Jump to content

mychal26

Members
  • Content Count

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mychal26

  1. Maybe a little late, but a relatively obscure cRPG that I've enjoyed is Expeditions: Viking. Didn't expect much from it, but it went a very different direction from the first game, and I found it to be somewhat of a sleeper hit. It's TB, you build up a viking village, pillage and raid the brits, and it has some survival/camping aspects. Definitely worth a look if you're a Fallout or Baldur's Gate fan.

  2. On 7/11/2019 at 8:11 AM, xzar_monty said:

    Wow. That's fascinating. I thought Tyranny was wholly uninteresting, and Deadfire is so obivously better than PoE that it's clear as day.

    Please be aware that my intention is simply to highlight the differences in taste.

    Could you tell me why you prefer Pathfinder over all the others?

    I very much don't like Deadfire as the main story is severely lacking - there is really no point to the main quest line. Comparatively, the story in PoE I was new and fresh, with interesting world building. The narrative isn't near as gripping in the second game, in fact I'd say it was boring. Gameplay wise I prefer the first as well as everything feels as if it's been toned down in the second game. It's almost as if all the balancing has led to a stale gameplay experience. The art direction, visual effects, etc are definitely improved in the second game though.

    I prefer PF over the other games I mentioned as it feels like a true spiritual successor to BG II. The lore is very interesting, and I very much like the main story. I liked how the story was deep and involved in PF, with a great amount of reactivity throughout the game based on your decisions, especially in the main quest line. Compare to PoE II where there is barely any main story, which can be finished in less than 10 hours - just not much meat on the bones and barely any reactivity. Furthermore, I hated the companion interactions in PoE II as you could max our their relationship in a few hours. In PF you slowly build your relationship with your companions over the entire game and it does not feel 2D like PoE II. Gameplay wise, PF plays like a classic cRPG, but with a new coat of paint; it's very similar to NWN 2 with all the build options which makes getting out of the character creator a challenge in itself. I also like the large number of spells, feats, etc as the gameplay never gets boring as there are so many options to try. That said, there are some aspects of PF that I don't like, such as single level dips and the OP sneak mechanic.

    That's not to say PF is my favorite cRPG though (that would be either BG II or DA Origins), but it is a really good. Honestly, PoE II just doesn't come close, especially with all of the updates to PF:KM.

  3. 10 hours ago, Ethics Gradient said:

    You should be able to do it via console, but the caveat is that switching is the sort of thing that hasn't been extensively tested, so you're on your own with any unpredictable results.

    https://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Console#SetTacticalMode

    The console command you're looking for is SetTacticalMode, and it does not require cheats to be enabled to swap between RTwP and Turn-Based.

    Wow, that worked! Thanks so much!!

    • Thanks 1
  4. Yeah, I almost always use max speed. The issue here is that the number of enemies weren't tailored for turn based, so even at max speed you have 10 or more enemies moving, many times from far away, and battles can last a very, very long time. Much longer than they should. For example, I had nearly 100% all of the content done (DLC included) with RTwP around 80 hours, but at 80 hours now with turn based and I'm probably only 50% done, maybe less, lol. It's just getting tedious and boring. Thanks for the inputs though, I'll probably just abandon the run.

    Note that I do like turn based games and can spend a lot of time on a playthrough without getting bored (eg spent 130 hours on a single D:OS 2 run). Maybe more tactical options (edit: positioning or environment) would help in keeping the combat fresh in turn based (or less enemies).

  5. In regards to the Pathfinder system, I think even a 7 is too low, at least unless you incorporate a system similar to Arcanum. A 7 int character is similar to a troll or hell hound and is "dull-witted or slow, often misuses and mispronounces words." Basically the equivalent of an int 4 or lower character in Arcanum. It isn't until 8+ that characters can effectively communicate. The same can be said of the other abilities - 8+ is required such that the character isn't severely hampered.

    In terms of PoE II, I do not think a 3 is equivalent to a 7 in Pathfinder as abilities affect +/- to stats in the same way. That is to say, the stat variations are linear in PoE II.  The increase in one's intelligence going from 10 int to 11 int is the same as the decrease in one's intelligence going from 10 int to 9 int. Thus, a 3 int would be the opposite to a 17 int - so if a 17 int character is a near genius, a 3 int character would have nearly no intelligence at all (an animal, or slightly better). However, this breaks down if we don't assume a 18 int is a genius; if 17 int is above average intelligence, then 3 int would be below average. Of course, then you would probably need negative int for creatures, animals, etc...

    As a side note, I really don't like how ability increases based upon race, location, etc really have no meaning in PoE II since everything can be balanced out. It makes the ability variations between the races feel superficial.

  6. I'm going to have to agree: turn based is very disappointing as is. Since it was in beta so long I assumed they were incorporating feedback, but I guess not. What's truly frustrating is the pushing of party members by moving other party members near them, and the same goes for enemies as well. How can you play tactically (which is what turn based should be about) when characters positions aren't fixed. It's so bizarre, and a big letdown.

    • Thanks 1
  7. I think it's more than just one platform vs another. The Epic store does some very fishy things such as data logging from other programs, accessing dll files, reading root certificates, in addition to perusing your browser keys. That's not even counting that it tracks your internet traffic. Why it would need to do any of these things is beyond me, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a friend of privacy and transparency. That's not to say Steam is king of privacy, but it's certainly the lesser of two evils at the moment. In this sense, it doesn't surprise me in the least that people are bombing reviews for a company that will soon have a game exclusively on the Epic store, as they'll either need to pirate or bite the bullet to play it.

     

    (All of this has got me thinking though...we get Google, etc, for free as we're basically the products they're making money off of. What if that's the Epic store angle? Instead of making a higher percentage from game sales, they make additional revenue from their user usage information?)

  8. Just thought I would mention this because I'm seeing it mentioned on Reddit and Twitter: probably need to cap the number of free actions a character gets each round.

    I don't know about this as in RtWP you could cast many spells directly in a row. For example, if a round is now 6 seconds, that's equivalent to casting 15 wizard spells that are currently marked as free actions. Not to mention a lot of instant class buffs you could stack really quickly in RtWP by simply pausing after each activation.

  9. Yes, I understand the suspicion and RNG algorithms are quite well known, so it's hard to screw them up. I guess I was more interested in if there was a specific modifier to the attack roll on either TB mode or PotD that I didn't know about or isn't stated in the combat text. Even so, I think recording the attack rolls is a good idea, just to check, but it will have to happen in a month or more as yesterday was the last day that I can play for a while.

  10. Never noticed this as an issue for RTwP, but it's a major nuisance for TB. Enemies will constantly displace other enemies when there is not enough room in order to attack. Many times I've had enemies push others enemies until a half circle forms around a character (with, for example, all the enemies attacking the very front of a character and then being displaced towards the sides) - it's very bizarre. It would be nice if the enemies in TB mode were effectively fixed in place when it's not their turn.

  11. I enjoyed it quite a bit, a lot more than POE 2, and somewhat more than POE 1. Main issue is that it ends way too early, seems the game is ramping up, but just ends. Took about 40 hours to 100%, but that was one route. Can't remember any major bugs. Really wish it would of done well, I liked how they approached the game, a lot of gameplay interactions with companions, much better reputations that give abilities, and choices that drive you down widely different paths. Hmm, hmm, kinda makes me want to stop my POE 2 playthrough to go through it again...

  12. is it just about not gaining levels, or is it that "experience gain" becomes meaningless?

     

    put another way - back in Fallout 3 the cashregister "kaching" sound of experience gain was so satisfying that when you hit level 20 (pretty easy to do in that game) and you no longer got that feedback, it was an extreme bummer. I could care less about hitting a level 21 (though DLC did raise the cap), I just wanted the feedback. Similarly, in Deadfire, I don't mind hitting level cap relatively early since I like hitting peak power with plenty of content left, but it would be nice if I still had a ticking experience meter, even if I never hit a level 21.

     

    Just wondering if this is a similar sentiment.

    I do agree with this sentiment. In D:OS 2, doing primarily the main quest content you could get around level 20, but doing everything you'll hit 21, maybe 22, and I never had an issue with the level progression. It's about constantly progressing, whether or not you hit the next level. They could of just made the level 20 exp extremely high, so maybe you'll get an extra level if you do everything, but doesn't really matter in terms of power levels, etc. It just feels like an MMO when you hit the cap really early - you're character never really grows since an arbitrary ceiling has been hit and the power of your character is not determined from intrinsic strength, but extrinsic gear. Always hated that about MMOs - your character isn't that powerful, your gear is.
  13. I'm not sure how anyone could think this is anything but terrible game design. Can anyone think of a single RPG where you can reach max level when you've only played through 50% of the content? I really like the Pathfinder route where the base game will get you to around level 17 doing everything and each subsequent DLC/expansion allows you to get closer to 20. It really adds to a sense of progression, instead of stagnation as seen here.

  14.  

    Increasing the level cap is literally free, there are mods that do it. New abilities would cost, due to having new animations and visual effects, and of course they'd need to further address enemy difficulty, but the alternative is ending up with a full game and three DLCs where players hit the level cap halfway through.

    Of course, the benefit of having more abilities is that enemies can use them too...

    Right. My bad for assuming that the people clamoring for an increased level cap wanted more than to see the little number go up.

    Yes, the cost of developing new abilities, creating animations for them, several QA passes for balance, a narrative pass or two for higher level skill checks, etc is what I was referring to.

    And? The level cap was increased for both expansions in the first game, I don't think it's a stretch for people to expect it here as well, especially with the poor level pacing.
    • Like 1
  15. I find when I hit max level that I start to rapidly lose interest in a game; I almost prefer it where it's impossible to hit max level no matter how much content is completed (better yet is a soft cap). Unless the story is absolutely amazing, I'll drop the game like a bad habit. Which is why I'll use an exp modifier if necessary, although I don't think I should have to alter a fundamental experience of the game.

  16. One of the main issues with the first game was character progression for completionist - you could easily hit the max level with dozens of hours of content left (thus, leaving you with no character growth for a large portion of the game). You could get around this by modifying the code or using a mod, but we really shouldn't have to. Unfortunately, the same issue was yet again present in the sequel (why this wasn't addressed is beyond me). One solution to this problem is an increase in the level cap. Is there any information indicating whether it will be increased? If not, completionist will probably hit the max level at 50% game completion, which is really poor game design (I've never seen such a thing before, hopefully this isn't the first...).

    • Like 1
  17. One thing to keep in mind about those numbers from Ars is that it doesn't include people who have purchased, but haven't played. The article below from 2014 indicates 37% of Steam games purchased are never played. Correlation between gog and Steam sales is more difficult, but there are a few publishers who've released information demonstrating that gog sales are roughly 15% of Steam sales (an example at the link below). Therefore, the numbers from Ars could be quite a bit off - for example, assuming no other sales source, the actual number of copies sold could be around 360k instead of 200k. So I would be careful directly interpreting these results.

     

    https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2456730,00.asp

     

    https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/186940/defenders_quest_by_the_numbers_.php

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...