If a new player doesn't want to take the time to learn the game as they go, or want a 'win' button because they're a casual player, that's their problem.  If Josh is really designing it that way, then yes, there's a big problem with the attribute system (may as well just get rid of it as Indira said).  (Doesn't mean the game won't be fun, just that there'll only be one basic build of each class with minor effects (though Talents remain to be seen)).

 

'Quest-xp' was known for some time but assumed to be 'Objective-xp' by most posters in the related threads - and yes, it turned out the assumptions were wrong.  So be it, I think it's an easy fix though.  If it stays this way, I'll have to play the game to see how bad/not-bad it is.

 

 

This is exactly how the system is designed. For players who accidently make a character only to find out halfway through the game that the character sucks and isn't viable. No reading of the manual necessary to learn the game. No need to delve into manuals and attributes and skills and waste time learning all that stuff. Every build should be viable. If I randomly select attributes, skills and talents and have no idea what I'm doing, I should have a viable build to finish the game.

 

Not like that crummy stupid D&D system that a lot of posters on this forum go on about where if a player accidently puts an 8 in STR, 10 in Con and 9 in Dex, 18 in Int, 18 in Wis and 15 in Cha, only to realise their fighter is a gimped character. tsk tsk bad D&D!

 

No, those same or similar numbers should go into PoE's attribute system and it should be viable. That's the beauty of this system! Yah! Like a random number generator. Just throw some some stats in and it'll be okay.

 

 

You cannot currently make a viable melee ranger, or ranged monk, for example. Only some of them -- the wizard and cipher, in particular -- easily lend themselves to both melee or ranged builds.

 

That's where you're wrong. I do have a dual-wielding melee ranger with bear companion and had no trouble completing the beta a second time through. It was a viable build. And I selected skills that helped my Bear with its attacks. It may not have been the best, but it was viable and he could hit with his dual wielding axes quite easily. And that's the absurdity of it. Making a dual-wielding melee ranger with bear companion, playing the class as it shouldn't be designed and still being able to back up my BB Fighter and BB Rogue in melee and score hits and do damage.

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by Hiro Protagonist II

Ugh. Stun.

 

Two separate things.

 

One, the state of the beta. Here, we are entirely in agreement: currently you CAN play with all 3's and not feel much of a difference, and that is a Bad Thing. (Also: this is trivially easy to fix, just double the bonuses and adjust the base values down accordingly.)

Again, the values cannot be adjusted too meaningfully, otherwise build failure will be a possibility. It will be just like how it is in AD&D.

 

And therein lies the absurdity behind Josh's claim that you can have true build freedom *and* no bad builds at the same time.

 

 

This is exactly how the system is designed. For players who accidently make a character only to find out halfway through the game that the character sucks and isn't viable. No reading of the manual necessary to learn the game. No need to delve into manuals and attributes and skills and waste time learning all that stuff. Every build should be viable. If I randomly select attributes, skills and talents and have no idea what I'm doing, I should have a viable build to finish the game.

 

Not like that crummy stupid D&D system that a lot of posters on this forum go on about where if a player accidently puts an 8 in STR, 10 in Con and 9 in Dex, 18 in Int, 18 in Wis and 15 in Cha, only to realise their fighter is a gimped character. tsk tsk bad D&D!

 

No, those same or similar numbers should go into PoE's attribute system and it should be viable. That's the beauty of this system! Yah! Like a random number generator. Just throw some some stats in and it'll be okay.

 

Seriously? D&D the pillar of role playing system? Are we come that far? D&D is usually frowned upon because of the artificial limitations, extreme combat centered and restrictive mechanics.

they're not just show. there's a noticeable difference in behaviour between the minimum of 3 points and 18.

Unless by 'noticeable difference', you mean decimal point values, you're mistaken.

Seriously? D&D the pillar of role playing system? Are we come that far? D&D is usually frowned upon because of the artificial limitations, extreme combat centered and restrictive mechanics.

 

Who said it was the pillar of role playing systems. Not me.

Gosh, hard to believe how butthurt some people can get when they have to deal with the truth. Now your whining about the criticizers is even getting personal.

 

Bug fixing is not enough to save this game, that is why we have numerous threads about the terrible systems design and how bad the game is. You guys should learn to embrace reality and stop living in denial.

Opinions are subjective. You expect the PoE to fullfill parameters A, B and C. If it doesn't, from your point of view it's doomed, blah blah blah. The thing is, are your parameters based on opinions or facts? If they were solid facts, wouldn't be surprising that no one at Obsidian noticed them too? Aren't the poeple at Obsidian the most interested ones in making this as good as possible? There is no publisher injecting them money and then demanding to change stuff because shareholders.

 

Maybe the game will fail. At this point we can only speculate. But if it does, it doesn't mean that it would do it because of your parameters. Oh hey, maybe it does. Or maybe just partially. Grognards will give it a 0 no matter what in Metacritic. The bulk of the sales will end being of non-grognards(/probably Steam-sales junkies) that just want a fun game to play. If this game makes money for Obsidian, no matter how it fails in your expectations/needs/opinion, it will be a success. That is a fact. That it's played for decades or not by a good bunch of people, is another kind of success that cannot be predicted.

 

There are issues, beyond bugs. While some are real and others are honestly debatable, there are more than a few that belong to the realm of "This is not like X ergo sucks". None of those last ones determine the success of the game. A game not designed in exclusive for grognards, that is. D&D3 was a success despite the still present grognards of previous editions.

 

By the way, I am a backer. I just haven't linked my backer account to my forum account. It gives me the freedom to be extremely critical.

No offense meant but if you cannot be critical because of some symbolical picture, you are dissapointing.

 

Forumnites should make more use of the Scientific Method (more often). The real one. "And the award to the best dissertation about 'Why Pillars of Eternity attributes suck and I have empirical evidence right here' goes to..." and stuff.

Again, the values cannot be adjusted too meaningfully, otherwise build failure will be a possibility.

 

 

Why? All the stats are still helpful to all classes, by design. Might still increases the damage of both melee and magic. Intelligence still increases the duration of both magic spells and physical special abilities.

 

The sheer numerical impact of the attributes' effects has nothing to do with what makes them a viable choice for all classes and characters.

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by Infinitron

Again, the values cannot be adjusted too meaningfully, otherwise build failure will be a possibility. It will be just like how it is in AD&D.

And therein lies the absurdity behind Josh's claim that you can have true build freedom *and* no bad builds at the same time.

 

No. It. Won't.

 

Damn, you stubborn. But I'll try again, to make this really really simple. I'll completely divorce it from P:E, just to demonstrate how it can work.

 

Suppose you have three stats: Durability, Power, and Accuracy. And suppose you have enough stat points that if you want, you can dump one and pump one to the max. 

 

If you have high Durability, you can stand in the front line and take a pounding.

If you have high Accuracy, you hit a lot.

If you have high Power, you do a lot of damage when you hit.

 

Suppose additionally you have four kinds of weapons: Bazookas, Nerf guns, Sledgehammers, and Rapiers. Bazookas and Sledgehammers have high base Power and low base Accuracy. Nerf guns and Rapiers have low base Power and high base Accuracy.

 

Now, let's see what happens when you dump each of the stats:

 

Mr. Glaskanon -- Durability -- you can use all weapons effectively, doing a lot of DPS, but you won't survive long in the front line. A tanky strategy is therefore out, but you'll be lethal with a Bazooka or Nerf gun, and if you have a high-Durability character to draw fire, you can run into melee with a Sledgehammer or Nerf gun for great burst damage. Joy!

Mr. Mauer -- Power -- with your low power, Nerf guns and Rapiers will do next to no damage, so you better use Sledgehammers or Bazookas. With the points you shifted to Accuracy and Durability, you can stay in melee nicely. If you pumped Durability, you'll make a great companion for Mr. Glaskanon.

Sir Whiffalot -- Accuracy -- since you dumped Accuracy, you'll whiff a lot with Sledgehammers and Bazookas, so you better stick to Nerf guns and Rapiers. You'll be able to survive in melee nicely and do significant damage because of your higher Power.

 

See: three different dumps, three different tactics. The same principle can be applied to any number of stats.

 

Again, the values cannot be adjusted too meaningfully, otherwise build failure will be a possibility.

 

 

Why?

Because Sawyer is a fiend who wants to destroy fun with the foul forces of balance.

 

if a new player...plays a character the wrong way, then why should they be penalised?

 

 

Because this isn't a casual game.

 

 

this has been one of the arguments from those who have been defending this system.

 

No, it hasn't.

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by Infinitron

Unless by 'noticeable difference', you mean decimal point values, you're mistaken.

 

Stun, for spits and giggles: roll up a wizard, dump RES, wear heavy armor, and do some casting in melee. Then tell me how it worked out.

 

Again, the values cannot be adjusted too meaningfully, otherwise build failure will be a possibility.

 

Why?

 

Ok, here's a quick example.

 

Lets say your Fighter is wielding a weapon who's base damage is 10. Now lets say that we adjust Might values so that:

 

9 Might = 0 bonus to damage

18 Might = +9 bonus to damage

1 Might = -9 to damage

 

(Ie. a system where you're buying just 1 point of damage for every point of might after 9, and subtracting 1 point of damage for every point of might under 9.)

 

In this system, your fighter with 1 Might will be doing 1 point of damage per hit with his weapon. This is what people would call a bad build. now Couple that with 3 in Dexterity, and this fighter will now have serious problems even hitting his opponent for 1 damage. People would call this a bad build, even IF the stat dumping and armor-wearing allowed him to be quite the survivor while doing practically no damage to anyone.

 

 

Stun, for spits and giggles: roll up a wizard, dump RES, wear heavy armor, and do some casting in melee. Then tell me how it worked out.

It's completely viable and not much different than wearing no armor and pumping RES. My challenge to you. Roll up a wizard. Dump all his stats to 3, and wear no armor. Then watch as his magic missles, fireballs and arcane veils still make him a terror on the battlefield as designed.

 

The stats are just bonuses. They don't *matter*

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by Stun

What if different weapons have different base damage and accuracy? You know, like in P:E?

 

This is exactly how the system is designed. For players who accidently make a character only to find out halfway through the game that the character sucks and isn't viable. No reading of the manual necessary to learn the game. No need to delve into manuals and attributes and skills and waste time learning all that stuff. Every build should be viable. If I randomly select attributes, skills and talents and have no idea what I'm doing, I should have a viable build to finish the game.

My point: Having gimped one stat, you have an advantage in another - build is viable to finish the game - adjustment in playstyle may be needed (basic example of ranged v. melee but lets also consider stuff like support v. damage-dealers)

Your point: New player might not know in what way they're gimping themselves so build isn't viable?  But build IS viable unless they take the extreme move of dumping all stats and not spending their points - even a casual gamer wouldn't fall into that 'trap', especially with the warning about left-points. 

In-game - they'll quickly learn how their strengths can be used.

If this were being desgined as a casual game, I'd agree.  But I don't see that as it is.

Because this isn't a casual game.

It isnt? Like I know I only post this cause sometimes I cant stop myself from posting trollish **** but all the IE games are pretty damn casual compared to real hardcore rpg's like wizardy 6 or final fantasy tactics + rebalance mod.

 

In this system, your fighter will be doing 1 point of damage per hit with his weapon. This is what people would call a bad build. now Couple that with 3 in Dexterity, and this fighter will now have serious problems even hitting his opponent for 1 damage. People would call this a bad build, even IF the stat dumping and armor-wearing allowed him to be quite the survivor while doing practically no damage to anyone.

 

Bad is subjective there - that fighter would be useful to the team with his 20 CON and tying up the enemy lines with his 'hold the line' approach.  Team-mates can then do the damage unhindered.

 

'Not fun for me' build doesn't equal 'not viable build'

What if different weapons have different base damage and accuracy? You know, like in P:E?

Then that would mean that the weapons matter, not the build.

A fighter who can't really attack or cause damage, but is a huge piece of meat who can't be killed doesn't sound like an entirely useless build. We'll have to wait and see how the redesigned Perception and Resolve change things, though.

 

And as PrimeJunta states, equipment can compensate to some extent for his weaknesses. For certain, it'll be an "extreme" build, but I'm sure most people dumping two or more stats realize that. The first-time player's instinct isn't to dump - it's to put an average score in everything.

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by Infinitron

So let me try this again. I apologize in advance for the cynicism below, but I am compelled to say my piece.

 

This game is supposed to launch at the end of the year, is that right? "Winter 2014" , "December 2014"

 

I can't see how that is possible given where the game is at today.

 

Bugs, giant, glaring, basic gameplay bugs are everywhere. Subscribe to the Bug forum and you'll see, or better yet, just play the game. I'm old by gamer standards, older than some of the developers, and I've playtested my share of games. I expected more from a game that is only a few months away from release, a lot more.

 

It's impossible to play the game and feel like the backers are THE QA for this game, yet we're not even given a bugtracker, only a forum that buries threads in to oblivion.

 

The fit and finish is abysmal for a beta, in my opinion, with notable exception to the obviously heavy investment in aesthetic backgrounds and some assets. There obviously has been a heavy emphasis on developing the story archs and dialogs, too, which is great. But having core mechanical issues like pathfinding, from this team, is hard to excuse - this should be a slam dunk, not to say that pathfinding is easy, but look at who we're talking about here... this should have been a priority.

 

The outdoor scale is off. I know IW games don't do 1:1 scaling in outdoor environments but it is just off, walking around town feels like a group of giants romping around a dollhouse-scaled town. I may be in the vast minority in this, but for me it's enough to disrupt immersion. 

 

The feeling I get is that the development has wandered down paths of priorities that they were most interested in, making "cool looking stuff" and "cool stories" - which is awesome! Don't get me wrong, but while working hard to generate content, the game mechanics have been relegated to "just do enough so we can see our content, we'll work out the playability issues later once we get our playtesters (backers) in"

 

I hate to sound so cynical, I want this game to be a huge success, but I'm not really interested in struggling through broken game after broken game the throwing "bug reports" down a forum black-hole. I would be spending almost as much time documenting problems as I would playing. I didn't back this game for the "insider" honor to be a primary playtester and bug reporter.

 

So take this all as "wah wah don't play if you can't handle it and don't want to contribute to the quality of the game" (thought I already HAVE contributed to the quality of the game, quite a lot, thank you very much), or, to be more fair : that I'm simply not a good candidate for this backer beta and am disappointed with the technical acumen applied thus far to the mechanics and stability so close to release.

 

I hope the team is skilled and managed well enough to get in the coverage needed before launch .. from my perspective, however, it doesn't look promising. I truly hope I am surprised and would be so delighted to be wrong.

 

I'll probably check back in after a patch or two, but until we get a bugtracker and the game isn't constantly telling me to search the bug forum, see if the bug has been reported, and enter a 'new'  bug or add to that thread, I simply won't be participating in bug reports.

 

Good luck everyone, for what it's worth the parts of the game that do work predictably I am reasonably pleased with it and the content.

 

 

I don't quite understand a couple of these complaints. It is a beta test, the game has known bugs in it and is provided to us to test and help find more bugs and report them. The development team then works on fixing these and updating the game. Isn't this how a beta test goes?? What were you actually expecting out of this? Ok sure there might be a way to improve the way bugs are reported instead of people repeatedly posting the same bug in the forum but then at least the team knows things are affecting multiple people.

 

We've just entered September, if the game launches in December then that is at least 3 full months of fixing things and finalising any content and other details etc. It seems like quite a lot of work has been done from the developer updates. It might be possible or maybe it will be delayed, I guess we won't know until it happens

 

I've just been playing and I don't agree with the outdoor scale, the characters look ok to me going past buildings and stuff.

 

"I hate to sound so cynical, I want this game to be a huge success, but I'm not really interested in struggling through broken game after broken game the throwing "bug reports" down a forum black-hole. I would be spending almost as much time documenting problems as I would playing. I didn't back this game for the "insider" honor to be a primary playtester and bug reporter."

 

Again not sure what the complaint is about, this is exactly what I think a beta test is: playing through a game with problems and trying to identify and repeat them. 

Then that would mean that the weapons matter, not the build.

 

No, Stun. It would mean that a fighter who dumped Accuracy would have to use high base Accuracy weapons to compensate, and a fighter who dumped Might would have to use high base Damage weapons to compensate. See?

 

And if he dumped both, he could still stand there, soak damage, and engage enemies. If you pumped RES and CON and equipped a heavy shield, he could be extremely useful even if he never hit once; he'd tie up the opposition while your damagers do the damage. Don't know if I'd want to play a fighter like that, but it would certainly not be un-viable.

Well, alright. But if we're going to expand this discussion to include equipment as a build supplement, then I'd like to request that we stop claiming (as josh has) that you could create a bad build in the IE games and thus PoE needed to improve upon such flawed design.

Well, alright. But if we're going to expand this discussion to include equipment as a build supplement, then I'd like to request that we stop claiming (as josh has) that you could create a bad build in the IE games and thus PoE needed to improve upon such flawed design.

 

Edit edit: Nevermind, that would be a tangent. Thank you for conceding the point. (Never imagined I would see the day...)

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by PrimeJunta

In the IE games, especially those resting on 2nd ed D&D, getting 1 more unit in an ability score was huge. It was like a mini-X-mas, a cause for celebration. As long as this system is in, we get yet another system we don't care about, just like the xp system coz I just realized that it may be removed as well. Throw in a few talent trees and be done with it.

Yeah i am not particularly fond of the results when devs try to re-invent mature and well designed d20 or d&d systems. It is rare that they achieve the same level of fidelity in gameplay, particularly combat.

But again, i just want a quality product, no matter how it is designed.

All the time spent on the bestiary could have been spent on making interesting items and sketches of said items(BG2 style). Instead we get this ****.

 

edit: Don't get me wrong, it's a cool feature and I like it, but item sketches should have been priority.

 

Polina did those sketches as part of the creature concepting process.  She did spend a bit of extra time making them look nice, but it was essentially the first part in creating the characters.  With weapons, the artists started with historical reference and made modifications, so there wasn't a library of sketches at the end of it like there was with creature images.

 

All the time spent on the bestiary could have been spent on making interesting items and sketches of said items(BG2 style). Instead we get this ****.

 

edit: Don't get me wrong, it's a cool feature and I like it, but item sketches should have been priority.

 

Polina did those sketches as part of the creature concepting process.  She did spend a bit of extra time making them look nice, but it was essentially the first part in creating the characters.  With weapons, the artists started with historical reference and made modifications, so there wasn't a library of sketches at the end of it like there was with creature images.

 

and this little boys, is why you should say everything you are not 100% sure about in a NICE tone, because there might be a GOOD reason why things are as they are

and in the end you won't look half as much as an "douchebag" (quotation from south park: stick of truth) if you had worded your initial thoughs in a nice way...

something so hard to do on the internet for so many people apparently, and i'll never know why

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by lolaldanee