Jajo
-
Posts
216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Jajo
-
-
- Prices of Galleon and Junk ships have been doubled.
And I didn't bother with them even before, because I deemed them a complete waste of money.
I mean, should I spend it to save myself from pressing "1" 3 fewer times, or on weapons that I'll actually use to resolve the conflict with and save time there?
-
1
-
I see there is still no option to auto-hide the annoying news screen. Here's hoping to v1.2...
I really hope that spamming your customers with ads for DLCs that they already own is not worth more to you than aesthetics and visual integrity of your game.
-
1
-
-
I'm not getting them constantly, but I do get one occasionally.
-
Yeah, that makes it even more inane.
They could perhaps use an icon at the bottom, like it is for listing DLCs. Make it glow or something, if there's BREAKING NEWS.
-
1
-
-
That's not true at all! Chanters use the power of emotions!!
-
There is a small tab on the left edge of the news screen to minimize it.
Yeah, I know that, but I'd like to have it minimized by default.
Ideally I would want to not be greeted by advertisements when launching a game...
-
3
-
-
I could swear there was an option, to have the news (screen) hidden by default at game start, before patch 1.1 (or am I mistaken?).
Either way, I'm missing it, since I find being greeted by the news screen quite invasive and aesthetically displeasing.
I understand that it can be very handy, but I already have a web browser and an email client and I therefore really do not need nor want a third venue to contact me about the game. Especially in such an involuntary and immersion breaking way.
EDIT: Rephrased for clarity.
-
Yes, it's the MC leveling streamlining, that did it for the spell selections. Although why weapon proficiencies got their own screen and spells didn't is to me a mystery. Does anybody not get every weapon proficiency they could possibly want on a character by level ~10?
-
Which per rest abilities did Chanter and Cipher have? Wizard, Druid and Priest were the only classes built around the Per Rest idea, most of the others only had a couple of per rest abilities max.
You're right - chanters and ciphers come on top there. That's because they are vastly different from the priest class. This however has absolutely nothing to do with my original statement: Priests are now mechanically almost identical to wizards without grimoires.
Oh, but wait...
Wizard isn't a valid example because it's another of the Per Rest classes.
Yes. Yes they are a valid example.
Unless you are trying to argue, that D&D, PF and PoE1 got it completely wrong and should have limited their known set of spells years ago. I know that this is a ridiculous strawman, but unfortunately, this ridiculousness is the only way I can imagine dismissing my comparison in question (literally the first sentence in OP).
-
Aside from devotions for the faithful their buffs&debuffs are pathetic (with some exceptions) and their offensive capacities are severely limited. Unlike wizards they have no grimories so you have to spend skill points on spells.
While I do not agree about their buffs being pathetic, the big issue for me is their offensive capabilities, like you've said. Limitations force specialization and since their offensive capabilities are lacking with respect to other classes, they are thus rather forcefully relegated to being a fully support class. A damn shame, if one asks me.
-
Point 3: This is a global game mechanics, that is the same for all classes. I really don't see how this makes any particular class better than others.
Because the old 'Per Rest' classes benefit from the shift to Per Encounter more than the other classes.
All classes have/had per rest and per encounter abilities. To refer to my very first statement: how does this benefit priests more than (for example) wizards?
-
While I can understand this being the initial reaction, as it was also my initial reaction, let me provide some counter points for consideration.
- The Priest still has some of the best (if not the best) support spells in the game
- The Priest has much fewer "situational" spells and a lot more spells that are simply just useful spells
- You can now cast your spells much more liberally since they reset every encounter, making Priests even more effective
- Almost all of the Priest's "offensive" spells also provide debuffs or control of some kind
- Several of the Priest's buffs cover large areas and last for a while, making them great spells to simply cast every fight
- You will still easily end up with several spells in each spell level, enough to not feel like you're missing out
Points 1, 4 and 5: This is to be expected. It was the same in PoE1 and not the point of this thread, since this thread is about what has changed, not about what has stayed the same.
Points 2 and 6: This I do no agree with. The spell pool is same-ish enough, that I can't really see the difference just from memory (this is, however, a personal 'not-fact'. My reference is ~250 hours in PoE1). Also, one of the reasons, why I made this topic is, that with a very limited spell selection I do in fact feel like I'm missing out (4/PL for a pure priest, LOL/PL for a MC one, if all you do is pick spells).
Point 3: This is a global game mechanics, that is the same for all classes. I really don't see how this makes any particular class better than others.
-
Apparently priests are now wizards, but without the ability to swap grimoires (and oh, what fun ability that is). This is counterbalanced how, exactly? By the additional, fixed "domain" spell?
In PoE1 there were many priest spells that were just too situational to ever cast, so I very seldom did. Now their uselessness is guaranteed, since they won't even have a chance to be cast. Ever.
I thought, that balance changes were meant to make all the possibilities at least somewhat appealing and useful. This seems like a completely opposite direction.
Also seeing how MC characters now have less skill points to spend (wasn't this also supposed to be the other way around?), MC priests get shafted even harder.
-
1
-
-
You are apparently supposed to not be in stealth mode when ringing the bell - that was the difference for me.
Successful completion was:
- Clear the docks.
- Inform Lamond.
- Ring the bell while not in stealth.
Benweth then runs right up to the bell.
-
1
-
I really don't get the reason behind releasing these small chunks of some mid-game content over the next half a year instead of releasing one aggregated expansion at the end of it. What is this release schedule trying to achieve?
- Do they expect people to replay the whole game every time an additional island is added? Is this then meant to keep people playing almost exactly the same content over and over again for months, because I really don't see that happening, no matter how good the game is.
- If "forcing" multiple replays is not the purpose, then is this rapid schedule supposed to provide people with additional content while they play? In that case, are there really so many people, that take more than half a year to finish a game (I'd imagine, one would already have forgotten half of the plot details after that long) to warrant basing DLC schedules and size on them?
I just don't get it and it makes me worried. I hope, that these DLCs will together form a coherent addition with depth greater than its individual parts, but it does not seem like they will.
-
Multiclassed characters will after all be forced to have multiclass progression in everything, not just abilities*.
Well abilities aren't exactly forced, i mean when you get them yes but what you take no. You can be a figher/rogue and take 90% fighter abilities. So there is still some flexibility. And you get more overall abilities than a single class. The other defenses in POE are defined by Attributes so there is no progression issue there because they all progress the same. This change would only significantly affect health and maybe starting deflection in POE 2 which would be averaged since i think accuracy is the same for everyone now.
Yeah, you're right - I went and checked PoE mechanics again and if they keep it as it is in PoE, only HP would have been affected (and starting deflection, but that's easier to control).
I guess it's not a big issue after all.. certainly not as big as it first sounded to me.
-
1
-
-
After talking things over with the other system designers, we discussed what the most important aspects of multiclassing were.- Allowing people to realize hybrid class character concepts. "I want to be a fighter and a wizard."
- Keeping the overall power of the character competitive with single-class characters. The character should be viable. It's okay if it winds up over- or a little under-powered compared to a single-class character as long as it's not fundamentally weak.
- Allowing players to emphasize one aspect of the hybrid more than others. "I'm a fighter and a wizard, but more of a wizard."
The original design allowed the first and the last aspects, but the middle aspect suffered because of the high degree of flexibility. It was still easy to make non-viable characters. A non-viable character can be part of a viable party, but still feels bad to play. The high degree of flexibility also strained the first aspect, the basic character concept. A character with 18 levels in fighter and 2 levels in rogue is less of a character concept and more of a strategic build choice.I went back to the drawing board to revisit an idea I had around the same time as the original design, which was based on AD&D 2nd Edition-style multiclassing, where the player chooses to opt into multiclassing at character creation instead of selecting classes level-by-level. In such systems, the core concept is established from the beginning. A player who says, "I want to be a fighter and a wizard," can be that (a battlemage) from the beginning instead of picking one class and then alternating to the other later on. Progression is also easier to understand from the beginning as access to abilities and the increase of their power is consistent from multiclass to multiclass. A fighter/rogue (swashbuckler) gains access to 2nd level abilities for both classes at 4th level, as does a priest/monk (contemplative), barbarian/chanter (howler), and druid/ranger (beastmaster).How are these static class composition progressions (you're basically replacing 11 classes with 55 classes) addressing the third core aspect of multiclassing? It seems to me You're just replacing system that takes care of points 1 and 3 with a system that takes care of points 1 and 2. Multiclassed characters will after all be forced to have multiclass progression in everything, not just abilities*. To take your illustration (and I'm not quite sure what was it supposed to illustrate), one of the ideas behind taking 2rogue/18fighter in 3ed is, that HP pool is not significantly diminished. In PoE2 it would be, since HP is not something, that the player chooses at level up - it is something, that is attributed automatically. Saving throws and BAB also fall into this category - these are all very, very important derived stats.
*I do not now what exactly is bundled together in this abstract term, so my concerns might be addressed already.
-
Kudos to
AndyAdam Brennecke! That spell opacity feature is just pure awesomeness. -
Am I the only one who thinks that the world map looks very bland? Water is so so, but land looks empty and in desperate need of details.
I'm hoping for something of similar quality to the global map in PoE I.
-
1
-
-
Pillars II Executive Producer, Andy Brennecke!
FTFY.
Thank You for doing this, because we do like to hear interesting information from you all, but we will not get that from IGN.
"So is this like a dungeon?"
-- Professional Journalist
-
1
-
-
Talents will be at 67% but there's also accuracy, health and defences and they depend on character level.
75%-85% refers to overall performance.
A very good point.
-
If you're seriously concerned about this, you should ask Sawyer about it on his Twitter or Tumblr. He answers questions of a similar nature pretty regularly.
But I would suggest you are being silly in three ways.
Firstly, you are making too many assumptions about both the precise intent of MC'ing and the precise indication of efficacy. You kind of admit that latter but I'm not sure you're really thinking about how big a hole it is in your knowledge. They absolutely are "intrepid" assumptions, contrary to your claim that they are "not really intrepid".
Secondly, you're assuming that this is something the devs, particularly Sawyer, are completely unaware of this, which seems wildly, wildly unlikely, and could easily be found out by... asking Sawyer. It's not like he's in some sort of fortress. Man is answering questions every day.
Thirdly, your claim that "by beta it will be too late and not help anyone" is a totally unsupported assertion that has significant evidence against it, given the massive changes Pillars 1 went through, and the massive changes virtually every AAA CRPG goes through.
Still, why not actually go to Sawyer with this, if you're serious?
I do not have a twitter account; I do not have a tumblr account, I do not have a reddit account. I do have a something awful account, but this is a topic about pillars of eternity 2. How exactly is the official pillars of eternity 2 forum the wrong venue for asking about this? It is quite clear, that obsidian employees do follow and even answer on these forums.
1. I am making exactly two assumptions - I have explicitly stated this in both my posts, so I guess I am kind of admitting it. Explicitly. The first assumption is exactly what Sawyer said in the video: power level goes up every other level, like it did in D&D. The second assumption is more questionable, but as I have explained, it is by far the more conservative model among the known alternatives (being linear instead of quadratic).
2. This thread is me asking about it. What is your point? Should people assume, that developers have thought about absolutely everything?
3. I have never claimed, that "by beta it will be too late and not help anyone". I have claimed, that by beta it will be harder to change things, not impossible. This is not an assumption, this is a fact.
My other claim was, that in beta we will not be given the end portion of the game to test. Too many potential spoilers. We sure didn't get to play it in PoE1 beta, TToN beta, [insert your game name here] beta...
-
i don't think your math is correct. Even if the power level progression is linear, overall effectiveness is not, since not only power of spells increases but also amount of spells. So I would say (with doing all the maths in my mind
) that 5lvl wizard will be 40% effective as 10lvl wizard. And if you add another 5lvl class which is also 40% as effective you would get 80% effectiveness.But... i'm not quite sure what does he mean by effectiveness=)
My math is correct and gives the correct results if and only if my assumptions are correct. That is, that:
- power level vs power source progression remains linear from power level 6 onward (the trend from 3->4->5->6 indicates this) and
- ratio between different power levels is a good (or even precise) indication of efficacy.
The second assumption here being the greater uncertainty, which is what You are rightfully aiming at. However I will not believe any number that is just plucked from thin air, because it is just too convenient to come up with something, that fits the model producing a desired result.
There are also two other crucial things wrong with your numbers.
First one being, that the point was for each individual class of a multiclass character to perform at ~80% effectiveness, not 40%.
The second one is, that effectiveness is almost certainly not a simple sum. The inspiration for PoE have been D&D games and much of the mechanics is based on D&D. In D&D encounter levels were in a quadratic relation with the number of opponents, which means, that a level 5 NPC would have been at 1/32 of effectiveness of a level 10 NPC. This is, of course, another assumption, which I did not make in my initial calculations. The efficacy numbers would have been even worse otherwise.
I think you reach too far ahead. Unless you have some extra insight we cant really tell how things will look in game.
Wait for beta and then complain.
The general rule, that we have some points for class, but less for class we do not advance in sounds ok for me.
Oh, you mistake my purpose with this post. I'm not complaining at all. As I've said, I'm just pointing out a potential problem with the model. And of course I don't have extra insight, nor do I know how things will look in the game, but making two not really intrepid assumptions and the numbers we do know, I am just hoping to constructively comment on the presented model.
Waiting for beta will not help anyone and would not accomplish anything in this case. It is harder to change mechanics by then and I am almost certain, that we will not get an opportunity to play level 16-18 characters in the beta. As I've said, the potential problems described in my original post would be most prominent at higher levels.
-
I took this more in sense of a formalization and consolidation of previous systems, where one would get something like additional magic missile shots based on character level, +3 to all defenses per level, ...
) that 5lvl wizard will be 40% effective as 10lvl wizard. And if you add another 5lvl class which is also 40% as effective you would get 80% effectiveness.
Patch Notes for 1.2.0.0017
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Announcements & News
Posted
Giving more crafting materials would have been a much better way to go about it, in my opinion. Not this time gated pyrite tombola that's in the game. Crafting would have been a good money sink, if people could actually craft... This material shortage also defeats the design purpose behind different physical damage types and giving weapon proficiencies out like candy, since no one's really able to adequately upgrade equipment of the whole party, let alone produce multiple equivalently powerful weapon sets for each character.
Upgrading ship type on the other hand... does anyone find that worth it?