Wormerine

Scouting will be automatic and no longer tied to sneaking.

Well, a feeling of continuity for one. I know someone said that any quest based abilities, etc (such as the blood pool) that you gain will be re-added (or an equivalent of it) as you re-accquire your soul bits. Also greater control over choices that you make that might affect things in PoE2, though there probably won't be many of those. I don't think we know all of the benefits of importing a save yet, but the primary draw is likely that feeling of continuity. From the Q&As i got the impression that, no, the is no "benefit" to importing the save, unless you really want to continue THE choices and THE character. When starting new game you will be able to define the game state and there is no info about additional benefits. It doesn't seem like you are encouraged to prepare a save for a sequel, rather that you can continue or start a new character and it should be both equally good.

You can still back the game and get beta access from the backer portal, IIRC. I thought backer signups were closed now? The fig campaign is over but you can back the game via obsidian's backer site: https://eternity.obsidian.net/ I believe access to rewards is still there.

What he said about making PoE2 music more "reactive" might help a lot. Quite a few good gaming soundtracks tend to be better fit to what is happening on screen. PoE1 was quite static, the track was playing and that was about that. I think that is why it got old quicker than it should have.

I wouldn't interpret it that way. Chanter were jacked up because you couldn't cast their invocation at all for a predetermined amount of time. With the wizard when a fight starts you can still cast the spell it just takes a little longer to cast. I know its a slight distinction but its there. If it will be implimented right there could be a big distinction. Will there be spell interruption? WIll you be able to loose the spell? If your wizard is casting a highlevel empored spell, you might have to also make sure he won't be interupted. It might be annoying, it might be brilliant, it might not be possible to stop the cast at all. We will see.

ok, I wasn't happy with the change of per-rest casting, as I was worried it will turn into a constant spam of weak spells. As it turns out it is not the case. I am really looking forward to this system now.

My main worry about the damage animations (or lack thereof) was because that's how it was in PoE1. It's true that it's a very early buile, but I can't just assume that it is something they're going to work on. So if that's how it's really going to be, the health will be exactly like in Dragon Age? What I didn't understand was about the personal inventories. In PoE1, you could everyone's inventory on one screen. Now it appears that it's not the case anymore. Will there be a way to quickly look for a specific item if you don't know who has it? I don't think there is a plan to add damage animations. While giving combat more clarity for the sequel is needed, a more impactful visual representation of damage being done is not something I felt I needed when playing PoE1. Something like "stagger animations" would be problematic as they would have to completely rethink how a combat works. Shake screen would work, but it was something which I would disable in BG anyway. Right now the plan of health is to work in a similar fashion to Dragon Age, though the closest example is Obsidians Tyranny. There will be one health pool and once it runs out you get knocked out and gain an injury. Get knocked out with enough injuries and you die permanently. You remove injuries by resting. I really liked endurcance/health mechanic in PoE so I am against the change but we will see how it plays once beta is released. The inventory works the same way it did in PoE but the UI prioritised bigass character model over showing all party members' inventory. Above the character model there are character portraits where you can switch between party members. It was something I noticed as well, but I am not sure how much of an inconvenience will it be. I would prefer though if there was a 6th tab, which would replace stash with all party members personal inventory for easier swapping.

That is true. With unlimited stash, personal inventory doesn't have a function, maybe except easy to find items for later use for said character.

I really don't see why taking away one characters would make the game easier to play with a controler, especially as you will be able to have multiple animan companions and (possibly?) summons. Whatever thinking process behind it was, I am convinced it wasn't better controller support. So far UI looks as PC focused as it was before.

I am not interested in increasing AI reactivity for stealing to make game more "realistic." I believe that would make game better. Looting unprotected containers isn't fun. Finding and looting hidden compartments is fun (that's why exploring in something like Thief, Deus Ex or Dishonored is so entertaining) and, If game finds a good balance with its economy and difficulty then a possibility of stealing becomes interesting as well. Sure, if I play a goodish character I probably don't want to steal from peasants but if I could really use extra items I might be tempted. If you play evil character and you steal and murder you get real rewards for that. More money and items in a game where you can pretty much pick up anything you like is not much of an incentive. I remember in White March trying to figure out how could I steal Durban steel ignot from Abydon's temple, when I realised I can just pick it up and not one will really mind. I found that disappointing.

And the first thing they say is "WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY HOUSE? GET OUT!" as some in Baldur's Gate do. Seems legit I really like how characters in Gothic1&2 are protective of their homes and stuff. Stealing actually feels like stealing. Thats good that they implimented the stealing mechanic in PoE but I wish they would expend the range of possible repercussions in PoE2. Loosing a bit of reputation isn't really enough, and people immediately trying to kill you is a bit overboard. I remember in Baldur's Gate people would call guards if they saw you stealing. It would be cool if fines, giving up stole items and prison were a thing in Deadfire.

Well, I for one didn't enjoy Endless Paths that much. The idea was cool, the story of the place was cool but gameplay wise it felt like a filler. I expected it to pose unique challenges, maybe pushing specific game mechanics to their limit (scripted interactions, combat, stealth/traps, dialogue etc.) what we got was a lengthy dungeon which seemed to do completely run out of steam (the final levels are so small I imagine they just run out of ideas or time) filled with trash mob from the surface. It is something which to me was a fulfilment of kickstarter promise, but otherwise should have been scrapped (with entire caed nua) and resources relocated elsewhere. I am looking forward to Fulvano's Voyage though and I hope for a more involving experience.

Well, thank you guys for asking those question because it is something I am terrible at. I am sure there is plenty of stuff I would love to hear about but when it comes to figuring out what those things are I just can't think of a single one.

Finally found it. Its not specifically about the map, but I believe it didn't overinterpret their answer too much. 51:15

Sure, but Pillars and Arcanum are two radically different types of RPG (at least in my mind.) Baldur's Gate-Dragon Age-Witcher3-New Vegas-Pillars are story driven RPGs, which are all about well crafted characters and worlds, an engaging plot and overall good oldfashioned story. Games like Fallout1&2-Arcanum-Divinity where more about how you interact with the world, rather than individual storylines. I found them to be more of a "sandbox" where you have tools, and you have a problem and it is more about how your character will aproach any given problem than presenting themes or ideas. While those two "types" of RPGs share similaritues and can overlap I look for different things in each experience. In a storydriven RPG for example I don't want to get stuck or lost if it goes against the story - pacing is much more important. I will also accept well implimented limitation, if they work in support of the story. In what I define as "mechanic driven" RPG I usually look for a way to solve each problem in creative and free way and for the game to react to it. It is all of course, my personal non-academic division of different RPG experiences and is not scientifically proven in any way:-).

Lovely, but I want a map Josh... I think I'm going to pose that question in the stream thread... off I gooooooo Go ahead but they already answered that question. Josh said that they won't do the map, as they want to leave blank space for future creators, if the series will continue. They will vaguely reference places but not define them more than it is needed. I doubt you will force them to commint to creating world out of the gate. One of the biggest advantages of them owning their own IP is that they can do whatever they will feel is right. You do StarWars game and you need to fit into whatever lore and events are happening around. It is limiting as nothing major can happen - everything needs to return to status quo. If they will create map now, that means everyone in coming years will have to much less room to create. I personally find the whole "lore" overrated. Sure, it worked for Tolkien, but that's because creating the world was his goal. Silmarillion is great. Hobbit & LotR is a side product of that. Every other property I can think of gets stuck up its own bum with its boring lore and stories which get more and more tangled in existing details. So while I understand a desire of seeing a bigger picture, I think it would hurt it in a longrun.

That is a good point, though for me this kind of replayinility is a good thing. I do see though, how other people might prefer to experience more companions fully on each of their runs.

... I am sure Deadfire will work as any other modern RPG and give you all the story, even if you barely use someone. I don't remember ever hearing Obsidian saying that combat was to hard and that is why they reduce the party size. If I remember well, they said that they found that your party forced them to put bigger pacts of enemies which made combat more busy than it needed to be. I find it to be a good reason. It doesn't make combat easier, or more shallow, just cleaner. Of course, we will be only able to judge it fully once we get our hands on it.

Speaking only for myself, I think this is a mistake by Obsidian to go with just 5. I prefer no party size cap at all, honestly, but that's another design path beyond the scope of this game. Less party members means less flexibility objectively, and in my opinion, will lead to less enjoyable, less tactical combat overall. But, this topic has been discussed to death already though, so at this point I'm just hoping the game is moddable enough to allow for more party members for those that want them. At least Obsidian realized the mistake it was to go with 4 in Tyranny, hopefully they will eventually come to realize 5 is mistake as well, but it's going to be well after the release of Deadfire. *Offtopic: I'm still halfway convinced Obsidian is doing 5 just to drive Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale fans up the wall. Less stuff accessible at any given time, yes - but less tactical...? I suppose it depends from your definition, but I disagree. I always found tacticts to be about using well what you have at your disposal. Creating effective combinations, good combos - those are tactics. Choosing from more stuff - not so much. I really disliked Tyranny's or DA combat, but it wasn't the amount of characters I could take with me - having two more would just add busywork. It was that the combat in those game was choiceless. You would just fire your abilities whenever they were available and wait for the combat to end. Darkest Dungeon uses 4 character for each run and its always very engaging - both in creating a party and in combat itself. On the other hand, I do prefer a bigger paries in Long War over original XCOM. It all depends on game and character design, not amount of stuff you have. I am more curious about the ability/class/power points changes over party size as those will have more impact on the game.

Like many others I am attatched to the party of 6. I didnt enjoy the combat of Tyranny and Dragon Ages and those had a lower character count. That said, after a bit of thought, the change doesn't bother me at all. The character limit wasn't what hurt those other games to me. I played Baldur's Gate2 with many combinations and a 4 or 5 party squad was always sufficient. In Pillars of Eternity I tend to have at least one guy who is just there. Sure, he is helping but I don't use him to him/her fullest even in toughest fights. I really don't see how this reduction could hurt the experience. All roles will be covered, and multiclassing will bring more flexibility (though I will probably wait until 2nd playthrough before I dip into that.)

You bring up a good point, and one that frankly troubles me somewhat in many RP games, Pilllars included. As you say, it doesn't seem natural to talk to every person you come across or check every side alley or building. Yet most players do this, we are meta gaming in a way, knowing if we do this we will be rewarded with extra loot, extra quests, XP and whatnot. That is one aspect I felt Skyrim got right. The amount people, buildings and possible adventures were so overwhelming, that for the first time in... forever... I didn't play the game as a completionist. I talked to those characters that seemed interesting, or went to places that piqued my curiosity. The amount of content seemed to overwhelming that I had to pick and chose because of real life time constraints. It was incredibly liberating to play like that, and a lot more like the paper&pen roleplaying games we used to run. It would be great if Pillars 2 could give you the option to play a similar way. Maybe that local tavern has different guests from day to day and you hear different rumors. Heck, should apply for the world as well, with characters moving around and changing places, giving the illusion of a more dynamic, living world. Maybe a character you didn't bother talking to moves around the world with his own agenda, and you might strike up a conversation when it feels more natural. Zones can be made in a way that lets you explore more of it in a natural way when you traverse it, running into situations or locations that pique your interest. The point is that the game world should try to make the player stumble into side quests in a more dynamic and fun way, rather than expecting the player to click everything in a relatively static world. Introducing locations, and quests in an organic way is a worthwhile goal to strive for. I don't think PoE or old Infinity games did that badly, but of course there is always a way to improve. I like that PoE doesn't have quest markers "you have to talk to a guy, or find an object. Choose the quest and *ping*, it shows on your map and has a pointer floating above it." It is a lazy way of doing it, and if you would turn those off, good luck completing any quests. I am always impressed, when in game character give me sensible directions (discription of a house or where to find someone) but it only works in specific games and with a well designed world. I remember Baldur's Gate2 descibing building at one point, and finding it only based on that discription without much of an issue. Quite often, those same tricked end up just being confusing and frustrating if level design isn't as memorable. The Devs have to choose how much information is given and how it is diivered. Some games are just clever about it. Witcher3's notice boards work really well. They are a way of telling you where the quest givers are, but they fit the world and the character. I don't think the conversation we should have is whenever we should hide questgivers names or not, but rather what more interesting ways of introducing quests could there be implimented. To me personally, in a game like Pillars it is not a huge issue as the game is quite abstract anyway. Naming important NPCs is a handy way of finding important NPC for the first time and finding them again. Hopefully the marketed more dynamic world (NPC having routines, moving around) will make things feel more organic and it won't be a case anymore of walking into an area and talking to everyone who has a name but not a gold plaque.

Now, that is a good point indeed. Although, do those make the game (after the expansion is played) easier since the balancing was done before the expansion? Unless, of course, there is scaling (yuck!). ☺ Yes, they do wreck the late game if you won't apply content scaling. That's the unfortunate trade off.

I am conflicted about the idea. If it were implimented well it could have a very engaging effect, but it could also be end up being frustrating. The biggest issue I see that if important NPC were to be unmarked that would mean that EVERY NPC should have a meaningful interaction. If you were required to click through many "nobles", "merchants" or "thugs" only do find out those who would talk to you it would be a waste of time. The problem is that confiscating what is a filler and what is not is not an improvement. Limiting the filler and adding more meaningful NPC is the way to go, but I don't see it happening due to the way Pillars is designed. It would require an army of writers and I would take a more coherent and consistent quality of writing over "you can talk to everyone but only some of them will be worth talking to".

To me personally the already implemented shift-que was sufficient, but it would be better if the game UI would reflect qued waypoints/actions.

I remember Baldurs Gate had such option (pausing every "turn.") If there is a demand for that it would be nice to see it added.