Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Let's Party Like It's 2015: Josh Sawyer Balance Discussion

Mastermind

Cognito Elite Material
Patron
Bethestard
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
21,144
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I'm on two minds about ...unorthodox builds like tank wizards.

It's sad that tank wizards are even seen as unorthodox. Too many games turn wizards into glass cannons, when in reality they should be able to fulfill all sorts of roles fueled by their magic. This was the case in the vastly superior BG2 where spells like stoneskin made wizards and sorcerers above average tanks. Wizards work best and are most fun to play as overpowered characters that pay for that power with increased complexity and limited resources.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
It's sad that tank wizards are even seen as unorthodox. Too many games turn wizards into glass cannons, when in reality they should be able to fulfill all sorts of roles fueled by their magic. This was the case in the vastly superior BG2 where spells like stoneskin made wizards and sorcerers above average tanks. Wizards work best and are most fun to play as overpowered characters that pay for that power with increased complexity and limited resources.

Yeah, sure, but if we are following this logic, then at one point we have to ask ourselves what the point of the classes is, when it's clear that we are talking about a classless system. Wizards and Sorcerers were simply grotesquely overpowered in BG2, that's why they could do virtually everything.
 
Self-Ejected

vivec

Self-Ejected
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,149
I'm on two minds about ...unorthodox builds like tank wizards.

It's sad that tank wizards are even seen as unorthodox. Too many games turn wizards into glass cannons, when in reality they should be able to fulfill all sorts of roles fueled by their magic. This was the case in the vastly superior BG2 where spells like stoneskin made wizards and sorcerers above average tanks. Wizards work best and are most fun to play as overpowered characters that pay for that power with increased complexity and limited resources.
Wizards in D&D have only one role: God. If you don't know what I am talking about you don't understand D&D.
 

Rostere

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,504
Location
Stockholm
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 RPG Wokedex Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
I have to disagree.. here's what I think about Sawyer's approach as an indie game developer and psychology / sociology aficionado.

1) If he's like everyone else then that means he's to scared to be a trendsetter and is just a follower.
He's not fit to lead anything, especially the development of a creative & entertaining product such as a video game.

But is he like everyone else? He's way to concerned with history (arguable if this is truly reflected in his games) and spends way too much time on balance. Compared to game devs in general I'd say Sawyer is an odd bird.

2) Genuinely creative people are trendsetters.
They make their own rules, experiment and push the boundaries of what is humanly possible.
Creativity means something new, something new means new information, and this ultimately means "adult neurogenesis" which has incredible benefits (health, longevity, happiness, etc) for you, the player.
They should be complimented - not anyone stuck in the comfort zone of mediocrity and boredom.

You know, PoE wasn't hewn from pure adra by Sawyer's bare hands alone. People wanted a IE games sequel, that's what they got, Sawyer's areas of interest like systems design didn't allow for a lot of creativity to begin with. The non-MCA writers are the ones who are guilty of the moments where PoE feels less creative and interesting.

3) Another Sawyer's big problem is that he constantly tries to balance Singleplayer games.
They don't have to be balanced at all. Players should have fun in them above all else.
So what if they are uber godlings at the end of the game! They deserved it, it feels great and rewarding!
Multiplayer games, on the other hand, HAVE to be balanced.

Wrong. It feels retarded and boring to have all challenge removed at the end of the game. Ideally, the player should be challenged throughout the game.

4) Without criticism there is no progress. I criticize even myself and that's exactly why I'm trying to build more skills every day.
We're not just venting here regarding TTON, but are in some way trying to get InXile's attention and make them realize they can do better.
A lot better! I think with their recent announcements, we're seeing the magic finally unfolding.

Much of the cut stuff from Torment 2 was shit and lame to begin with (crafting) anyway. The "Toy" companion is the only specific thing I can think of that I am sad got removed from the game.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
I'm on two minds about ...unorthodox builds like tank wizards.

It's sad that tank wizards are even seen as unorthodox. Too many games turn wizards into glass cannons, when in reality they should be able to fulfill all sorts of roles fueled by their magic. This was the case in the vastly superior BG2 where spells like stoneskin made wizards and sorcerers above average tanks. Wizards work best and are most fun to play as overpowered characters that pay for that power with increased complexity and limited resources.

Wizards are immune to attacks later in the game. All you need to do is pick the per-encounter defensive spells from masteries and you'll roll with 200 deflection later in the game, pick a cipher with web mind and you can reflect that to your whole party making anything less than a dragon unable to hit them.
 

Quillon

Arcane
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
5,214
Too many games turn wizards into glass cannons, when in reality they should be able to fulfill all sorts of roles fueled by their magic.

Ha...haha...hahahahaha. Fuck you and your magic-fagness. Now I understand all the rage towards Sawyer & balance, if he made the wizard, GOD, every magic & nostalgic-fags would have revered him and his new rpg-system. Instead he chose to flesh out every fucking class, made each one feel distinct in his game(despite he seems a magic-fag himself) and he's better off for it.
 

Iznaliu

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
3,686
Retard. What Sawyer did with PoE is dumbing down a plagiarize D&D system in order to neutralize any incentives to master the combat system, and catering to the lowest common denominator in order to prevent any form of frustration.

IWD1's combat is more simplistic than Pillars. Just because it is easier to gimp yourself doesn't make it harder. The best games force you to work with all resources available, except for consumables, which should ideally serve as a "Hail Mary" for difficult fights.

Anyone who is not living in the fucking moon will notice that Obsidian is a popamole studio releasing popamole isometric games..

The term 'popamole' once meant games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 with little to no challenge, but now means any game that said Codexer doesn't like.

Wrong. It feels retarded and boring to have all challenge removed at the end of the game. Ideally, the player should be challenged throughout the game.

I agree, but the start should be the most challenging part of the critical path. It makes your in-game achievements more meaningful that way. Ideally the beginning should be a rock-hard test of resource management and decision making, while things should loosen up towards the end but still require you to actually think rather than spam attacks. However, the most challenging part of the whole game should be late-game optional combat; this will give hardcore players a chance to play with systems and refine builds.

Instead he chose to flesh out every fucking class, made each one feel distinct in his game(despite he seems a magic-fag himself) and he's better off for it.
Yes, but he still made wizard tanks possible. That is a testament to his design acumen.
 

hexer

Guest
But is he like everyone else? He's way to concerned with history (arguable if this is truly reflected in his games) and spends way too much time on balance. Compared to game devs in general I'd say Sawyer is an odd bird.

I'd say Ken Levine is an odd bird... a Songbird hehe
Just look at him trying to break down and rebuild storytelling in RPGs.



As for Sawyer's preoccupation with history, that's a coping mechanism when one is to afraid to face the present / future.
I sadly know that firsthand, I live in a country where people and politicians still argue over World War II.
That's much easier than to fix existing problems the country faces.

And I can't believe Sawyer said in his GDC PoE talk how they didn't care for people who complained about PoE's system.
How can he say something like that after he pocketed their money?
He should have tried to find a solution.
Not because he's a crowd-pleaser but a customer-pleaser.


Wrong. It feels retarded and boring to have all challenge removed at the end of the game. Ideally, the player should be challenged throughout the game.

Of course taking away the challenge would be retarded.
But I don't see anything wrong in rewarding the player with a few scenes / encounters where he feels powerful.


Much of the cut stuff from Torment 2 was shit and lame to begin with (crafting) anyway. The "Toy" companion is the only specific thing I can think of that I am sad got removed from the game.

They said Oom will return in the next update :)
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
IWD1's combat is more simplistic than Pillars. Just because it is easier to gimp yourself doesn't make it harder. The best games force you to work with all resources available, except for consumables, which should ideally serve as a "Hail Mary" for difficult fights.

It’s not more simplistic than PoE. It has less stuff. Just because you added a bunch of useless skills to create the appearance of a complex cRPG, doesn’t make it more interesting or rewarding. The other thing you are ignoring in your criticism is that just as you can gimp yourself by making the wrong choices, you can also excel by making an excellent build. In PoE system, you can’t fuck it up because the character building is bland and holds your hand. There is no point in looking for an optimal build when the reward is so small. And I'm not even considering the mess that the combat system in PoE is.

The term 'popamole' once meant games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 with little to no challenge, but now means any game that said Codexer doesn't like.

The term popamole once meant games that had no genuine character building, and shooters like Skyrim and Fallout 4 were easier to identify because they were triple-A games. Now you have a bunch of shallow isometric games that have the looks of previous classics, but none of its depth.
 

Iznaliu

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
3,686
It’s not more simplistic than PoE. It has less stuff. Just because you added a bunch of useless skills to create the appearance of a complex cRPG, doesn’t make it more interesting or rewarding.
The IE games also have suboptimal options; the difference is that you praise the IE games for doing so while shit on PoE for doing so. Josh Sawyer might want to make everything ultra-balanced, but he didn;t singlehandedly make PoE.

The other thing you are ignoring in your criticism is that just as you can gimp yourself by making the wrong choices, you can also excel by making an excellent build. In PoE system, you can’t fuck it up because the character building is bland and holds your hand. There is no point in looking for an optimal build when the reward is so small. And I'm not even considering the mess that the combat system in PoE is.
As many PoE fans will attest, there are builds that are completely OP, and builds that are kind of shitty; there just aren't builds that are total shit. What you do is copy and paste your IE build into PoE, which results in a mediocre experience because it is built for IE games' high points, not PoE's; and because you know enough from IE games to make a good build, but refuse to look at the unique aspects of the PoE

The term popamole once meant games that had no genuine character building, and shooters like Skyrim and Fallout 4 were easier to identify because they were triple-A games. Now you have a bunch of shallow isometric games that have the looks of previous classics, but none of its depth.
No; since they do not have the exact same kind of character building, so idiots like you put it down.
 

FugueLah

Scholar
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Messages
137
In Josh's design any build may be viable, but that doesn't mean every build is optimal. The difference between viable and optimal is something he discusses in the video I linked.

A game requires a failure state.

I want to beat a game, not just optimally beat a game.

If there is no potential for a garbage character then why bother making any decisions at all, other than to larp an archetype.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
As many PoE fans will attest, there are builds that are completely OP, and builds that are kind of shitty; there just aren't builds that are total shit. What you do is copy and paste your IE build into PoE, which results in a mediocre experience because it is built for IE games' high points, not PoE's; and because you know enough from IE games to make a good build, but refuse to look at the unique aspects of the PoE.

Not good enough by a mile. The whole game is designed in way that players must be protected from frustration and making a bad build. If you can’t see what is wrong with that, this discussion is pointless.
 

Chris Avelltwo

Scholar
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
678
In Josh's design any build may be viable, but that doesn't mean every build is optimal. The difference between viable and optimal is something he discusses in the video I linked.

A game requires a failure state.

I want to beat a game, not just optimally beat a game.

If there is no potential for a garbage character then why bother making any decisions at all, other than to larp an archetype.

That's why they put in PotD and Trial of Iron, so the margin for winning is much slimmer and obviously not every build is viable because afaik the only ultimate achievements have been won with Paladins and a few other classes. So far there's no indication anyone has earned that achievement with most of the other classes - like say a Barbarian, for example - and it is doubtful whether such a feat would even be possible at all. So it would seem with this ultimate achievement there is a failure state, and it happens quite easily from what I can see. If you think that achievement is viable with any build, you're more than welcome to give it a try and please post a video to prove it. But I am very skeptical it can be done, tbh.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
I think only 4 classes have done the Ultimate afaik - paladin, wizard, chanter and priest (not sure about the last 2). I don't see why it wouldn't be able to be done with a druid too, but I'm not very familiar with their mid to late spell selection. It's incline that they added this, if someone wants a masochistic challenge, go for it.
 

Ulfhednar

Savant
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
809
Location
Valhalla
I want to say here, first of all, that I enjoy playing PoE, and that I am looking forward to PoE 2. I have a lot of respect for Josh's work on PoE, but as a long time IE-game player, I'm not wholly satisfied with the overall direction of the game.

Specifically, the 'balance' that you find in PoE really should be looked at from several different avenues: character building, encounters, itemization, etc. We should also talk about what we mean by balance. For instance, checkers is a perfectly balanced game (with the exception of turn order): all of the checkers have the same value, the same movement pattern, and the game is completely deterministic with very little room for 'soft' strategy. The value of each of the checkers is mostly static throughout the whole game. Checkers is almost always a game of attrition. Chess is also a perfectly balanced game (again, excepting turn order): The pieces do not have the same value, their properties (movement patterns) are highly variable, and because imbalances are easily created from an initially balanced position, there is vast repertoire of strategy that has yet to be fully explored by human players. The value of chess pieces can increase or decrease relative to their initial value depending on their positioning and the players understanding of the strategy they wish to employ. Chess can be a game of attrition, but also involves sacrifice, tactics and strategy. I know which 'balanced' game I would rather play.

When you balance everything by making it all the same, like checkers, you flatten its value. This is easily seen in vanilla PoE where the itemization feels like it doesn't matter very much. The choices between different weapons often feel cosmetic, and the differences between regular, fine and superior items is mostly a difference of degree rather than a difference in kind. I always appreciated that there was a categorical distinction between 'normal' and 'magical' weapons in the IE games, and that creatures could be inherently immune to weapons. There is no such distinction in PoE, and the item progression suffers for it, IMHO. TWM help the itemization considerably with soulbound items, but I keep wishing that the game had more weapon tiers and more unique weapons to help with sense of progression throughout the game. Eder's Saint's War armor...

The IE-games, and especially BG2, gave your high-level spellcasters an arsenal of ridiculousness to throw against enemy squishies who were shielded by an equal panoply of ridiculousness. You had breach, lower resistance, dispel magic, sequencers, etc and the classic magic missile for a well-timed interrupt. The mage duels often feel something like a chess match - you need to counter the effects of the wizard with your own effects and respond to the ones that do get through. Unlike PoE, you often could not afford to wait for negative effects to wear off, and needed to actively respond to the situation at hand. If you tried to attack a low level mage and ignored his protections, or his status-based attacks, that could easily spell trouble. The common complaint is that IE wizards/sorcerers were too powerful. Josh Sawyer fixed this by removing many of the hard-countery-type spells, the pre-combat buffing, and then also 'balanced' character building by flattening character stats. Josh has built-in many inherent differences into the classes, so it would be an overstatement to say that characters are flat, but by removing hard-counters and specialized situations, the game plays flatter than the original IE-games. That is to say, encounters in PoE are generally focused on a win by attrition rather than a strategic checkmate.

I would like to see hard-counters reemerge in PoE2, but instead of concentrating them in the casters it would be interesting to spread these effects among the classes. That is a tall order, one that is hard to 'balance,' but the additional complexity in combat would be well worth the effort IMHO.
 

Iznaliu

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
3,686
I would like to see hard-counters reemerge in PoE2, but instead of concentrating them in the casters it would be interesting to spread these effects among the classes.

I think they are doing that; I read it somewhere.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
6,165
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Serpent in the Staglands Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
His games are always somewhat dull to play.. it's like he was born to do advanced Excel work but instead ended up doing something completely opposite in his life.

Either that or he has a really weird sense of fun.. like 2 variables being close in their values, eg. balanced.

What you're saying is funny, because that's EXACTLY what the "mainstream" thinks of CRPGs, and everything associated with them - including this very site, and everyone on it. So the words you are using to insult him should really be considered a compliment, because he's just like everyone else here - just to a greater extreme than most. What he does may be "boring", but it is necessary, so that his game doesn't end up with pointless junk mechanics. You can tell he really cares about the quality of his work, because he goes out of his way and does things like his FNV mod without even being paid to do it. How many other developers can you think of that would do something like that? It obviously isn't just about the money to him, and I don't think he gets paid a lot anyway, tbh.

The good parts of Icewind Dale II aren't dull to play. Pillars of Eternity 3.0 + White March is more in that vein.

Josh's main claim to fame as a designer was bringing measured amounts of order to broken rulesets created by other people when the project was hopelessly off the rails and pretty much doomed (IWDII, NWN2, AP, FO:NV, etc). By his own admission, he has never had the opportunity to produce a game using his own ruleset from scratch (even Pillars of Eternity was obliged to bite off D&D 3.5).

It's not surprising he developed a philosophy that empathizes balance because he has always "repaired" games that veered totally in the other direction and would have been a broken mess on release.

It's sad that tank wizards are even seen as unorthodox. Too many games turn wizards into glass cannons, when in reality they should be able to fulfill all sorts of roles fueled by their magic. This was the case in the vastly superior BG2 where spells like stoneskin made wizards and sorcerers above average tanks. Wizards work best and are most fun to play as overpowered characters that pay for that power with increased complexity and limited resources.

Yeah, sure, but if we are following this logic, then at one point we have to ask ourselves what the point of the classes is, when it's clear that we are talking about a classless system. Wizards and Sorcerers were simply grotesquely overpowered in BG2, that's why they could do virtually everything.

D&D casters suck at early levels though, people forget this. It takes until mid-late game in BG1 before Mages come into their own, and BG2 is the game that has the reputation for powerful casters because it is a mid-high level campaign from the start.

But that's just the nature of the game. Gaining levels takes a long time in the 2nd edition. Fighters start strong but fall off to squishies later on.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom