Jump to content

AeonsLegend

Members
  • Posts

    1,181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AeonsLegend

  1. 2 hours ago, Boeroer said:

    Very good point! Didn't think about that. She never did summon Spirit Lance against me - I guess because I make heavy use of interrupts and also stand widely spread in that fight because of the constructs' flame attacks.

    Usually she stands at that railing at the top of those stairs on the east side of the Temple of Berath. Their constructs rel. nearby. I never encoutered her anywhere else. I then initiate combat by dialogue and retreat down the stairs. They all then follow downstairs. When I try to fight her at her "spawning point" then usually some stupid townsperson who doesn't cower down in terror but just dandily wanders about gets butchered.

    Ah yea no I've seen her spawn at the bottom area as well. I think the area where you lure her too. But I've also seen her spawn at the top with or without her constructs nearby. I've seen constructs spawn as far as next to Mark van der Beij.

  2. 11 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

    If she doesn't drop it and you used Essence Interrupter then I would wonder if its loot eating big is still active. For me (never use Essence Interrupter) it always drops. 

    I fight Katrenn downstairs by the temple (between the pillars there) - usually no bypassers go there.

    I have not used Essence Interrupter and have had only a 50% drop rate on the flail. I've seen other reports on this flail sometimes not dropping. This is likely because she summons Citzals and then the flail is no longer in her inventory.

    Can you control where she shows up? Sometimes she's upstairs and sometimes downstairs. Sometimes the constructs are scattered all over the map and sometimes they are close by.

  3. I've seen this as well. Don't know what triggers it really. I recall seeing something that I was able to reproduce, but I forgot what it was.

    There's more bugs with this bounty. Katrenn is supposed to drop the flail Endre's Flog of Obedience, but sometimes she doesn't drop it.

    Also: electricity damage is the way to go. Otherwise it will take a very long time to kill them if you do this bounty early. I tend to do this one early (after Neketaka) if I need her grimoire (which is the same as Llengrath's Grimoire.) but I found that collecting Magran's Favor is easier than battling her at level 11.

  4. 26 minutes ago, uuuhhii said:

    never understand this obsession with saving the world and becoming a god thing so many rpg players seems to have

    or in the case of fnv it was to become warlord by yesman

    Try the 80s-90s JRPG video games. They're all about collecting crystals and divine beings and people wanting to destroy the world. Most often to re-create it. I think having some clearly evil person on the other side that wants to destroy everything makes for an easy way for the protagonist to have a goal. 

    People in general want to become more than they are. In video games you can do this in many ways even beyond what is possible. Almost in every RPG video game your character becomes something more than what they started out as. And I do not mean just level 99. I don't think it's the players obsession, but more the fueling from game developers that caused this. and you know, people will always want more. So if you could become a warlord in game 1, you must become a god in game 2. This is not player logic, but sales logic.

  5. I would be motivated if I could do something about it with regards to PoE2. In this sense I couldn't, but it wasn't just that. It's mostly the extremely poor implementation of the Eothas questline. It's almost like Fallout 4 where you have to find your son, but get sidetracked by this immense open world where you can build cities and do other things that are far more interesting than the main plot. Was I motivated to find my son in FO4? Yes for the first 10 minutes... was I motivated to do something about by castle being destroyed and me losing... wait who died again at my castle? Did the MC mourn any of them? At what point do we do something about this? I lost motivation about 10 mins in again.

    With PoE1 I got this soul of another person awakening inside my head. Maybe they could have done more about that, but having a different person in your head does make me want to find out what's up with that. Especially if some weirdo with a crown is turning on ancient devices that caused this to happen to me in the first place.

    I agree that non of the stories are particularly well implemented, but I found the Thaos story much more enthralling than Eothas. To each his/her own.

    • Thanks 1
  6. 3 minutes ago, Theonlygarby said:

    Not having an impact on the ending is something that i can understand being annoyed by.  It still doesn't explain why you think The Watcher has no motivation.

    Ukaizo is only able to be traveled to because you stop the storms.  Eothas could still get there and he would still smash the wheel.  However, no faction would be able to reach Ukaizo.  You use your watcher abilities to shut down the storms through the adra.

    Except that reaching ukaizo was only a matter of having the right ship materials... Shutting down the storm is meaningless in the end. I mean the RDC alone have already crafted a submarine to ignore the storm.

    So what is the watchers motivation other than Berath forcing him/her to? The fact that the castle was destroyed and an insiginificant part of the soul was taken? I mean... really? I mean the first part would be "revenge". Never saw any of that as an option in the game. The last part would mean that I needed it. But I don't so... what's my motivation again? I mean other than Berath forcing me?

  7. The fact that Eothas has part of your soul has nothing to do with the discovery of Ukaizo. I don't think the MC needs to be even a watcher to do the things necessary for the main conclusion. Because all we do is chase after something and then enter Ukaizo. Something that anyone with the correct ship can do. After that the only real impact you have is that you can sway Eothas to be a bit more benevolent. That's it. If the watcher wasn't revived by Berath and Berath would not have revived anyone to do her bidding and just stayed passive the story would have evolved much the same. I said this many times before. The discovery of Ukaizo is only a matter of time. The Watcher only speeds it up ever so slightly. And even its discovery has no real impact because Eothas will still do what he intended to do. For all intent and purposes the watchers presence is superfluous.

  8. 4 hours ago, Theonlygarby said:

    I'm pretty sure Eothas actually says something like "I still have need of your soul but i can give you this much at least"  not tenfold.

     

    Losing your castle, people you lived with, and most of your soul.  Is quite the motivation.  In POE you are tracking Thaos because he awakened your soul.  I'd say those are quite close as far as wanting answers.  I understand what you are trying to say, and i agree with it to a degree.  However, you are acting like if a monster destroyed your house and took most of your soul, you would just go back to sleep.

    Where's the revenge story then? Where's the rush after him to get your soul back? At what part of the story do we feel bad about losing our castle? I think it's mentioned once or twice as an afterthought. And as I mentioned before it doesn't "feel" like part of our soul is missing at all. In fact you are stronger than you were in PoE1 way before you meet Eothas. I'm not talking about myself going to sleep. I'm talking about the watcher. The story and world is set up in such a way that it seems the MC simply does not care about any of it. And if the MC doesn't care, then I don't care either. Simple as that.

    • Like 1
  9. 13 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

    I did get an engaging experience. It would be easier to discuss this if you were able to specify why you did not, although I understand that it's sometimes difficult to put one's finger on what is wrong, even if something definitely is wrong.

    For me the disjointed island with not much to do took away from any engagement. Just sailing from point A to B basically. Most islands have 0 story or don't even have any NPC's. Some islands are just there so they can have a quest for the main story, but other than that you will never visit them again. 

    I think it also has to do with the main story being this paper thin. Also the fact that it is open world so there's no path to follow where the story teller guides you. This is true for many open world games. At one point you have to choose between player freedom or story telling. Doing both usually ends up with either one or both being half assed.

  10. 1 hour ago, xzar_monty said:

    Oh yes. There is almost nothing interesting about any of the companions in BG. In my view, BG is merely a template -- the game itself is not good at all, but it established a foundation upon which many better things could be and were built. BG2 is a totally different thing.

    Interestingly enough the main man from Obsidian was involved in creating BG1, but not BG2.... and BG2 was by far the better game.

  11. 1 hour ago, xzar_monty said:

    I agree it would be disheartening. The people who play games like these give the impression of being a fairly conservative bunch, and this strongly conservative nature of the gaming community may indeed be one reason why Deadfire didn't succeed -- it was too different. But we don't know. And we don't even know whether the gaming community as a whole is conservative; what we can say is that an awful lot of people who contribute to cRPG forums appear very conservative.

    Dungeon crawling is fine, but not necessary, and we've certainly seen enough of it. The Endless Paths were quite poor in PoE, and I was happy that there was no such thing in Deadfire.

    Well to be fair, it's not the sailing around per se that dampens the experience, but more the implementation of it. In the end you have to have an engaging experience and feel connected to the world for your actions to feel noteworthy. The main issue with PoE2 is that I don't get that engaging experience. Is it the way the world is set up? Maybe. But it's definitely not just that.

  12. 28 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

    Btw, I know this is off-topic but in my view, a stronger criticism (than classes and characters) that can be leveled at Obsidian is the company's fixation with factions. Due to the corona, I decided to give Tyranny a try, and the bloody factions are there, too. In PoE, you must support one of the factions, at least to a certain extent. And then, towards the end, you are strongly suggested to "join" one of the gods, although you don't have to. In Deadfire, the factions vie for your attention and co-operation. And now, in Tyranny, I notice right at the start that factions are just about the most important thing.

    I don't like this. Surely there are plenty of other ways to further a narrative.

    I agree. It's even worse that 4 of the companions are tied to factions. At least that wasn't the case with PoE1 and the factions weren't really tied to the main quest.

  13. 4 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

    So in theory some classes can feely less distinguishable - for example if you play a Wizard with plate armor and a Great Sword and a Fighter with plate armor and a Great Sword - that's your problem?

    But at the same time the Wizard in robes with the staff is a lot different from the Wizard in plate with the Great Sword.

    Ergo: There is no loss of options or uniqueness of the individual character.

    What you lament is basically a removal of boundaries. 

    Good question. I don't think it's the removal of boundaries per se, but more the lack of effect of choice. If I choose to be a wizard, but can the next day pick up a greatsword and chop a guys head off without any training then why would I pick fighter and train myself? It feels like I'm not choosing really. In real life that is not the case. I'm not saying that the game needs to be lifelike. I'm saying more that the identifyable part of the aspect of choice is missing. I kind of dislike that for these types of games.

  14. 2 minutes ago, Rooksx said:

    @AeonsLegend I think the problems you're highlighting really stem from PoE2 generally being too easy. It's understandable that the classes can feel a bit same-y if the game doesn't punish you for sending your frail wizard with his puny dagger into melee. I'm just not convinced that the DnD approach is necessarily better. I find versatile builds that have multiple options in combat the most fun, but building such a character in the DnD-based games is a matter of:

    • detailed planning and meta-knowledge;  and/or 
    • getting to high levels where you have the capacity to have three different classes and loads of abilities. By this point the game's mechanics are falling apart. 

    In contrast Deadfire's system is well-geared towards versatility. Its implementation of multiclassing is the best I've seen in a CRPG; it permits creativity and versatility without the confusing complexity of something like 3rd edition DnD or Pathfinder, and makes it fairly easy to avoid creating a weak build. Yes it's still possible to build game-breaking characters, but it must be extremely difficult to avoid that. 

    Hm, maybe. Although this depends on the campaign. Multiclassing isn't mandatory in DnD and yes you can spend the better part of your life theorycrafting multiclasses in DnD as there are so many options. But single classes are just as viable depending on the campaign and those don't really require a lot of meta knowledge overall, just knowledge of your class. But I think that's the case however you play. If you don't know anything about the abilities in Andromeda you're not going to get anything out of it either. Mixing them up or separating them between classes doesn't change that. In the light of single class characters DnD like other older RPGs (particularly JRPGs with fixed classes and class progression) they are much more distinguishable. If I feel like I ask myself the question: "but then why did I pick this class?" if in the end it didn't matter then it kind of weighs on the experience. Like others said before it, it's to do with personal preference as well. I personally like it to have a class in and of itself to be unique in progression. A rogue or rogue-like character can use particular skills to that class and cross class skills aren't as good. So I can't have a fighter that picks locks or whatever unless I sacrifice something else. In Deadfire it doesn't matter what class you pick, you can lock-pick with anyone. Perhaps this is done to feed solo players? Not sure. kind of feels like it was done on purpose so people could play this game solo. It's also why some things don't feel as balanced, because you can play this game with 1 character and with 5 without much difference in effectiveness.

  15. 2 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

    At this juncture I would kindly point out that you are making rather heavy assumptions here, on this forum, and I am not at all sure whether they are well-founded. For instance, in another thread, just today, you said to @SchroedsCat that "And early thirties is still young and much more influenced by modern media than you might initially think", which is possibly intended to sound like a piece of wisdom coming from an experienced person but which is actually unfounded, somewhat myopic and a gross generalization, to such an extent that it decreases the overall credibility of the person making it. Let's face it: you are not aware of the extent to which other people on this forum are influenced by -- or even exposed to -- modern media, and it is decidedly unhelpful to make comments about other people's worlds (or level of RPG game experience) when in fact you are only talking about your personal impression of it. Projection does not benefit discussion.

    I'm well aware that it is an assumption, where did I make you believe otherwise? I use the word "probably" to denote just that. You can do whatever you want with that piece of information.

    And my comment on SchroedsCat was not to point out that everyone in their thirties is influenced by modern media as such, but to counter the assumption that being in your thirties excludes you from that group. I thought that was obvious. Seems to me that it is not me, but you who is filling in the gaps of my meaning to form your own personal opinion. Which is fair as this is a public forum, but don't put words in my mouth.

×
×
  • Create New...