Int 19 gives 95% success rate and if the non-mage kit bug of -15% is solved, is potion of genius stacking still even required at all?
Or am I missing something?
(keeping the other use cases on the side)
The fact that failure is possible at all is the problem. The ability of potions to stack made the scribing experience so much less of a headache. The same goes for the thievery of said scrolls.
A potion of genius and a potion of mind focusing together can generate +7 INT (which is the max attainable with non-unique potions if this idea implemented). That means the only characters in the game(s) who can reach 24 (the level necessary for failproof scribing) are those with a minimum of 17 INT. Aerie, Haer'Dalis, Jan, and Eldoth will always have a chance of failure.
I just don't see why this change in the game's mechanics is necessary or called for. Its frustrating for those of us that employ potion stacking and meaningless to those who don't.
I guess it comes to how awful you find 2-5% failure dependent on how many potions you drink. That's 2-5 failures if you go through 100 scrolls while there aren't even that many useful spells to be honest.
I guess you could get irritated if you miss that one spell you always want.
I prefer a more realistic game where stats actually have some influence on how you need to play the game with chances of failure and the necessity to adapt being included. That also goes for thieving for me.
It might even be nice if they fix the 150% chance at int 24.
I understand people voting for potion stacking especially since it has been there eversince but personally I think a certain chance of failure should always exist und should not be able to be bypassed by drinking two liters of certain drinks.
If you happen to fail on scribing one of the important spells you finally found, live with this unexpected situation and make the best of it by finding other ways of dealing with upcoming adversities where you could have used that specific spell.
Imho that is what makes a game interesting, exciting or whatever you may call it; there is no 100 % ever.
At the same time, I think that the 15 % penalty on learning spells mistakenly assigned to all kits should definitely be fixed.
I think the issue of whether potions should stack can best be resolved by asking if the change improves the player’s experience and enjoyment of the game. This should be the central question with any change, especially those involving mechanics present since the game’s initial release.
On the one hand, those of us who stack potions, now either have to adjust to a change we don’t like or tweak the game with a mod to suit our tastes.
On the other hand, those who feel potion stacking amounts to cheese are entirely unaffected. Consuming multiples of any potion is not a requirement and seeing as there is no competitive aspect to the game, it’s not a question of fairness.
The only question is one of preference. The status quo allows both potion stackers and non-stackers to enjoy the game in accordance with his or her own tastes.
At the end of the day, this change only inconveniences. I can’t think of the hypothetical scenario in which anyone’s enjoyment of the game is increased by a prohibition on potion stacking.
I understand people voting for potion stacking especially since it has been there eversince but personally I think a certain chance of failure should always exist und should not be able to be bypassed by drinking two liters of certain drinks.
If you happen to fail on scribing one of the important spells you finally found, live with this unexpected situation and make the best of it by finding other ways of dealing with upcoming adversities where you could have used that specific spell.
Imho that is what makes a game interesting, exciting or whatever you may call it; there is no 100 % ever.
At the same time, I think that the 15 % penalty on learning spells mistakenly assigned to all kits should definitely be fixed.
You can already play like you describe without blocking potion stacking : just use one potion at a time... no need to change anything
I think the issue of whether potions should stack can best be resolved by asking if the change improves the player’s experience and enjoyment of the game. This should be the central question with any change, especially those involving mechanics present since the game’s initial release.
On the one hand, those of us who stack potions, now either have to adjust to a change we don’t like or tweak the game with a mod to suit our tastes.
On the other hand, those who feel potion stacking amounts to cheese are entirely unaffected. Consuming multiples of any potion is not a requirement and seeing as there is no competitive aspect to the game, it’s not a question of fairness.
The only question is one of preference. The status quo allows both potion stackers and non-stackers to enjoy the game in accordance with his or her own tastes.
At the end of the day, this change only inconveniences. I can’t think of the hypothetical scenario in which anyone’s enjoyment of the game is increased by a prohibition on potion stacking.
That's an interesting premise, but enjoyment of the game is subjective, and I'd argue the more important question is whether it should be more closely aligned with the AD&D 2nd edition rule set, not whether it makes some players happy.
[EDIT] The fundamental question, to me, is whether drinking a second potion would a) double the effect, b) reset the time for the effect, or c) both. I'm actually ambivalent on the change overall, but potion stacking always *felt* cheesy to me. Then again, why would the original devs have +x to trait potions if they didn't intend for them to stack?
I think the issue of whether potions should stack can best be resolved by asking if the change improves the player’s experience and enjoyment of the game. This should be the central question with any change, especially those involving mechanics present since the game’s initial release.
On the one hand, those of us who stack potions, now either have to adjust to a change we don’t like or tweak the game with a mod to suit our tastes.
On the other hand, those who feel potion stacking amounts to cheese are entirely unaffected. Consuming multiples of any potion is not a requirement and seeing as there is no competitive aspect to the game, it’s not a question of fairness.
The only question is one of preference. The status quo allows both potion stackers and non-stackers to enjoy the game in accordance with his or her own tastes.
At the end of the day, this change only inconveniences. I can’t think of the hypothetical scenario in which anyone’s enjoyment of the game is increased by a prohibition on potion stacking.
That's an interesting premise, but enjoyment of the game is subjective, and I'd argue the more important question is whether it should be more closely aligned with the AD&D 2nd edition rule set, not whether it makes some players happy.
I would very much disagree with this notion given that game enjoyment is the single most important principle in game development. If a change (or non-change in this instance) can please some without taking away from the others, no argument ought be made against it.
If, however, changes are being made on the basis that it’s more faithful to tabletop, then scrolls should not disappear after a failure to write. 2nd edition rules only require that the caster attempting to write, wait until his or her next level before attempting again. Furthermore, failure to pickpocket should not necessarily mean getting caught.
The BG implementation of these rules is much harsher than tabletop, so potion stacking is hardly unwarranted.
It's pretty interesting to see the different opinions on this matter and the reasons why it should or should not be changed.
Like I said before, I support the fix but I'm looking forward to a response from either @JuliusBorisov or @Galactygon.
If it was just for me the recharged wands exploit could be fixed just as well but I know that matter is just as controversial as the potion stacking one.
By the way, in original BG I wasn't there a merchant in Nashkell from whom you could easily steal the complete inventory relatively early in the game?
As far as I know Beamdog removed that option which I welcomed a lot.
I would very much disagree with this notion given that game enjoyment is the single most important principle in game development. If a change (or non-change in this instance) can please some without taking away from the others, no argument ought be made against it.
Facts not in evidence.
The entire point of Beamdog's undertaking is to increase the mechanics of the game to more accurately represent some combination of the developer's original intent and/or the AD&D ruleset, while also giving players some new content and some QoL updates. In other words, fixes and features that don't stray too far from the original vision of the game.
You can make an argument that every exploit only "pleases some" because every player has the option to simply not use the exploit, but that's a reductive viewpoint. I view exploits as flaws that imbalance the game, especially if those exploits were not intended by the original developers. Leaving them in goes against the whole point of remaking the game in the first place. If it's a bug, it's a bug, even if it makes the game easier for some.
I don't know if potion stacking is in fact an exploit or an unintended behavior, so I'd also be interested to know why the devs made that change.
For stacking effects, it's the same as spells - only the single strongest modifier for a given stat is to apply. The infinity engine only really implements this for base Armor Class, but attempts to prevent any single-source of effects from stacking with itself.
PnP's response to using multiple potions was about consequences.
Drinking a potion while the effects of any potion were still active had a 65% chance of normal function or better. 1% chance to explode, 2% chance for instant poison death, 5% chance for str&dex loss, 7% chance to cancel both, 10% chance to cancel one, and 10% chance for both to have half effectiveness.
Permanent potions, such as potion of healing, would be considered still in effect for 1 turn after drinking them.
From the wording, you should be able to use 1 Oil and 1 Potion without issue, as oils are applied to the skin, not consumed, so they wouldn't mix.
So it could be worse, as those side-effects could all be implemented.
By the way, in original BG I wasn't there a merchant in Nashkell from whom you could easily steal the complete inventory relatively early in the game?
As far as I know Beamdog removed that option which I welcomed a lot.
No, the merchant at the Nashkel Store is still quite easy to shoplift from. He just doesn't carry an inexplicable stack of +1 large shields anymore.
I'm ambivalent about this one. Yes, I could adapt. Mostly. My previous non-spellcasting party would be less efficient at converting scrolls into XP with Haer'Dalis, and would have to fight the underdark beholder lair with Rasaad alone rather than sending in five magic-immune party members to crush everything. It wouldn't stop them. My current party with only Nalia as a thief would have to spend gold on buying the good stuff from the Underdark merchants rather than just shoplifting everything. That wouldn't stop them either.
But still, this is fundamentally a big change out of nowhere. Letting it go without discussion just wasn't something I could do.
Yeah I would also support wand sell recharge exploit to be fixed. I know I can self impose rules, but I’m not good at doing that and I like it much more when the game imposes it on me.
There is already a way to avoid failure : reduce temporary the difficulty setting.
There is also a tweak mod which allow 100% success. And I don't think it's less cheesy to drink 2 or 3 potion of genius.
The difference is that you pay for the potions, and they're rather limited at the beginning of BG, so you have to ration them wisely for the guaranteed scribing success. A tweak or changing the difficulty seems more cheesy to me than paying more and using two potions instead of one, especially because it's a very limited resource.
i think in 20 years of playing, it never occured to me i could stack potion effects, so i obviously never did that. It doesn't sound right roleplaying wise either, so I'd say it should not have been in from the beginning.
About changing it now or leave it as it is:
– i don't really mind, i think i'll keep not using it anyway
– It's a logical flaw ... this would mean it should be fixed
– it was there for 20 years ... this would mean it shouldn't be fixed
– as there is changing spells etc. too, means we have to adapt tactics anyway ... this would mean it should be fixed
--> how about changing it per difficulty level? Harder levels --> no stacking allowed (like learning spells)
(Staff recharging: if done right, this should only be possible in wizzard stores, not any random trader, and it should cost big money ... guess this is out of reach though, so leave it as it is?)
(Staff recharging: if done right, this should only be possible in wizzard stores, not any random trader, and it should cost big money ... guess this is out of reach though, so leave it as it is?)
This is already done, in part. In BG1, only a few shops will buy wands from you, and they're generally the mage shops. They also can't be shoplifted from, and fully charged wands are quite expensive to buy.
Then there's one random "general store" in the big city that buys wands and is easy to steal from. Oops. And in BG2, this whole paradigm is ignored; almost all shops trade in almost everything, so you can sell your wands to some random merchant on the street, and steal them back for no cost at all (if your thief is skilled enough).
Currently, I use the wands for many encounters without thinking too much about it, recharge them, and do the same thing over again. This results in a complete collection of wands cluttering my inventory and has a bland aftertaste of inflation for those wands. Imho a magical wand should be an item of worth, something rare, for which you carefully decide whether you spend a charge or not.
As @jmerry pointed out some steps into the right direction have already been taken in BG I but if there is this one exception - the general store - that helps you to bypass all of this, it doesn't make too much sense.
Across all IE games where applicable wands should only be bought/recharged from a few selected magically-oriented merchants without the option to steal and with high prices for recharged wands.
I'd love to hear your opinion on that matter @JuliusBorisov.
There is already a way to avoid failure : reduce temporary the difficulty setting.
There is also a tweak mod which allow 100% success. And I don't think it's less cheesy to drink 2 or 3 potion of genius.
The difference is that you pay for the potions, and they're rather limited at the beginning of BG, so you have to ration them wisely for the guaranteed scribing success. A tweak or changing the difficulty seems more cheesy to me than paying more and using two potions instead of one, especially because it's a very limited resource.
Without any tweaking, gold is so easy to come buy in BG1, even in the begining.
I prefer tweaking to have 100% success rate in scribing scroll, but on the other hand greatly reduce gold treasuring by using other mods : remove reputation bonus on prices, change most magical weapon to fine ones, make armor, helmet and shield also broken by the Iron Crisis...
Wow, that's unexpected. It will certainly require a change of tactics and especially make no-reload runs more difficult. Among other, the toughest to me seems no guarantee to scribe a rare and important spell anymore by sacrificing two potions of genius
Just off the top of my head this would cause some changes for no-reload runs, but the biggest issue for me is that it would, at this very late stage, make Legacy of Bhaal Solo runs impossible for many additional classes due to it introducing the impossibility of defeating Belhifet.
It's like if Beamdog turned round and said they were removing Durlag's Goblet...
All of a sudden, there are 2 pages of comments, with more than 40 new comments in 2 days. Thanks for tons of feedback, moments like this show how passionate players of these games are and how important it is to test things out before releasing a regular patch.
I don't have an immediate response regarding the issue as all this discussion happened during the weekend but my personal take would be to reverse the change as we don't want to introduce huge changes to the game balance at this stage of the game development, and the majority of voices here are against this change.
@JuliusBorisov since everyone is following this thread, any chance of improving Assassin poison weapon in this patch?
I note @Tresset recently released a mod that to me is a great approach. His mod increases the Assassin poison save negative modifier over time so that the ability maintains some power as the game evolves and saves improve. I like how it scales damage-wise and especially like the saving throw negation scaling approach and the increasing auto damage.
Even with the current maximum 1 poison effect per round for poison weapon (I am assuming this will not change due to previously articulated balance issues and EE unintended poison weapon stacking behavior), this would improve the ability to make it more useful.
Here is a rundown:
Poison Weapon
Each successful hit within the next 5 rounds will inject poison into the target. The amount of poison damage depends on the character's level:
1st - Target suffers 1 poison damage per second for 6 seconds (Save vs. Death negates)
5th - Target suffers 1 poison damage per second for 12 seconds (Save vs. Death at -1 negates), and also suffers 1 poison damage per 2 seconds for 6 seconds (no save)
10th - Target suffers 1 poison damage per second for 18 seconds (Save vs. Death at -2 negates), and also suffers 1 poison damage per 2 seconds for 12 seconds (no save)
15th - Target suffers 1 poison damage per second for 24 seconds (Save vs. Death at -3 negates), and also suffers 1 poison damage per 2 seconds for 18 seconds (no save)
20th - Target suffers 1 poison damage per second for 30 seconds (Save vs. Death at -4 negates), and also suffers 1 poison damage per 2 seconds for 24 seconds (no save)
Just because it's been wrong for 23 years doesn't mean it should continue to be wrong.
How 'bout we stop patching other exploits and workarounds too, they've been there for 23 years after all..
Choosing to not fix something that is wrong because parts of (the vocal minority) the community have strong feelings about an ancient exploit they adore seems odd.
99% of players probably never even tried to stack these potions and when we're talking about game balance.. warriors can't stack Strength potions to get 25 Strength, but mages should be able to get 25 Int - despite the fact that everyone knows mages are ridiculously OP compared to anything already?
It's an exploit, it doesn't work as intended and all it does is allow an already superior class have more of an advantage/quality of life than they should have.
As far as i know; nowhere in ad&d has it ever been possible to stack things like Potions of Strength to have 25str or even 40str in d&d 3E etc.. choosing to turn a blind eye to this just because it's an exploit the upper echelon of soloers and no-reload runners adore/depend on, means you're choosing to deviate from the ruleset which the entire game is built around - even when you don't have to, just to pander a group of elite players.
99% of players probably never even tried to stack these potions and when we're talking about game balance.. warriors can't stack Strength potions to get 25 Strength, but mages should be able to get 25 Int - despite the fact that everyone knows mages are ridiculously OP compared to anything already?
It's an exploit, it doesn't work as intended and all it does is allow an already superior class have more of an advantage/quality of life than they should have.
But potion stacking is more useful to warrior classes than mage classes...
Comments
A potion of genius and a potion of mind focusing together can generate +7 INT (which is the max attainable with non-unique potions if this idea implemented). That means the only characters in the game(s) who can reach 24 (the level necessary for failproof scribing) are those with a minimum of 17 INT. Aerie, Haer'Dalis, Jan, and Eldoth will always have a chance of failure.
I just don't see why this change in the game's mechanics is necessary or called for. Its frustrating for those of us that employ potion stacking and meaningless to those who don't.
There is also a tweak mod which allow 100% success. And I don't think it's less cheesy to drink 2 or 3 potion of genius.
I guess you could get irritated if you miss that one spell you always want.
I prefer a more realistic game where stats actually have some influence on how you need to play the game with chances of failure and the necessity to adapt being included. That also goes for thieving for me.
It might even be nice if they fix the 150% chance at int 24.
Either way we will see what the response is.
If you happen to fail on scribing one of the important spells you finally found, live with this unexpected situation and make the best of it by finding other ways of dealing with upcoming adversities where you could have used that specific spell.
Imho that is what makes a game interesting, exciting or whatever you may call it; there is no 100 % ever.
At the same time, I think that the 15 % penalty on learning spells mistakenly assigned to all kits should definitely be fixed.
On the one hand, those of us who stack potions, now either have to adjust to a change we don’t like or tweak the game with a mod to suit our tastes.
On the other hand, those who feel potion stacking amounts to cheese are entirely unaffected. Consuming multiples of any potion is not a requirement and seeing as there is no competitive aspect to the game, it’s not a question of fairness.
The only question is one of preference. The status quo allows both potion stackers and non-stackers to enjoy the game in accordance with his or her own tastes.
At the end of the day, this change only inconveniences. I can’t think of the hypothetical scenario in which anyone’s enjoyment of the game is increased by a prohibition on potion stacking.
You can already play like you describe without blocking potion stacking : just use one potion at a time... no need to change anything
That's an interesting premise, but enjoyment of the game is subjective, and I'd argue the more important question is whether it should be more closely aligned with the AD&D 2nd edition rule set, not whether it makes some players happy.
[EDIT] The fundamental question, to me, is whether drinking a second potion would a) double the effect, b) reset the time for the effect, or c) both. I'm actually ambivalent on the change overall, but potion stacking always *felt* cheesy to me. Then again, why would the original devs have +x to trait potions if they didn't intend for them to stack?
If, however, changes are being made on the basis that it’s more faithful to tabletop, then scrolls should not disappear after a failure to write. 2nd edition rules only require that the caster attempting to write, wait until his or her next level before attempting again. Furthermore, failure to pickpocket should not necessarily mean getting caught.
The BG implementation of these rules is much harsher than tabletop, so potion stacking is hardly unwarranted.
Also a "that is not how it is supposed to function" is also a valid reason.
Like I said before, I support the fix but I'm looking forward to a response from either @JuliusBorisov or @Galactygon.
If it was just for me the recharged wands exploit could be fixed just as well but I know that matter is just as controversial as the potion stacking one.
By the way, in original BG I wasn't there a merchant in Nashkell from whom you could easily steal the complete inventory relatively early in the game?
As far as I know Beamdog removed that option which I welcomed a lot.
Facts not in evidence.
The entire point of Beamdog's undertaking is to increase the mechanics of the game to more accurately represent some combination of the developer's original intent and/or the AD&D ruleset, while also giving players some new content and some QoL updates. In other words, fixes and features that don't stray too far from the original vision of the game.
You can make an argument that every exploit only "pleases some" because every player has the option to simply not use the exploit, but that's a reductive viewpoint. I view exploits as flaws that imbalance the game, especially if those exploits were not intended by the original developers. Leaving them in goes against the whole point of remaking the game in the first place. If it's a bug, it's a bug, even if it makes the game easier for some.
I don't know if potion stacking is in fact an exploit or an unintended behavior, so I'd also be interested to know why the devs made that change.
PnP's response to using multiple potions was about consequences.
Drinking a potion while the effects of any potion were still active had a 65% chance of normal function or better. 1% chance to explode, 2% chance for instant poison death, 5% chance for str&dex loss, 7% chance to cancel both, 10% chance to cancel one, and 10% chance for both to have half effectiveness.
Permanent potions, such as potion of healing, would be considered still in effect for 1 turn after drinking them.
From the wording, you should be able to use 1 Oil and 1 Potion without issue, as oils are applied to the skin, not consumed, so they wouldn't mix.
So it could be worse, as those side-effects could all be implemented.
I'm ambivalent about this one. Yes, I could adapt. Mostly. My previous non-spellcasting party would be less efficient at converting scrolls into XP with Haer'Dalis, and would have to fight the underdark beholder lair with Rasaad alone rather than sending in five magic-immune party members to crush everything. It wouldn't stop them. My current party with only Nalia as a thief would have to spend gold on buying the good stuff from the Underdark merchants rather than just shoplifting everything. That wouldn't stop them either.
But still, this is fundamentally a big change out of nowhere. Letting it go without discussion just wasn't something I could do.
There's nothing to fix. Leave it alone.
The difference is that you pay for the potions, and they're rather limited at the beginning of BG, so you have to ration them wisely for the guaranteed scribing success. A tweak or changing the difficulty seems more cheesy to me than paying more and using two potions instead of one, especially because it's a very limited resource.
About changing it now or leave it as it is:
– i don't really mind, i think i'll keep not using it anyway
– It's a logical flaw ... this would mean it should be fixed
– it was there for 20 years ... this would mean it shouldn't be fixed
– as there is changing spells etc. too, means we have to adapt tactics anyway ... this would mean it should be fixed
--> how about changing it per difficulty level? Harder levels --> no stacking allowed (like learning spells)
(Staff recharging: if done right, this should only be possible in wizzard stores, not any random trader, and it should cost big money ... guess this is out of reach though, so leave it as it is?)
Then there's one random "general store" in the big city that buys wands and is easy to steal from. Oops. And in BG2, this whole paradigm is ignored; almost all shops trade in almost everything, so you can sell your wands to some random merchant on the street, and steal them back for no cost at all (if your thief is skilled enough).
As @jmerry pointed out some steps into the right direction have already been taken in BG I but if there is this one exception - the general store - that helps you to bypass all of this, it doesn't make too much sense.
Across all IE games where applicable wands should only be bought/recharged from a few selected magically-oriented merchants without the option to steal and with high prices for recharged wands.
I'd love to hear your opinion on that matter @JuliusBorisov.
I prefer tweaking to have 100% success rate in scribing scroll, but on the other hand greatly reduce gold treasuring by using other mods : remove reputation bonus on prices, change most magical weapon to fine ones, make armor, helmet and shield also broken by the Iron Crisis...
Well how am I going to get my solo monk past LoB Belefiet now?
Just off the top of my head this would cause some changes for no-reload runs, but the biggest issue for me is that it would, at this very late stage, make Legacy of Bhaal Solo runs impossible for many additional classes due to it introducing the impossibility of defeating Belhifet.
It's like if Beamdog turned round and said they were removing Durlag's Goblet...
I don't have an immediate response regarding the issue as all this discussion happened during the weekend but my personal take would be to reverse the change as we don't want to introduce huge changes to the game balance at this stage of the game development, and the majority of voices here are against this change.
I note @Tresset recently released a mod that to me is a great approach. His mod increases the Assassin poison save negative modifier over time so that the ability maintains some power as the game evolves and saves improve. I like how it scales damage-wise and especially like the saving throw negation scaling approach and the increasing auto damage.
Even with the current maximum 1 poison effect per round for poison weapon (I am assuming this will not change due to previously articulated balance issues and EE unintended poison weapon stacking behavior), this would improve the ability to make it more useful.
Here is a rundown:
Poison Weapon
Each successful hit within the next 5 rounds will inject poison into the target. The amount of poison damage depends on the character's level:
1st - Target suffers 1 poison damage per second for 6 seconds (Save vs. Death negates)
5th - Target suffers 1 poison damage per second for 12 seconds (Save vs. Death at -1 negates), and also suffers 1 poison damage per 2 seconds for 6 seconds (no save)
10th - Target suffers 1 poison damage per second for 18 seconds (Save vs. Death at -2 negates), and also suffers 1 poison damage per 2 seconds for 12 seconds (no save)
15th - Target suffers 1 poison damage per second for 24 seconds (Save vs. Death at -3 negates), and also suffers 1 poison damage per 2 seconds for 18 seconds (no save)
20th - Target suffers 1 poison damage per second for 30 seconds (Save vs. Death at -4 negates), and also suffers 1 poison damage per 2 seconds for 24 seconds (no save)
Just because it's been wrong for 23 years doesn't mean it should continue to be wrong.
How 'bout we stop patching other exploits and workarounds too, they've been there for 23 years after all..
Choosing to not fix something that is wrong because parts of (the vocal minority) the community have strong feelings about an ancient exploit they adore seems odd.
99% of players probably never even tried to stack these potions and when we're talking about game balance.. warriors can't stack Strength potions to get 25 Strength, but mages should be able to get 25 Int - despite the fact that everyone knows mages are ridiculously OP compared to anything already?
It's an exploit, it doesn't work as intended and all it does is allow an already superior class have more of an advantage/quality of life than they should have.
As far as i know; nowhere in ad&d has it ever been possible to stack things like Potions of Strength to have 25str or even 40str in d&d 3E etc.. choosing to turn a blind eye to this just because it's an exploit the upper echelon of soloers and no-reload runners adore/depend on, means you're choosing to deviate from the ruleset which the entire game is built around - even when you don't have to, just to pander a group of elite players.
My 2 cents anyway..