Jump to content
gristlethick

Failure to create a sequel. An improved version.

Recommended Posts

It's an improvement over PoE1 in almost every way. Just a shame that the balance was so unbelievably far off at launch that none of the gameplay mechanics had a chance to shine. No combat system can feel good if the balance is so far off that you can ignore most of the mechanics entirely, not think about what you or the enemy is doing and still win.

 

The combat plays badly because the enemy doesn't (or didn't) pose a challenge, not because they removed forcing you to sit through load screens in order to access unlimited resting.

 

It's going to be nearly impossible to balance the combat so that most encounters are actual challenges. The only encounters that are going to be engaging exist in a tiny window: Between being able to knock down at least one character on a full-strength, full-spellcast party or threatening to wipe the entire party. The combat plays badly *precisely* because they removed camping/health/per rest. A game more focused around per rest *options* is actually more elastic in its ability to create engaging combat sequences. It's not as difficult to balance.

 

I hope people are happy being able to cast their super-cool fireballs every battle. Because the only way that's going to end up working via balancing is if those fireballs do middling damage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be nearly impossible to balance the combat so that most encounters are actual challenges. The only encounters that are going to be engaging exist in a tiny window: Between being able to knock down at least one character on a full-strength, full-spellcast party or threatening to wipe the entire party. The combat plays badly *precisely* because they removed camping/health/per rest. A game more focused around per rest *options* is actually more elastic in its ability to create engaging combat sequences. It's not as difficult to balance.

 

 

 

I hope people are happy being able to cast their super-cool fireballs every battle. Because the only way that's going to end up working via balancing is if those fireballs do middling damage.

But you could cast super-cool fireballs every battle in PoE1. You can still recreate PoE1 gameplay feel, by simply not using your abilities.

 

Even though Deadfire balance was way too easy, it was still more consistent than PoE1 which is an autoattack snooze fest for majority of the game. 


h1dczBG.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's going to be nearly impossible to balance the combat so that most encounters are actual challenges. The only encounters that are going to be engaging exist in a tiny window: Between being able to knock down at least one character on a full-strength, full-spellcast party or threatening to wipe the entire party. The combat plays badly *precisely* because they removed camping/health/per rest. A game more focused around per rest *options* is actually more elastic in its ability to create engaging combat sequences. It's not as difficult to balance.

 

 

 

I hope people are happy being able to cast their super-cool fireballs every battle. Because the only way that's going to end up working via balancing is if those fireballs do middling damage.

But you could cast super-cool fireballs every battle in PoE1. You can still recreate PoE1 gameplay feel, by simply not using your abilities.

 

Even though Deadfire balance was way too easy, it was still more consistent than PoE1 which is an autoattack snooze fest for majority of the game. 

 

 

This isn't an accurate description of PotD. If you doubt me, I encourage you to reboot the original and see how far you get just attack-moving in more than half your combats.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, why is it always mages that people whinge about with regards to Might? Why is it never archers, gunners, crossbow-users or rapier-wielders, even though they should also benefit little from physical strength? Right, because people are super-invested in the image of a frail but powerful nerd superhero and their immersion shatters when that's impossible. Or at least, that's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

 

Might is clumsy, but it's an answer to an age-old problem where strength just isn't useful to many characters. Maybe it's not a very good answer and they should have done something different. Does Pillars even need attributes, at all? There's enough moving parts without them. But maybe it does, and if that's the case, then we should avoid attributes that don't do zilch for 50% of potential characters.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, why is it always mages that people whinge about with regards to Might? Why is it never archers, gunners, crossbow-users or rapier-wielders, even though they should also benefit little from physical strength?

Actually strength is especially relevant for archers as it would allow them to wield bows with a heavier draw weight. Also rapiers are typically amidst the heavier single-handed swords, if I recall correctly. But granted, gunners are a bit more debatable.

Edited by algroth
  • Like 1

My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, why is it always mages that people whinge about with regards to Might? Why is it never archers, gunners, crossbow-users or rapier-wielders, even though they should also benefit little from physical strength? Right, because people are super-invested in the image of a frail but powerful nerd superhero and their immersion shatters when that's impossible. Or at least, that's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

 

Might is clumsy, but it's an answer to an age-old problem where strength just isn't useful to many characters. Maybe it's not a very good answer and they should have done something different. Does Pillars even need attributes, at all? There's enough moving parts without them. But maybe it does, and if that's the case, then we should avoid attributes that don't do zilch for 50% of potential characters.

 

Ya, I think some folks take their obsession with certain kinds of roleplays and want that to trump effective game systems. Might is perhaps flawed, but it's a pretty elegant solution to the dump stat problem. Moreover, you don't even NEED high might to be a great Wizard in either the original nor Deadfire. Ya, if you're obsessed with fireballs and magic missiles, sure. But you can do fine just maxing Intelligence and Perception, and cursing your opponents into oblivion for the rest of the party.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

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

 

Cheers.

I don't know. With full VO, resources needed to write/plan/record all lines needed to adjust to every possible quest order seem significant. As I mostly followed the path laid before me I had only once isntance when Queen thanked me for dealing peacufully with a tribe I never met in a place I have never been to. I can easily imagine many such issues showing up, if one was more of an explorer than me.

It's not usually as difficult as re-recording every dialogue for every change. I'm not sure what they are called formally, but the way the system works is conversation dialogue & thus VA lines are handled on an individual "slide" and branching "trees" system. Usually a slide is the Queen saying "Thank you for saving x", maybe with notes about how she sas it with a big smile or some such, then a different slide comes up to continue the convo which may or may not be on the same subject. Trees are options where you say to queen: "let's talk about that x I saved" and then have multiple slides about the subject with possibly more trees and options thrown in.

 

So most of the fixes for issues with "dialogue for something I haven't done" are fixed by setting proper parameters for when those slides and/or trees should or should not appear. They don't need to re-record dialogue usually, and even in scenarios where you might think they do they can frequently get around them with clever editing & the use of this system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Man, why is it always mages that people whinge about with regards to Might? Why is it never archers, gunners, crossbow-users or rapier-wielders, even though they should also benefit little from physical strength?

Actually strength is especially relevant for archers as it would allow them to wield bows with a heavier draw weight. Also rapiers are typically amidst the heavier single-handed swords, if I recall correctly. But granted, gunners are a bit more debatable.

 

 

Algroth, actually strength should matter for crossbows too, though not in the same way as for bows.  You need strength to pull back the string on a crossbow, and perhaps this could affect recovery time. That is, a Might modifier could reduce recovery/reload/whatever time on a crossbow.  Oddly, IIRC, some, if not all, arbalests used some sort of pulley system to draw back their strings that wasn't reliant on raw strength.

 

However, guns shouldn't be affected by strength at all.

 

 

 

Man, why is it always mages that people whinge about with regards to Might? Why is it never archers, gunners, crossbow-users or rapier-wielders, even though they should also benefit little from physical strength? Right, because people are super-invested in the image of a frail but powerful nerd superhero and their immersion shatters when that's impossible. Or at least, that's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

 

Might is clumsy, but it's an answer to an age-old problem where strength just isn't useful to many characters. Maybe it's not a very good answer and they should have done something different. Does Pillars even need attributes, at all? There's enough moving parts without them. But maybe it does, and if that's the case, then we should avoid attributes that don't do zilch for 50% of potential characters.

 

Ya, I think some folks take their obsession with certain kinds of roleplays and want that to trump effective game systems. Might is perhaps flawed, but it's a pretty elegant solution to the dump stat problem. Moreover, you don't even NEED high might to be a great Wizard in either the original nor Deadfire. Ya, if you're obsessed with fireballs and magic missiles, sure. But you can do fine just maxing Intelligence and Perception, and cursing your opponents into oblivion for the rest of the party.

 

 

Honestly, I don't like the use of "Might" as a measure of arcane strength.  I think that arcane strength should be some combination of Intelligence and Resolve's modifiers.  But whatever.

 

Whether one needs a high Might to be a great wizard or other spell caster is largely related to the degree with which you trying to have that spellcaster being a damage dealer vs. doing non-damage related spells, like say, charm spells or confusion spells, or buffing or debuffing spells, etc.  Of course, this probably varies with the class of caster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Man, why is it always mages that people whinge about with regards to Might? Why is it never archers, gunners, crossbow-users or rapier-wielders, even though they should also benefit little from physical strength?

Actually strength is especially relevant for archers as it would allow them to wield bows with a heavier draw weight. Also rapiers are typically amidst the heavier single-handed swords, if I recall correctly. But granted, gunners are a bit more debatable.

 

 

I don't think it makes sense to argue weapons should require more or less strength in a game where everyone can wield everything, unless you think there should be restrictions implemented on their use, which would mean we've gone from replacing x with y attribute to completely changing the game. Also imo there are immersion breaking aspects far more obvious than the name of some attribute or other, everyone potentially wielding anything being one (though I prefer the flexibility it adds over "immersion" in this case personally), other examples would be companions making ridiculous/nonsense judgements and comments, the same "events" on the ocean happening over and over again or at a completely bizarre point, being able to piss off factions / steal willy nilly with no conseuquences, random idiots walking into battles, getting killed by friendly fire and aggroing all and sundry who didn't give a toss before (and apparently only get mad at the player's side), time only mattering in one house in Queen's Berth and the Vailian Trading Company yadda yadda. Having said that, none of those things are enough to make me rant about the devs being "selfish" like the OP, as it's still a good game, way better than most and they clearly made an effort to improve on the last one.


nvAeseu.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might is perhaps flawed, but it's a pretty elegant solution to the dump stat problem. Moreover, you don't even NEED high might to be a great Wizard in either the original nor Deadfire. Ya, if you're obsessed with fireballs and magic missiles, sure. But you can do fine just maxing Intelligence and Perception, and cursing your opponents into oblivion for the rest of the party.

People overrate the importance of attributes. They weren't particularly important in Pillars and they aren't particularly important in Deadfire either. Sure, to be an absolutely optimised damage dealing Wizard you'll want high Might, high Dexterity, high Perception and, assuming you use AoE spells, high Intellect; but if you, say, kept Might at 10 (or even dropped it a little below 10) you'd still be a perfectly good damage dealer (particularly on lower difficulties where the difference matters even less).

 

Oddly, IIRC, some, if not all, arbalests used some sort of pulley system to draw back their strings that wasn't reliant on raw strength.

Arbalests are pretty much defined by their use of a mechanical means of drawing (typically either a windlass or a cranequin - see here). Bear in mind that the biggest arbalests had draw weights higher than the current world record for the deadlift (and even smaller ones had draw weights that would be a very impressive deadlift for >99.9% of the population). Realistically most simply couldn't be drawn manually, and even if they could you wouldn't want to do so multiple times per battle.

 

Note however that even lighter crossbows typically used some for of spanning aid by the time the equivalent historical era to Pillars (see the link above). Even if you're very strong a mechanical aid slows the onset of fatigue.

 

EDIT: as a side note strength is far less important for melee fighting than games like D&D give it credit for. You certainly need a certain amount to use weapons effectively (but far less than many imagine), along with endurance (probably more important), but the reality is it doesn't take all that much force to cause a lethal blow and it's often better to use lighter blows to avoid over-committing to an attack than might be dodged or ending up with your weapon stuck in your now dead opponent.

Edited by JerekKruger
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited by Abel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is not about add new things,but lost the old thing:a long and epic main story.

I can't wait to go home from voyage in order to play Pillars2 but I don't mind the game being shorter. Fallout 1 could be considered short and it's still a great game. I really hope it will be a good game since POE1 holds something special in my heart. I don't know what it is but I finished that game 6 times and could always find different solutions to quests and new things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point complaining about infinite carry capacity.

 

POE 1 had per rest which was changed to per encounter cause people didn't like having keep going back to town. There is no way on this planet your going get any real meaningful carry system as people just wouldn't play it.

 

Modern soldiers carry upto 90lbs of gear. 

 

Thats not much when start talking of armour swords and guns. No one going want to do multiple trips to dungeon.

 

I like having limits placed but carrying loot I don't want it limited. Per rest if I found myself going back town then I was making mistakes and need to look at what I was doing wrong, hence its punishment. Carry load would be constant punishment when done nothing wrong. It would seriously get boring fast.

 

If want explanation to infinite carry capacity thank aloth for his infinite carry spell.

Edited by Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people always think swords weigh like 20+ lbs but I'm gonna blame Blizzard (and Warhammer I guess). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stength if you take Bruce Lee good example he wouldn't condition his muscles to be bigger then they were. Bigger muscles are the more they start counter each other reducing speed and can even cause muscle lock (really not great thing in combat).

 

Power is weight and speed.

 

Really good rpg would have strength give benefits up to set point and after would start give negative effects which would increase as you continue to increase it.

Should be speed in stats that is increased by strength upto point and decrease after that. Also dex should increase speed to.

 

For monk strength, speed and dex would be important and I say evenly important. Strength and speed should be for attacking and dex and speed for counters and getting out way.

 

For someone using great sword strength should need min amount to wield it, which would reduce speed. Therefore you do more damage but at cost to been defensive.

 

Most other swords would do better with less strength and more speed and if want good tank good dex to.

 

Should be possible with lighter swords or daggers etc to actually have lower strength and giving high dex so you can counter very fast and do lots lighter damage at speed.

 

As for mage that would reduce strength as requirement as could make mage dex so can defend and counter. But need good skill to generate magic from.

 

Intelligence in person should help defence and attack rating.

 

Resolve is determination and should give increase to strength and defence. Anyone wondering why say that go look up meaning of lionheart you understand what I mean.

 

Perception should increase attack and defence rating.

 

Endurance should be strength and resolve based.

Edited by Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's an improvement over PoE1 in almost every way. Just a shame that the balance was so unbelievably far off at launch that none of the gameplay mechanics had a chance to shine. No combat system can feel good if the balance is so far off that you can ignore most of the mechanics entirely, not think about what you or the enemy is doing and still win.

 

The combat plays badly because the enemy doesn't (or didn't) pose a challenge, not because they removed forcing you to sit through load screens in order to access unlimited resting.

It's going to be nearly impossible to balance the combat so that most encounters are actual challenges. The only encounters that are going to be engaging exist in a tiny window: Between being able to knock down at least one character on a full-strength, full-spellcast party or threatening to wipe the entire party. The combat plays badly *precisely* because they removed camping/health/per rest. A game more focused around per rest *options* is actually more elastic in its ability to create engaging combat sequences. It's not as difficult to balance.

 

I hope people are happy being able to cast their super-cool fireballs every battle. Because the only way that's going to end up working via balancing is if those fireballs do middling damage.

I'm sorry but per rest abilities need to die for good. They are archaic and superficial and have been done to death. If I wanted to play BG2 I'd go back and play that:D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's an improvement over PoE1 in almost every way. Just a shame that the balance was so unbelievably far off at launch that none of the gameplay mechanics had a chance to shine. No combat system can feel good if the balance is so far off that you can ignore most of the mechanics entirely, not think about what you or the enemy is doing and still win.

 

The combat plays badly because the enemy doesn't (or didn't) pose a challenge, not because they removed forcing you to sit through load screens in order to access unlimited resting.

It's going to be nearly impossible to balance the combat so that most encounters are actual challenges. The only encounters that are going to be engaging exist in a tiny window: Between being able to knock down at least one character on a full-strength, full-spellcast party or threatening to wipe the entire party. The combat plays badly *precisely* because they removed camping/health/per rest. A game more focused around per rest *options* is actually more elastic in its ability to create engaging combat sequences. It's not as difficult to balance.

 

I hope people are happy being able to cast their super-cool fireballs every battle. Because the only way that's going to end up working via balancing is if those fireballs do middling damage.

I'm sorry but per rest abilities need to die for good. They are archaic and superficial and have been done to death. If I wanted to play BG2 I'd go back and play that:D

 

 

Verde so want empower gone as that's per rest 

 

If you actually look yes they changed it from rest system in POE 1 but not truly a per encounter system because you can't balance it. 

 

So POE 2 isn't per encounter or per rest its a messed up not sure what direction go game as Obsidian can't make up their minds.

 

Honestly probability is Obsidian have new system for POE 3 cause people complaining.

 

Honest answer is you spend less fixing what you have as not constantly change things that will only bring its own issues.

 

What lot people don't get is per encounter has be balanced to majority on each level difficulty so is by default going mean it is easier then few will want, also means that anyone plays it couple times going reach point where they understand game so well its to easy and per encounter leaves no way make game more difficult. Per rest system enables people tailor difficulty as much as each person wants. 

Edited by Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Edited by Abel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

I have read every one of your posts in this thread, and I came away with 2 takeaways from them:

 

1.) I can't really think of any CRPGs that would really fit the amount of RP "preperation" that you do. CRPGs, especially modern ones, have removed a lot of the tabletop-style RP because of install sizes & voice acting (even ones as old as the original Xbox had this issue). Another layer of that is that most of these RPGs have a background already made for the MC, even if that is loosely defined. I guess what I'm trying to say is the process you described seems like a very solid process for playing tabletop PNP games, but seems like for CRPG games you're just going to end up frustrated more often than not.

 

2.) I understand the general complaint about Might that you have, and I don't disagree entirely. Might currently functions the way it does for 100% gameplay/design/meta reasons. It certainly feels odd that a stat which affects all damage, from any source, is primarily used in dialogue as the ability to lift and/or move heavy objects manually. But at the same time, I feel like you created a character without considering the gameplay mechanics of the setting. It's much like someone mentioned earlier about a "wise Mr. Magoo". It apparently isn't possible to make the character you wanted in the POE setting. Just straight up; not possible. So why not make a new character with the system that actually exists? "Lack of imagination" clearly isn't an issue for you, but that's about as close as I can describe my take on your statements about this subject. Maybe stubbornness would be more apt? You can't make the character you originally wanted due to game mechanics. But rather than thinking up a new one designed with the system in mind, you just decided "it wasn't exactly what I wanted, so I hate it!"

 

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

Edited by Seroster01
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people always think swords weigh like 20+ lbs but I'm gonna blame Blizzard (and Warhammer I guess). 

 

My issue is less about the weight, and more about most of the weapons people are carting around are 2+ foot long "sticks" of metal/wood that have to be either held or attached to you somewhere.  There's only so many places you can put such things and still fight in melee realistically.  And by "so many" I mean, 1-2 at most.  Daggers/small knives are one thing, can be fit into a belt or some such.  But multiple long swords/maces/axes/spears etc. would quickly get in the way far too much to fight in melee and not get hung up on either the items themselves or the belts & whatnot used to attach them to someone's body.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Ha! You're basically repeating the criticism not a few beta testers (including me) came up with after playing the beta for some time.

 

What was so wrong with PoE1 that you had to reinvent the wheel (pun intended) instead of improving its mechanics for PoE2?

 

But Obsidian chose to comply with the criticism they received: DR/bypass too mushy, combat too confusing, endurance/health system too complicated to be grasped, talents feel bland, per-rest is no-no and a lot of other nonsense. So here we are. Enjoy! ;)

 

 

I like the armor rating/penetration system a lot better.  Combat was never confusing - what were those people talking about?  Health/endurance was also stupidly simple and clearly explained.  Feats/talents felt bland, as did the entire class system, but that's what you get when you have at least part of the design team with a hard-on for classless systems yet the game MUST be Diet d20 to appeal to your backers.  Per-rest is fine as long as you design the game around it, etc.

 

I've said it many times before but Deadfire is like two steps forward and two BIG steps backwards.  Many things are markedly improved from Pillars, yet the whole doesn't feel like it's really gone anywhere.

 

Your post makes me glad I didn't pay extra for the beta access, though - what's the ****ing POINT of a beta if you don't listen to your testers when they tell you ****'s ****ed?  I beta tested the Cataclysm and Mists of Pandaria WoW expansions and it was the same ****ing thing - dozens of people making concise, highly detailed posts with video/screenshot evidence to support their claims, showing "guys this **** is ****ed, you really need to rethink it" and then Blizzard just puts it in anyway and... surprise!  it ends up being a huge ****ing issue (I mained a Warrior and we spent a considerable amount of effort telling them the fundamental problems of an ability like Colossus Smash, which basically removed enemy armor reduction and built Warriors around dumping all their DPS into a 6 second window, on Colossus Smash cooldown) that basically trivialized the first two seasons of PvP... in an expansion that marketed PvP as a major selling point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Man, why is it always mages that people whinge about with regards to Might? Why is it never archers, gunners, crossbow-users or rapier-wielders, even though they should also benefit little from physical strength? Right, because people are super-invested in the image of a frail but powerful nerd superhero and their immersion shatters when that's impossible. Or at least, that's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

 

Might is clumsy, but it's an answer to an age-old problem where strength just isn't useful to many characters. Maybe it's not a very good answer and they should have done something different. Does Pillars even need attributes, at all? There's enough moving parts without them. But maybe it does, and if that's the case, then we should avoid attributes that don't do zilch for 50% of potential characters.

 

Ya, I think some folks take their obsession with certain kinds of roleplays and want that to trump effective game systems. Might is perhaps flawed, but it's a pretty elegant solution to the dump stat problem. Moreover, you don't even NEED high might to be a great Wizard in either the original nor Deadfire. Ya, if you're obsessed with fireballs and magic missiles, sure. But you can do fine just maxing Intelligence and Perception, and cursing your opponents into oblivion for the rest of the party.

 

 

Except Pathfinder and 5E both eliminated the dump stat problem - 5E by making saves tied to attributes rather than abstract, derived stats (you make a Constitution or Wisdom or Charisma or whatever roll in 5E, not a will/save/fort save) and Pathfinder by tying skills to attributes and then making those skills important.  So Pillars' meandering way of "fixing" the problem... had already long since been fixed.  And understand, I'm only talking about d20 games because that's the majority of my tabletop experience - I don't have enough experience in systems like White Wolf's Storyteller System or the various d6 systems (Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, Savage Worlds, etc) to conclusively say how they do things.

 

It's like Pillars (and Deadfire) tried to reinvent the wheel and ended up making a square instead of a circle, and each iteration they keep sanding down the edges - they're eventually going to end up with a circle, just through the most obtuse route possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Man, why is it always mages that people whinge about with regards to Might? Why is it never archers, gunners, crossbow-users or rapier-wielders, even though they should also benefit little from physical strength? Right, because people are super-invested in the image of a frail but powerful nerd superhero and their immersion shatters when that's impossible. Or at least, that's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

 

Might is clumsy, but it's an answer to an age-old problem where strength just isn't useful to many characters. Maybe it's not a very good answer and they should have done something different. Does Pillars even need attributes, at all? There's enough moving parts without them. But maybe it does, and if that's the case, then we should avoid attributes that don't do zilch for 50% of potential characters.

 

Ya, I think some folks take their obsession with certain kinds of roleplays and want that to trump effective game systems. Might is perhaps flawed, but it's a pretty elegant solution to the dump stat problem. Moreover, you don't even NEED high might to be a great Wizard in either the original nor Deadfire. Ya, if you're obsessed with fireballs and magic missiles, sure. But you can do fine just maxing Intelligence and Perception, and cursing your opponents into oblivion for the rest of the party.

 

 

Except Pathfinder and 5E both eliminated the dump stat problem - 5E by making saves tied to attributes rather than abstract, derived stats (you make a Constitution or Wisdom or Charisma or whatever roll in 5E, not a will/save/fort save) and Pathfinder by tying skills to attributes and then making those skills important.  So Pillars' meandering way of "fixing" the problem... had already long since been fixed.  And understand, I'm only talking about d20 games because that's the majority of my tabletop experience - I don't have enough experience in systems like White Wolf's Storyteller System or the various d6 systems (Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, Savage Worlds, etc) to conclusively say how they do things.

 

It's like Pillars (and Deadfire) tried to reinvent the wheel and ended up making a square instead of a circle, and each iteration they keep sanding down the edges - they're eventually going to end up with a circle, just through the most obtuse route possible.

 

 

IDK about Pathfinder (since I've read a lot about the base mechanics, but never actually played a game) but Dump Stats are still a thing in 5E for sure.  It's not usually a great idea to dump DEX/WIS/CON because those are the most common saves targeted.  But having a -1 or 0 mod for those isn't usually game breaking either, especially since you can get bonuses from Proficiency through different methods to offset low values here.  INT/CHA are very dumpable if they aren't your primary stat bc there's so few things that target those saves as to be irrelevant.  STR is kinda in the middle, there's a lot of saves that target STR involved in melee combat (push/grapple/knockdown & such) but back-liners can dump it & it won't completely cripple their character usually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a follow up, the rules I've seen for 5e won't allow a character to go sub-8 on any one ability score, that's the real reason there's no true dump stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...