Helm
-
Posts
708 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Helm
-
-
I guess the core activity of the game is just questing, that is why you don't get XP for anything else <shrug>
Maybe they should rename the game to Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests
-
3
-
-
We are perfectly aware of the TES leveling system, Helm. It has its own issues, and there is no way in which it would be implemented in PoE, so there is no point in discussing it. Your arguments actually have to depend on the current XP system.
You must have missed it when I wrote that the game can have an XP pool for lockpicking skills. You pick a lock, you get lockpick XP.
Good. Now we need an XP pool for combat skills too. You kill a beetle, you get combat XP, because you become a more potent combatant.
-
1
-
-
No bad builds is such a ****ing stupid idea it's giving me a headache.
There isn't a good build or a bad build in this game, there simply is no build.
-
4
-
-
Regarding quest only xp, one thing that I'm not totally comfortable with is the fact that one of the key outcomes of xp/leveling up, is you become a more potent combatant. How does one become a more potent combatant if they never engage in combat?
How does one become better at lockpicking by stabbing beetles? It doesn't make sense anyway, so the argument isn't really valid.
I agree. It doesn't any sense at all that you can improve your lockpick skill by stabbing beetles. Obsidian should reward the player with lockpick XP for picking locks so that he can improve his lockpicking skill. Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous quest only XP is, Tartanyco. Your support of our cause is greatly appreciated.
So, where were we? Ahh, yes, how does one become a more potent combatant if they never engage in combat?
In that case, the XP from lockpicking would have to go directly towards improving your lockpicking. However, XP is a pool. Invalid argument.
You can have separate XP pools for lockpicking and combat. Skyrim does something similiar actually.
So, who says that you can't have an XP pool solely for lockpicking skills and a separate XP pool for combat skills?
Back to our very valid argument: How does one become a more potent combatant if they never engage in combat?
-
2
-
-
Regarding quest only xp, one thing that I'm not totally comfortable with is the fact that one of the key outcomes of xp/leveling up, is you become a more potent combatant. How does one become a more potent combatant if they never engage in combat?
How does one become better at lockpicking by stabbing beetles? It doesn't make sense anyway, so the argument isn't really valid.
I agree. It doesn't any sense at all that you can improve your lockpick skill by stabbing beetles. Obsidian should reward the player with lockpick XP for picking locks so that he can improve his lockpicking skill. Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous quest only XP is, Tartanyco. Your support of our cause is greatly appreciated.
So, where were we? Ahh, yes, how does one become a more potent combatant if they never engage in combat?
-
3
-
-
Fallout 3 was shiit, and New Vegas was an exquisite sculpture using turd as it's raw material.
It's only so much you can do with a TES style game
Yep.
Fallout: New Vegas is a gem with a turd at its core.
Fallout 3 is just a turd.
-
2
-
-
I'll up you one. I dislike Fallout 3.
You like Fallout 3?
Well, that explains quite a bit actually.
-
"This stat isn't strength, it's POWER"
"That stat isn't intelligence, it's POWER"
"That stat isn't dexterity, it's POWER"
Just make one attribute called POWER and give it an awesome button that the player can click on to make their "build" more POWERful. Wouldn't be much different from what we already have anyway.-
4
-
-
Yeah, I noticed. The RPG codex was especially harsh.
Does it even matter?
<_< How about you cite your sources on that?Even if every backer voted for "something other than quest only XP" it still wouldn't change anything, because Sawyer thinks this system is perfect.
Both on Sawyer thinking its perfect and that being cause of why it will never be changed?...There will never be an official vote and Sawyer will never change the xp system either. I hope you enjoyed my hyperbole though.
I would be very surprised if he will. There is a reason, after all, why some people are now calling PoE Josh's Dream RPG. There are too many things 'out of place' (for a lack of better term) in this game to be called 'a spiritual successor to the IE games'.
I will reaffirm this concept again: the lack of combat XP alone doesn't make or break this game... but it's just the tip of the iceberg.
It seems to be true though.
-
Thanks, I get it now! I was really confused before, I guess I shouldn't have doubted Sawyer after all.
Here is my kick-ass low-intelligence and low-strength grandmaster wizard with his familiar, kittyona wizcat!
The dumbass has problems holding his wand correctly, but he can still cast some bad ass fireballs I tell you.
He can dodge magic missles real well because of his high perception and dexterity. He is very determined because of his high resolve, which always gets him into to trouble because he is so fukking stupid.
-
2
-
-
Even if every backer voted for "something other than quest only XP" it still wouldn't change anything, because Sawyer thinks this system is perfect.
<_< How about you cite your sources on that?
Both on Sawyer thinking its perfect and that being cause of why it will never be changed?...Does it even matter?
There will never be an official vote and Sawyer will never change the xp system either. I hope you enjoyed my hyperbole though.
-
1
-
-
With over 200 votes in the poll now, the standings are like this:
-44% wishes to see combat xp or very fine-grained xp (per encounter, per successful action)
-29% wants quest xp or at least wide-berth objective xp
-27% are sticking to some middle-ground, with exploration xp and objective xp per dungeon and such.
You could also read that as ~89% of participants aren't happy with only quest xp.
Problem is that this poll isn't representative. Mind, this doesn't just mean number of participants, but also criteria for how they are selected(which for this poll, isn't happening at all).
Even if every backer voted for "something other than quest only XP" it still wouldn't change anything, because Sawyer thinks this system is perfect.
-
1
-
-
See that word that starts with "B" in this board's title? The one that isn't "Backer". That means something.
Are you implying that I am not a backer because I don't have a badge? Just because I haven't linked my backer account to my forum account doesn't mean I am not a backer. I have also played
Pillars of EternityBaby's first RPG. -
I am indeed very critical, because what we were promised was flushed straight down the ****ter by a game designer who hates Baldur's Gate, has really no idea what he is doing and obviously dislikes good game design (which Sawyer would proclaim is something only for grognards). Even Dragon Age: Inquisition will have more complex gameplay mechanics than Pillars of Eternity... those "damn Bioware grognards".
What you were expecting was something like AD&D because thats the system what baldurs gate used. The system in PoE is way more complex than AD&D which is basicaly as simple as it can get.
Sawyer is/was gloating about how he is the messiah of RPG mechanics. I was expecting something better than AD&D actually, not necessarily even similar, just better. Or at least just as good.
All I am seeing now though is a system that has less depth than the system in Dragon Age: Inquisition.
-
1
-
-
Over at the RPG Codex, MicoSelva wrote about how gameplay went down with a character with minimum values in all attributes:
It went pretty well. Low statline does not impair your character very much. As I wrote in my crude analysis of main attributes (not sure if they can actually be called 'main' at this point), they mostly impact Defense against abilities and spells.
Offense-wise, the heaviest loss was Sucky's mind control (Puppet Master) only working for 34.5 seconds, when it would work for 46.5 seconds with INT maxed out. 35 seconds was enough to win the encounters I engaged in (that ability is a no-brainer first-strike spell for every combat - BALANCE), but I can see these 12 seconds matter in harder fights and/or higher difficulty.
Might's impact was rather minor. Weapon type and enemy armor is much more important and additional Might is useful to overcome DT, especially for lower-damage weapons. Sucky still dealt reasonable damage, especially with his abilities (which ignore DT altogether AFAIK).
BTW: axes currenty suck ass compared to other weapons. 10% additional damage on criticals (which happen 10% of the time on average) - big ****ing whoop. Other weapon classes get stuff flexible damage type (swords), which allows them to hit through lower DT, staright-up ignoring DT, etc. All of these are more powerful than 1% more damage on average.
Constitution's impact is negligible. You get around 2 levels of advantage in H/S at level 10, but having 240 H/S instead of 200 does not mean much. Could still be important in tougher fights/higher difficulty. I certainly did not feel like Sucky's 119 HP was not enough and that he would do much better with more.
Dexterity does not matter much, because missing rarely happens. Spellcasters can straight-up ignore it, because spells get an inherent +10 accuracy bonus, so it is as if you had 10 more DEX. For Sucky, fighting was mostly a means to get Focus, so it did not matter that 10% of his hits were turned into grazes and only dealt 50% damage.
I have not found any use for Perception. Maybe if combat gets more polished, less chaotic and you actually tell what is going on, you will be able to focus on interrupting enemies using powerful abilities. At the current state - nope.
Resolve can actually be useful for a melee fighter who also uses abilities, because you will get interrupted a lot. Someone mentioned a Rogue's escape ability being interrupted which resulted in a dead knocked out rogue. But this is speaking theoretically. Again, it was really hard to tell what exactly was going in combat. Sucky might have been interrupted a few times when using abilities, because they did not fire up. (Or it could have been a bug with game not accepting input correctly.)
---
As for Defense impact, I have not noticed Sucky suffering any more than his colleagues, even though his Defense stats were around 25 points lower than theirs. He got hit with webs and such as often as everyone, but did he get slowed down more than others or something like that - I could not tell.
I have to note that he defended against physical attacks just as well as everyone, because main attributes have no bearing on Deflection.
Pillars of Eternity = Baby's first RPG. Even Dragon Age has more depth.
This is just so sad, they might as well deprecate these placebo attributes.
-
3
-
-
"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."
"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. We will remove the ****ty core mechanics that everyone hates and replace it with something better."
Nobody would have backed the game then, but then they could have made what they wanted and nobody would have cared.
Plenty of people would have still backed the game, and seriously it was obvious they were never going to do an exact replica of the BG games and systems. After all they don't have a D&D licensee and as such it would probably be risky to imitate the the BG games to closely. Thus they needed to create there own system which they have and it works the story style, the game play, the graphics and the feel of the game are similar to BG but the exact mechanics vary in what appears to be an improved way.
If you are a D&D/AD&D fanatic who was expecting a reimplementation of those rule sets with a new story you should know the D&D/Wotc well enough to know that a licensee is needed for an exact copy of those rules and that Obsidian does not have that licensee. Note it's only in the last couple of months they have finally gotten a Pathfinder licensee...
I am talking about the core mechanics, not about AD&D. We knew from day one that this game would not use AD&D.
-
Thanks for this.
It shows that the system is a bunch of overly complex horse****. Who thought it would be a good idea to combine crits, hits, missing and grazing into one stat? they might as well have just made it a simple damage modifer like might.
That stats have two simple damage modifiers and everybody can use every weapon. Great.
Deprecate it.
To be honest, I don't mind this system at all. You could make a similar plot for any similar system in an RPG - THAC0, for example. The only major difference is that this system includes a 4th category - "graze" - in addition to the traditional "hit/miss/crit". There's really nothing particularly odd about this system lol - and it's not super complex.
As for making Accuracy a simple damage modifier, that wouldn't really be the same thing (and wouldn't be nearly as interesting). It is still an individual roll for every attack, which means that on the small scale (i.e. individual battles) you'll still see things like lucky crits, unlucky misses, all the things we love (and sometimes hate) about any general RPG "roll-to-hit" system. What my plot does is weigh the different possible outcomes by probability to obtain an equivalent simple damage modifier that will hold when you average a lot of attacks together. So you see - making it a simple damage modifier (a suggestion that could be applied to literally any game that includes a "roll-to-hit" system btw) wouldn't really be the same thing. Rolling to hit and miss adds more of a simulation aspect, as well as some RNG. I like having the flavor of simple damage modifiers and modifiers "to-hit" as well.
You had similar complaints in a few of the other threads as well, if I recall correctly. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're (generally) so negative on these forums because you really really want the game to be good (as opposed to just trolling). If that's true, then we share a common interest - to make the game as good as can be. In the interest of helping the game be better and in fostering productive discussion that can actually potentially change the game for the better - please don't let this thread descend into another negative spiral of arguing and complaining. I've presented the math here and you don't like how they've done it. Fair enough. Do you have any suggestions for how they could improve it?
I don't agree.
It doesn't make sense to have two attributes that do nothing else than multiply the damage output of all weapons for all classes for all builds for all everything.
There is no such thing as a high crit or high accuracy build for specific classes who have specialized in specifc weapons, or anything of the sort, in this game. You just pump up might and/or dexterity and watch the DPS of all weapons rise. I'm not impressed. And I am just scratching the surface of what is wrong with this system and its placebo attributes.What I meant when I wrote that it is overly complex: The system is indeed not super complex at all, it is one of the simplest systems I have ever seen, just more complex than it needs to be. For example, it doesn't make sense that there is a graze category. You either hit and cause high damage/low damage or you miss.
I am indeed very critical, because what we were promised was flushed straight down the ****ter by a game designer who hates Baldur's Gate, has really no idea what he is doing and obviously dislikes good game design (which Sawyer would proclaim is something only for grognards). Even Dragon Age: Inquisition will have more complex gameplay mechanics than Pillars of Eternity... those "damn Bioware grognards".
-
2
-
-
No, I meant with something that isn't complete crap.D&D has nothing to do with the core mechanics. The IE game used AD&D, but you could replace it with something else and still have a very familiar game.
Like the PoE system, you mean?
-
1
-
-
"Hurr durr, I'm Helm and I don't know how licenses work."God, you're dumb.D&D has nothing to do with the core mechanics. The IE game used AD&D, but you could replace it with something else and still have a very familiar game.
They should have been honest and added that they think that the core mechanics of the IE games suck:
"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."
"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. We will remove the ****ty core mechanics that everyone hates and replace it with something better."
Nobody would have backed the game then, but then they could have made what they wanted and nobody would have cared.
Now now, not all of us are people that live in the past. I pretty much got what I wanted from Obsidian (bar bugs and unfinished stuff), and I applaud them to the change they made on those outdated/turn-based rules. The feels are right where they should be (BG style of setting) but its definitely new and fresh on many aspects.
Something different is fine, no rounds and stuff is great, but they promised us something better and gave us horse**** instead.
-
1
-
-
Thanks for this.
It shows that the system is a bunch of overly complex horse****. Who thought it would be a good idea to combine crits, hits, missing and grazing into one stat? they might as well have just made it a simple damage modifer like might.
That stats have two simple damage modifiers and everybody can use every weapon. Great.
Deprecate it.
-
1
-
-
Just a quick reminder to anyone who feels betrayed by Obsidian, accuses them of false advertising and says that they basically promised Baldur's Gate 3 and now they do all these changes and *gasp* have ideas of their own.
This was the pitch:
"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."
"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment."
That's it. That's all they wrote about the influence of IE games on the game design. There was no mention of the attribute system they were going to use or anything like that.
So they repeat every 3 word titles of game based on D&D and how they will make a new game that take everything that was good with those titles made with D&D and incredible people are pissed when said game doesn't share basicaly nothing with those games made with D&D , ****ING A INCREDIBLE.
I was making a post if someone could ask to that **** of Sawyer why they put baldur's gate,icewind dale and torment on the ks page if they thought the core mechanic that moved those game sucked but we all know the answer, they wanted money they got it.
They should have been honest and added that they think that the core mechanics of the IE games suck:
"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."
"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. We will remove the ****ty core mechanics that everyone hates and replace it with something better."
Nobody would have backed the game then, but then they could have made what they wanted and nobody would have cared.
-
4
-
-
In Project Eternity Update #12: Reddit Q&A with Tim Cain, Tim mentioned that there would be an option that would auto-pause when a character had a new ability or action they can do, basically when the characters next 'turn' starts. Currently we have a lot of pause options but there isn't really one equivalent to this one, which I think would be the most useful one there is. I am just throwing it out there because I don't want it to be missed as I find it extremely important.
For reference at about 5:25 seconds : http://youtu.be/1Uyzap5FcgI?t=5m25s
Hmmm, Arcanum.......
-
The maps are also freaking small. I hope there are larger ones in the game.
-
What I would really like is this:
It's hard to implement UI changes like that without it being on for everybody all the time, so anything that only half the people will use won't be put there
I mean, for the last 3 years I primarily built UI as my job. So unless their UI system is really terrible I can confidently say that this would be very easy to do.
Also, like I say there's something similar currently in the over-head HUD, just less explicit (it doesn't show the exact spell, I think). I just think it's largely useless there and would be more useful near the character portraits so you can see at a glance what exactly people are doing.
They should remove this overcomplicated HP mechanic to simplify the UI.
If you get knocked out in battle, then you are injured. Get injured too much, then you die. Resting heals injuries. Same thing as what we already have, just much less complicated.
Both on Sawyer thinking its perfect and that being cause of why it will never be changed?...
Backer beta: Developer Impressions
in Backer Beta Discussion
Posted
So you're saying that improving your lockpick skill by talking to an ogre is ok, but improving your lockpick skill by stabbing a beetle isn't?
Why? Is the former less abstract than the latter or something?