Jump to content

deneweth

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About deneweth

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  1. I touched on this in a feedback post I made for turn based, but I believe a number of TB specific issues are greatly limiting the functionality of casters, priests especially. RTWP: It certainly feels like bless lasts an entire combat, or at least to the point where you've gotten enough advantage out of it that you outnumber whatever is left. Buffs like holy power and consecrated ground can be difficult to use and require planning and tactics, but are very powerful when used correctly. After you run out of spells the tide of combat is already turned and you can safely auto attack, which can easily be interrupted mid-recovery to switch back to casting any remaining spells, or empowering yourself to cast more if needed. TB: Bless takes at least the "first round" to cast. Even with high initiative the spell won't go off before your team acts. You miss it for one turn and have to target it so it will get the party members that run in after you cast but before it goes off. Bless lasts 5 turns I think. It constantly runs out half way through the fight, sometimes a second casting runs out. The small area spells that automatically center on the priest are terrible now. There is a much greater risk of being interrupted since the cast time may give multiple enemies their entire turn to move over and attack or ranged. You still have to very carefully aim, but also have to keep your party in the area until the spell goes off, or the duration in the case of consecrated ground. Even when used right these feel weak to me. Consecrated ground takes too long to respond and has to be used preemptively. Turn based combat seems to move around more making it harder to stay in the effect. Outside of spells the priest lacks accuracy or HP to do much combat, even ranged -which is more dangerous because of how easy it is to close the gap and attack/engage in 1 turn- is weak. Committing a whole turn to a graze or miss feels very punishing. Holy radiance is the one thing that feels incredibly powerful in turn based since it's instant, and more or less an I win button against enemies that it will damage, that being said it was nearly as powerful in real time. Over all the issue isn't that priests aren't useful, they are, it's that I'd rather bring another fighter over Xoti easily. I know her stats are spread around, but with +2 power level on the lantern I would *hope* her buffs are at least comparable in duration to an 18 int PC. I had a lot of the same issues with Aloth due to area targeting being more difficult and low hp/accuracy. Having more free action buffs helps the wizard class a lot. The abilities (and game) not being designed for TB really shows here. This is a very early game analysis though. It is possible that low durations are fixed with higher power levels and cast times may be alleviated with +dex gear.
  2. I've played turn based up to nekekata on veteran scale all upward as a wizard. I have to say that spell casting started off very clunky and painful, and now that I've got the hang of it, it still feels very weak. I am doing okay on my single class wizard that uses a lot of free action buff spells. Xoti as a single priest and Aloth as a wizard/fighter are just weak, and not very fun. I think part of the problem is that companions weren't designed with turn based in mind, and have skimped on dexterity. Another very glaring issue is that, to my knowledge, there is no way to retarget a spell right before it goes off like in RTWP. The biggest victims are priest buffs that center around the caster with small area. Another part of the problem is that I don't think Int is scaling durations the way it does in RTWP. Maybe you just have to get up to 50% increased duration to take a 2 round spell to 3 rounds, but even on short buffs in RTWP you got some sort of extention. Knockdown, for example, is useless as anything other than an interrupt because it seems to last 1 round regardless, and if it is actually delaying the target's turn, I can't tell. They get right back up and attack. Mule kick was virtually indistinguishable from knockdown. Priests suck at healing. In a world where bad initiative means everyone focuses the casters before your tank can intercept (yes, I know it's my fault, I should reload when I don't imitate combat on my terms in perfect formation) there are very few heal spells, and none that are quick. Even having a regular generic heal at each level would be improvement. I find myself using restore over powerful spells like blessing or holy power. I would gladly give up level 3+ spell casts for another use of holy radiance some fights. Consecrated ground, my old go to takes too long to cast and I find in turn based the fight just doesn't stay in the same area the way it does in real time. When not casting I know casters aren't supposed to be doing much but their low accuracy costing them a turn isn't worth attacking over delaying turn, which isn't great either. If a caster is going to pull their weight they should have something to do. I really wish you could save up time units like other games, and maybe drop a full cast time heal in one turn, or have an "answer" spell ready to react to combat (controling a loose enemy, finishing off a weakend foe, lowering the deflection of the next target etc.) It could in part be an issue with me not playing the game in quite some time. I realized after a while that using berath's blessing to increase my level with level scaling turned on just meant I would be level 5 in mundane gear against enemies that are balanced around level 5 items. You'd think that would give spell casters an advantage, but wizard's missing/grazing is very noticeable and painful in turn based, and buff spells that don't hit your entire party aren't worth the time or spell use. All issues aside, this is a very fun way to play the game. I'm going to start over with a different class and difficulty and see if things feel better. For the record I'm not complaining about the difficulty, I was doing fine. It just really cut in to the fun having dead weight companions that feel like they aren't working properly.
  3. I don't think they should be limited if it is possible to have them relatively balanced. That being said, I think that way too much hype and development focus is going into multiclassing. If I had know how it would pan out, I would have been against even adding it in favor of really solidifying base classes. It would have been a nice happy medium to limit from the start, but to include a separate identity for each multiclass. A unique ability that encapsulates the RP flavor and class role mash up would make each of the limited number of multiclasses available feel special. Something that made a fighter/ranger distinct from a "fighter or a ranger" or a "fighter and a ranger" game play wise. Multiclassing is great for table top games where you're creating a specific character, but in a cRPG where you have 5 characters you can diversify your party already. That's not to say multiclassing is entirely redundant or without worth. I think multiclassing as it exists is cool, but I'm not sure it was worth the limits it places on other areas of the games or all the time and energy it took to add. With that being said we're here now and multiclass is in game. I don't see any real upside to limiting all players when individuals can limit themselves. Mentioning limiting them specifically for balance is even more silly in a single player game where you can adjust the difficulty. The only really need for balance is that none of the MCs are game breakingly overpowered to where the rest of the party is pointless, or underpowered to the point where they are dead weight. I know the developers have the added criteria of there being "no bad choices" when it comes to character progression and stats, but I don't know how well that will play out with all the combinations. I am of the mindset that if everything is perfectly balanced then your choices won't really matter anyways, so hopefully they do leave a little imbalance to make some classes more challenging, some late bloomer 'investment' classes, and situational dependent classes.
  4. I think armor penetration as an idea is over thought out and poorly executed in games. If your goal is for a weapon to do better vs flat number mitigation then the obvious/easy solution is to do more damage per hit (to keep DPS relatively balanced swing time is increased). Over penetration is a sloppy idea that comes about when people stack more penetration than the target has armor. This happens because penetration is over powered and gets stacked. What should happen is that extra penetration is useless. This makes sense from a RP perspective, since it doesn't really matter how well your sword punctures plate armor if it already goes clear through a wizard and his dress. It also makes sense in a power game world where using plate armor on your wizard is a gamble that you've gimped his dps to protect from attacks that may not even happen. By choosing to stack pen you counter heavy armor. If you also counter no armor then armor pen should just be flat +damage. This also invalidates the dual wield light fast weapons that has traditionally been the unarmored counter 'wizard killer rogue' archetype. I really liked Tyranny too. I got a good laugh at what people were saying about balance after my playthrough. I ended up using heavy armor on most of my party only to find out light armor was the 'correct' choice. I think we're freaking out over balance because there isn't much content to the beta, but some of these issues will hopefully 'disappear' once we see more encounter variety and have full class implementation and items.
  5. Now that we only have 5 party members it is less likely that we will have any 1 class, but with dual class it is way more likely that you will have access to that class. I don't know if they've said whether you can re-spec companions into their dual class after you've picked single class, but if you can that opens up lots of items. I would like to see more class specific items relating to class abilities. With cloaks and necklaces in separate slots (and grimoire/trinket?), we'll have more room for more than just +X stat. It could be real basic stuff like +6 accuracy to flames of devotion. Something that some paladins might ignore because they don't have that ability, others might use it until they find better and consider using zeal on FoD more often because of it. I could also see people building around it since 6 accuracy isn't much but if you're already a damage build with that ability and it's upgrade, it could be a passable item in the late game where you have all the stats you need from other slots and accuracy on your main ability is crucial.
  6. I was really hoping they would do something with wizards in deadfire. Unfortunately the current implementation of one spell per level up and no class abilities i.e. grimoire slam and arcane assault leaves much to be desired. Having X casts per combat instead of per day is very nice, but it really calls for spells that are useful in more situations. It seems like a very common trend in these forum topics, that as this franchise evolves it is outgrowing it's infinity engine and 2nd edition roots. I'm sorry but no one is going to pick "chilling grasp" sunless touch. It's just a bad spell. It's neat that it's in the game and you might find it in a grimoire, but this isn't 2nd edition and those 2nd edition spells don't translate to a system where you get 2 spells of each level. Especially for first and second level spells, if I'm not considering casting it every combat then I don't want it. I have to balance defensive, debuffs, control, and direct damage spells. I have to juggle spells that target enemy will, reflex, fortitude and possibly deflection. I really wish they'd scrap spell schools or at least school specialists in favor of arcane archer or eldrich knight style of sub-classes. I guess you can create those with dual class, but dual class seems very meh at the moment also. I would much rather have a specialized subclass that supports melee wizard than play a dual class fighter to average out HP/defenses and have weaker spells.
  7. It can be both a good thing that resolve isn't a dump stat and also a problem that hybrid classes that were already multi-ability dependent now need another ability. This matter is going to be much further muddled by dual-classes, most of which are multi-ability dependent on top of having lower power levels. From there you have to add on scaling. In PoE 1 it was possible to get most of your party +2 or +3 items in most of their 'primary' stats while maintaining the essential cloak of protection, ring of overseeing, or class specific accessory. Now that cloaks and necklaces are separate slots it should be easier. Godlikes will still have problems without helmets. The problem was that resolve only gave benefits that were attainable elsewhere. Deflection was much easier to get from items/buffs than spell duration. Deflection is only worth getting so much for non-tanks, where as say accuracy is worth stacking as high as you can get. I'm starting to just wish stats were reduced in potency at higher values or there was an increasing cost point buy system since they seem to want stats to go from 8 to 16 anyways.
  8. I agree very much so on wizard sub classes. I made a conjurer because the familiar sounds cool and I wanted to check out the bonuses. For those wondering, familiar is a spell that has to be cast in combat. I summoned a bird that gave me a +1 dex buff and was very easily killed. At level 6 I had access to the first 3 levels of spells. I picked all conjuring spells: sunless touch, ghost blades, necrotic lance, web, arcane veil, and miniature meteors. I know beta isn't complete, but none of these really scream conjurer to me, and even with the increased power level this is not an adequate toolkit. It would be even worse getting to level 6, as there a bunch of lower level illusion spells that you give up that are incredibly useful. I feel a generalist would be better off in every regard. I then went back and created a new character to look at the other sub-classes. Evoker, Illusionist, and Transmuter seemed to have interesting abilities at least, but I'm not convinced they will justify the penalties. Giving up two schools and the increased recovery on non-sub class spells is too punishing for solo class. On the other hand it is a okay way to offset the lower power level of dual class. I think single class really needs help, maybe a 'free' spell of that school every level, or a bonus spell pick every 3 levels. A lot of the carryover ideas from D&D 2nd ed. and the infinity engine games just flat out do not mesh with the idea of crpg balance and all specs being viable. I would rather see more thematic specializations that coincide with gameplay roles rather than the archaic, arbitrary spell schools we've all come to know and love. Have a blaster sub class that does more direct damage, a summoner that can actually summon. A 'sorcerer' sub-spec with more casts per combat but only 1 spell per level, or can't cast from grimoires. I think the hunter sub specs were done very well even if they don't end up being game breaking. They alter game play in a meaningful RP friendly way and are balanced enough that they feel optional.
  9. I like the penalties in the vein of kits in baldur's gate, but I don't like the idea of specializations being tied to an order and it's ethos. You shouldn't feel like you're being punished by making a damage dealer paladin that isn't a bleakwalker, but if your other options are to gain a bonus you don't need AND get a penalty. That feels too extreme. The other option is to make a bleakwalker and get the bonus you want but also a penalty and a further penalty if you don't role play your order via Faith and Conviction. Faith and Conviction also prevents there from being a no subclass option as it is implemented now. I think that from the get go subclasses have been advertised as opening up new possibilities. I remember them saying how many combinations of subclasses there are with dualclassing. With the penalties it felt very limiting, both in build and in roleplay. I would be okay if all the orders did was determine your starting ability and ethos for F&C. I can see why others might want something more substantial though. Keep in mind there are something like 11 classes and 39 subclasses and there is no way they can justify a lot of exclusive abilities for all of them even if they could come up with that many unique abilities. I think a reasonable compromise would be something like each order having a few bonus abilities from other classes available as a sort of light dualclass kind of like the dualclass talents in PoE1. Bleakwalkers could get sneak attack, withering strike, and shadow step. That would be very themeatic, but by no means mandatory and you could always ignore your order specific abilities to get shared paladin ones. Shield bearers could get fighter stuff, I'm not sure about goldpact, darcozzi or kind wayfarers. Darcozzi would probably just get flameshield and fire stuff. Kind wayfarers would just get a mix of priest/druid heal spells and goldpact would be the hybrid 'specialization' getting a mix of offensive and defensive 'veteran mercenary' themed abilities from barbarian/rogue/fighter.
  10. This patch is 1.6 GB. I really hope its more than 2 fixes and analytics. Otherwise it would be nice to ask us to opt in before downloading 1.6GB and taking up that space regardless.
  11. If we're suddenly policing muscle wizards, then I call shenanigans on the brainbarians. Oh and just so you guys know dragons aren't real either.
  12. I really liked how might was used in PoE1. If you wanted you could make a *mighty* caster (and it had nothing to do with strength or bench pressing) and they would have more powerful direct damage spells. You could also focus on intellect and be more of a controller caster, debuffing enemies for long durations, or targeting larger areas/groups to control the battlefield. Having might increase your auto attack damage, be it with wand, gun, or sword helped those direct damage casters fulfill their party role as strikers/dps. Now they'll have to choose between spells and auto attacks, which at that point just make a melee or ranged weapon class and have your abilities and auto attacks both scale with might. I really don't see the point of building a caster that is going to depend on you heavily investing in a stat you would otherwise not invest in. I'm even more at a loss trying to comprehend the idea behind priests getting to choose between healing, spell damage, and auto attack damage. I should explain that I did not solo tripple crown PoE1. I didn't really even min-max, just mostly kept everything at 10 and put points in 2 or 3 stats that I wanted that character to utilize. I don't think it's a problem if not every attribute is used equally. The goal was accomplished that every stat was useful to every character. Beyond that who cares what people do in a single player game. If people are using 18 might and 3 con for *every* build that isn't bad game design, that is them powergaming the system and knowing they can cut corners at con because they have such an understanding of the rules. This move feels like a step back towards "charisma for sorcerers, and wisdom for druids". I realize that having a "hit harder" stat is very appealing to power gamers, but there are also perception checks that can give us better loot, and experience to be won in drinking con-tests. I think there are better ways to handle this than reverting to the priest stat giving +1 to priesting.
  13. Look at modern sequels and go back to what made them great. People hated on skyrim for taking out a lot of the character custimization options i.e. stats, tag skills, pants. In a game without classes its cool that any character can potentially do anything, but it needs to come at a cost. There's no point when every character can do everything. When I decide to be a swordsman not only do I want it to mean I'm good with swords, but I want it to mean that I won't be good with bows, or if I want to be good with swords and bows then I'll be giving up social skills, or magic. I don't want to be punished by having all difficulty/challenge removed from the game if focus on combat. I don't want the game elements of equipment upgrades, and loot/gold to no longer matter if I focus on crafting. People hated on dragon age 2 for "streamlining" everything to appeal to the masses. Its okay to have lulls in the action. RPGs are about role playing and not combat 24/7 with "another wave" of enemies being slaughtered by the dozens. Combat should be risky and only one of a few ways to solve problems. Some characters/parties might avoid combat if its not nessicary. You should be concerned how your character would feel about risking their life or killing someone, not what they will drop or how much experince they yield. I want to be able to customize my party. I want to be able to specialize their abilities to fill the roles I want them to fill and I want to be able to equip them with gear upgrades. I want to have to decide between buying a better bow for my archer to help take down enemy mages faster, or get better armor for my fighter so he can better keep melee opponets away from my back lines. Even in my specialization I want there to be situations where I might be forced to adapt tatics; fights where the usual rules are shaken up to provide a unique challenge. I feel like games have been dumbed down, and I want you to "smarten" them back up. Choices have been reduced to cosmetics (axe or sword with the same animation) or something you make once at the start of a mission (choose your party) and are stuck with because tactics don't matter and the combat is so easy that you can get by with any randomly choices. I want to have to make choices on the fly and I want to be allowed to fail if I don't. I don't want failure to mean some specializations are objectively worse or not viable. I want the strength/viability of a specialization to depend on the context of the party and the situation. I want my success or failure to hinge on my assessment of the situation and response. If I stack a party full of combat focused characters I want to run into problems because I don't have social skills, utility magic, theif skills etc. Brute force or any other strategy shouldn't always be the best option. I don't want sidequests to feel forced, or added after the fact. Older games had areas and maps specificly for sidequests. Bring back the idea that things in the game world exists for the world and not for the player. A castle should have a kitchen even if its not plot essential. The player might be able to do things in some of these areas but they don't exists soley out of necessity for the game. Have the sidequests originate from NPCs that would exist in the world instead of creating an NPC thats only purpose is to need an item that is conveniently in the bad guy's lair.
  14. I know buying the rights to make a sequel would be a bit much for a kickstarter, but I'd love to see a "spiritual successor" to games like the infinity engine games, arcanum or even lionheart. I think a new IP would offer some great possibilities for gameplay and mechanics. What was great about all those games for me was the setting, story and overall immersion. PS:T for example was fairly light on combat/action but there was a lot to explore that actually rewarded the player. Another key element is having the game respond to your character(s). Its awesome having attributes or skills unlock dialogue options, or having your character with a low intelligence be too stupid to realize an NPC is tricking them. In the same vein, having consequences for choices and multiple ways to complete quests with the same of varying outcomes really makes the world feel alive. I don't really care if the graphics are infinity engine quality, but obviously it would be nice to have widescreen and higher resolutions supported. I absolutely loved how temple of elemental evil was able to capture the feeling of the infinity engine while technically being a mix of 2d and 3d, mainly all the flavor clothing items and how the "sprites" would show the hats/cloaks/armor/boots instead of just weapons/shields. as for settings I'd personally like to see: -alternate histroy with magic, like lionheart -steampunk with magic, like arcanum -magitech where magic is abundant and comercialized -an untamed frontier in a world of kingdoms at war in an age of exploration -a "generic fantasy" world post apocalypse I don't particularly favor one type of combat. Turnbased can be awesome like fallout 1+2, but realtime worked well in the infinity engine games. I think lionheart was a little too fast paced (and thus less tatical) at times, but the speed slider helped. Arcanum had the options for both which is idea, but probably demands a lot more work and attention to balance.
×
×
  • Create New...