Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

PrimeJunta's BB v257 summary

feedback summary review

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#21
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
I've already described that you can maneuver the Fighter many different ways in the IE games in my videos (in BG2 you got abilities with Kits and HLAs) and you could use them ranged or melee unless you were a Kensai.

Therefore, the IE games Fighter is a more flexible class (and less boring) than the done to death boring Tank Aggro 101 MMO Fighter design that PE has. Yawn.

Edited by Sensuki, 27 August 2014 - 08:31 AM.

  • GreyFox, Shadenuat and Cubiq like this

#22
Karkarov

Karkarov

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3116 posts
  • Steam:Karkarov
  • PSN Portable ID:Karkarov
  • Xbox Gamertag:Karkarov
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Watcher
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

I've already described that you can maneuver the Fighter many different ways in the IE games in my videos (in BG2 you got abilities with Kits and HLAs) and you could use them ranged or melee unless you were a Kensai.

Therefore, the IE games Fighter is a more flexible class (and less boring) than the done to death boring Tank Aggro 101 MMO Fighter design that PE has. Yawn.

No the jury went out on that a long time ago and it came down unanimous the fighter was pretty darn boring in the IE games regardless of how you played them.  In this game at least they have a important job that while being boring and unfun is actually as important or more important than every other non tank classes job.

 

All the fighter really needs is a few more abilities that give them some versatility like a charge attack so they aren't so static.



#23
Enoch

Enoch

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3152 posts
  • Location:Other Planes of There
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

When Obsidian says "we want to support all builds" they don't mean "we want to support playing a character in a way that is blatantly against that characters role".  No one is asking to play a melee mage who never casts spells, or a priest who has no buffs or stamina heals.  So why does everyone want to play a fighter that doesn't tank?

 

The problem is again, this isn't D&D, and it it were D&D it would be 4th edition not second or third where you could become a ranged fighter if you wanted to.  Being a ranged fighter in eternity simply wont work unless they massively overhaul the fighter class and how engagement works.  Too much effort to support one very weird and very unpopular build of a single class.

 

Perhaps a better way to express this is that there is a relatively common player desire to make a ranged-combat specialist who isn't a Ranger-- i.e., who doesn't come with the nature-boy suite of abilities.  In AD&D, that character would be a Fighter, so that's the place people are looking to begin their "I hate trees" Gunner/Bowman character. 

 

I submit that the PoE Rogue is probably the better place to start.  Given that Obsids are breaking further from the D&D Rogue's "Thiefy" origins and casting them primarily as skirmishers and guerrila fighters, having a valid ranged-weapon path for the Rogue class seems like a natural extention of the class concept.  (And would diversify the class more than PJ's observed "hobble+stabstabstab.")


  • Karkarov, PrimeJunta, Marceror and 1 other like this

#24
Marceror

Marceror

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1444 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

Fighter may be boring, but at least it fills its role of a tank better than any other class. Similar observation with the priest. Sort of straight forward but it fills a unique role.

 

Rogue on the other hand, even though Obsidian considers it one of the "core four" really has no unique core role.

 

Any other class can pick locks and sneak around. So all a rogue really has going for it is some damage potential, which every other class also has.

 

As a rogue lover, I find this very unfortunate. Even not as a rogue lover, it's unfortunate.


Edited by Marceror, 27 August 2014 - 08:37 AM.

  • Karkarov likes this

#25
Karkarov

Karkarov

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3116 posts
  • Steam:Karkarov
  • PSN Portable ID:Karkarov
  • Xbox Gamertag:Karkarov
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Watcher
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

I submit that the PoE Rogue is probably the better place to start.  Given that Obsids are breaking further from the D&D Rogue's "Thiefy" origins and casting them primarily as skirmishers and guerrila fighters, having a valid ranged-weapon path for the Rogue class seems like a natural extention of the class concept.  (And would diversify the class more than PJ's observed "hobble+stabstabstab.")

Exactly.  If you really do want to play a ranged damage dealer that isn't a ranger the obvious choice is Rogue.  All their abilities already work from range and their core mechanic of "backstabbing" still works at ranged, it is just a little more complex to get a enemy flanked since the rogue can't do it themselves.


  • PrimeJunta and Marceror like this

#26
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

No the jury went out on that a long time ago and it came down unanimous the fighter was pretty darn boring in the IE games regardless of how you played them.  In this game at least they have a important job that while being boring and unfun is actually as important or more important than every other non tank classes job.
 
All the fighter really needs is a few more abilities that give them some versatility like a charge attack so they aren't so static.


Not everyone agreed with that and actives is not going to make the class fun to play, or versatile. Movement and positioning is a bit more important in the IE games than it appears to be in MMOs.

The Kensai was an awesome class to play even if all you really did was auto attack and use Kai. Somehow it was fun with just one active omg!

Edited by Sensuki, 27 August 2014 - 08:41 AM.

  • GreyFox and Shadenuat like this

#27
Fearabbit

Fearabbit

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 343 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

Great post, PrimeJunta! Reflects the impression I got from watching others play the beta pretty well. I'd complain a bit more about the character generation UI, personally - I think that having to select stat-changing character traits after selecting the attributes is confusing, and I've seen at least one YouTube video where a guy actually was very confused by it. (Like - he can't figure it out, even while he changes his Culture from Aedyr to Vailian and sees the numbers change. So that guy might not actually be the best example, but still.)

 

Also the default value for attributes should be 9 or 10, like you said - with the effect of lowering the number described as a malus, not as a bonus that's slightly smaller.

Concerning races and their differences: I didn't see lots of modifiers that decreased attributes, but I think there's something about them that makes them define a race much better - if you get a "-2" to something, it hurts. If you have to play a Fighter with MIG 16 instead of 18, just because you wanted to play an Orlan, that's something you notice.


  • Karkarov likes this

#28
GreyFox

GreyFox

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
 

 

I agree with most of your suggestions. Except for Sword to Crossbow as a talent, IMO Fighters should have a better ranged accuracy as a base.

My problems with the Ranger and Fighter is that they are too focused on Ranged and Melee respectively. IMO, I think the abilities should try to be neutral in regards to Ranged or Melee with Talents being the deciding factor in determining if the character is a Ranged or Melee specialist. A dual-wielding Ranger and a sniper fighter sound like cool characters to play, but are currently unsupported. That should be changed.

While I like your post, there is a problem.

 

Classes in this game regardless of build stuff are broken into some main categories.  Support, Damage, and Tanking.  It is called "The Trinity" it is used in almost every MMO that exists.  Problem: You can't tank from ranged.  In Eternity speak, you can not "engage" an enemy from range.  The entire class concept of the Fighter is stamina regen, high deflection, can engage multiple enemies.  Every single one of these core class concepts is meaningless if you play them at range.

 

When Obsidian says "we want to support all builds" they don't mean "we want to support playing a character in a way that is blatantly against that characters role".  No one is asking to play a melee mage who never casts spells, or a priest who has no buffs or stamina heals.  So why does everyone want to play a fighter that doesn't tank?

 

The problem is again, this isn't D&D, and it it were D&D it would be 4th edition not second or third where you could become a ranged fighter if you wanted to.  Being a ranged fighter in eternity simply wont work unless they massively overhaul the fighter class and how engagement works.  Too much effort to support one very weird and very unpopular build of a single class.

 

I do agree that all the ranger needs is to have his abilities switched slightly so they aren't "range" specific and they will be fine.  But again, that's a very simple fix.

 

 

This isn't an MMO either....

 

A lot of people, by default, have an issue with this nonsense MMO style of "tank" "deeps" "support" system.

Why is he called a fighter and not a tank?  

 

Also the wizards "role" is mobruler  so casting your buffs and wading into melee combat is going against that. 

 

The idea that a "fighter" can't fight with ranged in this is pretty lame and always was. The whole class seems to play as boring as it looks on paper and there is no reason that any of the potential melee characters can't be a "front liner" so having that moniker on only 2 of the potential melee classes is weak.

 

Maybe there will be added talents and such that covers duel-wield/2h weapon attacks since I definitely don't associate FIGHTER with one who sits there and gets beat on all day without much retort.

 

 

 

 

 

 



#29
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
I agree. It would be cool if you could have a Fighter and a Paladin, or a Fighter and a Monk and NOT use the Fighter as the main tank but use them in a different role somehow with more flexibility.

Currently if you are not using the Fighter as your main tank, the character is not being used properly. Every other class has more flexibility than this. The Fighter needs more.
  • GreyFox likes this

#30
swordofthesith

swordofthesith

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 143 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

Great post Prime!

 

RE the Fighter. I would recommend rather than give the fighter more flexibility (range or melee) I would like to see the fighter's tanking powers deepened with more strategic options. I am aware that we do not have a taunt feature in PoE but I would like the fighter to be able to control MOB aggro in some limited fashion to give the class better command over the flow of battle and more value to the player.

 

Right now, the fighter acts as nothing more than a giant auto attack fly trap. You send them in and hope they engage as many MOBs as possible so that your padded armor, arquebus wielding party members can burn down the MOBs in short order.  


  • Karkarov likes this

#31
Karkarov

Karkarov

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3116 posts
  • Steam:Karkarov
  • PSN Portable ID:Karkarov
  • Xbox Gamertag:Karkarov
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Watcher
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
Not everyone agreed with that and actives is not going to make the class fun to play, or versatile. Movement and positioning is a bit more important in the IE games than it appears to be in MMOs.

Did you really just say movement and position is more important in IE games than in MMO's?

 

I was going to belabor that point, but I will pass and not dignify it other than to say you have no clue how wrong you are.

 

Also I find it hard to believe giving a fighter a crossbow instead of a sword will make him more fun.  Just think about it for a minute.  Now not only is he still just auto attacking with the once in awhile knockdown, but now his position doesn't even matter he just has to be standing somewhere reasonably spread out so you can't aoe bomb your whole party at once.  The fighter becomes even lower maintenance and even less interesting at range, so no thank you.

 

 

This isn't an MMO either....

Very true.  As it currently stands though if you asked me "What does Eternity have more in common with on the combat level?" I would say 4th Edition D&D.  4th Edition D&D which also borrowed heavily from and copied many MMO mechanics.  So would I say Eternity is closer in Mechanics to an MMO than the Infinity Engine games?  At the core level, yes, I would.

 

As an aside there is nothing stopping you from being a two hand fighter or duel wield fighter as it stands now.  In fact I find a duel wield fighter with high dex and high perception is very strong as a tank because they score lots of interrupts and attack quickly.


Edited by Karkarov, 27 August 2014 - 08:59 AM.


#32
GreyFox

GreyFox

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

RE the Fighter. I would recommend rather than give the fighter more flexibility (range or melee) I would like to see the fighter's tanking powers deepened with more strategic options. I am aware that we do not have a taunt feature in PoE but I would like the fighter to be able to control MOB aggro in some limited fashion to give the class better command over the flow of battle and more value to the player.

 

 

That'd be a sick pitch for some WoW2, not so much for an IE inspired game.


  • PrimeJunta and Seari like this

#33
GreyFox

GreyFox

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

Not everyone agreed with that and actives is not going to make the class fun to play, or versatile. Movement and positioning is a bit more important in the IE games than it appears to be in MMOs.

Did you really just say movement and position is more important in IE games than in MMO's?

 

I was going to belabor that point, but I will pass and not dignify it other than to say you have no clue how wrong you are.

 

Also I find it hard to believe giving a fighter a crossbow instead of a sword will make him more fun.  Just think about it for a minute.  Now not only is he still just auto attacking with the once in awhile knockdown, but now his position doesn't even matter he just has to be standing somewhere reasonably spread out so you can't aoe bomb your whole party at once.  The fighter becomes even lower maintenance and even less interesting at range, so no thank you.

 

 

This isn't an MMO either....

Very true.  As it currently stands though if you asked me "What does Eternity have more in common with on the combat level?" I would say 4th Edition D&D.  4th Edition D&D which also borrowed heavily from and copied many MMO mechanics.  So would I say Eternity is closer in Mechanics to an MMO than the Infinity Engine games?  At the core level, yes, I would.

 

 

And I'm saying that it's a bad thing....probably will go over well too since 4E is so poplar eh?



#34
PrimeJunta

PrimeJunta

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4900 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

@Karkarov Good points re the inherent tankiness of the fighter. So add the ranged options to the rogue, then. I don't really care which class is used as a base, but I want my musketeer. They have the best hats.

 

Edit: Oh, ninja'ed by multiple posters. Anyway, I concur.


Edited by PrimeJunta, 27 August 2014 - 09:01 AM.

  • Karkarov likes this

#35
KaineParker

KaineParker

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3021 posts
  • Location:Houston, Texas
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
I think beefing up the Fighter's potential for ranged combat will provide more tactical options than the class currently has. For example, if you have your Fighter engaging a group and that group goes down but there are still enemies to kill, being able to switch to a rifle and knocking down from range would be the tactic I would go with, especially if Fighter was low on stamina. I agree that the Rogue class would be the ideal candidate for a non-magical non-nature ranged specialist, but giving the Fighter(IMO the most boring class) more options would be cool.

As it is, I'm hard pressed to do anything with the Fighter other than throw him at a group of enemies and let them trade blows.

#36
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Rogue can already be ranged, and most people probably use them as a ranged character anyway (such as with a firearm).

The 4E class design of itself was pretty uniform. Most Encounter and Daily powers that were non utility were actives that made some specific type of attack with a special property.

For instance the Fighter's at wills were : Cleave - hit guy next to you for 3 + Str damage or whatever. Sure Strike - +2 accuracy, Tide of Iron - push back one square

Most encounter and daily powers were of the same nature for all classes. This is what I found boring about 4th edition.

Thankfully the 4E influence hasn't spread too far into ability design for this game, phew.
  • GreyFox and PrimeJunta like this

#37
PrimeJunta

PrimeJunta

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4900 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

Well yeah, you can make a ranged rogue, but he won't be all that great at it. Average ranged accuracy and no ranged talents. Only the cipher and ranger have above-average ranged accuracy ATM.



#38
Karkarov

Karkarov

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3116 posts
  • Steam:Karkarov
  • PSN Portable ID:Karkarov
  • Xbox Gamertag:Karkarov
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Watcher
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
And I'm saying that it's a bad thing....probably will go over well too since 4E is so poplar eh?

That is also meaningless because it is too late to redesign the core combat mechanics of the game.

 

Well yeah, you can make a ranged rogue, but he won't be all that great at it. Average ranged accuracy and no ranged talents. Only the cipher and ranger have above-average ranged accuracy ATM.

Which I also noticed and find very odd.  Seriously, make a cipher character.  Check every culture.  For a class that's base stats seem to imply is better at range than melee they only get 1, yes 1, culture that actually starts them with a ranged weapon.  Something about that seems odd especially since many Cipher abilities lend themselves very very well to melee combat more so than range. 

 

Personally I think Rogues and Ciphers both should just be given 20 ranged and 20 melee accuracy and be done with it.  They are damage dealers, there is nothing wrong with them favoring neither range or melee, let the player choose.  Having both equal isn't even a advantage as it isn't like you can use them at the same time.


Edited by Karkarov, 27 August 2014 - 10:51 AM.


#39
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Personally I think Rogues and Ciphers both should just be given 20 ranged and 20 melee accuracy and be done with it.  They are damage dealers, there is nothing wrong with them favoring neither range or melee, let the player choose.  Having both equal isn't even a advantage as it isn't like you can use them at the same time.


I do agree with that, although I have a feeling that everyone appears to be getting 35 points of accuracy to spread across both values, in which case values of 20 and 15 wouldn't be too bad.

#40
Cubiq

Cubiq

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 395 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I've already described that you can maneuver the Fighter many different ways in the IE games in my videos (in BG2 you got abilities with Kits and HLAs) and you could use them ranged or melee unless you were a Kensai.

Therefore, the IE games Fighter is a more flexible class (and less boring) than the done to death boring Tank Aggro 101 MMO Fighter design that PE has. Yawn.

 

This is exactly what i feared was going to happen when i first read about the the engagement mechanics.

What was the point of having real time combat, if melee are going to be nailed to the ground the moment combat begins.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: feedback, summary, review

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users