Jump to content

Madscientist

Members
  • Posts

    1589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Madscientist

  1. If the problem is to inform the player if his actions are ineffective its easy to do. When you do minimum damage in the PoE1 system you see a message similar to the "low pen" message of PoE2. Plus an immunity message if you do no damage at all. Problem solved. Even in BG the chars said that they need a different weapon if you do not do damage on hit.
  2. Except Josh feels there are aspects of D&D that *are* broken and do need to be fixed I agree with Josh. Some (not all) mechanics of DnD are broken, at least when you put them into a computer game. That being said, I do not understand why they changed a working system ( PoE1 DR) for something new (PoE2 penetration).
  3. about armor: - I have never played PnP games, and when I got Bg2 (my first big modern RPG) I did not know DnD and lots of things did not make any sense to me. I learned fast that I should use the armor that gives me the best armor class unless another armor has a very good special ability (like I put on an armor with fire resistance before fighting a mage who throws fireballs at me), but the system did not make sense to me. There is somebody in a plate armor and somebody naked. The one in plate armor is harder to hit ( does the armor make it easier to jump to the side to dodge the attack?), but when they get hit both take the same damage. - The armor systemI liked most were DSA ( e.g. Drakensang ) or DA:O. + In DSA heavier armor absorbs more damage (like PoE1) but without minimum damage, so armor can negate damage completely. But heavier armor also hinders you, making it harder to hit enemies and also making it harder to dodge or parry their attacks. I admit that there was an optimal strategy: get the heaviest armor and put all your points in one weapon type so that your bonusses to hit an parry are much higher then the armor penalty. You can parry a lot and even if you get hit you take little or no damage because of your armor. + In DA:O armor absorbed damage (not sure if there was minimum damage) but heavier armor increased your ability costs. There were different types of weapons with different damage and penetration (like sword = high damage and low penetration, Mace is the opposite). There were also modal abilities that gave you a bonus at the cost of permanently occupying some of your resources. So a fighter in the heaviest armor with a defensive modal on took little damage, but his stamina was consumed after 2 special attacks and a mage in heavier armor needed more mana for his fireballs. When writing this and thinking about it, I think I like the DA:O system most. You had to balance protection vs action economy. Looking back, I think I like DA:O a lot game mechanics wise. This is not about armor, but also aggro and combo attacks (freeze+crit= shatter, oil + fire = boom). I think that D:OS (especially part 2) goes too far with environmental effects when most of the map is covered with cursed fire or electric clouds. - Personally, I liked PoE1 a lot, much more than the system of PoE2. At least I can say that both systems make sense to me ( DR or penetration with recovery as downside), much more than any DnD system ever did. For me, the advantage of PoE1 over PoE2 is that in PoE1 each point of DR gives you something. In PoE2 one point AR difference does sometimes mean nothing and sometimes its the difference between taking little damage or tons of damage. Its all or nothing and the same difference can mean all in one situation and nothing in another. Maybe I like PoE1 over PoE2 just because I got used to it. Would I say the same if PoE1 had penetration and they change to DR for PoE2? I do not know.
  4. - Do we have an official announcement from obsidian about the delay or do we only have the news in some magazines and the date in the shops? It would be strange if obsidian does not say anything about it. - Are there any information if we have another beta version before release? - I do not mind the delay. "A delayed game can become great eventually but a rushed games is bad forever". I think the super mario inventor Shigeru Miyamoto said this, but I am not sure. PoE1 was buggy as hell at release and I had to quit my first playthrough because of the infinite stat stacking bug. So they should take all the time they need for bug fixing and balancing before release. Otherwise the game becomes known as a huge bug monster, even if they fix all of them with the first patch. After release I will wait for the next one or two patches anyway before I start playing. I have too many bad memories about playing games at release and there are lots of other good games around.
  5. Acuracy and damage increases as you level up. This is done by a passive talent "trancendent suffering". You do not get elemental damage by default. But PoE1 had talents and items that could add elemental damage to your attacks. I think it depended on the amount of wounds you had. Look at the build section of PoE1 and look for the "monksterlasher".
  6. about monks: Monks could always use weapons other than fists in all games I have ever played. - I played a monk as main char in BG2. He always had a slingshot in the second weapon slot. Early in the game I had to give him weapons when you needed a magic weapon+x to damage enemies and your fists did not already have x. In ToB there were magic golems who could only be harmed with non magic things, so you had to equip a weapon because your fists were magic. There were also some weapons that had a useful on hit effect. - In NWN1+2 monks could use several weapons, but they could only use flurry (more attacks per round) with fists, quarterstaffs and kamas (not 100% sure if these are all weapons). Only the sacred fist class gives you a huge penalty when using any weapon. But you could still equip other weapons. Yes, monks hit harder with their fists than other classes and often (not always) it is best to let them attack with their fist. It is one of the defining features of this class. But they were never limited to fists only and when you faced an enemy that was resistant to your fists, you could always switch to a different weapon.
  7. Thanks So being paralysed stops you from chanting? I think I read about a trick in PoE1 that you cast a spell that takes one of your char out of combat but he continues to damage them passively. Not sure if it was withdraw+dragon trashed or something else. I did not do it, I just read about it a long time ago. There was something similar in BG2 (Once again, I only read about it, I did not do it myself). There was a druid spell that makes you look liky a nymph and every enemy who sees you must make a saving throw or be charmed, but it works also when you are invisible.
  8. I think I have read that chanters in PoE1 stop chanting for some time after using an invocation. - Is that true or do they sing passively all the time? - did something change in PoE2? Just to be sure: Ancien memory was a passive ability that was always on in PoE1. Did it have a duration or was it permanent? (I think constant recovery for fighters was the same). In PoE2 ancient memory is a chant just like any other chant.
  9. regarding languages: I am from germany and I have no problems with english ( well, unless they make the game in shakespeare english or even older or the character has a strange dialect) But I had frech for 4 years in school and it was terrible for me. I had the feeling that you speak only half of the letters that you write and the diffucult part is to find out wich ones. I guess slavic languages have the same issue. When i read some words, I get the feeling that there are many consonants and little vowels. When there are many letters between the A, E, I, O and U and I try to speak it, it sounds like somebody is choking me. Its worst with the letters C,S,W,Z. Well, I guess it may be the same as the german "sch" where 3 letters are one sound ( as opposed to speaking one letter after the other). In the german wikipedia Auskunft ( The place where you can ask questions and maybe get answers ) somebody asked for the longest word without vowels. The result was a rather long croatian text where none of the words had any a,e,i,o,u. Edit: There were problems like this in POE, especially the banshee and the rotten dryad because I have no idea how to use a "W" as vowel. So I just call them banshee and rotten dryad
  10. Yes, thats right. Many players stick with the companions they meet first, because when you find later companions you have already established a relationship to the companions in your party and you feel bad when sending them away. But putiing most of them in one place (the tavern in BG2) does not feel good to me. Given the geography of the deadfire archipelago, I think spreading them all over the map is good. The first time you find them in a random order (because you do not know who is where) but when replaying you can collect them in any order you like). The only thing is that you should not be forced to go through lots of stuff of the main story before meeting a new companion. There is a high chance that nobody will ever take him or her at that point.
  11. Since the discussion has gotten that way: In BG1+2, NWN2, DA:O and some other games you wanted to get party members as early as possible because they were your level when you find them and they level up automatically. So the earlier you get them the more choice you have in how to level them up. Usually their auto level up is so bad that most players want to take something else. For example in NWN2 I want to get the druid before lv6 and give her the talent dinosaur companion because her badger is completely useless. BG1+2 has less choices, but you want max HP rolls and the right weapon profiencies. This leads to a conflict, at least in some games. When you get potential party members at low levels and they get only exp when they are in your party, other members will be very weak if you need them for a specific quest. it was a problem in BG1+2, but later games avoided it by giving all party members exp (even when they are not in your active party) and you can spend the points however you want when you visit them. I like the new approach ( everyone gets exp) much more than the old one (only exp when in active party). These problems are mostly resolved in PoE, because chars will have your level when you meet them, they get exp when not in your active party and you can deactivate auto leveling up. The ability to retrain chars or use hirelings come on top of that, but I never used this. I have no problem if the chars are spread out all over the map. The only condition is that it must make sense that they can be found there. Spreading them all over the map just for the sake of it would be bad, but I think obsidian knows this good enough. In my first playthrough I just follow the story as I like and take companions as I find them. I assume that they will be rather easy to find, like in PoE1 ( as opposed to some chars in PST, like Nordom and Ingus ). When I play it again, I can go right after my favourite companions from the start, if I like to do so. PS: I am a kind of old school player, so I do not mind some well hidden things like in PST. While the main story (including most companions) should be found without problems ( it is relatively clear what you want to do next ), it would be nice if some things can be found by exploring everything without someone telling you to go there or putting a huge arrow on the map.
  12. I play RPG games mostly for story and exploration. So I replay them very rarely because after finishing them I already know the story and there are so many good games. When playing, the relationship between the main char and the party members are importent for me. On the other hand, I like to have optimized chars. I am not an absolute power games ( I dislike dumping stats or using broken machanics), but I do not make chars that are delibirately bad.That means: - When I know what companions will be in the game, I look at which of them I like most and select a main char that fits best to such a party. Usually that means my main char has different class or talents then party members. - Usually I end up being lawful good (if you can change alignment duing play). I do not take options that feel really evil to me. So in PoE1 I did never sacifice somebody to the pool or sacifice the baby. Sometimes I play evil chars, but only for game mechanics. I finished BG1+2 with an evil fighter/thief, but I chose this alignment only because I wanted to equip some items. He had max reputation and I could never play with evil chars in my party. - When I try to role play, I think of a cool concept and then I try to optimize such a char, which often changes the concept a lot because often game mechanics and my idea of a cool char are different. So I am not really a good role player - In PoE1 I played a kind wayfarer to get the best possible ending in the game. In PoE2 I want Eder, Aloth, Pellegina and Takehu in my party. For me this is a conflict because Pallagina and I are paladins. But I chose that it is OK if I am kind wayfarer/beckoner and she is 5 suns/fighter. I have some biasses against some classes. But most of them come from DnD games, so PoE helped me to cure this. - A long time I did not want to be a mage as main char. Very weak in early levels, godlike in later levels, but only after an eternity of pre buffing - BG1 made me hate bards (jack of all trades, master of none) Usually I always use a typical party (fighter, mage, priest, rogue) even if the game could be played with many other parties. Those thing in the brackets are concepts, not classes. so my "fighter" could be a paladin and my "priest" could be a druid for example.
  13. My guess: The devs put some random letters and numbers in some pictures. Then they read this thread and laugh about the crazy ideas we create. I hope the game does not get delayed because the devs roll on the floor all the time.
  14. First of all, I have finished the beta on normal without alpha strikes and I could win every battle without problems. ( Only exception: I talked to the broodmother so she does not attack, then I placed my chars and then I attacked her). I also did not use empower, first because I did forget it exists ( this is the only game I know that has such a mechanic) and second because I tend to hoard things because "maybe I need it later". That being said, I agree that I like more scripted events and I dislike I all enemies walk around mindlessly and you can finish most groups with an asassin fireball from stealth. examples that I like: - I like to be ambushed when it makes sense. good examamples are: + In IWD you go through a door and when you are on the other side (new map) you are in a big room and many enemies stand in a half circle, ready to attack you. + In Drakensang you enter a ruin full of cultists. As your group enters the ruin you see a cut scene where the cultists hide behind pillars and once you enter they attack from all sides. + In PoE1 when you enter the white forge and have the encounter on the bridge (my solution: send your tank and once they see you run behind a corner and wait for the enemy) + You start a fight, the enemy makes an alarm and then one or more different groups of enemies come fromm different sides. + In Dragon Age Origin when you get ambushed by bandits if you explore the streets of the capital. - I did not like: + you sneak to an enemy, but when you get closer you unstealth automatically, walk to the enemy, talk and then you fight. Especially if the cutscene makes you walk in a formation you do not like. If they want you to talk with the enemy in any case, let the scene start when you enter the room, not when you sneak close to them. Allow us to ambush people even if they have something importent to say. This way you will miss some info and you have to find out yourself where to continue or you cannot solve a quest in a certain way anymore. Well, or you have the cheap way that they drop a note with the info. Encounter design was not a strong point in PoE1 ( compared to IWD, which had some of the best), but it improved in the expansions (WM1+2) and if they continue that way I am happy. - When I say that I like this, I mean fom an immersion perspective. As player I am not happy when I get ambushed. - Not all encounters can and should be done that way. But if such things happen regulary, players will learn that things like an empowered stealth fireball do not always work and they have to find different tactics for different battles. Things become boring fast if you can win all fights by repeating the same things again and again. - Its fine for me if you can ambush some enemies, but it should not always be possible and there should be moments where enemies ambush you ( or at least they try it).
  15. Sorry, but crits and grazes work only when you have a dice roll for hits ( acc - defense + 1d100). In PoE1+2 all friendly abilities are auto hits. If you change this it would be possible to miss a friendly char when you want to heal or buff them. This would be so frustrating to many players that I doubt any developer does ever consider it. There are some games where you can get a critical heal (World of Warcraft is the only one I can remember at the moment), but I do not know this from any single player RPG that is similar to PoE. If you graze or crit is determined by acc and the only attribute that influences acc is per. If per gives acc to hostile abilities and res gives acc to friendly abilities (well, kind off) you make things more complicated without having a benefit from it. Right now res gives a bonus to healing, so chars focused on healing will have lots of res. If res can give grazes and crits to healing it will buff this in two different ways. Chars with lots of res will have more healing and a high chance to heal critically on top of that while chars with low res would have less healing and a chance that their already lower healing gets halved. This effect could be achieved easier if you just double the healing bonus from res ( 3% -> 6%). Now res would give a different bonus for friendly and hostile spells and you have to start balancing everything again. So from my point of view this does not make much sense.
  16. It really shouldn't be. It was reported by Josh (and it is true in beta) that conversation checks refering to attributes are fairly rare. Game tends to checks skills (athletics, deplomacy, bluff, intimidation etc.) more often now. I think I like this. This is a bit oversimplified, but in PoE1 when you want a char who can talk well you are advised to play a tank (high res, int, per). In PoE2 your attributes are mostly used for combat and scripted events ( use might to push a rock ), while skills determine how you interact with people and onjects. I can understand that some people think it is realistic when stats determine dialogue (e.g. strong people talk different than intelligent people), but in this case I think player freedom (e.g. make an intimidating char who does not have tons of muscles ) is more importent than one possible way of realism while there are tons of different ways to do it and find a reason to call it realistic as well.
  17. No, I didn’t miss or misunderstand it. I think it has more problems than people are considering. It’s overlapping into the space governed by defenses themselves and doesn’t scale well due to it being a percentage reduction that needs 30 points of “growth” on the positive (i.e. above 10) scale. Intellect can continue to scale its duration bonus up in 5% chunks because even after it hits 30 (20 points over 10, +100%) it can always increase more. If Resolve were a percentage reduction, it would need to increment by 3% per point to avoid topping out before 40. At 5% per point, you would hit 100% reduction at 30 and you’ve run out of runway. 5% per point is potent, but almost everything connected to attributes in Pillars is symmetrical, so what works on party members would also work on enemies. Would you want to fight enemies who spike a basic tier 1 Resolve Inspiration and chop (an additional) 25% off all incoming effect durations? If the enemy started with a 15 Resolve, it would cut all incoming effect durations in half. Worse, if the enemy started with a 20 Resolve, the easily-attainable 25 would cut them by 75%. A 10s Paralyze becomes a 2.5s Paralyze. Is 3% reduction per point enough? At 15 you’d have 15% reduction. At 20, 30% reduction. At 30, 60% reduction. Maxed out at 40, 90% reduction. On the lower end, a 5 Resolve would increase hostile durations by 15%. Is 2% reduction per point enough? At 15, 10%. At 20, 20%. At 30, 40%. At 40, 60%. A 5 Resolve would increase hostile durations by 10%. Whatever the scale is, it would naturally place a heavier emphasis on Intellect (because you are inherently countering additional reduction) and require balancing base hostile durations (only) around the reality that hostile effect durations (only) are adjusted both by the attack result and by Resolve. I repeat myself and copy my post from a different thread: I think Josh is correct. The current situation where res gives a bonus to spell damage/healing may not be perfect, but it is better than any suggestions of the OP. They should stick with the basic concept of what stats do. Each point above 10 gives a flat bonus ( like +2 will defense ) or +X% of base value ( like +3%damage ), so that each stat has at least some use for every char. The duration of effects is already influenced by int. I see no reason to change this and I see also no reason that something ( like damage, speed or acc) is influenced by several stats. That would make things more complicated and I see no benefit from doing so. Many mechanics and formulas are already too complicated or not well enough explained. Josh is also correct that if res reduces the duration of effects, chars or enemies with very high res would be completely immune to everything. Looking at the defenses of enemies, lowering them and then use CC or increased damage against them was an importent tactical thing in PoE1. This would be gone, because it would be useless to cast any hostile effect on enemies with high res. I also dislike when the stat gives an x% chance to cause or avoid something. Like res giving a chance to empower, because the bonus for empower on different abilities is very different. This plus the random nature of the effect would make things unpredictable and you cannot act strategic if you cannot predict the outcome of an action. They should stick with the simple rules: acc - defense + 1d100 = X, and X determines if it is a miss, graze, hit or crit abilities should only be empowered when you select empower (and you should see the exact effect of empower before doing it) stats should give a flat bonus per point, not a chance of x% that something happens I do like suggestions from the community and I did suggest some things myself. But giving a long list of possible changes what a stat does one month before release seem not very helpful. PoE1 was a great game, so I have faith in the devs that they create something good. (well, at least after some patches )
  18. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/96041-beta-version-3-jumping-shadows-on-the-ship-plus-moving-wafes/ I have already posted this, but it is good to see this as video.
  19. I think Josh is correct. The current situation where res gives a bonus to spell damage/healing may not be perfect, but it is better than any suggestions of the OP. They should stick with the basic concept of what stats do. Each point above 10 gives a flat bonus ( like +2 will defense ) or +X% of base value ( like +3%damage ), so that each stat has at least some use for every char. The duration of effects is already influenced by int. I see no reason to change this and I see also no reason that something ( like damage, speed or acc) is influenced by several stats. That would make things more complicated and I see no benefit from doing so. Many mechanics and formulas are already too complicated or not well enough explained. Josh is also correct that if res reduces the duration of effects, chars or enemies with very high res would be completely immune to everything. Looking at the defenses of enemies, lowering them and then use CC or increased damage against them was an importent tactical thing in PoE1. This would be gone, because it would be useless to cast any hostile effect on enemies with high res. I also dislike when the stat gives an x% chance to cause or avoid something. Like res giving a chance to empower, because the bonus for empower on different abilities is very different. This plus the random nature of the effect would make things unpredictable and you cannot act strategic if you cannot predict the outcome of an action. They should stick with the simple rules: acc - defense + 1d100 = X, and X determines if it is a miss, graze, hit or crit abilities should only be empowered when you select empower (and you should see the exact effect of empower before doing it) stats should give a flat bonus per point, not a chance of x% that something happens I do like suggestions from the community and I did suggest some things myself. But giving a long list of possible changes what a stat does one month before release seem not very helpful. PoE1 was a great game, so I have faith in the devs that they create something good. (well, at least after some patches )
  20. Top level abillty for rogues (single class only): Every time you kill an enemy with a critical hit you become invisible for 5 sec.
  21. I do not think that fire lash buffs stack with themselves, but I am not sure. Did anyone test it? The chant + shared flames might stack, but I gues you can have only have each buff once.
  22. Sorry, but I do not like it when stats produce a random effect, especially if we do not know how empowers changes an ability exactly and some abilities profit much more from empower than others. If they want random effects, they should add a class like the wild mage from BG2. Actually that might be a good idea for beraths blessing (new game+ option). When replaying you can select the option: All active abilities have a x% chance to produce a random effect. Cast minor healing and get fully healed and your used resources back or try to summon a skelleton and you get a dragon who attacks everything, enemies and allies. Regarding resolve and concentration I liked PoE1 and I see no reason to add a complicated system with different layers of concentration and how stats influence it.
  23. A party full of chanters sounds very good - A skald multi classed with a martial class to lower enemy AR permanently, giving fire lash to everyone - two troubadours with the damage shield and ancient memory to keep the party alive, can use whatever invocations they like - two beckoners chanting affliction resistance. A single class for high level summons and a multi class with priest for skelletons and buffs. Imagine a huge army of summons, all with damage shield, constant healing and fire lash and they are all buffed with dire blessing, devotiions, and so on.
  24. Josh long post about future changes is really interesting. I am looking forward to the next update to see the changes. Looks like the general rule of thumb from NWN2 is still true: multi class martial chars, single class casters. At least I played that way in the beta.
  25. I think you should try to combine this with the "relative pacifism" achievement, where you should not kill more than X enemies over the whole game. Less fights mean less chances to lose health. But I think most people did this solo to sneak past many enemies and gain levels faster. With a larger party it will be harder to sneak past things and since your exp is split between all chars your level may be low. Many quests can be done without combat, but not all and you miss many kill exp. Even with pets it will be hard to avoid health damage entirely. There are also summons (chanter spells and items, but items recharge only on rest ) Anyway, good luck for your achievement.
×
×
  • Create New...