Sedrefilos

But... are we pirates in this game?

Even WoW was better without the quest markers

I'll go even further and say that I'd like the game to require dice from me. When I attack it should wait for me to type what I rolled and it'll calculate the outcome. Then it will ask me how much health I'm left with (I must write that down too! So exciting!). If I type "0", game over.

It's not a state classified top secret? After all it is extra feedback.

Even if it is, people will open public ones discussing the beta by the numerous let's plays in youtube, so it doesen't matter

I'd rather have small group skirmish/brawl "tactics" tbh. Jump on tables, fight from stairs, fight around tables etc which I think are closer to this size of battle groups. Shield walls and such aren't more suited for larger scale battles?

Or play Total War Warhammer

Whooot?! You haven't completed Pillars yet? What are you doing being so active in here then? Off you go - finish it yesterday! Man, sometmes it happens to me too. I start an rpg and either I'm not in the mood, or something better comins in the way or I don't have enough time for some reason and I leave it midway through. But after more than 3 weeks pass I can't remember what I was doing so I must start it over. Thankfully Pillars didn't let me do that

DOS2 has a similar quest system. Markers are placed on your map only after you've discovered a location by your own or someone knows where it is and points it on your map. I really like when there are no quest markers from the start. In single player games at least. In open games it becomes very immersive and I believe with the openess of Pillars 2 it'll make explroation more exciting.

But, but... but it took me many months to finish my recent "perfect" PoE1 playthrough! That's why I hate dlcs that don't continue the game. You need to replay it to see them.

Well, that's what happens when you trust tombs to Fred. He loses them :D

I'm looking forward to beta, not because I'm gonna play it (I haven't backed that high) but because we're gonna have more meaningful conversations/arguments in the forums instead of speculating all the time.

I don't tend to overanalyze it and think about it yet and I'll probably go with mood when I start the character creation, but I'm definately gonna multiclass my returning wild Orlan Barbabrian. If I go for melee/spellcasting hybrid, it's gonna be either barbarian/wizard, barbarian/chanter or barbarian/druid with the latter the most probable if only for theme (wild orlan matches good with barbarian and druid imo).

I'd the size of my party to be customizable. Like I can click on them and a dotted frame appears. Then I click and hold on the lower corner and drag the mouse to the liking of my party size.

From what I see Goddard007, you are 4 years late (seriously this time). During the development of the 1st game there was a group of people strongly arguing things should be done like the IE games. The devs had other ideas and proceeded with them. The group turned toxic and eventually left the forums and the game. They didn't convice the devs to change their mind and I don't think it's gonna happen now. I'll drop my final saying here and say thet the game is very unrestricted, especially compared to IE games, it's more realistic too (since you're dropping the realism argument) from the IE games too and more complex. Even if pre-buffing was an issue for me too, there are so many other features that make it stand out that I woulnd't bother demanding something so small back.

I am not insulting you saying you know nothing. I just thought it was be enjoyable and provide us with a basis for discussion. It's ok, I didn't took it as an insult, but asking someone to watch a 2 hours video of something he already knows (as it should have been obvious from the coversation) is a bit too much. I can understand your love for DnD and what you find fun and immersive in the game. I do find fun and immersing the mechanics of Warhammer Quest. Would I want them in a modern game? No way. I can play it and still have fun, I'm sure, but I tend not to stick to the old. When I see something new that makes things better as I see it, I tend to leave the past to the past. In any case, I believe IndiraLightfoot gave the best answer in this thread.

Just because everyone jumps off a bridge does that mean you will as well? Well, that implies that pre-buffing is objectivelly better than buffing during combat. Also things change over time. Not nescessarily because some say so but because better ideas are introduced and collectively we decided they are for the best. Yes and I am attempting to objectively look at those changes and talk about them and you are talking about what the crowd is doing, or your personal feelings. That is why I made a list. 1. You don't need to cast all your pre-buffs at every encounter. 2. Removing pre-buffing removes a big part of RPG games. It removes ambush and you being ambushed. It removes logical story, meaning your character is so dumb and is perpetually caught off guard. 3. The game should use intelligent characters to provide clues, isn't that what we got all these skill checks for? In order to do skill checks and have extra story clues and triggers for fun? 4. In single player games pre-buffing becomes important in conjunction with item storage and counting in game creation. The game developers can "balance" things by simply counting the number of items given. 5. Removing that game dynamic eliminates many possibilities for more interesting combat. Dispel magic for example will be virtually unimportant without pre-buffing. Detect Evil characters now becomes pointless. A stealth character now always has an advantage over everything because now we only care about what happens in combat and no non-detection, or detect invisibility. This is going in circles. You keep adding the same list, people here, including me, are saying why they believe pre-buffing is not good. There's nothing more to say and there's nothing to be done.

Just watch the video my friend instead of making snap judgments. Sorry mate, I'm not gonna watch a two hour video about the history of DnD games someone made in youtube. I've played many DnD games, I know how they evolved. I've played other games too. I'm playing crpgs from the mid 90's, I know how the genre is evolving and I know what I want and what I like best from these games. Bre-buffing isn't one of those features.

Just because everyone jumps off a bridge does that mean you will as well? Well, that implies that pre-buffing is objectivelly better than buffing during combat. Also things change over time. Not nescessarily because some say so but because better ideas are introduced and collectively we decided they are for the best.

DnD is DnD. It's just a ga me system. It's not the best by far imo neither it is the canon. You keep implying that Pillars should follow to the earlier steps of DnD for some reason where most people have pretty much move away from that. Even DnD itself!

We keep saying pre-buffing is a chore because we feel it is a chore and it is a very popular belief if we see that every rpg has gone away with pre-buffing and no one seems to bothered by it, untill now Else it would have been back. At least there would have been the "school" of "pre-buffing is fun" developers who would have used it in their games. But there are not. You need to strike a balance between realism and fun gameplay and, as far as magic goes, you can decide what realism is, pretty much

I believe the devs have already made up their minds about this matter and I don't think we're going to see pre-buffing in almost no rpg ever again These threads are mostly for us here debating over meaningless stuff just for the sake of it and having some casual and fun arguments about things that 99,99% of players and developers don't care about

Exactly. DnD sets specifics of what is evil and what is good, like a religious dogma. Reputations and dispostitions are way much better; they let you explore behaviours and point of views.

The mentality that someone or something is inherently good, neutral or evil and that can also be detected by magic (lol) is immature imo. I remeber reading the 3rd novel of the Drow trilogy, the one that Drizzt is out of Underdark and living in a forest, doing random stuff. I remeber when he was talking with some blind old ranger or something and he was telling him about good and evil creatures. "How do I know a creature is good or evil?" Drizzt asked "you look at the children" the "wise" old man said. "If they are good to each other, they are good, if they are evil, they are evil. Orcs for instance". I laughed hard, closed the book, put it on the shelf and never read anything from Salvatore again. The first two books were already mediocro to bad, but tat third one was something else This is the allignement mentality of DnD in a nutshell. And it's not surprising that it's the only system utilising it. Of that I know at least.

Blasphemy! You don't like D&D? :D Also is that Salem the cat? I really like 2.5 personally. I don't like the system that much. D20 is not my thing. And the alignment system is childish for my tastes. Before 3rd, I don't like anything at all, mechanics-wise I do like the general idea, the worlds and the feeling though. Faerun is one of my most beloved places and I'd kill to see a game in the Dark Sun setting. Also, no, this is Matte, (my) cat