Difficulty in user-made modules

[Legacy_MayCaesar]

               

Is it, though?  Your whole point seemed to be "Mages at high level in NWN are so fragile that they need tanks to protect them"...so if I can easily solo as a mage in NWN, doesn't that indicate your point isn't correct?

 

I think there is a misunderstanding that makes us speak different languages, without understanding each other's points. I didn't mean to say that mages in NWN cannot survive a beating, and yes, I am aware of a couple of Wizard tanky builds that make soloing OC a cakewalk, although a very tedious one. You can also easily solo DAO as Arcane Warrior (a Mage spec) on Nightmare, as that specialization clearly wasn't thought out well. In terms of ability to build a mage that won't have any trouble surviving even alone these games are equal.

 

However, the mechanics Mages rely on in these games to survive are different. In DAO mages rely on controlling the battlefield by disabling and slowing down enemies. In NWN, they rely on self-buffs instead. Casting the same buffs before each battle is tedious and boring, and, once you are done, not much skill is required to survive. In DAO, however, you don't need to pre-cast anything, you just head into the battle and make decisions as it goes. IF you decide to make your mage in NWN into pure damage dealer, without any defensive buffs, you will be a glass cannon dying to a couple of rounds on later levels. If you go for pure damage dealer in DAO, you will still have a lot of defensive options, since most of damaging spells there also disable enemies in some way. And, again, since you control your entire party, you can always pull a tank back to you if things get hot; this is not really an option in non-modded NWN.

 

My point is, I dislike the way mages are played in NWN games. Not so much in NWN2 since mage there is just one of multiple controlled characters, and since most modules there don't go much beyond level 10 or so, the point at which I start really hating mages. Limited charges, while rarely an issue due to ability to rest in most places, still are an unnecessary annoyance, and one of the reasons I am looking forward to Sword Coast: Legends so eagerly is that it gets rid of this ugly system and replaces it with a usual cooldown mechanics. Which also increases the diversity of the gameplay: as you mentioned, a high level Sorcerer/Wizard in NWN can just spam IGMS all the time for incredible efficiency, while with cooldown mechanism they will have to rotate the cast spells.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_KDD-0063]

               

I think custom, combat heavy modules are balanced around you having a effective character build, a.k.a. power build, on hardcore difficulty. Also, most modules are actually quite linear (for example, Aielund Saga), so it's very easy to balance around levels.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grani]

               

Just to release this thread's tension a little... regarding the whole Warrior VS Mage debate:





Seriously, though - what MM said is true. Spellcasters are absurdly powerful on high levels. In worlds with low-magic equipment warrior-types will deal less damage to mages than they will do to warriors by just STANDING there with Mestil's Acid Sheath. With higher magic equipment the difference becomes smaller, but wizards are still quite over-powered.

 

I think I managed to balance spellcasters and melee classes (at level 40) for my module by modifying a lot of spells and providing carefully specified equipment, but I can't imagine high-level wizards losing to fighters with no such modifications.

If anyone's interested, the changelog is available here: http://neverwinterva.../pvp-duel-arena

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

I tend to agree that epic wizards have a lot of power and, with so many options, tend to be dominant. This will be more pronounced in environments where access to magical effects outside of innate magical ability is rare (low- to mid-magic worlds).

 

But, depending on how one envisions the world setting for the module, that sort of makes sense. After all, our real-world point of view is one where, historically, being effective in a physical confrontation has resulted in dominance, at least in one-on-one encounters. But, in a world where magic is real, it isn't much of a surprise that those with the most talent with magic are dominant.

 

And, of course, the case of a mage with reciprocal damage shields is a good example of a high-level mage having an advantage over a straight-up melee opponent. But, many classes have features that seem overpowered in a given situation. For example, if that high-level melee opponent has dev crit, then the mage is likely to lose that battle anyway.

 

I guess the question becomes why do we care which class has the edge? It's pointless to look at this from a PvP perspective, since that is a tail-chasing game. For pretty much every legit build, there is some other build that can take it down. From a PvE perspective, we would hope that modules that are challenging for one class would be challenging for others as well. But, I personally think it's unrealistic to hope that every encounter will be an equal challenge for every class, at least without nerfing part of what makes some classes fun. Some other threads have been discussing whether a boss that's immune to this effect will/should also be immune to another effect. A fair question, but I must say that I won't bother playing a mage in modules where the boss fights are grind-it-out slug fests or DPS battles because most of the interesting mage tactics are overly nerfed. Not that there is anything wrong with that, for people who enjoy it. But, if I wanted to play an MMO where all classes are tweaked to the final percent for perfect balance, then I wouldn't be playing NWN.

 

It's also worth noting that some part of balance or difficulty in a module is the player's responsibility. Of course, the module author should probably say what he had in mind as far as challenge goes and how the various classes might affect the level of challenge. But, if I play a mage in a module and I stop and rest and rebuff before every battle (which I hate to do because it's boring), then I will expect those battles to be less challenging than if there are rest restrictions or I chose to only rest once per 8 hours or once per area or once per boss or whatever. I usually play assuming I will have to conserve spells and that I don't always know what the best choices will be. (It's actually kind of disappointing when someone in one of these discussions automatically assumes every mage goes into each encounter fully buffed, with 25 IGMSes, etc.) Similarly, if I go into a melee-focused module playing a druid / harper scout / PDK, I am expecting things to be pretty tough. That's my decision going into it.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

MM: Sorry, I read as far as you taking "disagree" to mean "agree to the opposite" instead of "fail to agree", and determined that there's no point in reading any more from you.  There is no further need to continue talking to me.  Good day.

Me: Boy, that sky sure is blue, huh? I even have some facts that seem to support my opinion, like computer analysis of a photograph of the sky compared to how programs represent the color blue
Tchos: I completely disagree with what you say, can't see where you're coming from, and really can't take anything away from your assessment of the sky.
Me: So...you don't think the sky is blue? It's some other color?
Tchos: I did NOT agree to the opposite! I didn't agree that the sky is not blue, I merely failed to agree with your assessment that the sky was blue

Right...

Good day, sirrah, good day.
 

Folks, don't heat up that much! Just agree to disagree.

I tried that. He wasn't having any of it. See statements I made like:

"I'll make you a deal. Say something along the lines of 'DA:O had some significant balance issues and broken gameplay systems...but I liked the combat overall in spite of the flaws present and thoroughly enjoyed the game as a whole' and I'll be more than content."

As you might have noticed, *I* did not like the combat overall and did not enjoy the game as a whole. But if he did? Fine, it's an opinion, we can agree to disagree. But he's also attempting to deny facts...and that last part is where we cannot agree to disagree because it's a question of recognizing reality (of a video game's programming, but you know what I mean) rather than a question of opinion.
 

I think there is a misunderstanding that makes us speak different languages, without understanding each other's points. I didn't mean to say that mages in NWN cannot survive a beating, and yes, I am aware of a couple of Wizard tanky builds that make soloing OC a cakewalk, although a very tedious one. You can also easily solo DAO as Arcane Warrior (a Mage spec) on Nightmare, as that specialization clearly wasn't thought out well. In terms of ability to build a mage that won't have any trouble surviving even alone these games are equal.

I never said anything about soloing the OC being tedious -- you'd rip through it faster than most non-mage builds. You decimate it once you get past the early levels. A mage in NWN with no skill points spent and all feats used for Skill Foci can still easily shred the OC solo. That's very different from needing to pick a specific (and extremely overpowered) class specialization in DA:O.
 

However, the mechanics Mages rely on in these games to survive are different. In DAO mages rely on controlling the battlefield by disabling and slowing down enemies. In NWN, they rely on self-buffs instead. Casting the same buffs before each battle is tedious and boring, and, once you are done, not much skill is required to survive.

Spending 3-6 seconds every 2+ minutes reapplying a few short term buffs is tedious and boring? You literally only need Extended Mestil's Acid Sheath and Extended Elemental Shield for the vast majority of the encounters...and at level 15+ those buffs are lasting 3+ minutes each (which is likely going to be several battles). Outside of that you might be applying, oh, Improved Invisibility, Shadow Shield, Lesser Mind Blank, and True Seeing long term for 15+ minutes (or 30+ minutes if extended) each after resting? 12 seconds of long term prep every half hour or something? What else are you casting at that point?
 

Which also increases the diversity of the gameplay: as you mentioned, a high level Sorcerer/Wizard in NWN can just spam IGMS all the time for incredible efficiency, while with cooldown mechanism they will have to rotate the cast spells.

If you think of the charges as an unnecessary annoyance then part of the problem is that you're looking at the system in the wrong way. It is a necessary annoyance specifically so mages cannot cast their best spells non-stop -- think of it as managing consumables on a journey. You want to use your consumables efficiently so they last long enough and you have the best ones available when you need them. You might *prefer* a system based on cooldowns rather than spells per day (and that's fine, hell, I do too) but mages are already obscenely powerful even WITH the limited spells per day to the point that most worlds nerf spells and/or restrict resting.
 

In worlds with low-magic equipment warrior-types will deal less damage to mages than they will do to warriors by just STANDING there with Mestil's Acid Sheath. With higher magic equipment the difference becomes smaller, but wizards are still quite over-powered.

Indeed. At level 40 the mage is reflecting 81-86 acid damage and 41-48 fire damage per hit (technically a few more as magic with Death Armor if you really want). You need some crazy powerful weapons to make it remotely feasible to do more damage to the mage than you take.

BTW, I perused through your module changelog quickly, had some concerns/confusion if you're interested in hearing them -- but probably would be better suited for a feedback thread or PMs I imagine?
 

A fair question, but I must say that I won't bother playing a mage in modules where the boss fights are grind-it-out slug fests or DPS battles because most of the interesting mage tactics are overly nerfed.

What do you consider to be interesting mage tactics? I don't see how you could consider "Spam X spell until the boss randomly just instantly dies, which could be the first cast or the 40th" interesting mage tactics, no? So presumably you mean something besides random instant death effects.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grani]

               

BTW, I perused through your module changelog quickly, had some concerns/confusion if you're interested in hearing them -- but probably would be better suited for a feedback thread or PMs I imagine?

 

I'll send you a PM in a minute. In fact, the main purpose of making this small PvP module was to get feedback on the modifications and overall balance, so I'll gladly hear your opinions (or anyone else's for that matter).

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

What do you consider to be interesting mage tactics? I don't see how you could consider "Spam X spell until the boss randomly just instantly dies, which could be the first cast or the 40th" interesting mage tactics, no? So presumably you mean something besides random instant death effects.

Instant death spells and disabling tactics are legit for mages (as legit as dev crit, I would say). But, I have no issues with disabling auto-fail on 1 so that a couple stacks of some scroll isn't a win button. Ditto for those that modify certain spells' effects against bosses so that they are useful but not effectively the end of the fight against a boss as the often are now. E.g., instant death is replaced by losing a large fraction of total HP. E.g., the duration of paralysis / petrification / etc. reduced to 5-ish rounds instead of some huge amount that allows a toon who otherwise can't really do any damage to plink away in total safety until the boss is dead. And so on. Particularly with some flavor text that indicates what's going on ("You can see that X is slowly regaining control of his movements...") That way, the boss fights can still be a challenge and not a matter of spamming this or that until a save is failed and then it's over, but at the same time, bosses aren't immune to everything to the point where half the mage's arsenal is just a list of spells that do nothing.

As I say, there is nothing wrong with DPS tactics if that's what someone enjoys or if as an option. But, if that's all the mage is reduced to, then it doesn't end up seeming especially mage-like to me.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tchos]

               

Me:

Tchos:

Me:

Tchos:


Good day, sirrah, good day.

 

Oh, now we're parodying the opposition's arguments, are we?  You're a fine piece of work, you are.  How about you stop quoting lines from me when you can't seem to distinguish form from meaning?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Eternal Phoenix]

               

Another heated debate in the NWN section and Tchos is at the centre of it again! I'm shocked! /sarcasm  

 

Just to release this thread's tension a little... regarding the whole Warrior VS Mage debate:

 

The reality:

 

One Warrior vs Five Mages

 

'>

 

The whole problem with user made modules is that enemy encounters next to the scripting can be some of the hardest parts to create. Understanding the time it takes to create a truly balanced but challenging game is what made me appreciate a game like Dark Souls all the more. The developers really have to make sure to account for your class, level and the route you choose to take and ensure that no matter what the game remains not just challenging but balanced too.

 

The problem I see with many NWN modules nowadays is that they are either too hard or too easy.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Instant death spells and disabling tactics are legit for mages (as legit as dev crit, I would say).

...*twitch*...Dev Crit...*twitch*...

By that logic I'd say instant death spells and disabling tactics should be removed from the game '>

(note: while I actually do think instant death spells should be removed from the game I don't object to (weaker than default) disabling effects)

That way, the boss fights can still be a challenge and not a matter of spamming this or that until a save is failed and then it's over, but at the same time, bosses aren't immune to everything to the point where half the mage's arsenal is just a list of spells that do nothing.

For the change of instant death spells doing a large fraction...how does that really help? Seems that either the fraction is large enough that it's worth still fishing for those 1s (or lower rolls) or it's so small that damage spells will do more. I could easily see making something like Wail of the Banshee a Necromancy version of Meteor Swarm (Fortitude save or take 20d6 damage, 10d6 on successful save) but doing a percentage of HP on failed save seems problematic.

(note that Meteor Swarm is pathetic by default and should be buffed, talking general principles here)

Regarding 5 rounds duration on CC...does that really change anything either? Instead of "Spam IGMS 20 times to win" it becomes "Hit boss with Bigby 6, use IGMS 9 times, hit boss with Bigby 6, use IGMS 9 times, hit boss with Bigy 6, use IGMS 2 times, win." I suppose the "main" benefit is that you can allow the boss to do a lot more damage (because the melee characters have better AC/HP/etc) and force the mage to CC or die. Of course, in that case we're requiring the mage to use certain spells which you might find to be a problem.

Oh, now we're parodying the opposition's arguments, are we?  You're a fine piece of work, you are.  How about you stop quoting lines from me when you can't seem to distinguish form from meaning?

I wish it was parodying. In the quote you "completely disagreed with" I specifically mentioned the "Force Field the tank for constant invulnerability" bit (among several other things). I then mentioned it again (with the several other things). You then said "It's safe to say that your examples either weren't present or noticeable in my playthroughs, or they didn't bother me."

Which was followed by "It would be a lie for me to say 'DA:O had some significant balance issues and broken gameplay systems', because I didn't feel any such balance trouble, and if there were any broken gameplay systems, I didn't experience them."

I pointed out the tank invulnerability *again* and you said "Whether someone chooses to seek and exploit game mechanics is no concern of mine. I don't do it, because I would get no satisfaction from it, so I can't say from experience whether it is as you say. Hypothetically, though, if a thing exists which is broken, then I agree that thing is broken. I'm not concerned or interested in "balance" in these games, though. This is a team-based game like D&D, and D&D is certainly not balanced."

So...you agree that the mechanic I've now mentioned at least *three* times prior to this post is broken. But despite that *fact* (and many other factual examples I listed), you're *still* apparently unwilling to agree that DA:O had significant balance issues and broken gameplay systems. Even when you apparently don't care about whether the game is balanced in the first place (so admitting it's not balanced isn't some problem for you) and apparently don't care about trying to play optimally (which means you're acknowledging that I have a much better understanding of the potential balance issues and broken gameplay systems).

Doctor: I fear our patient just died.
Nurse: Nonsense, he's perfectly fine.
Doctor: Er...he's not breathing.
Nurse: So I saw, but he's not dead.
Doctor: And his heartbeat has stopped.
Nurse: That's true, but he's perfectly fine.
Doctor: And he has no brain activity.
Nurse: Yeah, yeah, so what?
Doctor: ...

The problem I see with many NWN modules nowadays is that they are either too hard or too easy.

I'd be curious what you think of a low level module (warrior types only) and a high level module I made. I suspect you'll find them easy if you enjoy Dark Souls but they're harder than most NWN modules.

Though I technically don't know what you mean by "too hard or too easy" in this case -- personally I didn't even find the hardest module other than ones I've made (the Swordflight series by Rogueknight) very difficult in most cases...and that was while intentionally playing the worst possible character (a Druid 5/Shifter X, according to the author). But I'm also not most people -- I know a lot of people complained that Swordflight was way too hard.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tchos]

               

I wish it was parodying.

Doctor: I fear our patient just died.

Nurse: Nonsense, he's perfectly fine.

Doctor: Er...he's not breathing.

Nurse: So I saw, but he's not dead.

Doctor: And his heartbeat has stopped.

Nurse: That's true, but he's perfectly fine.

Doctor: And he has no brain activity.

Nurse: Yeah, yeah, so what?

Doctor: ...

 

Tell you what -- since you like these parodies so much, here's one that I think is a pretty accurate representation:

 

MagicalMaster: The combat in DA:O is terrible, stupid, and headache-inducing.

Tchos: I didn't think so. I loved it.  It was fun, even for a non-optimal character.

MagicalMaster: IMPOSSIBLE!  It is an objective fact that it's terrible!  I demand that you agree!

Tchos: I'm not going to agree that something's terrible, stupid, and headache-inducing if it wasn't that way for me.

MagicalMaster: How dare you ignore force fields?  That proves that I'm right!

Werelynx: Agree to disagree, guys!

MagicalMaster: This is an objective fact!  There will be no disagreeing!

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Tell you what -- since you like these parodies so much, here's one that I think is a pretty accurate representation:

Tchos: I'm not going to agree that something's terrible, stupid, and headache-inducing if it wasn't that way for me.

Ah, but that isn't what I asked you to agree to. I asked you to agree to

"DA:O had some significant balance issues and broken gameplay systems...but I liked the combat overall in spite of the flaws present and thoroughly enjoyed the game as a whole."

I've never objected to you *enjoying* the game. I've objected to you refusing to *acknowledge* the existence of objective facts that made *other* people unhappy...even if you didn't care/notice while playing.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tchos]

               

Ah, I was missing a part.  Here it is, then:

 

MagicalMaster: Sign this paper testifying that the combat is terrible and broken, including the parts that you didn't actually do or experience yourself, and I will stop posting walls of text about it.

Tchos: I'm not testifying to things that I didn't experience.  I will give you that if what you say about this particular thing is true, then I agree that's broken.

MagicalMaster: Not good enough!  *posts more walls of text*

 

This is all about me enjoying the game.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Tchos: I'm not testifying to things that I didn't experience.  I will give you that if what you say about this particular thing is true, then I agree that's broken.

So me pointing it out, videos being available online, the info being available on wikis and other websites...nope, not good enough. *You* haven't experienced it yourself.

And you've taken all this trouble to protest your astounding ignorance rather than take 5-10 minutes to verify what I've mentioned...why?

*wall of text*
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tchos]

               

And you've taken all this trouble to protest your astounding ignorance rather than take 5-10 minutes to verify what I've mentioned...why?

 

Why do I choose not to look for ways to stop enjoying a game I enjoy, and instead continue speaking to an astoundingly arrogant and obstinate individual?  Well, the answer to the former should be obvious, but the latter is because you won't let anything go and just snipe around with snarky little comments if I don't.

 

What I wonder is why it's so important to you that I, personally, share your hatred of the game.