General combat system feedback

Check here to discuss Torment's gameplay topics. Please avoid spoilers in thread titles.

Moderator: Memovira Goons

Post Reply
Jernaugh
Scholar
Posts: 128
Joined: September 22nd, 2014, 5:41 am

General combat system feedback

Post by Jernaugh » March 9th, 2017, 3:00 pm

So, I thought I'd make a start on a feedback thread for the combat system. I'm going to try to be as concrete and concise as possible, but I haven't actually seen that much combat yet, so consider this a place I'll be posting my impressions as I go.

So, what have I noticed up until now?

The Good
  • There seem to be sufficient cyphers to carry a non-combat oriented team through the occasional fight if need be and consumables are plentiful, adding some tactical options to the combat.
  • The general idea of the system (using knockbacks with the environment, flanking etc.) seems to be solid enough to carry decent tactical combat, even though there isn't a huge amount of depth to it.
  • The Crisis concept of using/interacting with environmental hotspots, talking to enemies and so on all as a part of combat seems like it has lots and lots of potential, even though I've only had 3 or 4 fights since the tutorial.
The Bad
  • Initiative auto-kills. This is pretty ridiculous. Even when I am the one to initiate a fight through dialogue, my entire party still gets swarmed before anyone can act. When fighting the cultists holding the Memorialists hostage in the Valley, I literally didn't even get to take a turn because my (nano) LC was dead before anyone on my team could act. There needs to be a system that allows you to increase your initiative at the beginning of combat beyond just the skill - maybe just by spending speed pool? That's a trade-off that would hurt in combat anyway, so you'd consider it carefully, but you could at least gamble to take critical actions first.
  • Positioning at combat start. The game is set up to have your companions follow you, which is ok. But if we can't move individual party members outside of combat, can we at least have some kind of pre-combat one-time positioning, say 3-4 "squares" around the LC? It might be a little annoying if you always have to set up your formation, but it is conducive to actual tactic use and shouldn't slow down battle too much if implemented well (but see the next two points).
  • Speed in combat. Everyone moves so slowly and many of the combat animations are so long (e.g. hiding, Abykos phasing) - people have been saying they can go make a sandwich in some of the larger crises while the enemies move and they're right. This is not conducive to enjoyable combat. The speed of turn-based combat should as fast as possible, just slow enough that the player can follow what is happening. A slow mode might make sense for players who are new to the genre; PoE had it, so maybe the implementation wouldn't be too tough?
  • Responsiveness in combat. This is a usability issue. It feels like I have to click a lot more often than I should need to to do stuff. This is probably because actions need an extra click to cancel before you can select a different action - if I select Onslaught to see my to hit %, I must then right click and cancel in order to select something different. This strikes me, at least, as unintuitive. I'm not 100% sure what else might be contributing to this feeling.
  • Feedback on positioning and movement. It is very unclear to me when somebody counts as flanked and when they don't. What's the angle required? Must a melee attack be made or a melee weapon equipped? A coloured display around enemies when it's your turn (say yellow for "no flank"-zone and green for "flank-zone") would help here - and if you can't flank for some reason, a tool-tip when hovering a cursor over a position near an enemy could tell you this (e.g. "can't flank, no melee weapon equipped" or "can't flank, no partner" or whatever). Furthermore, movement takes me far longer than it should because I have to "feel around" for where the edge of my movement range is. The attack range indicator is helpful; maybe there could be a similar movement range indicator? I realize this might become information overload and end up looking cluttered, but given how often movement range changes in a fight (Hobbled, characters with the Running skill vs. those without, etc.), this will likely remain an issue. It might be better to tone down some of the more eye-catching animations (like Inspiring Presence) rather than do without movement indicators.
  • Lack of information about enemies. PoE displayed enemy resistance and accuracy once you had attacked that resistance or been attacked respectively (unless you switched it off). This is not hand-holding; the combat should be challenging not because I need to remember X different numbers, but because the positioning, situation, objectives and enemy abilities make it so. You don't need to give numbers, even something like "Resistant to Transdimensional" on mouse-over would be enough. And knowing whether my 90% evasion Jack got hit because the enemy got lucky or because the enemy was just that good is valuable tactical information.

eNTi
Scholar
Posts: 103
Joined: April 21st, 2012, 1:27 am

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by eNTi » March 10th, 2017, 12:41 pm

Very well summarized. Let it be said that the AI is especially dumb and runs always in a straight path if possible. No matter if it runs through a damaging cloud 3 times.

Is there any way to determine what certain damage types actually does? I mean... short from just trying it out? I've played through the whole game and never knew what type I should use (short from transdamintional).

Jernaugh
Scholar
Posts: 128
Joined: September 22nd, 2014, 5:41 am

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by Jernaugh » March 10th, 2017, 4:37 pm

I've tried them all out using Onslaught. So far, it looks like:
Transdimensional inflicts Hobbled.
Chemical inflicts DoT.
Mental inflicts Dazed.
Energy inflicts Knockback (which may trigger Knockdown if the target hits a wall or the edge of the area).

These effects don't always occur, although I don't know whether that's due to an extra die roll failing or immunity or something else. I also don't know whether crits change anything, because my LC never crits. :-D

Ningauble
Novice
Posts: 34
Joined: April 17th, 2016, 7:26 pm

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by Ningauble » March 11th, 2017, 1:12 am

Jernaugh wrote:I've tried them all out using Onslaught. So far, it looks like:
Transdimensional inflicts Hobbled.
Chemical inflicts DoT.
Mental inflicts Dazed.
Energy inflicts Knockback (which may trigger Knockdown if the target hits a wall or the edge of the area).

These effects don't always occur, although I don't know whether that's due to an extra die roll failing or immunity or something else. I also don't know whether crits change anything, because my LC never crits. :-D

In the rpg a roll of an attack roll with a result of 20 causes a major effect. That's probably what you're seeing. It's not quite like a critical.

Jernaugh
Scholar
Posts: 128
Joined: September 22nd, 2014, 5:41 am

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by Jernaugh » March 11th, 2017, 9:20 pm

Not according to the game itself. The ingame hints actually say that Onslaught inflicts extra effects depending on the damage type chosen. What is unclear is whether these effects can fail, whether some enemies resist them and whether there is an effect that is analogous to critical skill checks for such attacks.

kaiman
Scholar
Posts: 243
Joined: March 10th, 2015, 3:40 am

Re: General combat system feedback - ideas to make combat better

Post by kaiman » April 2nd, 2017, 1:35 pm

I don't really play TToN for its combat, and when possible opt for a peaceful resolution, but occasionally curiosity, failed skill checks or a bug forced my hand and so I ended fighting a fair number of times already. Enough, I hope, to offer some ideas for improvement, for the rather dull and unfulfilling experience that combat is to me in its present state. Mind you, I rather like tactical, turn-based combat in general, and tremendously enjoyed games like D:OS or Blackguards (I + II), where combat played the dominant role.

When trying to understand why TToNs combat is so nondescript and mediocre, compared to these games mentioned above, and others, I came to the conclusion that while being turn-based, it's not very tactical. It is also not challenging, it does not quicken your pulse or make your fingers sweat. Often in tactical games, you are facing strong foes or are outnumbered by your opponents, having to make the best of the environment and your skills to prevail. I guess there are other factors making good, turn-based, tactical combat entertaining and exciting, but often each battle is set-up like a puzzle, that can either be brute-forced, or "solved" more easily by applying the right tactics: positioning, skills, etc.. But TToN offers none of that, neither a challenge nor a reason to apply much thought to dealing with a crisis. In my view, the battles as they are set up right now would have been better suited for RTwP than for a turn-based system.

So what's wrong specifically, and how could those aspects be changed for the better?
  • The environments are not suited for tactical combat.
    In almost all cases, combat takes place in an open area, with a few small obstacles scattered about, if any. There are no choke points, no elevated or otherwise select positions, where enemies would be harder to get to or require specific ways to get rid of. (Even PS:T had some enemies placed on roof-tops in Curst/Carceri, despite there being practically no ranged weapons, only Nordom and spells). I guess it will be hard to rectify this lack completely, but perhaps there's the opportunity here or there to rework some of the areas a bit? Especially those that are mostly used for crisis, like some of the fathoms or the place we fight Malaise. There might also be opportunities to place some opponents outside of melee weapon reach.
  • The opponents are all the same.
    In almost all cases, I fought x identical opponents. Be it Sorrow fragments, Abykoses, Malaise, Tabaht, Children of the Endless Circle, Murdens, etc. There's hardly any reason to be tactical about who to target. None is more dangerous than the other, so just concentrate on either, then move to the next, then the next, until it's finally over. How hard would it be to give them slightly different appearances, maybe only a different label, and abilities or weapons to match. Let them have different resistances, maybe through cyphers they carry, and in general make some more dangerous to certain character builds and some more dangerous to others.
  • Esoteries and Cyphers don't mix and match.
    A lot of spells in a lot of RPGs (turnbased or otherwise) interact with or counter certain other spells. This allows for more powerful attacks if combined correctly, or allows to greatly mitigate harm wrought be opponents, or make said opponents susceptible to taking damage in the first place. In TToN, each esoterie or cypher seems to do its own thing, and while some are protective or enhance the ability to deal damage, they don't really work in combination. I am not a huge fan of buffing and debuffing, and I guess a system like in D:OS is out of the question as well, but it would be nice if there was more to "spell-casting" than simple one-time effects, lasting for a certain number of rounds. Since the system already features all those various damage types, maybe introduce more proper resistances and then have cyphers that target or grant those. Not ideal, but perhaps easier to implement than cyphers reacting with each other directly.
  • Crises are one-dimensional.
    For a story-driven game, such as TToN, the combat encounters are fairly uninspired and all play out more or less the same. They have a single objective, and that is to get rid of the enemies, by force or other means. I think things could be spiced up a lot by adding secondary objectives to each, or at least the more important, crisis. Things that are kind of optional, but would add a challenge and extra benefits to pursuing them. From the top of my mind, here are some ideas:
    • The leader of the gang shouts an order to one of his underlings to run for reinforcements. Dispatch of him quickly, or else even more enemies turn up.
    • Some innocent bystanders are drawn into the battle as it breaks out and are assaulted by the abhumans. Make sure they survive, or there'll be no more buying or selling to the deceased vendor.
    • Having nothing to lose, the enemy has activated a numenera that will blow up in a few turns, obliterating friend and foe alike. Scoop it up quickly and throw it over the cliff's edge, or be blown to bits.
  • Combat is way too easy.
    There were one or two crises where I was ill prepared and did not fare well: against the Abykos' in the mirror, and against the Children in front of the sealed entrance to the tombs in the Valley. I did not attempt those a second time, therefore don't know if I could beat them with a more careful approach. All things considered, things are way to easy to be much fun, however. During the most recent fight, against the cultists at the exit from the Ascension of Kex-Lianish, my party of 3 (having sent home Rhin just before) made short work of everyone without breaking a sweat. And I usually am challenged enough playing RPGs on default/normal difficulty. But with TToN, there's simply too many resources for the amount of combat present. Doing away with the health stat, or at least toning it way down (say, to half the amount player characters currently have) might be the way to go.
I take it that combat is not the primary focus of TToN, unlike with most other RPGs, but since inXile specifically set out to improve upon P:ST in that area, I think a bit more depth to that aspect would have been in order. I don't know if any of my suggestions are feasible, and if any of it would help to make combat shine, but it's the best I can offer for now.

Rink
Acolyte
Posts: 61
Joined: April 9th, 2012, 11:40 am

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by Rink » April 3rd, 2017, 7:04 am

@Jernaugh
Initiative
I think it is part of the difficulty of the fights that you can build your character more or less for combat-situations. So if you don't put any points in initiative, then you shouldn't complain about being dead before you are able to move in my opinion. That's pretty much the only thing that ability does, so taking this away with a "speed-check" would render initiative useless.
Positioning before combat
I agree, when fighting against some opponents it was very hard to survive just because the automatic placement of the heroes when the fight started. I also didn't find out how to change the order of my heroes (you really don't want to be in front if you can't take a punch).
Speed of actions in combat
That may have been fixed with the update. I had no problems with this at all.
Responsiveness
What would you propose then to cancel an action without clicking? Seeing the thing you can see when left-clicking in combat automatically with a mouse-over? I had no problem with the way it works atm. and think the right-clicking is a fast and good option.
Information about enemies
Try to mouse-over the enemy on the top of the page. It tells you what you need to know.

@kaiman
Minor spoilers.
I like the combat in the game and I would still think it is tactical. Not because there are options like in games that focus on tactical fights (I think that is something you cannot expect from a game like this), but because you cannot really get "routine" in fighting, because it only happens rarely. So the first time you will try a new spell will be a situation, where this spell can actually decide between life and death. If combat is hard or easy depends on the choice of your companions, on how you build your character (and if you neglect combat skills), and if you find or buy better equipment for them.

Environments not suited for tactical combat
I disagree. the majority of the combat situations I had, actually didn't happen in a full open environment but there were chokes you could use, things you had to run around and couldn't shoot through, etc.. Some crisis situations also did encourage friendly/non-fighting situations, an choice I would also define as "tactical". To have opponents outside of melee range means that this crisis cannot be won if you don't have a range character in your team. That would be a major design flaw. So there would have to be a possibility to still reach those enemies without using ranged weapons (I think the fight against the first has that btw.).

Opponents all the same
I disagree, how are Abykoses the same as other enemies with their resistance switch? How is the construct the same as other fighters? How is the fight against the children of the endless gate the same as any other with the "mouth attack" at the end? How is Malaise the same as every other fight if you have to find the right target? Did you beat Inifere after having made him stronger through interacting with all the flags on the way? I sure haven't. I think every single fight has a new mechanic/twist to it, no two fights are exactly the same.

Crises are one-dimensional.
I think, they are everything but that. You have the option to talk to a lot of enemies, you can use your environment, some crisis situation cannot be won with fighting at all, because you have a different objective. What you propose is to change the goals of a crisis mid-fight, that is something you can do in a game where the crisis takes a long time (and is done for example in the sorrow Miel Avest crisis, it is done in the endless gate fights with the position of the mouth in the fight, it is done in the Bloom crisis, it is included in the non-fighting version of the lost anchorage crisis). I am not saying it is a bad option, but if a game doesn't focus on long fights or frequent fights, then I wouldn't "expand" the crisis by changing goals mid-fight, thus negating the current tactical options the player chose and forcing him to adapt.

Difficulty
I can understand that someone who likes to play tactical games like you may find the combat too easy or not tactical enough. Maybe you should try to make the combat without party-members to make it more difficult? For me it was difficult, some combat situations I couldn't win even with all the resources in the game. Just because it depends a lot on how you build your characters, if they are equipped with the right weapons, if you upgraded their armor. I don't think the combat should be made harder for all players. If it needs to be harder, I am fine with making a higher difficulty level for the ones that want it (meaning you just take 25% more damage, and do 25% less damage etc.).

I think combat isn't the thing the devs should work on a lot. If I wasn't so curious and would have replayed many situations with combat, then I would only had less than 10 crisis in the entire game that actually involved any fighting at all. I don't think I am the exception. And to make combat too difficult to succeed if you have never before done it in the game, wouldn't be a good choice in my book. If it are small things to adapt then of course that isn't bad, but why work majorly on a feature that most people then will never experience?
--------------------------------------------------------
You can't stay young - but you can refuse to grow old.

kaiman
Scholar
Posts: 243
Joined: March 10th, 2015, 3:40 am

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by kaiman » April 3rd, 2017, 12:19 pm

Thanks for the in-depth response. It's hard for me to gauge what the overall consensus on combat is, as there is remarkably little discussion about it. Not sure if there was more of that during the beta-phase, which I know nothing of. Most feedback I did see was about there being too little combat, a sentiment I do not share. However, during one of the post-release KS updates, inXile stated
[...] we are pleased to announce that we will be working on additional content and updates for Torment post-release. These updates will include:
  • Oom ("The Toy" companion).
  • Voluminous Codex.
  • Crisis system improvements.
Now, maybe I am reading this all wrong, and all they are going to do for crises are UI and UX refinements, but just in case there's more to it, I wanted to get some ideas out the door, and a bit of a discussion going.

Anyway, to some of your points:
Rink wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 7:04 am
I think combat isn't the thing the devs should work on a lot. If I wasn't so curious and would have replayed many situations with combat, then I would only had less than 10 crisis in the entire game that actually involved any fighting at all. I don't think I am the exception. And to make combat too difficult to succeed if you have never before done it in the game, wouldn't be a good choice in my book. If it are small things to adapt then of course that isn't bad, but why work majorly on a feature that most people then will never experience?
Exactly because the number of crises is so small, I think it would be a good idea to make them a bit more "meaty", so to speak. By no means do I want to turn TToN into a hard-core tactical RPG or strategy game :-). I guess it may also not suffice to regard combat in isolation from the rest of the game, as that also suffers, IMO, from an abundance of resources. I deliberately go with 80% or 90% chances for skill checks a lot of the time, just to make things a little bit more interesting, and that's how I got into some of the fights in the first place. Guaranteed success just isn't my idea of fun, and that is true for the crises as well. And especially with a system in place where failure does not mean "game over", why not take the opportunity and spice things up a little bit?

Rink wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 7:04 am
I disagree, how are Abykoses the same as other enemies with their resistance switch? How is the construct the same as other fighters? How is the fight against the children of the endless gate the same as any other with the "mouth attack" at the end? How is Malaise the same as every other fight
I did not mean to indicate that opponents in every fight felt the same, but that within a fight, often all opponents were the same, in terms of their attacks and defences. There's quite a big variety between the different types of enemies, but I would also like to have a bit of variety between the "same" enemies, preferably without losing their overall uniqueness. I mean, humans at least bear different kinds of weapons, and I guess some are Nanos and others Jacks or Glaives. But abhumans and constructs of the same kind all felt exactly the same. Perhaps they just did not survive long enough to show some uniqueness, though ...

Rink wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 7:04 am
Crises are one-dimensional.
I think, they are everything but that. You have the option to talk to a lot of enemies, you can use your environment, some crisis situation cannot be won with fighting at all, because you have a different objective. [...] I am not saying it is a bad option, but [...] I wouldn't "expand" the crisis by changing goals mid-fight, thus negating the current tactical options the player chose and forcing him to adapt.
Well, there are different options to handle many of the crises already, but at least in my play-through, I must have stumbled across many of the less interesting ones and avoided many of those that offered solutions outside of killing. The ones I did fight could certainly have benefited from an additional twist, complication or short-cut half-way through.

Regarding the Miel Avest crisis specifically, I am torn on that one. Its general idea is quite brilliant, but the apparent lack of any meaningful action on the player's side means it could as well have been made into a cut-scene.

Rink wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 7:04 am
Difficulty
I can understand that someone who likes to play tactical games like you may find the combat too easy or not tactical enough. Maybe you should try to make the combat without party-members to make it more difficult? For me it was difficult, some combat situations I couldn't win even with all the resources in the game. Just because it depends a lot on how you build your characters, if they are equipped with the right weapons, if you upgraded their armor. I don't think the combat should be made harder for all players. If it needs to be harder, I am fine with making a higher difficulty level for the ones that want it (meaning you just take 25% more damage, and do 25% less damage etc.).
Like I said, I did not manage to beat all the fights I started, but I never retried the two I did not win. I like that the difficulty varies and is obviously tied to party makeup, equipment and skills. I also agree that difficulty is a very subjective topic, and there is certainly a good reason why games tend to have configurable settings to tailor it to ones personal preference. The least I would want is some mad "balancing pass" that makes every type of character play the same, and every fight equally "hard".

Truth to be told, I noticed more issues now that I am further along (LC just made it to tier 4, Aligern and Erritis will follow on next level-up). Maybe the game is not meant to be played with the same party start to finish, as I did notice that none of the others received any XP so far. At any rate, there seem just to be too many 100% skill check chances, and combat stats are a bit too good as well. Rhin, way before she left, had 95% chance for evasion, and thus would single-handedly keep all enemies at bay (until she finally did get hit). For the last two fights, Erritis almost always got a second attack after landing a (critical, I presume) hit. And I am role-playing, not min-maxing!

Rink
Acolyte
Posts: 61
Joined: April 9th, 2012, 11:40 am

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by Rink » April 3rd, 2017, 4:01 pm

I do think the discussion is good and it is perfect if you have ideas that improve the system in your opinion.
But I don't think that with the finished game in stores it is realistic or needed to now overhaul the combat in a very costly way. For example the battlefields couldn't be changed without changing the maps and that surely isn't something that would be worth the resources in my opinion.

Difficulty: I have nothing against a slider, it doesn't matter to me if that affects skillchecks as well as combat and if it just reduces all skillschecks by 15%/30% or improves damage taken/decreases damage dealt, then this would be fairly easy to implement.
That being said there are of course always ways to make it harder on yourself by just making rules yourself like not using consumables, not sleeping, not reloading after failed skillchecks..

Enemy-variation battles with many enemies always had different enemies, you can see that in their resistances and the weapons they use. But yes, usually it isn't more than two-three different variants and depending on your skilling/weapons/companions fights will be over quite fast. I think if we criticize enemy variation in crises like you mean, then we should look at specific crises (how many are there in game in total? 30?) that need the variation improved to make them more interesting.

Miel Avest: I disagree with what some people think: it is already meaningful to save lives even if you have no advantage through that yourself or see them ever again, you still know that you saved their life. But it depends on your answer to the question "what does one life matter". I don't need a specific reward to feel good in saving most of the people in that encounter (impossible to save all of them :( ). No way this should be a cutscene!

Companions
Evasion doesn't mean you always evade the attack though, it is dependent on the attack of the opponent as well, it just lowers the chance of a hit. I had 50% evade on my jack and he would always get hit for example, while Rhin with 90% rarely gets hit (bit still more than 10%).
But yes, the new armor you can get for your companions in Miel Avest is crucial, otherwise Rhin never gets that good. Rhin is pretty much useless for most of the game and IF she is hit (for example by a mage), then she is dead in 2 hits, while Erritis was way too good in my party. I had the same thing with double hits for him due to the "get second hit when first hit killed someone"-trait. His lack of defense and lack of second bonded item should be the downside of him but you can get rid of the latter with a cypher that raises concentration by one and the first doesn't matter if you have tank that can take the hits and stands in front of him to take the aggro. The bonded artifacts that give more edge are making the game a lot easier as well. But you first have to level the companions to higher level so they become useful. A first level Erritis with his starting weapon will not be of any use in a fight. I think it is very hard to really balance the companions late game, because it may differ what level the companions will have, what equipment they have and at that time and there are battles that you cannot avoid. Also the battle really depends on how you play it, if you recruit several opponents to your team, then the fight is pretty much over.

Another thing that I noticed was that with my jack I could reach 20+ armor and resistance AND high evasion, willpower and endurance (without magical buffs). At this point you will never really take any meaningful damage if you get hit and I was able to solo fights. But again that was late game on max level with bought items and leveling towards that. So again I am not sure if this is a meaningful thing to balance around as I am unsure if others would skill the same way and buy the same items.

So I would actually think that some balancing for late game battles would be something they could do, I personally would find it a difficult thing to do, because it isn't like in other games where it is pretty easy to predict the quality of the party at an given point in the story (because if they passed earlier battles, then they will have a certain quality already) and are able to balance the opponents accordingly. This will be a lot harder to do here. If it is easy to do for them: sure go for it.
--------------------------------------------------------
You can't stay young - but you can refuse to grow old.

User avatar
Hawke64
Novice
Posts: 25
Joined: February 27th, 2017, 3:58 pm

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by Hawke64 » April 4th, 2017, 12:57 pm

Jernaugh wrote:
March 9th, 2017, 3:00 pm
[*]Lack of information about enemies. PoE displayed enemy resistance and accuracy once you had attacked that resistance or been attacked respectively (unless you switched it off). This is not hand-holding; the combat should be challenging not because I need to remember X different numbers, but because the positioning, situation, objectives and enemy abilities make it so. You don't need to give numbers, even something like "Resistant to Transdimensional" on mouse-over would be enough. And knowing whether my 90% evasion Jack got hit because the enemy got lucky or because the enemy was just that good is valuable tactical information.[/list]
Found (another player told me) that it's possible to see resistances when the cursor is over enemy's portrait.

Edit. Spoiler tag doesn't seem to work, thus the link to the example on Imgur https://imgur.com/a/tpEf2

User avatar
sear
Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: March 21st, 2012, 8:30 am

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by sear » April 4th, 2017, 1:47 pm

Interesting discussion and feedback - thanks guys. Not sure how much of this is actionable at this stage but we are certainly paying attention.

User avatar
Lord of Riva
Adventurer
Posts: 964
Joined: October 14th, 2014, 10:18 am

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by Lord of Riva » April 5th, 2017, 1:44 am

sear wrote:
April 4th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Interesting discussion and feedback - thanks guys. Not sure how much of this is actionable at this stage but we are certainly paying attention.
This feedback is not really new and was already mentioned by multiple people in the Alpha and Beta tests. Back then the conclusion was that it only "needed polish" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

kaiman
Scholar
Posts: 243
Joined: March 10th, 2015, 3:40 am

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by kaiman » April 6th, 2017, 1:02 pm

I played a bit further, did some more combat and likely came across the best crisis in the whole game: the Anchorage. When inXile came forth with the crisis idea, I had envisioned scenarios just like that.

I still only had me (a Jack), Erritis and Aligern, and it was pretty exciting to achieve the peaceful victory in that constellation. It was everything but one-dimensional, as each character had their specific, separate task, and none was completely fit for it. It was challenging to me (maybe less so with a party of 4) and presented a neat puzzle to solve. And it seemed like a natural extension of the regular gameplay. If other crises were only half as good as the Anchorage, I wouldn't have any complaints.

TTO
Initiate
Posts: 9
Joined: April 27th, 2017, 11:26 am

Re: General combat system feedback

Post by TTO » April 27th, 2017, 12:50 pm

Regarding easiness of combat: it seems to me that Edge/Effort just trumps everything else. +20% chance per point is HUGE, and there's no shortage of points (even despite the fact that I don't like resting often and usually avoid it as much as possible). Chance-boosting cyphers are useless from the very beginning due to this. And with Edge, have 1 Intellect-focused and 1 Speed-focused character - and even skills become obsolete with all dialogue checks auto-passing due to Edge alone. Same thing with combat.
Aside from that, it just does not make sense to me that everyone can do everything if he tries hard enough (and "enough" is 4-5 effort points). Differences between characters are fading.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest