.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
whiskiz
-
Posts
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by whiskiz
-
-
Saw this coming.
That's why im waiting a good 6 months after release before even thinking about buying this, when it's actually balanced and finished properly.
One patch changes nothing, you need to wait months.
Think of the patch as a "start" on the difficulty/balancing, not as a magical "entire game perfectly balanced a couple weeks after release" as that is just wishful thinking sadly, in this day and age.
Not only is it wishful thinking to get a properly balanced, properly finished game on release in this day and age, but for months afterward.
Give it another couple months at least.
-
Game definitely got easier with levels for me in 1.1 beta. From reloading to steamrolling.
Already saw this coming, still.
You need to wait until they "officially" "release" something, then you need to wait another couple months for them to actually finish it properly. Releasing things means less and less, in context of how finished it is.
Just as release, so as a balancing patch. Unless you want your first playthrough to be free QA/beta testing for them.
As a general rule of thumb, for a game you're either really excited about or that has alot of potential - you should hold off on getting it for around 6 months.
The gaming industry is getting worse and is now releasing things well before they are finished, need to start getting that $$$ asap to keep publishers and investors etc happy, while they get to severely increase their QA/beta testing pool for free.
Never change capitalism.
-
Too bad. Even if they improve the game in months to come, and Deadfire will become a gem it has potential to be, luke-warm reviews and initial reception will stay.
"A late game will eventually be good, a rushed game will be bad forever"
If only gaming companies and capitalism in general actually cared about the quality and the reputation, over squeezing out every last dollar of profit they can from the majority casual market who don't know any better, or just don't care.
-
3
-
-
I’m confused. The difficulty fixing beta patch came out but not the difficulty fixing full patch?
Even when it is fully released, i'd wait another month or 2 of balancing.
The initial release will be just as half assed as the games launch - to get the purchases of anyone that is still holding out for the game to be balanced (finished properly) like me and a few others.
It'll be a couple months after it, that they will have spent the time and resources to do it properly/fully and will have had the time and feedback to test and fix properly as well. As well as the balance of multiclassing etc being alot more fine tuned.
Need to think like them, which means figuring out how to get the most purchases while quality and actually finishing the product you are selling, takes secondary priority.
-
I'm playing on Veteran now. I'm still at the beginning, but I'll share my impressions here later.
I'm about to do two battles that are considered very difficult in PotD now. They should give a good impression about Veteran.
It's not really accurate judging the difficulty in the first half of a game let alone the start (lol)
Games on higher difficulties have always traditionally been decently balanced at the start and even the first half/early game, but it's the majority of the game especially mid-end that it starts to lose its balance and goes back to becoming an OP faceroll.
It's like most devs balance the early game then get lazy, or want to save the time and resources on doing it fully/properly.
Come mid game you generally have better gear, more combat choices, are alot stronger and so again it goes back to becoming a faceroll later in the game. Hopefully level scaling helps that, this time around, as well as actually balancing the game mid-end too.
So reporting in on difficulty at the start of the game isn't helpful usually, fyi.
-
1
-
-
I'll start by saying I haven't played beyond Deadlight, because from the start it was obvious the game will benefit a lot from the first patches and I didn't want to spoil it for myslef by playing unpatched. Plus, there was enough work to do on the JSON editor to keep me busy.
This means I can't speak at length about the game's qualities or story, but the little I saw won me over completely, and I think the game is overall a big improvement over PoE. The increase in complexity and readability of mechanics, and in freedom/exploration of gameplay at the same time, the addition of multiclassing plus the ship system is just a huge boost. This is now much more than an IE games revival/clone. There is much I would like to change about the combat and abilities balance, but that's what modding is for.
All reviews of Deadfire I have seen so far seem to be very positive, and I think that's well earned by the game, yet the sales numbers don't seem to be that great. I wonder why is that? Are people waiting for patches/DLC? Does the price feel too high for people who haven't backed/preordered?
"I'll start by saying I haven't played beyond Deadlight, because from the start it was obvious the game will benefit a lot from the first patches and I didn't want to spoil it for myslef by playing unpatched"
That's the nicest and most diplomatic way of saying you're waiting until they actually finish the game properly, that i've ever seen haha.
Same with me, not even getting it until they finish it properly. Having to balance multiple difficulties post release, major bugfix both before and after release, level scaling flat not working on release etc.
Bit scummy to release it half done, working on finishing it post release while we already pay full price and they increase there QA/beta test for free, but it seems to be the standard practice in the gaming industry these days unfortunately.
-
People complained about fluff combat in PoE 1.
Much easier to just make less combat, or a basic infinite repetitive loop via naval combat, than to actually spend the time and resources on instead making the combat more unique and/or impactful.
Developing 101.
-
100% wait
I 100% your 100% good sir.
I myself am waiting until they actually finish the game, before supporting them with a finished price tag.
Things didn't work on launch (literally - level scaling flat didn't work for example), there was alot of bugs and performance issues, the higher difficulties weren't actually balanced - having to be done as we speak post release.
Etc.
It was/is a mess that they pushed out the door because business and completely relied on hype and the gaming communities general impatience, to sell it either way while they still worked on finishing it and getting a much bigger and free QA/beta test pool.
Not something i personally want to support/encourage.
-
1
-
-
Let me start off by saying I'm very excited for Patch 1.1; Like many people, I've found PotD to be a challenge in the beginning, but once you get access to certain pieces of gear fairly early on in the game it gets trivial. As someone who beat Tyranny on PotD, I really want to try to give Deadfire a fair shot on the hardest difficulty. That said, with any sort of balance patch, I definitely have a few concerns - and I'd like to address them now. Please feel free to respond to them - I might just be overreacting.
My biggest concern is overnerfing, honestly. While I definitely understand not wanting immortal characters that remove all sense of challenge from the game, I'd much rather see underappreciated classes/multiclasses get some love than seeing things that are overpowered if used in a certain way get nerfed for everyone else.
For example, I want to run a Fighter/Monk for my next playthrough because I think it could be a lot of fun - Monk gives Fighter some nice augments to damage, and Fighter has solid defenses. Plus, playing a drug Monk would provide a lot of really neat roleplay opportunities. But I've talked about all of that before.
Fighter and Monk are, unfortunately, two of the classes that are used in a lot of the "Become a functionally immortal god" builds. And while I agree that some skills need tuning (Changing a lot of Full Attacks to Primary Attacks to encourage Dual Wielding, for instance) I hope they don't put too many desirable abilities behind PL8 and 9 (I'd be okay having Unbending go down to, say PL7 and then the enhancements go down to 8 or 9, for example - but I'd hate to lose it altogether. Similarly, while I think that the 25% chance on Crit to trigger an extra attack hardly qualifies as "small", I'd rather that be reduced to 10% or even 5% (So it's more of a reward) than have it go up to 8 or 9. Same thing with Turning Wheel - for a multiclass, that comes at level 16.
The Chanter Invocation that renews class resources could be moved to 8 or 9, because that seems like sort of a capstone Chanter ability.
By the same token, some skills at higher levels really don't make sense at those levels, and could stand to be made a little bit stronger. I know a lot of people have complained about Cipher and Priest, for instance. Cipher has some super powerful skills like Time Parasite or Defensive Mindweb, but then there are spells like Haunting Chains. Oooh, Terrified AND Hobbled. It's not like there's a lower level Cipher spell that causes Paral- Oh, wait.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, there has to be a way to pick apart the builds that allow people to be completely invulnerable, while still keeping character creation robust and enjoyable. At the same time, I hope the balance changes and tweaks focus just as much on uplifting certain classes as on adjusting nigh immortal builds.
TL;DR: What are your thoughts on the changes coming in 1.1 from a class balance perspective? What changes can you see coming to each class (Be as specific as you like).
if you're worried about overnerfing and it being too hard for you afterward - play a lower difficulty.
Boom, instant old power levels.
-
2
-
-
It is a mistery. But you cant just nerf every cool spell, or we all get lost.
It's called balancing.
A spell shouldn't only be considered "cool" because it's OP.
You want to be OP, play on normal/easy
-
1
-
-
This is some nonsense and then some. Firstly, they did not 'sacrifice' balancing the gameplay, as they are fully committed to doing it and are currently doing as much - they merely gave relevance to things that they considered either more priorital or more essential for the game's end ambition first, that would either provide a worse player experience or would require far deeper and more fundamental changes to the game instead - things like, for example, game-breaking bugs, overall aesthetic, narrative design and so on. The choice to leave balancing for after release was done understanding exactly what kind of game they're making and what the game needs.Lol @ the assumption that a great story or themes and ideas should be exclusive to film and literature. Far as I'm concerned games of a narrative kind should most definitely aim for these goals just as much as they should good gameplay. Better yet, they ought to think more regularly about how to integrate the two and use the interactivity offered by the medium as a narrative tool and means of expression. That's what I seek in the videogames I play, at least, and why I value videogames as an artform independent of literature, cinema or any other. But hey, maybe I'm just a lazy casual.
I think what they meant was gamers want a cinematic or literary tale which also affords the conceits of gameplay, which, unless you make something like Uncharted or the Last of Us, is not possible in all formats, because player agency and experimentation and nonlinearity is involved. Something has to give. If , for example, the Witcher was really on a dire quest to save the one person in his life he truly unconditionally loved, he wouldn't stop every two seconds for every peasant who needed help.
It's not possible because of a number of factors:
Player agency/non linearity/lore as you said.
Funding - this is not a Triple-A company and if you ask some, they are barely holding on financially. It seems to be one of those smaller devs that are being supported by the crowd and able to keep going because of it, not some faceless money beast that is just cutting corners for the sake of it.
Time - they already had to sacrifice balancing the gameplay of the game and higher difficulties for bugfixing as they stated, having to do those post release instead. Level scaling straight up didn't work on release, there were plenty of bugs and performance issues on release still and a whole host of other problems. Where are they going to get the extra time and again funding, to increase the quality of the story in a game more than it already is - when there's so many other factors to consider? (that are arguably more important to the medium.)
The fact that it is a game after all, as touched on - You may want to have the best of everything, but it's just not realistic. Some things are more important and more central than others in every medium and arguably the systems, mechanics, performance, bugs, balance, depth, length are all more important and then there's things like variety, audio, visual and other things that all need to be considered and worked on to end up at an above average level. Wanting to push the one aspect you happen to value higher than others, personally, is again just not a realistic expectation to have. I personally prefer combat depth and challenge and would rather that be expanded upon, but i get there are other needs.
Etc.
With the above in mind, it's a careful balancing act - where you can't just pump one thing, one aspect to suit individual needs. But rather shoot for a product that is great in all areas, rather than multiple areas suffering to make one amazing. So we get a "good" story, with good combat, good graphics, good audio, good exploration, good sized world that is also open etc etc.
P.S I get it - the casual crowd just wants, again, an interactive novel. Well i'm sorry but there's more to a game than that, thank god. There are again other mediums that do specialize in that though. You can't have everything and if you ask me, the gaming industry and anything for-profit caters to you enough already.
Secondly, you assume "other factors are arguably more important for the medium". No. There are aspects that ought to be present, but whether one is more important to a game than another depends on each individual example. The Wolf Among Us isn't relying on the same qualities as League of Legends is, nor is it a worse game for it. With Deadfire and several other Obsidian games, the primary focus *is* a narrative one - they're making a spiritual successor to the Black Isle games, who all placed their narrative at the forefront and excelled at it. Story is of *utmost* importance, whether you look at the game as a product you're targetting to an audience or as an artistic endeavour. If Deadfire's story fails, then to the majority of its *core audience* the game will fail, and this is not something that can easily be corrected post-launch.
As for the "casual crowds just want an interactive novel", **** that ****. Do you also argue that people who listen to songs just want sung poetry? Do you assume people who are into films with dialogue just want recorded theatre? Bollocks. And this utterly asinine stance wouldn't bother me so much if I hadn't heard it so many times before in this medium - as if this game didn't employ its every other aspect around the dialogue to tell a story as well. When you entered Fort Deadlight did you have to pick the option of "sneak", "fight", "bluff", or did you not simply do it? You assume your choices of action in the world itself outside dialogue do not tell a story? Audiovisual narrative is also a thing, or do you assume a film's narrative is only told through dialogue? Just so you know, videogames are an audiovisual medium too and thus employ many of the same devices. Who would have thought?
If you feel a game with a narrative focus is too "casual" for you, maybe I can recommend trying another game? One like CS:GO or DotA perhaps, which actually focus around competitive play (and which I, filthy casual that I am, have also played at different stages in my life, but that's an aside)? You would do best there than to stick around a forum for a casual game full of filthy casuals.
"This is some nonsense and then some. Firstly, they did not 'sacrifice' balancing the gameplay, as they are fully committed to doing it and are currently doing as much"
I'm sorry but i had to stop reading your reply after the first sentence. You don't actually know what you're talking about.
They actually said - their words not mine - that they had to choose between either bugfixing or balancing the game, a bit before release and went with bugfixing.
So yes, yes they did sacrifice balancing actually (i did say it for a reason...) and i know they are fully committed to working on it but that's *post release* as i already said in that post.
The irony is someone calling facts "some nonsense and then some"
-
Lol @ the assumption that a great story or themes and ideas should be exclusive to film and literature. Far as I'm concerned games of a narrative kind should most definitely aim for these goals just as much as they should good gameplay. Better yet, they ought to think more regularly about how to integrate the two and use the interactivity offered by the medium as a narrative tool and means of expression. That's what I seek in the videogames I play, at least, and why I value videogames as an artform independent of literature, cinema or any other. But hey, maybe I'm just a lazy casual.
I think what they meant was gamers want a cinematic or literary tale which also affords the conceits of gameplay, which, unless you make something like Uncharted or the Last of Us, is not possible in all formats, because player agency and experimentation and nonlinearity is involved. Something has to give. If , for example, the Witcher was really on a dire quest to save the one person in his life he truly unconditionally loved, he wouldn't stop every two seconds for every peasant who needed help.
It's not possible because of a number of factors:
Player agency/non linearity/lore as you said.
Funding - this is not a Triple-A company and if you ask some, they are barely holding on financially. It seems to be one of those smaller devs that are being supported by the crowd and able to keep going because of it, not some faceless money beast that is just cutting corners for the sake of it.
Time - they already had to sacrifice balancing the gameplay of the game and higher difficulties for bugfixing as they stated, having to do those post release instead. Level scaling straight up didn't work on release, there were plenty of bugs and performance issues on release still and a whole host of other problems. Where are they going to get the extra time and again funding, to increase the quality of the story in a game more than it already is - when there's so many other problems, too? (that are arguably more important to the medium.)
The fact that it is a game after all, as touched on - You may want to have the best of everything, but it's just not realistic. Some things are more important and more central than others in every medium and arguably the systems, mechanics, performance, bugs, balance, depth, length are all more important and then there's things like variety, audio, visual and other things that all need to be considered and worked on to end up at an above average level. Wanting to push the one aspect you happen to value higher than others, personally, is again just not a realistic expectation to have. I personally prefer combat depth and challenge and would rather that be expanded upon, but i get there are other needs.
Etc.
With the above in mind, it's a careful balancing act - where you can't just pump one thing, one aspect to suit individual needs. But rather shoot for a product that is great in all areas, rather than multiple areas suffering to make one amazing. So we get a "good" story, with good combat, good graphics, good audio, good exploration, good sized world that is also open etc etc.
P.S I get it - the casual crowd just wants, again, an interactive novel. Well i'm sorry but there's more to a game than that, thank god. There are again other mediums that do specialize in that though. You can't have everything and if you ask me, the gaming industry and anything for-profit caters to you enough already.
-
Seeing a bit of (admittedly shallow) criticism of the story here and elsewhere which suprised me. I think Obsidian have been innovative and many people are missing the point.
The Eothas story is simply a framing device for the adventures of the Watcher. If you are beelining the crit path and feel like the story is shallow or rushed, well, you're missing 80% of the narrative. This might be compared to Breath of the Wild or more accurately, New Vegas, where the goal is extremely simple because it makes room for the player to make their own narrative journey. Might I also add that this is exactly the type of thing PoE1 copped criticism for neglecting?
Instead, the faction politics, exploration and side quests, completed at the leisure of the player, and the Watcher's choices form the narrative, which is far more satisfying than anything on rails.
The problem is the mainstream majority market of casual players that are wanting an interactive novel.
That are wanting the depth and quality of story of a novel or movie series - through the medium of a game.
Instead of just going and reading a novel or watching a movie..
But they are the majority market so we need to cater to that more correctly, so it's Obsidians fault. (/s)
Edit: I mean, they are already priority number 1, with even balancing of the game and especially higher difficulties - for people that actually play the game for the gameplay - having been all but completely abandoned until post release and so nothing more than an afterthought. But it's still not good enough apparently. That's what they get i spose.
-
Apparently balancing difficulty isn't important (they actually said it was a low priority) because apparently only 10% of the population play PotD (Even though they acknowledged that Vet isn't balanced either, so...) and even though a poll was done and 29% (almost a third) said they do/would/will play PotD and the youtubers that got early access also starting on PotD.
So balance, especially PotD and Vet is being worked on post-release.
Sad days when devs prioritize only the interactive novel side of their games, instead of you know - the gameplay.
Guess that speaks more to supply and demand and the mainstream casual crowd, though it's devs' fault for chasing it so narrowly for the most $$$ possible.
They only want to prioritize the biggest crowd and that doesn't include me? That's fine, i won't prioritize purchasing their product for a couple months, until it's done properly and is on sale, if i pay for it at all.
-
1
-
-
"Included in Patch 1.1 is a complete overhaul of Veteran and Path of the Damned difficulties. You'll find more enemies per encounter and with new level scaling adjustments the game should be much more challenging. Let us know what you think on the forums - this will be an ongoing process based on community feedback"
So basically another month or 2 on release for balancing of the balance, for a refined version of Vet/PotD
-
Is anyone just waiting , not playing, for proper balance & polish for the game too?
*puts hand up*
Mainly waiting to get this until it's properly balanced, but also because i'd like to not financially support and encouarge devs releasing games before they're even finished, then finishing it post-release while already taking peoples money and using them as beta testers/QA. Relying on the games hype and peoples impatience, to sell it either way.
Level scaling flat not working on release, half the difficulties not having been balanced on release, having to choose between bugfixing and balancing before release, while still having to do a ton of work to both post-release either way. As well as alot of other random stuff.
Prob wouldn't have affected sales much though, most people probably bought on day 1 and didn't look back still - so expect the same on the next release.
-
1
-
-
After this and Josh being lambasted with "Nice" comments after the said that 69 percent of characters created were single class in a tweet my day is made.
...Nice
-
2
-
-
I believe shifting to fully supported (and balanced) per encounter will draw in alot more people, than trying to have multiple combat systems and per-rest thrown in just for the oldschool nostalgic minority. (yes, minority)
As evidenced by the comment i linked i from someone else in another thread, about preferring the new per encounter system with 20+ likes on the comment.
(https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/100420-admirable-design-decisions/ - second comment.)
Please could you stop thinking that per rest has only disadvantages and that we (and i don't say i represent the majority) love it only because we are used to it (being old school, nostalgic etc...)
For me it adds tension and strategic layer (remember the pit in caed nua with the drake behind ?). I like to take the risk of making one more fight knowing that my character is wounded or that I do not have the good spells in reserve.
I have done many POTD runs and yes, sometimes, i have to go back in town for camping supplies. And yes, sometimes, it annoyed me to do it.
But i still prefer it over the DF system. It's another step away from the type of game I prefer. My point of view.
That being said, seeing that you can kill a dragon without even a scratch, it seems complicated to judge the game actually. Another problem is there is no big dungeon.
I could be convinced by the per encounter system IF :
- each fight became interesting (boosting IA and giving more possibilities to the opponents, diversify fights in terms of quantity and quality, perhaps adding randomize elements in there).
- the injury system is changed (actually it is meaningless).
I saw good suggestions on this thread (having to go to a specific place to treat wounds or make them more costly to remove, put the characters on the bench of substitutes etc...)
I agree with you that obsidian should decide. The half-baked actual state is just plainly bad.
The per rest doesn't only have disadvantages, i do agree it has one advantage - the attrition system of seeing how far you can go with your kit before you reset it.
That's it. Not very exciting - seeing how far you can go with using as little as possible - engaging with the combat as little as possible, as efficiently and quickly as possible. Awesome gameplay
What i said was it has plenty of disadvantages, which outweigh the few-and-far-between advantages - unlike a properly balanced per encounter system.
It does add a layer of tension and strategy but you make it sound like that is the only system that can provide tension and strategy, or that it's in any way better than the strategy and tension that would be provided from a properly balanced per encounter. There is ten-fold more tension and strategy when it comes from every single fight - the combat itself - using anything and everything in your arsenal just to beat each fight, instead of a long and drawn-out tension and strategy, over many average fights, from trying to turn the RPG into some survival-like weird thing.
And if you can't handle actual, proper challenge? Where you can't choose the difficulty yourself by just using nothing on easy fights and bigger stuff on any semblance of challenging fights to make those easy too? That's where the difficulty settings come in.
Yes - one of the things you can't do with per encounter is abuse the difficulty of balancing it, by saving stuff for harder fights or repeatedly reseting your entire kit as you need/want to, or just using the knowledge of having played the game to know what you'll face and to know how much to save for each fight - but that's a good thing.
Per rest fixes the disadvantages, is much better to balance and puts the focus, challenge, tension and strategy on you know, actually playing the combat - not seeing how little of it you can do for as long as you can do it...
The pit in Caued Nua with the drake, where if you jump down you can't get back up and have to fight through multiple levels on what you have, making the per rest actually meaningful for once? Actually challenging and strategic? You mention probably the one place in the game that does that.
Devs should take note that the only place people seem able to mention and remember where the per rest system actually shines where per encounter can't - *is when it's either fleshed out or enforced*
I'm counting on each fight becoming interesting, when/if balanced properly. There's so many different details and general depth to combat, the details of which having been mentioned a couple times already, that each fight should definitely be interesting. Maybe not every single fight a completely unique experience, but definitely varied enough. There are so many variables to consider, that can change from fight to fight.
The injury system definitely needs something done to it.
-
I think its possible to have both per rest and per encounter systems in game.
If you had them as tick boxes at game start you could even add harder settings like your example of per rest been more strict.
I think honestly make much better game having both systems and also having choices of how far each person wants take the system for there play through as it adds in much more replay ability. I think more choices also will help people find new ideas for both systems and can lead better game that way to.
Most important point is keeping franchise open to as many people as possible, more there are more chance we have of POE 3 and beyond.
I really enjoyed Tyranny has its issues like all games but has great potential but tyranny 2 may never happen and its total shame currently questionable if tyranny 2 will happen as didn't do well. I don't want see that happen with pillars.
It would be cool having both systems (with per rest more fleshed out) but that would be impossible to balance - especially if you can choose between them or how far you want to go with either/both.
Picking and choosing core combat systems and the depth of them, just wouldn't work from a balance point of view. There would be no set standard to balance off.
I believe shifting to fully supported (and balanced) per encounter will draw in alot more people, than trying to have multiple combat systems and per-rest thrown in just for the oldschool nostalgic minority. (yes, minority)
As evidenced by the comment i linked i from someone else in another thread, about preferring the new per encounter system with 20+ likes on the comment.
(https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/100420-admirable-design-decisions/ - second comment.)
-
My points are valid. Honest answer is didn't really cover all my comments.
I said that both systems have there issues weaknesses, but I am not trying change things so it way I want it. I like see both systems improved and given option at beginning of the game so each person choose what they want.
I see having more options enables game to be played at level difficulty and with as much management or non as each want.
Limiting game in any way is removing some of the fans, if to many fans are gone then the franchise is dead. Non of us here really want franchise die when has lot potential for the future.
I not answer your points because your trying push one system is better then another. Yes maybe it is for you but your not every person. You don't hold any more value then any other person. I not for removing per encounter. Unless you open your eye you'll destroy franchise with your ideas. Franchise can only keep going while it can make enough money limiting player base removes money. If your truly fan of Pillars franchise then join in say what's wrong but think about other people and how they might like different to you how more people can be made happy.
No I not attacking you encase misunderstand my purpose in writing this. We don't need have us and them mentality we need all people keep this franchise going.
It's cool man i get it.
I'm not pushing the per encounter system because i personally prefer it, i'm pushing objectively the better combat system - the one that is healthier, much more consistent and easier to balance, much less tedious, much less pointless and when balanced properly - much more consistently challenging throughout every fight, on higher difficulties.
Where the challenge comes from actually playing the combat - not from how well you can save your stuff while engaging with the combat as minimally as possible.
Instead of the only challenge being your meta knowledge, knowing what fights are coming up and just using only what is needed. Just trying to get through fights as quickly and efficiently as possible. That isn't challenging after the first playthrough (even then - i jumped straight into PoE 1 on PotD and was fine, even with the pre-made story characters.) and that isn't fun (for anyone not running on nostalgia and traditional RPG/DnD rules.)
Instead of being given the freedom to engage with each and every fight completely and use your characters to the fullest. (and needing to on higher difficulties, just to get by, not no imagined easy mode because of it. Again when actually balanced.) Which also does not mean just using the same OP things over and over, but having the entire repertoire of your characters abilities at your fingertips every battle, to solve the puzzle that is the current fight.
That's where it's at.
Instead of at the very least the current iteration of per rest, where it's hard to account for what you have each fight to balance consistently, is pointless when you can rest anywhere anytime, is tedious and everything else that's already been gone over many times.
I personally don't see any weaknesses to the per encounter system, myself, but plenty with the per rest. I know oldschoolers and long-time fans prefer per-rest, because that's what you were brought up on. Because it's all you/they know, but it doesn't mean it's a good design nor the best design we could have.
As i've said before - people enjoy taking drugs - it doesn't mean they're good for you.
As also already gone over - i'd even take a more fleshed out per rest system, a more enforced/meaningful one, but if we're having to appeal to the mainstream casual market and it's too risky to enforce/fleshed-out attrition mechanics properly, then the only other decent option again objectively - is removing them entirely. Much better than keeping in a half-done pointless/tedious version of it.
Like it or hate it, the per encounter system is objectively better than the current iteration of per rest, from a game design point of view.
Am i wrong? Is any of my reasoning or arguments wrong? If so, how.
-
1
-
-
Personally I think as stated in another thread on combat and mechanics that we need both per rest and per encounter systems implanted at start game by making choice.
The poster that started this thread tried argue same things in that thread too.
I see per encounter been limited dragon fight has be at same level as every other fight per level of players watcher, you got simple system that throw best buffs and spells and use best abilities no thought no challenge rinse and repeat. System needs improving. I don't like this per encounter myself but some people do. If you don't level fights correctly you get few tough fights and a lot of underwhelming trash fights that do nothing.
Per rest need to be improved as resting hold no real dangers and you can spam rest. At least per rest has the ability make fights more varied and things like dragons really stand out as fight. Managing resources and per rest abilities makes combat more thought out and engrossing. Fights in per rest even underwhelming fights if your not careful can lead to not having right resources so actually don't feel like trash fights. Group of xaurip's don't need be made as challenging as dragon
I played both POE1 and POE 2 and 2 feels watered down not so much fun as POE 1 and yes think some this will change as the bugs removed and system gets improvements but think removing all management not direction to go especially if only 1 style of mechanics going be used. Game was a spiritual successor of IE games they all have management in them to, completely removing management move pillars away from those games to much and will destroy what these games are meant to be.
"you got simple system that throw best buffs and spells and use best abilities no thought no challenge rinse and repeat"
You say there's no challenge, then say "Group of xaurip's don't need be made as challenging as dragon" so which is it? Is it challenging or is it not?
You mention i've made the same arguments elsewhere - yet you make the same ignorant arguments from those places. As i've already said multiple times - There is no "use best stuff" every fight and "no challenge" there is plenty you have to take into account during a fight and that changes from fight to fight. When they actually get round to balancing the harder difficulties....
I'd love to see you use your awesome, high-level, pretty looking fireball that's a reflex-based aoe spell, on a group of enemies with a high reflex defense - or your aoe against less but bigger enemies. You fight a group of bandits and fireball aoe them down, then you fight 2 big trolls and fireball aoe them down? You fight some fire elementals and fireball them down too? An enemy debuffs your reflex attack and you continue to try fireballing the fight away? Lmao.
I'd love to see you not worry about the interrupt/concentration mechanics on some fights - not interrupting enemy spellcasters on a harder difficulty and watch you get obliterated from high level enemy spells, that usually have a slower cast time to try interrupt, to compensate.
I'd love to see you try to cast all the same stuff every fight, in fights where the enemies leap to your back-line or the rogues apparently shadow-dash back there, interrupting your spellcasting and attacking your squishies.
I'd love to see you play every fight out the same way, when some enemies can heal themselves, some can severely debuff you and hamper your attacks/stats/strategies, when there are different types of enemies, different numbers of enemies, different positioning of enemies etc.
Would love to see you use your super mega awesome, OP melee attack, on a giant (high deflection defense, hurts in melee if not trying to blind or otherwise incapacitate etc)
And yadayadayada..
One of the dumbest and most ignorant arguments i've seen made, repeatedly.
"If you don't level fights correctly you get few tough fights and a lot of underwhelming trash fights that do nothing."
And if they are levelled correctly? What-ifs and hypotheticals aren't helpful.
"At least per rest has the ability make fights more varied and things like dragons really stand out as fight."
Fair point - but are you then wanting the rest of the game to be easy and/or keep an archaic and obsolete system in, just to make like 5 fights in the game stand out? (dragons and the other rare big fights) Instead of making the entire game stand out? You want epic fights, but only 5% of the game? Don't mind me for wanting an epic fight every fight, I guess i'm weird like that.
"Group of xaurip's don't need be made as challenging as dragon"
So you're wanting to pick what fights have difficulty and which don't? Or you want the majority of the game to be easy and it be mostly "trash mobs" Before taking on the cool looking big baddies? That's where the lower difficulties come in. Stick to normal/hard maybe veteran. Problem solved - most of the game is easy, boss fights are harder and stand-out.
You can't have it (especially on higher difficulties) so it's only difficult in very specific places you want it to be - where else do you see that in the gaming industry?
You want a challenge - you pick a higher difficulty, you don't? You pick a lower difficulty. There is no picking and choosing difficulty throughout the game.
i‘ll throw out something (as a thought for an eventual pillars 3), before you go off on me, i‘m aware that i‘m likely overlooking things:
- no rest, no injuries, no food (supplies)
- dying as in BG2 (resurrection possible)
- how much a character's health regenerates after battle depends on constitution
- no per-encounter, but ‚per-empower‘ to replenish abilities
- how often you are allowed to empower depends on e.g. difficulty level or as an option to choose
thoughts?
That could work, with some tweaks if/as needed.Nice one.What about the penalty for being hit by traps, while removing injuries - to keep them impactful? -
If you want to achieve something you can be direct - but acting like a douchebag will only get you so far (not saying that you are a douchebag).
Using a term like "We all know/agree that..." while knowing exactly that it's not the case or using stuff like "Are you blind? Have reading problems?" will not get you anywhere - if it's really the improvement of the game you're after.
It will just lead to repulsion on the side you wish to convince. You don't have to convince the people who think the same - you want to convince the people who do not. But you won't achieve that with arrogance, insults or insinuations. If you'd present your arguments in a reasonable way (and I'm sure you have some good arguments) the chance of success and agreement would be a lot higher.
So I wonder if it's really the improvement of the quality of the game what's driving you or if you just want to rant...?
Your discussion style has been awful so far. If you ask yourself why a lot of people oppose you: that's the only reason.
That's a pity because I think that the thoughts behind your reasoning are decent - even if I may not agree.
It's your problem if you choose to focus on and get triggered over the words used, instead of the good points and issues raised with those words.
You've spent 3 or 4 posts now mostly whining about how i post.
I'm not the one with the problem.
Show me on the figurine where i touched you. (see what i did there?)
I'm a bit of a ****, but i'm fine with it haha.
Anyway, i guess the whole resting gimmick is kind of hard-baked into the game now, so here's to hoping that at least it gets a better revision in the next game - either removed or more fleshed out.
-
Actually i guess i do speak for most people[...]
Yes, you guess. But first of all you can't know until you ask them all before speaking in their name and secondly it's bad style to post your opinion on a matter and then do so as if everybody agrees with it - even if you firmly believe that everybody thinks the same way (which you don't because you opened a thread about that topic and learned that not everybody agrees with your opinion about per rest vs. per encounter).
While I may share some of your opinions on the whole matter (I don't think the injury system is nice for example) I don't think that you present your arguments in a way that leads to approval or a fruitful diskussion.
I personally really liked the endurance/health system of PoE because it prevented endurance healing from being too strong (see Deadfire) and thus prevented builds and party compositions that circumvent the need for defenses and health by abusing healing. I mean I like powergaming, but breaking the game balance completely is only short-termed fun if you ask me. Others may think otherwise, that's fine - but I think my argument is solid.
Of course PotD is too easy in Deadfire. It's known and it's worked on. Bug removal had priority which is a resonable decision.
In nearly every thread you say that you don't play Deadfire yet because you wait for PotD to be fixed - which I can totally understand. But if you didn't play it yet: why do you feel the need to discuss its elements so fiercly (using personal attacks every now and then?) even though you didn't experience them? Wouldn't the discussion be more valuable if you at least experienced and "felt" the new mechanics? Maybe they are not as good or bad as yout thought once you dive into the game? I criticized a lot of the new stuff when the first beta came out - but after playing it for a while now not everything is as bad as I thought (I mean I miss my endurance/health and also my per-rest spells as well as the universal talent pools - but the game still plays nicely for me).
Going off track a bit but:
I like how you quote me out of context saying "i guess i do speak for most people" removing the part where i back it up with a link to a positive comment about per encounter being one of, if not the most upvoted comments on the forums and mentioning the fact that even the devs must feel the same, having made the change.
You can argue the point all you want, but at this point you're arguing against facts and needing to warp your arguments to do so, by using very specific parts of quotes to do so
And you wonder why sometimes i "use personal attacks" at least i'm straight up about it - not doing it in a roundabout way by using out of context and pieces of quotes to make you look bad and to be able to give my arguments even a semblance of validity.
Not to mention the only things classed as personal attacks would be calling people ignorant, nostalgia-ridden, oldschool archaic system fans - that and asking the one guy if he can even read, since he made an invalid argument when the appropriate info as been all over the place including the very thread he made the comment in.
Anyway:
"But if you didn't play it yet: why do you feel the need to discuss its elements so fiercly (using personal attacks every now and then?) even though you didn't experience them?"
Has anyone really experienced them properly yet, when the game hasn't even been finished?
A good example are the people who complain it's too easy - they are getting misleading impressions from playing an unfinished product and blaming it on the systems, so i don't think engaging with it when it isn't even done properly, is any better than not engaging with it at all - in fact, at least i have a fresh and unbiased viewpoint on the idea of it in it's potentially full and intended state.
Especially when apparently even the level scaling was just flat not working on release, as well. Safe to say i'm not missing out on much and that you aren't much better informed on it than i am.
That - and it's the closest thing i can do to playing it without playing it
and making sure this wait will have been worth it and because i want the game to be as successful as it can be, has the potential to be and really deserves to be.Edit: Sure i could be a little more polite about it, maybe a little nicer in my wording, but i'd prefer to just be straight up so you can take from it what you will, uncoated and unbiased. This isn't a popularity contest, this is to try to make the game better.
-
Remember though- people complained like hell about the endurance\health system and the per rest and the camping during POE I.
They simplified all this because, in part, we asked them to.
I love the access to development we get via the crowd-funding dynamic, but I also think at some point we just need to let them make their game; and they need to learn to say, confidently, we have something in mind.
If not we’ll keep getting these half-developed features.
Who's this 'we'?
Yeah - the people who complained about health/endurance and per-rest got what they wanted.
Those who defended that system...didn't.
I liked the long-term health v. endurance thing because every hit you took mattered. You couldn't just heal yourself through a fight as you'd eventually run out of health. Now it doesn't matter if I end the fight on 1HP or 100HP, or take a bunch of hits and heal them up.
Was it perfect? No.
But getting rid of it entirely was a step backwards IMO.
Similar with the per-rest abilities - I didn't rest-spam so that system suited my play-style. Made it more challenging to get through a dungeon. Sure I had some party-wipes at times...but so far in Deadfire...one.
I'm sure some people enjoy everything being per-encounter - groovy for them.
The rest system as implemented in Deadfire works as intended - it's making me think about and use those food bonuses (v. giving them to the crew for morale). The injuries are...not a big deal but as stated above, simply limit the number of times you can be resurrected in a fight (3 if you've been resting up after getting any injury - less if you haven't).
Still - I'm enjoying Deadfire so that's the main thing
Are you blind? Have reading problems?
As mentioned in this thread and all throughout the forums and even before the game was released - The game is not even balanced yet, especially on Vet and PotD.
I repeat, the game is not balanced yet.
You have had no party wipes in Deadfire, because the game is not balanced yet.
For anyone else that complains about it being too easy currently - the, game, especially, the, higher, difficulties, is, not, balanced, yet.
It has nothing to do with the new per encounter combat system.
For about the 5th time, they apparently had to choose between bugfixing or balancing the difficulty before release - guess which they went with. So they are apparently having to balance the game post-release - which is why i haven't even got it yet (i don't want to ruin it by having it be a faceroll and would rather pay for something that's actually finished, instead of encouraging otherwise.)
TL:DR Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire, has not been balanced properly yet.
Any problems or arguments about it being too easy, currently, are invalid (annoying af)
They are working on the balancing and should announce when it's done in the next couple weeks/months.
The 'Changes for Balance' Thread
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted · Edited by whiskiz
You sound bad, only enjoy (and can handle) being OP and being able to faceroll everything.
And you think this is the majority?
You're deluded. The like ratio between your original post and the very second comment against it, says it better than any of us individually could.
Stick to easy game difficulty, while the rest of us keep working on getting this game made properly and getting it to live up to its full potential.
You get your faceroll OP, where it belongs (easy difficulty) we get actual depth and challenge. Everyone wins.
Instead of trying to keep the game dumbed down and broken to suit your basic level only.