Trauma_Hound
-
Posts
52 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Trauma_Hound
-
-
Leveling didn't seem too big of an issue to me, but that's because I filled up all my companion slots ASAP so my guy wasn't getting 2000xp per quest alone at the beginning of the game. Hell, I was only level 11 by the time I killed the Adra Dragon. (I had not completed the story yet). Personally I don't think levels are that big of a deal except only to unlock some cool abilities that are locked via level restraints. I think levels should matter more.
-
They should have allowed us to roll attributes. Who cares if someone sits around rerolling for amazing stats, most people would be okay with decent stats and move on.
-
What causes the long load times? I barely have time to read half the "tool tip" on the glimpses of them that I see.
-
The main issue is because a lot of people think it's bad for game balance.
In short: if you allow prebuffing, then you either A) balance everything with that in mind, punishing all those who don't want to go trought the tedious (and rather brainless) routine of prebuffing before every fight, or B) balance everything as if it didn't exist, which would make fights trivially easy when you do prebuff.
The buffs that really matter (not counting chants here) have limited uses per rest (and once the lower-level buffs become per-encounter, they are not as strong anymore). Therefore, clearly not "every fight" would need to be designed to depend on buffing. But larger encounters ('boss fights') definitely *should* give the player the opportunity to prepare everything they have at their disposal. It just doesn't *feel* right from a player / storytelling perspective otherwise, no matter how balanced it might seem.
Plan your pulls with care and do so in a manner where you have time to pop a buff off or two before they get to you if you want buffing time, it would be more realistic that way also cause I don't think enemies would just sit around while they listened and watched you from a distance casting your buffs.
-
The achievement is for Completing the game with 1200 + kills. So it's safe to assume that more than 5.3% of people who have played the game have completed the game, period.
Nope, you get the achievement as soon as you get the 1200th kill, while the Relative Pacifist achievement requires a finished game. It's not comparing like to like, but it's obvious that people are not shying away from battle just because they don't get XP for it.
Well the achievement specifies completing the game. Also that's just steam and that people who didn't use the command console for anything. Which I bet plenty of people used the command console for a number of different reasons. So I still don't see how the achievements are even reliable for tracking any sort of information? Besides killing monsters does net you Loot and XP. Not exactly certain what you attempt to prove. That's not saying that I don't agree with you - that killing monsters is fun even without xp or loot, because overcoming challenges, even minor ones are fun.
-
If there's an achievement for killing 1200 monsters and NPCs then I would suspect that you have to go out of your way to kill 1200 MONSTERS AND NPCs ... You're still rewarded with XP and Loot from killing monsters. It's not "a lot" of monster like the OP said. It's probably the majority of the living things in the game?
That's why I have all the other stuff in there for context: more people have killed 1200 enemies than have cleared out the Endless Paths. Way more than have completed the game.
The achievement is for Completing the game with 1200 + kills. So it's safe to assume that more than 5.3% of people who have played the game have completed the game, period.
-
I'm pretty certain the OPs numbers are off, hence why I wanted him to explain in detail what they mean rather than post some obscure quote like they were making a point. Beside's whatever the OP posted is so ambiguous you have to try and think about what they are saying.
Because as is their post makes no sense. (at least not the bit with numbers)
People kill stuff because you still get combat XP, just in a non direct way. (duh)
Combat still gives loot so yeah.
Although smaller parties/soloers skip a lot. Or anyone who just doesn't feel like slogging through tons of the same enemy type.
On that note, this directly ties into the issues of an unlimited stash and infinigold merchants, as well as the fact that the enchanting system is built around the acquisition of bodyparts.
Sorry I don't want the hassle of this merchant only having 500 copper for a week, and Inventory Management is something better left for the OCD. I'm certain there's more than 1 or 3 merchants in an entire city, and you could easily sell all the crap you gather upon visiting a city. Just the Devs don't want to dev 100 merchants or dev an entire city.
That's beside the point, really. Personally, I'm willing to accept hassle in the name of consistency and game mechanics that interact well, rather than working against eachother. But ultimately, if you want there to be no "hassle", it is not inconceivable that there is some kind of reasonable compromise.
I didn't say what I said because I support the idea of merchants with restricted gold (because while I do, ultimately you're right in that in relation to this particular concern, yes, you could most likely just visit a few different merchants) but merely in an attempt to explain the issues and understand them.
Ultimately, you could take everything in the IE games and drag it to a vendor by going back and forth 500 times, too, but people still didn't bother to do that. Why? Because it was a hassle. A "hassle" in itself can serve as a restrictive mechanic, and a pretty reasonable one at that.
Okay, I can concede that it's a reasonable mechanic, and I would do it if I had to, fact is I don't and it's something I was certainly grateful for. They just need more money sinks in the game perhaps?
I told all of the whiners on the backer beta forum back then that it didn't matter whether there was monster kill XP or not, that the game was still fun and the combat was the main part of the gameplay so of course you'd still do the combat. I mean, are we so addicted to our Skinner boxes now that we won't play games unless the game itself incentivizes it? I remember people on the Payday 2 forums loudly, loudly telling me that if Payday 3 started you off with the best guns and you chose to use weaker guns to earn cosmetic items, it would "ruin" the game because there would be "no reason" to play if you started off with the good stuff.
And yet here we are in Pillars of Eternity with little incentive to do combat (the bestiary XP is miniscule and the game showers you with money anyway), and look at the Steam stats Hassat pointed out:
- 36.5% of owners have completed Act I
- 8.6% of owners have completed Act II
- 6.2% of owners have reached level 10 of the Endless Paths
- 5.3% of owners have killed 1200 or more creatures in their playthrough
- 3.6% of owners have reached level 15 of the Endless Paths
- 2.2% of owners have won the game
- 0.5% of owners have defeated the dragons (and one of 'ems a real doozy)
- 0.1% of owners have won the game solo
- 0.1% of owners have won the game with no party members reaching 0 Endurance
- 0.1% of owners have won the game on Trial of Iron
- 0.1% of owners have won the game on Path of the Damned
- 0% of owners have won the game with 175 or fewer creature kills
If there's an achievement for killing 1200 monsters and NPCs then I would suspect that you have to go out of your way to kill 1200 MONSTERS AND NPCs ... You're still rewarded with XP and Loot from killing monsters. It's not "a lot" of monster like the OP said. It's probably the majority of the living things in the game?
-
I don't know where your figures came from but lets assume they are correct. Is it possible to avoid killing less than 175 over the course of the game? My impression is that most fights are unavoidable. Correct?
Steam has an achievmeent for killing less than 175 enemies and one for killing a lot, don't remember exact number. OP is presumably reporting the % of how many people got them so far.
Well, the OP forgot about bestiary XP apparently. Also how many monsters count as "a lot"? I kill everything that's hostile that I come across.
Edit: OP also forgot to mention that only 8.6% of players have completed Act 2. Nuff said on Biased and terrible stat quotes.
-
2
-
-
I'm pretty certain the OPs numbers are off, hence why I wanted him to explain in detail what they mean rather than post some obscure quote like they were making a point. Beside's whatever the OP posted is so ambiguous you have to try and think about what they are saying.
Because as is their post makes no sense. (at least not the bit with numbers)
People kill stuff because you still get combat XP, just in a non direct way. (duh)
Combat still gives loot so yeah.
Although smaller parties/soloers skip a lot. Or anyone who just doesn't feel like slogging through tons of the same enemy type.
On that note, this directly ties into the issues of an unlimited stash and infinigold merchants, as well as the fact that the enchanting system is built around the acquisition of bodyparts.
Sorry I don't want the hassle of this merchant only having 500 copper for a week, and Inventory Management is something better left for the OCD. I'm certain there's more than 1 or 3 merchants in an entire city, and you could easily sell all the crap you gather upon visiting a city. Just the Devs don't want to dev 100 merchants or dev an entire city.
-
3
-
-
So... "kill a lot of stuff" 5.3%
"kill less than 175"... 0%
Dear Combat-XP crowd, explain please?
(Also trap and lockpick XP is still the worst i... no scrap that, Enchantments on weapons/armors is the worst... so that makes that XP the second worst idea in the game)
Mind actually making sense of that for those of us who don't know what you're talking about?
-
7
-
-
The game isn't a 9 or a 10 as it stands, wait until the final patch and all the mods to come out, only time will tell.
-
There's nothing wrong asking for a mod for unlimited resting anywhere. That's what mods are for, to change something to ur liking.
This is already a feature of the command console, why would anyone make a mod for this. Just makes me laugh when I think about how a changing game mechanics via hacking isn't the same thing as cheating by using a feature within the game. If you mod the game in this way it's the same damn thing as typing rest into your command console every time you use that unlimited rest feature.
-
I just use the strategy guide and it drastically sped up the game for me.
Sure it sort of breaks the "immersion" but then Im not stupidly sneaking through rooms for no reason
and for traps I just reload if they hurt too bad.
Call it "cheating" but my time is limited so these are my options.
I would much prefer to have a rogue type character always on
Wasnt that what happened in BG with Imoen? the rogue chick?
she would find stuff all the time.
Nah man, your game, play it how you want to play it, people are always like "man I want a mod for this or that," when they can do it in the command console, like modding the game isn't the same thing as using the command console to do the same thing. People just like to try and justify their "cheating" with some obscurity or another, makes them feel superior. As long as you're having fun, that's what matters.
-
1
-
-
How about you tell me which fight you're having trouble with in the Stronghold so I don't accidentally mention any spoilers? Most fights in the underground of the Stronghold can be bottlenecked at door ways to prevent from being swarmed, can easily make the fight 1 vs Party in most cases.
-
Regarding locks, I think the game uses the character with the minimum mechanics needed to open the lock.
Confirmed, Minimum then closest.
-
I agree with most of the points in the review although I don't really understand what you mean by 'threat' system - I find that the AI automatically homing in on your weakest member is slightly cheesy, and the tank (Eder) is much too capable of soaking up endless damage, so there is some balancing needed.
I'd still give it 9 so far and I'm only in Act 2, things keep impressing me.
Giving it 8/10 or even 7/10 - not to go off topic but can you recommend me some cRPGs that you give 9/10, in that case!!!
The problem with the threat system is that - there is none. Its based on melee Engagement ( I like that idea dont get me wrong) but there should be more to tanking that just scripts turning around/ retargetting and proximity based approaching.
I havent mentioned the spell system and the stealth in my review either. They really could use some help too. Its a bit sad most of the fights boil down to fireball/Toxic Cloud spamming and maybe an occasional mind control.
The stealth system...ugh...not my cup of tea to spam it to find hidden objects/traps/important quest items tbh.
The stealth/scout system is terrible I agree. The spell system could use some love, there's just a bunch of "useless" (as in barely ever get used) spells floating around to be honest.
As to the threat system, yeah I can see what you mean, some guy might just take a sword to the back to try and cut down that spell caster in the back row. Though, I certainly don't like the idea of taunting and pulling aggro etc etc.
-
Depends on your party really. I never really had much of a problem with this except in fights where I was clearly out leveled, then again my first play through was with a Kind Wayfarer Paladin as my main. Could have gotten even more cheese if I made him a Moon Godlike.
-
Of course, while some D&D editions suck more than others, D&D and it's offshoots suck regardless of the edition.
Yes, the best system is Alternity, it's virtually unbreakable.
-
This aspect of the game is probably the one that bothers me the most ... I really hate sneaking about in town in the day light like a douchebag just because there might be some sexy loot in the hollow of that tree in the middle of zone. I'm getting Elmer Fudd flash backs from my child hood ...
-
Like hey .. my thac0 is 7 what's their ac? 4? okay so I have to roll a 3 or higher to hit them. WOW that's hard ...
-
While THAC0 is unintuitive, it's trivially easy to write things differently if using any kind of house rules. For example:
ACnew = 10 - ACold
Accuracy = 20 - THAC0
(both start from zero and go up)
Now you just roll d20, add Accuracy, subtract AC, and if it's 10 or more, it's a hit.
Yes, I agree. My point is that the system as presented in the books, with THACO included, is difficult, clunky, inelegant, and unintuitive. That's the very reason that house rules became so very common, and that is exactly what lead into 3rd Edition. The pain of using THACO is the entire reason for the D20 system existing, period.
Thac0 is easy if you're attacking something with AC higher than 0 than you subtract that number. Thus if your Thac0 is 5 and you're rolling to hit AC 3 you need a 5 - 3 to hit. Why because 3 is WORSE than 0 if it had a -3 AC then you add it because - 3 was better. If you can't compute 5 - 3 and 5 + 3 then you're not very bright. At least for me I can do this just as fast as adding + 5 to my D20 roll. You just add or subtract a number from your current Thac0 depending on their AC if it's more and less than 0. Easy day. It's that damn simple.
-
1. Undead have plenty of weaknesses that could be exploited through sneak attacks, and can also be "poisoned" in a sense to where they take damage over time or have some sort of status ailment.
2. Blinding that which cannot see can be achieved via removal of its other senses that allow it to know where something is.
3. You may not be able to knock an ooze "prone" but you could hinder its movement all the same, just scripting that in game would be useless.
4. Just because something is made out of natural fire doesn't mean an explosive ball of magical energy can't burn much hotter than it. Fire GodLikes aren't immune to fire.
5. It's okay to think outside the box.
-
1
-
-
Thac0 To Hit AC 0: Hey my Thac0 is a 5 ... what do I need to roll to hit an AC of 0? Oh wait ... a 5 - 20. Man that's some hard maff right der ...
-
This is a first edition RPG. Of course its systems are going to be horribly unbalanced. Look at how long it took D&D to get to which ever edition is your favourite.
You mean Pathfinder, right?
Pathfinder, what a snooze fest & more of a powergamers paradise than 3rd edition. It's all about 2nd edition, you know: where I didn't need a ****ing feat to side step. Imagination works well, I mean that's what the whole thing is about ... right?
You don't need a feat to 5-ft-step in 3rd edition. A five foot step is both a free action and doesn't invoke attacks of opportunity.
Also, I will never get tired of saying this: **** THACO. :-D
Yeah but you can rewrite all that bull and make 2.75 to where you don't have Thac0 you just got regular AC and regular to hit. Give a little better bonuses for Stats below 16 and above 11 ... bham instant success. And yes, there was a feat for side stepping in one of the 3rd edition rule books, it's when I decided 3rd edition was absolute fail and anything replicating it is based in a system of fail.
Any system that requires modifying one of the core mechanics to such an extent is clearly a flawed system. D&D 3rd, 3.5, and Pathfinder may not be perfect systems, but 2nd Edition was just a very clunky and inelegant design.
It's not modification it's interpretation for the idiots who can't do simple math?
If I have ranged dps who never get attacked, should I just remove all their chest pieces?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
I noticed this also actually. I didn't do a whole lot of experimenting with it, but it annoyed me when I noticed it and I did do a bit of double checking. There is certainly something they lock on to due to the nakedness there. I know in NWN2 the enemies are set to attack the lowest AC party member this also annoyed the **** out of me.