[Berath Blessing - online only?]

Actually there is one blessing I'd really like to get: being able to play with 5 companions... 

[Berath Blessing - online only?]

I honeslty don't see how the Berath's Blessing could harm your experience in any way. I mean, you are not worried about the ~20% of game content that you will lose playing only once, but you are worried about some optional features that you might not choose anyway? I don't get it.

I just think that there are better solutions to offer those optional features, without tying them to certain achievements. Don't worry, it won't harm my experience anyway. Although I still think that they could use the resources to include stuff that everybody is more easily able to enjoy. Question of preference.

 

And jfyi, I'm a big fan of CRPGs but I almost never play any game more than once. I think it's boring because most of the stuff and especially the overall story stays the same. Even if there is 20 or 30% new stuff there is still 70 or 80% stuff that is still the same. So yeah, it's of course my fault that I don't want to invest time in multiple playthroughs. Another question of preference.

[Stretch goal discussion!]

You're making it sound like some huge chunk of content is being locked away.

And you making it sound like some achievements are needed to enable content that would give every player more choice and freedom in the first place.

[Berath Blessing - online only?]

@LordCrash did you even READ the update before complaining about it?

 

I'm quoting the Obsidian description of Berath's Blessing:

Other players may choose to more quickly advance through a part of the game that they don’t really want to repeat [...] Players will even have the option to start the game with some of their favorite things acquired during the previous journey – starting with a favorite companion or Soulbound weapon from an earlier playthrough.

 

The first part of your quote is a feature that I don't really understand (what about story progression, choices, equipment, XP when you skip certain parts of the game??? to me that makes no sense and isn't really thought through) and the latter part is just typical NG+ stuff. But to be honest, I probably misread your point here because I thought you meant your fav weapon in general (like choosing it from a list), not just keeping the stuff you have at the end of the latest game.

[Berath Blessing - online only?]

It's just not a rational or reasonable approach to the issue. Most likely many/most of the achievements will be very, very easy to get. Many you will probably get just finishing the game the first time.

Most of us won't finish the game even once. And a lot of those tho will won't ever start another playthrough. I know many people here don't believe that but that's the reality. Just have a look at the Steam statistics if you don't believe me...

 

And not having access to something is not the same as "being punished", I mean good god. As for "people who do don't want to be forced to do certain stuff", not only is that an assumption, but by that logic I should be complaining about every magic item or stat boost that is locked behind content I don't want to do - I mean, I always end up gunning down the Doemenels, those ****, so by your logic, my not getting access to their shop/quests etc. is me being "punished" because I don't want to be forced to do certain stuff (i.e. be friends with those ****).

You really don't get the difference between choice&consequence within a single playthrough and certain stuff that is only available for a different playthrough if I make certain things in the first one?

 

Apples and oranges, mate.

 

It's all part of the rich tapestry of gaming, frankly, and I'm fine with whatever I don't get being locked away unless it's completely stupid, but this being Obsidian, not, say, Bethesda, I trust them not to be stupid.

Well, I don't.

[Berath Blessing - online only?]

- How can you choose to start with your favorite weapon if you've never played the game at least once (or a good part of it?).

I doubt that will ever be the case anyway. But if they do I have nothing against keeping your favorite weapon for another playthrough if you want to destroy your balance on purpose.

 

 

- You want to meet your companions in their supposed place the first time around. Recruiting them from the start is only a luxury option for the following playthroughs in order to avoid hours and hours of gametime before meeting them (examples from PoE1: Pallegina, GM, the WM companions).

Still no need to hide that behind achievements. Nobody is forced to use expert settings. Giving players options is still always better than establishing superficial blocks, even if it's a stupid feature like this one.

 

 

- Skipping parts of the game (Dungeon-be-gone in BG2) makes no sense if you don't even know what to skip.

Nobody said you could strip certain parts of the game. I think it's highly unlikely and it actually makes no sense at all.

 

 

- The only reasonable bonus to give from the get-go would be extra stats or extra coins, but I believe the Story Mode difficulty should cover that.

Actually the stretch goal mode is all about certain bonuses.

 

 

 

I don't understand why you are crusading against an optional feature that will help a lot of players.

I don't "crusade" against it in any way. I just don't like the way it will be implemented, locked behind certain achievements.

 

 

I see that you will play ONE TIME ONLY(!) through the game, but you should realize that this is a strange behaviour for this genre, because RPGs in general tend to be played more than once, in order to experience different class combinations, companions, quests and choices during the adventure. Especially in PoE2, where we'll get to "meaningfully" side with different factions, playing only one time means losing a lot of the experience.

Ahem, no. The completion rate of PoE on Steam by the way is less than 10%, just saying. People who play games like PoE multiple times are in the far minority. You hardcore guys must really leave your bubble from time to time. Almost nobody has the time and will to play a long RPG more than once, most people don't even finish it once.

[Stretch goal discussion!]

I think the bonuses will be fine, as others have already pointed out they can simply be ignored. However, because we don't have the full scope of this feature documented yet I am very hopeful that the developers will include things that remix or tweak the gameplay in multiple ways. The composition of enemy encounters could be tweaked (e.g, a 20% chance vessels will be included in every encounter) or enemies could gain undocumented new abilities (e.g., fission blights that have to be countered with an opposing element).

 

All of which could be available for everybody right the start of the first(!) game, best in some "expert settings" menu for enhanced flexibitily and more choice for everybody right from the start...

[Berath Blessing - online only?]

This is such a classic official forums response to a perfectly reasonable feature.

 

No, it's not. It would be perfectly reasonable to give these options to all players right from the start. Just give people some "expert settings" for an individual experience, if they want so. Most people want their first playthrough to be the best (and many people don't have more time than for one) so why not giving everybdoy more options? There is absolutely no need to make these things dependent on superficial "achievements" and to only make this stuff available for a second or third or whatever playthrough.

 

If anything this update punishes people who don't go for achievements and who don't want to be forced to do certain stuff in their games. And it punishes people for playing the game not long and good enough because that's what this strange NG+ mode is actually all about. It's a "reward" system for the best among us who want to play this games for hundreds or thousands of hours, but not for everybody and certainly not for the majority.

 

If there ever was a stretch goal that was only made for a small fraction of "elite" players and that could be classified as pure fan service it's this one.

 

So I don't have anything against these options and it's not an "offical forum response". I just have a big issue with hiding theses options behind superficial achievements.

[Stretch goal discussion!]

Guys what are you talking about? The Berath's Blessing is a fantastic idea given the number of times we are going to replay the game!

 

Who is "we"? 

 

I'm already glad if I can find the time to play the game ONCE. It's not like PoE2 was  some 5 hour long shooter.

 

So I care much more about everything that can happen in my first (and likely only full) playthrough of the game.

[Stretch goal discussion!]

 

NG+ is a horrible waste of money. 

 

 

The stretch goals for PoE continue to disappoint.

For you maybe. I don't use it either. But big picture here. Alot of people like it. It's not just about you.

 

 

I just stated my opinion, mate.

[Romance]

I think Edér should romance a pet. He's really into them.

[Stretch goal discussion!]

NG+ is a horrible waste of money, even in it's light "Berath's Blessing" way. And it's abolutely nothing you'd need 200k for... 

 

 

The stretch goals for PoE2 sadly continue to disappoint.

[Romance]

Witcher 3 Yen

• connected to main quest (she loves Ciri as oldie MOTHER)

Corrected that for you.   

 

 

As for Witcher's Yen the comparison is a bit unfair though since the character AND her relationship with Geralt were already pretty well established(in the novels). There is sadly no such luxury as a bunch of brilliant novels for Pillars to build upon.

[Should Deadfire be more intuitive?]

 

Oh, I guess you misread my post here (or I didn't make it clear enough). I didn't speak about sales here at all.

 

I know, but you talked about the old IE games having a broader appeal than PoE and when it comes to measuring broad appeal I think sales figures are actually pretty relevant.

 

Well, I don't think so, at least it's not that simple. And it's imo completely pointless to compare sales figures to those of a game that was released 16 years ago.

[Should Deadfire be more intuitive?]

 

I agree but the issue (for me at least and maybe to some degree for the OP as well) is that PoE does not really cater to people who don't think that learning all the deep bits about the complex systems is part of the fun - while the old games actually did.

 

But it does! At Normal difficulty or below you don't need to understand the systems beyond the level of "debuffs make the enemies weaker," "buffs make you stronger," and "the immunity against Fear spell protects against dragon fear."

 

When playing at Hard or PotD you do need to dig into them more, but if you're not keen to learn the systems, why would you play on Hard or PotD?

 

I never played PoE on hard or PotD but on normal. And I know that I don't have to understand every system to its core in order to survive on normal but still PoE felt not very intuitive to me. For a possible (simple) reason you could read my post above if you like.

 

Citation needed. PoE has sold around 900,000 copies on Steam, and who knows how many on GoG (I know it passed the one million mark quite a while ago). It has done so whilst existing alongside games like Dragon Age Inquisition and the Witcher 3 (whereas BG2 was the DAI of its era). I suspect it has pretty broad appeal.

Oh, I guess you misread my post here (or I didn't make it clear enough). I didn't speak about sales here at all.

[Should Deadfire be more intuitive?]

Strong no to streamlining the systems. Pillars systems aresomewhat complex (by modern standards), but the complexity is there for a reason. Learning to make use of them is a huge part of the fun, and central to the experience.

I agree but the issue (for me at least and maybe to some degree for the OP as well) is that PoE does not really cater to people who don't think that learning all the deep bits about the complex systems is part of the fun - while the old games actually did.

 

Like Ininitron correctly stated, the old games hid the complex systems pretty well for everybody who just didn't really care about them. You could easily play BG2 without knowing much about AD&D and the way it worked at the core. So I'm not for streamlining the mechanics of PoE in any way, it's good that they're complex at the core. But nevertheless PoE lacks the broad appeal the old IE games imo offered, including people who didn't primarily played the games for their combat mechanics.

 

You might don't give a **** about that but for somebody like me that's an actual issue.

 

Okay question: exactly what about PoE's system got in the way of playing and enjoying the game?

 

I ask because to my mind I can't really see the difference. You can play BG2 purely by intuition, without having any real understanding of the mechanics, but I don't really see why that wouldn't be the case for PoE as well.

It's a good question but actually a pretty hard one, primarily because it's more about how it "felt". Like I said, intuition isn't a part of rational thinking, it's about understanding something without rationally thinking about it. So telling you that system X was better explained in game A than system y in game B would totally miss the point. The only guess I have at the topic is the dice thing. When I think about dice rolls I don't think about calculations and math, I have an actual dice in my mind, seeing its result in a picture. When I compare two dice rolls I see a picture of two such dices in my mind. That's totally different to rational mathematical calculation or a simple comparison of two abstract numbers for me. It seems that my mind can grasp the concept of dice throws without the need to activate the rational mind - and therefore it's much more comfortable and less "enery-consuming" (if you read "Thinking fast and slow" you probably know that activating the rational mind is way more exhausting than just following your intuitive mind). And of course Pillars is a tactical game that is all about making rational decisions, nothing wrong with that. But there is a difference between making active rational decisions that you want to make (because they're fun) and rational decision you have to make (in order to understand and go along with the sytem without being overly confused).

 

The weird thing about intuition is though that it can mean different things to different people. A math genius doesn't have to activate his rational mind to perform simple equations. He will simply "see" or "feel" them based on his intuition. And you don't even have to be a genius for that, many people can intuively think in numbers, at least in a limited range. But many people can't. For them every calculation is a rational act. And that's probably the reason why people of the former group can never fully understand how the latter group experiences such a game and vice versa. For two different people the same game could be very intuitive for one and very obtuse for the other.

 

By the way, I apologise if I sound combative in my replies to you in this (and other) threads. I tend to sound that way when I disagree with people but it's not the intention.

No apologies needed, mate, but thanks anyway. And I know what you mean, I'm (too) often guilty of the exact same behaviour.

[Should Deadfire be more intuitive?]

You've simply forgotten how unintuitive learning AD&D was.

I never really learnt AD&D which is actually exactly my point.

 

I had a ton of fun with BG2 without ever learning its deeper system. I had a much harder time with PoE although I played it 14 years later with much more experience and learning on the way. It's just my personal experience I share with you, you don't have to agree with me, naturally.

 

 

Edit: A well explained system doesn't automatically make an intuitive system. An intuitive system is one that is "working" for you without the need of fully understanding its concepts. The intuitive mind and the rational mind are two different parts of the human brain...

[Should Deadfire be more intuitive?]

 

6 is better than 5 and 4 is better than 2. I don't know how it can be hard to understand why this is much simpler than calculation in two digit numbers. Whether the game does additional calculations in the background is of little to no importance for me.

Ah, you were still talking about 6-sided. 'Cause JerekKruger was referring to 2 10 sided.

Anyway, I see no reason why should we stick to 6 sides of a dice on PC. The percentile calculations was the smallest issue PoE had and it at least provided it with pretty great scalability. I mean sure, counting from 1 to 6 is simpler than counting from 1 to 100, but I might as well make an argument that the simplest solution is to just stick to '1' for everything - no need for counting whatsoever then.

 

Come on, that's a "kill it with fire" argument.

 

And you miss the point that throwing dices is more vidid (even with a ten sided dice or with throwing two 6-sided dices), simply because you have a physical expression for it and a picture of a dice in your mind. I know it's hard to explain it to people for whom calculation probabilities is "intuitive" but for many people it's not. Throwing a dice is much more intuitive (even if you only do so in your mind) for them than calculation numbers only based on abstract rules. That the percentile calculations were no big issue for you personally doesn't necessarily mean that it was the same for everybody else.

[Should Deadfire be more intuitive?]

 

Yes, and a pretty big one at that. Rolling dices is imo way more vivid and at the same time less mathematical.

That... Didn't make any sense whatsoever. Have you ever played a board game calculating with actual percentile, i. e. 1-99? Dice are a terrible tool for that. Especially fun are the arguments about which die was representing tens...

 

6 is better than 5 and 4 is better than 2. I don't know how it can be hard to understand why this is much simpler than calculating in two digit numbers.

 

And no, I never played such a board game but I agree that the idea to transform dice rolls in actual percentils sounds kind of stupid

 

 

Many of the complexities of PoE are things that the Infinity Engine games had too but hid from you, so people just felt their way through them without really understanding, which was good enough.

This. That's why I said that AD&D was way more intuitive on a BASIC level. For people who wanted to dive deep into the system, understanding the precise results of every skill, spell and action that wasn't really the case (relatively compared to PoE).

 

Personally, I miss that simple basic level. It enabled people with only little interest in maths and complex RPG systems to have a lot of fun with the combat in BG2 and other IE games. The system covered a broader audience, not only the typical numbers-loving nerds.

[Content Stretch Goals]

To be honest, I don't want any additional superimposed content at all. Too many crowdfunded games already overstretched and too many developers found out later in development that not every goal was a blessing for the game. Too much money is usually wasted for stuff that isn't exactly part of the core vision and experience and might not be included anyway, no need to even deepen the issue..

 

Obsidian should just use every additional dollar to deliver the best polished and bug-free game possible. Pretty simple.

[Should Deadfire be more intuitive?]

 

Yeah, at least iits dice-rolling core. I'm very convinced that the concept of dice rolls is much easier to get than randomized percentage values.

 

How is there any difference between the game giving you a randomized percentage value, and the game "rolling" a pair of d10s to generate a number between 1 and 100?

 

Yes, and a pretty big one at that. Rolling dices is imo way more vivid and at the same time less mathematical.

 

I really don't see how that's true. Determining hit chances in PoE is as simple 50% - Defender's Defence% + Attacker's Accuracy%. Most people can add two digit numbers without any real difficulty.

It's not only a question of difficulty. As I stated above, dices are both more vivid and less mathematical. I know that many CRPG fans are "nerds" with a special love for numbers and maths (which is the basis of every RPG system of course) but not everybody has this love for numbers and calculations. It's hard to explain that to somebody for whom it is indeed intuitive to do various calculations pretty much all the time anyway. But for some people, maths and calculations are more a necessary evil than something that they love and perform on an intuitive level. Don't get me wrong, I have a master degree in business and engineering myself and calculating two digit numbers isn't a big trouble for me personally. But it's still less comfortable and less intuitive for me to be forced to calculate at all than just comparing two (or more) simple dice rolls.

 

Meanwhile a percentile system gives much more precision. In a system based around d6s each increment is about 16%, which is incredibly coarse. I can't represent a 60% chance of something in a d6 system, I have to either have it be a 50% chance or a 67% chance.

That's a blessing, not an curse. This precision you like is also the precision which is imo too obtuse and needlessly complex. I don't think that you need such a fine-grained system to make a good tactical combat system.

[Poll on preferred party size]

When they don't enjoy their work yes. People who are genuinely enthusiastic about what they do don't have this, in fact they often suffer from the opposite problem.

My personal guess is a combination of both. And I also don't necessarily mean the guys who design the stuff but the guys who are in charge and who decide in the end which way to go. That's a top management issue as well, not just one on the design level.

 

It's also a fact that Tyranny was not praised for its gameplay mechanics.

Depends on who you ask I guess. I know quite some people who liked the "streamlined" system...

 

As for added complexity, what do you mean? Do you mean it will be very hard to ensure that each encounter is balanced in difficulty for every possible combination of multi-classes? If so then obviously that's the case, and Obsidian would be foolish to imagine they could ever make it not be the case even with simplified encounters. They would also be foolish, in my opinion, if they decided to simplify encounter design since this is something that many of their fans wouldn't be happy about.

The overall encounter design with the inclusion of multi-classes probably won't be less complex than the one in PoE in terms of balance, even with only five party members. But Josh said himself that the reduction of party size allows them for enemy groups with less members in encounters. That naturally reduces the workload and the additional effort that would have gone into encounter design if the party size stayed the same.

 

As for budget, they don't know their budget yet and we have even less of a clue (since we've no idea how much money from PoE's huge success they've put back into Deadfire development).

Yes and no. I highly doubt that they plan with a bigger core team, no matter the crowdfunding results. Most of the money will go to external stuff like localization and not in an increased internal staff size. So the budget for aspects like core design is pretty much alrady set in stone imo.

 

This isn't necessarily targeted at you, but I find the accusations of PoE having overcomplicated mechanics bizarre when it comes from people who also hold up BG2 as the pinnacle of CRPGs. AD&D is a hot mess of a system and is completely unintuitive.

Well, I guess we have to disagree here then. Imo BG2 was way more intuitive than PoE, at least on the basic level. I agree with you that the picture changed once you got to the core of every trait or spell but please take into account that not everybody is very interested in understanding every bit of the deep mechanics anyway. Imo the mechanics in AD&D were comparably easy to learn (the basics) while pretty hard to master (the depths). In PoE though the system was both hard to learn and hard to master.

[Should Deadfire be more intuitive?]

 

I really get and share your cirticism. While PoE is by its very nature a deep tactical game many of its systems are imo overloaded and needlessly obtuse. I miss the good old simple dice rolls of D&D. 

 

You miss the good old days of simple, intuitive AD&D?

 

 

Yeah, at least iits dice-rolling core. I'm very convinced that the concept of dice rolls is much easier to get than randomized percentage values. And it's much easier and faster to calculate in a range that goes from 1 to 6 than in a range that goes from 1 to 100...

[Poll on preferred party size]

 

This might be an unpopular opinion but the reduction to five party members could just mean that Obsidian is trying to bring down the complexity of encounters, making them easier to create. The less dynamic elements involved, the less hassle. It might be that the party reduction doesn't really offer better gameplay but just less work for Obsidian. This way they had to create less enemies and less tactical depth. Maybe they learnt during the development of Tyranny that a smaller party results in easier and faster encounter design, shortening development and reducing the necessary workload. With the inclusion of multi-classes and sub-classes and the rise of completely that will follow that inclusion they very likely looked for ways to reduce the complexity again in order to make the game more manageable and less bloated. Reducing the complexity again by reducing the party member might a be a prime motive for the designers from their point of view, making their life easier. From a gamer perspective who loves the tactical depth of CRPGs and how loves the flexibility for both gameplay and narrative options a big party delivers this is a frightening and sad perspective, to be honest. I'd rather stay with traditional classes (maybe sub-classes included) and 6 party members than with multi-classes and only 5 party members - a combination of both elements seems to be impossible for Obsidian to deliver upon.

 

Bloody hell, what is it with this thread and unfounded conspiracy theories.

 

 

I don't think that this is a conspiracy theory. It's actually a absolutely normal and perfectly human behaviour that people want to make their work easier and to reduce the complexity of the tasks ahead. It's just a fact that multi-classes and sub-classes make the gameplay even more complex. And it's a fact as well that Obsidian implemented a gameplay concept in Tyranny that offered a pretty significant reduction in complexity. Add commercial considerations and the tight budget for such a project and you have a mixture in which my point isn't some kind of out-of-touch conspiracy theory but just a natural development. 

 

And of course the wish to reduce complexity could also be based on the simple consideration that many players might just be overwhelmed by the gameplay when multi- and sub-classes will be added to the already pretty obtuse systems in Pillars. That's a fair argument and the stuff stated above and this argument aren't mutually exklusive. I think that they reinforced each other.

 

But personally, I think it's the wrong approch for the issue. If they had to reduce complexity they should revamp their core gameplay approach (and their GUI) instead of just cutting stuff from the formula. But sure, cutting a party member is much easier and simpler than changing core elements of the gameplay and systems. So again it's perfectly understandable - but sad nevertheless.

[I would love to back this game . . .]

KickStarter isn't perfect with its credit card processing either

 

Yeah, but Kickstarter also offered Amazon payments which works like a dream.