fix isn't consistent with original functionality.
doesn't mean that it's not a fix
Its not, they didn't fix the potion. They changed the description text, so that it matches the bugged item. Choosing to keep a bug, and fixing one are two different things.
fixing the text is a certifiable way to fix a bug, it's been done a lot before. the item is not bugged in that it works as described and as intended. it doesn't work the way you'd intend it to, but it objectively works in some way so it's not a bug thing anymore. also the underlying technical workings of this issue are not that of a bug. technically everything is coherent and stable.
Let's not forget that the balance circumstances of vanilla BG1 and BG:EE are quite different. Perhaps the most relevant difference in this instance is the fact that BG:EE has dual-wielding, while vBG1 did not. Knowing Beamdog's past design choices and philosophy, considerations like that probably played a much larger role in their decision to revert the Oil of Speed change than what was closer to vanilla behavior.
[...] In this case given the widespread placement of the item, its already powerful effects, its common availability in stores, its price, and the fact that it's already one of the most used items in combat, made us believe that the best approach is to leave the item effects as they are and update the description to make it accurate.
And here's another thing to consider. In the vanilla games, the Oil of Speed was always mechanically tied to the Haste spell effect:
In BG1, the Oil of Speed doubles the attack rate, and so does Haste.
In BG2, the Oil of Speed gives +1 APR, and so does Haste.
Are you also in favor of reverting the Haste spell to its original behavior? Should it also give the whole party double APR, like it did in vBG1? If so, what would be the point of Improved Haste?
Or are you arguing that the Oil of Speed should give the user the Improved Haste effect instead of regular Haste? Because when you frame it that way, it doesn't sound like a bug fix at all.
@Adul "Are you also in favor of reverting the Haste spell to its original behavior? Should it also give the whole party double APR, like it did in vBG1? If so, what would be the point of Improved Haste?"
Actually yes, I'm totally down for that. And just completely remove Improved Haste. Its only single target, and its level is too high to memorize enough for the party. The slot is better used for something else.
the thing with pnp haste is that the harsh penalty for using it hasn't been replicated so at the time of bg2 it has been rebalanced and split into two spells so to speak, one that's AoE and weaker and another that's single target and stronger. lvl3 haste that doubles apr is too powerful without this penalty. since BG:EE uses a modified BG2 engine, this refinement has been carried over.
i understand you don't like it, but it's working as intended. and it's not beamdog's idea, it's an original bg2 idea. to change bg:ee spells and oil of speed back to bg1 would cause a weird discrepancy now.
Well, if you're using it on a character with high enough base APR, Improved Haste is like Greater Whirlwind, except it lasts for up to 2 minutes. It's an incredibly powerful spell. A party-wide version of that would be pure steamroll juice.
Then swap the spells. Have the level 3 spell single target haste with double apr (people keep claiming that at bg levels double apr doesn't mean as much anyway), and have the higher level version be party wide.
@ThacoBell Could you clarify the reason behind this change? It just sounds like "I want MOAR power!". While, yes, it is a single player game, it's still no fun if certain tactics and spells are vastly overpowered in comparison to other tactics and spells available at the same level, because that makes it hard to balance interesting and challenging encounters against both parties with and without the vastly overpowered abilities.
Haste has always been a major issue. 3.0 Haste was also vastly OP. It was nerfed hard in 3.5 and still by far the best core buff spell. 5.0 nerfed it hard again, and it's still a pretty good spell. Having a measly level 3 spell copy the effects of a HLA, but then partywide, and much longer, does not sound like a good idea.
Then swap the spells. Have the level 3 spell single target haste with double apr (people keep claiming that at bg levels double apr doesn't mean as much anyway), and have the higher level version be party wide.
To me it doesn't really matter what was, what matters is what should be and it shouldn't be possible to get 6 APR in BG1EE with all the added dmg from skills/class (ie rage, archer, kensai), mastery and STR. It's way, way too high for BG1.
I'm sure BioWare had these same balance discussions as they were developing the games. The fact that they nerfed Haste in BG2 suggests that they came to the conclusion that the party-wide double attack rate of Haste was overpowered.
Of course, you can still argue if you think Haste and the Oil of Speed should work like they did in BG1, that's fine. Everyone has their opinions. But the bottom line is, BG:EE using the BG2 Haste mechanics instead of the BG1 mechanics is is not a bug, and it never was one.
@ThacoBell Do you really think that a very common loot, 150 gp potion, widely found in several stores, should reproduce the effects of a sixth level arcane spell in a game with a level cap that doesn't even allow you to cast this kind of spells?
@Thels Well, I WAS just arguing in favor of the original oil of speed behaviour. @Adul and @bob_veng wanted to change the subject to the magic spells for some reason. Im not a fan of how IH is implemented, but I'm not that passionate about it.
@Raduziel Yes. In BG1, double apr doesn't add much. In BG2, your mages can stop time. Its not anymore overpowered than any mage spell over 5th level (which you will have very quickly in BG2), and significantly weaker than many MANY weapons you can grab within half an hour of leaving Chateau Irenicus.
What happens next? Will Beamdog start nerfing spells and artifacts because they are overpowered? Maybe even remove Beserker, that crap is stupid strong.
Oh yes, we can't possibly have anyone able to match even a small fraction of what a mage can do. They MUST remain entirely broken and nigh unapproachable. Heaven forbid a MAGICAL POTION is able to replicate a spell.
@Thels Well, I WAS just arguing in favor of the original oil of speed behaviour. @Adul and @bob_veng wanted to change the subject to the magic spells for some reason. Im not a fan of how IH is implemented, but I'm not that passionate about it.
it's the same subject and a part of the explanation for why beamdog didn't break the normal bug-fixing procedure
oil of speed was always tied to lvl 3 haste
original bg1 oil of speed applied haste on the imbiber in the form it existed at the time (plain double animation rate)
original bg2 oil of speed applied haste the way bg2 haste worked: also double animation rate but without double attacks (just +1 apr)
bg:ee = original bg1 content (+ new EE content) in the enhanced bg2 engine; bg:ee and bg2:ee therefore share the same rules
therefore bg:ee inherited the oil of speed from bg2
which means that the way the potion works is correct and the description which points to original bg1 behavior is out of place
the bug-fixer looks and this and asks the question: what if the description in fact is correct and we give it precedence over the item?
the bug-fixer sees several issues with this proposal: - it makes bg:ee and bg2:ee rules inconsistent - it creates a new behavior for oil of speed that didn't exist before since the original bg1, which makes it very powerful, and the game hasn't been balanced around it
the bug-fixer concludes: after all the description is simply wrong, and the behavior is WAD, the alternative is unsatisfactory, so we will change the description
@bob_veng That's not what they decided though. They DID fix the potion so that it matched vanilla behaviour. Stop pretending like they followed your logic. They reverted back and fixed the description because people complained that it didn't match "core" BG1, despite the fact that it actually did.
yes, they fixed the bug one way, but that way was unsatisfactory so they fixed it another, more satisfactory way that follows a coherent logic outlined above
How does slow work? And do we want a comparable behaviour as haste (since they cancel each other out to some extent).
Should they be exact opposites?
No, because -1 APR would nullify any non-warrior’s ability to melee attack at all.
I know but that was not really the point of my question.
If in bg1 haste would double and slow would half animation speeds (and thereby attacks), then they are perfectly in sync. If in bg2 slow would half all animations including attacks but haste would only add +1 to attacks then bg2 would be the inconsistent implementation.
I think that only for balance sake one can decide to forego synchronisation. I would rather have that than tag it to option A or B is clearly a bug for legacy or textual reasons.
yes, they fixed the bug one way, but that way was unsatisfactory so they fixed it another, more satisfactory way that follows a coherent logic outlined above
Except its not satisfactory. Now you're going to start claiming that your opinion matters more than mine?
yes, they fixed the bug one way, but that way was unsatisfactory so they fixed it another, more satisfactory way that follows a coherent logic outlined above
Except its not satisfactory. Now you're going to start claiming that your opinion matters more than mine?
No, but the fact that the bug is fixed is not a matter of opinion. It's fixed. That you're unsatisfied with the result is a different matter.
If you feel strongly about it, I recommend what I usually do when I'm in a similar situation (which is quite often): open a feature request ticket on https://support.baldursgate.com.
@Adul I can't. The website doesn't work for me. I can't log into my account (that I had to have a mod make for me) and I can't make a new account, as my only email address is logged.
And no, its NOT freaking fixed. The potions still erroneaously don't double APR. Stop pretending like no issue exists, simply because you seem to like the bugged version.
yes, they fixed the bug one way, but that way was unsatisfactory so they fixed it another, more satisfactory way that follows a coherent logic outlined above
Except its not satisfactory. Now you're going to start claiming that your opinion matters more than mine?
it's not satisfactory because:
- it makes bg:ee and bg2:ee rules inconsistent - it creates a new behavior for oil of speed that didn't exist before since the original bg1, which makes it very powerful, and the game hasn't been balanced around it
can you refute that? i'm sure you can try
if you're not going to argue rationally, then yeah, i'd say a reasoned opinion matters more than one that's not. you still have a right to opinion but that doesn't mean all opinions are the same. for example, I think when undecided people will read this discussion they will much more readily agree with the side i'm on based on the strength on arguments offered, than with your side, because one position is argued better than the other. that's one of the ways some opinions come to matter more than others.
Comments
- In BG1, the Oil of Speed doubles the attack rate, and so does Haste.
- In BG2, the Oil of Speed gives +1 APR, and so does Haste.
Are you also in favor of reverting the Haste spell to its original behavior? Should it also give the whole party double APR, like it did in vBG1? If so, what would be the point of Improved Haste?Or are you arguing that the Oil of Speed should give the user the Improved Haste effect instead of regular Haste? Because when you frame it that way, it doesn't sound like a bug fix at all.
Actually yes, I'm totally down for that. And just completely remove Improved Haste. Its only single target, and its level is too high to memorize enough for the party. The slot is better used for something else.
the thing with pnp haste is that the harsh penalty for using it hasn't been replicated so at the time of bg2 it has been rebalanced and split into two spells so to speak, one that's AoE and weaker and another that's single target and stronger. lvl3 haste that doubles apr is too powerful without this penalty. since BG:EE uses a modified BG2 engine, this refinement has been carried over.
i understand you don't like it, but it's working as intended. and it's not beamdog's idea, it's an original bg2 idea. to change bg:ee spells and oil of speed back to bg1 would cause a weird discrepancy now.
Haste has always been a major issue. 3.0 Haste was also vastly OP. It was nerfed hard in 3.5 and still by far the best core buff spell. 5.0 nerfed it hard again, and it's still a pretty good spell. Having a measly level 3 spell copy the effects of a HLA, but then partywide, and much longer, does not sound like a good idea.
Of course, you can still argue if you think Haste and the Oil of Speed should work like they did in BG1, that's fine. Everyone has their opinions. But the bottom line is, BG:EE using the BG2 Haste mechanics instead of the BG1 mechanics is is not a bug, and it never was one.
Should they be exact opposites?
@Raduziel Yes. In BG1, double apr doesn't add much. In BG2, your mages can stop time. Its not anymore overpowered than any mage spell over 5th level (which you will have very quickly in BG2), and significantly weaker than many MANY weapons you can grab within half an hour of leaving Chateau Irenicus.
What happens next? Will Beamdog start nerfing spells and artifacts because they are overpowered? Maybe even remove Beserker, that crap is stupid strong.
Dude... have a beer.
oil of speed was always tied to lvl 3 haste
original bg1 oil of speed applied haste on the imbiber in the form it existed at the time (plain double animation rate)
original bg2 oil of speed applied haste the way bg2 haste worked: also double animation rate but without double attacks (just +1 apr)
bg:ee = original bg1 content (+ new EE content) in the enhanced bg2 engine; bg:ee and bg2:ee therefore share the same rules
therefore bg:ee inherited the oil of speed from bg2
which means that the way the potion works is correct and the description which points to original bg1 behavior is out of place
the bug-fixer looks and this and asks the question: what if the description in fact is correct and we give it precedence over the item?
the bug-fixer sees several issues with this proposal:
- it makes bg:ee and bg2:ee rules inconsistent
- it creates a new behavior for oil of speed that didn't exist before since the original bg1, which makes it very powerful, and the game hasn't been balanced around it
the bug-fixer concludes: after all the description is simply wrong, and the behavior is WAD, the alternative is unsatisfactory, so we will change the description
bug fixed
If in bg1 haste would double and slow would half animation speeds (and thereby attacks), then they are perfectly in sync.
If in bg2 slow would half all animations including attacks but haste would only add +1 to attacks then bg2 would be the inconsistent implementation.
I think that only for balance sake one can decide to forego synchronisation. I would rather have that than tag it to option A or B is clearly a bug for legacy or textual reasons.
If you feel strongly about it, I recommend what I usually do when I'm in a similar situation (which is quite often): open a feature request ticket on https://support.baldursgate.com.
And no, its NOT freaking fixed. The potions still erroneaously don't double APR. Stop pretending like no issue exists, simply because you seem to like the bugged version.
I see that no amount of argument will change your opinion, so I'll withdraw from this discussion.
- it makes bg:ee and bg2:ee rules inconsistent
- it creates a new behavior for oil of speed that didn't exist before since the original bg1, which makes it very powerful, and the game hasn't been balanced around it
can you refute that? i'm sure you can try
if you're not going to argue rationally, then yeah, i'd say a reasoned opinion matters more than one that's not. you still have a right to opinion but that doesn't mean all opinions are the same. for example, I think when undecided people will read this discussion they will much more readily agree with the side i'm on based on the strength on arguments offered, than with your side, because one position is argued better than the other. that's one of the ways some opinions come to matter more than others.
don't get offended pls.