EI Mod and my opinions

[Shadow_Arms]

guys, he's from RPG codex hateverse, he probably posts on NMA and praises fallout 2 as the ultimate RPG, and hates ultima and TES

[Tartantyco]

 

You're just using examples where you handicap yourself in IE games vs. examples where you don't handicap yourself in PoE, while talking about cheesing and abusing because you shouldn't cheese and abuse while cheesing and abusing, Sensuki. I can only describe your argumentation for this thread as schizophrenic.

Nope. You probably just rest spam.

 

...it wasn't a question. You keep talking about how inferior PoE is to the IE games in terms of combat, but any examples you use are just you abusing a mechanic or handicapping yourself so that your example fits that narrative.

[ComplyOrDie]

 

@Sensuki It's worth noting that the strategy you like to brag about (exploit AI targeting) doesn't work in all the IE games as the AI is different. In particular BG2 with ToB and all the EE's, which have much "stickier" targeting than classic IWD or BG2:SoA. Same as when you deflect criticism of pathfinding in the IE games by saying "Oh, just adjust the configuration to 40,000 whatsits per whatsit." 

 

IMO your systemic criticisms are not always entirely fair as they at least to an extent rely on niceties like this. Beating the illithids "fairly" for example -- I assume you're referring to your favorite AI targeting abuse dance -- requires a different technique depending on which BG2 variant you're playing (standard, with ToB, EE, which mods you have installed, possibly other things). I also find it borderline cheesy, as you're not actually beating the game based on its systems, but based on the specific way a particular facet of the system has been implemented (AI targeting). So IMO characterizing that as "beating them fairly" is ... well, not quite right.

 

So if you're calling us as "not liking RTwP" or "not liking the IE games" because, say, we didn't like the illithids or the beholders (and I still don't), I could accuse you of exactly the same thing because you don't want to play IWD in an engine that doesn't let you do your AI targeting abuse dance. Not liking a specific feature or specific fight or specific enemy or specific tactic does not equate to not liking the system.

 

 

I've beat the illithids in three different ways. With a backstabber: use a summon to pull them one by one, then backstab, then finish off with the rest of the party. By spamming summons (animate dead, invisible stalker, Mordenkainen's Sword). And by taking two front-line fighters, having them glug potions of genius, buffing them with Chaotic Commands, then pulling them one by one or two by two and beating them to death, pulling one of them back to recover if they get their brain eaten. I did not find any of these techniques all that much fun; also they got repetitive because there were so many identical illithid+umber hulk groups to fight. Not my favorite part of BG2. Is there a "fairer" way still to do this, other than AI targeting abuse which I do not consider fair?

 

 

It's a bit double standards to point out you can abuse engagement with 6 fighters so the system sucks and then criticise someone for using summons against Illithids, which is, frankly, far more legitimate. You can't even mass summons in BG2. Illithids are a fun enemy because of the int drain and the ability to paralyze (SCS addition?), spells like Chaotic Commands were boring as if you had any sense you'd have them on all the time. This is the same reason I'm not thrilled with PoTD in it's current state, because there are certain things you have to do stupidly or half arsedly to keep a challenge going, and even then you struggle to do so. 

 

It all depends on your definition of what is Gimmicky and what isn't. Tank swapping at will without the Illithid cottoning on to what's happening could be interpreted just the same. Leaving guys in the other room due to the domination ability is also gimmicky because then they have plenty of time to just eat the brains of the guy on his own. SCS fixes this.

 

Beholders were very badly implemented and the only reliable strategy was either a specific item or Skeleton Warriors. 

 

There would be nothing wrong with the Mustard Jelly or Ooze fights in PoE if the jellies actually had a decent pierce reduction and could actually do any damage to your party, it's not a system issue it is a tuning issue, everything is too samey and usually too weak currently.

 

Seriously with a decent AI and properly tuned fights with more interesting enemy abilities and stat discrepancies the system itself is fine. There are very many different ways to tackle encounters in PoE, the problem is far too many of them work at the moment, so the strategy isn't there.

 

Rest spamming is harder to do in PoE, but the systems are essentially the same, the only difference is the per encounter abilities in PoE. Again, there's nothing wrong with this system inherently, it's just very few encounters require them. It actually has more potential as you have more options per fight even when running low, you can use spells sparingly on PoE just the same as BG rather than rest spamming. All comes back to fights not being varied and hard enough, nothing to do with any systems.

[Sensuki]

...it wasn't a question. You keep talking about how inferior PoE is to the IE games in terms of combat, but any examples you use are just you abusing a mechanic or handicapping yourself so that your example fits that narrative.

Nope. You're creating that narrative and selectively ignoring post content.

 

It's a bit double standards to point out you can abuse engagement with 6 fighters so the system sucks and then criticise someone for using summons against Illithids, which is, frankly, far more legitimate

Ever heard of beta testing?

 

That exploit is now much less apparent/much less effective because I pointed it out in the beta.

 

 

 

There are very many different ways to tackle encounters in PoE, the problem is far too many of them work at the moment, so the strategy isn't there

 

My problem is more that fights aren't very tactical. You do crap all based on what enemies actually do, you send tanks forward and spam damage/disables like no tomorrow every single time.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensuki

[Prime-Mover]

 

Rest spamming is harder to do in PoE, but the systems are essentially the same, the only difference is the per encounter abilities in PoE. Again, there's nothing wrong with this system inherently, it's just very few encounters require them. It actually has more potential as you have more options per fight even when running low, you can use spells sparingly on PoE just the same as BG rather than rest spamming. All comes back to fights not being varied and hard enough, nothing to do with any systems.

 

 

I don't agree that it's essentially the same, since there's a cost associated with rest spamming in PoE i.e. the hassle of tracking back ot the inn etc. I thus almost never find myself inclined to do it. That's a benefit of the design.

[Monte Carlo]

The design pretty much fully prevents you from having fun

 

 

 

And I suspect it's working as intended.

[Luckmann]

 

The design pretty much fully prevents you from having fun

 

And I suspect it's working as intended.

 

 

Now where did I put this.. humm.. humm.. oh, here it is.

 

 

 

 

 

Rest spamming is harder to do in PoE, but the systems are essentially the same, the only difference is the per encounter abilities in PoE. Again, there's nothing wrong with this system inherently, it's just very few encounters require them. It actually has more potential as you have more options per fight even when running low, you can use spells sparingly on PoE just the same as BG rather than rest spamming. All comes back to fights not being varied and hard enough, nothing to do with any systems.

I don't agree that it's essentially the same, since there's a cost associated with rest spamming in PoE i.e. the hassle of tracking back ot the inn etc. I thus almost never find myself inclined to do it. That's a benefit of the design.

 

This. In the pursuit of "gameplay" and avoiding "hassle", the fact that a hassle can be a limitation in itself has somehow been forgotten, and now players are calling for the removal of "hassle" and developers remove as much "hassle" as possible and when they limit something they put in invisible walls and systemic limitations, rather than natural limitations on reasonable acts.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Luckmann

[PrimeJunta]

guys, he's from RPG codex hateverse, he probably posts on NMA and praises fallout 2 as the ultimate RPG, and hates ultima and TES

 

He's also the single fan who has contributed most to the P:E beta so lay off. Criticize his arguments, not his person. He's earned that much.

[Sensuki]

I don't agree that it's essentially the same, since there's a cost associated with rest spamming in PoE i.e. the hassle of tracking back ot the inn etc. I thus almost never find myself inclined to do it. That's a benefit of the design

 

Weak willed.

 

Personally I don't like the P:E camping supply system because after a certain point in the game you almost never even have to use camping supplies and when you do there's always another one available in the current area or the area next to it. A campsite system would have been better IMO (but the rest spammers would have hated it).

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensuki

[Darkcloud1987]

 

 

 

 

I find the "no engagement" part of the mod very strange.

 

I understand why Sensuki dislikes it, although I disagree. But, engagement is a really central part of how combat is designed in PoE.

 

Remove engagement and it seems to me you're just sort of left with a scrum.

 

Remove Engagement and nothing changes. The AI still acts like it's there. Engagement is not a very large part of how combat is designed in PoE, all it does is inhibit movement and forces everyone to cluster up and stay there, and saves the developers from having to make an AI that would move around and make decisions that would improve their position on the battlefield, for the same reason the player won't do it; it'll murder you with instant free invisible attacks if you even try to move *towards* the opponent that is engaging you.

 

The biggest problem with Engagement has always been for it to excuse it's own existence. I play with it on simply because the game is made for it, and there are Abilities and Spells and Talents that deal specifically with it, and I don't want to break pre-existing interacting functionalities, but it doesn't really add anything by itself.

 

I can't think of any RPG that ever had half-decent AI myself. Certainly not the IE games where enemies almost always just mobbed the first thing they saw. Difficulty in RPGs single-player game has never, ever come from the AI anyway in my experience, unless it's a very tightly scripted boss battle. It's always hard by making the enemy bigger and badder than the player so they have a challenge to overcome.

 

Not really disagreeing with you, just pointing that out. Albeit I do think engagement is preferable to everyone running around willy-nilly like in Baldur's Gate, I love establishing a frontline.

I think this is especially true in Baldur's Gate. It is filled with Mages which would be some of the most powerful ones in Faerun if they only knew how to open a door and well were smart enough for a sensible spell selection and usage of their spells.

 

 

http://www.gibberlings3.net/readmes/readme-stratagems.html

 

The frustrating thing for me is this has been done for Baldur's Gate by one person in their spare time (albeit over many years). It's a solid, partially randomized AI that basically makes intelligent enemies do intelligent things, example, they actually use good contingencies and sequences, and precast spells like stoneskin because if you were a mage you would have an 8 hour spell on so you didn't get backstabbed randomly one day. It doesn't break immersion, and nothing breaks the rules, it's just the AI intelligently uses the same tools that the player has available precisely how difficulty should be done.

 

I just don't think game developers see AI as a priority, which is partially understandable, although less so for single player RPGs like this. I don't care that the Starcraft single player AI doesn't exist because the replayability comes from human opponents, for a game like this you don't have that luxury, and many players want that feeling of challenge everpresent not once in a blue moon as it is with PoE on all modes at the moment.

 

Overall I actually prefer the systems in PoE, nearly all your options in BG came from spellcasters and particularly Wizards, but at the moment the vast majority of fights are basically decided in the first ten seconds, because nothing is thrown at you which forces you to adapt. This is a mix of scripting and bad/inaccurate/"bland" enemies (they look cool but are usually a bag of hitpoints with varying degrees of (in)accuracy). You couldn't stand toe to toe  not doing anything with many enemies for very long in BG no matter how pimped your tank was, certainly at higher levels.

 

And yeah, the final fight in Vanilla BG1 was not more interesting than Vanilla PoE. Difference is Sarevok was fun but so were all the end chapter fights and a ****load more besides, here the final battle sticks out like a sore thumb in that you actually have to think a bit.

 

SCS is nice but has its own problems. Most of them expanding on problems with the Vanilla game.  Mages actually using spells appropriate seems logical but imo gives the game to many strong mages.  The mages where only given such high levels in the vanilla game to compensate their crappy AI and when you are hit by an Abi Dazims Horrid Whitering for the first time you realize that enemies really casting spells at you works even worse than it does in PoE.  

 

Also SCS cheats with those contingencies and spells  even more than the original game did and realizes a lot of them via scripts.  This means they can't be interupted (intended for contingencies but not normal spells) and they are used even if they should not be able to be used. The game also turns into mage chess because mages are the only ones that can truly be protected against enemy spells and they are the only ones that can dispel the protections.

 

And in vanilla fights against mages are: true sight, Breach, hack to death

 

Really a lot of the problems with PoE are even worse in BG. 

[ComplyOrDie]

 

 

 

Rest spamming is harder to do in PoE, but the systems are essentially the same, the only difference is the per encounter abilities in PoE. Again, there's nothing wrong with this system inherently, it's just very few encounters require them. It actually has more potential as you have more options per fight even when running low, you can use spells sparingly on PoE just the same as BG rather than rest spamming. All comes back to fights not being varied and hard enough, nothing to do with any systems.

 

 

I don't agree that it's essentially the same, since there's a cost associated with rest spamming in PoE i.e. the hassle of tracking back ot the inn etc. I thus almost never find myself inclined to do it. That's a benefit of the design.

 

 

Yeah well for the purposes of this arguemnt it is, although I actually agree with you, prefer it, and avoid rest spamming (although I also did this in the IE games).

 

The point is Sensuki that there are extremely abusable things in both games, you will always have to set a few rules of your own, but if that issue is largely fixed because of you that's great. My argument is that the system itself is not flawed, it is the poor AI scripting around it that impacts the game.

 

Again, you do crap all based on what the enemies do because the enemies aren't scripted within the game system to do anything with much impact, or, they aren't good enough or don't have the abilities to actually make the impact that forces you to adjust. It is a difficulty problem first and foremost.

Edited April 12, 2015 by ComplyOrDie

[Luckmann]

 

I don't agree that it's essentially the same, since there's a cost associated with rest spamming in PoE i.e. the hassle of tracking back ot the inn etc. I thus almost never find myself inclined to do it. That's a benefit of the design

 

Weak willed.

 

Personally I don't like the P:E camping supply system because after a certain point in the game you almost never even have to use camping supplies and when you do there's always another one available in the current area or the area next to it. A campsite system would have been better IMO (but the rest spammers would have hated it).

 

 

Even on Hard, limited to carrying 2 camping supplies, I have no idea how people run out of supplies. I never paid much heed to the arguments surrounding a camp site system, but now when I've played the full game, I really think that it would've been a great idea, restricting resting by both location and supplies, and heavily so. There's no reason people should be allowed to rest in the middle of a dungeon, less than 20 metres from a group of skeletons or a camp of ogres.

[Sensuki]

In Pillars of Eternity when you face spellcasters such as Wizards you just attack them, and they die  . No tactics or strategy required.

I know which system I prefer.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensuki

[Prime-Mover]

 

I don't agree that it's essentially the same, since there's a cost associated with rest spamming in PoE i.e. the hassle of tracking back ot the inn etc. I thus almost never find myself inclined to do it. That's a benefit of the design

 

Weak willed.

 

Personally I don't like the P:E camping supply system because after a certain point in the game you almost never even have to use camping supplies and when you do there's always another one available in the current area or the area next to it. A campsite system would have been better IMO (but the rest spammers would have hated it).

 

Weak willed? Well, with a sufficient amount of will, you can gimp yourself sufficiently to avoid taking advantage of the flaws in PoE's system. Play with one char, unarmored, no weapons, no supplies. I'm sure you'll find it a challenge.

[Sensuki]

Again, you do crap all based on what the enemies do because the enemies aren't scripted within the game system to do anything with much impact, or, they aren't good enough or don't have the abilities to actually make the impact that forces you to adjust. It is a difficulty problem first and foremost.

I don't believe it is, because there's not much that enemies could do to make you do anything other than spam damage and disables. It's a system design issue.

 

 

Weak willed? Well, with a sufficient amount of will, you can gimp yourself sufficiently to avoid taking advantage of the flaws in PoE's system. Play with one char, unarmored, no weapons, no supplies. I'm sure you'll find it a challenge.

 

 

TBH even in doing this, I think it would be 99% revolving around strategy than tactics in Pillars of Eternity, which is my main problem with the game.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensuki

[Matt516]

 

You can't use Entangle and Web every encounter in the Infinity Engine games, they're per-rest spells. You can if you rest spam, but you're not supposed to rest spam.

 

I dunno... I don't think this is really a valid argument to make. Anything that the game mechanics allow or tacitly encourage you to do is fair game for criticism. It doesn't make sense to criticise PoE for having abusable mechanics (like engagement in some cases) but give the IE games a pass. You're never "supposed" to do abusable things, that's why we label them abusable. Any time the player has to place a self-restriction on themselves in order to have a fun and challenging experience (such as not rest-spamming in BG or not exclusively blocking doors with tanks in PoE), you're looking at flawed game design.

 

Not that any game will ever be perfect - but I think trying to argue that PoE is somehow more abusable than the IE games is quite difficult to do. Both games are abusable, just in different ways.

 

Now, I won't disagree with you that PoE could use some more depth - I'd like to see creatures with more specific resistances beyond just high saves, for example. I'd also agree that the combat systems could use more polish. But the IE games are not a bastion of balanced gameplay - they have just as many abusable mechanics as PoE.

[ComplyOrDie]

 

 

 

 

 

I find the "no engagement" part of the mod very strange.

 

I understand why Sensuki dislikes it, although I disagree. But, engagement is a really central part of how combat is designed in PoE.

 

Remove engagement and it seems to me you're just sort of left with a scrum.

 

Remove Engagement and nothing changes. The AI still acts like it's there. Engagement is not a very large part of how combat is designed in PoE, all it does is inhibit movement and forces everyone to cluster up and stay there, and saves the developers from having to make an AI that would move around and make decisions that would improve their position on the battlefield, for the same reason the player won't do it; it'll murder you with instant free invisible attacks if you even try to move *towards* the opponent that is engaging you.

 

The biggest problem with Engagement has always been for it to excuse it's own existence. I play with it on simply because the game is made for it, and there are Abilities and Spells and Talents that deal specifically with it, and I don't want to break pre-existing interacting functionalities, but it doesn't really add anything by itself.

 

I can't think of any RPG that ever had half-decent AI myself. Certainly not the IE games where enemies almost always just mobbed the first thing they saw. Difficulty in RPGs single-player game has never, ever come from the AI anyway in my experience, unless it's a very tightly scripted boss battle. It's always hard by making the enemy bigger and badder than the player so they have a challenge to overcome.

 

Not really disagreeing with you, just pointing that out. Albeit I do think engagement is preferable to everyone running around willy-nilly like in Baldur's Gate, I love establishing a frontline.

I think this is especially true in Baldur's Gate. It is filled with Mages which would be some of the most powerful ones in Faerun if they only knew how to open a door and well were smart enough for a sensible spell selection and usage of their spells.

 

 

http://www.gibberlings3.net/readmes/readme-stratagems.html

 

The frustrating thing for me is this has been done for Baldur's Gate by one person in their spare time (albeit over many years). It's a solid, partially randomized AI that basically makes intelligent enemies do intelligent things, example, they actually use good contingencies and sequences, and precast spells like stoneskin because if you were a mage you would have an 8 hour spell on so you didn't get backstabbed randomly one day. It doesn't break immersion, and nothing breaks the rules, it's just the AI intelligently uses the same tools that the player has available precisely how difficulty should be done.

 

I just don't think game developers see AI as a priority, which is partially understandable, although less so for single player RPGs like this. I don't care that the Starcraft single player AI doesn't exist because the replayability comes from human opponents, for a game like this you don't have that luxury, and many players want that feeling of challenge everpresent not once in a blue moon as it is with PoE on all modes at the moment.

 

Overall I actually prefer the systems in PoE, nearly all your options in BG came from spellcasters and particularly Wizards, but at the moment the vast majority of fights are basically decided in the first ten seconds, because nothing is thrown at you which forces you to adapt. This is a mix of scripting and bad/inaccurate/"bland" enemies (they look cool but are usually a bag of hitpoints with varying degrees of (in)accuracy). You couldn't stand toe to toe  not doing anything with many enemies for very long in BG no matter how pimped your tank was, certainly at higher levels.

 

And yeah, the final fight in Vanilla BG1 was not more interesting than Vanilla PoE. Difference is Sarevok was fun but so were all the end chapter fights and a ****load more besides, here the final battle sticks out like a sore thumb in that you actually have to think a bit.

 

SCS is nice but has its own problems. Most of them expanding on problems with the Vanilla game.  Mages actually using spells appropriate seems logical but imo gives the game to many strong mages.  The mages where only given such high levels in the vanilla game to compensate their crappy AI and when you are hit by an Abi Dazims Horrid Whitering for the first time you realize that enemies really casting spells at you works even worse than it does in PoE.  

 

Also SCS cheats with those contingencies and spells  even more than the original game did and realizes a lot of them via scripts.  This means they can't be interupted (intended for contingencies but not normal spells) and they are used even if they should not be able to be used. The game also turns into mage chess because mages are the only ones that can truly be protected against enemy spells and they are the only ones that can dispel the protections.

 

And in vanilla fights against mages are: true sight, Breach, hack to death

 

Really a lot of the problems with PoE are even worse in BG. 

 

 

Much of this is customiseable within the mod. The instant defensive buffs at the start of combat are a necessary evil because if they know you're coming this is what they would do, same way the players usually pre buff, either way you can turn it off. Not sure what you mean are used even if they shouldn't be able to, there's an option to allow or not allow all mages to be able to use sequencers. 

 

True that mages are the most difficult enemy, but they are overpowered in the game full stop as we all know. Many other enemies get significant boots to AI and appropriate skills/weapons etc.

[Sensuki]

I dunno... I don't think this is really a valid argument to make. Anything that the game mechanics allow or tacitly encourage you to do is fair game for criticism. It doesn't make sense to criticise PoE for having abusable mechanics (like engagement in some cases) but give the IE games a pass. You're never "supposed" to do abusable things, that's why we label them abusable. Any time the player has to place a self-restriction on themselves in order to have a fun and challenging experience (such as not rest-spamming in BG or not exclusively blocking doors with tanks in PoE), you're looking at flawed game design.

Not that any game will ever be perfect - but I think trying to argue that PoE is somehow more abusable than the IE games is quite difficult to do. Both games are abusable, just in different ways.

 

Now, I won't disagree with you that PoE could use some more depth - I'd like to see creatures with more specific resistances beyond just high saves, for example. I'd also agree that the combat systems could use more polish. But the IE games are not a bastion of balanced gameplay - they have just as many abusable mechanics as PoE.

I don't give them a pass for "balanced game design". I know what the exploits are and I don't use them. I don't deliberately abuse Engagement in Pillars of Eternity, enemies do die to buggy disengagement attacks fairly regularly though, nothing I can do about that.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensuki

[Monte Carlo]

This is a turn-based game shoe-horned into a RTwP game, and herein lie the problems. The cluttered battlefield only makes it worse (I zoom in and although I like the effects I struggle to see who is where, the avatars can be quite samey).

 

I wanted a more BG-esque experience like Sensuki, and like some other posters find PoE unnecessarily complicated. It feels like I'm playing an IE game modded by a masochistic hardcore grog. Which I though would be fun, but it isn't. The engagement and armour penalty mechanics are utterly, utterly dreadful.

 

All systems can be gamed. It's up to you whether to game the system or not. And the truth of the matter is sometimes you might and usually you won't.

 

Like others have said, the fun (for me, anyhow) of the IE games is the slightly cheesy combat which still has some fun tactical options and resource concerns underpinning it. You can play an IE game with a small party... summon monsters and pelt your enemy with missiles or chug invis potions and backstab or tank, or drop cloudkills and run around kiting. It's sometimes cheesy but it's usually fun. Fun is so subjective, but enough people loved the IE games for me to take a punt on I'm not the only person who loved over-the-top gonzo IE combat.

 

None of this is possible in PoE. You have to follow a proscribed stratagem of tanks, support and DPS. The only choice is how many of each you use.

 

Now the more I play the less I dislike it. At the moment I'm teetering on occasionally enjoying it the more powerful I get. But it isn't a patch, for me, on BG2 at a comparable level. On a glass half-full note, though, PoE has bags of promise and I'm sure with patching and tweaking by the developers it will get better.

[Sensuki]

Yeah personally I'd rather wait for some full patching before I have another go. The combat still probably won't be very tactical though, but maybe down the line encounters will at least require different strategies or something.

[Tartantyco]

 

 

You can't use Entangle and Web every encounter in the Infinity Engine games, they're per-rest spells. You can if you rest spam, but you're not supposed to rest spam.

 

I dunno... I don't think this is really a valid argument to make. Anything that the game mechanics allow or tacitly encourage you to do is fair game for criticism. It doesn't make sense to criticise PoE for having abusable mechanics (like engagement in some cases) but give the IE games a pass. You're never "supposed" to do abusable things, that's why we label them abusable.

 

Now you're just creating a narrative and selectively ignoring post content, Matt.

 

/s

Edited April 12, 2015 by Tartantyco

[illathid]

There's no way to say whether IE or PoE is objectively better, so all anyone is doing in this thread is emoting "IE Yay! PoE Grrr!" or vise versa.

 

However, for my part I bought a physical copy of every IE game on release, and BG2 was my favorite game of all time, until now. For me, PoE is better than BG2 in almost every way (the major exception being quantity of content, but that's understandable considering the size of BG2).

[View619]

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

[Sensuki]

It's a shame they didn't show Karkarov's HUD in the article though :/ That's by far the best feature.

 

Couldn't imagine playing without it.

[PrimeJunta]

That "reacting to something that happens" thing. I don't agree about that crtiticism at all actually. Maybe I'm just not that good at it, but I find myself having to react to things at least as much in P:E as in any of the IE games. For example --

 

A squishy got engaged. I need to break engagement really fast somehow. This is entirely situational and the solution depends on what and who I have available.

 

I got flanked. 

 

A teleporting enemy teleported somewhere it's causing me a headache.

 

A fungus charmed one of my dudes.

 

The IE games had much nastier special attacks. The "game over" ones were not much fun IMO but I do think P:E's need some buffs; as it is it's usually better just to wait them out than actively do anything about them. That, too, would be easy to address by adjusting the numbers.