Jump to content

Arkeus

Members
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Excellent

About Arkeus

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. Hey @Badler, is there any way to backtrack if you were an idiot and redeemed a Steam key with the backer portal (not activated on steam itself) because you forgot you had a GOG version of the game, not Steam?
  2. Slicken >>>>>>> Web, Thrust of Tattered veil >>> the second level spell lance, Ice AoE > Fireball. It's not just one spell, lvl1 spells are probably the best ones till you are really high level.
  3. Currently, at least for the wizards, every single Tier 2 spells are much, much worse than the Tier 1 spells. Slicken is REALLY good. Fan of Flame too. The Ice AoE too. Hell, Thrust of tattered veil is useful, and so on... T2 spells, however? I can't think of a single one that I want to use in a fight. They are unwieldly, do bad damages, or are flat out worse than their T1 equivalent (Slicken >>>>> Web, for example). Am I missing something, or is this just badly balanced spells?
  4. I can't talk for WL2, but D:OS' first review came out days after the game came out, and the way it worked out was quite incredible as most of the initial hype was construed solely by word of mouth from backers, and the reviewers then came and saw that people already had been hyped. Depending solely on backers to make your game known might have worked for D:OS, but it's not only incredibly risky there is nothing to lose by actually doing a more standard thing first and have the press get a handle on it, especially as an awful lot of people believe that if no review comes out before the game the devs are hiding something. So, yeah, I don't think we should be getting the game already, especially as Day 1 patch is pretty much more than necessary and the game the press is getting probably isn't public-ready.
  5. No, i understand it perfectly- but it does influence the rest of the game. Basically, a queue can only be usable if the times it can be used at all are common. This, by itself, imply that you can predict what your character will do in 4/5 seconds after the current action and the recovery time in a reliable manner. Basically, in order for a queue to work out, the tactical challenge must be dimnished. This is compounded by the semi-Vancian system, as it enables degenerate gameplay where you just spam abilities and thus are forced to rest more and more. This obviously also apply to "useful things" like moving around to not get into engagement attacks, as it presupposes that by the time your character get to the first 'endpoint' of the queue the enemies will not have adjusted. In a decently done game, this actually would kill your characters, not help them (i am obviously not talking about stuff like in a RTS where you use this for pathfinding/ambush after minutes of walking).
  6. I didn't say any of those things- i said that if you do use queue (even manually), you will then have to manually unqueue things manually a lot as the tactical danger of the fight changes. Basically, Queuing enhance the strategic aspect (macro) at the detriment of the tactical aspect (micro). It's even worse when you consider that in order to make queuing /work/, you would have to completely change the balance of the game even for those who don't use queuing. Basically, i want my strategic aspects to be in the character building/gearing/grimoire selection, and not in the actual combat itself. I want the combat itself to have /challenging/ tactical gameplay, and in order for the tactical gameplay to be challenging, it must constantly present new difficulties/challenge that the player either didn't expect or didn't consider likely, and as thus will make queuing a hassle.
  7. Ok, adding my two cents on why Queuing is BAD: 1°) AoE and even CC abilities mean that you can't queue actions without constantly having to unqueue them, as not only enemy moves, but status effect means you need to quickly change your tactics. Having action queuing will mean that the tactical elements of the game will need to be lessened in order not to make the queuing an actual detriment/hassle for the player. 2°) Having queuing action will institute a "use abilities all the time" reflex from the player, and it doesn't mesh well at all with semi-Vancian magic. This means that players will want to rest more and more and more, and it will completely skew the game's balance.
  8. ... I said all of this in my post. It doesn't change the fact that it's partly funded by KS, has a budget similar to KS games, and also follow the usual KS things like no publisher oversight and so on.
  9. There actually is- D:OS is the first game that had a kickstarter and is inarguably better than pretty much any recent (E.G <5 years) games of the same genre. While the two games are as similar as Skyrim and Mass Effects are, D:OS is becoming the standard for a "kickstarter high quality game". Sure, they mostly funded it with their own money, but they also got much less from the KS (and probably didn't have /that/ much money to fund it with, if the numbers given in This article are true). We finally have a 'low-budged' self-funded Kickstarter game of high quality, so incoming kickstarter games like W2, Pillars of Eternity and Tormet not planescape will have a similar bar of quality for comparisons.
  10. And they were romances put in to strenghten a specific type of theme, which is impossible and not wanted unless you decide to make your RPG around such a theme. If you want to make a RPG more in the lines of BG/IWD where it's about exploration/quests/dungeons and not a single theme, this simply does not fit well. Not to say it's impossible, but it goes down to the 'difficulty enough to manage that instead of putting a single good romance you could have put thousands of lines of dialogues fleshing out antagonists/etc'. Basically, a waste unless you have a stupidly high qualified manpower.
  11. I am against romance in a RPG that doesn't focus on romance or the romance isn't used to support the theme of the story- it can work in, say, MoTB or P:ST because in both case it supports the theme of the story. The romance was built-in as part of the tale, not as a choice given to the player if he wants 'something more'. Keep in mind that both game were relatively small and had a very "niche" concept/demograpgy of players. Likewise, a RPG that's all about romance can work. OTOH, i am very much against romance in a more traditional RPG where you aren't a named character with a specific character arc. Yes, it could thereotically be done well, be the effort to do so would mean that instead we could have had so much things that are just flat out more apropos.
  12. I have two things to say to this: First, it's that you are playing a party, not a character. As such, not every characters need to have the same amount of 'attraction', as long as they are equally powerful in their own way. Second, different people like different play-style. I am sure you mean nothing by it, but a LOT of people love playing buffers but find 'bashing enemies' boring, and so on.
  13. So, the most important question is: can you gloat over the prisoners? "Fool! To think you thought you stood a chance against the great I in all his unparalleled majesty!" "Fortunately I am as magnaminous as I am magnificent, and I have spared you for your crimes against my person...for the moment. Make no mistake! You suffer at my wondrous leisure!" .....Please?
×
×
  • Create New...