PoE Suggestions\Question\Wishlist

[Dark_Ansem]

I dunno, I don't think that could really work. it would also feel too limiting, aye?

[Namutree]

Here's what needs to be done:

 

1) Add in multi-classing. NO EXCUSES! You get a wider variety of abilities in exchange for levels. That's fair. Obviously not all classes should be compatible though.

 

2) Create race based talents, and new class specific talents.

 

3) Organize the talents into three categories- General (Talents available to everybody), Class (Talents available to that specific class, or classes in the event of multi-classing), and finally race (Talents available to that race specifically). This will allow Obsidian to have a huge variety of talents while keeping everything easily organized.

 

EDIT: If you disagree with 2) and 3); fine, but we need multi-classing at least. The talent system doesn't warrant dropping multi-classing.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Namutree

[Lephys]

What happens when all 6 of your party members have Defender Mode, a Grimoire, the ability to Chant, Sneak Attack, Auras, and Spiritshift?

 

Will it be okay, because they can't get high levels with individual classes?

[Namutree]

What happens when all 6 of your party members have Defender Mode, a Grimoire, the ability to Chant, Sneak Attack, Auras, and Spiritshift?

 

Will it be okay, because they can't get high levels with individual classes?

I think the multi-class limit should be three. Also I think someone who chose that many classes would be garbage. Sure he'd have incredible versatility, but he'd be incredibly low level; making defender mode useless.

[Dark_Ansem]

3 feels a bit restrictive.. 4-7 would be more appropriate, aye?

[Lephys]

I think the multi-class limit should be three. Also I think someone who chose that many classes would be garbage. Sure he'd have incredible versatility, but he'd be incredibly low level; making defender mode useless.

He would, most likely. But, what I'm getting at is, depending on how the classes are designed, multi-class either fits well or doesn't. I don't think one's the right way to do it and the other's the wrong way to do it, but you can't really do it both ways. Either the classes get significant bonuses right from the get-go, or they're all just kind of loose templates for progressive abilities. The latter works great for multi-classing (if you don't multiclass, you just keep building upon your one class with further unique bonuses, etc.). The former, not so much. But, the former makes classes a lot more distinct from the get-go.

 

*shrug*. With PoE, I don't think it's as simple as "multi-classing's nice, so there's no excuse not to just t slap it into the already-in-place systems," is all. A level 1 Wizard gets a Grimoire and, what... 4 spells? So, the second you level-up and take 1 level of Wizard, you get that much stuff, whereas a Wizard who simply levels to 2 doesn't gain 4 more spells. Ideally, to structure the system for multi-classing, you have to look at the balance of any given level in any given class versus that of any other class. Otherwise, you get some really lop-sided choices. "Take a level in THIS and gain three new awesome useful things, or just take the exact same XP-worth of a level in another class and just gain a few passive boosts."

[Namutree]

3 feels a bit restrictive.. 4-7 would be more appropriate, aye?

That would create trap builds. Anyone taking on 4 or more classes would be too low level to be effective.

[Dark_Ansem]

It's a pity that we cannot customize more our avatar with things such as Eye color and body slide. I was looking forward to it

maybe in the future?

[rjshae]

Regarding multitasking: because this is a computer-based game, there is no reason why the developers need to follow the D&D dogma for multitasking classes. They could, instead, use interpolation and scaling to generate class progression tables on the fly.

 

For example, if you have 5 levels in Fighter and 3 levels in Cleric, the game engine can compute a scaled spell progression formula to determine what additional spell/effect bonuses you gain if you add a level to Cleric.

 

This would allow the game to balance out the capabilities of the characters better, based on the total character levels.

[Gfted1]

1) Healing spells and potions.

2) Unlimited resting.

3) Kill, trap, lock pick, spell scribing and exploration xp.

4) Removal of friendly fire spells.

[rjshae]

1) Healing spells and potions.

2) Unlimited resting.

3) Kill, trap, lock pick, spell scribing and exploration xp.

4) Removal of friendly fire spells.

 

#2 and #4 seem like reasonable options for a casual play mode; #3 could be handled via more variety in lore XP; I think #1 would be a good addition at higher class levels (for the expansion).

[BigBripa]

1) Healing spells and potions.

2) Unlimited resting.

3) Kill, trap, lock pick, spell scribing and exploration xp.

4) Removal of friendly fire spells.

So basically a much easier game. I mean these are the exact things this game is supposed to be AGAINST, right?

 

This isn't a dig or anything, this game seems quite intimidating to the casual gamer, but this essentially saps a great deal of the difficulty, and this genre is already bloated with unchallenging titles and this game was created, ostensibly, as a response to that.

 

I've never done a proper D&D game as a multiclass but D:OS put it together pretty seamlessly, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing something like that in this game.

[Luckmann]

My one major request continues to be more CNPC choices.

8 characters where the team consists of 6 characters is absolutely abysmal. Even by BG2:s standard, an amazing game already regrettably marred by a lack of choices in terms of party and general party character, the choices in PoE appears to be the bare minimum.

Second suggestion would be to always and forever keep any possible expansion content fully integrated into the game. No "tack-on" content that is entirely separate from the main game. For a horror examples of this, look at DA:O - Awakening, where even the added mechanics were self-contained in the attached module, or the DLC companions for ME2, that lacked even basic dialogues in the style all release companions were moulded after.

Any content added should fit seamlessly into the game, and preferably any expansion should add content both around and inside the main module/universe/game. New companions should be integrated, have banter at approximately the same places as pre-existing ones, new mechanics should be available throughout the game, etc, etc.

 

Lastly, I guess class kits and a more pronounced effect of race - race-specific Talents, Abilities, etc - would be nice. I was always a big fan of kits, and especially with added CNPC:s, it would add additional differentiation. I won't be truly happy until I can play a full group of Chanters, all of different kits, all of the same race. Actually true for any class, any race.

Some have said multiclassing/dual-classing, and I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I think it'd be too hard to work in properly by now, and I can see how it'd open up a can of worms balance-wise, and how they want to keep each character distinct in their capabilities, thus limiting them to a single class per character. Could be nice.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Luckmann

[Dark_Ansem]

Second and third points are very valid, especially the content issue. Awakening was a great expansion, but especially painful.

I don't understand all the hatred for BG2, tho,

[Gfted1]

So basically a much easier game. I mean these are the exact things this game is supposed to be AGAINST, right?

 

This isn't a dig or anything, this game seems quite intimidating to the casual gamer, but this essentially saps a great deal of the difficulty, and this genre is already bloated with unchallenging titles and this game was created, ostensibly, as a response to that.

 

I've never done a proper D&D game as a multiclass but D:OS put it together pretty seamlessly, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing something like that in this game.

I suppose. I prefer to be challenged by the encounters and story, not annoying mechanics built from the ground up to prevent a certain play style.

[Luckmann]

 

1) Healing spells and potions.

2) Unlimited resting.

3) Kill, trap, lock pick, spell scribing and exploration xp.

4) Removal of friendly fire spells.

So basically a much easier game. I mean these are the exact things this game is supposed to be AGAINST, right?

 

This isn't a dig or anything, this game seems quite intimidating to the casual gamer, but this essentially saps a great deal of the difficulty, and this genre is already bloated with unchallenging titles and this game was created, ostensibly, as a response to that.

 

I've never done a proper D&D game as a multiclass but D:OS put it together pretty seamlessly, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing something like that in this game.

 

 

My issue wouldn't be with a lower difficulty as such, but rather that it would cheapen a lot of the core gameplay relating to combat. I remember Dragon Age: Origins having similar issues, where you actually had to turn up the difficulty to add Friendly Fire to spells; there was no option to stay at a lower difficulty but still have Friendly Fire. Aiming powers and utilizing the environment and positioning is a very important part of any tactical ruleset in my opinion. It's utter nonsense to be able to stand in the middle of a vortex of fire as your opponents conflagrate around you and all of your allies just survive unscathed.

 

Not to mention those times you may have to make the call whether you should throw a fireball into your team and take the punishment but hope that it hurts the enemy more than you (such as being swarmed by hordes of Gibberlings in Baldur's Gate).

 

Healing spells and potions, though, I wasn't even aware of not being in the game. I assumed that there were and I think it's odd that they wouldn't exist in this kind of setting, but at the same time, I'm perfectly fine with it's absence.

 

Unlimited Resting is meh, although I know how it can cheapen the action economy and make it hard to create any semblance of balance - at that point you might just as well not make resting matter at all. This very much depends on the approach of the game and so many other small things in the game. It was always odd in BG2 how it was perfectly normal to walk into a small dungeon and come out four days later (easily), so for the same of immersion, I don't lament the loss of unlimited resting at all.

 

And action-based experience is the anathema of roleplaying and I'll forever remain flabbergasted at the fact that it still exists outside of ARPG:s. Players should be rewarded on achieving goals, not how many peasants they killed on the road to achieving that goal. I remember early on in the development cycle it was said that you'd get experience like in the old Infinite Engine games, and I argued extensively for goal-oriented experience rewards. I'm glad it's dead and gone, so it's viable to achieve diplomatic solutions, avoid combat, sneak or steal your way to success, and be appropriately rewarded, rather than rewarding lockpicking even when it's not necessary and killing every last squirrel on a map for their delicious experience.

 

Reminds me of Deus Ex: Human Revolutions, that drastically changed the XP formula from how it was in Deux Ex, and you just went around hacking everything even if you had the passcodes or passwords, because it was more effective.

 

Second and third points are very valid, especially the content issue. Awakening was a great expansion, but especially painful.

I don't understand all the hatred for BG2, tho.

How can someone hate BG2? It's not the perfect game, but it's downright amazing in it's own right.

[Dark_Ansem]

 

 

1) Healing spells and potions.

2) Unlimited resting.

3) Kill, trap, lock pick, spell scribing and exploration xp.

4) Removal of friendly fire spells.

So basically a much easier game. I mean these are the exact things this game is supposed to be AGAINST, right?

 

This isn't a dig or anything, this game seems quite intimidating to the casual gamer, but this essentially saps a great deal of the difficulty, and this genre is already bloated with unchallenging titles and this game was created, ostensibly, as a response to that.

 

I've never done a proper D&D game as a multiclass but D:OS put it together pretty seamlessly, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing something like that in this game.

 

 

My issue wouldn't be with a lower difficulty as such, but rather that it would cheapen a lot of the core gameplay relating to combat. I remember Dragon Age: Origins having similar issues, where you actually had to turn up the difficulty to add Friendly Fire to spells; there was no option to stay at a lower difficulty but still have Friendly Fire. Aiming powers and utilizing the environment and positioning is a very important part of any tactical ruleset in my opinion. It's utter nonsense to be able to stand in the middle of a vortex of fire as your opponents conflagrate around you and all of your allies just survive unscathed.

 

Not to mention those times you may have to make the call whether you should throw a fireball into your team and take the punishment but hope that it hurts the enemy more than you (such as being swarmed by hordes of Gibberlings in Baldur's Gate).

 

Healing spells and potions, though, I wasn't even aware of not being in the game. I assumed that there were and I think it's odd that they wouldn't exist in this kind of setting, but at the same time, I'm perfectly fine with it's absence.

 

Unlimited Resting is meh, although I know how it can cheapen the action economy and make it hard to create any semblance of balance - at that point you might just as well not make resting matter at all. This very much depends on the approach of the game and so many other small things in the game. It was always odd in BG2 how it was perfectly normal to walk into a small dungeon and come out four days later (easily), so for the same of immersion, I don't lament the loss of unlimited resting at all.

 

And action-based experience is the anathema of roleplaying and I'll forever remain flabbergasted at the fact that it still exists outside of ARPG:s. Players should be rewarded on achieving goals, not how many peasants they killed on the road to achieving that goal. I remember early on in the development cycle it was said that you'd get experience like in the old Infinite Engine games, and I argued extensively for goal-oriented experience rewards. I'm glad it's dead and gone, so it's viable to achieve diplomatic solutions, avoid combat, sneak or steal your way to success, and be appropriately rewarded, rather than rewarding lockpicking even when it's not necessary and killing every last squirrel on a map for their delicious experience.

 

Reminds me of Deus Ex: Human Revolutions, that drastically changed the XP formula from how it was in Deux Ex, and you just went around hacking everything even if you had the passcodes or passwords, because it was more effective.

 

Second and third points are very valid, especially the content issue. Awakening was a great expansion, but especially painful.

I don't understand all the hatred for BG2, tho.

How can someone hate BG2? It's not the perfect game, but it's downright amazing in it's own right.

 

 

BG2 got me with Irenicus' voice acting. that voice is nothing short of amazing, only Tony Jay, Simon templeman and Billy Zane can keep up!

[LuccA]

This will be probably the most unnecessary suggestion someone ever gave here, but... during combat, could the blood stick in the ground for a little more while? Like for as long as the dead body is there. I mean, must be an easy thing to do, and it would add more realism I guess. I know this may sound over-perfectionism, but it pains me to see blood falling to the ground and vanishing right after sometimes =s.

[Lephys]

I suppose. I prefer to be challenged by the encounters and story, not annoying mechanics built from the ground up to prevent a certain play style.

My question there is... what doesn't get to be called a play style?

 

What if I like not having to go do stuff to complete a quest? Is that a "valid" play style? Should the game just let me complete all quests by clicking an auto-complete button, so I don't have to deal with an "annoying mechanic" built to prevent me from playing the game I want to play it (requiring me to actually traverse the game world and engage in dialogues to complete quests and progress the story)?

[Nakia]

My question there is... what doesn't get to be called a play style?

 

What if I like not having to go do stuff to complete a quest? Is that a "valid" play style? Should the game just let me complete all quests by clicking an auto-complete button, so I don't have to deal with an "annoying mechanic" built to prevent me from playing the game I want to play it (requiring me to actually traverse the game world and engage in dialogues to complete quests and progress the story)?

 

Sorry but I find that humorous.  Someone told me that a mod called "Game be Gone" was made for BG II.  I never checked it out so I do not know for sure if that is true.

[Lephys]

Heh, well, I'm not really trying to be humorous with it. What I mean is, there are things we'd probably all agree are blatantly ridiculous, but someone might like them. What makes them "legitimately" ridiculous, as opposed to merely an oppressed play style?

 

I'm not trying to say that what Giftd1 has proposed is equally as ridiculous as anything else I've listed. I'm just wondering... what underlying factor determines that? Based on what do we draw the line?

 

'Cause, just on this forum alone (and all over the internet), you see "why shouldn't that play style be supported?!" getting thrown around like crazy. If anything anyone would like, purely because they would like it, is a valid play style, then how can we really say anything shouldn't be prevented/disallowed in a game's design?

[Nakia]

Lephys, I agree with you   your post just reminded me of that "Game be gone"mod and made me chuckle.  Different games encourage different play styles too and I think that is good.   When I went from the IE games to the TES games I had to learn a whole new play style.  Now I am relearning the old play style and loving it.  

Edited December 23, 2014 by Nakia

[rjshae]

How can someone hate BG2? It's not the perfect game, but it's downright amazing in it's own right.

 

Yes, there are people who won't even play BG2 because they don't like how it looks. Their loss.

[telajänis]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, or if it's in the wrong place, but here's one thing that I keep thinking would be nice when I try the game.

 

 - A visible action queue somewhere on the screen; the party leader's when whole party is selected, and individual character's when only one is selected. It would me nice to queue up 3 or 4 actions.

 

It would serve both as a way to have a character perform multiple actions, but also as a confirmation that the command actually went through.

 

This was something that I found myself missing when I started Dragon Age Origins, after having played KoTOR and NWN. Origins did show the given action next to the portraits, but only allowed one action at a time, which felt like a downgrade.

 

Another thing I noticed was, that as I tried to cast a restore endurance by targeting a character portrait, the priest instead ran to the spot on the map that was under the portrait. This is something that I will continue to erroneously do because I'm so used to it.

 

The game is looking fantastic though!

[PrimeJunta]

The action queue has been discussed before. Opinion is split on it. I don't know if it's been officially ruled out, but the vibe I get is that it's unlikely to go in.

 

I'm in the "against" camp as IMO it would drastically change the feel of the gameplay. For me, one of the key "feels" of the IE games is that it's all about responding immediately to events, and having the toons react immediately when you issue a new command. An action queue would make the feel much less immediate. There's also much less need for an action queue IMO, since the main use for it is to stack buffs or spam special abilities (like Whirlwind Attack), and the way things are set up you're much less likely to do either.

 

If they do do it, I dearly hope they'll put it behind a modifier, e.g. shift-click to queue.

 

Restore Endurance is an AoE effect by the way. There aren't many single-target heals; the paladin's Lay On Hands springs to mind, and I don't know if you can target that by clicking on a portrait.