Wormerine

wow. Everyone is so nice. And I was about to write something really mean...

Yes, for me it is a but problem with "in game" expansions. You can scale up things but why shades in Sun in Shadows are so much stronget than those I fought before. I just made a big post on this topic so I won't repeat myself but just like you I am anti-scaling. That said, I don't mind critical path being a bit easier as long as there are good high level fights to have. Dragons, bounties and wizards in PoE where lots of fun and Thaos was never build up as a godly fighter. So he put up some resistance, but I felt no need for it to be THE fight of the game.

Leveling is always a can of worms. In one of the streams Josh said they what they plan to do is give you a choice at the beginning of the game if you want to scale content or not. If yes, then all encounters should be scaled according to your level. Of not, the difficulty is set and therefore you can find yourself outclassed or overpowered depending where you go. Now: my personal thoughts. I don't like scaling. For me it completely counters the idea of leveling up. I am playing through Tyranny now in PotD. I heard it gets easy in 2nd half and I think I am getting to the point but up to this point it was very frustrating. You see I thought the same enemies 10 hours ago. They are the same enemies but they have more health, better defences and they hit harder to counter my higher level. So what was the point of me leveling up? If I would stay on lvl 1 and enemies wouldn't scale the game wouldn't change much. This is the problem I have with skyrim as well. At the start of the game I could use magic, swords, bows, whatever I liked. Now I can use bows and one handed swords because this is what I chose. I feels completely the same as it did on lvl. 1, but instead of developing my character, I limited my options. Another bad example was Witcher 3. There was no point for Witcher 3 to have leveling system. Your combat didn't improve much, or get more interested. It only allowed devs to space out content (no you want do all Witcher contracts in one go, because those are lvl. 43. Sure they are same monsters, and they will work exactly the same way as they do on lvl. 10, but you wont be able to face them until you spent 50 hours in the game). Now I think, W3 benefited from this pacing but the downside was that the main story became way to easy after lvl 15 if you did side content. I like the most as difficulty and leveling is used for storytelling. Look at Gothic 1&2. Characters and monsters had set difficulty BUT you could encounter them from the very beginning. On a low level, when you saw Shadowbeast you only could run and hope it won't follow you. On lvl 15 you could face it. And it was so much more satisfying knowing how it could kill you in one hit hours before. Considering an openess of Deadfire I hope this is the route the "unscaled" game will go for: factions and monsters have certain strenght and you will need be powerful enough to face them. Or be really smart with the game. I think this way of approaching lvl system opens quite a potential for interaction with the world and storytelling. If you just create linear experience, where you shouldn't encounter something weaker/stronger than you, then why to include lvl system at all?

Hmmm.... I must have missed that. Where was it stated? Does that mean that grimoires role has changed, or do they just free up mages hands so he can be more flexible?There you go: - source 1- source 2 Oh oh oh! Class specific trinkets? Like Instruments for chanters? Or Religious relics for priests? I like it, like it, like it

As someone who never play tabletop D&D game, I can agree with Josh. I remember having to restart games after couple hours as I would find out that my character just wouldn't work. It happened even in Baldur's Gate 2 (1st one I played) which all things considering was quite a cakewalk.

Hmmm.... I must have missed that. Where was it stated? Does that mean that grimoires role has changed, or do they just free up mages hands so he can be more flexible? I am not sure about changing pistols much, though I did find them most effective when used at the start of the combat (one shot) and never reloading them in combat.

Most of the info we have is from the fig campaign. If you havent go to the fig deadfire page and look through the updates. We haven't heard much since the campaign ended. There is a pinned thread here on the forums compiling all the teasers from Josh - nothing groundbreaking but it's showcasing some fancy new features and graphical I provements. We can also expect some presence at E3. We might learn something new, or maybe see some gameplay footage advertising what we already know. Mechanics are still in progress and while there are some hints about the changes coming I am still not sure how they work exactly.

They wouldn't give it without a licensing fee or royalty checks. Obsidian wants out from under publisher insecurity. PoE is all about them owning their first IP, and they want more. I'm not opposed to them licensing, but not when it conflicts with their own IPs. Kotor III however would be welcome, but surely that would go to Bioware first... I am actually more interested in new settings. Obsidian has some really cool ideas, and allowing them to do things without restrictions of existing franchise. I would love Obsidian SF or real world setting: noir, historical, war story anything. Alpha Protocol was broken but showed how well RPG set in unusual setting can work.

It would if the rider could dismount (or be dismounted) and fight separately. Didn't we have mounted units in Icewind Dale2? I remember goblins were riding some kind of wolves, and if you killed wolf the goblin would still fight as regular goblin unit. I don't see much reason for a horse, when you already have ship, but it might be an interesting idea for future.

I do like the idea, though I would take a wider range of personalities, over less personalities, but more different accents. Unlike something like XCOM all those nationalities are fictional, and therefore it is not something I think about when choosing the voice. A handy way of adding/modding in the voice lines would be welcome (BG style, if it is not already there)

Ha! Looking forward to both. That said Obsidian has already made a great pillars game. I am a little bit less trustful towards PP. not that I gallop doesn't have chops, but it seems like a very ambitious project.

Or at least tintable portraits, with multiple color channels. Neat idea, but I can't see it happening without dropping portrait quality by quite a bit. I don't think that hand drawn shaders would translate well unless they would hand every single item. I suppose, this is where 3d models shine. It is not something I have a big problem personally though.

I do like the idea of the engagement as long as it is not too weak/powerful. The problem with infinity engine games was than a melee fighter was weaker than a range/spellcaster as they had to chase their enemies. What's more as it is real time I feel like engagement gives the combat a bit of "structure" with the engagement zone. The mechanice of blocking specific targets is interesting. I do "enjoy" having my spellcasters locked and having to either tank extra hit, or quickly find a way to disengage quickly.

What do you mean when you say that Paradox thew Obsidian under the bus with Tyranny? Something happened? Well, that does need contextualized and curtailed a bit. It's not like a business agreement was violated. But Paradox went on record saying that everyone at Paradox expected it to do better. Ergo, something went amiss in the market and Obsidian product. For context see this article: Why didn't Tyranny sell? Paradox on Obsidian's RPG (PCGamesN). So the game simply didn't sell all that well. I don't find it surprising. If I were to blame some I would blame marketing. Not that they focused on the "evil" part, but that they kept talking about choices which you have to do with limited time, that you won't be able to do all quests etc etc. I remember initial reception being quite negative because of it and it did put me off from buying it until quite recently. While entertaining I didn't find it that intriguing or bold, and while I would buy a sequel I am much more excited for PoE2 than this. Maybe if classless system was more flexible and fleshed out... sequel could certainly be great.

Did you do Zahuas quest while taking Hiravias with you? That should be humor enough, even for you. All banters were full of fanboy-pleasing-sillyness. What else do you want? For me it was the maximum amount of humor I can take to consider a game serious. OMG!!! And because of you I have just discovered that Zahua had a quest. The question now is: do I reinstal PoE, reload my save and do the quest, or do I make another full playthough...

Waves his hand in front of your face: "This is not a game you are looking for"

Being able to ACTUALLY TANK would be really appreciated. Like...not having the front line be entirely ignored and having characters just straight merc the squishies instantly and without hesitation? Yeah, not doing that. That would be *great*. As much as everyone complains about it I never felt like my tanks were ignored. Barbarian and monks had a thing for jimping behon my lines or distrupting front line but thats about it. Josh did mention though that the engagement mechanic will be more rare (not every class will have engagement) but it will be much more powerful.

My guess would be that they will still be handcrafted areas, but you will have to find the by yourself by exploring. Certainly the levels themselves won't be generated as prerendered backgrounds just don't allow for that. And I don't think procedural generation meshes too well with Obsidian's RPGs.

What do you mean when you say that Paradox thew Obsidian under the bus with Tyranny? Something happened?

Expensive CGI trailer misrepresenting the game.

Roderick's Caste and monestary (the best part of PoE in my opinion) are great examples. I did personally missed puzzles and exploration - Caed Nua was a bit disappointing to me considering how much I enjoyed Durlag's Tower and Watcher's Keep. While I don't miss on the nose puzzles (like KOTOR power transfer in the finale) I thought that the scripted interaction system opened some new potential which were never fully realized. For me, it is not necessary a need for "no combat" quests but to shake up the mechanics a bit more every once in a while. To see and do something more memorable rather than boring fight, possible shortcut if you have rope or chissel, occasionally pass conversation check.

Fair enough, although Sawyer did say something about there being "further developments" with the phylactery. And you're right, it's all about how the devs deal with it, I just personally feel that it almost always works better narratively if there's at least some sort of explanation, if there's *something* in place to provide a reason. I can work without it, I've played a hell of a lot of games, but it's a strain on the willing suspension. Also, this is one reason that I personally would've preferred they more carefully control the level in PoE 1 and the expansion, and release the sequel with a direct import, full level carry over, and simply directly continue everything. That was, of course, the ideal established in BG2, wasn't it? Every game with imports since has pretty much done it the "delevel" way, and I've always felt that's just because it's easier, not because it's better. Yes, BG did handle it very well, though it did hurt BG1 if we think on it as a standalone title. 7 or 8 lvls isn't much, and from what I remember that was lvl cap. However, going into BG2 was super satisfying as from a get go you could dominate low level mob and challenges you would encounter would fit for you level and rank gameplay and story wise. We also did see it backfire in Throne of Bhaal. Your character was so powerful already it was difficult to think of enemies which could believably challenge you. As the result I found it much less compelling. I just like when levelling system is a way to express the world - competence and power of its inhabitants. That is why I don't like level scaling. Gothic did it right. Sure, you could find Shadowbeast and get murdered at lvl1, but thanks to that, it was satisfying to kill one much later in the game. You would get bullied by higher NPCs early on, only to be able to fight back later.

Yeah, narratively those two situations aren't the same. Encountering them for the first time, their level can be *anything* and it makes sense because you don't know what they were up to before you met them.In the second game, not so much. If their level is under max, something has changed and it requires and explanation to make any logical sense. Applying logic to addressing levels in RPG narrative doesn't seem like the best approach. I personally don't always look at levels in RPGs as an expression of my characters growing skill, simply my progression through the games difficulty curve. When you play through lets say Witcher 3 as Geralt, you dont really think you helped Geralt greatly increase his skills and prowess with each level? Geralt has at least 2 lifetimes worth of experience on the path, he was a (fictional) badass long before the games narrative kicks in and gives the player agency. To me addressing changes in relative power from one game to another in narrative is the RPG equivalent of talking about midichlorians in Jedi. I didn't need DBZ power levels for martial space monks in space, I dont need them for my martial monastic in a tropical archipelago. That being said, I know we will likely face that very writing scenario with the awakening and the subsequent flight of Eothas. I just hope the explanation doesn't go to far beyond that with The Watcher or any companions. "Hey Pallegina whats up? Your soul sure looks weaker since we last saw each other!" "Hey Watcher, thanks for noticing! Eothas passed my ship doing a perfect breaststroke and stole a piece of my soul along the way. The goddess who reads the levels on my back told me I lost 16 levels! I can't even fit into my high end armor anymore. Your looking lighter around the soul yourself by the way." Well, levelling up system in Witcher3 sucked. It didn't benefit game all that much (except spacing out content). Gameplay didn't expand beyond what you get at the start of the game. Because of awkward content scaling 2/3 of the game were far too easy, as the game was prepared for you to finish the game, while skipping all additional content. Your Geralt didn't change much no matter which upgrades you chose. If a mechanic doesn't make sense I would argue you shouldn't include it. Witcher3 would work just as well, if not better if RPG systems were abandoned completely. It was more of an action game anyway (combat wise). You can use levelling system as an effective storytelling mechanic - see Baldurs gate, or especially Gothic1&2 (that said "you died and are resurrected back to lvl. 1 in Gothic2 was annoying as well). So yeah, I was a bit disappointed when I learned that we will play Watcher in PoE2 AND go back to lvl1. I can see the benefits of continuing franchise directly, but for me it is creatively weak.

Well, it is not a big deal to me personally, but I do consider games to me more than a stupid entertainment. And as I am interested in storytelling in games (mostly storytelling via gameplay, not in spite of it) having a gameplay mechanic in a game, just because it is always there, is something I will always criticise. Levelling up is a concept that RPG sequels struggle a lot. From the narrative perspective you want to continue your heroes journey, not repeat it. What if watcher had amnesia at the start of PoE2 and you had to relearn everything from PoE1 again. That would be silly. It is a bit how I feel every time i start from lvl1 in sequels. Even if you explain it, its weak.

That isn't any issue. This game takes place years after the events of Eternity 1, regardless of how Eder (or anyone else) ends up, it won't be hard for Obsidian to come up with a reason for the three returning companions to all be visiting Caed Nua at the same time. It isn't like you aren't all old friends, and Caed Nua is located at a cross roads. Do we have an information on when we meet returning companions. While it seems logical to me to team up with Eder before heading to Deadfire, I always thought we will meet Pallegina and Aloth in Deadfire itself. Aloth will be there, due to his ties to Leaden Key, and Pallegina will appear there due to her ties (or ex-ties) to Vailian Republics. Having them spaced out, and doing their own thing before teaming up with you just feels more natural to me.