Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Abel

  1. Well, a few more "feminine" characters wouldn't hurt (feminine in the cute sense. I don't like to use this word here, because it's completely arbitrary... And would deem not "feminine" most of female characters for no objective reason), but this did not strike me at first, while playing. What struck me more was the dwarves. To me, they were like mini humans ^^. Both voices, characters, and traits. Call me a cliché fan, but i would have liked them to be a bit more grumpy. I barely have any idea of who Ydwin is, so as long as the art for her portrait is nice, i don't see a problem (and the art happens to be nicely done, so...). Write a cute character if you would (annah-like). But first, work out the dwarves please .
  2. It's a possibility, indeed. Or, maybe i'll find 5 is not enough, advocate for 587 and launch a "Cossacks" instead
  3. Entire games are produced with these elements... I pretty muh agree with you. I was never really bothered by clicks or time consuming spell casting, or anything like that, because while it was indeed repetitive, i really liked these mechanics, and never found them bothersome. Here, i was merely trying to find a middle ground for this thread. My point is that from my understanding, people are not opposed to the mechanics themselves, but find that the hassle they implied was not worth it. Which would mean that it these mechanics were added to the game in a way that don't create any such hassle, not many people would be opposed to see them in a more modern game. In the end, maybe the true debate here would be to imagine ways to implement them in the game without them implying these hassles (waiting times, repetitive clicks or tasks, or ways to abuse). As an imperfect example, how many people would be opposed to the concept of healing after combat with spells if you had an option to check like "automatically use healing spells after combat" which would, in just one second, automatically use healing spells or potions on the party to fill them up, without any click needed? Or anything in the same trend.
  4. In, the end, Wormerine sumed it up pretty well i guess. While pre combat tactics, managing ammos, healing after combat, getting rid of status effects and many other mechanics like these added something interesting to a RPG experience, the way you had to handle these elements, requiring many repetitive clicks, was far from optimal. In the end, if there was a way to handle all these without this repetitive/time consuming aspect, things would be for the best. Am i wrong?
  5. BG never had pre buffing required. It's just that many people abused prebuffing because they could do it, and try now to make others believe it was required, and thus, boring. Funny enough
  6. I expected someone to say this. And your point is fair. If i remember correctly, there weren't many multi level dungeons in BG. But still, there is a HUGE difference between doing it once for the sake of helping the injured suffering in the party and spaming rest. And i fail to see your point when you say that since there is no cooldown or whatever for the rest button, this RPG was meant to allow spaming rest as a core gameplay mechanic. I would merely say that the game did not punish the abuses.
  7. How does it change tactics? In both Pillars and Baldurs Gate after the battle you end up with full health. However in BG you have to spam rest button couple time before that happens. There is no limit to resting, there is no danger in resting (unless you are really low on health and some people could die in an ambush). Unless, like me, you don't spam the rest button. I never rest in a dungeon in BG, and i never backtrack to rest unless the dungeon is completed. It was ok to start next fight in a dungeon with 1 of my character having 1/120 hp (they would just stagger behind), if i hadn't anymore healing or spells. It just needed to manage correctly your spell pools. I liked the way you could pay at temple to get healed too. I often used this feature, since it was stupid in my opinion to rest more than 2 times in a row in an inn (you can't possibly sleep more than 16 hours, even if exhausted). Playing like this (meaning, not abusing the game rules) felt extremely satisfying for me. I guess you should not assume everyone abuse of the game systems. But even, aside from that, just being healed like this after a combat, or after a nap under a tree just feels wrong to me. To the point that it really hinders my fun with the game. I like the feature in BG that displayed the time passed since the start of the adventure. Since i did not spam the rest button, it felt pretty immersive, too. Actually, where is the fun in spaming the rest button at all? i don't understand. I barely ever use camping supplies in Pillars 1. Would i really take a nap in a dungeon, where i can't be sure of what crawls next door? Does not make sense. Or will i really battle this dragon? Have i some death wish? My characters would need some deep reasons, deeply etched motivations. I don't play BG or Pillars like a hack n slash. So no, BG was not the same.
  8. Always nice to have insight from the team. Thanks. By the way, would be nice to have the possibility to have some characters redeem themselves throughout the game. Call me nostalgic, but i liked how you could influence Anomen or Viconia in BG (well i never really succeeded with Viconia actually ^^). Or how you could change Dakkon in PS:T. Companions could develop along the road. And i'm definitely a supporter of this. Concerning Ydwin and such, maybe the team look for a more "natural" feeling to their characters. And maybe they feel characters like Annah or Aerie do not feel really natural, or feel out of place. Which is a shame in my opinion
  9. This. I like to manage whole dungeons without resting at all too. With your limited pool of potions and healing spells. But with this resting system, where a nap heals everything, i'm just frustrated. And the new thing about injuries doesn't look any better to me. I still don't know why they feel the need to revamp the good old health system. Just because it's old does not mean it's bad. Wasteland 2 allows this kind of gameplay, and i like it a lot. Looks like i pretty much play the same way as you. And i loved priests in IE games, with their self buffs and healing spells pools. Aside from this, looks like they're working on the encounter designs. Though it's pretty hard to do throughout a whole game. I was ok with Pillars 1 in this regard.
  10. Planescape Torment. The best CRPG ever. Black Isle masterpiece. Annah was a half fielon (what is it called in english?). She was cute, had a tail, a bad, childish temper, and was pretty hard to handle. And i grew attached to her more than i would have ever thought at first. She really is etched in me, along with Deionarra (tragic character). The sort of desperate romance you could have with her was really well written. And i have fond memories of it. This kind of character somewhat lacks in pillars where i could never really grow attached to any character even half as much. And yes, her cuteness was one of her good points.
  11. I never thought about this while playing Pillars, but now that you mention it, there is no character like PST's Annah. I loved her so much... even though it was merely a character, and was soooo desperate at the end of the game :s Oh, i pretty much liked Aerie, too. She was annoying, but cute . One character like these in the Pillars cast would not hurt me, to be honest.
  12. I guess it wouldn't take much more than the puke animation or the specific way to solve another little side quest. Don't see where the limitation of the engine is a problem.
  13. I quite liked prebuffing in BG 1 et 2 but i used it in some particular ways. Since i never spam rests, i usually only cast a bless spell before a fight, because i needed my pool of spells to last until the end of the dungeon, before getting some rest in an actual inn. The only fights i prefubbed fully were against Firkraag or Kangaax. The problem of prebuff only comes when people rest too often and abuse the mechanic. I did not, and so, prebuff was actually pretty fun, and not a chore. But my point is more about casting outside of combat than prebuff. If i play en elf that has some phobia related to ****roaches, it would make sense that he would fireball it if he sees one in an inn. (i would actually do it in game). But i can't, because fireball (i guess) is combat only. Not all spells are, but most of them. And you could have some magic tricks to play with cards that could allow you to cheat at poker in the inn, or put a show in the street for some cheap money. Or have the good old "oeil du magicien" (eye of the magi?) explore an area for you, that you just entered. Possibilities for magic outside combat are limitless, and it's not all about prebuff. I would like to see more possiblities of use for magic in the world. Not just some ways of killing things in combat.
  14. Really? Weird. I've seen it with a friend. The cinema was almost full of people (seems to do well in France at least). Probably the only AAA US film i've seen in years that is actually worth it. Better than the original in some ways. While Hollywod only sell crap usually. Good surprise. Regarding the survey. Wanted meaty ones too. I had a problem with the question where you had to list your genres by order, since i only play RPGs and strategy (1 & 2)... i just made sure to put shooters last place, rest was random.
  15. I agree with the people who have a problem with the might attribute as it is. I already stated this before in these forums. My character is a female pale elf priestess. Tiny, feeble. I would like to measure her physical strength (low) separately from her magical power (potent). But can't. Her character sheet does not make sense to me, which is a problem since i roleplay her as much as possible. This is a big flaw of the game to me. One of the worst (with the rest system). I don't have much hope of it being ever fixed though. Lephys pretty much spoke for me. I agree with everything he said, down to the "i'm sick..." part.
  16. The limitation to 5 party members was bound to create debate. I have no definite argument to give to explain why 6 would be better. It's just a personal preference. I'm a loving person, you know. I have much love to give :D. So, having only 5 characters to love frustrates me. I could easily love 6 of them, or even 7. If i had an argument, it would only be a very personal one. In the playthrough i plan to export in Pillars 2, i have Eder, Pallegina AND Aloth in my party. So, it makes sense that i will use them in Deadfire. Which means i will have only 1 free slot for a new companion. I know already, that it will give me headaches... (but i'm happy that i can finally properly multiclass my priestess as a cleric . I will just have to suffer the end of Pillars 1 with her lame flail) I would love the idea, too, for the party as a whole to have more importance in dialogue. Having the party members react/participate, and the NPC reacting to them. 6 party members would probably allow more complex/interesting things, and i guess that one more party member would allow way more combinations of banters in one playthrough. I don't care as much when it comes to combat, though i'm used to build balanced parties of 6 because of my tens of hours playing BG. So, i guess 5 would imply some difficulties for me to build the kind of parties i like to play. It was hard enough already to select only 6 in Pillars 1.
  17. That is precisely what i like. I would have hated if BG2 would have allowed me to craft every 2 handers +1 into a divine sword. Carsomyr is Carsomyr, because there is only one. And i like the idea to be able to expand the specificities of the gear. I'm pretty sure we will have several ways to go, depending on how we plan to use this flaming sword. Unic enchantments are more than unic now. I don't need every item to be OP all the game long or against every opponent. If they write a bit of lore for the stash, i would even be glad to use it in Deadfire to prepare thoughtfully in the room of the inn my next exploration. I love good skins. If my flaming sword becomes useless at some point, i may just use it in town to scare the hell out of some menacing hooligans . What would be great would be if some very special effects on very special items could make some NPCs react to them. "Wow! *That* looks pretty dangerous dude! This flaming sword! Shall we turn back?" Something like this.
  18. I stated this once in a lenghty post several months ago, but while enchanting has many problems to me, the biggest of them all is the fact that enchantment is completely separated from the lore. This. I feel enchanting, while not varied and thus, pretty boring, is still overpowered and would need to be tuned down. The main character should not be able to craft legendary items with one plant, 1 gem, one whatnot and.... money (?? Obvious money sink. Way too obvious. And does not make sense.) by just making one click while strolling in the forest. You should not be able to enchant anything, anywhere, with no particular skill needed. If it were this easy to craft fine items, nobody would have base items. You should need some tools, time, and knowledge to do so. And characters should not be able to craft better than exceptionnal on their own, unless they have some background story detailing how they learned the art of enchantment through trial and error over the YEARS. I would like to see enchanters, crafters, like Cromwell in BG2 (though Cromwell was still a bit limited in its use) you can hire to do a better job (still.... not legendary, unless the enchanter is of legendary skill). I would want to see books about enchanting, enchanter shops, talks about enchanting, recipes being discovered or learned through questing or exploration, lore about how it works, places with hints on where to get ingredients, and so on. I would like plenty of flavoured or very specific enchantments i could put on anything (even boots). The absolute opposite of overpowered. Even something dumb like an enchantment allowing your boots to clean themselves once you go in a house, even if the sole effect is some appreciation from the shop owner. Or a cape "of good rest" that would allow some good sleep even on some rocky ground. Or whatever. With some sort of noticeable gameplay effect (dialogue or anything), just for flavour or not. I would like the option to add such barely useful enchantments on anything that makes sense at the cost of an appropriate slot cost. Magic should not be only about ways to kill things. Crafting should not be limited to some bare UI allowing you to kill things better.
  19. Little Padawan, if you want to have spiritual strenght, if you want to reach wisdom and resilience for your mind... Go lift some weight... Gné? Obviously, i don't understand this description you quote in the same way. I can't read anything explaining any link between physical and spiritual strenght. To me magical power (MIGHT) is more the ability to gather and use the power of the soul, since powers are granted by using the power of one's soul. Rather than the level, i feel like the strenght of the power (MIGHT) depends, for paladins, on the strenght of their convictions, for priests, it depends on the strenght of their faith, for others it depends on skill and training, and so on. I just can't fathom how spiritual strenght could be linked to the size of the muscles... The quality and strenght of the soul has nothing to do with muscles either. I understood the same things as Katarack. It only looks, to me, like they conveniently created one attribute governing all damages for the sake of efficient and easily balanceable combat mechanics, without any further thought about "how the hell...?"
  20. I guess i will have to dig once more in the lore to understand all this. I was pretty sure i had grabbed the whole magic thing already. I don't care if magic rely only on intelligence or whatever, as long as it makes sense. Hope i will find my anwers on the wiki or in game.
  21. Read the rest of Abel's post please, it's fairly clear that he's talking about resolve moreso than anything else. Considering 'Soul' is ultimately described by the entire set of attributes in Pillars of Eternity, it wouldn't make much sense to me to tie it to a single attribute anyway - that's a big part of what I'm talking about, actually. You think priest's faith is about resolve? This would be of some help if it's true. But then, i would have a hard time figuring out why my priestess powers are so lame (9 might). Might definitely make spells more powerful if not more durable. If she has high resolve, she will have lame magic, despite her deep faith. That would imply that to have a powerful magic you need big muscles? gnu? I'm lost.
  22. In the world of Eora, this claim is false. All right, first of all, mechanically speaking: power of your character's magic depends on Might (direct effect on endurance), Intellect (direct effect on AoE and duration) and Perception (direct effect on Accuracy). So three stats you can use to form a character that'll have his/her magic much more powerful than the average. So it's not like you don't have a choice in writing any backstory you'd want around that considering half the attributes describe magical strength on Eora. More importantly tho, you're fitting a square peg into a round hole. I like that you write your characters before beginning a serious play, it makes me feel less weird - thing is, before I start putting a lot of thought into who the character I wish to play is, I first put some effort into understanding how does the setting I'll be playing in actually function. And then I create characters that I believe could be interesting and fun to roleplay in terms of that setting. In terms of Eora, your priest woman who believes that power of her magic comes from strength of her soul would be like a silly little squire standing in front of a charging horse, believing his silly little shield is enough to protect him. In other words, she's about to find out how wrong she was in her beliefs. Which, incidentally, could also be a fun character to roleplay. However, Eora is the first setting that actually allowed me to create an idiot whose inborn magic ability and great physical strength allowed him to become a rather formidable opponent that people don't particularly enjoy parleying with since his unpredictable nature may mean they'll get hit by lightning. That was fun, I never could really do that in an RPG. At the end of the day, you're trying to create a character that bends natural laws of the setting that character exists in - which makes no sense from the perspective of the character you're roleplaying (unless said character still has a lot of illusions about how the world works) nor from the perspective of gameplay mechanics themselves. It's like I played DnD and said that I really wanted to create a really fit, powerful and durable fighter that also has really low strength, dexterity and constitution and then added that because this character won't work, attribute system is broken. Well, i don't quite understand this whole post. I thought i spent more than enough hours reading about the lore of Eora before writting my background. My only concern was about the lack of details about the social organisation of pale elves in the White That Wends, which contrived me to be a bit creative with the lore of Pillars. Actually, it seems to me that when you speak about PER and magic, it's a mechanic matter more than a lore one. It's chance to hit. It does not influence the spell itself, unlike MIGHT and INT. Is it part of a setting, according to people here? I ask the question genuinely because to me it definitely isn't: it's part of a ruleset. But i guess it's just a detail. Maybe what you guys are telling is "in the world of Eora Physical and Magical strenght are governed by the same thing, so if your character has great magical power, it has great strenght, regardless of it having muscles or not". Hum? sorry i can't process anything like that. It's too alien to me. I may lack of imagination? Hu? I always could write my backgrounds and distribute my attribute points afterwards without a problem. Strenght, Dexterity, Luck, Charisma, Beauty, ... All this is pretty self explanatory i guess. I fail to see that with Pillars. Then is it my fault? How do you write a backrground with PER or MIGHT in mind? I use to start with race, country, backstory, beliefs, hopes for the future, goals, physical appearance and characteristics and so on... I never included or even considered any attribute statistics in my backgrounds. I just write the whole starting background of my character and determine what is fit attribute wise once i'm actually creating the character in the game. Magic does not come from the soul? Hu? I was pretty sure it was the case. Like... I was absolutely positive it was stated in various places. Well, my character does not bother with this. But i have to in order to create it .
  23. All right, now I'm just confused. At character creation, you get X points to distribute in any way you see fit - there are absolutely no restrictions, aside from that you have to distribute all of them. If you don't want her to be strong, you just... Don't put those point into might, or even drop it slightly to make her weaker than average? And this will then be reflected in scripted interactions where she won't be able to pull off any feats based around might. And... That's exactly what you want, isn't it? From what I can understand your only problem with the system is that there are no stat requirements on equipment, to which I can only say just... Well, don't use it if roleplaying is what you care about the most. If there's something I always appreciated about system present in Pillars of Eternity, it's precisely that it allows me to design my character in any way that makes sense to me from RP perspective - and since there are no dump nor required attributes, that character will work, unless I make that character do things that go directly against those attributes (like a weak and fragile man donning full plate and standing at the front) - but regardless, if I want to roleplay an especially ambitious weak and fragile man that wants to don a full plat and stand at the front, there's nothing in the game that'd stop me from doing so. Well, no that's not it. It would be a bother to explain the whole background of my character. But suffice to say that as a passionate Eothasian Priestess living in the White that Wends, she once heard about the story of the Saint's War. Her faith was huge and her disarray became huge accordingly. Which convinced her to smug aboard a ship en route for Dyrwood in order to find out the whereabouts of her shattered god. And everything she experienced from there just shook her to her deepest fundations. Because she is shocked by the differences in culture, because of what she learns from Eder or Durance, because she finds out she may lose her mind like Maerwald, because dead people come to speak with her, because she lives the death of others again and again, sees ghosts, and discovers that people can hang people on trees and let them rot just because, and so on... (which is the purpose of the in game journal. It helps me define how she will evolve, depending of the things she experiences, and how she will bear with them). Magical Power finds its source in the soul. Since she has such a deep faith, and since the values Eothas always rerpresented are so much who she truly, deeply is, it would not make any sense to dump her magical power to me. Her faith is pretty much everything to her. In the same way that paladins gain powers from their convictions, you could tell that the deepest the convictions, the more powerful the power. She would not bother to go on such a perilous journey if her faith was shallow. There are 2 attributes that define magic (MIGHT and INT). And faith can't have anything to do with reason or intelligence for me. To me, INT is more like the talent to use this great power properly (defines AoE and duration). That's why i figured she should have a really high Might. But as i said, she can't have more than 8 strenght either. Because she is a female, she is a pale elf, and she lived in a kind of protected, secluded place ever until she secretly departed from her home. There is no way she could have more than 9 strenght. I don't really want stat requirements on items. I don't need requirements to define what she should/could wear or do. The system of Pillars does not allow me to play the character i want in a roleplay perspective. It's the first time i find this problem in any iso RPG i played. This system is probably effective when it comes to statistics and combat mechanics, but to me, it does not make sense to have magical and physical strenght depending of the same attribute. It only makes sense that from a roleplay perspective, some characters will have strong magical powers and low strenght, or, on the contrary, some will have low magical powers but high strenght. I don't know who could argue about this simple point. They could say that they don't roleplay and as such, don't care. But it's a wholly different argument for a RolePlaying Game.
  24. Why did you create her that way then? Max out her INT and her PER instead and chuck the rest of your attribute points into whatever else you'd like. She's suddenly an extremely potent priest/wizard/cipher/chanter(?) that excels at support and crowd control. Most buffs/debuffs are way more powerful than spells directly influencing endurance anyway. Another thing that gets conveniently forgotten in "Might influencing spells" discussion is that Intellect also does that, and arguably in a much more essential fashion, as long as you're not playing a Druid. Actually, it's an eothasian priestess/fighter (or kind of, since she only has melee talents) played in hard difficulty. Her attributes are between 11 and 14 (no dump stat, no maxed one), 13 might (i would like her to have 8 strenght and 18 magical power for role reasons. So, i was confused and chose 13 as an unsatisfying in-between. I roleplay her a lot, writing a lengty diary of all she feels and experiments in her difficult journey, using the in-game journal (end of act 2, 206 hours)). In combat, i mostly use her as an off tank (i guess) rather than in a support role (spells are limited and i barely ever use camping supplies (especially in dungeons: i only use these outside dungeons when night fall and there is no inn to be found in the area), so melee is a good way to use her while sparing her spells for truly challenging encounters along the way). Would be better with low level single target melee buffs, like the ones in BG, though ^^. I gave her 13 intellect for role reasons. 14 dexterity and perception. Her attribute statistics are pretty much in accordance to who she is. Aside from might... I could not find a way to deal with this problem. Regarding combat, my goal is to make the best of her sub optimal build. Even though she'll always be sub optimal in the end. As you may have understood by now, my character is not all about role in combat. So, i don't really care if putting INT or PER and using her for crowd control would be more effective. I just want her to be the character i roleplay in her diary, and the character i wrote a lenghty background for. I use to write the background first, and to distribute afterwards her attributes accordingly Not the other way around (which is pretty obvious). And she should not have the strenght to use Nightshroud (which looks really heavy). That's why. Might as it is may be a pretty effective ARPG gameplay thing. But i don't care. I never considered RPGs to be all about effective combat mechanics. I always expect my character's sheet to reflect the character itself rather than anything else.
  25. Because people don't want mental and physical prowess to be tied to the same stat due to the disconnect it causes with reality. I think it has been said in different ways for quite a few times already in this thread alone. Might indeed works as designed, but people don't like the design in the first place so that point is moot. When you say people, you mean some people. Some people may not like it, some people actually like the consistency of a damage stat being all in one. That's exactly accurate. There's, what, ten people in here that care? Not even the majority of *this thread*. Let alone *this board*, which is only a tiny fragment of PoE players. *PEOPLE*, in general, really don't care. PoE players, in general, really don't care. Most of them don't bother to comment or remark, let alone go to a message board and complain about it repeatedly. Most people who have played PoE have never complained about Might, because most people who have played PoE--the vast majority of the over-one-million--don't care enough to do so. Well, sorry. I did not bother to launch some kind of worldwide poll about it. But... I care. And looks like Ninjamestari or i are not alone in this case. I guess you did not bother to do a worldwide poll about might either. While Ninjamestari should not claim "people care", you probably should refrain from claiming "people don't care", too. I did not read the last few pages, but while it's hard to tell how many people care and how many don't care (which is pointless anyway), i still have a big problem with my tiny pale elf priestess being able to lift a truck barehanded. Which is, to me, one of the dumbest thing possible in a RPG. Period. She is not Luke Skywalker you know. "Might" is not ''that'' powerful in her family... Anyway, about the thread's topic... I always felt the fact that all characters gain experience points at the same rate is a problem. One thing i loved about the old IE games was that while characters leveled slower, you had one of them leveling every now and then, which guaranteed you always had one of them being pretty close from a level up. In Pillars, you would kill a xaurip, and BING. All party gain a level at the same time. I would rather have them level up at different times, rather than having to take care of all of them at the same time. I used the console in my playthrough to tweak the experience gained by every character, in order to emulate this. I would not be bothered from having characters lvl 10 and others lvl 8. I guess the best for Pillars 1 would have been a max level of 9 with characters leveling up at different paces, and Pillars II starting with a lvl 9 Watcher. At least, in my opinion.
  • Create New...