.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
MReed
-
Posts
397 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by MReed
-
-
Um, yeah. I'm sorry, if you believe that DA2 encounter design is a model that should be followed (because this is exactly how DA2 encounters worked), then... I have a hard time taking anything that you suggest seriously.
I've never played a Dragon Age game in my life.
Then you should, because DA2 (in particular) works exactly the way that you described -- you should love it. Being ambushed in this game occurs so frequently that it even comes up in reviews (although almost always in an unfavorable light, for some reason).
-
In the end, really, people will always complain about AI. That's how it is, and always shall be until we eventually make actual Artificial Intelligence that can think and act like a human, complete with errors in judgement and acting of course. But I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
As an aside, in a real-time game I think it ought to be pretty trivial to devise an AI that beats a human every time in a roughly fair fight. Simply because a computer can react and compute so much faster than a human, and would possess all the data about an encounter. So it'd always be able to hit you with a debilitating CC attack, always be able to move out of the AoE of the spell you're casting, always perfectly position its AoE's, and so on and so forth. That would not be fun at all.
In that kind of situation, you'd have to have all the fights unfairly stacked to your advantage. That would not be much fun.
(The stealth system in P:E is this kind of unfair IMO. Other than scripted setpieces, you will always get the drop on the enemy. That's not fun.)
Honestly, I don't think this is true in most games. Literal shooters, yes, but that's because the dominate variable at play in who wins is "How fast / accurately can you point the gun at the target" -- other factors only come into play when the accuracy / ROF variables are mostly the same (e.g. PvP).
A game like PoE is an immense problem from an AI point of view, and making a fair AI -- meaning it plays by the same rules as the player -- is an extraordinarily difficult task. Now, if you want to make an obviously cheating AI, that is indeed easily. Just setup the game so all RNG rolls are either 100 or 0, whichever is more favorable for the AI. But that, as you say, wouldn't be a very interesting game...
-
1
-
-
PrimeJunta, on 13 Apr 2015 - 3:58 PM, said:
So how about we discuss the various ways the encounters could be made more difficult and varied, preferably within the general parameters of the P:E design?
Well, that's my problem. Maybe i lack imagination, but i cannot think Obsidian could do something to improve the gameplay, because the design parameters are the problem.
Well, they should have way less copy paste encounters, and preferable cut the overal combat in the game to half the amound it has. But the actual gameplay would be just as boring, and the same tactic would work on everything.
It's not an accident that the only interesting spells in the game are the realy OP ones, that singlehandely change the flow of battle.
In order for the game to get interesting, it would require a system redesign, abandon the no hard counter policy, and completely remake the itemization (my biggest disapointment with the game currently)
You start an encounter. Suddenly enemies spawn on a random chance and approach you from behind. That area you thought was cleared you missed a creature (cuz POTD) and now there's an Ogre bearing down on your squishies. Or a party of hardcore looters. Or something like that.
Do the same with reinforcements spawning "behind" when X% of foes drop dead.
Um, yeah. I'm sorry, if you believe that DA2 encounter design is a model that should be followed (because this is exactly how DA2 encounters worked), then... I have a hard time taking anything that you suggest seriously.
-
3
-
-
A more typical party configuration will have one (maybe two) people that are far more capable of dealing with melee attacks, 2-3 characters that have some resistance to damage, and 2-3 characters that have practically no ability to resist damage. Not surprisingly, the different characters have different preferred engagement models: the better a character can deal with melee damage, the more likely they are to making melee attacks themselves (& vice versa).
To take a real-world example, if the police are negotiating with an armed suspect and have a sniper available to them, should they send the sniper in (rather than positioned on, say, a nearby rooftop) with the negotiation team, because otherwise the negotiation team will feel unprotected?
See? And this is exactly the problem I am talking about: mono-tanking is just way too effective and needs to be nerfed with the power of the eternal pillows.
I agree with this -- the delta between "max defense / no offense" configuration and "no defense / max offense" is far, far too extreme in PoE. By the end of the game, Eder rarely took any net endurance damage (equipped with a draining weapon, retaliation armor, and a good shield), and therefore totally trivialized any encounter where I could ensure that all the attacks would hit him.
If I'd forced to bring one or two offtanks into battle, the situation would change dramatically. Not only would it look more realistic, but it would also instantly create new tactical situations that weren't there before. Suddenly, my AoEs wouldn't be as easy to position as before. Suddenly, the concentration score matters more. Suddenly, a mage learning defensive spells might be a good idea...
Having a sniper (as you brought up that example) hiding behind the stairs absolutely makes sense RP-wise. However, having 5 snipers and only one tank-to-rule them all is broken.
This, however, I strongly disagree with, at least if I'm reading it properly. If you are saying that the game should use a "cutscene ambush" (where the game overrides my preference for how my party should be positioned prior to the beginning of a combat encounter) to force the player to place armor on someone other than the tank, then... Well, I totally disagree. The relative lack of cutscene ambushes is one of the things that PoE gets right, in my book.
It would be desirable in my opinion to:
1) Improve the foe AI so that it would be rare for only one character to be targeted by melee attacks -- this has to be done first, or nothing else in this list will make the slightest bit of difference.
2) Nerf the mechanics that penalize offensive potential when defensive potential is increased -- while such a mechanic is absolutely necessary (because otherwise, everyone will be max offense and max defense at the same time), the current mechanic (recovery time penalty) is so enormous that it totally overwhelms all other considerations. A character that tried to "strike a balanced between offense and defense" will be inferior -- not enough defense (due the way DR and deflection works) to significantly reduce incoming damage, but a dramatic reduction in damage output (due to recovery time penalties).
3) Eliminate (or nerf to the point where it might as well be eliminated) engagement -- the primary effect of the current "strong engagement" mechanic is to penalize character concepts who need to go into melee combat and then withdraw. Note that such character types are already penalized vs a "straight ranged" or "straight melee" character types, as they require far more micro-management (or skill, if you want to look at it that way) to be used effectively. As it is, the current mechanics encourage creating "melee only" and "ranged only" character concepts exclusively.
4) Add foes that are not vulnerable to conventional attacks and / or attack the party in unconventional ways. The only example of an unconventional attack in PoE is foes with domination-type abilities (especially Frampiers, who additionally prefer to target back-line characters with their abilities).
All of the above was noted in the backer beta (by various folks, not just myself) for the past 9 months, so... For backer beta folks, it seems fairly obvious that Obsidian believes that feedback like the above is not something that they are interested in implementing in the game. That makes it difficult to make constructive posts...
-
So, I'm about to head into a really dangerous situation against an enemy of unknown abilities. I have no idea of the reception that I'm going to get. It might be positive, it might be negative. Who the hell knows? But one thing I do know -- he has a bunch of mates with him. Lots and lots of the buggers.
But, hey, I have some mates along to give me back-up and I know they'll have my back if it comes to crossing swords.
What about them? They could come along and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me if worst comes to worst, right? That would make sense, right?
Hell no, I'll leave them behind and march up all by myself to confront this evil dictator! Sure that bad guy has a dozen offsiders but I'll be fine up there all on my lonesome. Right?
Sold! I'll buy 100 of those strategies at 100cp a-piece.
That's why I think it's cheesey. I don't feel it's a realistic reaction.
Again, if that's what others want to do, that's fine. But for RP reasons (and the RP element is fairly important to me), I don't think it floats at all.
I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't make sense to me -- at least, not unless you have a party where all members are equally able to accept / resist / deal with damage, especially from melee. That would be an unusual party configuration in PoE (or just about any cRPG).
A more typical party configuration will have one (maybe two) people that are far more capable of dealing with melee attacks, 2-3 characters that have some resistance to damage, and 2-3 characters that have practically no ability to resist damage. Not surprisingly, the different characters have different preferred engagement models: the better a character can deal with melee damage, the more likely they are to making melee attacks themselves (& vice versa).
To take a real-world example, if the police are negotiating with an armed suspect and have a sniper available to them, should they send the sniper in (rather than positioned on, say, a nearby rooftop) with the negotiation team, because otherwise the negotiation team will feel unprotected?
Now, I could understand if Lord whatever refused to talk to the parties "designated representative" while the remainder of the party readied weapons in an obvious preparation of an attack, but the only change versus the current situation (for me) would be that I wouldn't go through the dialog (or, perhaps, I'd go through the dialog, then restore and not go through the dialog).
I've rarely seen a situation in a cRPG where "This is going to end in combat" is more obvious -- the whole reason (the only reason) that you were able to enter the castle in the first place is because someone asked you to assassinate him. On top of that, you've either 1) Butchered a large number of guards or 2) Infiltrated the castle by stealth and deceit in order to get to the throne room -- there is no option, for example, to present yourself at the front door and say "Hey, did you know that someone is going around trying to recruit assassins to kill you".
Given the situation, even if the lord reputation was completely unearned (and it isn't -- many, many people tell you that the lord is, at best, mentally disturbed) the setup is so unfavorable to a peaceful resolution that I don't see how any reasonable person can argue that conflict is certainly likely to occur.
For the record: The very first time I played this encounter (completely cold, no walkthroughs, spoilers of any sort) I did in fact send in Eder by himself with the remainder of the party remaining at the foot of the stairs leading up to the dias. I believe that I won it on the first try, to, but just by the skin of my teeth (one character still standing).
-
1
-
-
And, as a heads up -- it takes a very, very long time before you get the second rank in a disposition. Even if you work on a specific disposition option (say, "Honest") as much as you can, you probably won't reach "Honest: 2" until sometime well after the start of Act 2.
Oddly enough, once you get to rank 2, rank 3 comes fairly quickly -- I think that the late game disposition modifiers add more (invisible) points than the early / mid-game options do.
-
I think I got the good animancy ending because I had a high Honest reputation (either Honest 2 or Honest 3, probably the latter). When you spill the beans about the Leaden Key to the trial, someone asks (probably the Dozens rep), "Why the **** should we believe you?" and I answered, "My word/honor is my life." and then the reaction text was [Honest 2/3] Although most people would consider what you said to be utterly ridiculous, your reputation for honesty made the people at the trial actually take you seriously.
This isn't the only way to get the pro-Animinacer ending -- I got it with Honest:0. I think it is just a matter of carefully selecting the right dialogs -- I played through this scene twice (because I didn't advance Eder's personal quest the first time, and was unsure of whether or not it would be possible to do so), and once I got the Duc starting to make an anti-Animinancy ruling and once he started to make a pro-Animancy ruling, even though in both cases I was attempting to protray a pro-animiancy position.
So...
I think it is just very sensitive to your path through the trial dialog.
-
Not the OP, but I was also disappointed with the endings, largely for the same reason as the OP, so here is my take on it:
1) As the OP pointed out, one of the bullet points for this game was that there weren't going to be "good" and "bad" choices, just choices. What we got instead was "There is no way to predict what the outcome of your choices will be", which is (in my mind) worse than obvious "good" and "bad" choices.
2) Setting that aside, the endings are clearly good and bad -- there is no ambiguity in identifying which slides are "good" and which slides are "bad". If, for example, convincing the Knights to pursue animancy research resulted in them establishing martial law but it also resulted in Defiance Bay having a major trade boon (because everything was safe) then that would be ambiguous. But that's not the kind of endings that we get.
Basically, the implementation of C&C in this game is just... Odd..
-
Yes, that's reasonable - the game clearly has the hooks to go deeper, and I'd view not doing so as a function of budget. I'd like that as well - maybe even have some members unwilling to continue with some choices.
Actually, there is exactly one example of this in the game as it stands today -- Grieving Mother leaves permanently if you choose to sacrifice the child in the Twin Falls quest.
Just making sure the game gets credit where credit is due.
-
1
-
-
Nobody (certain not I) am arguing that the companions should be required to proceed with the critical path quests, nor are we arguing that they shouldn't be killed.
But I am arguing that it would be awfully nice if the companions:
* Talked about their opinions on decisions made by the PC -- for example, which companions are for and against animancy research? Which companions are for and against aligning with the various factions available to you in Defiance Bay? Given the choices available, which gods do each companions favor aligning yourself with when the opportunity arises? Yes, some (but by no means all) of the companions chime in with an opinion /after/ you've made your position clear in the animancy trial at the end of act 2, and all the companions chime in with an opinion as to what you should do with the souls at the very end of the game, but there is an enormous gap here, which is magnified by the fact that the companions are largely silent except about their backstory and their personal quests -- neither of which has anything to do with the quests (side and critical) that the player is dealing with.* Responded to the PCs disposition (e.g. cruel / kind / deceptive) -- Obsidian did a fairly good job (given the limited resources that they had to work with) with this... Except when it comes to companions -- none of your companions have responses to your disposition modifiers that I've noticed, One has to assume that Grieving Mother would respond badly to a PC with a Cruel=3 reputation, but never does.
I'm not saying that this is a bad game due to these lacks, but they are pretty clearly lacks -- the game would be better if the things above were included.
-
I think most people are spreading the meaning of "connected to the main plot" too thin and too wide. Most of your (as in general you) examples are just examples of exposition dumps and world building rather than in any way connected to the main plot. The crux of the problem is that the companions are random people you happen to stumble across your adventures rather than the adventure being something personally meaningful for them. It seems WEIRD that these people would follow you into death the moment you meet them just because... I don't really know, no explanation is given. Yeah, sure you play therapist for a while, but that's stupid.
EDIT: Maybe people are just reading the thread title? I should've worded it differently now that I think about it, but I don't see an edit thread title button. This thread is about the main plot and not the setting.
Yes, that's exactly my problem. Many of the companions simply don't have any stake in the Hollowborn epidemic -- at least, they don't express any particular concern with it, and none of them have any stake in the PCs personal problems (such as the fact as his awakening will eventually drive him insane). All of the companions except Aloth (who has a strong, vested, interest in the Leaden Key) and Grieving Mother (who has a strong, vested interest in stopping the Hollowborn epidemic) fall into this category.
Kana's character is such that it makes sense he would be interested, simply for the knowledge to be acquired, so that's a good reason for him to be in the PCs party -- but doesn't tie him to the plot particularly.
Pallegina has an illicit (from the POV of her superiors, who seem to view it as a vendetta) interest in the Leaden Key's operations, so joining the PC might be a valid way for her to pursue this interest. It is totally bizarre how her superior doesn't (at least try) to assign her to another task after she completes her initial task in Twin Falls, though.
Eder sees the PC as his ticket out of Gilded Vale and has some degree of interest in ending the Hollowborn epidemic (because he is a native of the area impacted).
Sagani has a task that is totally unrelated to the PCs tasks, that doesn't tie in to or related to the PCs tasks, and only joins the PCs party out of desperation (e.g. she can't think of anything else to do, and working with a Watcher might be helpful). Nether the Leaden Key nor the Hollowborn epidemic are of any interest to her, after all, since she has no plans to settle or remain in the area after her tasks are completed.
Durance appears to join the party as an alternative to suicide (see his epilogue if the PC doesn't help him resolve his issues) -- I suppose that explains why he has no hesitation to risk his life for a cause that he never expresses any interest in.
Hiravias is even worse -- the only reason that he joins the party is because, well, the PC is there. He doesn't even bring up his personal quest until well after the initial joining dialog (I believe -- someone who has a save in the right area can verify). He doesn't even have the default motivation for his race in opposing interference with the Eothonian (sp) ruins, because he explicitly disclaims it in a banter when the party enters the ruin near Twin Falls. I suppose maybe he just enjoys a good fight?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong in having companions that aren't tied into the main plot -- after all, most of the characters in BG1 and BG2 weren't tied in either. But if they aren't, the burden falls on the developers to either make the characters so interesting that nobody is willing to look too deeply into "Hey, why are they still hanging around?" or ensure that they feel a debt to the PC for assistance (common in BG2 -- most companions would leave if you didn't take care of the personal quests fairly quickly once they came up). If neither of these conditions are met, then... Well, you get discussion like this one.
-
That's beside the point. If it's something you need to do to continue the plot, they should've reconsidered it and instead opened up the route through some other means, even if it would just be "The Steward influenced the Stronghold and the path now lies open".
My complaint is specifically that the Eastern Barbican is repaired instantly and without explanation. I would have been fine with even a "The Eastern Barbican is closed and overgrown, it will take 8 hours to clear" and then a quick timeskip. Anything, really. The current implementation is jarring and it's integration into the main quest is clumsy.
Another one of those little loading screens with a little story, like the one that the game starts with, maybe; "You exit Caed Nua, and take a deep breath, wondering if
was truly driven mad by
bla bla bla bla bla after clearing the eastern barbican, you continue your journey, your goal is set; the city of defiance, the capital of the Free Palatinate, the centre of a bloody revolution - Defiance Bay...".
Just..
Anything.
My explanation is that it is the gathering of additional raw materials to complete a construction task that takes the "3 days" -- once the materials are available, the construction completes instantly (== magically) in all cases. This is based on several factors:
1) Most importantly, other than magic, how exactly is the steward going to do much of anything? She is immobile, after all.
2) There is no visible sign of construction and / or construction works -- it is somewhat reasonable to believe that raw materials are delivered when you aren't looking (as the actual delivery could reasonably be assumed to take an hour or two) and the materials could be stored somewhere inaccessible to the PC, but active construction would be manifestly visible if the player is on the map while the construction is occurring. [i'm aware that the real reason that construction doesn't appear on the map is that it would be absurdly expensive in terms of developer / artist resources to implement]
3) The times given to complete the constructions tasks (1-3 days) are absurdly low -- I mean, a simple wood frame house takes several months to complete, with the aid of modern technology -- it would take 12-24 months to clear the existing structures (reclaiming raw materials as appropriate), then build the replacement structure. Clearly, magic must be involved at some level in the construction or the time simply don't make any sense to begin with. [i'm aware that the real reason that construction doesn't take a reasonable period of time is because the stronghold would be totally useless if it did, given that you can easily complete the game in a few months of game time]
Admittedly, none of this is explained in game -- and perhaps it should be explicitly explained -- but I think the above explanation is consistent with all the lore presented in the game.
-
1
-
-
In the interface, I see a territory with quests and then I see the words "quests and then tasks."
Which is it? Which is most important?
The quests list is ordered as follows:
Critical Path Quests
Companion Quests
Everything else (e.g. side quests)
-
I don't know if being firm and unwavering in your stance has worked for you well in real life, but it doesn't really work that well online. We can't see you, we can't hear you, and we don't know who or what you are, so your ideas and statements have to stand on their own merits if you want to convince people that you're right. What you're doing is pretty much the main tactic of certain kinds of online trolls, and that is to keep posting the same thing over and over again until someone agrees with you. Even then, there are people who you just can't persuade. Maybe their opinions and stances are radically different from yours, or maybe they're just trolls disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
You don't seem to be a troll, just someone unused to how Internet discussions usually go.
I would add that you are trying to defend something that simply doesn't need to be defended -- after all, you posted your personal opinion, and you shouldn't be shocked that people disagree with you. Unless someone is attacking a position that you don't actually hold, then you should leave your original post to stand on its own. Even in face-to-face conversations, it is very difficult to convince someone to abandon a preference, after all.
-
I'm a programmer, it's like a few lines to open up those areas.
A few lines. Let the people enter there, if their characters are good, they will survive. My team was top. The best weapons. The best of everything.
But the quest content in those areas won't make any sense. Specifically, it will assume that you know things / have done things that you haven't done at that point in the game. Heck, this already happens with companions -- if you don't proceed directly to defiance bay after gaining your stronghold, your companions will make several comments that reference information that the PC (or the player, if this is the first time playing the game) doesn't know yet.
Everyone here understands that you would like a sandbox game, with mostly / partially procedurally generated "quests" that are fairly simple, straightforward, and standalone in nature, but this isn't what this game was designed to do. This game is designed to revolve around handcrafted quests that are supported by complex dialog that are designed to be experienced in sequence. If you don't like to play through quests (and, based on your posts to this point, it sounds like you don't), then... Well, you will inevitably chafe at the limits this style of game imposes on you.
-
3
-
-
I'm pretty sure that this simply isn't the right type of game / series for you, as I suspect that a large number of backers would consider many of the changes you are requesting to be "in the wrong direction" (e.g. make the game worse). It sounds like you are looking for something closer to Bethesda's open-world RPGs (Skyrim and related games).
Nothing wrong with that, but that's simply not the game that Obsidian set out to make, so it isn't uprising that the game fails to meet your expectations.
-
4
-
-
This seems to be a bug -- you get positive rep ["Extraordinary", I believe] for winning the combat. This probably won't have any pratical impact on your reputation with Gilded Vale, because it has has been at the maximum since Act I.
However, if you enter the throne room afterwards (and it is the "quickest way out") you'll lose a significant ["Major"] amount of reputation with Gilded Vale, for no particular reason at all. That impacts your reputation, thus it appears that you get a net negative impact.
My guess is that there is a script that fires in the throne room that checks to see if it is empty -- if it is, then it assumes that you are trying to "double dip" for equipment in Act I (by killing off both contenders), which would obviously be ground for a reputation penalty. But that's just a guess.
If you exit the castle without passing through the throne room, all will be well, but you'll have to go out of your way to do this.
-
Yes, it is always an Estoc. As far as I know, the Crucible Knights blacksmith is the only one that can forge a blade (if he is dead or inaccessible, then you are out of luck).
-
The easiest solution is to simply kill off both the Knights and the Dozens -- technically speaking, you only have to kill one of each, but once you do they will all be hostile, so...
Once you have closed off access to all three factions then Lady Webb will sponsor your entry into the animancy debates and you can proceed.
-
Yeah, 0% means "< 0.05 %". Steam, unhappily, doesn't provide a mechanism to actually see the number of people who have gotten a particular achievement, which is significant when talking about achievements that are difficult (perhaps impossible) to achieve.
-
I read that Steam achievements are to be doable. All of them. If it cannot be achieved, you cannot have an achievement for it. For reference, I read about it for the Impossible/IronMan achievement in XCOM:EU, where a single tester made it before release.I don't know where your figures came from but lets assume they are correct. Is it possible to avoid killing less than 175 over the course of the game? My impression is that most fights are unavoidable. Correct?
This is untrue -- at least, in the sense that "Steam will eliminate any acheivements that cannot be achieved via normal game play". http://steamcommunity.com/stats/HatePlus/achievements/ (Hate Plus, a visual novel), the achievement "Level Four Revive Materia" cannot be achieved via gameplay -- folks disassembled the game (fairly easy since it is a visual novel) and verified it.
-
Um, I'm at the part where you gather certain clues for a certain lady concerning a certain metallic implement. You saying this is act 2 already and I missed the transition?
Yes -- Act II starts when you enter defiance bay for the first time.
-
1
-
-
Note that the quest will update to explicitly tell you "The blade is ready to be reforged now" once you have all the pieces -- if it hasn't, you don't have all 4 pieces.
The text of the journal entry is confused -- the "header" (for lack of a better turn) says "I've found a portion of an ancient blade", then an entry is added for each piece of the blade that you find. Thus, when you have three pieces, it will look like you have all four from the quest log (the header, plus three updates) but you really are still missing one. This confused me for quite some time...
-
Generally, when I've run into this behavior it is caused by an enemy that was part of the group that I had just fought, but too far away from where the combat actually took place to participate. Wandering around (especially into "nooks" where sight-lines are limited) will probably find the source of the problem. Once the missing monster is dead you'll be able to continue.
Wish there were an option to remove resting restrictions
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
Then why in the world are you playing ironman of all things?
I can certainly understand folks being unhappy at the resting system (for myself, I think it works fairly well, but I can certainly understand the objections to it), but choosing to add optional components that make the problem worse without otherwise impacting the difficulty of the game such as Ironman seems... Very, very counterproductive to say the least.