EI Mod and my opinions

[Tartantyco]

I'd just like to point out that the actual substance in the Slicken spell drops from the sky, so it would hit flying units, as well.

[Luckmann]

I'd just like to point out that the actual substance in the Slicken spell drops from the sky, so it would hit flying units, as well.

 

And make them... slip and fall?

[Tartantyco]

Numbers are not the issue, the issue is that melee enemies are not a danger. In my case Eder tanks as many as he can and my monk waits to see who passes by and tanks those. It still makes the combat super easy because Eder can easily tank 3-4 and my Monk can tank 1-2 which is usually all the melee that is thrown at you.

 

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. I'm discussing specifically about the issue of one character aggroing everything. What you're talking about is also an issue, but it is a different topic.

[Tartantyco]

 

I'd just like to point out that the actual substance in the Slicken spell drops from the sky, so it would hit flying units, as well.

 

And make them... slip and fall?

 

 

Have you ever seen bird coated in oil fly?

 

Edit: Eldoth overload.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Tartantyco

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

I'd just like to point out that the actual substance in the Slicken spell drops from the sky, so it would hit flying units, as well.

 

And make them... slip and fall?

 

 

Have you ever seen bird coated in oil fly?

 

Edit: Eldoth overload.

 

 

NVM

Edited April 13, 2015 by Monte Carlo

[Luckmann]

 

 

I'd just like to point out that the actual substance in the Slicken spell drops from the sky, so it would hit flying units, as well.

 

And make them... slip and fall?

 

 

Have you ever seen bird coated in oil fly?

 

Edit: Eldoth overload.

 

 

No, but we're not talking about birds, really. I will admit that it's less of an issue now when Slicken is a simple knockdown AoE instead of the AoE Hazard it should be, but on account of that change being stupid, the point stands.

[Casildar]

@Casildar You're right, I stand corrected.

 

It's on page 59 of the 2nd edition sourcebook BTW. There's also a clause that if two characters are engaging a single enemy, one of them can withdraw without the free attack.

 

Thanks, was trying to find that but this pdf I have of 2E doesn't have page numbers.  Only reason I remembered them was that the ancient SSI Gold Box games had them and it was always a crapshoot trying to get your lvl 2 magic-user to take a step away from a flail-wielding gnoll.

 

 

It's funny though because those rules make more sense than any other edition. 

 

 

Yeah.  I haven't played in a long time, but the current rules are ridiculously lengthy.  And brutal:  ranged attack -> AoO, unarmed attack -> AoO, drink a potion -> AoO, sheathe a weapon, pick up item, read a scroll, cast a spell, use touch spell -> AoO

[El Zoido]

 

I don't think so. For example, I don't think there's even a mechanic for specifically resisting... anything. So it's not just numbers adjustment (far from it, I believe).

Let's take the oft-cited problem of Slicken vs. drakes. Slicken targets Reflex, unless I'm completely off. Fail, you go Prone.

 

You can bump up the drake's Reflex, but you can't give him resistance specifically vs. Prone.

 

To further complicate matters, we'd probably be fine with making drakes go Prone with Knockdown, right? But not Slicken. So it's not just vs. Prone, but suddenly vs. a specific form of spell or ability.

 

[...]

 

Humm... hey, maybe you're right. I was kind of assuming that it'd be possible to give higher resistances (and therefore also immunities) to specific status effects at least, e.g. Prone. I don't think it'd be necessary to distinguish between, say, Slicken and Knockdown for this to work; just have some enemies which can't be Blinded, Paralyzed, or Prone'd.

 

If the system really doesn't allow for that then yeah, that does need fixing.

 

 

I may gbe wrong, but aren't there e.g. some items that give increased defenses against certain status effects, especially "prone"?

If so, that sounds as if they do have a system in place to specifically defend against status effects. A drake could be then given +200 defense vs prone and all attacks that would cause prone would be converted into misses.

[Luckmann]

 

 

I don't think so. For example, I don't think there's even a mechanic for specifically resisting... anything. So it's not just numbers adjustment (far from it, I believe).

Let's take the oft-cited problem of Slicken vs. drakes. Slicken targets Reflex, unless I'm completely off. Fail, you go Prone.

 

You can bump up the drake's Reflex, but you can't give him resistance specifically vs. Prone.

 

To further complicate matters, we'd probably be fine with making drakes go Prone with Knockdown, right? But not Slicken. So it's not just vs. Prone, but suddenly vs. a specific form of spell or ability.

 

[...]

 

Humm... hey, maybe you're right. I was kind of assuming that it'd be possible to give higher resistances (and therefore also immunities) to specific status effects at least, e.g. Prone. I don't think it'd be necessary to distinguish between, say, Slicken and Knockdown for this to work; just have some enemies which can't be Blinded, Paralyzed, or Prone'd.

 

If the system really doesn't allow for that then yeah, that does need fixing.

 

 

I may gbe wrong, but aren't there e.g. some items that give increased defenses against certain status effects, especially "prone"?

If so, that sounds as if they do have a system in place to specifically defend against status effects. A drake could be then given +200 defense vs prone and all attacks that would cause prone would be converted into misses.

 

 

I don't think so, but I may very well be wrong. But either way, I'd prefer something more granular. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to smack a drake over the head and knock him to the ground.

[El Zoido]

 

I don't think so, but I may very well be wrong. But either way, I'd prefer something more granular. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to smack a drake over the head and knock him to the ground.

 

 

I checked a save of mine. Boots of Stability have the "Sturdy" attribute, which specifically gives +20 defense against attacks that cause prone and +15 against push.

 

While I agree that specific immunities against certain spells would be better when it makes sense, it stills seems preferable to e.g. slicken causing drakes or other flying enemies (or oozes for that matter) to fall over.

[PrimeJunta]

Well awesome, that means the hooks are already there, all that's needed is to use them.

 

I have a mild preference for resistances over immunities actually, because it opens the way for attacks that reduce them. I have an especial liking for BG2 strategies that involve whittling down magic resistance for example; I would like to see similar mechanics used elsewhere.

[Casildar]

I checked a save of mine. Boots of Stability have the "Sturdy" attribute, which specifically gives +20 defense against attacks that cause prone and +15 against push.

 

While I agree that specific immunities against certain spells would be better when it makes sense, it stills seems preferable to e.g. slicken causing drakes or other flying enemies (or oozes for that matter) to fall over.

 

 

Yeah, if you look at the defensive talents that open up at higher levels, there are individual increases to most (maybe all) status effects.  Mental Fortress, Body Control, Unstoppable.  Several spells buff specific effect defense, like the priest line of "Prayer against X" spells.

[sparklecat]

Yeah it's surprising how Edér is as good as immune to status effects as well so much of the time. It ought to be trivial to add challenge to tanking simply by making enemies target the tank's weaker defenses with some nasty status effects. Stun, Paralyze, Petrify, and so on. Would immediately neutralize tank-and-spank in the encounters where it's used.

 

Yeah, I had fun in the drake fights because the xaurip priests would sometimes disable Eder, breaking engagement, and the drakes would then abandon him for the rest of my people.  I'd like to see more of that.

[sparklecat]

 

Also, "Breaking Off From Melee" is clearly different from AoO:s. You do not need to be engaged in melee to trigger AoO:s in 3e/3.5e/PF (and not 4e either, but I'm not sure).

 

Nope, not 4e either; you can trigger an OA by willingly moving out of/within a critter's reach without shifting, making a ranged attack while by them, attacking person A when person B is next to you and has you marked...

[Descartian]

I still think Pillars is the best cRPG since and in the mould of BG1, BG2, Planescape Torment, IWD1 and IWD2.

 

Would have preferred it to be D&D based with the tried and tested rule sets, I am sure the combat would have been much better. But then again that does not guarantee anything. The whole Neverwinter Nights series was a huge disappointment for me

 

Since then everybody have tried to create a "spiritual successor" to Baldur's gate and just couldn't cut it. Dragon Age Origins tried with it's own non-D&D system and failed. Divinity: Original Sin recently had a lot of promise, but I grew tired of it and it's rule system very quickly

 

I have to agree with Sensuki on the tactical combat side of the game, but I am still enjoying combat as is. Hopefully with threads like these and the positive input from everyone, the developers take notice and improve the combat system with their regular patches or upcoming expansions

 

To Sensuki, don't give up so easily on the game, thought you Aussies had more fight in you   I think you can still contribute a lot more to this game and community. Respect to all the effort and hours you already put into beta testing, all the video guides, IE Mod, etc.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Instead of focusing on ... well ... what went wrong in the production process, how about we instead try to be constructive and suggest what could be changed and how it would affect things?

 

Let's not go too fancy on this; imho, the ideal solution should be based on the current mechanics and everything that already works in the game. Changing mechanics like DR is not up to debate imho.

 

 

I think if we can manage to agree on a single solution within the current game limits, it shouldn't be that hard to convince Obsidian to at least take it into the general direction.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Instead of focusing on ... well ... what went wrong in the production process, how about we instead try to be constructive and suggest what could be changed and how it would affect things?

 

Let's not go too fancy on this; imho, the ideal solution should be based on the current mechanics and everything that already works in the game. Changing mechanics like DR is not up to debate imho.

 

 

I think if we can manage to agree on a single solution within the current game limits, it shouldn't be that hard to convince Obsidian to at least take it into the general direction.

 

When you have difference of opinions, you're going to have opposition. There's been constructive suggestions and criticism over the last 2 years of development and since the beta went live. Everything and anything has been covered, discussed, debated, argued, mud thrown at each, etc.

 

The one thing I have seen in agreement are cosmetic changes like people wandering around your stronghold or cities to make it more lively, selection circles for NPCs a different colour to your own party and other various cosmetic changes, but this doesn't change the core gameplay designs which people are disagreeing on.

[Zwiebelchen]

 

Instead of focusing on ... well ... what went wrong in the production process, how about we instead try to be constructive and suggest what could be changed and how it would affect things?

 

Let's not go too fancy on this; imho, the ideal solution should be based on the current mechanics and everything that already works in the game. Changing mechanics like DR is not up to debate imho.

 

 

I think if we can manage to agree on a single solution within the current game limits, it shouldn't be that hard to convince Obsidian to at least take it into the general direction.

 

When you have difference of opinions, you're going to have opposition. There's been constructive suggestions and criticism over the last 2 years of development and since the beta went live. Everything and anything has been covered, discussed, debated, argued, mud thrown at each, etc.

 

The one thing I have seen in agreement are cosmetic changes like people wandering around your stronghold or cities to make it more lively, selection circles for NPCs a different colour to your own party and other various cosmetic changes, but this doesn't change the core gameplay designs which people are disagreeing on.

 

 

Hence why the community should finally man up and swallow some of our own personal agendas in favor of the greater good, which is a more enjoyable gameplay experience.

 

I think we already nailed some of the major balancing problems that everyone here can agree on:

 

- 1 tank-to-rule-them-all cheese tactics work too good and should be nerfed to make the game more interesting, either via the flanking bonus or by nerfing some OP enchants and talents

- constitution needs a buff, popular suggested idea: putting a reduction to armor recovery penalty on constitution

- deflection gap between tanks and non-tanks is too strong, creating a weird situation where every non-tank dies almost instantly, regardless of armor and offtanking is next to impossible

 

 

1.05 will come with balancing changes, as has already been announced. It's our chance to be heard and get fixes out to the devs.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[Valsuelm]

 

[...]

 

With 18,583 unique downloads (and I'm not yet one of them) as of this post though, I think Obsidian should take note at how many people want what's in the IE mod, and at least implement the options that it has that are not gameplay changing in an upcoming official patch (other than the one that alters the backer stuff that is). Revisiting what is gameplay changing and in the mod should perhaps be done as well.

 

Hopefully we'll see some of the things the IE mod takes care of as well as the XP issue (as in it takes too little XP to level) addressed in 1.05.

 

 

 

So, it's just PCGamer but it's nice to see the IE mod getting some recognition. Maybe if enough sites do a story on it, Obsidian may consider implementing some of the features. It's not like the code isn't readily available?

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/pillars-of-eternity-mod-brings-ui-options-other-goodies/?ns_campaign=article-feed&ns_mchannel=ref&ns_source=steam&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

 

 

Damn, that's a lot of downloads ! 

 

How come only a handful of people posted on the mod thread to thank Bester for his work though?

 

I believe the main reason he stopped working on his mod is that he didn't enjoy PoE that much... but it sure would have been nice for him to get a bit more support/thank you's. I mean, the modding thread was really slow on this forum.

 

 

It's up to 21,523 downloads as of this post. Over 3,000 new unique downloads in the last 4 days (I'm one of them).

 

I don't think it does much good to flood a comments section with 'Thank yous'.

 

The modding threads on this forum are a bit scattered and suffering a bit I think from a lack dedicated forum for modders (yo moderators, give us a dedicated modding sub-forum please). Many people are likely unaware where that thread even is (I'm not even sure where the primary thread is, is it on these forums? RPGCodex's? Elsewhere?), not to mention many people don't come to the forum at all.

 

As an aside, Nexus mods itself leaves a lot to be desired. I really wish a better mod hosting site like Curse was used.

 

For what it's worth, I'm appreciative of the work that everyone who is behind the mod put into it. I have a clue how much work that is, and it's quite a lot.

 

Thank you Bester, Sensuki, Karkarov, and Brandon Wallace.

 

It's unfortunate that Bester and Sensuki are retiring, but I totally understand why.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Darkcloud1987]

 

And confusing the target AI exploits its shortcomings because it was not the focus of development.

 

Seriously, I can read BG2 attack scripts, and I'm by no means an expert in AI programming (or programming at all). I can write (or could, a few years back) BG2 attack scripts at a similar level than the original ones. There is nothing special about BG2 AI. Its basic modus operandi is "if I see my attacker, attack him; if I haven't used my one special ability yet, use it; throw in a random chance to do nothing; re-evaluate attack target".

Just because you can easily outsmart something that wasn't a focus of the development doesn't mean that it's an exploit. Dice Poker in The Witcher 1 and 2 is incredibly easy, I win those almost every time, am I exploiting because I think I'm safe on three twos and I know the dumb AI will resign? I don't think so.

 

Creating smart AI is pretty hard, so encounter design should take into account that the player will probably be able to control the situation quite easily, and make it more difficult in other ways.

 

It certainly doesn't completely bypass resource management, it simply makes it a less significant challenge, compared to not rest-spamming. But again, as pointed out many times now, according to your logic, not deliberately gimping your character is thus the equivelent of exploitation/cheating, which is absurd.

What? I don't deliberately gimp my character? I have stated that I do enjoy the challenge of stretching the adventuring day as far as possible but I can't really do that in Pillars of Eternity because there's not much resource management, and Major Fatigue is pretty harsh. Usually kicks in before I can even try.

 

You have simply not presented any argument beyond simply denoting it as an exploit, to support your case.

Don't worry bro, Pillars of Eternity barely has any resource management for you to rest spam and avoid, so it must be the game for you

 

Pillars of Eternity has pretty much the same resource management the IE engine games have. The Spell progression is almost exactly the same and the battles where you only use your per encounter skills are the ones where you would click on the enemy to attack them until they die in the IE games (which is really most encounters in those games) 

[PrimeJunta]

In re the production process, I'm not at all surprised things like monster stats and spell effects aren't ideally fun at this point. For a long time in the BB the combat was borderline unplayable for a variety of reasons. They hammered it into reasonable shape for the release. Adjusting things from that point to provide more variety in challenges etc should be pretty easy.

 

(Of course we can continue to speculate about Josh's "philosophy" and whether that means that everything should be the same everywhere or not, but, as I said before, I don't think that's particularly productive.)

 

So, in summary, some "numbers changes" I'd like to see that I think would make a big difference for variety and challenge -- these are all easy and (probably) involve no or very little programming:

 

• Convert status effect grazes to misses. This would make resistances to status effects much more important; as it is, a graze is as good as a hit a lot of the time, whereas it really should be more or less like a miss.
• Bump up the high resistances across the board. Using fire against a fire-breathing dragon really shouldn't work at all.
• Add high resistances to specific status effects. It doesn't make sense to be able to Knockdown or Blind and ooze for example, and I wouldn't mind if Vessels and Spirits were immune to Paralyze or Poison.
• Nerf stealth. As it is you can sneak up on anything even with 0, 1, or 2 pips in Stealth. That's just unfair and makes for a dominant strategy. Five pips would feel about right for the way stealth works now; that's a significant investment so it should have some payoff. As it is, the detection radius should trip at visual range for anything below that, with the pips up to 5 only slowing down the way the circle fills.
• Buff special attacks. I liked it when poison was a Big Deal during the BB. Now you can mostly just shrug it off.
• Make Arcane Veil a short-duration near-immunity to physical damage, but have firearms ignore it, like in the original idea.

Some changes that would require a bit more work or adjustments to existing mechanics, but that I think would also contribute greatly to variety and fun in tactics and strategies, without requiring major or fundamental revisions:

• Get rid of the combat-only flags. I believe they're there largely due to difficulties saving the game state (which is somewhat buggy as it is).
• Individual stealth. Even better, with detection cones rather than circles.
• In-combat stealth, e.g. as a Rogue per-encounter special ability. Backstabs FTW!
• Invisibility spells.
• Counters built into the spells. "Haste" type spells counter "slow" and "paralysis" effects, "healing" spells counter poison, and so on and so forth.
• Bring back the original armor mechanic (DR + DT rather than DT only). (This one is probably out.)
• Relate CON to armor, e.g. make it reduce the recovery penalty. It's currently too dumpy.

[trueplayer]

I was really disappointed to see that trolls can be killed without the use of acid/fire I guess that goes to your third point (i.e. make oozes immune to KD etc.).

 

As for IE mod (what is EI even supposed to mean?) - I'm loving it and I can't imagine playing without it.

[Namutree]

 

In re the production process, I'm not at all surprised things like monster stats and spell effects aren't ideally fun at this point. For a long time in the BB the combat was borderline unplayable for a variety of reasons. They hammered it into reasonable shape for the release. Adjusting things from that point to provide more variety in challenges etc should be pretty easy.

 

(Of course we can continue to speculate about Josh's "philosophy" and whether that means that everything should be the same everywhere or not, but, as I said before, I don't think that's particularly productive.)

 

So, in summary, some "numbers changes" I'd like to see that I think would make a big difference for variety and challenge -- these are all easy and (probably) involve no or very little programming:

 

• Convert status effect grazes to misses. This would make resistances to status effects much more important; as it is, a graze is as good as a hit a lot of the time, whereas it really should be more or less like a miss.
• Bump up the high resistances across the board. Using fire against a fire-breathing dragon really shouldn't work at all.
• Add high resistances to specific status effects. It doesn't make sense to be able to Knockdown or Blind and ooze for example, and I wouldn't mind if Vessels and Spirits were immune to Paralyze or Poison.
• Nerf stealth. As it is you can sneak up on anything even with 0, 1, or 2 pips in Stealth. That's just unfair and makes for a dominant strategy. Five pips would feel about right for the way stealth works now; that's a significant investment so it should have some payoff. As it is, the detection radius should trip at visual range for anything below that, with the pips up to 5 only slowing down the way the circle fills.
• Buff special attacks. I liked it when poison was a Big Deal during the BB. Now you can mostly just shrug it off.
• Make Arcane Veil a short-duration near-immunity to physical damage, but have firearms ignore it, like in the original idea.

Awesome ideas. This would make PoE so much better. 

[Zwiebelchen]

I agree with every point of Junta maybe except for the going back to the old armor concept. That would imho be too much of a change. Instead, I want to suggest a change of priorities in defenses. Instead of making defenses mostly class-bound, a more equipment-orientated approach could fix a huge amount of problems of the game in just one take:

 

 

- make all base deflection scores equal for all classes (15 base, 3 per level)

- Reduce deflection bonus of shields: small shield = 6 deflection, medium shield = 9 deflection; large shield = 12 deflection

- Reduce deflection bonuses of almost all passive talents ... mandatory talent choices are stupid.

- Change constitution to also reduce armor recovery penalty by 4% for every point beyond 10 (at 18 points, this equals a 28% reduction).

- instead of deflection coming mostly from talent and class choices, armors should provide both deflection and damage resistance, based on the armor type:

Cloth: +15 deflection, +5 DR

Robes: +12 deflection, +8 DR

Light Armor: +9 deflection, +10 DR

Medium Armor: +6 deflection, +12 DR

Mail Armor: +3 deflection, +14 DR

Plate Armor: +16 DR

 

Enchants improve DR and Deflection ratings of armors by 10% per tier (Rounded up to full integers).

 

Basicly, light armor allows you to evade better, whereas heavy armor reduces damage dealt. ... Like it should have been right from the beginning. There's a certain exponential relationship between deflection and DR (lower armors granting more DR than they do now), as DR becomes stronger the more you stack it. The DR values have been upped all across the board to compensate for the loss of base deflection of tank builds.

 

In addition to the above changes:

- Change PotD so that the 50% stat increase does not affect accuracy scores. This is to ensure that the change to deflection and DR to be almost completely exclusive to gear does not make PotD impossible to beat.

 

- Increase flanking bonuses depending on the number of enemies: +5 accuracy for everyone attacking the same target, regardless of attacking angle, to encourage players to spread the incoming damage over multiple party members.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[PrimeJunta]

@Zwiebelchen... That's an intriguing idea. I have a feeling though that it might make light armor dominate even for tanks, especially if we're retaining the armor recovery penalty. Stacking deflection would mean not getting hit in the first place, which means you wouldn't even need DR.

 

Wouldn't apply to attacks targeting something other than Deflection of course...