Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.

[Purudaya]

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.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Purudaya

[JerekKruger]

Obsidian removed a lot of mechanics from PoE that I liked, and replaced them with ones I like less (or don't like at all). It sucks (for me), but it is what it is. I still enjoy the world and the story telling so I'll get more than my money's worth from the game, but I can't see myself replaying the game anywhere near as much as I did PoE. From that point of view I can understand where the OP is coming from.

 

Of course Obsidian didn't make Deadfire for me, and some of the changes I don't like seem to be generally popular. Given Obsidian's bottom line is to sell their games in sufficient volume to keep going I can't begrudge them really. The concerns of the OP, and in general everyone who discusses the game here or elsewhere online, are not held by most players.

[AeonsLegend]

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.

1. Yea, I didn't like this at all either. It really forces you to play a MAD character. I'm pretty sure a fireball shouldn't do more damage because I got bigger muscles.

 

2. Funny thing this. There is an option in the difficulty screen in POE I that allows you to turn off infinite stash. They seem to have removed this in POE II.

 

3. I think the game lacks any form of proper healing spells as well. Doesn't make the game unplayable, it just makes your priest a bad wizard.

[Abel]

 

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.

[algroth]

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.

[Abel]

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.

[Baltic]

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?

[daven]

POE1 is hardly a perfect game.

 

I think Deadfire is much improved, but also with many flaws I hope the patches will fix...!

[Wormerine]

 

While I wish 1.0 would be much more polished, I disagree strongly that the Deadfire, "reinvents" the wheel, or changes what didn't need to be changed. As Boeroer mentioned, the changes made were response to common criticism of the first game.

Unless I completely misread his post I don't think his point was that it was a good thing, it sounded clearly sardonic to me.

Et tu, Boeroer?

 

 

 

[AeonsLegend]

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.

[Abel]

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.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Abel

[Karkarov]

Truthfully I don't agree with some of the mechanics changes, but they are small potatoes long run and don't really effect the game that much.  In my opinion Deadfire is an improvement over Eternity 1 in almost every way, graphically, musically, the VO, the world building, the factions, the party interactions, the class system, all of it is better.  But there are a few core problems.

 

1: It probably isn't hard enough right now.  This is actually a very very minor issue.  The game balance can be tweaked and modded on the fly, and patches can continue to hit that will dial the game in more and more.  The current beta patch is already a big step in the right direction from what I am hearing.  It is only a matter of time before this is fixed, hence it is a minor problem.  It is also probably the top priority to fix, so likely sooner rather than later.

 

2: Relationship bugs.  This is a little more problematic because finding all of them, and determining what is causing them, can be tough.  It will get fixed eventually, but it will take time.  By relationship bugs I mean things like talking to Furrante about mission X, then being asked by person Y to help Furrante with it, then when talking to Furrante again he acts like you never talked to him before.  Or how you might say recruit Tekehu, spend maybe 30 minutes with him in the party, then board your ship and suddenly he is your best friend and making a pass at you when you just met.

3: The killer problem to me, the main plot is kind of weak.  This is the biggest problem with the game, because it isn't a bug, so it can't be patched.  The main plot just is not as good as say Eternity 1, or Baldur's Gate.  It isn't Neverwinter Nights 1 bad, but it isn't good.  There are already tons of posts about why in the spoiler forum, so not going to rehash that here.

[Baltic]

 

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.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Baltic

[AeonsLegend]

 

 

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'm pretty sure they also complain about being able to pummel your enemy with a stick as well. But it's true that you can always roleplay your way out of a bad game design choice. Thing is. I don't want to have to do that.

Edited June 3, 2018 by AeonsLegend

[Baltic]

 

 

 

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'm pretty sure they also complain about being able to pummel your enemy with a stick as well. But it's true that you can always roleplay your way out of a bad game design choice. Thing is. I don't want to have to do that.

I'm really sorry but I've lost whatever you're original point was. As for you other point I too would prefer not to have t. I only take issue with the idea that you are forced to pick the nonsensical options and that explanations around their meer existence are impossible.

[AeonsLegend]

I'll help you understand better:

 

[Abel]

 

 

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...

[Baltic]

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.

[Abel]

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.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Abel

[Baltic]

@ 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.

[Hebruixe]

I disagree with obsidian's approach in what a sequel should be. Maybe I'm full of myself here. But I'm a lowlife who has spent most of his time playing video games. The people who create these games tend to have a stable life because of the intellectual and artistic demands required in creating a functional video game. Especially one that a lot of people have high hopes for.

 

You've made the classic mistake I see developers make all the time. Instead of simply improving upon the framework you had in the previous game and just taking all the mistakes you made, and fixing them. And ideas you had in hind sight, and applied them. You would have created a sequel. An improved version. Deadfire isn't pillars 2.0. It's almost different game. It doesn't really bear it's previous title.

 

You've made too many new things. You don't know exactly what you're doing with your new things. You had the old things figured out for you. Why didn't you just improve upon that?  I can tell you ran out of time because you approached so many new avenues. This game needed another year at least.

 

I hate what you've done. Because it's half assed. If you want to create a new experience, really create something new. COMPLETELY different. If you want a new version, then focus on improving it from the previous game. You got caught in a situation where you know you weren't able to fulfill EITHER desire you had in creating something new that breaks the mold. Or an improvement from the previous game.

 

Don't end up in this limbo between new and improved ever again. It's lame. It's selfish.

 

I don't think Deadfire is a bad game. I've had a lot of fun playing it.

 

But I do think it's a bad sequel. There are a number of glaring problems.

 

It fails to deliver a proper in-game transition between the end of Pillars 1 and the beginning of Pillars 2.

 

It stupidly discards progression continuity between the two games, without any kind of serious or logically consistent explanation. (Why is the Watcher reverted to level 1? "Because...uhhh...his soul was drained by Eothas...!" Why were Eder, Aloth, and Pallegina reverted to level 1? "Because...uh...um...gee, we didn't expect anyone to notice that...well, just because.")

 

/facepalm

 

The main story ("Hunt a god and save your soul!") is short, shallow, and badly written. 

 

Honestly, Deadfire should have been a spinoff rather than a sequel. The protagonist should NOT have been the Watcher of Caed Nua. It should have been a brand new character. Because Pillars 2 sure feels and plays like a spinoff. Too bad they never realized this.

 

I'm still a fan of the game. Which is why I care about its flaws.

[Abel]

@ 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-

[Heijoushin]

I disagree with obsidian's approach in what a sequel should be. Maybe I'm full of myself here. But I'm a lowlife who has spent most of his time playing video games. The people who create these games tend to have a stable life because of the intellectual and artistic demands required in creating a functional video game. Especially one that a lot of people have high hopes for.

 

Don't end up in this limbo between new and improved ever again. It's lame. It's selfish.

 

Listen up, you low-life gaming maggot with delusions of grandeur: When you're a creator, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If they created a perfect Pillars of Eternity 2.0, they would have been slammed for not enough innovation. So, they made Deadfire, and they get called out for being selfish for changing too much.

 

At the end of the day, the most important thing is that they're creating sequels because they still have some creative vision left, NOT because their bosses are telling them to do it for the company's bottom line.

 

(Also, stable life because of artistic demands? What are you going on about? You know how much crunch time game designers pull?)

Edited June 3, 2018 by Heijoushin

[Baltic]

@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'.

[George_Truman]

2013: PoE is nothing like BG2, why did you have to ruin a good system?

 

2018: PoE2 is nothing like PoE, why did you have to ruin a good system?

 

They are making so many changes to the game right now I recommend giving it a bit of time. The worst part of the game to me is that it is too easy, but it looks like they are trying to change that (try out beta 1.1). Also I am looking forward to the challenges that they want to add after tuning.