Update #99: Announcing the Expansion and Update 2.0

[Luckmann]

 

 

Given that they divided the expansion into two parts "so players wouldn't have to wait six months for an expansion", you'd think that after nearly 4 months they'd at least be close enough to release to have an approximate date. Otherwise, what was the point?

 

Profit maximization.

 

 

Yo luckmann,

 

that would be the case, if they'll sell both parts as different products. But, as far as we know, it's "pay once, get both", and that's okay with me. 

 

stay fresh

 

Eisenheinrich

 

Well, true, to a degree, yes. I wasn't trying to say that this is what they do, just as a possible answer for what they are trying to do, what the point is or was.

 

That said, is it confirmed that they're going for the "Pay once, get both" approach? I know it's been discussed on the forum, but I haven't seen anything form the devs answering it. And I was thinking along the lines of keeping interest up and getting more sales over time. From Obsidian's PoV, I expect that whether they charge €40 once or €20 twice (or whatever prices) is rather moot.

[Eisenheinrich]

In this case, I'm already sharpening my pitchfork.

[Jeff_Strix]

To pay 20 bucks more or less is not a problem. A problem is - "waiting" 

[Kogorn733]

Agreed. I'M HUNGRY FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXPANSION!!!!! :D

[Nakia]

Right now I am more interested in the patch.

[Tomice]

So when I say a 3 might 8 const fighter breaks the role playing feeling I am making a very valid point for a lot of gamers out there.

 

I'm one of those who fully agree with Matiati (and many others here).

Actually, I find the attribute system in this game to be its possibly biggest flaw.

 

The attribute scores are what translates the inner image I have of my character into something the game understands.

It's therefore essential that the attributes available in the game correspond well with typical attributes real people have.

 

Some of the typical attribute pairs we use when describing people:

1) dextrous or clumsy

2) lively or stoic

3) arduous or easily giving up

4) observant or inattentive

5) intelligent or dumb

6) delicate or bulky

7) attractive or ugly

talkative or introverted

 

There is exactly no way to translate 6-8 into something that is reflected in the game. I can't make the game recognize that my female orlan mage is of very petite build, can hardly lift a brick, but kicks ass with fireballs.

In the very first dungeon my immersion is broken when she can easily push a wall over. If they wanna imply that might isn't strenght, then they shouldn't use it in skripted interactions.

 

1-5 are a bit better, but still too limited in their scope and unimmersive. Dexterity doesn't help with traps at all. The arm lenght of barbarians directly correlates with their ability to solve complex puzzles. Being perceptive is totally pointless for detecting traps.

Might is by far the biggest offender here.

 

Not being able to use the attributes to play the role I've chosen turns them into blank numbers free to be min-maxed for gameplay success.

 

I might be able to play a low-"strenght" high dex fighter. But this doesn't cause much satisfaction if noone and nothing in the game responds to my choice and let's me feel like I've done something cool and special. I don't unlock new weapons. I'm not forbidden to wear plate. My ability selection is still that of a tank.

 

 

 

 

There is also the terrible Tank-DPS duality. You are not punished in any way if you stricly focus a char on one of the two extremes. In fact, the game even encourages it. There is no rule that lets strictly optimized tanks still have some offensive capability. Most abilities might have both offensive and defensive effects on paper, but dropping a stat to 3 often doesn't  giveyou any disadvantage you care about.

This results in practically all armors between plate and clothing being pointless. This results in all attribute scores between dump and maxed to be worse choices than the extremes.

Again, the implementation of "might" is the biggest problem. If you don't put points in it, you might as well stop doing any offensive action at all. Other games have more varied damage calculations. Filtering all ways to do damage through a single +/-25% modifier might not have been the smartest choice.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Tomice

[Kefky]

When a 18-Might Wizard can bend steel bars that a 17-Might Barbarian can't, you know there's something wrong with the system.

 

It doesn't really bother me though. There are worse issues to solve.

[Namutree]

When a 18-Might Wizard can bend steel bars that a 17-Might Barbarian can't, you know there's something wrong with the system.

 

It doesn't really bother me though. There are worse issues to solve.

What is wrong with the system. You said yourself that the wizard is mightier.

[Kefky]

 

When a 18-Might Wizard can bend steel bars that a 17-Might Barbarian can't, you know there's something wrong with the system.

 

It doesn't really bother me though. There are worse issues to solve.

What is wrong with the system. You said yourself that the wizard is mightier.

 

 

Then it should be called Strength.

[AndreaColombo]

The first meaning of the word "might" is "physical strength."

 

Besides, the system underlying the game is but a simplification of the abstraction of our character concepts and of the story being told. It couldn't be otherwise. Programming still isn't at a point where you can "pump might" but also let the game know it is not intended to represent physical strength for that particular character. If programming that advanced was possible, it would be too expensive for a 5-million game.

Edited July 14, 2015 by AndreaColombo

[Nakia]

Anyone who has studied actual medieval combat knows that the ability to bend steel bars has nothing to do with the ability to fight.  It is called might because it is more than brute strength.

 

Edit:  of course the devs could have had both Strength and might but exactly what would pure brute strength do?  What would it add to the gameplay?

Edited July 14, 2015 by Nakia

[rheingold]

It's not strength at all. It takes a bit of imagination - but if you take a barbarian and a wizard who both have 18 might - it does not mean that the wizard is as strong as the barbarian, rather might in that case refers to his power to cast spells. I can see why Obs chose this, but it is confusing, particularly if said wizard picks up an axe - then presumably he would be as strong as the barbarian? I don't have a huge issue with the abilites but they do need to be fine tuned. If I were Obs I'd move spell damage to resolve or intelligence and keep might for melee damage. In fact resolve would make perfect sense for spell damage, because it currently makes no sense that it influences deflection. Bottom line the way they envisaged the abilities is fine, but what needs to be changed is what ability influences what stat. Shouldn't be that difficult to do. Not asking Obs to land a probe on a comet - or send one to Pluto.

[Night Stalker]

Programming still isn't at a point where you can "pump might" but also let the game know it is not intended to represent physical strength for that particular character. If programming that advanced was possible, it would be too expensive for a 5-million game.

I am on the side that doesn't mind that the attribute system is more gamey than simulationist, but that has nothing to do with programming, but rather the underlying design decisions. You are right if you mean that as the game is set up, the game, cannot guess that you only want to boost magical might when you put points into it, instead everything connected to it now.

 

However, I so not feel that it is programming that is keeping might from being more than a single attribute. You could design a far more fine-grained attribute system that instead had magical might, physical might, force of personality etc. If necessary these could also have subdivisions (melee/ranged etc), and so on.

 

It would be hard to balance, but it could certainly be implemented.

[Evange]

Any updates??? Obs guys seem to be awfully silent of late...

[Luckmann]

The problem really is that the system favours muscle-wizards so heavily - Intellect as a consolidated spellcaster attribute leaves a lot of room for extra points, and Might is the attribute that entirely favours nuking. The optimized path is clear. That, together with the fact that Might - no matter it's description or intended use as a general characteristic relating to spiritual power as much as physical - is practically Strength for all intents and purposes, means muscle-wizards.

And I don't think muscle wizards are wrong. I'm fine with that. What grinds my gears is that it's so easy to min/max, and the atypical muscle-wizard somehow became the default of Pillars of Eternity, supported in dialogue as the wall-breaking, kid-lifting and physically intimidating meathead lead of the group.

 

If Perception will boost Accuracy, and the caster-bonuses be split up into Intellect and Resolve (Intellect +Duration/Resolve +AoE), the muscle-wizard will just be another way to build a good caster, instead of the given, and there will be no obvious dump stat, either.

[Nakia]

Some good fantasy stories had battlemages and I kinda like the idea of being able to play one.  Normally I would never play a wizard as my main character.  I like the feel of multiclass especially the way it can be built in PoE.

[AndreaColombo]

Respec'ing confirmed.

[Luckmann]

Respec'ing confirmed.

And so PoE slides deeper into mediocrity. :|

[Gromnir]

Respec'ing confirmed.

given the depth and breadth o' changes that is arriving with 2.0, this is a welcome improvement that maintains the integrity o' poe as a role-play game.  we will not need have our player concept invalidated 'cause o' developer whim or error.  have us need restart to maintain role-play or gameplay continuity, regardless o' the fact that we invested +40 hours into the game?  as between burdening the developers so that they need add a respec feature, or burdening the player who has invested tens of hours into the game, am thinking the choice is obvious.  good move by obsidian.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 15, 2015 by Gromnir

[vv221]

(…)

as far as we know, it's "pay once, get both", and that's okay with me.

If we have an official source for this, I’m instantly withdrawing all of my concerns about the decision to split the expansion in two parts!

[WorstUsernameEver]

I don't think there's any official word on the expansion's price/payment options. Only thing we've been told is that backers that pitched in for the expansion will get both parts.

[AndreaColombo]

 

Respec'ing confirmed.

And so PoE slides deeper into mediocrity. :|

 

 

I don't think it's bad, myself. During my second play through I had my character wield a two-hander for most of the game, only to decide near the end of the game that I actually wanted the Red Knight. I had to cheat to respec my character so I could do that (not that I particularly mind cheating; having a respec button is simply quicker and more convenient.)

 

My problem would be if they only did this (i.e. implement a respec button) and nothing to fix other issues (first and foremost, dumb A.I. which generates in turn the vast majority of the most pressing issues with the game; the Attribute System that heavily favors min/maxing; several game mechanics not working as advertised or intended; the absence of bracketed scaling for the critical path; etc.)

 

It is my impression that 2.0 will fix several bugs and at least try to fix the Attribute System, as well as bring a few small improvements to the A.I. to the table—which would be a good start

Edited July 16, 2015 by AndreaColombo

[Luckmann]

 

Respec'ing confirmed.

given the depth and breadth o' changes that is arriving with 2.0, this is a welcome improvement that maintains the integrity o' poe as a role-play game.  we will not need have our player concept invalidated 'cause o' developer whim or error.  have us need restart to maintain role-play or gameplay continuity, regardless o' the fact that we invested +40 hours into the game?  as between burdening the developers so that they need add a respec feature, or burdening the player who has invested tens of hours into the game, am thinking the choice is obvious.  good move by obsidian.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

If that was the goal, a one-time respec upon loading a pre-2.0 save would've served. This doesn't maintain the integrity of PoE as a roleplaying game, it undermines it. Roleplaying games are about choices made, including the development of the character(s). There's no reason it should be exempt and the game allow you to yo-yo your character any more than the game should allow you to take back decisions made as part of the storyline or in quests.

 

 

 

Respec'ing confirmed.

And so PoE slides deeper into mediocrity. :|

 

 

I don't think it's bad, myself. During my second play through I had my character wield a two-hander for most of the game, only to decide near the end of the game that I actually wanted the Red Knight. I had to cheat to respec my character so I could do that (not that I particularly mind cheating; having a respec button is simply quicker and more convenient.)

 

My problem would be if they only did this (i.e. implement a respec button) and nothing to fix other issues (first and foremost, dumb A.I. which generates in turn the vast majority of the most pressing issues with the game; the Attribute System that heavily favors min/maxing; several game mechanics not working as advertised or intended; the absence of bracketed scaling for the critical path; etc.)

 

It is my impression that 2.0 will fix several bugs and at least try to fix the Attribute System, as well as bring a few small improvements to the A.I. to the table—which would be a good start

 

If anything, it'll serve as an excuse for not fixing issues to begin with, in the same manner how they changed the CNPC:s instead of fixing the known issue of the Attribute Bonuses. Oh, X doesn't work? Use something else, and ignore fixing it.

 

There's a difference between cheating and having something built in as "quicker and more convenient". The game has already suffered a lot in the name of convenience, and the difference between cheating and this is that cheating is not intended; adding a respec option suggests that it's intended to be used. It becomes a part of the game. It is like adding a button called "Give Gold", because it is more convenient than using the console command to cheat.

[Gromnir]

don't use it.  if it offends, for whatever irrational reason you concoct, don't use respec.

 

limiting the availability o' respec would defeat much o' its value. 2.0 will not be the last patch or the last change after all.  in addition players, due to the rather endemic disconnect between the actual implementation o' talents, spells, powers and abilities vs. the descriptions o' such as contained in tooltips and the manual, will continue to reasonable rely on such false descriptions to their detriment.  regardless, whether the role-play abrogation occur due to developer error or misapprehensions on the part o' the player, to have a role-play saving feature work as "a one-time respec upon loading a pre-2.0 save," would be utterly myopic.

 

the only rational explanation we has seen for opposing the presence o' an optional respec feature is limited to resource allocation.  the difficulties o' adding such a feature after-the-fact to an existing game could present significant resource costs.  obsidian being more aware o' actual costs o' implementation than any casual observer, went ahead and added an optional respec feature that has absolute 0 potential to impact the gameplay or enjoyment o' any sane and rational player who does not choose to use it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps does anybody posting know how respec will actual work in 2.0, or is preemptive criticisms based on guesses?

Edited July 16, 2015 by Gromnir

[Elerond]

 

 

Respec'ing confirmed.

given the depth and breadth o' changes that is arriving with 2.0, this is a welcome improvement that maintains the integrity o' poe as a role-play game.  we will not need have our player concept invalidated 'cause o' developer whim or error.  have us need restart to maintain role-play or gameplay continuity, regardless o' the fact that we invested +40 hours into the game?  as between burdening the developers so that they need add a respec feature, or burdening the player who has invested tens of hours into the game, am thinking the choice is obvious.  good move by obsidian.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

If that was the goal, a one-time respec upon loading a pre-2.0 save would've served. This doesn't maintain the integrity of PoE as a roleplaying game, it undermines it. Roleplaying games are about choices made, including the development of the character(s). There's no reason it should be exempt and the game allow you to yo-yo your character any more than the game should allow you to take back decisions made as part of the storyline or in quests.

 

From that picture it is difficult to say how many times player can respec/retrain one character.