E3 Previews (POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Yeah funny things those homonyms and dictionaries. Words that sound the same but can have different spellings and meanings. Despite the fact words like newb and their correct meaning have been around for decades.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Homonyms are actually quite funny, indeed, as they serve the basis for many a pun. I dunno about dictionaries, though. They don't seem very funny.

 

But, yeah, for what it's worth, homonyms are different words that sound the same, not just a variety of shorthand mispellings of the same word that someone's applied various meanings to.

 

Just like... "puppy" and "pup" aren't homonyms. They're just two different versions of the same word. If they were going to be a type of -nym, it'd be synonyms.

 

New players are considered to not really know what they're doing in a game, thus, it became a common insult to call someone a "newbie" or "newb." It's a lot like someone in any professional field calling someone else a "rookie" as a comment on their skills/knowledge. Then, people began spelling it all manner of ways. They didn't make up entirely new words that just happen to phonetically sound like "newb," as they all stem from the root word "newbie" and its meaning. So, yes, it's a little silly to pretend that various mispellings of the same word are totally legitimately established individual words with their own meanings. As if "thx" means something different from "thanks."

 

Now, as lovely as that tangent is, I think the actual topic is much lovelier.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Perhaps consulting a dictionary next time instead of going all gobbledygook. It should help clear things up.

[Lephys]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noob?s=ts

 

Yes, perhaps it would.

 

Maybe we could talk about the effects of experience amounts on gameplay feel some more, now?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Lets ignore all the other relevant, equally valuable and legitimate reference sites (with referenced and legitimate definitions) that show the differences between the two.

 

Anyway, my point was it looks like it will be hard to make a bad character even if you put points in stats you have little knowledge about or don't know what effects it will do. Just like my example of putting points in INT for a Fighter or Barbarian. You may have someone mistakenly put points in a stat and all of a sudden, the game rewards you. I would like to know if you can make a bad character. By the sounds of it, it's going to be difficult because the game seems to protects players from doing so. eg. Put points in this stat and all of a sudden, I get rewarded for X. Put points in another stat which I think will gimp my character and all of a sudden, I get rewarded for Y.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[dr membrano]

 I would like to know if you can make a bad character. By the sounds of it, it's going to be difficult because the game seems to protects players from doing so.

 

Someone in another thread put it well when they said that a player shouldn't be able to add their own intelligence into the game; if you're playing a low INT character you should never be out-witting NPCs. 

 

From spoilers, I've gathered that they're doing their best to make magic somewhat "separate yet equal" insomuch that each school has its own benefits rather than one obvious-choice power group of spells opposed to non-combat alternatives. But this goes to Hiro's point; how padded will it be? If you choose to level your skilling abilities in lieu of combative ones, when it comes time to fighting a boss you better hope you learned how to craft a bomb. I think it'd make the entire game more fun to know that you can get to the final boss battle and simply not be powerful enough to defeat him. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I was reading an interview with Josh Sawyer from last year stating:
 

If you’re like, “I want to make a muscle-wizard. It has a high strength and a high con” — that’s also a very good character. If you want to make a fighter with a high intelligence and a high resolve, that’s also a good character. Might not be the most optimal character, but it’s not a bad character.

 
Now I'm okay to be able to create a muscle wizard or intelligent fighter and as Josh says, it's not the most optimal character, but it's also not a bad character. So staying way from optimisation and focusing on mid range to bad characters. My concern is if you go against the standard STR Fighter, INT Wizard, WIS Druid, etc and do something the opposite, could it also be: "not be the most optimal character, but it’s not a bad character"? I guess we won't know until we play the game.

 

I see it as a double edge sword. Try and make the game so it doesn't punish those who make mistakes. Whoops, I picked the wrong stat and now I have a terrible character. The game has now punished me. On the other hand, if you do make mistakes, the game now rewards you if you do pick the wrong stat. It may not be the most optimal character, but it's not a bad character. I'm not sure rewarding mistakes is necessarily a good thing.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Anyway, my point was it looks like it will be hard to make a bad character even if you put points in stats you have little knowledge about or don't know what effects it will do. Just like my example of putting points in INT for a Fighter or Barbarian. You may have someone mistakenly put points in a stat and all of a sudden, the game rewards you. I would like to know if you can make a bad character. By the sounds of it, it's going to be difficult because the game seems to protects players from doing so. eg. Put points in this stat and all of a sudden, I get rewarded for X. Put points in another stat which I think will gimp my character and all of a sudden, I get rewarded for Y.

The thing is, not being able to make an inherently terrible character and not being able to ineffectively use a given build are two different things.

 

You bring up a good point, but then you make it sound like if a player's cat runs across the keyboard at character creation, then he plays the game blindfolded, he'll still win.

 

When Josh says that a muscle wizard isn't a bad character, he means that, with cognitive effort, you can put that build choice to good use. If you want to mainly toss AoE spells left and right, but you pump everything into Constitution, Might, and Resolve, you're not going to make much use of your stat choices.

 

So, when it comes to any given option (in this case, stat) being not an inherently bad choice, I don't see that as somehow problematic. It's no different from the classes. You can't pick one class that just sucks because you picked it, and another that's awesome because it just is. It's all about how you use them. If you try to hold the lines with a Wizard, and have a rear line of nothing but Fighters with wands, you're not going to have a good time. Yet, each and every class choice is valuable in some way just not in whatever way you draw out of a hat.

 

The bottom line is, there's no need for useless or flat-out inferior build options in order for good ones/a range of effectiveness to exist. The effectiveness of your choices is related to how you use them, not whether or not they inherently do as much as other ones. Eliminating the just-plain badness of build options doesn't make sure Billy Who Thinks This Is An FPS And Doesn't Even Comprehend Mathematics can fire up the game and succeed. It doesn't negate the value of effort and contemplation.

[Sensuki]

I don't think Strength Might will necessarily be the best attribute for Fighters. CON and perhaps DEX look to be more important. Even PER might be pretty good as interrupts theoretically reduce enemy DPS.

 

I don't think there's supposed to be any wrong stats. One (big) mistake might be not having a very good Dexterity though.

 

Apparently even a high Perception Priest is supposed to be "cool", as you can theoretically use the same few damaging spells over and over again.

[Leferd]

 

Angry Joe interview with Brandon. Should get them some pretty good exposure.

[Zwiebelchen]

I gotta say I really love the way the attributes are implemented in PoE (from all the informations that are available here: http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Attribute), even if they are highly abstracted to make all attributes viable for all classes (for example might affecting both physical and magical damage).

 

Maybe not the ideal system from a roleplaying perspective, but definitely a system that rewards people trying out unconventional stuff. And, let's face it, building a character is the bread & butter of any good cRPG.

 

 

My inner 9-year-old powergamer is excited to try out all the different playstyles that derive from the attributes for just the warrior alone.

A classical STR, CON heavily armored (high "damage treshold" armor, which means almost all attacks will hit him, but they will deal a lot less damage) meatshield warrior?

Or a DEX, RES build that relies on non-interruptable and precise attacks that almost never miss the target? Probably a deadly magekiller with that high WILL score.

Or even an INT, PER warrior, that is just a pain in the ass with all those interrupts and long-lasting debuffs...

 

As far as I can see it now, the attributes and sub-stats have been designed with the clear intention of rock-paper-scissoirs in mind.

There's always a counter-stat for every stat available.

 

-> accuracy vs. defense

-> damage vs damage treshold on armors

-> Interrupt vs concentration

 

 

One (big) mistake might be not having a very good Dexterity though.

 

Not neccessarily. From what I understood from reading the wiki, armor has a "damage treshold" depending on the armor type. Which means you can totally build a MIGHT/CON meatshield warrior. It will probably eat every attack, but due to the high damage treshold, each attack will do considerably less damage (and the high CON increases health and stamina). You won't hit a lot, but you will be able to pierce through even the best armor when you do. It really depends on the beastiary, I think. If there are enough enemies that are easy to hit, but have a high damage absorb (like a golem or giant), a high MIGHT score might trump a high DEX score.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Zwiebelchen

[Sensuki]

 

One (big) mistake might be not having a very good Dexterity though.

 

Not neccessarily.....

 

When I said that I meant across the board rather than specific to the Fighter itself.

[Mannock]

Interesting wording from Brandon in that Angry Joe interview. Being asked how many joinable NPCs there are in the game he answers:

 

"There are eight that we have announced."

 

Ambigous answer but probably just me wishing for some extra secret NPCs.

[Sensuki]

I've been saying for a while that the final amount is likely up in the air, In the RPGCodex interview. Carrie Patel said she would be working on at least one, but possibly two companions.

 

Plus there's a bunch of other "hints" that there may be more than 8 depending on how the writers go.

 

They have five companion writers that we know about: Eric, Chris, Josh, Carrie and Matt McLean.

 

If Chris, Matt and Carrie provide two each that's six. Josh is writing at least one. and Eric is probably doing at least two.

 

That's nine. And maybe Josh does two and Eric does three (if there's time), making 11

Edited June 26, 2014 by Sensuki

[Mannock]

You are feeding my tin foil thoughts, Sensuki. I like it.

 

*edit*

 

This could also explain why they avoid answering which classes will be covered by the NPCs.

 

Either because they are not sure how many NPCs they will end up with or because they don't want to reveal the extra NPCs yet.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Mannock

[Karkarov]

You are feeding my tin foil thoughts, Sensuki. I like it.

I don't think it is tin foil at all.  Art of language my friend, if he meant "we have eight companions" he wouldn't have said "announced" at the end of it.  He would have just left it at that.  I wouldn't be shocked if somehow all classes get covered.  After all that is something any backer who has spoken on it pretty much universally wanted.

[curryinahurry]

I don't think Strength Might will necessarily be the best attribute for Fighters. CON and perhaps DEX look to be more important. Even PER might be pretty good as interrupts theoretically reduce enemy DPS.

 

I don't think there's supposed to be any wrong stats. One (big) mistake might be not having a very good Dexterity though.

 

Apparently even a high Perception Priest is supposed to be "cool", as you can theoretically use the same few damaging spells over and over again.

 

 

I think you're spot on.  Using Josh Sawyer's PoleAxe example in the 81 thread, the difference in damage between a might of 10 and 18 would be about 4 points per attack on average.  That is significant, but not massively so.  If high Might has synergies with certain Talents (bypassing damage thresholds or bigger crits) or allows for faster recover using heavier weapons/ gear, then it would jump up to the top of the heap, but right now, it may only be the 4th stat for a lot of fighter builds.

[marelooke]

 

You are feeding my tin foil thoughts, Sensuki. I like it.

I don't think it is tin foil at all.  Art of language my friend, if he meant "we have eight companions" he wouldn't have said "announced" at the end of it.  He would have just left it at that.  I wouldn't be shocked if somehow all classes get covered.  After all that is something any backer who has spoken on it pretty much universally wanted.

 

On a sort of related topic, has something been mentioned about how companions will be interacting with each other, more specifically, will some *hate* each other to the point of it being a really really bad idea to have them together in your party (think Viconia and Keldorn)? Because if so 8 companions might end up a bit tight if you can have 5 of them in your party at one time.

[Mannock]

 

On a sort of related topic, has something been mentioned about how companions will be interacting with each other, more specifically, will some *hate* each other to the point of it being a really really bad idea to have them together in your party (think Viconia and Keldorn)? Because if so 8 companions might end up a bit tight if you can have 5 of them in your party at one time.

 

 

For that very reason, I don't think there will be NPCs who leaves because of another NPC in the party.

 

NPCs can leave because of your choices though.

[Bryy]

In my experience, "bad characters" just equal players trying to purposefully break the game and/or find ways they can't roleplay in order to complain about "the lack of choice".

 

We all know that guy that wants to play as a serial killer.

[nipsen]

Seriously, though. It's nice to see some people who don't outright hate Obsidian's games talk about them and all. But I sort of feel like I want to know a little bit about how the game is set up now.

[Lephys]

I think you're spot on.  Using Josh Sawyer's PoleAxe example in the 81 thread, the difference in damage between a might of 10 and 18 would be about 4 points per attack on average.  That is significant, but not massively so.  If high Might has synergies with certain Talents (bypassing damage thresholds or bigger crits) or allows for faster recover using heavier weapons/ gear, then it would jump up to the top of the heap, but right now, it may only be the 4th stat for a lot of fighter builds.

Yeah, it's a percentage, right? All the stat bonuses/modifiers are, methinks. So, if there are other ways of upping your damage, maybe that would, as you say, synergize with that?

 

I mean, I don't expect to double damage with a Might modifier or anything, but you'd think there should at least be circumstances under which giving your character 18 (or whatever the max is at character creation) Might instead of spending those points on another stat would be a significant choice.

 

Seems like a poleaxe is probably a pretty damaging weapon (numbers wise), even if it's not the highest-damage weapon there is. So, if 4 points is all we're ever going to get from average to max Might, that seems a little... lackluster?

 

Also, it seems like the very nature of the tactical combat would lend itself more to "under such-and-such circumstances, your Might modifier produces much more useful effects than under other circumstances," instead of just "you get this percentage of flat damage boost, and maybe some carry weight, and that's it."

 

I mean, I guess it'll affect all manner of non-combat happenings (scripted interactions/stat checks). But... still.

[nipsen]

..not sure, but if I'm guessing right from ..eventually getting around to reading Josh's posts in the last update thread, you can probably create some pretty diverse fighters. Maybe a fighter with high might stats won't necessarily be a huge hulk, with two-handed weapons and steady long-range damage. But a brutally fast striker who can convert accurate and frequent critical hits from just serious wounds into outright fatal attacks, but sacrificing defense and speed to do it. While a low might build could focus on causing wounding hits when they hit, stamina abilities and defense (in a way that other classes can't). Or a dueling build for a one-handed longsword that's based on avoiding critical hits but causing them more often, and hitting on the abilities first and on the first attempt. Maybe there's a way to build a fighter with incredibly high stamina but low might that will outshine everyone else after the first volley of trigger-effects.

 

Seems to me the entire threat roll calculation could allow stuff like that. ..or I mean, that you actually could build those characters from stats focus, ability picks and weapon category choices - instead of having them end up there after 20 levels, as a side-effect of an incredibly specific build.

 

So.. seems promising.

[Stun]

My inner 9-year-old powergamer is excited to try out all the different playstyles that derive from the attributes for just the warrior alone.

I agree with this. In fact, I'm the ultimate RPG tinkerer. I typically try to break every video game I play.

 

Therefore, I'm going to "stress test" PoE's system on maybe my second playthrough. I'm going to min-max as much as I can. My Barbarian will put all his points into Resolve. He'll wield a scepter.

 

We'll see if It's *really* impossible to create a bad build.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Stun

[curryinahurry]

 

I think you're spot on.  Using Josh Sawyer's PoleAxe example in the 81 thread, the difference in damage between a might of 10 and 18 would be about 4 points per attack on average.  That is significant, but not massively so.  If high Might has synergies with certain Talents (bypassing damage thresholds or bigger crits) or allows for faster recover using heavier weapons/ gear, then it would jump up to the top of the heap, but right now, it may only be the 4th stat for a lot of fighter builds.

Yeah, it's a percentage, right? All the stat bonuses/modifiers are, methinks. So, if there are other ways of upping your damage, maybe that would, as you say, synergize with that?

 

I mean, I don't expect to double damage with a Might modifier or anything, but you'd think there should at least be circumstances under which giving your character 18 (or whatever the max is at character creation) Might instead of spending those points on another stat would be a significant choice.

 

Seems like a poleaxe is probably a pretty damaging weapon (numbers wise), even if it's not the highest-damage weapon there is. So, if 4 points is all we're ever going to get from average to max Might, that seems a little... lackluster?

 

Also, it seems like the very nature of the tactical combat would lend itself more to "under such-and-such circumstances, your Might modifier produces much more useful effects than under other circumstances," instead of just "you get this percentage of flat damage boost, and maybe some carry weight, and that's it."

 

I mean, I guess it'll affect all manner of non-combat happenings (scripted interactions/stat checks). But... still.

 

 

One thing that could really relegate Might to lower on the attributes ladder is what weapons wind up using Penetration as a value to bypass DT.  If those are mostly finesse weapons, then there is still value in Might for front-liners and support classes.  But if weapons like Longswords start getting assigned penetration values, then they are really going to have to beef up Might with talents or face having it become a secondary attribute.