-
Posts
1313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Yosharian
-
Paladin Order Talents
Yosharian replied to Murp's topic in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
I'm attracted to Paladin for powergaming reasons but I don't really like the idea of the role-playing restrictions. Which is odd as I never had a problem playing a Paladin in BG2 but somehow in Pillars 1 they seemed... off-putting. -
Paladin Order Talents
Yosharian replied to Murp's topic in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Paladin and Fighter trash tier? This list is complete nonsense... -
One-handed Style should reduce recovery times for non-combat actions taken, Examples: - using a potion - casting a spell Idea is, you lose offensive ability (extra weapon, or 2-hander) OR defensive ability (shield) in exchange for having highly reduced recovery on all your other actions. Since you have a hand free, you can do those other actions more quickly. If you're tanking, there's no way you're giving up a shield, and if you're doing damage, there's absolutely no way One-Handed Style can compete with 2-Hander / Dual-Wield power. It's just not going to happen, forget it. Instead of trying to make One-Handed Style somehow comparable to damage dealing / tanking, give it something else, something unique. One hand free = 75% reduced recovery times across the board, for example.
-
Refunded my Deadfire pledge, here's why...
Yosharian replied to Jojobobo's topic in Obsidian General
I don't agree that Pillars 1 is in a bad state right now, but I agree that it was in a bug-ridden state for far too long during the post-release period. Even when the XP packs were being released there were hugely problematic bugs with certain classes/items that were still being fixed. I think Obsi needs to step up their game with Pillars 2. Not gonna refund my pledge, though. -
I could not disagree more with this assessment. First off, plenty of pre-combat buffing options already exist. Food. Potions. And priest trap spells. Regular traps too. Second, the game already has such an effortless stealth system, so that 90 percent of the fights permit you to position your guys perfectly before engagement. Not just positioning but you can literally open engagement with things like a volley of ranged shots. With all this, why does the player need more buffs? Adding such a thing would make the game ridiculously easy and actually narrow combat's strategy. I also dislike the separation, but I think it's an important part of balancing the game. Allowing players to enter fights with a ****-ton of buffs creates a lot of problems, not least of which is that encounter difficulty has to be designed with it in mind, meaning that everyone pretty much has to do it or they are nerfing their own power. And pre-party buffing is ANNOYING AS HELL.
-
Humor in Deadfire
Yosharian replied to a topic in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
I'm surprised to see people saying the humour in PoE1 was ok. I can't remember any funny moments from Pillars 1. One of the best things about BG2 was its humour. The Edwina affair for example was hilarious. Jan Jansen is another really funny character. I don't think PoE1 had anything like that. It was super bleak. -
Paladin Order Talents
Yosharian replied to Murp's topic in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Not having a base Paladin that doesn't specialise is just dumb -
MaxQuest I think your ideas are excellent but I believe it's way too late in PoE2's development to make such large adjustments to the stat system. I imagine even the Resolve/Might change is causing some chaos.
-
Isn't Kensai/Mage a dual class instead of multiclass? They are totally different concept And a fighter/mage cannot access to Time stop because the exp cap in Shadows of Amn. Ok firstly no it's not an entirely different concept, it's just another way of multiclassing. The idea still applies: if characters with more than one class were restricted from taking ultimate abilities, MC wouldn't be as powerful. The problem here is that PoE's endgame abilities are generally mediocre, I mean even the top level spells are nothing special really. Secondly, xp cap? Who the hell plays BG2 without modding out the xp cap? =)
-
Portraits
Yosharian replied to iscalio's topic in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Photoshop Document file. Ah I see. And what if I don't have photoshop? I have Paint 3D... -
Begs the question: why do we even need a stat that boosts spell/healing damage? Personally I'd say there's always a need for both yes, just not in the same stat necessarily (even if healing didn't go back to Strength, it went to Con for example). As mentioned what I liked about PoE 1 was there were two separate (but not mutually exclusive) approaches to some tankiness - loads of healing or high defences. To have them concentrated in one stat has only served to over-simplify the defensive situation, much like people were complaining that when all damage increases belonged in Might the offensive situation was over-simplified, as by increasing Resolve you now have a one-size fits all approach to defence (compounded even more by offering an additional advantage - in spell damage). I think there does need to be a stat that boosts spell damage too, otherwise it would be too difficult a task to moderate how damaging to make spells (even with some benefits tied to power level). > even if healing didn't go back to Strength, it went to Con for example that is an excellent idea, only self-healing though, doesn't make sense for healing others to be boosted by the healer's con it'd be a great way to boost the value of con
-
That's true I suppose, but SCS is a particularly odd beast, hardly representative of a normal BG2 experience, and you only talked about one fight I believe? BG2 Wizard Slayer is balls because the advantages aren't balanced with the disadvantages for the vast majority of the game, simple as that. Not to mention that equipping your character with awesome equipment (certainly a big part of BG2) becomes just that little bit less fun when you can't use half the gear. For the current iteration of PoE2's Wizard Slayer to be viable, something has to be done about 'beneficial spells have shorter durations', it's just too much of a penalty. Being unable to use potions alone would discourage me from taking this subclass. If I were in charge of creating the Mage Slayer, I would do it something like this: Disadvantages cannot use scrolls loses Carnage drinking potions causes the sickened status effect for the duration of the potion, or in the case of instant effect potions, ten seconds may not multiclass with any spellcasting class Advantages replace Carnage with Spellstrike: any enemy struck by the Mage Slayer is debuffed for the remainder of the fight, debuff causes all spells cast to have double casting time, affects enemy immediately meaning if a spell is being cast when the hit lands then its cast time is immediately doubled zero recovery time (or maybe double damage instead? not sure) with any weapon when wearing no magical items (except weapons) gains new ability Spell Repulsion, the next spell to target the Mage Slayer fails completely, does not affect spells that do not target the Mage Slayer directly (instant cast time, once per encounter, lasts ten seconds) Reasoning: Replacing Carnage gives the subclass real flavour by changing the Barbarian's trademark ability, it also gives players who like the Barbarian concept but don't like Carnage different options which I think would be a real plus, it's also really interesting from a role-playing perspective. Potion-drinking is too integral to the game to be removed completely: this allows you to still use them but be penalized for it. It's also very easy to balance, it could even be a unique status effect, spell sickness for example, and it could have any number of penalties. The idea is, yes you can still pop that healing potion but it's going to penalise your character pretty hard so it's only a last resort, as opposed to a standard Barbarian who can just chug away, it's also much more interesting from a role-playing perspective. Penalties should impact on the character's ability to deal damage, or make him more susceptible to enemy attacks; they should not impact on the effect of the potion! The zero recovery time ability is basically useless because nobody is ever going to do that, but it's got two main reasons to exist: firstly, it offers flavour to the character and defines him as someone who can really go crazy with a weapon if he keeps himself 'pure' (but probably won't for practical reasons, life is a tricky beast like that). Secondly, it offers players a unique concept which they could either have fun with from a role-playing perspective or it could offer a challenge, as in hell yes, I'm going to beat Path of the Damned using a pure Mage Slayer build from start to finish. Some players thrive on this sort of thing. Spell Repulsion offers a skill-based ability in that if you use it at the wrong time it might block nothing at all, if you aren't the target of the spell you'll still get messed up, etc. It's powerful if you use it correctly, or are a little lucky. It's sort of a joker card. It's also interesting from a role-playing perspective. Summary: I replaced the Mage Slayer's current abilities, which are mostly percentage-based 'hit or miss' type affairs (Spell Disruption might do absolutely nothing even if you hit a spellcaster, Spell Resistance might do nothing not sure how it works but I'm betting its a percentage chance to resist a spell which is just crap because you can't rely on it) that are very boring and not at all thematic, with a balance of passive and active abilities that dramatically affect combat in distinct and consistent, but not overpowered, ways. And yes Spell Repulsion might do nothing at all but if it did, then it would be your fault, not the fault of ****ty dice rolls. I rebalanced the Mage Slayer's penalties to be restrictive with scrolls (mostly affects powergamers) but flexible with potions, which is a lot more reasonable than banning potions altogether in my opinion and is also more interesting for role-playing, and added the multiclass penalty which makes sense from a role-playing perspective. I think this would be a lot more fun, and would emphasise role-playing while still being interesting from a powergaming perspective.
-
Portraits
Yosharian replied to iscalio's topic in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
what's 'psd'? -
Portraits
Yosharian replied to iscalio's topic in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
fantastic stuff -
I think it's important to differentiate between the type of carry weight system that should be in games like Skyrim where the goal is immersion, and games like Baldur's Gate where the goal is fun gameplay. Not to say that Skyrim isn't 'fun', but I don't treat an immersive carry weight system with the same importance in a game like Pillars as I do in a game like Skyrim. An isometric turn-based party RPG doesn't need the same level of immersion as a first-person game. When I play Skyrim, I use an overhaul mod that dramatically changes the game to make it more realistic, including carry weight. I then add a mod which adds appropriately-tuned backpacks, pouches, etc. It's satisfying to spend time skinning animals, making leather, making bags out of them, seeing my character with all the bags equipped, etc. None of that applies in game like Pillars where it's unlikely that any 'bag' or 'pouch' item would exist in a meaningful sense, let alone be rendered on my character's avatar, not to mention that the isometric view and party-based approach to combat makes managing individual carry weights a bit of a tedious chore for very little extra immersion. And there isn't an open-world aspect that would make hunting animals and skinning them a meaningful activity. I don't necessarily think that Pillars 1's 'magic teleporting stash' concept is the best solution, I find it a bit distasteful honestly, but if it makes the game less tedious and allows me to get straight to the core gameplay pillars faster, then it's fine by me. To summarise: hunting animals, skinning them, making them into bags, making tough choices about what loot to take and what to leave behind: these are core gameplay pillars for games like Skyrim. Games like Pillars, I believe the core pillars are more isometric tactical combat and rich storytelling. Managing carry weights is a very distant priority for a game like that, for me personally. That said, I agree it would provide a nice extra mechanic for restricting characters who dump strength.
-
In Deadfire? Intimidate or Athletics (depending on whether it's physically intimidating someone or using your physical strength to move something heavy). From what we've heard there are going to be very few attribute checks in Deadfire. Most have been replaced by skill checks. Could still end up with the same problem - Intimidate needn't be strongman physical - a wizard could make his hand glow with a "Imma gonna fireball you" , or a druid might spiritshift and show their fangs/tusks/claws - similar to what was just mentioned by Katarack21 regarding Might in scripted interactions. That's why there needs to be class-based writing, (or a description of 'Intimidate' that specifically lets you know it means you're beefy). Intimidation often has nothing to do with physical strength or any other kind of strength. Ever seen a cat completely intimidate a dog twice its size? I mean yeah, size is intimidating, but there's more to it than just that.
-
Not all the writers, just the guy who wrote Durance and Grieving Mother And yet those are the most interesting and best written characters IMO. ...to be in a book It's one of the biggest problems with the way critics received PoE that the writing in it was described as 'it's like you're reading a book!' That assessment is wrong. PoE's writing reads like no book that would ever win any awards, sorry but that's the truth. The writing is, as I said, almost universally over the top with its use of high-level language. The concept 'less is more' dictates that using an apt word or phrase is excellent, but using a simpler one is also great, if it doesn't impact on the meaning. If the 'right' word is a simple one, there's nothing wrong with that. Good writing doesn't necessarily equate to complex writing. That said, I am fond of the writing, and the language it uses is very impressive in an intellectual sense. I just find it very tedious to read, and I think it impacts on one's enjoyment of the game to constantly have to put in so much effort just to decipher every. bloody. sentence.
-
Ha ha. Lets assume you want to write scripted interaction with option of physical strong character doing something. Please give me different attribute to use... You can not. This is exactly what was wrong with that attribute in PoE. None. You use might. But if the character is using spell power from Might instead of stregnth, you write that. You go something like "You glow with pure magic and the bolder is shoved by the force of your power." instead of "You strain your muscles and shove the boulder." The writers didn't do that. They defaulted to Might=Strength. They made the same mistake you are. I would have 0 problems with that actually, good suggestion. Would require a little coding magic under the hood, though.
-
That was indeed the flaw in the system. It has, apparently, been fixed in Deadfire. I really hope they go back to Might and find a different solution for Resolve being a dump stat. Making Might a dump stat for caster classes isn't really a good solution. What is so wrong with casters having a dump stat? If strength affects weapon damage, including wands/rods/etc, then str dumpers are making a choice to never do good weapon damage.
-
I don't think I need that much, I'm not into fast paced Competitve Games at all. As for now, I'm leaning towards : https://goo.gl/Mgbfjo You might think 34" is overkill, but because I'm into Music Production aswell, I really need "that much" space. [Maybe you know if you've ever been in the situation] If I'd go below that, say 29", the Screen would still be larger due to its Ultrawide nature, but almost "smaller" in space/height than my 24". [16:9 Aspect Ratio] So yeah 34" in the Minimum, this one is quite affordable, & is said to be good in "many" Applications. [Gaming, Productivity, Etc] Maybe a Developper passing by can share his opinion, I'm sure many of them, [Especially in this industry], have replaced their old 27" - 16:9 Monitors a long time ago when 21:9 became a reliable thing. Never heard of that monitor. Try posting in Reddit's Ultrawide Master Race sub, they might be able to give you more information.