FreeKaner
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by FreeKaner
-
-
I still don't thing that answers anything. Most of the game revolves around traits. Traits are what *make* a character a character.
I'm just going to chalk this all up as an agree to disagree before the topic gets locked for being a full on flame war.
Naturally I don't want to write an essay on this regarding each of the companions, but they are flavours of similar archetypes. Individually, there wouldn't be much wrong with them, but together they suffocate the cast with overlapping personality traits that are also not displayed in an intricate way. The latter issue I think being more tied to mechanical reputation system they tried to do than anything else. If you compare and contrast your available companions in either New Vegas and Tyranny, it shouldn't be hard to see how varied they are in terms of character but also intricate representations of their traits compared to Deadfire.
-
1
-
-
I repeat "What exactly would you consider a varied character?" That isn't an answer. I'm guessing your answer is probably an Avellone text box.
Characters that aren't one-dimensional representations of a set of traits. I assume the reputation system at large caused this, which I think is a bad system to have for companions in a RPG but that's a different problem for another time.
Also it isn't about the characters themselves not being one-dimensional, but also there being a varied cast of characters too, which is also lacking with somehow the available companions at your disposal being various shades of chaotic good despite being a highly competitive, pirate-infested colonial frontier.
This game's companions feel like cast of Pirates of the Caribbean, basically.
-
1
-
-
What exactly would you consider a varied character? Tekehu is a literal shark man and Xoti is a grim reaper with a southern accent.
Those aren't characters, those are identifies. The characters of the companions are not varied, despite the best efforts of the setting which begs for variance and identities you mention which should pave way to varied character design. Nope, the companions aren't even close to being varied expect maybe for Serefan. Sidekicks aren't bad but they don't really count as they are essentially hired adventurers with a background.
-
1
-
-
OP is wrong, but everyone else trying to prove otherwise by claiming Deadfire is filled to brim with varied characters are also wrong. Obsidian did a piss poor job of reflecting a range of people, especially in terms of companions. This game is not even close to New Vegas in diversity of personalities, it's also worse than even Tyranny which was a much shorter game with way fewer important individuals.
Also regarding your other critique such as visuals claiming Divos2 looks better just because it's 3D is simply tasteless. This game is the prettiest game I played in a long while.
-
Wearing two weapons reducing reloading time must be one of the stupidest design decisions ever both mechanically and thematically. Also as it is if you are wearing two weapons it's better to also wear the heaviest armour since you'll very easily get to speed cap, this is also very silly.
-
Certain abilities and spells, especially aoe spells should graze. Everything else should not, especially not regular attacks.
-
Did empower really need a nerf like that?
-
It seems after these changes, which are very good, enemies on the whole would need a bit of HP increase to compensate. The combat seems to end too fast. Even in the base game I think encounters could use a bit more HP.
-
1
-
-
Expertise is cool. Silly edgy poses aren't.
-
1
-
-
It might be best to just remove the damage bonus for excess penetration.
-
It means when there is only a single optimal path of stat distribution to any given class. Why do you have stat distribution at all since it's not a question of flexibility and roleplaying but rather a checklist you have to get? It makes no sense in a game where you do not roll for stats.
PoE aims, ideally with varying success, that the stats should have different impact that is useful asymmetrically, you use stats to build a character idea instead of aspiring to correct numbers to the required values. Meaning that you can make a fighter with high dexterity and high perception, and taking appropriate abilities on level up that you conceptualise as a more of a duellist or you can make a fighter that pumps strength and constitution completely as a heavy hitter who also can take a blow like Dorn.
This means that there is no simple solution to stat distribution which makes it more complex but it provides also depth and variety, which I think is a good reason for its inherent complexity. This also means better roleplay elements because you can tailor your character to what you envision them as without necessarily striving from the optimal distribution.
Again. I simply beg to differ.
And has nothing to do with my point. A Minsc or Dorn is a much easier, straight forward build in BG. It isn't impossible in PoE, but it is a more complex issue.
Joe
It isn't complex at all, you pump 3 stats and ignore the rest in either case. You are literally complaining about having options here as opposed to your knowledge you acquired in D&D.
-
1
-
-
I think PoE is fine on a basic level (having 60% hover over an enemy is way more readable to me than behind the scenes literal dice rolls) but when you try to understand its subtleties, it becomes very unaccessible. I still don't get how people achieve those insane DPS builds and how they find wizards to be underperforming. But then again, I thought I understand PoE system, and than dived into some of the thread here and I accepted that I know nothing.
To me that is a big minus. It shouldn't take an applied mathematics masters degree to figure out to make a fighter who is strong enough wielding the weapon of their choice to do massive damage and take damage, AKA either Minsc or Dorn. Or how to make a wizard on par with either Edwin or Dynaheir. This is a simplicity that doesn't even exist in PoE I. Not that you can't build them, but it is a simpler design in BG/D&D.
Well, but building a melee combat specialist who hits hard, and can take a lot of hits is still easy - favour strength, resolve and constitution. Same with casters - resolve will give you the biggest boom. But they will suffer in other areas. Why have attribute system at all, if your class defines what attributes you have to take? At this point you might tie attributes to classes and not allow players to distribute them at all.
A big boon of PoE system is that, like me, you can create character by your roleplaying desires and have him work fine, even on a hard difficulty. I will leave min-maxing to rocket engineers.
All I am going to say is I pretty much disagree with everything you've said there. I don't see how it is less roleplaying with a slightly dimwitted gorilla who loves his hamster. Seems the heart of roleplaying to me.
Joe
It means when there is only a single optimal path of stat distribution to any given class. Why do you have stat distribution at all since it's not a question of flexibility and roleplaying but rather a checklist you have to get? It makes no sense in a game where you do not roll for stats.
PoE aims, ideally with varying success, that the stats should have different impact that is useful asymmetrically, you use stats to build a character idea instead of aspiring to correct numbers to the required values. Meaning that you can make a fighter with high dexterity and high perception, and taking appropriate abilities on level up that you conceptualise as a more of a duellist or you can make a fighter that pumps strength and constitution completely as a heavy hitter who also can take a blow like Dorn.
This means that there is no simple solution to stat distribution which makes it more complex but it provides also depth and variety, which I think is a good reason for its inherent complexity. This also means better roleplay elements because you can tailor your character to what you envision them as without necessarily striving from the optimal distribution.
-
3
-
-
Perhaps it could be made that ciphers have fast casting times for most of their spells, especially debuffs, if CC lost so much impact.
-
I agree completely that armour/penetration system is very needlessly abstracted. This is also considering that a flat reduction system works good in conjuncture with roll based system of defence rolls. I will never ever understand the removal of DR, especially since it was a minor issue with flat reductions in DR. A system where armour is flat reduction and penetration is percentage would just work better. You simply can't approach the asymmetric reaction of DR to damage/speed with a percentage based system. They should also bring back grazes for spells.
-
A good part of your complaints seem like GUI issues and balance issues rather than complexity issues. The game mechanics are streamlined and straightforward.
-
1
-
-
However though I would agree that it should be less frequent and obstructive, weekly accounting of supplies as well as morale changes would probably be better while the supply consumption could still be daily. So for example if first 3 days of the week the crew ate well and rest of the 4 they had nothing to eat at the end of the week this would reflect to morale while reminding you there is no supplies left.
Wouldn’t that be potentially worse? Right now the simplest solution is to improve a rather rough pop up notification. I could imagine it being much softer, until you reach a critical point (running out of supplies) at which point game alerts you to the problem.
Consuming supplies on a daily rate, while notifying and accounting you on weekly or monthly basis could have catastrophic results. You would loose hundered or hundereds of supplies at once, potentially jumping from 100 moral to 0 moral in a matter of one morning. You would need to do calculation on how much food will be consumed. With daily accounting it’s easy to see how far you can travel and when you need to seek out a port. While daily supplies are consumed fairly rapidly in the world map, it’s where you travel long distances - majority of the game will be spend on land where time flows much slowly. Consuming supplies monthly just seem absurd. You could beat current beta content couple times over, and not once reach a supply consumption.
I meant that morale is also accounted weekly, so for example a crew that ate most of the week could be ok with it, while a crew that ate well every day could get a boost in morale, while a crew that didn't eat anything whole week would drop in morale. So it would be like daily morale system exactly, except that it's weekly.
I realise now that I have not worded that well, that's my mistake.
-
I disagree that there is anything wrong with timers, it adds to value of your actions by putting the 4th dimension of repercussion, the scale upon which your choices versus their consequences can be weighted.
However though I would agree that it should be less frequent and obstructive, weekly accounting of supplies as well as morale changes would probably be better while the supply consumption could still be daily. So for example if first 3 days of the week the crew ate well and rest of the 4 they had nothing to eat at the end of the week this would reflect to morale while reminding you there is no supplies left.
-
1
-
-
They can increase the animation speed of instant attack and casts at the "resolve" part of the action while keeping the speed of "preparation" part of it. So melee instant actions will be done quickly while the friendly single target casts if interrupted won't waste the spell.
Moreover though this is an issue in the delicate balance between movement and action, the more you slow down the action the more disproportionately valuable the movement becomes. This has to be addressed one way or another.
-
It should be fairly easy to allow temporary buffs, persistent effects and passives stacking with each other, while not allowing temporary buffs and persistent effects to stack within themselves. It would also be the best way to go on about it.
-
I like the PnP feel the combat has and I am glad they went with this style of scripted interaction with turns and didn't go instead for Sid Meier's pirates style real time combat which is a real drag. The artstyle and sound design is also very satisfying. It could use some increased strategic and tactical depth however in terms of equipment, movement, wind, angles and so on.
-
1
-
-
It seems to me Obsidian in an attempt to reduce the impact of some minor imbalance of DR bypass completely destroyed all of the balance in the game. What sort of game is this where ideal for everyone is to wear heaviest armour and wield two weapons? Which we can see comes directly from removal of DR and instead switching to a system that's essentially two layers of abstracted percentage conflict (I.E defence rolls then armour rating). It inevitably will devolve into either extremity (I.E either highest armour and highest attack speed or vice versa) due lack of asymmetric reaction to action speed and flat values.
Instead of this invalidation of a system that was approaching a great standard in PoE1, why didn't they diversify the layers of defence and offence between rolls, flat reductions, percentage reductions and bypasses? A system similar to and is expanded from both PoE1 and New Vegas? A system that could increase both depth and intuitiveness of the game, instead of creating layers and layers of abstraction of ratings and classes on top of each other. Addition of New Vegas style percentage reduction defence consumables, as well as including penetration that was not a flat value but percentage in bypass is both intuitive and strengthening of each layer individually in conjunction.
Thoroughly disappointing how the extremely promising class system is being pushed into munchkin min-maxing of extremities of the system, no balance to speak of.
-
3
-
-
I do not understand why DR system couldn't be used in conjunction with penetration. Weapons with % penetration would still negate portion of the DR thus would have their niche against highly armoured targets while not being universally strong against any DR higher than 3 or 5 as was the case in PoE1.
A flat reduction system definitely works more fluid and intuitively with attack and defence rolls due it's asymmetric reaction to higher ratio of attacks, which could also help solve the current problem where one-handed weapons are universally better.
-
1
-
-
So they have reduced total damage and damage variance of firearms, was this really a necessary change? I liked that they had a clear purpose in burst damage while not being as good at sustained damage.
-
It's false that this is less accurate in terms of representation of abstraction. In PoE1 intimidation or resolution through dialogue were often resolve checks. For example, to solve the quest with alpine dragon without combat you required 19 resolve.
So am I right in assuming the game will have the size/scope of VtMB rather than NV?
in The Outer Worlds: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
The reference to Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice seems to be in terms of budget, rather than anything else. Games can have greater length with less budget, it just depends how its spread.