Hard mode is too easy.

[ComplyOrDie]

You can have any number of enemies to be honest, the difficulty won't get harder if the AI isn't improved, six more trolls that can't hit your tank and wander round in circles doesn't help, which is why for me they need to focus on making PoTD harder , the mode people look to to provide them with the real tactical combat challenge before adding more modes.

 

Base accuracy needs to be improved on hard and thus increased on PoTD. AI needs improving across the board, so the fight isn't sorted out positionally in the first 10 seconds. It's very static at the moment after the initial engagement, doesn't force you to adapt at all. Enemy casters need to use actually good spells, doing half damage to your wizard is pointless, either combine with someone else to kill him fast or cast a crowd control spell instead. Dare I say one or two more impactful abilities to make more enemies a little more interesting. What's the point in animats Lightning spell for instance. It does nothing to anyone.

 

Just to reiterate. Love the game, so much potential. Go make the combat system work by making the game interestingly hard ! No point trying to have depth if you can ignore it all anyway as luckmann said.

[Matt516]

 

I'm playing on hard. I think i agree it's a little easy. I think they need to have another difficulty Very Hard that has Path of Damned stats increased for enemies without the perma death of campanions.

I'm the opposite. I hate it when the enemy has to cheat to make a game harder. Blanket increases in stats is a broken way to increase difficulty and plays with the assumptions of the game. Difficulty should be about encounter design, what kind of opponents you face, the amount, the placement, and their intelligence, not just whether you increase the difficulty by 10%, 20%, 30% and so on.

 

Coincidentally, I'd like to have a difficulty between Hard and Path of the Damned, without the blanket increases the enemies get, but with the same encounter design (that is to say, maximum amount of enemies, and the hardest encounters, just without the cheating).

 

 

Same here. Boosting all resistances and accuracy by 50% is a lazy way to balance difficulty. I'm not against it persay for the hardest of the hardest difficulty levels (as in Galactic Civilizations 2, where the AI does not cheat at all (an uncommon thing for that genre) unless you specifically tell the game to let it to make the game harder)... but since Hard isn't Hard, PotD has no business screwing with the balance. Just add more and more varied enemies. Mix up the resistances a bit so I can't just derpcast everything and expect to succeed. Maybe have an "extra hard" mode (checkbox, maybe) that adds stats to the enemies to add some difficulty (like the no-maim checkbox does), but let's have all the difficulty levels use the same (or similar) stats on enemies, just with more challenging encounter design.

[Luckmann]

 

Coincidentally, I'd like to have a difficulty between Hard and Path of the Damned, without the blanket increases the enemies get, but with the same encounter design (that is to say, maximum amount of enemies, and the hardest encounters, just without the cheating).

 

I thought the only difference between Hard and Path was the stat boost.

 

No, PotD also puts the highest amount of possible opponents into all encounters, and the encounters will always be of the hardest type. It basically combines all of the difficulty levels, and then boost the stats of the opponents. At least that's how it's been explained to us.

 

 

 

I'm playing on hard. I think i agree it's a little easy. I think they need to have another difficulty Very Hard that has Path of Damned stats increased for enemies without the perma death of campanions.

I'm the opposite. I hate it when the enemy has to cheat to make a game harder. Blanket increases in stats is a broken way to increase difficulty and plays with the assumptions of the game. Difficulty should be about encounter design, what kind of opponents you face, the amount, the placement, and their intelligence, not just whether you increase the difficulty by 10%, 20%, 30% and so on.

 

Coincidentally, I'd like to have a difficulty between Hard and Path of the Damned, without the blanket increases the enemies get, but with the same encounter design (that is to say, maximum amount of enemies, and the hardest encounters, just without the cheating).

 

Same here. Boosting all resistances and accuracy by 50% is a lazy way to balance difficulty. I'm not against it persay for the hardest of the hardest difficulty levels (as in Galactic Civilizations 2, where the AI does not cheat at all (an uncommon thing for that genre) unless you specifically tell the game to let it to make the game harder)... but since Hard isn't Hard, PotD has no business screwing with the balance. Just add more and more varied enemies. Mix up the resistances a bit so I can't just derpcast everything and expect to succeed. Maybe have an "extra hard" mode (checkbox, maybe) that adds stats to the enemies to add some difficulty (like the no-maim checkbox does), but let's have all the difficulty levels use the same (or similar) stats on enemies, just with more challenging encounter design.

 

It's funny because I was specifically thinking of GalCiv 2 when posting about difficulty and AI cheating. Go Stardock & Brad Wardell.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Luckmann

[Sensuki]

Why are are certain people like Luckmann and Sensuki fanboying over a system like DnD that's not even made for computers and its not even good. you shouldn't even be able to criticize game systems if you think Baldurs gate system are good. You're just nostalgic.

You ever see me say anything about D&D ever? The only person who brings up D&D when talking about Pillars of Eternity is Josh Sawyer.

[sterrius]

As of now, 11/04/2015. Only 0.1% of the Steam datapool finished the game in POD. 

0.2% using Expert mode. 
0.1% iron mode.

3.3% finished the game!  

 

The problem with Difficulty in a CRPG is that its hard until you find the loops in the system, that good spell or combination of characters that wipe the floor with most encounters, and you can´t balance a game thinking in the min-max characters. 

I spended 55 hours to master a party good enough to turn POD from almost impossible to easy 90% of the time!  On Hard i would have spended less time, but still dozens of hours.    For me the game is far from easy.  The difficulty is fine. 

Some encounters can be a little harder, others a little easier, but in general the game gives you enough challenges to make sure you first character without knowing anything from the game will have a good challenge and will be hard to finish with him. 

Most people here restarted one, twice. I restarted 8 times until i ended the game with + 15-3-15-15-15-15 ranger. 



Baldurs gate was also a game that could be a walk in the park if you spended 5 minutes rolling dice to get a semi-god attributes. When the normal would be making a char with 75 to 85 points.  (D&D 2E master guide recommend 75, but the game is balanced for a 80-85 build). 

Any CRPG that can be finished on Solo. With 1 character when you can get 6. Will have loopholes and will be easy.  

 

Maybe they need a Nightmare mode where you can only win if you Min-max and use everything.  POD was kind of supossed to be that difficulty, but only giving a 20-30% buff and some more mobs is not enough .   (But some encounters in POD will make you sweat, not going to talk about them now but i lost count how many times i reloaded to win some fights). 



 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2015 by sterrius

[Atheosis]

As of now, 11/04/2015. Only 0.1% of the Steam datapool finished the game in POD. 

 

0.2% using Expert mode. 

0.1% iron mode.

 

3.3% finished the game!  

 

The problem with Difficulty in a CRPG is that its hard until you find the loops in the system, that good spell or combination of characters that wipe the floor with most encounters, and you can´t balance a game thinking in the min-max characters. 

 

I spended 55 hours to master a party good enough to turn POD from almost impossible to easy 90% of the time!  On Hard i would have spended less time, but still dozens of hours.    For me the game is far from easy.  The difficulty is fine. 

 

Some encounters can be a little harder, others a little easier, but in general the game gives you enough challenges to make sure you first character without knowing anything from the game will have a good challenge and will be hard to finish with him. 

 

Most people here restarted one, twice. I restarted 8 times until i ended the game with + 15-3-15-15-15-15 ranger. 

 

 

 

Baldurs gate was also a game that could be a walk in the park if you spended 5 minutes rolling dice to get a semi-god attributes. When the normal would be making a char with 75 to 85 points.  (D&D 2E master guide recommend 75, but the game is balanced for a 80-85 build). 

 

Any CRPG that can be finished on Solo. With 1 character when you can get 6. Will have loopholes and will be easy.  

 

Maybe they need a Nightmare mode where you can only win if you Min-max and use everything.  POD was kind of supossed to be that difficulty, but only giving a 20-30% buff and some more mobs is not enough .   (But some encounters in POD will make you sweat, not going to talk about them now but i lost count how many times i reloaded to win some fights). 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't have to find any loops in the system because you will out-level everything if you do some side quests and bounties.

[View619]

For what it's worth, I don't think the statistical percentage of players who have finished the game is a testament to overall difficulty. Personally, I restarted twice after working through Act Two because it became boring and I was hoping that trying a different class or difficulty would change that. It's hard to care about completing the game when the combat is no longer challenging or interesting.

[Sensuki]

3.3% finished the game!

Or maybe people just didn't think it was worth finishing, like me. I assure you I have zero problem with the difficulty.

 

Here is a nice summary from felipepepe

 

However, for hardcore fans that replayed the IE games multiple times, that enjoy the depth, replayability and freedom of those games, Pillars is lacking. Severely so. You'll notice it the more you play - the completely wasted Keep, the lack of race-specific interactions, the linear storyline, the lack of C&C, boring itemization, battles playing all very similarly, the lack of crazy character builds, etc...

 

But, to me, the most worrisome aspect is the contrast between these two perceptions of the game, because they appear to be almost impossible to reconcile. Reviewers considered PoE a title with "countless strategies" (PC Gamer), full of "interesting puzzles and traps, and surprising encounters" (GameInformer), and even "intensely difficult and tactical" (IGN), but here I am, complaining it's too shallow.

The actual reason why I haven't finished it is I just don't care about the story. I'm not interested in finishing it because I just couldn't care less. Couldn't give a damn about the antagonist either. Probably the worst Obsidian story in the department of the player actually caring about finishing the game IMO, even NWN2 was slightly better in this regard even though it was way, way simpler. A serious disappointment.

 

I was hoping at least because it was an Obsidian game, that even if I didn't like the gameplay, that the story would be good.

 

I also think the combat is boring, exploration sucks and itemization sucks, so if I'm not enjoying the story or the gameplay, why bother?

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensuki

[Namutree]

 

3.3% finished the game!

Or maybe people just didn't think it was worth finishing, like me. I assure you I have zero problem with the difficulty.

 

Here is a nice summary from felipepepe

 

However, for hardcore fans that replayed the IE games multiple times, that enjoy the depth, replayability and freedom of those games, Pillars is lacking. Severely so. You'll notice it the more you play - the completely wasted Keep, the lack of race-specific interactions, the linear storyline, the lack of C&C, boring itemization, battles playing all very similarly, the lack of crazy character builds, etc...

 

But, to me, the most worrisome aspect is the contrast between these two perceptions of the game, because they appear to be almost impossible to reconcile. Reviewers considered PoE a title with "countless strategies" (PC Gamer), full of "interesting puzzles and traps, and surprising encounters" (GameInformer), and even "intensely difficult and tactical" (IGN), but here I am, complaining it's too shallow.

The actual reason why I haven't finished it is I just don't care about the story. I'm not interested in finishing it because I just couldn't care less. Couldn't give a damn about the antagonist either.

 

I also think the combat is boring, exploration sucks and itemization sucks, so if I'm not enjoying the story or the gameplay, why bother?

 

You haven't finished it!? The plot gets better around the very end. You're right though that the story doesn't do anything to make you care. I had the same issue with Kotor 2. The story needs a more personal element.

 

BG1: Sarevok kills Gorion and hires dangerous bounty hunters who attack you at every turn. Then frames you at Candlekeep and gets the Flaming Fist to go after you. Then swears he will kill you eventually once you foil his plot in Baldurs Gate. 

 

BG2: Irenicus kidnaps you, tortures you (which you even see on screen), kills friends of your companions, gets imoen kidnapped, annoys you in your dreams, takes your soul (which even has mechanical consequences), and then sends you to hell. God I wanted to kill this SOB.

 

PoE: Well, I won't say, but it doesn't amount to the above.

[Sensuki]

I know what happens after the point that I got up to, and to be honest that kind of stuff just doesn't interest me, NOR does it really have much of a connection to what you did in the first two chapters of the game, feels like an entirely different game when you hit Act 3.

[Namutree]

I know what happens after the point that I got up to, and to be honest that kind of stuff just doesn't interest me, NOR does it really have much of a connection to what you did in the first two chapters of the game, feels like an entirely different game when you hit Act 3.

You must be really disappointed with PoE considering all the work you put into it.

[Sensuki]

Yeah.

 

I think they really stuffed up with the motivation for the player. The game did not make me care about the Dyrwood at all. Their method was basically - here's a whole bunch of Lore ... cool, well that was a bit of a long winded tell don't show, and I still don't care. Being a Watcher and being Awakened isn't even a bad thing, and there are examples of people who are Watchers and/or Awakened in the game that live with it without issue. Seeing souls is cool and useful, I can do quests that I wouldn't have been otherwise able to do ... why do I care about chasing Thaos to make it stop? They did a really bad job at making the player feel as if they were going crazy. TBH it sounds like the MotB Spirit Eater mechanic without the Spirit Eater mechanic, there's absolutely no agency to it whatsoever.

 

 

All of the acts feel really disjointed. Act 1 is basically, I went to see a guy and he was crazy and I had to kill him. Act 2 was I did a bunch of things for people in Defiance Bay and went out to some ruins in the Wilderness, walked around in a circle and saw some past lives, figured out what the cause of the hollowborn is, then went to the top of a tower in Defiance Bay and turned off a machine. Then I witnessed a scene at the end of the Chapter and none of the actions I took during that chapter made any difference to the outcome whatsoever, kind of like Mass Effect 3's ending. Then in Act 3 I went to Twin Elms and was like wow, I just don't care anymore. I already figured that the gods weren't really gods, but I don't care about that, and I don't care about Engwithans either, or about Thaos. Who honestly thought this was a good story with good pacing ? There was all this talk during the Kickstarter about making sure the player cares about what's going on, but they utterly failed to do so for me, for the first time in any of their games that any of them have made that I have played

 

Suffers from "trying hard to be good", which is the opposite of doing a good job.

 

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensuki

[Nerdwing]

Bring back THAC0.

 

One day, a game will exist with near perfect turn-based tactical combat.  But the THAC0 system will be added simply as spite.  The finest game.

[View619]

Well, I hear WotC is putting together a CRPG. Maybe they'll do better?

[Yellow Rabbit]

The IE games had issues, which I am always quick to point out, but they also did certain things better, which I will also, obviously, point out when true. The reason the IE games make for a quick comparison is because Pillars of Eternity is supposed to largely be a spiritual sequel, and specifically called upon those comparisons already in the Kickstarter.

Not that I'm disagreeing, you're certainly making sense there, but this is exactly the reason why I feel so bad for Obsidz. Lots of loud namethrowing during Kickstarter to attract as much people as possible and gather funds to save studio from shutdown for a while, and then they SUDDENLY ended up with 2 years to homebrew complex ruleset which supposed to be competing with another one developed for ****ing 3 decades (AD&D 2Ed) and even after that having gaping issues. There was no way it could live up to expectations regarding combat, so it didn't. But at least with their experience and passion they managed to produce really good, if not great, game. Can't we at least be a little less harsh phrasing criticisms?

[Nerdwing]

From what I'm told, 4E is the ultimate edition to translate smoothly into a Tactical turn-based RPG combat wise.  So we'll have to see.

[sparklecat]

Yeah.

 

I think they really stuffed up with the motivation for the player. The game did not make me care about the Dyrwood at all. Their method was basically - here's a whole bunch of Lore ... cool, well that was a bit of a long winded tell don't show, and I still don't care. Being a Watcher and being Awakened isn't even a bad thing, and there are examples of people who are Watchers and/or Awakened in the game that live with it without issue. Seeing souls is cool and useful, I can do quests that I wouldn't have been otherwise able to do ... why do I care about chasing Thaos to make it stop? They did a really bad job at making the player feel as if they were going crazy. TBH it sounds like the MotB Spirit Eater mechanic without the Spirit Eater mechanic, there's absolutely no agency to it whatsoever.

 

 

All of the acts feel really disjointed. Act 1 is basically, I went to see a guy and he was crazy and I had to kill him. Act 2 was I did a bunch of things for people in Defiance Bay and went out to some ruins in the Wilderness, walked around in a circle and saw some past lives, figured out what the cause of the hollowborn is, then went to the top of a tower in Defiance Bay and turned off a machine. Then I witnessed a scene at the end of the Chapter and none of the actions I took during that chapter made any difference to the outcome whatsoever, kind of like Mass Effect 3's ending. Then in Act 3 I went to Twin Elms and was like wow, I just don't care anymore. I already figured that the gods weren't really gods, but I don't care about that, and I don't care about Engwithans either, or about Thaos. Who honestly thought this was a good story with good pacing ? There was all this talk during the Kickstarter about making sure the player cares about what's going on, but they utterly failed to do so for me, for the first time in any of their games that any of them have made that I have played

 

Your choices in Act 2 make a ton of difference to the outcomes; you just don't see it right then.

[Atheosis]

Yeah.

 

I think they really stuffed up with the motivation for the player. The game did not make me care about the Dyrwood at all. Their method was basically - here's a whole bunch of Lore ... cool, well that was a bit of a long winded tell don't show, and I still don't care. Being a Watcher and being Awakened isn't even a bad thing, and there are examples of people who are Watchers and/or Awakened in the game that live with it without issue. Seeing souls is cool and useful, I can do quests that I wouldn't have been otherwise able to do ... why do I care about chasing Thaos to make it stop? They did a really bad job at making the player feel as if they were going crazy. TBH it sounds like the MotB Spirit Eater mechanic without the Spirit Eater mechanic, there's absolutely no agency to it whatsoever.

 

 

All of the acts feel really disjointed. Act 1 is basically, I went to see a guy and he was crazy and I had to kill him. Act 2 was I did a bunch of things for people in Defiance Bay and went out to some ruins in the Wilderness, walked around in a circle and saw some past lives, figured out what the cause of the hollowborn is, then went to the top of a tower in Defiance Bay and turned off a machine. Then I witnessed a scene at the end of the Chapter and none of the actions I took during that chapter made any difference to the outcome whatsoever, kind of like Mass Effect 3's ending. Then in Act 3 I went to Twin Elms and was like wow, I just don't care anymore. I already figured that the gods weren't really gods, but I don't care about that, and I don't care about Engwithans either, or about Thaos. Who honestly thought this was a good story with good pacing ? There was all this talk during the Kickstarter about making sure the player cares about what's going on, but they utterly failed to do so for me, for the first time in any of their games that any of them have made that I have played

 

 

I cared more than I usually do with games, so I think it's a you thing honestly.

[Atheosis]

From what I'm told, 4E is the ultimate edition to translate smoothly into a Tactical turn-based RPG combat wise.  So we'll have to see.

 

4E is already old.  It was a good edition for computer games because of how much it borrowed from MMORPGs, but the current edition is more like old D&D (thankfully).

[Sensuki]

I doubt it. I can see how people could be forgiving of it, particularly if one enjoys dry writing and lore dumps.

 

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/act-2-ending-spoilers-obviously.98124/

 

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/the-writing-in-this-game-is-average.98103/unread

 

There's plenty of interesting ideas, but I don't think they gel together very well to form a cohesive whole.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensuki

[Atheosis]

Well, I hear WotC is putting together a CRPG. Maybe they'll do better?

 

Roflmao...have you ever used any software designed by WotC?

[View619]

 

Well, I hear WotC is putting together a CRPG. Maybe they'll do better?

 

Roflmao...have you ever used any software designed by WotC?

 

 

 

A man can dream, right?

[Sensuki]

Your choices in Act 2 make a ton of difference to the outcomes; you just don't see it right then.

There's some end game slides which I've already seen because I looked at them during the beta.

[Kal Adan]

 

You haven't finished it!? The plot gets better around the very end. You're right though that the story doesn't do anything to make you care. I had the same issue with Kotor 2. The story needs a more personal element.

 

BG1: Sarevok kills Gorion and hires dangerous bounty hunters who attack you at every turn. Then frames you at Candlekeep and gets the Flaming Fist to go after you. Then swears he will kill you eventually once you foil his plot in Baldurs Gate. 

 

BG2: Irenicus kidnaps you, tortures you (which you even see on screen), kills friends of your companions, gets imoen kidnapped, annoys you in your dreams, takes your soul (which even has mechanical consequences), and then sends you to hell. God I wanted to kill this SOB.

 

PoE: Well, I won't say, but it doesn't amount to the above.

 

I liked KotOR 2's story, but maybe so because I liked the idea of my character being important - a general, playing a major part in war/history - and I stood up for that legacy and choices my character did in the past, actively arguing it was the best course of action both as a character and a player. I suspect if someone didn't sympathize with player character's past actions there could be a disconnect ("I didn't want to do it. I didn't do it. It wasn't me. Don't blame me for that"). There were some personal elements adding to that: like why the Jedi Council stripped you off your powers, etc. I also found story to be fresh/original, when compared to what we usually get in Star Wars universe.

 

I liked Baldur's Gate II for making it personal for the player right from the beginning. Just like you say. My favorite part in the whole game (or at least one of a few) was:

 

"Who dares!?"

"I dare!"

 

The whole thing was very, very personal. And it showed in the dialogues I made throught the game (like the one when you emerge for the Underworld).

 

In Pillars of Eternity I have a problem connecting my condition to someone specific. It all looks like an accident. Basically I am only following the plot line, because there is a risk to end up like the Old Watcher. I am not that much interested in finding out what the secret group is aiming at, while in Planescape: Torment it was interesting to learn about your past, what "you" did or what others hid from you because of "you", or for some other reasons. It won't stop me from winning the game (I am on the GoG version, by the way), but I do agree the main story is somewhat lacking. At least at the moment I am in, where it should draw me more into the game, the plot. Another thing making me less concerned about state of the world is I don't know how the borders go. There is a lot of talk about Readceras, but that's all dry talk, while in The Witchers' I at least read the books or played the previous title, so I got to know the geo-politics to care more about them later on. Same goes for the Mandalorian Wars or the Jedi Civil War in KotORs.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Kal Adan

[Rumpelstilskin]

Just finished the Endless Paths (hard; party lvl 9/8), and I think it has all you guys are asking for. There are mobs that dominate you on sight, spirits that teleport and mass-paralyze you, enough ranged units and AoE casters. And then there's the Master

herself

.. As it was mentioned several times, it's likely intentional that the main quest is not too hard, so that people don't hit a brick wall. But for the most combat-heavy experience there's optional content.

Edit: ok, added a spoiler tag)

Edited April 12, 2015 by Rumpelstilskin