Jump to content

forgottenlor

Members
  • Posts

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by forgottenlor

  1. Oh yeah in case no one answered this... No, range is no longer on the stat either. It now buffs interrupt chance (just like it did in the beginning) and it increases reflex saves. It seems a strange decision to me, since many people who playtested the earliest version were dumping perception. I'm not saying interrupt is bad, it just seems like a difficult mechanic to convey. I always thought modifying critical hit chance, piercing damage resistance, or increasing range were easier mechanics to understand since they also exist in other games.
  2. So what does perception modify now? Only range?
  3. While I appreciate your sentiments, your posts are rather tame compared to a lot of ones on this forum.
  4. I doubt this will happen as when skill points were made part of the talent system, some of us suggested having talents which only gave you skill points (like +3 mechanics). Instead Obsidian went back to the old skill point system. A lot of people who wanted the old skill point system back mentioned the noncombat/combat skill separation which was laid out during the Kickstarter campaign.
  5. I like this idea. Some of their defensive spells could be modal. You could choose one (or two) to have on at any time.
  6. Lets hope this is true and lets hope OE surprises us. Afterall InXile did implement new features and made big changes between last beta and release version. And kept improving the game months after release, and got quite good reviews despite not initially having a lot of late game bugs ironed out (though now they are.)
  7. I've got to say, this window into the development process has been interesting. It gives me a whole new understanding of how bugs and bug fixing works. Seeing you struggle with a massive number of new bugs after each build change gives me more appreciation for the few really well polished games that have been made. I guess the real fine tuning only begins when the final build has been settled on and the only changes that are being made are bug removal changes.
  8. As I recall in the original race update, Josh said elves and dwarves were included, because he thought a lot of fans of the original games would want to play an elf or a dwarf. This is also the reason, in my opinion, why they look like the dwarves and elves we all know, because it would defeat the point of their inclusion to make them radically different than they are in Dungeons and Dragons. Personally I would have rather had two more new races, but I understand the decision.
  9. Well you are a silver supporter, you are not the one we are talking about. I would love to hear from more people that supported the game at lowest levels about their motivations for that amount. I've payed full price for two games in the last 10 years. One was the 30 Euros I sent to Ubisoft, to show my gratitude that they were making Might and Magic X (and I bought early access, but not to play the beta, and I actually waited for two patches before staring it), and to Shadowrun Returns on release, since I missed the kickstarter. Otherwise I never pay full price for a game. Why should I pay full price for a game that is mostly likely released full of bugs, when I can play the same games fully patched a year later for half the price (or less)? I've got so many games to play or replay, that I'm not exactly sitting around waiting for a game to be released. So when I payed 29$ for the digital copy of POE, and then added on the digital strategy book, and first add on (which added up to 37 euros, so 45$?), it was much more money that I would normally give out for a game, and the only reason I payed so much, was because I really wanted the game to be made.
  10. Divinity: Original Sin profited from it extremely high ratings and word of mouth. I didn't kickstart the game, but I will pick it up eventually, because from everything I read, I think its a game I will like. Pillars will need both of these to blow Wasteland and Divinity out of the water, as the Obsidian name will only influence early sales.
  11. That makes February or Early March an optimal release date. Hint. Hint.
  12. I've been watching the backer beta forums for a long time, and as you have, I couldn't help but notice the very diverse opinions on the engagement system. I think these are partially determined by how one played the infinity engine games. I for one did not play on extremely high difficulty, and only kited in the most difficult battles. I have nothing against the engagement system in theory, but I think its more than a theoretical issue. I think without playing the beta, I really can't reliably vote in your poll, since I haven't played out the engagement theory in practice. I suspect like many things in games this is much more a matter of feeling than it is of understanding. For example I read a lot of negative reviews of Dragon Age 2, Might and Magic 9, and Risen 2. I accept all the faults that the reviewers brought up with these games, and completely can understand every negative review, but I enjoyed those games nevertheless (and I suspect I'm in the minority). So while I find it commendable that you try to explain in depth how engagement works, I'm not sure that you can really convey the feeling of the system to everyone. I think its fine to poll those people who've actually played the beta. For now I'll reserve my judgement.
  13. I'm sort of neutral on this issue. I'd have nothing against WYSIWYG, but if it hasn't made it into the game up until this point, I sort of doubt it will. And I'd personally much rather they spend time on more talents and spells, balancing the game, and removing bugs.
  14. Great CRPGs tend to be economically unsuccessful. Sad but true. If everything Obsidian cares about right now is profit, PoE is doomed. (Doomed as a good RPG I mean, not financially.) So you don't think its a goal of Obsidian to make a game that sells well? Or not to sell well enough to make a sequel? Do you think they'd be satisified having to lay people off, knowing it was a necessary sacrifice in order to make a great game?
  15. Wait, you've lost me here. How is their opinion valuable if they CBA even to voice it? For all we know they don't have any opinion at all. These people will make the game economically successful or not. They will probably decided if a Pillars of Eternity 2 gets made. Therefore their opinions are very relevant. The problem is, we don't know their opinions now, because they don't voice them. Someone who Beta tests POE can make an informed opinion, as they have seen what the game has to offer. Unfortunately, even among Beta Testers, there is no unified opinion on some issues.
  16. Having not Beta tested, I still don't understand how you can say, Sensuki, that the engagement system is flawed on a design level, especially since you yourself say you supported it before you saw how it was implemented. You have problems with being unable to disengage, pull back and heal characters. I would argue there are a lot of RPGs where this isn't an option (the entire Might and Magic and Wizardry series, for example, or early Disciples). But even if it is desirable to make this an option, then I don't see how the engagement system can't be changed to allow this to a certain degree. There are many games that have some sort of engagement system, and on a theoretical level it adds a lot more tactics. I also think giving classes some sort of ability to disengage (through talents, spells, (or what not) would add even more variety to the system. Throwing out the whole thing seems like a waste.
  17. While I appreciate the sentiments, I think Beta testing POE and maybe playing a couple of hours of an infinity engine game is pretty time consuming as it is. I'd rather the scope be smaller, but more complete.
  18. I emboldened that last sentence. It's absolute truth. The only reason why I typically argue for vancian casting is because it permits unique and powerful spells. It certainly can't be done any other way--or so I thought. I'm on the final sprint of finishing my proposed changes. They are expansive. As a shortlist, they detail: Adopting a spell point system. Introducing spell scaling. Overhauling grimiores by increasing their significance and reworking the memorization mechanic. Providing mechanisms for dealing with friendly-fire. Completely rebalanced and standardized damage, duration, and casting speed(s). Additional talents, misc., etc. A couple of weeks ago I planned on having it out by now, but it looks like that was too ambitious. Soon, hopefully. I've sent some preliminary stuff to some members. Right now I'm just waiting for a bit of feedback as to avoid being my own echo chamber when assembling the final work. Those are a lot of suggestions. I doubt they'll drop the Vancian system, so I'm guessing spell points are out, but everything else you suggest sounds very doable. I think rebalancing range, duration, damage, and casting speed wouldn't be all that difficult.
  19. In Icewind Dale 2 the really only must have skills were concentration for spellcaster, locks/traps for thieves, and performance for bards. Stealth was optional but useful. For me Icewind Dale 2 is an example of how poorly the D&D skill system could be translated into a computer game. Intimidation and Diplomacy I think were checked one or twice in the entire game, though they could make some onerous quests easier. Neverwinter Nights 2 did it much better, though most skills were optional. Still I think it would have been better in POE to have more skills. Mechanics could have been spilt into locks and traps. I know why they removed social skills, but they would have made a much richer skill system. The problem with so few skills is to make it equally viable to give each character the same skill as it is to specialize each character in one skill.
  20. Ok, I guess they won't be doing that then. Yes, I agree that passing two checks would encourage you to put the same skill on multiple characters. Its too bad though that the additive system doesn't work, it seemed like it would be the best at encouraging experimentation with assigning skills.
  21. Both the new and old skill systems in the backer Beta were/are quite controversial. People complained about the first system because it seemed pointless to not have each character focus on one skill, and the second system because it links talents and skills. I think the root of the problem is having only five skills. There are many ways one could solve this problem, but one solution that seems elegant is to have party and individual skill checks. Individual skill checks would be like what is already in place. The character with the highest skill makes a check for the group. A group skill check would add up the skill totals of all the party makers and make a check based on the sum of all ranks in a skill that a party possesses. Now consider if about 50% of all skill checks are individual and 50% party based. A group where each character specializes in one skill will pass all individual skill checks, but flub all party skill checks. A group specializing on two or three skills will make half of the group skill checks and half of the party skill checks. This would give skills value and encourage replays with different skill points allotments. One important thing though, this would have to be clearly written on the character sheet. Something like: Stealth: 8 (25) Mechanics 0 (21) Athletics: 8 (40) Lore: 0 ( 8 ) Survival: 0 (16)
  22. I agree with you. There are good modern AAA games. You just have to put up with really streamlined mechanics. Modern games try to appeal to bigger audiences and avoid allowing players to screw themselves by poor planning, as well as trying not to overwhelm them with different systems. Unfortunately for those of us who like complicated mechanics and options, this leaves a vacuum. However, if one looks carefully, one can find a lot of decent indie games, provided one is willing to put up with poor graphics and no voice acting.
  23. I've read that people playing other Unity games like Might and Magic X and Expedition:Conquistidors had terrible problems with a 32 bit system.
  24. IE games didn't have skills except thief skills and weapon proficiencies. Just saying. You are correct. However, I.E. games had weapon proficiencies, spell books, and multiclassing, and all these added a level of complexity to the game. I don't mind 5 skills, and am a firm believer in a skill system. I have no correct answer how to make that skill system work best, but I think the following should be the goals. *You should feel like you have choices in the skill system. There should be no build which is automatic or almost automatic for your party. *The game should reward an investment in certain skills and open up different paths for those who invest in different ways. *This should always be a tradeoff with positives and negatives. I should feel like I'm both being rewarded for the skills I took and punished for the ones I didn't take. How can this be achieved with only five skills? There are a variety of different ways. *Make some skill checks require multiple characters with the same skill or multiple skills. *Have a system where one has skill points, but not enough to cover all skills, and require additional investment (either through Items or talents) to result in mastery. *Have skill points replaced entirely by outside investment(either by items or talents). However, if one goes this route, please either give talents more often, or make a talent that gives pure skill bonuses. Skills, in my opinion, only enrich a role playing game.
  25. I agree with the thinking that if they only have a small amount of skills they should give a few skill points at the beginning and one every other level, so that each character can be competent, though not maxed out with one skill. I also support purely skill talents (like +3 mechanics) rather than a mix of skills and abilities. This would let one make a super skill character with only a few talents.
×
×
  • Create New...