[The 'Changes for Balance' Thread]

Internet crashed, so i will admit i have not read the few last pages. But this post is probably my last one in this thread anyway, so forgive my laziness... >>> copy/paste.

 

   

 

POTD players are a minority. That's a fact. You'd have to know literally nothing about gaming if you assume that most players play on highest difficulty level. And the changes done by Obsidian are not POTD-only, they affect everyone, even if the degree is considerably smaller.



    Also would you mind not trying to read my mind? You're not very good at it. I never said anything bad about Josh Sawyer. If you read the whole thread, you'll see it was actually quite the opposite. I also don't blame the posters for anything. I mean, this is the internet. People will post tons of crap and there's nothing you can do about it. Just see how many people in this topic posted insluting one-liners and moved on.

First i fail to see how classes overhauls is exclusively done because of PotD difficulty. It would be assuming that no one should care about balancing unless they play in PotD (Btw, i never played PotD). I failed to see this obvious thing, and that's why i told what i told. I simply assumed, myself, that game balance and difficuty modes where 2 different things, that, even if they should be considered together won't mean that balance is relevant only on the highest difficulty mode. It should be important, even in Classic. For basically the same reasons.

Second. My point was not about how you think of Sawyer, obviously. It was about how the way you spoke of posters here seemed to imply some nonsensical things to me, which i tried to illustrate in my post with the Sawyer thing. The way you think of Sawyer is irrelevant to my argument. And i already knew that you probably had a better opinion of him than myself. Problem is, it looks like you are confused: things i say don't necesarily reflect my own opinions about matters, as i said before. I may defend something i dislike, only because some people who dislike it too throw unfair things based on rumor-type assumptions. And once more, i strongly dislike it. Because doing this kind of thing is the opposite of educating people. And it's a poison of society. I want to be educated myself, i value knowledge, sense of criticism, and open minded people who are able to think their own way, and help me consider worlds i could never even think of by myself, because of who i am, a human being, defined by its own limits. And i need people to bring fair points to do so. Though, it is my own way to think and live.

If you are to criticize something, go ahead. Criticism is progress. It helps people and things grow. But only if you do your best to be fair while doing it, whatever combative you may get. I don't see being combative or passionate as a bad thing, unless you use groundless affirmations in order to discard thoroughly part of the point that may prove to hinder your own argument. The very title of your topic, and your first sentence, made me feel immediately that OP would never educate me. Because these 2 things were groundless.

I am not sure whether the problem is my bad english (i'm french after all, and self taught. I try hard every day to improve it by myself since years, along with Japanese. Participating to these english forums is actually one of my means to do so) or if you just see one word in a whole sentence and use it to get back to others without even trying to consider what they wrote. In any case, it looks like it will not be possible to discuss together, altough i tried to adress things in hope it would end up being possible. Whether it's because of your limits or my own limits is not important anymore.

So, have a nice day.

[The 'Changes for Balance' Thread]

It's funny because this is exactly what you're doing in your own post, while all I want is to not have to play a completely overhauled game every couple of months. I'm fine with how you want to play, but why would I be okay if it affects my game too?

 

That is not what you said.

 

First, you assumed since the start, that only a minority of players saw any interest in overhauls of the game. I never made polls on the topic myself, but you used this preconception deliberately to give weigh to your opinion, without anything to back your claim. You basically said "why care about overhauls when only a few people want them", while not having a clue if what you said bear any truth. I call that dismissing other people opinions without even trying to consider them. Which is something i dislke. And since i am who i am, i tend to say it when it's the case. People can evolve, but never change, you know. This is something i believe in, at least.

 

Second. You assumed that the reason for these overhauls where some posters here, once again to give weigh to your point of view. I would have been ok if you had made a humanly mistake, but assuming this kind of thing like this has nothing to do with a simple mistake, unless you are narrow minded, as i said. You just assumed that Josh Sawyer was some kind of braindead machine which obeys posters orders, or something like that. Because, once again, it was usefull to illustrate your idea that "It's because of the posters here that i can't play the game the way i want". Which is, once more, just a usefull preconception you are using. If you have a problem with the patches, just say so, don't throw accusations towards posters here who, according to you, bear the fault for it, when they just posted opinions. Even more so considering that most of these persons troubleshooted both games during beta testing for everyone's sake. I think it is disrespectul towards their involvement. And i dislike it, too.

 

Finally, you gave you  opinion about the patches (which is fine by me), but failed to consider the whole picture, and others posters have already adressed this point. I won't rince and repeat.

 

As a side note, i don't personally care this much about perfect balance either. Unless it totally breaks the game like in the examples i used (arcanum and Fallout 2). Which basically means that if you had brought your point in the way others like Katarack did, i would have posted a reply to say that i , at least, partly agree, and that your point may have some truth to it, depending on the person and what they need to enjoy the game properly.

[The 'Changes for Balance' Thread]

So for some reason people around here feel that a purely single player game with NO competitive part requires constant rebalancing. My question is: WHY?

 

Unless members of this forums make a majority of the playerbase (which is obviously not likely), the only thing you're doing by these changes is make other players annoyed. There is absolutely nothing fun in having to restart the game because a dumb patch just nerfed your fun character to the point of being uplayable. Also, when a player returns after DLC and wants to continue his old save, then realizes that there was a patch along the way that made his character garbage, what makes you think he will restart and not abandon the game completely? How could you possibly think that effing up someone's playthrough is a good idea to keep them playing?

 

Do you really not see how pointless it is to do a Blizzard-style overhauls to a single player game? Having an "overpowered" character does not affect anyone's game, only YOURS, and you're free to play anything else if you're bored. If the player wants to rebalance the game himself with mods: sure, why not? Let them. Baldur's Gate did. And it was fine, because only people who wanted these changes got them, they weren't forced down their throat because a random Joe on official forum cries that the game is too easy for him.

 

So I ask again: what is there to gain by this? Flexing about achievements perhaps? Hey, did you know that mods do not disable achievements and you can mod yourself to be a god anyway?

 

In short.. fixing obvious bugs is great. Having mod support, so that players can modify the game to their own needs, is also great. But doing these horrible rebalance changes to a game with zero competitive play is just a **** move.

 

It may be weird for me to say what i will say, knowing that the real important thing for me in games like Pillars is Roleplay opportunities. The capability the game gives you to Roleplay. While the writing is great and inspiring in this regard, i believe mechanics are mostly hindering it in the Pillars franchise.

 

BUT... If i try even a bit to be in the shoes of other players, i just can't agree with anything you wrote here, dear OP. Even i tend to try many different things in many different playthroughs in RPGs i like. I would even say that once i've roleplayed 3 playthrouhgs with 3 different characters, playing the same scenario over and over again may become tiresome. What hooked me to BG even past this point (something Torment, best RPG ever, lacked) was creating Roleplayable, but conceptual characters, too. This basically means that, even without min-maxing, i started to experiment concept builds and to try to make the best of the builds i created. I looked for fun, powerful ones.

 

But you know... once the point where i not roleplay my playthroughs as much in a given RPG anymore is reached, lack of balance can ruin everything. 2 such games i love have majors faults in this regard, and i can tell you, it's no good for the future life of the game, modding or not. Because even i ended up being bored, while not finding any mod that could drastically nerf the game, or even get rid of quite a lot of perks/items.

 

These 2 games were: Arcanum (technologist dwarf brawler) and Fallout 2. The problem were the same in both: my dwarf and my fallout character ended up making anything and everything trivial. The whole character building did not make any sense anymore, since i could sweep everything, even naked. Even while trying to lose in combat, i couldn't even achieve that past some game time.

 

For many people, games like Pillars or Wasteland give opportunities for replayability, because of their very essence (being a RPGs with choices). But without a strong work on balance, the whole thing can become pointless. Why even thinking to discard the problem while arguing that modders can do the job, when the very mechanic designer himself is willing to do it for us? I can't grasp your point. If you like the feeling of being overpowered, it's even easier to cheat with the console than mod the game.

 

In the end, even if i will daresay that i would rather a good roleplayable game with roleplay friendly mechanics (which Pillars lacks), i definitely understand that the players that love the game and want to experiment with it in a different way than me, desperately want thorough balance. Especially if Pillars want to live a long life.

 

I agree with Lord Mord. I tend to dislike people who can't consider anything but their own viewpoint. People who think that the whole world can only work in one way, the very one they see for themselves. These people tend to have a lot of opinions, and give you tons of advices on how to live your life that can only apply to themselves, but completely fail to understand this. When you fail to understand that the way you feel and experiment life and things (even in this case, games) can only be true for you, you become narrow minded and engage on the road of pointless proselytism, forgetting that you should just defend your point of view, try to weigh on things, while never discarding right off the blue the one of others, just because you can't see anywhere further that your own nose.

 

Regards.

 

Post scriptum: No, i'm not an Obsidian fan, in case you wonder about it. I have plenty of problems with the way they do things, while recognizing great potential at the same time. So, i definitely won't defend Obs just for the sake of it.

[New free DLC]

Lets please address the topics and not the posters.

 

Sorry, i really think there is a poster here who needs to be adressed. I really look up to TheisEjsing for being able to stay pretty calm after this insane flame he took.

 

I will certainly keep an eye on future patches to see how gameplay evolves after some time. More character customization is always welcome, thanks for it.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

Wasteland 2 has actually a cosmetic feature which is really cool regarding this. The game has the good old encumbrance system depending on strenght (which i like) and you can find cosmectic backpacks of different sorts and sizes in game (or create the character directly with one. I even use a trainer to add some of these to the companions you find). These backpacks (which don't improve the encumbrance, they are only cosmetic) range from the huge, luggage like bag, to something that is little more than a pouch.

 

I tend to equip my bulkiest guys with the biggest backpacks, and give them the most cumbersome items (like assaut rifles), because the size of the bag fit the size of the weapons. And i will give little items, like healing stuff to those with little bags. I happen to have lots of fun managing inventories like that (especially since inventory slots are infinite and you don't need to play tetris like in BG). This adds some meaning to the strenght attribute, other than just numbers in fight, like Pillars tend to do.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

 

Concerning inventory. The IE games took the easy approach regarding that. They added magical bags where you could store many weapons. It's actually a magical item, with an item description, and they can be purchased at stores of found in the game world. They are implemented in the world. I don't care if the explanation for almost infinite carrying capacity is cheap. I can deal with it as long as there is one (which is NOT the case with the Infinite Stash in Pillars).

 

 

So how do you explain carrying a dozen weapons and armor sets long before getting a magical bag?

 

 

 

Probably, the good answer would be: you can't ^^. A forgiving game designer would put one for loot in one of the first areas of the game, though.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

 

If that's your approach to video games, I'm not sure you're going to find many you enjoy. In summary, I have great respect for the effort you put into the characters you make, but I feel like you're really setting yourself up for disappointment when you go that all-in for modern CRPGs.

 

 

Yeah. This one is a good post, thanks. I agree with more or less everything, including the "stubborness'' part ^^. It's just... I loved my character and can't really imagine playing Pillars with another until i've completely exhausted every possibility there is for it in the game. Creating another, with my mind stuck in mode ''hola, avoid casters with low strenght'' (which actually dismisses quite a lot of backgrounds) while considering the one i lost, would probably make me think: ''crap. The other one was so much cooler. Why am i playing this thing now, when i can't even believe the thing i wrote for it?"

 

As for the CRPGs. There is still Wasteland. Truthfully, the Roleplay possibilities are not on the same level as the ones in Pillars (once again this soul/madness (Maerwald) thing had potential), but, at least, i could write a background for every one of my rangers in every playthrough (in the biography tab) and reflect properly who they were on their character sheets. More or less. I can decide that handling heavy weapons require some bulky guys and do it accordingly. And so, i can play it without any kind of frustration. I really wait for Wasteland 3 a lot.

 

Concerning inventory. The IE games took the easy approach regarding that. They added magical bags where you could store many weapons. It's actually a magical item, with an item description, and they can be purchased at stores or found in the game world. They are implemented in the world. I don't care if the explanation for almost infinite carrying capacity is cheap. I can deal with it as long as there is one (which is NOT the case with the Infinite Stash in Pillars).

 

Actually, there is something i tend to think since Icewind Dale 2 (which i could never play past Act 1). And that is my problem is not with Pillars specifically, which had so much potential in so many ways. My problem has always been with the way Sawyer approaches game design for RPGs. Though, i think New vegas is his work too? This game improved a lot of things from Fallout 3. The hardcore mode is actually an absolute ''yes'' for me.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

Well, my opinion is that the per rest spells were really done better in BG than in Pillars 1. I guess the first reason for this is the grimoire thing. You could learn and have all your spells in one book in BG and memorize more of them. Your had the arcane rings to help, too (the ones in Pillars only allow more uses/rest, they don't allow to memorize more than just 4 different spells/level). You could prepare specific spells for specific cases, like healing paralyzed allies and still had room for your fireballs and magic missiles. You could share the utility spells between wizards and priests, and bards, and druids, and paladins, and others classes, too. And now, you had multiclassing. Allowing one of your warrior you be priest, too, which allowed him to store some useful low to mid level spells that could come in handy. In Pillars, i always ended up with 1 priest and 1 wizard, and that's it. I actually felt way more limited in Pillars. I never felt contrived in BG like i did in Pillars.

 

My problem with wizards in Pillars in actually not the per rest/per encounter thing. It's that you have no flexibility when it comes to managing your arcane spells prepared at the whole group scale. Unless you took 3 wizards in the group. Which i never needed to do in BG.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

Man, I cannot empathize with any of the anti-QoL complaints in this thread. It's unfathomable to me that people would PREFER annoyances that have no direct impact on gameplay, mostly the bit about unlimited stash. I suppose that's probably because I care about that buzzword "immersion" (Cue the Rainbows!) only so far as it applies to what is happening on-screen in normal gameplay, not in menus or travel or whatever else. Quick tip: I have played an ungodly number of CRPGs over the years, and a whopping NONE of them have had realistic inventory systems. It is not humanly possible to carry multiple full suits of metal armor, helmets, weapons, or 50 lbs of any crafting reagent ever invented while fighting in melee or shooting a bow. But that happens in every CRPG.

 

Why complain about something that can't be truly be realistic unless you remove the ability to carry anything other than what you're wearing or can fit into a small pouch? Just for annoyances sake? I'll pass.

 

I'll say this post sounds kind of combative, but to me this is advocating for regression in game design to things I hated & felt had no real purpose. Gets me fired up.

 

 

Regarding the stash, i will (once more) repeat myself. But my problem in not with having it. It's having it thrown in the game without any care of any kind for an explanation. As it is, it appears to be just a blatant game mechanic, which no one even tried to hide a bit behind lore or propre in-game implementation. Crafting was done the same way. Though it had many other problems, too.

 

As for the debate around Might... I see, once again, that so many people try their best to ignore everything that was written and explained here, in order to be allowed to go back to what their fantaisies about the problem are, inducing that they can once more spit the same nonsense over and over, while freely ignoring everything other people said. This is a bad habit of these forums. I may become a bit combative here, but, frankly, this habit i see is unblelievably tiresome to me.

 

I never spoke about a wizard by the way... In my case, it was a simulated multiclassed priestess/warrior (7 strenght, 17 spiritual power, ideally). And why people argue AGAIN that it's possible to have an efficient spell caster while dumping Might and investing in Perception? When i specifically, and at lenght, explained that the problem was NOT about being able to KILL THINGS FASTER AND BETTER LIKE IN DIABLO, but it was from a Roleplay perspective, in order to Roleplay a certain Background i wrote? That efficiency of the build was not a major concern (since i played Pillars 1 in Hard and not PotD)? But translating in the character sheet who the character was? I won't rince and repeat everything i said just yesterday. And will ignore, from now on any comment from people who have opinions about a matter they did not care to read about beforehand. One NPC in New Vegas said one thing i love: ''The less people know about something, the more opinions they have on the matter''. In short, before reacting to the Might problem as stated in this thread, read about the said problem as it is brougt up, before drowning this thread with irrelevant stuff. Thanks. It's definitely not about playing your stereotyped and OP flimsy BG wizard !

 

I will thank Ilathid now. He read what i wrote before answering. Since yesterday, he's the ONLY one who did so. And even so i can't agree that the matter he speaks about and mine are exactly the same thing, i will recognize it's a clever and interesting answer. And i thank you for this.

 

Another side note by the way. Did any of the people who whine about people finding inappropriate being unable to play their flimsy wizard, ever tried to lift an actual medieval bastard sword? I will tell you, it's heavy. And you really NEED physical strenght to be able not only to lift it with one hand, but to sway it at leisure, too. You need A LOT of strenght. It only makes sense that people who would train to be a fighter acquire this strenght naturally along the way.

 

Now, what about wizards? Would you find more natural to consider they would go to the sports ground lifting weights for years, because, you know, they need to be OP during summer at the beach? Where in the world would they acquire the same kind of physical strenght as warriors i spoke about? Do all non muscular wizards forced to bet on perception because if they don't have muscles they can't throw a damaging fireball? To me it's only natural that most wizards won't be as muscular as warriors. Depending on the background you write, you can create an interesting wizard who IS muscular. But i fail to see how having a flimsy one is a problem. And how not being allowed to have one is just obvious?

 

Just because some people don't care about this Might problem (which is something i can hear, really) does not mean they have to dismiss the very existence of the problem. They can tell me: ''ok, i read, i see. I don't care. This may pose a problem to some people who like roleplaying. I play differently, and my true concern about the game lies somewhere else''. And i would say ''yeah, it's fair. Like i stated before, everyone has their thing. Tell me what it is, it may be relevant for me, too.'' And discussion, exchange, become possible. Oh, joy! Langage exists since thousands of years, and it would finally end up allowing people to discuss and understand one another. One of my biggest fantasies in Real Life since forever...

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

My major issue, besides how easy the game is, is how nothing seems to have any real consequences in game...and if you complete a quest out of order for whatever reason, the game gets batty and stuff makes no sense - like dialogue options indicating I did something or met someone I didn't.

 

I'm pretty sure i read somewhere this is a known issue. Some quests are buggy at the moment, and dialogue options would state things that makes no sense. I'm confident these problems will be solved one after the other, over time, through patches. Obsidian supported Pillars 1 like they should have. And i'm sure they will do the same will the sequel.

 

Cheers.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

There are derived statistics and mechanics in game considering Might as Strenght when needed. Even if i managed to ''forget'' about the fact that Might is not only spiritual power, there are reminders everywhere.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

 

If you want to look at it more simply then look at it like this: if you want to become stronger physically then you need to spend time working that body. If you want to become stronger mentally then you need to spend time reading and researching. You can of course do both, but you'd have to spend less time on both as well. In the end you can only train a few parts to max. That's the whole idea of stat distribution. To mimic what a person has apptitude for and what he trained for. The game treats it as if reading a book gives you more muscle and lifting weights gives you a better understanding of the arcane.

So what would you use instead?

 

 

I'm not a game designer. Many people here (i'm repeating myself) can't seem to afford to look at the problem from a Roleplay perspective, like if RPGs were all about bashing and looting, like a Diablo would. Like i said, the attributes in Pillars are well designed  (probably, though i don't really care about this) from a mechanical point of view (character building, templates, numbers, stats,...), but they are inept when it comes to telling anything about the character they are built upon. What i need, from a Roleplay perspective, is a way to play a caster that is not a brawler. Having my flimsy caster displaying a high score of Might on its character sheet is an unbelievable bother to me, because, the sheet of my character tells me it has not only great spiritual power, but huge physical strenght, too. Which is a complete **** in the face of the background i wrote for the character.

 

I think the idea of rebalancing the attributes while using Resolve as a representation of spiritual power and making Might into physical Strenght, like it was in the beta, would be an acceptable way to go. This would allow me to have my character sheet be respectful of the work i did while writing the background and history of my character. It would have low physical strenght, but high spiritual power, like it was meant to be.

 

In the state of things, i can't look at my character sheet without thinking each time that my character is ****ed up. That it is not at all what it is meant to be. It's more than just a bother for me. I can't Roleplay it, because it feels utterly disatisfying. The only way for me to play with the Might attribute would be to create a character background that adapts itself to the attributes of Pillars (meaning forbidding the creation of all sorts of character backgrounds), while, in any pen and paper, attributes are meant to allow the player to Roleplay its character the way it was intended (in short, it's the other way around). Sawyer, imo, made the exact opposite with attributes that he was meant to do, when it comes to a RPG. He created a system of numbers to take care of combat mechanics and numbers in character building, while disregarding everything tied to actual RPG character creation.

 

Just think about this. This is the way i create a character for a RPG. First, i will write a background. Who the character his, his beliefs, his goals, his values, his fears, the things he hates, the way he thinks, hope, and despair. Then, i will tie it to some background origins. Country, social status, family, personal problems, cultures, talents, weaknesses. The kind of personality he has: courageous, coward, strong willed, overprotected, and so on... I would probably, too, work on langage habits, special traits, how the character origins could render it inept to understand things in a very different country. And i will try to think about its potential. Where it is it can evolve, where it is that lies its potential. And how a regular nobody could become more than the some of its parts when confronted to very special circumstances he was never prepared to face. And Pillars 1, with the madness lurking, was full of potential. And that is why i wanted since the start to have an Eothasian Priestess. I managed to create a character i really wanted to play, full of contradictions, flaws, and room to grow, because the story became so much personal to her. It should have been incredible fun...

 

Only AFTER creating all that, will i create the character and distribute the attributes. I will distribute them accordingly to the background i wrote exclusively, with great care. If the attributes prevent me from actually creating my character the way it was written, then there is a problem. A HUGE one. One i just can't forgive. I can do with crappy mechanics and character attributes, as long as they allow me to translate who my character is on his character sheet. In short, most of the things most people here consider most important for the game regarding attributes, are things i could not care less about. Although i try to consider your point of view too, and find some reasonable way to do things. I would then appreciate if the people who tend to troll (not you) would be willing to do the same from where they come from.

 

Regards.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

 

What's the problem with Might? It's not "strength" and the game even describes it as physical OR spiritual strength.

Well not quite. You see the problem is, that "might" starts with an "m", just like "muscle". Hence it's only logical to assume that "might" can only mean physical strength.

 

Of course you could try to see "might" as some kind of abstract attribute of power (be that power physical or non-physical in nature) but for very sensible and obvious reasons you shouldn't do that.

 

The reasons are so obvious in fact, that I need not name them and yet everyone will know them anyway.

 

 

 

That is why i dislike trolls, who, obviously, would try their best to not understand the point of other people so that they can, you know, troll others in the most lowly way possible.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

@Abel

What I meant by me getting off topic is that it wouldn't be too hard to justify strength being useful in spellcasting in some way. It would be more difficult (but not impossible) to justify having the strength of one's soul linked to one's physical strength. Though as a vaguely related aside Pillars does have too many things connected to 'having a strong soul'.

 

Yep, that is why i said it was far fetched earlier. Because if there was not this confusing problem about attributes, you would not need this, and because, too, if you can explain how a strong soul can give great strenght, the same kind of thing could then be easily made with the other attributes, and having it applied only to strenght is arbitrary, and thus, induce this far fetched feeling even more.

 

I really wanted to experiment the companion relationships and the muticlassing i waited so much for.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

@ Abel (not quoting due to length of reply and laziness on my part)

If high strength would allow you to just have better control magic rather rather than being needed to cast spells altogether then low strength mages could still exist, especially if the effectiveness of spells could be increased in other ways. You could see it in the same way as the more traditional set up not allowing strong but dumb spellcasters to exist. This is getting a bit off topic though.

 

Yep, this could be, but there was one precise reason in her background why she needed a really high score in spiritual power, in my opinion. And it was because her very reason to sneakily leave the White that Wends to go all the way to the Dyrwood was to find out about Eothas. I will spare you the details, but she had a very strong and unwavering faith, which needed to be translated somewhere in here sheet. Since she was condemned to be a crappy fighter, i believed that her strong faith and devotion should allow her to use her soul to cast powerful priest spells. Which is why i wanted high spiritual power, but low physical strenght. Perception could not translate this correctly.

 

But anyway, even if you ignore my personal case. There has to be many Backgrounds that can't work correctly when it comes to attributes if spiritual power and physical strenght are linked in one and only attribute. Even if you make one dependent on the other, this just end up saying that: ''your character had a dream, but he was not talented enough to make it more than just a dream. With bitterness in his heart, he abandonned his mage carrier to breed pigs, and died as a poor sod, never able to cease thinking that he never met his true fate". -endgame-

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

Personally I think they should have just linked the two types of strength better lore wise. Like it takes physical strength to better control the forces of magic or something. It would have made Might feel a little less gamey. You don't have to think too hard to justify it, but it would be better if you didn't have to.

 

Basically, this means i would never be allowed to play my character anyway. Actually, since you would need physical strenght to handle magic, any flimsy type of character which does not have high might could not be mage or priest, or druid: most women (except massive aumaua maybe), most orlans, etc...

 

At least, for now you're allowed to play bulky wizards or flimsy (though crappy) wizards. Well, it's not entirely true. Pillars 1 allows to have playable wizards without having high Might. The whole problem would be that some character backgrounds would not be playable, unless you accept your explanation of ''well, your 40 kgs priestess has a permanent bear strenght spell cast upon her''. Which may satisfy some people, but definitely not me. Well, a permanent catlike agility spell would even make more sense in this case... (once more i'm more interested in the background building possiblities than game mechanics)

 

The kind of character i planed from before Pillars I was released was a multiclassed Eothas White that Wends elf Priestess multiclassed in Fighter (she was condemned to be a crappy fighter with her crappy strenght which could not help improve her crappy flail's damages, but well, i can't change people so easily . I only took martial perks for her flail since multiclassing did not exist). I planed to give her very low strenght, low constitution, but high dexterity, perception, and whatever attribute was about spell casting (it was Resolve when Might disappeared i think). 7 Might was my ideal score regarding physical strenght, while 17 was my objective regarding spiritual power. I ended up with a cringing 13 that did not make any sense either way. I tried to explain her high strenght by giving her Might boosting items. But it was not satifying either. I always looked at her character sheet with a bitter taste in my mouth which ended up in ''No, i love the character concept and backstory, but i feel too uneasy and distracted to play her''. And i dropped the game, because of this and other reasons as well. Probably the best single player character i wrote until this day, which is why i'm sooooooooooo frustrated since years.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

 

 

I get the complaints about Might but it does sometimes feel that people are a little unimaginative. I mean your character who's strong soul that allows them to do powerful magic, can't use that magic to make themselves physically stronger?

It's not about having the skill to cast a spell to make you physically stronger. It's about requiring to be physically strong to cast a decent spell.

The problem with Might is that the lore doesn't seem to require physical strength to cast a spell. When people complain about Might they seem to dislike that their character that they see as being physically weak yet spiritually strong, has access to dialogue options that showcase their physical strength. I'm saying that they could view their character as magically making themselves Stronger.

 

@ Abel

As I said, I understand the complaints, but it's really not that far fetched an explanation, considering that sadly a lot of role-playing in all crpg has to be done in the head. Trust me I get the annoyance and I wish in general that non sensical options didn't exist. It's the way people across like you're forced to pick them that irks me.

 

 

I agree with what you say, when speaking about doing the roleplay in the head in crpgs. Having an in-game journal in a great help for this (hope it's still there in Pillars 2, at least). It helped me dealing with the madness of my character, and how she somehow struggled to maintain her sanity by finding a new ''reason'' (well, i'm pretty sure Pillars 1 does not allow your character to actually turn crazy. i'm still at the end of act 2). But finally, what i expect of a crpg is not to give me Roleplay freely, but giving me opportunity to create roleplay without forcing me to metagame since the start. The game designer of a RPG should at the very least be cautious his designs do not hinder Roleplay. I would dare to say it's the first and foremost duty of a RPG designer. I would be interested to learn how Sawyer plays pen and paper. I bet he loves the ones with no attributes. Which is fine by me. But when there are attributes, does he play his character accordingly? Or maybe he considers crpgs to be only Icewind Dale like? Bash, loot, bash, loot, bash...

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

I get the complaints about Might but it does sometimes feel that people are a little unimaginative. I mean your character who's strong soul that allows them to do powerful magic, can't use that magic to make themselves physically stronger?

 

Having to come up with far fetched explanations for everything is exactly the problem i pointed out earlier in this topic, when i was talking about the metagaming i had to do while writing the diary. I would like, if possible, people to spare me the ''because it's magical'', ''because it's a fantasy world'' and ''because we need practical game mechanics'' excuses in a Roleplaying Game, which can be seen all over the internet for anything and everything since 20 years. I can satisfy myself with most far fetched explanations in any game... unless it's a RPG. Being forced by game mechanics to over stretch the background of my character in every way possible, to the point where i end up wondering if my character's name is Elisa the Priestess or Batman is not what i expect of a RPG. Furthermore, if the strong soul of my character allows this kind of magic, i would better just use a trainer and give her max stats everywhere, it would not be any more weird. And lastly, i consider this the same thing as saying ''well your quest is broken because of a bug, but you just need a bit of imagination and say that a giant Piranha showed up and swallowed in one fell swoop the whole cargo you were supposed to deliver, and problem solved''.

 

I met people on online Roleplaying games in the past that would use far fetched explanations or Real Life knowledge in order to trifle with their characters and favor them over others. It's called metagaming. People like this are permanently banned. In the end, what i'm trying to say, is that the problem is not about imagination, but more that if you are forced to meta your character in a RPG because of the game mechanics, then, you're not playing a RPG. To me, Pillars attributes are well designed for a scenarized hack'n slash, not for a RPG. People mistake too often nowadays RPGs and aventure games with a character sheet.

 

Sawyer tried to have some efficient way to deal with combat and character building, balancing the required 6 attributes (because BG) like it was a multiplayer game that needed this balance, without any regard for what these attributes would tell about WHO the characters that are built upon were. It's a crucial mistake, imho. Since the first purpose of attributes in pen and paper is defining WHO a character is: it influences appearance, capabilities, strenght and weaknesses. You won't give an idiot max intelligence, a sickly max constitution, or a small framed woman max strenght. They are not just mathematical variables with random names. The attribute Resolve should tell something about who the character is. It's not just an attribute about deflection. In Pillars, a character with 18 Might has both the capabilities to cast powerful magic AND lift the school bus singlehandedly. And in the same trend, if I spend days creating a hefty backstory for my character for Pillars, and i end up with a character i REALLY want to play, only to see later that it's impossible because Sawyer created a hack'n slash, i'm not only disappointed, i'm angry. Even more so when i learn that while the problem was fixed, he reversed back to the old Might formula i despise so much during the beta.

 

So, i'm sorry if i look a bit aggressive here, but really, the line you said is a line i feel i've read or heard several hundreds times already for anything and everything, and i'm actually pretty tired of it. I happen to be insomniac, and i'm tired in the same way of people saying to me ''well, you just have to exercise you a bit more, and problem solved'' loool.

[Modding Pillars 2: is there a modding community willing to mod the game once final ? ?]

The banhammer never ever hit me, but looks like you read a lot in my post. Is the hammer a good acquaintance of yours ? :D

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

Just a bit of a tangent here, but I fundamentally disagree with the "if it ain't broke" line when applied to art. Art that remains the same grows stagnant and predictable, things that once may seem fresh eventually grow stale if they aren't transformed or reformulated by new factors and elements. That's partly why things come and go out of fashion, why certain examples in a genre feel formulaic when they stick to the traditional template and so on. That Obsidian is willing to shift things up for a sequel is a good thing - the question is whether those changes themselves work.

 

I like this kind of sensitive and clever comment. Whether i agree or not is not even relevant anymore.

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

 

It does not take any testing for me to know beforehand that the auto-heal thing will rebuke me to the point that i would problably drop the game. I never finished Pillars 1. Not yet. I had many reasons for that, despite the obvious qualities of the game (amongst which, unclear tooltips was one, dumb crafting system was another, ...), but 3 of my main gripes were:

 

1- the Might attribute (forbidding me to Roleplay my flimsy elve priestess, because having high magical power meant she had the physical strenght of an ogre, too. This problem seems to be solved in Pillars 2, which is a genuine, intense relief for me).

 

[…]

 

 

EDIT: Ok, i just checked about the Might attribute. Looks like, in the end, they changed it again, and it's back to the same frustrating crap as in Pillars 1. If you want a great healer/powerful magic caster, you have no choice but to have him/her have the physical strenght of an ogre, too. Well, that's it for me. The one thing i was happy about Pillars 2 actually never happened. Good thing is: i won't have to finish my Pillars 1 playthrough, or to go through the hassle to redeem my game key.

 

Only if you're thinking of might in terms of muscle mass. If you think of it more in terms of ferocity, then you can RP it just fine - a little creative flexibility goes a long way.

 

Barring that, you can still create an extremely powerful caster with 10-12 might by buffing perception instead. Higher might = more damage, higher perception = more spell hits/crits instead of misses/grazes. Especially on higher difficulty levels, the latter might be the more powerful approach.

 

 

Yeah, i understand you. Except i don't care this much about efficiency. Especially since my priestess is fighter, too. I'm more concerned about the background i wrote for her. Which is natural for me, since i'm playing a Roleplaying game.

[Modding Pillars 2: is there a modding community willing to mod the game once final ? ?]

There's a modding subforum.

 

Now I just have to wait for the mod that lets me romance everyone at once

 

My bad, wrong place. Although, i barely read the modding subforum since it's sometimes very technical. This thread is intended to willing modders, but to imcompetent programmers like me, too, in order to exchange about things we would like to see change. Still, if a moderator feels its rightful place is the modding subforum, feel free to move it, please.

[Modding Pillars 2: is there a modding community willing to mod the game once final ? ?]

I used the search function of the forum, but did not find anything related to this, post release. I read that recently, Obsidian announced they will try to provide modding tools for the community. And i'm no programmer (at all). So, i wanted to ask if there are actual modders interested in modding Pillars 2 in the future (once final, because it looks like maintaining a mod through patches is a hassle). This post is very general on one hand, and very personal on the other hand too. I hope you will forgive me for presenting my own desires as well.

 

I guess i'm not the only one feeling that sometimes, amongst the things you don't like about a game you want to love, there are a few ones that you just can't overcome. And you drop an overall great game because of things that may look like petty details to others, but that are of prime importance to you.

 

Since i can't allow myself to ask anyone to work to cater to my own personal tastes, i wanted to present the 2 things that are, for me at least, a guarantee of utter cringe, and see if some other people here feel the same. Truth is, I'm actually frustrated, i will admit this much. While i really want to enjoy games like Pillars, there are a few things that i just can't make like they do not exist, however hard i tried to ignore these in Pillars 1. Please, don't misundestand me. In any game, there will be things people like or dislike. And then, there may be a few of them that will convince them to just never even play it (in this case, because already present in Pillars 1). These are past the point of just ''dislike''.

 

I like many things in games like Pillars, but amongst the things i dislike, there are 2 that will probably prevent me from even redeeming my backer key. These were things that were thought to be reworked at the time i backed the game, and i had some hope. Not to have them the exact way i wanted, but to have them in a way i could finally manage to tolerate.

 

These 2 things are: the healing system, and the Might attribute.

 

The Might attribute disappeared at some point and i was overjoyed. I would at least be able to play my beloved flimsy multiclassed Eothas spell caster/Fighter  with 7 strenght but high magical power. To play my elve, governed but her faith, without having her having the physical strenght of an ogre. I just learnt that the Might attribute is back, like in Pillars 1. I can't imagine suffering a second game with the Might attribute. I couldn't even suffer more than half of the first one like this. I've no words... I need to control myself because i have such a deep desire to flame, and that would help no one . Basically, i would love to have Might separated in 2 different attributes that would make sense. One for physical strenght, and one for spiritual power. At this point i don't even care for attribute balance anymore.

 

As for the healing system. Well... no auto healing? Having to use healing spells outside combat. Or see some kind of healer? Or eating healing mushroom? Or performing a healing dance? Well, actually, to this point, ANYTHING would do. Aside from the magic nap healing everything and anything. I don't care anymore about the means. But, please, i beg you, fix this, since i can't do it myself.

 

I'm pretty sure i could do with everything else i may dislike if these 2 things are fixed.

 

Any thoughts? Any people who would like to see these 2 things fixed too? Or maybe some other specific ones that are cringeworthy for them?

[What I'd like to see in future updates]

You mean combat is a chore ? Or that you get your ass kicked anyway ? If it's the former, since Icewind Dale was one of the inspiration for Pillars, i'm not sure you could really get rid of it. If you want a RPG where you can play all the game with no combat (if you handle things smartly enough), you should try Torment: Numénara (another isometric RPG by InXile).

 

If it's the latter, i'm not sure what to say. But obviously, using the pause to issue appropriate orders would help. I guess in story mode, just making sure your guys don't just wait idly doing nothing should suffice. AI scripts could help. But i never ever used any AI in any games before, so i'm not sure how to proceed with it. Nor have i ever tried story mode.

 

On a side note, i'm not so sure 63 is being such an older gamer ^^. I met older ones on T4C years ago, and they were pretty kick ass (an old MMO with no interface, and all about countless different keyboard macros). So, if your problem is some kind of learning curve, i'm pretty sure reading about combat mechanics in order to understand them well enough would do the job. But since you backed Pillars 1, i'm pretty sure you know them all already?

[Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.]

It does not take any testing for me to know beforehand that the auto-heal thing will rebuke me to the point that i would problably drop the game. I never finished Pillars 1. Not yet. I had many reasons for that, despite the obvious qualities of the game (amongst which, unclear tooltips was one, dumb crafting system was another, ...), but 3 of my main gripes were:

 

1- the Might attribute (forbidding me to Roleplay my flimsy elve priestess, because having high magical power meant she had the physical strenght of an ogre, too. This problem seems to be solved in Pillars 2, which is a genuine, intense relief for me).

 

2- was the Infinite Stash. Not that i'm opposed to a way to help with managing inventory, but throwing in the game this ''thing'', without putting any effort in lore, itemization, or such, to make it blend as a natural thing in the fantasy world of Pillars was a HUGE hindrance to me. I could SEE all the way along that all it was, was a game mechanic, without ANY effort to hide it will lore, natural implementation in stores for it to be bought, or anything of the sort.

 

And 3: the HP system (auto-heal with a nap, no healing spells). Since i wrote the diary of my character in the in-game journal, day by day, i can tell you that i had to do some horrendous metagaming while writing the story of my character's days, in order to explain things that could not be explained in any other way than: ''well, it's the health system mechanic of the game''. It's even worse for me that in Fallout 3, when you would meet again and again respawns of Enclave bases all over the place, even after you wiped them out, just because the stupid Bethesda's level scaling system could only find deathclaws or Enclave troops to present me with my level, wherever i would go. These things may exist in some game genres, not in RPGs.

 

The world, story and such may be awesome, but i know already, without even testing that some things can't have their way with me. I guess everyone have their things. These are mine. I was satisfied with the BG health system, where you needed to use spells or go see a priest in a temple. I was almost satisfied with the one in the first 2 Fallout, or Wasteland 2, where, even though you don't need to sleep (which is a shame), you need to find a doctor, use your medics skills or stimpack-like consumable to solve your injuries troubles. It's nothing really deep, but it's a good compromise for me.

 

 

EDIT: Ok, i just checked about the Might attribute. Looks like, in the end, they changed it again, and it's back to the same frustrating crap as in Pillars 1. If you want a great healer/powerful magic caster, you have no choice but to have him/her have the physical strenght of an ogre, too. Well, that's it for me. The one thing i was happy about Pillars 2 actually never happened. Good thing is: i won't have to finish my Pillars 1 playthrough, or to go through the hassle to redeem my game key.