Jump to content

ComplyOrDie

Members
  • Content Count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Excellent

About ComplyOrDie

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  1. It's definitely a fair question to ask how many people want this (and how much, and to what extent) but it does feel like there's an increasing desire for it as per Divinity example. I would never suggest that it's hard mode or no mode, some people don't play the game for the combat, whereas I see it as integral. For me it's always odd to craft all these cool abilities and spells and then have a game where it doesn't really matter what use you make of them - that's an exaggeration for pillars but was the case far too often for my taste. I laughed at the dragon every encounter comment but in all seriousness if you have made the conscious choice to play path of the damned you are probably hoping for some form of challenge in each fight. Of course sticking a random lich among the wolf pack or increasing the number of wolves to two and a half million/ upgrading them to cyber death wolves of doom isn't very immersive or engaging but I definitely felt there weren't enough punishing encounters in pillars. I did my first run through on path and got to the last battle at lvl 8/9 and was just enjoying the story while the fights felt lacking , so while the final fight was a nice surprise I was pretty sad I'd been able to get through the game so quickly. Probably should have gone to Od Nua but I ended up wanting to save it for next playthrough. I have also seen the argument tough encounters should be reserved for side quests but I think that's completely untrue for path (buy the argument completely for normal difficulty, maybe that's why these encounters in particular didn't scale well for path), obviously the path players wants the main quest to be sodding difficult as well! Thanks for the responses it's always a difficult one to get right and impossible to please everyone.
  2. I'll be brief(ish): Pillars was great - not in dispute Path of the Damned (PotD) was sold as a challenge for masochistic IE (SCS) veterans PotD came up short for the majority of the game Reasons? AI scripting was poor, most encounters were "tank and spank" (push/pull mechanics sound like a good start) "Kith" enemy parties were noticeably bad at using their abilities, fights like this feel like they would take a lot more scripting effort to be good. I think you probably notice this moreso because in the encounters vs creatures all the enemies from every difficulty level were there whereas it might just be a set party of kith so it's tough to make them much better without scripting proper PotD AI. The creatures you came across generally had a very limited set of abilities - while 1-2 abilities is fine for lower level stuff it does make for somewhat repetitive/easier combat - why does EVERY orge druid have the same script? Phantoms had the daze/stun on hit which was pretty good against low lvl parties but we need more of these pain in the arse abilities to deal with. I think if you are going to make a mode like this it makes sense to just err on the side of making it too hard rather than trying to get it spot on and perhaps being a bit cautious. I can always go play on hard with my tail between my legs if I fail. Please: Put some time into good AI scripting - I sound like a broken record but I really like the way SCS went with this - I agree some of the precast stuff maybe doesn't look good on a shiny new release but good scripts with more variety would be most welcome (appreciate this takes lots of effort) Err on the side of more difficult when attempting to balance Give more varied abilities to enemy creatures Allow for some options to e.g. reduce XP gain, force high level scaling etc. I backed at the 99$ tier but not sure I want to Beta test as I don't want to spoil the excitement so gotta do a plea here! Looking forward to it, thanks for reading!
  3. So not a trash the game thread, as I loved it, however I've been playing through the BG series for the first time since PoE as a result of the SoD release and made the inevitable comparison. Plenty of good points for each game (have to add PoE needs an SCS mod or a far harder baseline PoTD mode) but one thing stood out a little more than most. Arriving in Baldur's Gate for the first time Final Battle of BG Irenicus encounter on exiting first dungeon in BG2 Irenicus battle at the asylum with the mad wizard army Final battle in BG2 and Hell All BG2 Dragon encounters That's a list of the moments that will stick with me the most from the two games. Clearly there aren't any on PoE and I'm wondering if that's a slight failing and if others feel the same? Couple of caveats for the sake of fairness: 1. I was considerably younger when I played the BG series and had far less gaming experience/hadn't seen it all before. 2. The first 10 hours or so of PoE were general awestruck wonder as the game is so beautiful but I'm not counting that. 3. Maybe PoE was intentionally more understated, which is a fair enough design choice, if not one im 100% on board with. Finally, a few standout reasons why from my perspective. Sarevok and Irenicus were better villains and I think this is mainly due to them being a bit more prominent in the games as a whole. I was going to say they were better voice acted (and they were fantastic) but Thaos was really well voice acted too, he just had bugger all involvement in the game except for a few specific points in the plot. The consequence of having the rest of the world oblivious to his actions, while interesting, made the main plot feel a little disjointed from the rest of the game. Sarevok and Irenicus were mentioned a lot more throughout as general menaces which added to the experience when you finally toppled them. Memorable chapter end encounters. I didn't mention them in my list above but some of them weren't far off making it, particularly the Iron Throne fights. They were some of the toughest fights in the games, more of a "end level boss" approach. I feel in Pillars the tougher stuff was exclusively the side content so that the game was more accessible, but for me that detracts from the sense of accomplishment that compliments a good climax to a section of the story. Certainly on PoTD I would have expected more, but the humanoid enemy encounters were all walkovers in PoE. Cutscenes. Could be budget to be fair, but who didn't love literally every Irenicus cutscene? In PoE they were done via the text based encounter system - ironically this was one of my favourite things about the game in all other situations - but I think the main story encounters needed a little more drama. Music. Environmental music was brilliant in PoE, some battle themes were pretty good too, but the final battle scenes in BG1&2 felt much more dramatic thanks to individually made tracks, which were amazing. That's it. Just to reiterate, I love the game, but wanted to offer some feedback for the inevitable PoE2.
  4. Struggling a little bit with setting the scalers. I can ToggleScaler <PX1_HIGH_LEVEL> which then shows this as an active scaler, but if I try any of the oother three it just repeats active scaler PX1_HIGH_LEVEL, even if I go from no scalers and type <PX2_HIGH_LEVEL> it will say that PX1 is the active one! How do I set them all to active?!
  5. While I can see the viewpoint of the reload argument, I prefer having a game that forces me to reload multiple times rather than playing Trial of Iron. Lapses in concentration can end a game, also you could easily lose hours of progress to an unlucky roll. There are many different ways to approach difficulty in a single player game, and having encounters that are so difficult that you need to reload multiple times is a perfectly valid way of doing it; there is nothing "lame" about reloading multiple times. I prefer this kind of difficulty and the gripe I have with Pillars is that there is nowhere near as much reloading needed on max difficulty as there should be. To have encounters that can be consistently killed at the first time of asking necessarily requires them to be much simpler mechanically and less punishing, if not you are forcing players to play through the game multiple times on progressively harder difficulties just to learn the fights so they don't die after 5-10 hours every time, which would fast become extremely boring, and in effect just a far more drawn out form of reloading. From my perspective, good "difficulty" involves frequent encounters where: the AI makes good use of its abilities, and are scaled sufficiently highly, that it takes me multiple attempts to work out a strategy that allows me to beat it. This is hardly groundbreaking in gaming and is why the anti-reload argument is overly simplistic. Making a game with as much variety, and as little ability to actually assess any given encounter before attempting it, as well as as massive as pillars, mean it is simply not the type of game to be designed around beating everything on your first attempt. Yes, I personally frown upon the idea of reloading 100 times until your off-screen fireball kills the enemies you need to make the fight winnable, but I *want* to be reloading plenty of times while I come up with the best strategy to progress, it gives you a sense of accomplishment when you finally do it. Pillars should not be designed to be a game where you can *figure out* an optimal one size fits all strategy that allows you to take on all if not most encounters at the first attempt when going in blind. That would make it incredibly stale. Pillars (on hard mode) should be about encounters with enemies with a wide variety of abilitiies that force you to think about the full capability of your party and gradually overcome each one. Pillars is generally disappointing on this front (ticks literally every other box for me though) which is why some people are frustrated. Nothing wrong with playing ToI, nothing wrong with wanting to be made to reload. Games like Pillars should always be designed around the latter, with ToI a welcome optional extra, but difficulty done well adds tons of longevity to a game, ToI is not a substitute.
  6. Is there a way to force all scaling from the start ? I would like to run IE mod with reduced XP, force scaling and sit back and not worry about it getting to easy for the rest of the playthrough.
  7. Had to comment just to say magic is not that great in Eye of the Beholder, with the last boss of EOB2 at least being literally immune to all forms. High level magic was "cool" though, I'll give you that . Grimrock is about your sidestepping skills really as are all of those games. Still amazing like...
  8. That would be fine by me too if Obsidian had ever stated their intention to do so or acknowledged the issues. Path of the Damned is heavily undertuned and while I really enjoy the combat system and the game as a whole, without the challenge it all feels a little pointless. I'm not just bashing here either, it's a measure of how much I like nearly everything else other than difficulty that I'm still checking the forums regularly to see if it will ever be addressed or acknowledged.
  9. For a single player game these small nerfs and buffs seem low priority. Sure if fighters suck relative to other classes boost them a bit but it's just increasing the power of the player in an already ridiculously easy game. Why not focus on making the game challenging more often than very occasionally and then balance stuff if really needed. At the moment fighters are slightly worse at completely crushing 95% of the game without thinking. Hard immunities seems a nice change at least and might help in that regard.
  10. I think Pillars does some things pretty damn well, art, setting, atmosphere for starters. I think combat has great potential and preferred it at a basic level to DOS. Both games actually suffer similar issues although Larian are trying to address that which is the games are seriously easy on max difficulty. DOS is at least consistently challenging in the first area on hard until it totally falls off. Pillars PoTD is more the odd well designed fight in a sea of I don't even need to pause this encounters. It's blatant, and perhaps understandable, that it wasn't given much attention, whacking a bunch more dumb enemies to make a fight difficult when a player has so many options at their disposal never works. It's impossible to truly judge the combat system when you dont need to pay attention for the majority of the game anyway. For me this just prevents me from continuing, as it did with DOS (looking forward to enhanced edition). I do agree there is a bit of a lack of non direct damage related spells too.
  11. For me I absolutely blitzed the game for about 2 weeks on release. I put in 90 hours which is highly commendable for any game to get from me. My main run was on PoTD and I got to the last boss at level 9 and he was extremely difficult. I posted a fair amount back then about how disappointingly easy the majority of the rest of the game was compared. In particular, tank and spank beat basically everything and the AI was woeful, particularly for an SCS Veteran. Not to mention experience bloat. I would echo the OP in that, while not wishing to bash the game, combat is extremely important to me. I'd love to come back, finish the game, experience the many quests I missed and the White March. I see claims the AI has been improved and tank and spank "nerfed". Is this noticeable and thus worth another go for me?
  12. I'm a fan of this, I'd prefer the well balanced encounters with good AI solution but I'm guessing that's too time consuming given the lack of comment on how easy the game is, so crude solutions may be the only way forward.
  13. I wouldn't hold your breath, have been zero Dev replies to any difficulty threads, I'm guessing it's seen as not an issue or too big an effort to fix for the number of people who care.
×
×
  • Create New...