EI Mod and my opinions

[Descartian]

 

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

 

The IE Mod is great, it has a lot of cool features, but I mainly use it to re-balance the companions' attributes, abilities and talents as the companion builds are not so great. I stay within the total allocated attribute points and just swop unwanted talents/abilities around to suit a better companion build and not to make it unbalanced

 

Really hope Bester decides to continue supporting IE Mod

Edited April 14, 2015 by Descartian

[Zwiebelchen]

@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...

 

See how genius it is? You already pointed out the possibilities that come with this: what if an attack is not based on deflection? As DR affects almost everything (except for the special modifiers on your armor), no matter what defense it targets, it's the better choice if you want to make an overall survivable character. However, stacking deflection is an alternative for characters with a lower health and endurance pool. They will be more likely not to get hit by certain attack types, however, you will mostly not want them to tank heavy-hitters, etc. ... with the mentioned changes, we would basicly create two different types of tanks for different purposes, which absolutely sounds great in my book.

 

You could finally build a "cloth tank", like a monk, attacking with fists. Basicly, it evades a lot better than a plate-equipped fighter, but when it gets hit, it gets hit hard. Suddenly, all those abilities and items that convert hits to graces or crits to hits would be much more valuable aswell.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[Hiro Protagonist II]

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.

 

With trolls, another design choice where there's no immunities for either you or the enemies and you can't fail at damaging and killing anything with any weapon. No trap choices with anything, even a weapon you pick up will do damage to anything in the game. It makes it rather bland. 

 

And with EI, it's supposed to be IE but we like spelling mistakes on this forum. (Mod's don't change the thread title)

[Luckmann]

 

 

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)

 

 

That's not remotely true. While I don't necessarily disagree with all the changes, there are considerable differences. Per-Encounter Abilities didn't even exist in the IE games, there were no resting limitations whatsoever, your spells didn't become at-will at level 9, you couldn't carry an infinite amount of stuff, not be weight nor by amount, you practically had to use potions (at least healing, and definitely when not rest-spamming), there was no food to speak of and no resting bonuses, and the fatigue penalty was largely meaningless.

 

This is not to say that all of these differences are bad. I like Per-Encounter Abilities (but hate the blanket-level Per-Encounter Spells), the resting limitations are good (but far from perfect, a more restrictive one would've been even better).

 

And this is still all about the strategic resource management and relation to overall game mechanics. If we go into action economy and tactical restrictions (Engagement system and the war on movement, I'm looking at you) there's even more.

 

 

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.

 

You know I agree with most of these, but I'm not sure about status effect grazes-to-misses. They might just want to change the ranges on the spells so that it's hard for them to get grazes and crits at all, and mostly either hit or miss, but with the simple +/- on a 0-100 scale it might be hard to do that without making Accuracy crazy valuable for spellcasters, but it's worth considering.

 

I'm also questioning the suggestion on Stealth. Even with quite a lot of ranks in it, certainly more than 3, I can definitely not sneak up on enemies to the point where I can hit them, even if I run headlong right into them while in Stealth (I know, because like most others, I have my tank sneak in as long as he can and then get swarmed). This presents a pretty big problem with undervaluing stealth for those that specifically want to do backstabbings, especially once we have individual combat stealth.

 

Detection should be based on a formula where it's harder to sneak up on some than others, including Level, Perception and opposing ranks of Stealth. It should be possible for level 2-3 rogues with just a few ranks in Stealth to actually sneak up on enemies, have the tank initiate combat, and then bring him in to backstab them.

 

 

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.

With trolls, another design choice where there's no immunities for either you or the enemies and you can't fail at damaging and killing anything with any weapon. No trap choices with anything, even a weapon you pick up will do damage to anything in the game. It makes it rather bland.

 

And with EI, it's supposed to be IE but we like spelling mistakes on this forum. (Mod's don't change the thread title)

 

Oh god I hadn't even noticed.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Luckmann

[PrimeJunta]

I'm also questioning the suggestion on Stealth. Even with quite a lot of ranks in it, certainly more than 3, I can definitely not sneak up on enemies to the point where I can hit them, even if I run headlong right into them while in Stealth (I know, because like most others, I have my tank sneak in as long as he can and then get swarmed). This presents a pretty big problem with undervaluing stealth for those that specifically want to do backstabbings, especially once we have individual combat stealth.

You can get everyone into position for a ranged opening though, all in peace and quiet, even with 0 stealth. You just have to stay a little bit further back. Since the opening is usually ranged anyway I find this gives an unfair advantage.

 

It doesn't apply to backstabs though, for that you'd definitely want to crank up stealth -- except that only being able to backstab once per encounter (since you can't re-stealth except with Shadowing Beyond) kind of makes the investment not really worth it.

 

Detection should be based on a formula where it's harder to sneak up on some than others, including Level, Perception and opposing ranks of Stealth. It should be possible for level 2-3 rogues with just a few ranks in Stealth to actually sneak up on enemies, have the tank initiate combat, and then bring him in to backstab them.

Yes, very much this.

[archangel979]

 

• Buff special attacks. I liked it when poison was a Big Deal during the BB. Now you can mostly just shrug it off.

 

I like all your suggestion but I want to comment on this one. The big problem with this is how inventory is limited. In IE games you could keep all your potions and scrolls in bags and containers and get them out and use them as needed (and they were needed). In PoE you have to have them in your quickslots before combat starts. Since it is impossible to have all you need and with stronger effects they are more needed than now, the changes would not work without also removing the limitations to using things from inventory.

They should allow items to be put to quickslots during combat but only activated by clicking on quicksloted item than so it follows same rules of recovery and the rest.

[Zwiebelchen]

I think an easy solution for the individual stealth problem would be to make stealth and invisibility two different mechanics.

 

Invisibility basicly serving as a per-character stealth that is not bound to the stealth attribute. Then we could give Rogues a class ability that allows them to go invisible (possibly as a per-encounter ability?) to sneak up on enemies regardless of scouting mode. Invisibility obviously can not be detected like regular stealth mechanics (but can by various magical means like a detect invisibility spell) and can trigger backstab.

 

This would solve multiple things at once:

1) the stealth stat wouldn't be a mandatory pump for rogues anymore (note that it would still be useful).

2) backstab would become more useful

3) it makes rogues more unique

4) stealth mechanics can be kept as-is and still allow for individual stealthing

5) new possibilities for cool mage spells (selft-cast invisibility, touch-target-invisibility) as an escape ability or to strike touch or low-range spells in safety ...

 

In order to not break the "no escape from combat" paradigma of the game, invisibility would break just like the attack-protection spell as soon as all friendlies went down.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[Luckmann]

 

I'm also questioning the suggestion on Stealth. Even with quite a lot of ranks in it, certainly more than 3, I can definitely not sneak up on enemies to the point where I can hit them, even if I run headlong right into them while in Stealth (I know, because like most others, I have my tank sneak in as long as he can and then get swarmed). This presents a pretty big problem with undervaluing stealth for those that specifically want to do backstabbings, especially once we have individual combat stealth.

You can get everyone into position for a ranged opening though, all in peace and quiet, even with 0 stealth. You just have to stay a little bit further back. Since the opening is usually ranged anyway I find this gives an unfair advantage.

 

It doesn't apply to backstabs though, for that you'd definitely want to crank up stealth -- except that only being able to backstab once per encounter (since you can't re-stealth except with Shadowing Beyond) kind of makes the investment not really worth it.

 

Detection should be based on a formula where it's harder to sneak up on some than others, including Level, Perception and opposing ranks of Stealth. It should be possible for level 2-3 rogues with just a few ranks in Stealth to actually sneak up on enemies, have the tank initiate combat, and then bring him in to backstab them.

Yes, very much this.

 

I have a suggestion for how to fix the "everyone opens with ranged weapons"-thing, though. Well, partial solution, anyway.

 

When you start reading your weapon to shoot, that split second, it should come at a massive penalty to your Stealth, to the point where unless you have a lot of points into Stealth, you'll at least be discovered before you can start getting your shots off. Meaning that you'll at least have a hard time to shoot-and-retreat coming out of Stealth or open up with a full volley and then switch weapons before the enemies have reached you. With 5-6 points in Stealth, you'd still be able to shoot from Stealth, and you could avoid the whole 0-Stealth volley thing.

 

Just a thought, might not be possible.

 

Also, I fully support armour having a penalty to Stealth, so it'd be harder to do that whole stealthy-tank-routine. But I want more unique aspects to armours overall; the current flat scaling with small changes in DR doesn't do it for me at all. Leather Armour is always Leather Armour. I want there to be different kinds. Oiled Full Plates, Blackened Leather Armour, Padded Fur Armour; not a fan of how tightly they've tied all kinds of modifiers to such a strict Enchantment system. Fine/Exceptional/Etc shouldn't even count as Enchantments, they're base attributes that should be embedded in the base item itself at the point of creation.

 

An iron dagger will always be an iron dagger, it's never going to be a steel dagger (Fine), and certainly not a tempered steel dagger (Exceptional), and absolutely not a mithril dagger (Superb). And so on.

 

But now I'm drifting off the subject again.

 

I think an easy solution for the individual stealth problem would be to make stealth and invisibility two different mechanics.

 

Invisibility basicly serving as a per-character stealth that is not bound to the stealth attribute. Then we could give Rogues a class ability that allows them to go invisible (possibly as a per-encounter ability?) to sneak up on enemies regardless of scouting mode. Invisibility obviously can not be detected like regular stealth mechanics (but can by various magical means like a detect invisibility spell) and can trigger backstab.

 

This would solve multiple things at once:

1) the stealth stat wouldn't be a mandatory pump for rogues anymore (note that it would still be useful).

2) backstab would become more useful

3) it makes rogues more unique

4) stealth mechanics can be kept as-is and still allow for individual stealthing

5) new possibilities for cool mage spells (selft-cast invisibility, touch-target-invisibility) as an escape ability or to strike touch or low-range spells in safety ...

 

In order to not break the "no escape from combat" paradigma of the game, invisibility would break just like the attack-protection spell as soon as all friendlies went down.

Are you being ironic here? Because.. that's pretty much exactly how it works right now. Stealth and Invisibility are different things, and Rogues get a class ability (Talent, actually) that allows them to go Invisible (2 Per Rest).

 

The problem with Stealth isn't specifically a Rogue issue, it's a systemic issue. The rogue being able to go Invisible at will is a band-aid on a bad system, not a solution.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Luckmann

[dododad]

 

 

[...]

 

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.

 

 

I certainly wouldn't put all those download as people that like changes. I for one only installed it to bump my difficulty up to potd, nothing else. I'm not touching engagements, and I'm not touching other changes that it introduces because I think game plays better without them.

[Klice]

 

3) Personal favorite, With a stealth spotter, send either summoned canon fodder then take my Wizard and throw some fireballs or cloudkill . Rinse and repeat.

Rest spammer.

 

I imagine Sensuki at old age, getting a bit delusional, pointing a raised fist at people he doesn't like and yelling "You damn rest spammer!!"

Edited April 14, 2015 by Klice

[Eurhetemec]

 

 

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.

 

 

I don't think we can all agree on the first or last one there, actually.

 

I mean, playing on Hard, I've got a tank (Eder) and two "off-tanks" (2h Pallegina and sword/board main character Chanter), and y'know what? Neither of them "die almost instantly" - at one point I ran from an encounter, accidentally left the Chanter, and he tanked literally six enemies for an astoundingly long time. He has precisely 1 defensive talent (weapon and shield), and far from maxed-out armour/shield.

 

WIth the first, I've seen Eder get the snot kicked out of him a fair bit too - just only by mobs with slow, high-damage attacks - he's barely better than the off-tanks on those.

 

The solutions I've seen proposed to these "problems" also tend to be awful, because they all seem focused entirely party-side, and usually would just move the problem so everyone gets one-shot all the time and magic CC becomes the new way "only way to tank" instead of a tank.

 

If they are problems, the only way to fix them is going to be a mix of party and monster side, or by doing stuff that applies universally - having more minimum damage per attack penetrate DR might well help, as would enemies having more abilities which convert misses or grazes to hits.

 

However I do agree 100% re: CON and decreasing Armour Recovery Penalty is a great solution, because currently Armour Recovery Penalty makes Armour choices verrrrrry dull (i.e. go big or go small, ignore medium).

 

EDIT - The real "balance fix" Pillars needs is something to stop all enemies always charging face-first into chokepoint ambushes, but that's going to involve a bit of AI scripting.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Eurhetemec

[Luckmann]

 

 

 

[...]

 

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.

 

 

I certainly wouldn't put all those download as people that like changes. I for one only installed it to bump my difficulty up to potd, nothing else. I'm not touching engagements, and I'm not touching other changes that it introduces because I think game plays better without them.

 

 

Yes, clearly the game "plays better" when neutral NPC:s have the same-coloured selection circles as allied NPC:s, and when the solid UI looks terrible, or when you can't modify the UI elements, or when everyone's buggy namebox (including your pet's) shows up at the touch of TAB. 

[Eurhetemec]

 

Yes, clearly the game "plays better" when neutral NPC:s have the same-coloured selection circles as allied NPC:s, and when the solid UI looks terrible, or when you can't modify the UI elements, or when everyone's buggy namebox (including your pet's) shows up at the touch of TAB. 

 

 

Do you think that intentionally ignoring the obvious context of remarks has value in a discussion? Because let's be clear - it does not, it merely serves to lower the tone.

 

Obviously he is referring to gameplay stuff. There is no question about it from the context of his remarks. So yes, the game does "play better" with the EI gameplay changes not used. Aesthetic bits and bobs, which you are referring to, don't make it "play better", nor do they make it "play worse". They merely allow you to make it slightly more to your liking.

[Hassat Hunter]

I certainly wouldn't put all those download as people that like changes. I for one only installed it to bump my difficulty up to potd, nothing else. I'm not touching engagements, and I'm not touching other changes that it introduces because I think game plays better without them.

Yeah, if someone was to use the download amount to "prove" stuff like 'people don't want engagement' they're just making stastics do their bidding.

Personally if I were to download it it would be for the blue circles for NPC's. I would be really pissed if someone then went off and claimed I downloaded it for [other function here].

 

Also, out of interest since I wasn't around the nets back then, did people discussing BG (2) also used terms like DPS mage, Tank, Off-Tank and whatnot. I really hate those terms 0_o

[Zwiebelchen]

 

Are you being ironic here? Because.. that's pretty much exactly how it works right now. Stealth and Invisibility are different things, and Rogues get a class ability (Talent, actually) that allows them to go Invisible (2 Per Rest).

 

The problem with Stealth isn't specifically a Rogue issue, it's a systemic issue. The rogue being able to go Invisible at will is a band-aid on a bad system, not a solution.

 

 

Partially, yes.

 

I was saying this to get the point across that the group-only scouting mode isn't inherently broken by definition. It just requires some tweaking (like with almost any mechanic in the game the idea is good, it's just the execution that is imperfect). I'd also postulate a name change of the stealth attribute to scouting in general ... because that's basicly what it is: an attribute that makes scouting and preparation easier.

[Luckmann]

 

Yes, clearly the game "plays better" when neutral NPC:s have the same-coloured selection circles as allied NPC:s, and when the solid UI looks terrible, or when you can't modify the UI elements, or when everyone's buggy namebox (including your pet's) shows up at the touch of TAB.

Do you think that intentionally ignoring the obvious context of remarks has value in a discussion? Because let's be clear - it does not, it merely serves to lower the tone.

 

Obviously he is referring to gameplay stuff. There is no question about it from the context of his remarks. So yes, the game does "play better" with the EI gameplay changes not used. Aesthetic bits and bobs, which you are referring to, don't make it "play better", nor do they make it "play worse". They merely allow you to make it slightly more to your liking.

 

That is very, very far off from what he said, though. If anyone was ignoring context, it's you. He specifically talked about other changes, after directly referencing Engagement as a separate point. If anything is lowering the tone, it's the fact that you felt the need to try to start fires where there essentially was none in a vain attempt to run to someone elses defence due to a perceived slight you cannot even relate in context.

 

Run away, little person, I'm sure there's some rock for you to hide under or some bridge you can fish underneath of with your nets.

 

4

I certainly wouldn't put all those download as people that like changes. I for one only installed it to bump my difficulty up to potd, nothing else. I'm not touching engagements, and I'm not touching other changes that it introduces because I think game plays better without them.

Yeah, if someone was to use the download amount to "prove" stuff like 'people don't want engagement' they're just making stastics do their bidding.

Personally if I were to download it it would be for the blue circles for NPC's. I would be really pissed if someone then went off and claimed I downloaded it for [other function here].

 

Also, out of interest since I wasn't around the nets back then, did people discussing BG (2) also used terms like DPS mage, Tank, Off-Tank and whatnot. I really hate those terms 0_o

 

For reference, I'm not using it to disable Engagement either. I dislike Engagement, but the game is unfortunately built for it, and just flat-out removing it doesn't do it for me. It wouldn't solve any real issues, as Sensuki has said himself.

 

Nope. The IE games were never locked into these hard dichotomies. It's an MMO-era system that weaseld it's way into PnP and RPG:s, as far as I'm concerned and it makes for pretty uninteresting gameplay, especially when you control all the strong variables.

 

 

Are you being ironic here? Because.. that's pretty much exactly how it works right now. Stealth and Invisibility are different things, and Rogues get a class ability (Talent, actually) that allows them to go Invisible (2 Per Rest).

 

The problem with Stealth isn't specifically a Rogue issue, it's a systemic issue. The rogue being able to go Invisible at will is a band-aid on a bad system, not a solution.

Partially, yes.

 

I was saying this to get the point across that the group-only scouting mode isn't inherently broken by definition. It just requires some tweaking (like with almost any mechanic in the game the idea is good, it's just the execution that is imperfect). I'd also postulate a name change of the stealth attribute to scouting in general ... because that's basicly what it is: an attribute that makes scouting and preparation easier.

 

Well then you failed, because group-only scouting mode is pretty damn broken by definition as long as it's tied to Scouting in any way, and if it's not, you might as well have individual scouting, too, even if you can activate it for everyone with a single button.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Luckmann

[Zwiebelchen]

 

I don't think we can all agree on the first or last one there, actually.

 

I mean, playing on Hard, I've got a tank (Eder) and two "off-tanks" (2h Pallegina and sword/board main character Chanter), and y'know what? Neither of them "die almost instantly" - at one point I ran from an encounter, accidentally left the Chanter, and he tanked literally six enemies for an astoundingly long time. He has precisely 1 defensive talent (weapon and shield), and far from maxed-out armour/shield.

 

WIth the first, I've seen Eder get the snot kicked out of him a fair bit too - just only by mobs with slow, high-damage attacks - he's barely better than the off-tanks on those.

 

The solutions I've seen proposed to these "problems" also tend to be awful, because they all seem focused entirely party-side, and usually would just move the problem so everyone gets one-shot all the time and magic CC becomes the new way "only way to tank" instead of a tank.

 

If they are problems, the only way to fix them is going to be a mix of party and monster side, or by doing stuff that applies universally - having more minimum damage per attack penetrate DR might well help, as would enemies having more abilities which convert misses or grazes to hits.

 

However I do agree 100% re: CON and decreasing Armour Recovery Penalty is a great solution, because currently Armour Recovery Penalty makes Armour choices verrrrrry dull (i.e. go big or go small, ignore medium).

 

EDIT - The real "balance fix" Pillars needs is something to stop all enemies always charging face-first into chokepoint ambushes, but that's going to involve a bit of AI scripting.

 

 

The problem is that the game is very limited in class choice for possible offtanks. If you take Pallegina, basicly, you take a full-fledged tank class. In the IE games, anyone with a plate armor would be a viable offtank. You weren't restricted to class choices here. This is what I'm talking about and why I feel the current system requires a change: due to the talents being totally overpowered and the default deflection scores of certain classes, it is next to impossible to make for example a priest that is able to do some significant offtanking without gimping it entirely.

 

Changing the AI won't really help. It doesn't take long to find new ways to exploit the AI even if it doesn't hard-target the first in sight. It just changes the ruleset. The easiest way to fix the tank & spank battles is simply to make the strategy less viable by making the tank more vulnerable (and making the party members that aren't tanks more durable so it's okay for them to offtank).

 

Again, imho the best solution would be to change deflection and DR to equipment-based stats (with deflection being accessable by talents aswell, but at a smaller degrees to make the gap between real tanks and offtanks less rigid). An inverse stat spread of deflection and DR could serve wonders for the game balance, especially as it makes "light armored evasion tanks" viable.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[dododad]

That is very, very far off from what he said, though. If anyone was ignoring context, it's you. He specifically talked about other changes, after directly referencing Engagement as a separate point. laughing.gif If anything is lowering the tone, it's the fact that you felt the need to try to start fires where there essentially was none in a vain attempt to run to someone elses defence due to a perceived slight you cannot even relate in context.

 

Run away, little person, I'm sure there's some rock for you to hide under or some bridge you can fish underneath of with your nets.

No, actually that's not what I said, but thanks being a **** about it in trying to interpret things your own way.

Edited April 14, 2015 by dododad

[Maviarab]

People will always whine...and they usually have the loudest voices unfortunately.

 

if they are so awesome they can all go and make their own game...with all the things they 'think should be in it' and let's see how it turns out.   Otherwise shut the hell up and move on.  Plenty of games to play, no one forces anyone to stay here.

 

And once gone, they should stay gone too if they so obviously hate the game.   People...weird.

[bman654]

 

I've seen plenty of mobs do this even when there's an opening, just sorta stacking up in a bundle of 4-5 enemies, only 2 of which is attacking the tank. I think ties into the whole pathing and mapping issue, though, not just the AI being bad and the combat shallow. There's been so many places where I can see that my party members would fit, but can't actually walk at all. But in some cases, there's big open areas and the enemy just doesn't path around eachother to get to me.

 

And as much as I enjoy murdering them with AoE:s when they make themselves such easy targets, you're still right, I most often actually do not even feel that I need to use the spells, AoE or otherwise.

 

Yeah, there's that with one or two enemies attacking the tank and the rest of the enemies in a line behind.

 

example:

 

 

 

But I'm actually talking about ring around the rosey.

 

Example:

 

 

 

Scouting

 

 

 

Ring around the rosey.

 

 

 

 

I had a better example but forgot to save the screen shots as my ranged characters were nearly against my tank but the enemies kept targeting my tank. Also, my other characters aren't wearing any armour. I was able to move my other characters down below the crane and mop up all the wizards and continue around and then help out the tank. Pretty easy fight when the enemy concentrates on one character (tank) and ignores the rest of your party. Hopefully a modder will put in some enemy AI scripts to attack more than one person.

 

Okay, I have a better example below. Following the yellow arrow, Lady Valtas completely ignores my other party members who aren't wearing any armour and goes around and attacks my tank. I'm not even trying to exploit the A.I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FYI I just uploaded IEMod 1.11 where I've attempted to improve this.  The AI is more proactive about switching to a different target when it is having trouble reaching its current target.  There are still times when an enemy will just inexplicably stand there doing nothing--I've not yet tracked down the cause of that.  But it does seem to play less ring-around-the-rosey now.

[Tanred]

FYI I just uploaded IEMod 1.11 where I've attempted to improve this.  The AI is more proactive about switching to a different target when it is having trouble reaching its current target.  There are still times when an enemy will just inexplicably stand there doing nothing--I've not yet tracked down the cause of that.  But it does seem to play less ring-around-the-rosey now.

 

 

 

Awesome! That would definitely make me to install the mod once it gets compatibile with the latest game build.

[Rosveen]

 

Also, out of interest since I wasn't around the nets back then, did people discussing BG (2) also used terms like DPS mage, Tank, Off-Tank and whatnot. I really hate those terms 0_o

What's wrong with them? I understand if you dislike gameplay encouraging the use of strict roles, but even so, they are accurate descriptions. Edited April 15, 2015 by Rosveen

[Eurhetemec]

 

 

I don't think we can all agree on the first or last one there, actually.

 

I mean, playing on Hard, I've got a tank (Eder) and two "off-tanks" (2h Pallegina and sword/board main character Chanter), and y'know what? Neither of them "die almost instantly" - at one point I ran from an encounter, accidentally left the Chanter, and he tanked literally six enemies for an astoundingly long time. He has precisely 1 defensive talent (weapon and shield), and far from maxed-out armour/shield.

 

WIth the first, I've seen Eder get the snot kicked out of him a fair bit too - just only by mobs with slow, high-damage attacks - he's barely better than the off-tanks on those.

 

The solutions I've seen proposed to these "problems" also tend to be awful, because they all seem focused entirely party-side, and usually would just move the problem so everyone gets one-shot all the time and magic CC becomes the new way "only way to tank" instead of a tank.

 

If they are problems, the only way to fix them is going to be a mix of party and monster side, or by doing stuff that applies universally - having more minimum damage per attack penetrate DR might well help, as would enemies having more abilities which convert misses or grazes to hits.

 

However I do agree 100% re: CON and decreasing Armour Recovery Penalty is a great solution, because currently Armour Recovery Penalty makes Armour choices verrrrrry dull (i.e. go big or go small, ignore medium).

 

EDIT - The real "balance fix" Pillars needs is something to stop all enemies always charging face-first into chokepoint ambushes, but that's going to involve a bit of AI scripting.

 

 

The problem is that the game is very limited in class choice for possible offtanks. If you take Pallegina, basicly, you take a full-fledged tank class. In the IE games, anyone with a plate armor would be a viable offtank. You weren't restricted to class choices here. This is what I'm talking about and why I feel the current system requires a change: due to the talents being totally overpowered and the default deflection scores of certain classes, it is next to impossible to make for example a priest that is able to do some significant offtanking without gimping it entirely.

 

Changing the AI won't really help. It doesn't take long to find new ways to exploit the AI even if it doesn't hard-target the first in sight. It just changes the ruleset. The easiest way to fix the tank & spank battles is simply to make the strategy less viable by making the tank more vulnerable (and making the party members that aren't tanks more durable so it's okay for them to offtank).

 

Again, imho the best solution would be to change deflection and DR to equipment-based stats (with deflection being accessable by talents aswell, but at a smaller degrees to make the gap between real tanks and offtanks less rigid). An inverse stat spread of deflection and DR could serve wonders for the game balance, especially as it makes "light armored evasion tanks" viable.

 

 

Only three classes in AD&D 2E could wear plate... not seeing that as a huge difference from only three classes being effective off-tanks here. Can you explain?

[Eurhetemec]

Also, out of interest since I wasn't around the nets back then, did people discussing BG (2) also used terms like DPS mage, Tank, Off-Tank and whatnot. I really hate those terms 0_o

 

 

In a word, yes. I'll expand later.

[View619]

 

 

FYI I just uploaded IEMod 1.11 where I've attempted to improve this.  The AI is more proactive about switching to a different target when it is having trouble reaching its current target.  There are still times when an enemy will just inexplicably stand there doing nothing--I've not yet tracked down the cause of that.  But it does seem to play less ring-around-the-rosey now.

 

If you successfully manage to pull this off, please feel free to send info to the OE devs regarding how you did it.