安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
In general "bigger numbers" does not add real difficulty because it's just moving the performance bar. Bigger numbers can add real difficulty given the right constraints (as in enemies that are normally total pushovers being made into an actual combat, that adds meaningful difficulty on a baseline).
There's nothing "more difficult" about Unfair HatEoT. There's just a higher bar for optimization... after which you're still AC capped and ideally still packing the correct immunities. The only change is that you get punished harder when RNG isn't in your favor. The game's not actually harder you just reset more often. You use the same optimal tactics regardless of difficulty.
In PoE they make the game harder (in its first step) by altering encounters. Adding abilities. Changing what tools you need entirely in some circumstances. The game doesn't get harder because numbers got bigger it gets harder because it gets more complicated. The second step ups stats but it happily tells you that you just turned the balance off.
The Pathfinder system is intended to scale difficulty in that (modifying what enemies do) way. Not by simply giving everything bigger numbers but by forcing players to juggle more strategic requirements or use more than a single strategy. It doesn't always do a great job of it, but that's underlying mechanical and canon rules issues and why the DM exists.
TV Tropes ha s agood outline of fake difficulty[tvtropes.org]
It's not perfect but it outlines some of the important aspects of what kind of difficulty isn't really difficulty. Not 100% applicable within the context of how to make a PF system game with "real" difficulty.
Inflated enemy AC? mean you have to get all the +x to attack you can, or just bypass monster AC by using touch attacks or save spells.
Enemies with big attack bonus? you need the best AC (all the +x AC you can get) or just don't care about AC using spells and not be targeted (CC spells, mirror images, invisibility etc...).
Lot of people complain about the swarms, the poison etc... but I find it's interesting difficulty, like troll regen, forcing you to adapte and resource drain (restor spells etc...). The best difficulty would be smarter AI as you increase slider. If the enemies where avoiding your CC spells, kite you, smart target that would be an improvement.
Actualy I find the new DLC introduce lot of monsters with extra class levels & abilities/features that can make them more challenging without inflating the stats. And it's make the skills checks more important so you can inspect them. Introduce one or more elite enemy(ies) in an encounter with extra abilities can be more interesting because that force you to adapte to each fight.
It's the same difficulty.
If enemy AC is too high, you can use spells to subdue them or damage that can't be avoided, like magic missile, to focus enemy down.
Swarms can't be killed by hitting them with swords, so you have to use spells.
Your "interesting difficulty" made 300 reply threads about how bad a design that is.
For you higher stats may not be interesting, but for me it's obvious that higher stats make exploiting enemy weaknesses that much more crucial, because you can't just hit them or tank them until they die.
Actually at least for me i found +1/+4/+8 bracers of armor straight to the fragon store from the beginning. Like from the first run. Later runs unlocked ring of circumstance and other shinies
Is it harder? Sure. Is it more difficult? No. There's nothing new happening, just a bunch of limiting which strategies remain effective.
The best strategy in Story is ultimately the same as in Unfair. Become untouchable. Whether by preventing the enemy form taking actions or having defenses they can't get around.
If becoming untouchable "harder" in unfair? Sure. Is the game any harder? No.
Now if Unfair added stats asymmetrically the difficulty would be less fake. Because exploiting weaknesses would be actually meaningful. But as it stands exploiting weaknesses functions under the same stat inflation as enemy strengths. Meaning your only goal is to make your own numbers bigger across the board.
It's the same problem as choice and the illusion of choice. Just in gameplay rather than in charOP.
Increasing stats don't make exploiting weakness more crucials, because a creature immune to fire, or a swarm immune to physical attacks... stay immune whatever the difficulty level. Unfair isn't difficult, it's just for you to min/max. You can tank just fine if you take the right classes/feats/items. It's just testing your optimisation.
And with increased stats, your spells only work if you beat the DC/spell penetration that mean more optimisation.
It's a roleplaying game. What's the point to play if a big part of the classes/feats/spells are useless because less optimal? If monk dip is near a must have?
The problem of swarm ealy on is that people refuse to adapte to situation. They can't beat them if they dont have the right tool. But the most problematic aspect was that if you play alchemist/caster the swarm are easy, if not the game don't give you a campanion caster/alchemist at this moment. But it wasn't unbeatable.
Wrong game to be talking difficultly. Like Dark Souls, once you have the skill and know what's coming, it's not difficult anymore.
The stats remain asymmetrical, i.e. some things are a lot better on enemies than others. Which forces you to choose the tactic aproppriate for the enemy instead of just left clicking on them.
Never dipped into Monks and hate Monks.
Yes it's a roleplaying game, meaning it's mostly about stats and character building. Maybe you guys don't really like RPGs, eh?
The relative effect remains the same across difficulties. A 5 point difference is still a 25% chance difference. Doesn't matter whether you're on Normal or Unfair. The only thing Unfair does is make less optimal builds less functional by virtue of a failure to be able to achieve requisite numbers benchmarks in the first place.
The difference between Normal and Unfair is not enemy defense asymmetry. It's a lack of viability of certain tactics. By increasing the baseline stat numbers you crowd out any build that can't compete with the new numbers. This doesn't make targeting weaknesses more important, it makes fighting without targeting those weaknesses less effective.
Like RPGs just fine. Dislike bad underlying design.
When 90% of acceptably functional builds involve a monk dip (Unfair, but again that's a novelty mode) then the game is actively impeding the RP part of RPG. The fact that the remaining 10% of builds are dominated by Dex builds certainly doesn't help.
Normal mode can be done with basically whatever. Unfair is an exercise in frustration without significant charOP and limiting yourself to narrow band of functional character builds (often without an internally consistent RP concept).
The pillars games approach difficulty in a better way. The first level of making the game harder fundamentally changes the way you have to approach encounters by altering those encounters, augmenting them with additional enemies and giving additional abilities. Tactics taht work on normal don't work anymore, not because you just can;t have the stats, but because you need a fundamentally different approach to combat. but you can use the same builds regardless of difficulty. The second step adds additonal stats to all enemies but does so without crowding out builds.
Do you need optimization at the highest PoE difficulty? Some. But the difference isn't between complete non-functionality and mindless right click to win after casting CC (that's the difference in PF:K btw). Yet somehow without forcing optimization the game is harder at each difficulty in ways which don't preclude a large number of character concepts.
The Pillars games approach game in a way that there isn't really any difficulty, you just rotate your abilities until enemy is dead. You could stunlock dragons with Slicken before designers got to their senses ffs.
The Pillars is all about stacking accuracy. And you have frustratingly low amount of ways to have control over your accuracy except overleveling the enemy. By that difference alone Pathfinder already wins design-wise.
(And the bounded nature of accuracy actually results in more build viability, but that's a different discussion. charOP is no narrower in PoE than in PF:K)
Could pillars have shot for a harder difficulty? Sure. That's what The Ultimate is about. But saying tha tteh game is about simply rotating your abilities until you win is dismissing the fact that in PF:K winning is... about using the right ability that locks down the enemy so you can kill them.
it's not very nuanced at all. You hit enemies and they die. If your build is bad you die. If it's good you can kick back and see your character solo everything with minimal player input.
Not sure if monks can still oneshot anything with 500stacks of resonating blow, but that thing is funny, completely sequence-braking bosses..
I universally find most of the design of PoE unfun, from infinite resources to accuracy to enemies being almost invulnerable to low level parties because of their high stats and lack of abilities which could deconstruct the encounter; because some ability which lowers enemy saves still has to pass enemy save or become a Graze and such.
Nah they did nerf Resonating Blow. Around the same time when 20% bonuses on items became 10% bonuses and all that "great" balancing.