"Philosophical" questions, What is a cheesy method? Bug or feature? Options

[Vuki]

I created this topic to discuss the "philosophical" aspect of the game. We can discuss here questions like:

- is a modification really needed or not?
- is something cheesy or cheeting or just a clever trick?
- game balance
- is an actual gap a bug or a feature?
- and so on ...

This topic will be maybe a bit too theoretical but I do not think it is a problem. We need such a place - as the discussions from the last 2-3 weeks prove it.

This post has been edited by Vuki: Aug 11 2008, 08:34 PM

[Baronius]

Let's stir the pot then... (just kidding )

- is a modification really needed or not?

If you refer to a particular change of a mod, then it's a too general question IMO (unless it's applied to concrete things).

If you mean "mods" here, generally, then my answer is: to each his own. Several players play BG2 without any mods, because they believe mods spoil the feeling of the original game. Others are eager to play mods, as many mods as possible. Some are choosey, have standards or personal preferences (e.g. about difficulty or mod types), others install a lot of mods.

For example, I had a mod called "Volcano! Pack". (If you type "Improved Volcano Pack" or "BG2 Volcano Pack" without quotes to google, you can still find it.) I see it in the installations of many players, yet it's probably one of the most overpowered mods (yes, I tend to conceal that I made it ).

As I've said, it also matters much what preferences the player has. (This would probably require a whole topic itself.) A few important factors: free time, skills, preferences about the mod's type, what causes the most satisfiction when playing a mod (e.g. light play, no difficult battles or difficult riddles, just dialogues, quests, romances; or hardcore play, hard battles etc.) and so on.

- is something cheesy or cheeting or just a clever trick?

Again, if we examine the question generally, this is also something that depends on the individual player. There are some useful guidelines though:
1. Would this be doable in the reality? (No, I don't mean that a troll can be met and slain in the reality.) For example, is it possible to leave an area and rest 8 hours, and the powerful enemies would also wait 8 hours on the other side of the door when they know you're injured and weak... Of course, I know this "reality" approach cannot be applied completely, e.g. characters "don't have to eat" (this is what the official hint says, more precisely "while your character does not have to eat, remember that YOU do. We don't want to lose any dedicated players"), i.e. you don't have to feed your characters in the game. But this is different from the other "unreal" things: this is something that simplifies gaming and increases gaming experience (and it can simply be assumed that they eat when you are in a tavern or inn, or in the wilderness). On the other hand, exploits which would be unlikely or physically impossible in the world of the medieval age or mythology are a different question. Common sense can be used to realize such exploits (such as periodically unequipping and equipping an item that gives a bonus point to constitution in order to heal to maximum HP).
2. Would this be doable in the world of the game? This is what Ryel and many other players call roleplaying. Identifying with the world you're playing in, trying to be in the place of those people and creatures.
3. What does the exploit mean to me? This is strongly related to the question of player preferences. For example, a player who wants to enjoy the game without thinking much and planning does not prefer difficult battles, and either uninstalls the mod, cheats, or uses exploits ("cheese"). On the other hand, a player who wants to improve his or her tactical skills can be his or her own policeman (these are Sikret's words). It also matters how persistent the player is. If the player says "if those guys at BWL can do it, I WILL also do, because I'm not worse than they!".

- game balance

This is also a partially subjective matter. For example, some people believe that AD&D should be strictly applied to BG2 (despite the fact that BG2 has never meant to follow such a perfect implementation); others believe that AD&D rules must be considered as strict guidelines, so they don't like when they see "illegal stats" in a creature file with editors, or a mod which adds (perhaps balanced but) "illegal" elements to the game. And there are those who believe that total freedom is the best, they have no problems with obviously overpowered elements or irrelevant additions (i.e. additions which don't fit to the world of the game). I find it narrow-minded when people of these different groups start to debate with each other, because they don't realize that "balance" means something totally different for each group, in each viewpoint.

As far as my viewpoint is concerned, I always say that balance should mean relative balance in the world of the game or a mod. As everywhere, all things make sense in their context. So mods should (at least) make sense in their own context. For example, Improved Anvil is not overpowered and not imbalanced at all. On the other hand, a mod which adds one +6 item with 25 special abilities to the game can be considered as overpowered.

So I say that the limit is imagination, and mods should be balanced in their own context. For example, some players say that it's strange that my Grey Clan Episode One mod adds very powerful enemies to the world (enemies with "ToB-levels and powers"). And what's the problem with it? Is the mod doable? It is. For example, the mod's final battle was very easily won by thetruth (one of the most powerful of all tacticians of BG2 and Improved Anvil). Of course, this isn't surprising (it was obviously no match for thetruth's skills), but even those who don't have nearly as good skills as thetruth could won it.

To sum up my viewpoint, I think it doesn't matter what creature, item etc. files hold as long as the game is fun and balanced. I'm sure Bioware developers weren't always just negligent when they gave "illegal stats" to certain creatures; they are there because they are good for gaming experience (a player should normally never learn the values of those "stats"). So, for example, applying "fixes" to these things (and trying to convince everyone that those are bugfixes) is a very narrow-minded approach. And one more argument for "illegal stats"? Who dares to state that a particular powerful enemy didn't gain some special powers during his/her adventures in his or her past? Who are heros? Creatures with "legal stats"? Hardly. Someone could say that powerful creatures were lucky when their "abilities were rolled", but I don't agree with this. I don't really know AD&D and don't care about it (but if it has creatures such as Mind Flayers then it has already become an exclusively business-oriented "industry" like Magic the Gathering, losing all of its good and balanced features, its magic). I just think that imagination has no rules.

[Vuki]

Baronius, please wait to my real first post! I am working on it and will be ready soon!

[Baronius]

Oh, forgive me! It seems I was too quick, I had some free time for forum posting so I thought I would try to write something useful. (Just a tip: next time, if you want to avoid people replying your first post, either mention it in the post, or write both posts before sending anything and then share them at the same time. Unless it's only me who likes to jump on new topics at BWL!)

[Vuki]

No problem. I thought I would be faster.

[Vuki]

First of all I would like to point out that I like this game (I mean IA) very much. It gives new and exciting experience to me and I really enjoy playing it. The reason of the criticism here is there to make it even better - at least better to me. I am sure that a lot of people see the issues that I raise in this post in a different way: either they think these are not important or that I am not right. It is not a problem: this topic is here to discuss such questions and to convince each other.

I read Sikret pdf about cheesy and cheat methods and I was really happy to realize that I did not use these technics in my IA game. So, when I dispute some of them here the reason is not that I am not able to play the game without them. I used sometimes borderline solutions but I think they are ok even in the eyes of Sikret (like I withdraw my characters from the Dracolich when he was busy and casting a spell to get a couple of segments to cast healing magic on my characters). BTW, my opinion is that this pdf is well-written and almost all rules are acceptable and valid. In this post I will cover those 3 points that are questionable.

I think BG2 is a role play game that has a tactical aspect because the fights are complicated enough to make it a tactical challenge. But the main priority is on the RPG in the vanilla game. Clearly Sikret intention was to make stronger the tactical side of the game. That is ok but in my opinion when he set up the rules he sometimes forgot the RPG side. Let's go through in this points!

1. Casting hostile spells from distance (offscreen):
IMHO there are two cases here: first when enemy does not react to your spell(s) - then it is simple cheesy (it should not be used in this case), the other case when enemies react to your spells. I will discuss only the second case. In most fantasy books the Hero, the Leader of Good use this tactics: he/she jump to the orcs from behind, he/she attack the enemies from distance by arrows, ... It is even described in the Dungeon Master Guide and it is called surprise. This is part of every role play game (including of course AD&D). So, from RPG point of view it is absolutely ok, there is no reason against it in my opinion. I think you all played Warcraft or Starcraft or similar RTS. In for example Starcraft (but it is true for other games as well) there is the fog of war effect (similar to BG2) and it is possible to use the "offscreen" tactics against enemies (and they use it against you as well). So, it is used in tactical games. Other interesting thing in this tactics that it can be done in a bit different way. Your thief hides in shadow and go close to the enemy and your mage cast the spell (fg. emotion) to that area from disctance. In this case you see the enemy however your mage does not see it. It can be done also by a Farsight spell and there are other solutions as well. But I think it should be handledin the same way then the general case.

I have read the argument that you should not use it because the enemies also do not use it. But it is not true: in some cases they use very similar tactics. For example the second drow ambush (when they dispel your pretection at the beginning of the battle) is a very good example: they affect you and you have no chance to avoid it (and also this is the reason why somebody use the offscreen tactics). This tactics could make some battles (but only a small portion of the battles) easier but that is not a reason to not use it. When your mage use Ruby Ray or when your tank character persuade the enemies to attack him instead of other weakers characters then it makes some battle also easier but no one calls it cheesy. Of course if somebody use this tactics without knowing the information that the enemies are there then it is cheesy. For example it is cheesy to use it in the first drow ambush because when you enter the onscreen area they notice you (even if you are invisible), so you are not able to spy them (however with a farsight spell it still can be useable, I have never tried it that way).

2. Abusing the area structure:
Honestly speaking I have absolut no idea why it is cheesy. You can see a huge amount of examples in the fantasy literature, it is used in every wars in RL, it is implemented in most fantasy RPG games, it is used in RTS games as well. There are some questionable points in the first point (offscreen tactics) but not here. Yes, it makes some battle easier but again it is not a reason to abandon a tactics. I think every tactical school cover this issue in the most basic course. It is a very basic knowledge and every good tactician know it. Even the bad ones know it.

3. Stealing critical and quest-related items from enemies before they turn hostile:
It depends on the situation in my opinion. For example it is really ok if someone steal the key from the Beastmaster in the Copper Coronet after he gets the info from Hendak. I have never done it but it is a nice solution. Then together with the rescued gladiators you can easily kill him or (even better) capture him - it is not possible in BG2 however but would be a nice solution in a normal fantasy paper-based game. Yes, the game does not allow it for you in several cases but in some - logical cases - it is a valid solution from an RPG viewpoint. You can gain XP without killing the enemies but first of all the XP for the quest is there to solve it and not because you killed everybody and secondly in the game there are cases when you get the XP without killing the enemies. For example the skinner quest can be solved legally in a way that you do not kill the assassins and ghouls in the basement and you still gets the whole XP.

It is strange that a simple cheat is not mentioned in the pdf:

4. Prebuffing before a not known battle:
It is simple cheating. I do it because the game force me to do but it is still cheating. When you (I mean your characters) do not know about a battle and still casts a lot of short-living prebuffing spells then you use an information that only you are aware and not the characters. Of course if somebody is prebuffing before every new area and then continously renew the spells then it is not cheating. But honestly speaking no one does it that way. I know that prebuffing gives possibilities to the players but it is not acceptable from role playing point of view. If we are strict in other cases then we should be strict here. The possible solution would be to remve every short-living protection from the characters before almost every battles and only allow prebuffing when the characters have a chance to be aware of the battle. Of course in most of these cases the enemies should not be prebuffed (except when they are aware of the battles). I have met only two such a battles up to now (second drow ambush and dracolich) and I think there should be much more. That would give the battles a new depth: defense or offense, protect the characters with some spells or concentrate on killing the enemies. That would be a really interesting tactical challenge!

I ask everybody who wants to discuss these issues that please write arguments and not just revelations and statements! Thanks!

[Vuki]

Baronius, I have read your post and it was really interesting. I agree with you and therefore I quote only this part because it is suitable for my post:

If you refer to a particular change of a mod, then it's a too general question IMO (unless it's applied to concrete things).

Yes, when I mentioned "modification" I meant a modification in a mod.

As I know the SI: Divination spell protects against the thief detect illusion ability. If I am not right then please ignore my whole post! Now, I think it is a bad modification. The reason is not that it makes the thief less valuable but that it is absolutely not logical. Spell Immunity is a general spell that protects against a school of magic, and it is absolutely illogical that it protect against something that is not magic. The thief ability is not a magical ability, it is something what the thief learnt and he uses his intelligence and his senses to find illusions. Therefore a spell that protects against a school of magic (and only a school of magic) does (should) not protect against it.

The solution would be to create a new spell (or modify an existing one) that could protect again this effect. How about a 1st level spell that protect against detect invisibility and similar low level spells + thief ability but last only for 3 rounds + 1 round / 3 levels? That is logical and mages will have a spell against the thief ability. Problem is solved and it is solved in a logical way.

This post has been edited by Vuki: Aug 11 2008, 11:08 PM

[Kerkes]

Very nice topic! Bravo!

IMO =not the apsolute truth

casting spells from off-screen - pure cheese. I wrote a post some while ago about this and how you'd do if enemies did that to you. I still remember Firkraag from vanilla game falling to wand of cloudkill without ever bothering to see who is using it. You can't expect computer AI to have a sript as smart as a real human player, no matter how good AI is it will probably always be exploitable. as for drow ambush, the thing that you cannot pre-buff actually makes the battle much more interesting than the usual. Besides, they don't cast spells immedialtely, you just get dispelled off-screen. It is insanely hard, usually forces a numer of reloads but is well made. I think it will be nerfed in IA6.

abusing area - imagine this - 2 enemies (for example, take elemental golems) are standing on a narrow bridge. Behind them, thus out of your reach are 2 high level figh/mages beating the crap out of you. That wouldn't be fair. and that's how enemies usually fare when you do that.
But, I do believe that in IA final battle it is completely justified to abuse it. It is used in strategy games, but IA is more of a tactical thing. Defeating hard battles usually is much more dependant on what you do in a round and not if your enemies can reach you or not. besides, if they can't reach you, you can't reach them also. I remember a line from "call of duty 4" which says "tracers work both ways":) . for surprises, I think backstab is a very nice surprise and is as such covered in BG

stealing quest items - I too never use it, but it is probably a nice RPG aspect of the game

prebuffing - remember that mage Edwin sends you to kill? (Rayic I believe). In vanilla game you needed something like this (with no mages in party, just cleric) - remove fear because he casts symbol fear, free action for symbol stun(or PW, don't remember), death ward for FOD and disin, prot fire for sunfire. After ALL THAT he'd cast remove magic (finaly!) and then try to charm you and start castin mm like there's no tomorrow. He usually died after his pfmw expired if you don't bother switching to normal wpns. well, if you know in advance what tactiscs/spells enemy uses you can buff up perfectly, and yeah, I agree that's perhaps cheese. But since your fighters and clerics usually get dispelled asap perhaps it's less cheese in IA, and is a thing (amongst others) which makes mages so powerful compared to any other class in the game. But I find that much neccesary for most of the battles, thus reducing the number of reloads greatly as you get to know the game better. I don't believe any IA player ever managed to defeat, for example, Twisted rune battle without at least one reload, and even I know the battle pretty well, it still forces reloads. You just don't know what's coming. But I do think that it's impossible and would ruin the game if enemies chose tactics and spells at random, due to the fact that some spell combos just work very good and enemies already do use them. IMO, clerics do as much they can offensively in IA, ther's really no going beyond that (well, maybe energy blades). as for non-buffed enemies (dracolich), I agree, it would be nice. But not for all battles. Draco is alone, and you're probably playing with a 6 persons party... you can buff some your chars, kill his protections and attack him phisically all in one round, making it a walk-over..

Again, a very interesting topic! Hope to see more interesting posts here soon.

This post has been edited by Kerkes: Aug 12 2008, 08:53 AM

[Sikret]

casting spells from off-screen - pure cheese. I wrote a post some while ago about this and how you'd do if enemies did that to you.

Very true. This answer is valid for the case of abusing area structure as well. The general short answer to the question why doing these things is cheesy is simple (as others have mentioned as well): Don't use such methods against the enemy, because the enemy doesn't use them against you. Play fair.

if they can't reach you, you can't reach them also.

This part is not 100% accurate. As mentioned in the pdf file, there are cases in which the enemy has a large avatar/animation and can't follow you into a narrow passage; hence the cheesy player can hit-flee-heal-return-hit-flee continuously or just stand far and use ranged weapons. In such cases, abusing the area structure is a lot cheesier. But it's still cheesy even against enemies with small/normal avatar size.

[lroumen]

I'll join in for some musing.

I've read Sikret's Cheat, Cheap and Cheese document and there are many obvious things that I agree with, but also some things that I don't fully agree with or would rather envision them worded differently.

Examples:
Pt 2. Don't use game editors
I would not use game editors to buff my characters with XP, items, statbonuses or check on enemies. Sikret also says that you should not give your character illegal classes. Whereas I agree that kitted multiclass characters (save Gnome, illusionists) is wrong, I do sometimes feel like playing something really different. A dwarven sorcerer, a kobolt cleric, an elven paladin... I see little wrong with such adventures. So, if I want to play such a character I feel fine with using an editor to change my protagonist or an NPC into something else. If I do know how to script it, then I try to keep the use of editors to a minimum by editing the character generation and leveling files (ab***.tp2 files, clab****.tp2 files). For example, I can add a component in the paladin CLABfile to change the race into an elf at level 1 and adjust the minmax stats in the abclsmod.tp2.

Pt 9. Stealing plot items:
I do think that it should be possible to lift characters from their possessions, but doing so is highly dependant on my protagonist. If I play as a thief I do feel that there ought to be quest solutions where you can simply steal the items/proofs/documents/wardstones that you need to progress. You're a stealth character, so you are allowed to abuse it. However, if I'm not a thief or a clear thief-like person, then I often won't use stealing in my game at all, or if I do, it's highly dependant on the NPC that I have in my party.
Nalia... she's too goody to steal items all over town. No chance that I'll use her for it ever, not even plot items.
Jan, he's more a mechanic, disabling and setting traps, opening locks and dispelling illusions.
Imoen... not much of a debate anymore. I would use her for stealing from the rich, but not from clearly poor or lawful people.
Haer'Dalis... now there's a character that I would use for stealing everybody he encounters. If only he were any good at it.

Pt 10. Killing a sure enemy before he turns hostile and starts to fight. And Pt 1. Hostile Spells from a distance.
Depends... If I scout an area and find a suspicious party, then I'll cast a detect evil to see what they are. If I'm (lawful) good I may decide to jump them, since the world is better off without evil people. If I'm neutral, I may cast a protection spell such as bless and some long lasting armour/stoneskin spells. If I'm chaotic or evil, I'll jump on them anyway. In any case... if I decide to jump on them, then yes I will cast a hostile spell from a distance. If that happens to kill the quest, lower my reputation or whatnot, that's what my protagonist has to live with. It may seem cheese, but I think surprise fights are allowed in a roleplay-type context. This does not mean that I'll always do these things on every encounter. In certain quests when you know that there are going to be future foes around (such as an infiltration quest as in the bandit camp in BG1), my protagonist will have to find a way to "play along" and not confront every foe in sight.

Pt. 4. Abusing the area structure
I'm all for area structure. If you're under arrow fire, you're not going to stand in the clearing. I'll be ducking away behind doors. If a dragon is going to blast my party with his dragonbreath, I'll be hiding my weaker ones behind a rim so he can't see them and doesn't target them. I see no problems with area "abuse". How am I ever going to hide my thief for backstabbing if foes can see him? Invisibility spells and potions aren't aplenty. I feel that I can quickly sneak around a corner, hide and come back into the fight to stab. Using invisible characters to block foes and then abusing the area structure... well that's of course a different issue and I wouldn't be doing that bit. However, if it's logical to use the area structure, do so.

Pt 6. Erasing known spells to learn them afresh
Different wording... don't do this just for the XP. If Haer'Dalis has certain spells memorised that are useful but I find a new useful item I may sweep a spell, only to find myself wanting it back and relearn it later in the game.

This post has been edited by lroumen: Aug 12 2008, 09:32 AM

[lroumen]

Can this be added to the debate?

Cheesy foes!

Prebuffing foes (Forcespell)
I don't fully favour this. If they know you're coming (samia, drow encounters, bountyhunters) or can know that you're coming (a boss in a stronghold such as the tob baalspawn), let them prebuff to an extent (i.e. limited amount of buffs and not always the same ones). If they don't know that a powerful party is coming to clear them out of their hiding place or they first send you away (beastmaster), don't prebuff them (i.e. den of 7 veils, sewer party). Contingencies are always fine in such encounters though.
Forcespell prebuffing is introduced to counter player prebuffs, but it's idea far from flawless and can become a drag on gameplay. If I scout out a party, they don't see me and I want to engage with a surprise attack, I certainly prebuff... however when they forcespell prebuff right after I "surprise them", I find that they are majorly cheating in its purest form.


Certain foes carrying too many high level scrolls or just too many scrolls.
Whereas it may end up in very nice combat, I don't think that there should be so many foes that carry 5+ scrolls of ruby ray, breach, timestop, protection from magical weapons or whatnot. It only provides the party with too many spell scrolls to cast for their own. I would change it so that they carry only 1-2 scrolls of these spells max and these should be high priority use as well. That way, the party really needs to work hard to get them (i.e. get a quick kill). If really you want scrolls to be found, maybe a trapped chest near the foe would be an option (and the foe going hostile when the chest is fondled with).


Foe mages using very similar spell scripts:
A very high amount of mages in IA now use a combination of stoneskin, improved invisibility, immunity to divination, followed by the casting of emotion, chaos, deathspell and sometimes some other area disable spells followed by flame arrows and they all carry breach/ruby ray. A large amount of high level mages also favour the use of chain contingency triple abi-dalzim. I think the variety of mage behaviour should increase. Whereas these spells are powerful I don't expect every mage in the world to know them or to use the same combination of spells. There may be some copy-cats out there, but I'd be more happy if there was some uniqueness to it.


PS: feel free to remove comments/suggestions if they're too much off-topic

This post has been edited by lroumen: Aug 12 2008, 10:00 AM

[Raven]

Prebuffing foes (Forcespell)
I don't fully favour this. If they know you're coming (samia, drow encounters, bountyhunters) or can know that you're coming (a boss in a stronghold such as the tob baalspawn), let them prebuff to an extent (i.e. limited amount of buffs and not always the same ones). If they don't know that a powerful party is coming to clear them out of their hiding place or they first send you away (beastmaster), don't prebuff them (i.e. den of 7 veils, sewer party). Contingencies are always fine in such encounters though.

I think battles would be far too easy if the enemy didn't prebuff. The same would apply if contingency-type spells had to carry defensive spells rather than offensive ones. Personally I don't really care about any justification for enemy prebuffing. As far as I'm concerned any 'unfair' advantage the enemies gain is offset by the intelligence of the player.

Certain foes carrying too many high level scrolls or just too many scrolls.

I agree about this.

Foe mages using very similar spell scripts:
A very high amount of mages in IA now use a combination of stoneskin, improved invisibility, immunity to divination, followed by the casting of emotion, chaos, deathspell and sometimes some other area disable spells followed by flame arrows and they all carry breach/ruby ray. A large amount of high level mages also favour the use of chain contingency triple abi-dalzim. I think the variety of mage behaviour should increase. Whereas these spells are powerful I don't expect every mage in the world to know them or to use the same combination of spells. There may be some copy-cats out there, but I'd be more happy if there was some uniqueness to it.

lroumen, how much of the mod have you actually played? I find there is more variation in spell casting later on.

[Sikret]

Prebuffing foes (Forcespell)
I don't fully favour this. If they know you're coming (samia, drow encounters, bountyhunters) or can know that you're coming (a boss in a stronghold such as the tob baalspawn), let them prebuff to an extent (i.e. limited amount of buffs and not always the same ones). If they don't know that a powerful party is coming to clear them out of their hiding place or they first send you away (beastmaster), don't prebuff them (i.e. den of 7 veils, sewer party). Contingencies are always fine in such encounters though.

I think battles would be far too easy if the enemy didn't prebuff. The same would apply if contingency-type spells had to carry defensive spells rather than offensive ones. Personally I don't really care about any justification for enemy prebuffing. As far as I'm concerned any 'unfair' advantage the enemies gain is offset by the intelligence of the player.

This is generally a valid and true point. But in this particular case, I don't even agree that enemy prebuffing should be considered 'unfair'. As far as you can do the same thing, it's fair.

As mentioned by others and by me in my previous post, abusing area structure and casting spells from distance (offscreen) are both cheesy and unfair actions exactly because the enemy doesn't do the same with you.

Play fair. Fight fairly. Don't try to find a way to justify cheesy actions with imaginary scenarios which never actually happen in the game (ex: being attacked by arrows when standing in the clearing and such things; we don't have any such battle in IA).

[Vuki]

Very nice topic! Bravo!

Thanks.

casting spells from off-screen - pure cheese. I wrote a post some while ago about this and how you'd do if enemies did that to you. I still remember Firkraag from vanilla game falling to wand of cloudkill without ever bothering to see who is using it. You can't expect computer AI to have a sript as smart as a real human player, no matter how good AI is it will probably always be exploitable.

No, I do not think that it is a valid argument. For example enemies can reduce your fire resistance while you are not able to do it. So, is it cheesy from their side? I do not think so. They have much more special abilities then you and therefore it is valid that you use tactics that they are not able to use. Firkraag is another story: I have written in my post that whenever the enemies do no not react to your spell it is cheesy and should not be used. That is very clear I think.

as for drow ambush, the thing that you cannot pre-buff actually makes the battle much more interesting than the usual. Besides, they don't cast spells immedialtely, you just get dispelled off-screen. It is insanely hard, usually forces a numer of reloads but is well made. I think it will be nerfed in IA6.

I did not complaint about it. However I do not understand why you do not complaint that enemies do something that is cheesy. Because it is cheesy definitely.

abusing area - imagine this - 2 enemies (for example, take elemental golems) are standing on a narrow bridge. Behind them, thus out of your reach are 2 high level figh/mages beating the crap out of you. That wouldn't be fair. and that's how enemies usually fare when you do that.
But, I do believe that in IA final battle it is completely justified to abuse it. It is used in strategy games, but IA is more of a tactical thing. Defeating hard battles usually is much more dependant on what you do in a round and not if your enemies can reach you or not. besides, if they can't reach you, you can't reach them also. I remember a line from "call of duty 4" which says "tracers work both ways":) . for surprises, I think backstab is a very nice surprise and is as such covered in BG

Why the hell would it be not fair? This is a fair tactics and I would be very happy to see that enemies use it. There are very rair occasion where you (or enemies) can use it and it would be nice to see that they use it. And again: this is not a reason that they do not use this tactics. That is your advantage. Their advantage is their superior abilities.

stealing quest items - I too never use it, but it is probably a nice RPG aspect of the game

I agree with you. I have also never use it. You can ask while I complaint: the reason is that it is a theoretical topic.

prebuffing - remember that mage Edwin sends you to kill? (Rayic I believe). In vanilla game you needed something like this (with no mages in party, just cleric) - remove fear because he casts symbol fear, free action for symbol stun(or PW, don't remember), death ward for FOD and disin, prot fire for sunfire. After ALL THAT he'd cast remove magic (finaly!) and then try to charm you and start castin mm like there's no tomorrow. He usually died after his pfmw expired if you don't bother switching to normal wpns. well, if you know in advance what tactiscs/spells enemy uses you can buff up perfectly, and yeah, I agree that's perhaps cheese. But since your fighters and clerics usually get dispelled asap perhaps it's less cheese in IA, and is a thing (amongst others) which makes mages so powerful compared to any other class in the game. But I find that much neccesary for most of the battles, thus reducing the number of reloads greatly as you get to know the game better. I don't believe any IA player ever managed to defeat, for example, Twisted rune battle without at least one reload, and even I know the battle pretty well, it still forces reloads. You just don't know what's coming. But I do think that it's impossible and would ruin the game if enemies chose tactics and spells at random, due to the fact that some spell combos just work very good and enemies already do use them. IMO, clerics do as much they can offensively in IA, ther's really no going beyond that (well, maybe energy blades). as for non-buffed enemies (dracolich), I agree, it would be nice. But not for all battles. Draco is alone, and you're probably playing with a 6 persons party... you can buff some your chars, kill his protections and attack him phisically all in one round, making it a walk-over..

I do not understand completely your words here. I have written in my post that it is necessery in the game and I am forced to use it. But it is still cheesy in the case when you do not know what is behind you. One very good example is the first drow ambush. You are in a cave and nothing happen at all. You walk there and suddenly they attack you. If you buff when you leave Sahuagin city then it is ok if you still have those buffs. It is even valid that you renew those buffs. But it is not fair that you do not buff before entering Underdark but then suddenly in the middle of the cave you buff. That is absolutely unfair, if you do it in a normal paper-based adventure and I am your DM then I would be really angry and I would ask you why the hell you buff when nothing happened. And I would be sure that you looked at my paper and therefore you cheated. Yes, prebuffing is necessery in that battle but it is unrealistic and it is a real cheat.

The vanilla game also force you in some cases to do it but not too much cases. IA force you to do it (to cheat) before almost every battle. I think battles can be tuned to avoid it: make the enemies weaker but dispel your short-lasting buffs. That is a fair solution. And by the way, tell me who enjoy prebuffing? It is really monoton and their is very little fun in it (only fun is to optimize your spells to allow maximum prebuffing and to find out what is really needed). But you have to do it hundreds of time and it became really boring. That is the only apsect of IA that I do not like. And it can be avoid if prebuffing is not allowed, enemies are retuning to the new conditions (I mean weaker enemies and less prebuffing). That way you do not have to repeat the boring prebuffing process (and you do not have to cheat) every time and the figths would be still fun. Maybe more fun because you have to make more decision.

[Vuki]

Very true. This answer is valid for the case of abusing area structure as well. The general short answer to the question why doing these things is cheesy is simple (as others have mentioned as well): Don't use such methods against the enemy, because the enemy doesn't use them against you. Play fair.

The only problem that enemies have powers and abilities that you can never archieved. It is of course not a problem but your advantage is that you can do tactics that they do not use. BTW, enemy spellcasters do not renew their buffs and therefore you should not do it because it is not fair. I do not think it is really valid argument.

This part is not 100% accurate. As mentioned in the pdf file, there are cases in which the enemy has a large avatar/animation and can't follow you into a narrow passage; hence the cheesy player can hit-flee-heal-return-hit-flee continuously or just stand far and use ranged weapons. In such cases, abusing the area structure is a lot cheesier. But it's still cheesy even against enemies with small/normal avatar size.

I do not remember too much cases like this. There is one well-known example in Nalia castle but I am pretty sure that it was the intention of the creators of the game to make this door so small. That is very clear I think. I do not use this trick in my IA game however. I cannot recall now any other cases but there could be more.

[Sikret]

For example enemies can reduce your fire resistance while you are not able to do it.

No humanoid enemy has such an ability. Actually, only red dragons, demon lords and noble efreets have the ability to lower fire resistance. If this is your argument, then keep it only to justify yourself against those rare and few enemies (though I don't agree with your argument even for those enemies, because they don't use them against you before you are actually engaged in combat).

The only problem that enemies have powers and abilities that you can never archieved.

This is not true (except for vert particular monsters for whom it is justified to have abilities you don't have-- see above)

Firkraag is another story: I have written in my post that whenever the enemies do no not react to your spell it is cheesy and should not be used. That is very clear I think.

Firkraag does react properly against hostile spells from distance. Kerkes was talking about the vanilla Firkraag to make a general point.

BTW, enemy spellcasters do not renew their buffs and therefore you should not do it because it is not fair. I do not think it is really valid argument.

Who says that enemy spellcasters do not refresh their protections? If they have the spell among their memorized spells, they will use it. If they do not have it, it means they have something else instead which they will use. So, there is no problem if the party refreshes any spell, because the enemy does so as well if he has the spell memorized.

If you remember, a while ago and in a different topic I told you that you are too hasty to make general suggestions and objections without finishing the mod for even one single time. At that time you seemed to agree with me, but now I see that you are repeating it.

This post has been edited by Sikret: Aug 12 2008, 11:34 AM

[Giden]

Hi guys, I'm quite new to the boards but not new to the game.

Regarding abusing area : Imagine a mithril golem (for example in Firkraags dungeon) unable to get out and hit you. The cheesy tactic would of course be to buff your toughest fighter and keep him upfront while your priests/clerics heal him, buff him and cast zone of sweet air (for golem cloud). This is of course due to the avatar being to big. Is it possible to re-write the pathing so the golem (mithril in this case) has a lower collision-size? The explanation to why the golem is able to get out of the "tiny" hole in the wall could be that it just razes it as it goes through the wall with immense force. This way, lots of problems regarding area-abuse would be solved.

[Vuki]

Pt 2. Don't use game editors

I use it sometimes also but not in the meaning as Sikret mentioned. For example in my IA game I gave all my characters maximum HP. You can do it in two ways: lowering difficulties or edit your game in SK. I did the later one because I forgot to reduce difficulty of my game for the party creation (because I play on hard difficulty during play - even in IA).

Pt. 4. Abusing the area structure
I'm all for area structure. If you're under arrow fire, you're not going to stand in the clearing. I'll be ducking away behind doors. If a dragon is going to blast my party with his dragonbreath, I'll be hiding my weaker ones behind a rim so he can't see them and doesn't target them. I see no problems with area "abuse". How am I ever going to hide my thief for backstabbing if foes can see him? Invisibility spells and potions aren't aplenty. I feel that I can quickly sneak around a corner, hide and come back into the fight to stab. Using invisible characters to block foes and then abusing the area structure... well that's of course a different issue and I wouldn't be doing that bit. However, if it's logical to use the area structure, do so.

I agree with it. When I see that enemy cast for example dispel magic (or other area spell) to one of my characters then I move him away to avoid dispelling spells from my other characters. This is a tactics that enemies do not do and it is cheesy therefore. At least based on Sikret's definition.

Pt 6. Erasing known spells to learn them afresh
Different wording... don't do this just for the XP. If Haer'Dalis has certain spells memorised that are useful but I find a new useful item I may sweep a spell, only to find myself wanting it back and relearn it later in the game.

I am sure that Sikret mentioned here a different htink. You did not read it carefully. He spoke about when you remove a spell and then relearn the same spell again. That is definitely a cheat.

[Vuki]

Cheesy foes!

Prebuffing foes (Forcespell)
I don't fully favour this. If they know you're coming (samia, drow encounters, bountyhunters) or can know that you're coming (a boss in a stronghold such as the tob baalspawn), let them prebuff to an extent (i.e. limited amount of buffs and not always the same ones). If they don't know that a powerful party is coming to clear them out of their hiding place or they first send you away (beastmaster), don't prebuff them (i.e. den of 7 veils, sewer party). Contingencies are always fine in such encounters though.
Forcespell prebuffing is introduced to counter player prebuffs, but it's idea far from flawless and can become a drag on gameplay. If I scout out a party, they don't see me and I want to engage with a surprise attack, I certainly prebuff... however when they forcespell prebuff right after I "surprise them", I find that they are majorly cheating in its purest form.

I have no problem that they prebuff because you can prebuff also. The problem is that you can prebuff when you have no chance to do it.

Foe mages using very similar spell scripts:
A very high amount of mages in IA now use a combination of stoneskin, improved invisibility, immunity to divination, followed by the casting of emotion, chaos, deathspell and sometimes some other area disable spells followed by flame arrows and they all carry breach/ruby ray. A large amount of high level mages also favour the use of chain contingency triple abi-dalzim. I think the variety of mage behaviour should increase. Whereas these spells are powerful I don't expect every mage in the world to know them or to use the same combination of spells.

Maybe they learnt magic in the same school.

[Vuki]

No humanoid enemy has such an ability. Actually, only red dragons, demon lords and noble efreets have the ability to lower fire resistance. If this is your argument, then keep it only to justify yourself against those rare and few enemies (though I don't agree with your argument even for those enemies, because they don't use them against you before you are actually engaged in combat).

You misunderstood me here. The point is not that they are humanoids or not, the point is that they use something that you do not do. The same is with casting offscreen: you do something that they are not able to do. But the best example is the second drow ambush: they dispel your protections. This is very-very similar to the offscreen casting (you do something before they can react to it). Please do not misunderstood me: I am not against it, I have no problem it. I just would like to make clear that the "they do not use it, so you should not use it" is not a valid argument.

Firkraag does react properly against hostile spells from distance. Kerkes was talking about the vanilla Firkraag to make a general point.

Yes, I know it or at least I was sure about it (I did not kill Firkraag yet). I did not say anything like this in my post, it was just a general comment that such a case is cheesy.

Who says that enemy spellcasters do not refresh their protections? If they have the spell among their memorized spells, they will use it. If they do not have it, it means they have something else instead which they will use. So, there is no problem if the party refreshes any spell, because the enemy does so as well if he has the spell memorized.

If you remember, a while ago and in a different topic I told you that you are too hasty to make general suggestions and objections without finishing the mod for even one single time. At that time you seemed to agree with me, but now I see that you are repeating it.

Then in that particular case I was wrong. Wow! I made something like 10-20 comments and I was not right in one case. But what about the others? You did not react to some important comments of my like for example prebuffing.