Gameplay Suggestions for PoE2

[Pelmaleon]

Why are you limiting people to only 3 suggestions? That's an awful idea which will merely stifle creativity.

 

Anyway, here are my suggestions:

 

I would like way more puzzles/riddles, way more encounters where it punishes you for having 1 unkillable meatshield who aggros everything (enemies flank from all directions and enemy AI which summons monsters or intelligently calls for flanking reinforcements on top of your backline after your frontline engages theirs), more encounters which punish you for upping only your deflection score (a battle against a big group of spell casters), more spells, more classes, more NPCs (not every NPC needs some grandiose backstory - it would add a lot of variety/replayability if some were a bit more barebones while others had a ton of depth), more extremely unique spells, more options to turn your fighter into a killing machine instead of a tank, more grey area choices with potentially dire consequences, and more interesting unique items. 

 

I also really dislike how spells work with the whole "red hits both allies and enemies while yellow only hits enemies" AOE mechanic. It's very immersion breaking and makes the game seem more mathesque instead of fantasyesque, if you know what I mean.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Pelmaleon

[Shevek]

Why are you limiting people to only 3 suggestions? That's an awful idea which will merely stifle creativity.

 

Anyway, here are my suggestions:

 

I would like way more puzzles/riddles, way more encounters where it punishes you for having 1 unkillable meatshield who aggros everything (enemies flank from all directions and enemy AI which summons monsters or intelligently calls for flanking reinforcements on top of your backline after your frontline engages theirs), more encounters which punish you for upping only your deflection score (a battle against a big group of spell casters), more spells, more classes, more NPCs (not every NPC needs some grandiose backstory - it would add a lot of variety/replayability if some were a bit more barebones while others had a ton of depth), more extremely unique spells, more options to turn your fighter into a killing machine instead of a tank, more grey area choices with potentially dire consequences, and more interesting unique items. 

 

I also really dislike how spells work with the whole "red hits both allies and enemies while yellow only hits enemies" AOE mechanic. It's very immersion breaking and makes the game seem more mathesque instead of fantasyesque, if you know what I mean.

Its an economy of ideas. If you have to pick three things, you pick three things that really matter to you and you, hopefully, have concrete details to support your salient points. If you have no limit, you start listing every little thing you would change to make the perfect crpg that only exists in your brain. This also legitimizes the data to a degree since all respondents have a ceiling and cant monopolize the input by listing 30 things to some other dudes 1 or 2.

 

Also, by limiting folks to 3, its much easier to use established means of qualitative research to yield quasi quantitative data . The data set is manageable and you can start sorting data rough categories. This means you can see what aspects of the game folks feel needs to change and what, if any, is the consensus around how to do so.

 

Of course, this isnt perfect. People veer from the format and ignore directions. But I just ignore crap that is actually more about world building, narrative design, level design, etc (like ninjas and airships) or people that list 30 things when only 3 were asked for.

[Pelmaleon]

 

Why are you limiting people to only 3 suggestions? That's an awful idea which will merely stifle creativity.

 

Anyway, here are my suggestions:

 

I would like way more puzzles/riddles, way more encounters where it punishes you for having 1 unkillable meatshield who aggros everything (enemies flank from all directions and enemy AI which summons monsters or intelligently calls for flanking reinforcements on top of your backline after your frontline engages theirs), more encounters which punish you for upping only your deflection score (a battle against a big group of spell casters), more spells, more classes, more NPCs (not every NPC needs some grandiose backstory - it would add a lot of variety/replayability if some were a bit more barebones while others had a ton of depth), more extremely unique spells, more options to turn your fighter into a killing machine instead of a tank, more grey area choices with potentially dire consequences, and more interesting unique items. 

 

I also really dislike how spells work with the whole "red hits both allies and enemies while yellow only hits enemies" AOE mechanic. It's very immersion breaking and makes the game seem more mathesque instead of fantasyesque, if you know what I mean.

Its an economy of ideas. If you have to pick three things, you pick three things that really matter to you and you, hopefully, have concrete details to support your salient points. If you have no limit, you start listing every little thing you would change to make the perfect crpg that only exists in your brain. This also legitimizes the data to a degree since all respondents have a ceiling and cant monopolize the input by listing 30 things to some other dudes 1 or 2.

 

Also, by limiting folks to 3, its much easier to use established means of qualitative research to yield quasi quantitative data . The data set is manageable and you can start sorting data rough categories. This means you can see what aspects of the game folks feel needs to change and what, if any, is the consensus around how to do so.

 

Of course, this isnt perfect. People veer from the format and ignore directions. But I just ignore crap that is actually more about world building, narrative design, level design, etc (like ninjas and airships) or people that list 30 things when only 3 were asked for.

 

 

The problem is when a captain obvious or someone who isn't that bright has 3 ideas which are still added to your list, and someone who is a budding game design genius has 5 great ideas but is pressured to only say 3 of them, even though the 2 he left out are leagues ahead of the other person's 3 subpar ideas. It doesn't matter how professional your quasi quantitative data appears when the means to forge it diminishes the usefulness of the end result. You sound like you care more about stroking your epeen by collating data instead of making Pillars 2 a much better game.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Pelmaleon

[Crucis]

 

A better combat system - deflection(damage avoidance) being the only viable tank stat is ridiculous. Instead of the flat DR system, give us armor, talents, and stats that soak up a flat percentage of damage. Specializing in soaking up damage should be viable alternative to dodging 20 mobs at once like you're Neo.

I don't think you understand what deflection represents. It's your character's ability to deflect blows, generally through your shield or armor.

 

If I want to come up with a character who wants to use a warbow and saber, with the effing weapon groups model, he has to take 2 different weapons groups because those weapons are in 2 different groups.  THAT is limiting.  Why can you not SEE the OBVIOUS???

Unless your point is that we should be able to create our own weapon groups, I do not understand your argument, no. A system with specializations for each weapon would still require you to spend two talents to create your concept.

 

I do NOT want to be tied into the groupings that the devs came up with!!! They're artificial!

They're not artificial. They have an in-world logic as to what the people the group they're named after would fight with.

 

 

A.  Read the suggestion I made earlier about how to change to a more rational and less limiting model.

 

B. They damned well ARE artificial.  The so-called adventurer's group is pure, unadulterated BS.  The noble group is as well.  Any so-called noble that was going to be a combatant would be a knight. 

 

You people have no friggin' imaginations if you can't see how limiting and how artificial these weapons groups are.  They may be the single worst thing about this otherwise pretty darned good game.  How can you not see that even if the 6 (?) weapons groups were perfect (and they're not) for the types of characters they're linked to, that's only 6 (?) different character types!!!!  THAT IS THE LIMITATION!!!!  If you're not an "adventurer", a noble, a knight, a soldier, a ruffian, or a peasant, then too bad for you.  No weapon groups that fit the concept of your character.  You're not allowed to think outside of those 6 little boxes.  Nope.  No imagination allowed here.  Quite literally no outside the box character concepts allowed in this game.

[Bill Gates' Son]

 

Unless your point is that we should be able to create our own weapon groups, I do not understand your argument, no. A system with specializations for each weapon would still require you to spend two talents to create your concept.

 

 

Actually, that doesn't seem like  bad idea at all.  I would love to pick which combination of weapons I would like to focus on.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Bill Gates' Son

[Shevek]

 

 

Why are you limiting people to only 3 suggestions? That's an awful idea which will merely stifle creativity.

 

Anyway, here are my suggestions:

 

I would like way more puzzles/riddles, way more encounters where it punishes you for having 1 unkillable meatshield who aggros everything (enemies flank from all directions and enemy AI which summons monsters or intelligently calls for flanking reinforcements on top of your backline after your frontline engages theirs), more encounters which punish you for upping only your deflection score (a battle against a big group of spell casters), more spells, more classes, more NPCs (not every NPC needs some grandiose backstory - it would add a lot of variety/replayability if some were a bit more barebones while others had a ton of depth), more extremely unique spells, more options to turn your fighter into a killing machine instead of a tank, more grey area choices with potentially dire consequences, and more interesting unique items. 

 

I also really dislike how spells work with the whole "red hits both allies and enemies while yellow only hits enemies" AOE mechanic. It's very immersion breaking and makes the game seem more mathesque instead of fantasyesque, if you know what I mean.

Its an economy of ideas. If you have to pick three things, you pick three things that really matter to you and you, hopefully, have concrete details to support your salient points. If you have no limit, you start listing every little thing you would change to make the perfect crpg that only exists in your brain. This also legitimizes the data to a degree since all respondents have a ceiling and cant monopolize the input by listing 30 things to some other dudes 1 or 2.

 

Also, by limiting folks to 3, its much easier to use established means of qualitative research to yield quasi quantitative data . The data set is manageable and you can start sorting data rough categories. This means you can see what aspects of the game folks feel needs to change and what, if any, is the consensus around how to do so.

 

Of course, this isnt perfect. People veer from the format and ignore directions. But I just ignore crap that is actually more about world building, narrative design, level design, etc (like ninjas and airships) or people that list 30 things when only 3 were asked for.

 

 

The problem is when a captain obvious or someone who isn't that bright has 3 ideas which are still added to your list, and someone who is a budding game design genius has 5 great ideas but is pressured to only say 3 of them, even though the 2 he left out are leagues ahead of the other person's 3 subpar ideas. It doesn't matter how professional your quasi quantitative data appears when the means to forge it diminishes the usefulness of the end result. You sound like you care more about stroking your epeen by collating data instead of making Pillars 2 a much better game.

 

The game isnt made for just game design geniuses though and I doubt that the sample that OE wants is a bunch of arm chair game designers who look at titles with an entirely critical eye. Also, who is to judge the sub par idea from the great one? Most research on sampling suggests that the public as a whole tends to be pretty darn good at estimating value, recognizing issues, etc. Also, it generally stands to reason that if a massive plurality of individuals take issue with a specific gameplay system, then it should be looked at. So, that data alone would be of value to OE. The specific suggestions will be allover the map but any commonalities in what people as a whole want could be of value as well.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

A better combat system - deflection(damage avoidance) being the only viable tank stat is ridiculous. Instead of the flat DR system, give us armor, talents, and stats that soak up a flat percentage of damage. Specializing in soaking up damage should be viable alternative to dodging 20 mobs at once like you're Neo.

I don't think you understand what deflection represents. It's your character's ability to deflect blows, generally through your shield or armor.

 

If I want to come up with a character who wants to use a warbow and saber, with the effing weapon groups model, he has to take 2 different weapons groups because those weapons are in 2 different groups.  THAT is limiting.  Why can you not SEE the OBVIOUS???

Unless your point is that we should be able to create our own weapon groups, I do not understand your argument, no. A system with specializations for each weapon would still require you to spend two talents to create your concept.

 

I do NOT want to be tied into the groupings that the devs came up with!!! They're artificial!

They're not artificial. They have an in-world logic as to what the people the group they're named after would fight with.

 

 

A.  Read the suggestion I made earlier about how to change to a more rational and less limiting model.

 

B. They damned well ARE artificial.  The so-called adventurer's group is pure, unadulterated BS.  The noble group is as well.  Any so-called noble that was going to be a combatant would be a knight. 

 

You people have no friggin' imaginations if you can't see how limiting and how artificial these weapons groups are.  They may be the single worst thing about this otherwise pretty darned good game.  How can you not see that even if the 6 (?) weapons groups were perfect (and they're not) for the types of characters they're linked to, that's only 6 (?) different character types!!!!  THAT IS THE LIMITATION!!!!  If you're not an "adventurer", a noble, a knight, a soldier, a ruffian, or a peasant, then too bad for you.  No weapon groups that fit the concept of your character.  You're not allowed to think outside of those 6 little boxes.  Nope.  No imagination allowed here.  Quite literally no outside the box character concepts allowed in this game.

 

Calm down and stop attacking people for not agreeing with you, it makes people less likely to take your words with any degree of value.  Your less limiting model is actually worse as people have pointed out, it forces people into even more limited roles, and in history did learn similar combination of weapons as that used in Pillars weapon groups.  For instance, Medieval Knights (and I'm probably focusing on French and English knights here as the weapons varied from nation to nation as did the concept of knighthood vary drastically) were usually trained in swords, lances, axes, and maces, quite a wide range of weapons, and used them all interchangeably as the need warranted.  Those trained in the German Longsword (which by the way isn't the D&D one-handed sword, that was actually what is called an arming sword, a real longsword was usually a hand and a half sword) fighting techniques included the use of daggers so that they could pull them out and stab their opponents in grapples. 

 

Basing weapon groups on what damage type they make as per your suggestion would not mirror this and in fact makes even less sense realistically speaking.  Just because a weapon does a similar damage type as another or both are swords does not mean they are used in any similar fashion and in actual fact most of them in your 'groups' have zero in common have less in common with each other use-wise than the current weapon groups.  This is before you consider the gameplay issues others have mentioned.  I'd like to also point out that your system pidgeon-holes people into the 'Sword and shield guy' or the 'shooter guy', which I find boring.

 

Anyway, I'm heading off to a field today, so won't be back till Monday, have fun everybody and don't destroy the forums till I get back!  

[Guest 4ward]

 

i would like Obsidian to change their design philosophy. Don't cut players off from doing things, let them fail, try again, learn. Reloading is not a crime. Give us the freedom we had in BG2.

 

1) Allow casting outside combat, pre-buffing, resting as in BG2. We had potions in BG2, it was about finding the right mix in taking potions and casting.

People who pre-buffed for several mins and found that fun or the only way to beat the game didn't know how to use other ways the game gave them.. But you don't cut them off from doing so, you give an alternative possibility, you give potions, it's a healthy mix of using potions and 1-2 buffs before the encounter. Same with resting, design resting sites so that it's tedious or annoying to rest-spam (respawning enemies, enemies disturbing rest, tedious risky ways between resting places ….)

 

2) Let go off the automatic melee lockdown system, meleers were potent in BG2, they had gear, potions, narrow corridors and make crowd control as in BG2 really count. Counter-spelling and potent casters who are protected by their own spells is the way to make them more dangerous since they have the time to launch their spells. Put emphasis on moving again, no recovery time penaltly during moving. Encounter design (area + enemies) is how you prevent things like kiting in important and difficult encounters; let us transition areas during combat. Trash mob encounters don't matter anyway, they're just fillers when exploring.

 

3) Make walk the movement for chars and allow brief haste through items/potions

 

Listen to fans who enjoyed BG2 combat, it is about recreating the unique combat of the IE games which was abandoned 15 years ago.

[anameforobsidian]

 

I like the weapons group model.  Why not just add individual proficiencies on top of it to further specialize a character?  That fits with the increased level range (that we're presuming will happen).

 

My suggestions (wow that ended up being a lot):

1.  More trap spells, especially spells that affect movement.  PE's strength is positioning, so let characters position.

2.  Grimoire switching should be made more useful so it's a real choice.

3.  Allow rangers to stow their pets for a permanent accuracy boost.

4.  Ditch one of the armor types at the upper end, like Brigandine.

5.  Engagement that varies with the range of the weapons.  Suddenly three fighters wielding halberds could become a murderwall.

6.  Xaurip as a player race, because obviously.

7.  Let druids shapeshift into animals at upper levels.

8.  Blood druids like the ones we saw in Twin Elms.

9.  Regeneration for barbarians at higher levels.

10.  The ability to lower the speed of a chant in exchange for a lowered effect.  Essentially, fast chanters become more focused on building up summons at the expense of their buffs.

11.  Additional active chanter abilities in general (if chosen).  The class is kinda boring, but that may be what they were designed for (six people with active abilities is a lot.

12.  More barks and city noises.

13.  More dialogue all around.  The city needed more NPCs and sub-areas.

14.  More levels that transform like the Wailing Banshee.  That was really neat to see.

15.  Rarer enchanting formulas.  If the supplies are easy to find and the formulas are hard to get to, it makes enchanting valuable loot (which it should be).

16.  Druid, Mage, and Priest spells that you can only discover in the world.

17.  Great focus on one theme.  PE had too many great themes, and as a consequence spent too little on each one.

18.  An npc that used to be a Wicht.

19.  Mage spells that slow time in an area.

20.  I've always wanted to see the equivalent of a blue mage / beast master from Final Fantasy in a western game.  The idea of eating enemies to gain their form is pretty cool (probably impossible to approach a semblance of balance.)

21.  More ending slides and interaction with sentient monsters, I wish I knew what happened to the Vithrack.

22.  Occasional fights with a horde of low level enemies just to show your party as murder machines.

23.  A way to run away from combat.

24.  An underwater area where you fight bell jar to bell jar.

25.  Addictions.

26.  DAO style injuries.  That was one mechanic that doesn't get the praise it deserves.

I ignored everything after 3

 

I ignored this post.

[Mechalibur]

 

Its only been 2 pages and the format is lost 

Well, after a user's third suggestion, I just ignore the rest. I also ignore anything that has zero to do with gameplay.

 

Okay, but you're not a developer so why should we care?

[Shevek]

 

 

Its only been 2 pages and the format is lost 

Well, after a user's third suggestion, I just ignore the rest. I also ignore anything that has zero to do with gameplay.

 

Okay, but you're not a developer so why should we care?

 

Why should anyone care about anything? I suppose it could be because I made the thread asking for feedback because I was curious and wanted to get a handle on what people's top 3 suggestions would be. I mean, what kind of person just jumps into a thread and starts posting without even reading or giving a darn about the original post or the reason for the thread's existence? I guess you.

[jones092201@gmail.com]

Let's get out of the forests and dwarven ruins. This is a game set in a wonderful, unique 16th century world space. Show me something like the islands colonized by Spain...Cuba, Haiti, et al...I'd love to see a deep jungle setting, or the Arab world- essentially any of the great culture clashes of the real world. I liked the way that was handled in POE, but it's still the same physical setting as dragon age and most of the elder scrolls (with the caveat of morrowind).

 

 

Stories like Solomon Kaine, movies like Apocolypse Now, that **** would be amazing. It creates a situation where you get a home base/ stronghold that is mobile- pirate ship?

 

Also, I'd love to see the ranger class move away from ranged and pet to something more interesting.

[Infinitron]

At every stage of the game, instead of offering quests and encounters meant for a variety of levels within the player's expected level range, design all encounters for the top of that range.

 

For example, Defiance Bay in Act 2 seems like it was designed for characters in a wide range of levels going from 3 all the way up to around 7. That means that completionist players who mined Act 1 for experience points are finding many of Defiance Bay's encounters too easy (you know you're over-leveled when your spellcasters already have level 4 spells and you're still defeating enemy parties whose wizards have grimoires that only go up to level 3). Which really sucks and gives the most hardcore segment of your audience a poor impression of the game. They would have been happier if the entire city was designed for level 7 or so.

 

Now, on the face of it, it seems like it makes sense to offer content for a variety of levels. In reality, however, a main part of the challenge in these games has always been learning to even the odds against enemies who are fundamentally tougher than you. So let players struggle a little, finding that one tough encounter that they can still eke a victory out of, until they finally pull themselves up to the top of the expected level range for the area. Then repeat for the next area. If anybody has a problem with that, they can always go back to an earlier area of the game and do some more quests there that are designed for a lower level.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Infinitron