About Part 2

[Benedictous]

So is part 2 going to be an expansion to the end game? Been kind of boycotting this part 1 because I feel nickle and dimed by getting it in two parts, plus chanters are still hot garbage even though Feargus specifically said they would be anything but:

"Feargus Urquhart: "I think the Chanter in particular came from this idea of, a lot of people love playing Bard. And often the implementation of Bard in games is, they're a great idea but they kinda suck?", and it seems it is still buggy as heck with these soulbound weapons. 

So I'm deadset on part 2 but has anyone heard any information on this at all? I can't imagine that they would tact on another ToSC like expansion after you just did a full replay to experience the last one.  Welp any info would be appreciated.

[Starwars]

I believe all signs point to part 2 being added onto the main campaign just like part 1, and not be after the final battle.

[Quantics]

So is part 2 going to be an expansion to the end game? Been kind of boycotting this part 1 because I feel nickle and dimed by getting it in two parts, 

 

 

This is really a non-issue imo:

- The expansion doesn't end on a cliffhanger at all. Plus there's a reasonable amount of content in it.

- You can buy the two parts for a discounted price now (https://www.paradoxplaza.com/pillars-of-eternity-the-white-march-expansion-pass), so it's not going to cost you more than if PART1 and PART2 had been released together.

[wanderon]

It has been said that Part two will deal with the choices you made in part 1 - perhaps a good reason to play part 1 (and the main game) in at least a few different ways.

[daver]

Does anyone know the release time-line of part 2? I don't need a specific date, just wondering if it will be this year. I'm assuming that it will be mid-November. I'm just trying to gauge my play time to complete the main quest and both parts of the white march without having to stop for a few weeks and then go back.

[wanderon]

Does anyone know the release time-line of part 2? I don't need a specific date, just wondering if it will be this year. I'm assuming that it will be mid-November. I'm just trying to gauge my play time to complete the main quest and both parts of the white march without having to stop for a few weeks and then go back.

 

I've seen guesses of Winter and Spring - November seems very early - my guess would be Spring 2016 but that's pure speculation. 

[bonarbill]

 

Does anyone know the release time-line of part 2? I don't need a specific date, just wondering if it will be this year. I'm assuming that it will be mid-November. I'm just trying to gauge my play time to complete the main quest and both parts of the white march without having to stop for a few weeks and then go back.

 

I've seen guesses of Winter and Spring - November seems very early - my guess would be Spring 2016 but that's pure speculation. 

 

 

I doubt it will take that long as spring.  It only took 5 months for the first part to come out.

[globalCooldown]

No idea, but like these fine fellows I suspect November at the absolute earliest and Spring 2016 at the absolute latest.

 

(Also, I quite enjoy Chanters, thank you very much.)

[sp3cw4r]

Josh in an interview said "winter" for release of part II.  I don't have a link, but I swear I heard that.  I'm thinking we'll have it by Christmas, but that's just more speculation.

[Sannom]

Is it safe to assume that most of the content of Part 2 will happen after the end of Part 1?

[Starwars]

Probably. It will require Part 1 to play so that implies there will be ties. And I believe Josh said something about Part 2 being a result of our actions in Part 1 also or something (don't remember the quote exactly, might be wrong).

 

Of course, there may be some optional areas like Cragholdt which are stand alone.

[Benedictous]

No idea, but like these fine fellows I suspect November at the absolute earliest and Spring 2016 at the absolute latest.

 

(Also, I quite enjoy Chanters, thank you very much.)

Its not about enjoying their playstyle (which i guess you like never selecting them) its about they are gutter trash.  I mean pure gutter trash class.  Chants are weak, slow to come, and fall off.  They cant damage, they cant CC, they can tank but why not take a tanky barb, and their invocations require a very poor party to get out before the fight ends. Their higher level chants ACTUALLY MAKE IT HARDER TO CAST their invocations.  Higher level invocations actually take MORE chants to cast, even though high level chants take longer to churn out. The class actually gets worse as you level it up farther. Its shameful.

And it pisses me off that the CEO of the company goes out and says how they don't suck. They do suck compared to everything but maybe fighter after 2.0

The only way he can say those things with a straight face is:

1. He doesn't understand the game and really doesn't know they are bad (my best guess)

2. He admits that people like bards, so he wanted to bring in more sales by lying

3. He didn't want to make Josh look bad so he lied

Edited September 13, 2015 by Benedictous

[Tigranes]

 

No idea, but like these fine fellows I suspect November at the absolute earliest and Spring 2016 at the absolute latest.

 

(Also, I quite enjoy Chanters, thank you very much.)

Its not about enjoying their playstyle (which i guess you like never selecting them) its about they are gutter trash.  I mean pure gutter trash class.  Chants are weak, slow to come, and fall off.  They cant damage, they cant CC, they can tank but why not take a tanky barb, and their invocations require a very poor party to get out before the fight ends. Their higher level chants ACTUALLY MAKE IT HARDER TO CAST their invocations.  Higher level invocations actually take MORE chants to cast, even though high level chants take longer to churn out. The class actually gets worse as you level it up farther. Its shameful.

And it pisses me off that the CEO of the company goes out and says how they don't suck. They do suck compared to everything but maybe fighter after 2.0

The only way he can say those things with a straight face is:

1. He doesn't understand the game and really doesn't know they are bad (my best guess)

2. He admits that people like bards, so he wanted to bring in more sales by lying

3. He didn't want to make Josh look bad so he lied

 

 

This forum has seen everything from "wizards are trash" to "chanters are trash" to "rangers are trash" to "fighters are trash" to...

 

Chanters sucking for you may or may not be universal truth, and something you think is transparently true, funnily enough, doesn't necessarily translate to it being true for everybody. 

 

I think it's often hard to notice chanters, but especially in a 6-man party, they can make an enormous difference to everything your party does... and still be a little bit less invisible than the Bard. (And, at least in previous patches, they were the easiest class to solo the game.)

 

Anyway, Part 2 will most likely continue where Part 1 left off. 

[Benedictous]

 

 

This forum has seen everything from "wizards are trash" to "chanters are trash" to "rangers are trash" to "fighters are trash" to...

 

Chanters sucking for you may or may not be universal truth, and something you think is transparently true, funnily enough, doesn't necessarily translate to it being true for everybody. 

 

I think it's often hard to notice chanters, but especially in a 6-man party, they can make an enormous difference to everything your party does... and still be a little bit less invisible than the Bard. (And, at least in previous patches, they were the easiest class to solo the game.)

 

Anyway, Part 2 will most likely continue where Part 1 left off. 

 

 Wizards were just misunderstood, although the argument that al lot of their spells are weird still holds. Chanters are trash , Rangers were trash because they couldn't fulfill their role as high single target DPS...that has changed, Fighters were the undisputed god of tanks, now average tanks but w/o tools the others bring (surprisingly I would take a Chanter tank over a fighter because they may bring little, but it is better than nothing). It is a party based game, solo runs are for Ego nothing more, so I see solo runs as not an intentional design choice.

 

I've seen people defend chanters to the high heavens, but it certainly isn't off objective analysis. It is always subjective WANTING the Chanter to be good. "enormous difference" is not quantified.

[Tigranes]

My point is that it's easy to find people saying exactly the same thing you are saying... but about wizards, or rangers.   It often comes down to the vastly different assumptions and preferences people have about the game. For instance, dismissing solo runs as 'for egos' shows you have no idea why many players who do mix in solo runs do it. That's peripheral to the debate about chanters, of course, but it's an example of how one piece of evidence ceases to matter for you because you don't see the fun/value in solo runs. 

 

I wouldn't ever argue that chanters are the 'strongest' class, or the easiest class to get right, but enough people have got enough mileage out of them to show that they aren't "objectively trash" for everybody. Of course, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be improved or retooled... it just means there's usually a more reasonable explanation than the rather improbable case of "omg they suck balls everybody who likes them must be completely deluded & everybody who defends them must be idiots". 

[KDubya]

My point is that it's easy to find people saying exactly the same thing you are saying... but about wizards, or rangers.   It often comes down to the vastly different assumptions and preferences people have about the game. For instance, dismissing solo runs as 'for egos' shows you have no idea why many players who do mix in solo runs do it. That's peripheral to the debate about chanters, of course, but it's an example of how one piece of evidence ceases to matter for you because you don't see the fun/value in solo runs. 

 

I wouldn't ever argue that chanters are the 'strongest' class, or the easiest class to get right, but enough people have got enough mileage out of them to show that they aren't "objectively trash" for everybody. Of course, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be improved or retooled... it just means there's usually a more reasonable explanation than the rather improbable case of "omg they suck balls everybody who likes them must be completely deluded & everybody who defends them must be idiots". 

 

 

The problem with people saying that Wizards, or Rangers are trash is that they are wrong. It's math. It has nothing to do with play styles or opinions.

 

With proper knowledge of the game and decent tactics you can beat the game with the equivalent of six random guys of the street.

 

I use a Chanter in my melee heavy groups because my melee team is durable but doesn't nuke the world in the first few seconds so enough time goes by to get some invocations off, well that and kana is an interesting character. But efficiency wise pretty much anyone except a Fighter would help the team more.

 

As the levels increase there is less reasons to want the chanter. His good abilities take longer to activate while casters get more and more abilities that activate instantly and even allow unlimited use per encounter without the shame of needing to rest.

 

A buffed up ranger pet might be a better tank than a Fighter is now, or at least good enough for long enough and they pop back up ready to go after every encounter. No forced health attrition rests needed.

[wanderon]

 

My point is that it's easy to find people saying exactly the same thing you are saying... but about wizards, or rangers.   It often comes down to the vastly different assumptions and preferences people have about the game. For instance, dismissing solo runs as 'for egos' shows you have no idea why many players who do mix in solo runs do it. That's peripheral to the debate about chanters, of course, but it's an example of how one piece of evidence ceases to matter for you because you don't see the fun/value in solo runs. 

 

I wouldn't ever argue that chanters are the 'strongest' class, or the easiest class to get right, but enough people have got enough mileage out of them to show that they aren't "objectively trash" for everybody. Of course, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be improved or retooled... it just means there's usually a more reasonable explanation than the rather improbable case of "omg they suck balls everybody who likes them must be completely deluded & everybody who defends them must be idiots". 

 

 

The problem with people saying that Wizards, or Rangers are trash is that they are wrong. It's math. It has nothing to do with play styles or opinions.

 

With proper knowledge of the game and decent tactics you can beat the game with the equivalent of six random guys of the street.

 

I use a Chanter in my melee heavy groups because my melee team is durable but doesn't nuke the world in the first few seconds so enough time goes by to get some invocations off, well that and kana is an interesting character. But efficiency wise pretty much anyone except a Fighter would help the team more.

 

As the levels increase there is less reasons to want the chanter. His good abilities take longer to activate while casters get more and more abilities that activate instantly and even allow unlimited use per encounter without the shame of needing to rest.

 

A buffed up ranger pet might be a better tank than a Fighter is now, or at least good enough for long enough and they pop back up ready to go after every encounter. No forced health attrition rests needed.

 

 

The problem with anyone saying any class is trash is that it's nothing more than internet hyperbole and they are in fact just "talking trash" it has little or no bearing on reality to anyone but other "trash talkers" who all feel the need to categorize everything as either awesome or garbage - it is a common affliction these days and if you crave more of it please visit any political forum - this is an unpaid community service announcement - no chanters were hurt in the making of this statement.