Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

A Frustrated Review From A Long Term Fan

Spoilers Grumpy Opinions Noob Balance Plot Writing

  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21
jsaving

jsaving

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 176 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Well, look -- nearly every CRPG has situations where you have to choose between good and evil and then live with the consequences.  Many CRPGs have situations where you have to choose between the lesser of two evils and then live with the consequences.  Some even have situations where, if you choose not to do enough in-game investigation, you can mistakenly elevate a greater evil and must then live with the consequences.  All of those are fine, even if they sometimes evoke a negative reaction from certain players.  But they share something important in common -- players were able to get enough information that they could make an informed moral choice with which they then have to live.

 

It's a different category entirely to provide little to no information about a choice, like dealing with the Defiance Bay machine, and then pretend the player's decision is choices-and-consequences at its best.  Any reasonable protagonist would have ensured the machine would be well-guarded if it were deactivated rather than destroyed, yet the endgame slide assumes you left it unguarded and no one else in the city -- many of whom now knew about the machine's functionality -- picked up the slack.  Don't get me wrong here, it is perfectly fine to deliver a deliberate endgame sucker-punch to the player in the best tradition of Fallout 1, provided the devs carefully think through character motivations and are able to deliver a twist that makes sense.  But in this particular case, the twist comes about because PoE assumes away common sense on the part of the player and then blocks you from any dialogue options that would explicitly address the issue (for example convincing your faction to guard the tower) just so there can be an endgame slide saying you took no precautions and the machine was therefore restarted. 


  • Wynne likes this

#22
Crucis

Crucis

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1349 posts

I agree with crucis for the most part, but want to stress his points about monks some more.

The way they envisioned monks in PoE compared to DnD was a very controversial change imho.

 

To me, they don't feel like the DnD version they are based off from a mechanical point of view and their lore alienates them even more. Imho, it would've been fitting to give monks the choice of different orders where the self mutilating is the theme of a single order, but using that as the basis for the whole class cuts off the traditional archetypes. I still don't get why the paladins got them instead - besides the lore aspects, paladin have more class talents than monks even without their order talents.

 

It's especially ironic because the original version of the monk could mitigate damage through using up wounds (which would have been cool), but the concept of wounds storing damage was silently removed before beta since it was deemed too confusing. Now a class about self mutilation can be best played by wearing armor to mitigate that same class defining damage...

 

And while its completely viable to give light armor to monks, that is true for every class and not one of their selling points. I tried to remedy that by using the cross class talent novice suffering to all other martial classes in my current run, but even now the talent is still bugged in some cases.

The case of implements for wizards and weapon specific talents for rangers especially show that boni tied to certain types of equipment are viable from the designers point of view, so having some benefit for lighter armor would have been possible.

 

I also feel the kensai could have been better represented within the monk class by having them choose a favoured weapon, where unarmed would have resulted in the trascendend suffering talent.

 

Anyway, while I doubt they will change the monk too much in the next game in the poe universe, i'll be interested in what they come up with.

 

 

Doppel, you make a number of very interesting points.

 

The way things are now with monks, armor is basically the player's means of managing how much damage is taken vs how many wounds the monk can build up.  It's not really the same as it is with all other classes.    A monk that over armors himself will find himself unable to get the wounds necessary to power his abilities.  OTOH, too little armor/DR and the monk can take more damage than he really wants to be taking and get knocked out before he can put all those wounds to good use.  It's a tricky balance.

 

Your point about having orders for monks is very interesting.  That said, I don't think that it'd really be possible to have different orders radically change the basic structure of the class.  Instead of having orders like those of paladins or priests, you could functionally end up with each monk order looking like an entirely different class with very different abilities.  One order might favor lightly/un-armored, unarmed martial artists, while another might favor more heavily armored, monks who fight with weapons.  Looking at these two extremes, they look more like entirely different classes, rather than sub-classes (i.e. orders) of the same basic class.

 

 

 

On a side note, I think that the idea of a Kensai like "monk" sounds interesting.  The character might select a single weapon type at creation (though I suppose one could respec out of it), and like with monk fists, perhaps the character gains additional accuracy and damage bonuses as he progresses up the levels, but at the cost of not being able to select any weapon focuses.  His "weapon focus" would be on that single weapon type.  I suppose that this could also be the basis for an entirely new class as well.  A class with significant commonalities with monks, but made into a new class so that it could have abilities and in-class talents that were more appropriate for a "kensei".  I don't know if it'd be a good idea to outright prevent a "kensei" from picking up a non-favored weapon.  But the kensei should only be able to get all his special bonuses while using his favored weapon, possibly even take significant accuracy and damage penalties for trying to wield a non-favored weapon as a strong incentive for not doing so.


  • Hulk'O'Saurus likes this

#23
anameforobsidian

anameforobsidian

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1111 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I'm not very sympathetic to monks breaking archetypes as a complaint for a couple reasons:

- Unless you're playing PotD lower armored monks work fine.  Put on an enchanted robe and put that **** through the white forge.  Grab duality of soul, and a few other powers.

- They get a huge unarmed bonus, to the point where on a first run monks will almost always have some of the best weapons in your party.

- Archetype changes over time.  The archetype of the unarmed / unarmored monk is not accurate for either Western or Eastern monks.  The fact that they're more accurate to a centuries old tradition than a forty year old one makes it better grounded.  Why would verisimilitude break immersion?

- I really like the mix of flagellate and kung-fu.  I think it makes a cool image.

- Why is the asian monk a more valid archetype than the European one in a highly European setting?

 

On the other hand:

- I wouldn't mind wounds as damage mitigation returned.

-  Another option would be adding a talent to benefit light armor wearing monks.  (Archetype restored with minimal effort)

- Talents adding whole new class mechanics is really stretching the point of talents by a lot (cross-class talents not withstanding), and it makes characters harder to build.

 

Other OP complaints:

- Raedric could do with a messenger, but what person doesn't visit the tavern in a new town?  Baldur's Gate practically relies on that ****.

- Monks could use more class dialogue, I believe you get some with Zahua.

- No one's terribly happy with the end of act II, including the lead writer.  They shouldn't write themselves into a non-reactive hole next time.

- The Knights and Dozens are very human groups.  They are both flawed with several positives as well as negatives.  Only the Doemenels are completely evil.

- The machine in the city gives you the option to overload.  Why wouldn't the Leaden key use it again?

- Pillars did need more content.  Act II is by far the worst offender.  I see the expansions with hope to how a sequel could look.  However, it's far improved from its original state, and I easily think it would garner a few more metacritic points now.


  • illathid likes this

#24
Flix

Flix

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 80 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

The point I agree on is the messenger telling you about Raedric.  I think he should initiate a dialogue when you enter the tavern, or at least have an overhead text pop-up like "hey, over here!"

 

I never missed him myself because I talked to everyone the first time through, but I could see how it could happen.


  • daveyeisley likes this

#25
Trashos

Trashos

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 23 posts

 The Knights and Dozens are very human groups.  They are both flawed with several positives as well as negatives.  Only the Doemenels are completely evil.

 

 

Good and bad things can be said for all factions. Father Doemenel will be a good leader if you give him a chance. I don't see the Doemenels as completely evil, they are very human too. Their goals are similar to the other factions (more power) and they know what's good for business.



#26
Doppelschwert

Doppelschwert

    Sword Enthusiast of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1022 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

-snip

 
Doppel, you make a number of very interesting points.
 
The way things are now with monks, armor is basically the player's means of managing how much damage is taken vs how many wounds the monk can build up.  It's not really the same as it is with all other classes.    A monk that over armors himself will find himself unable to get the wounds necessary to power his abilities.  OTOH, too little armor/DR and the monk can take more damage than he really wants to be taking and get knocked out before he can put all those wounds to good use.  It's a tricky balance.
 
Your point about having orders for monks is very interesting.  That said, I don't think that it'd really be possible to have different orders radically change the basic structure of the class.  Instead of having orders like those of paladins or priests, you could functionally end up with each monk order looking like an entirely different class with very different abilities.  One order might favor lightly/un-armored, unarmed martial artists, while another might favor more heavily armored, monks who fight with weapons.  Looking at these two extremes, they look more like entirely different classes, rather than sub-classes (i.e. orders) of the same basic class.
 
 
 
On a side note, I think that the idea of a Kensai like "monk" sounds interesting.  The character might select a single weapon type at creation (though I suppose one could respec out of it), and like with monk fists, perhaps the character gains additional accuracy and damage bonuses as he progresses up the levels, but at the cost of not being able to select any weapon focuses.  His "weapon focus" would be on that single weapon type.  I suppose that this could also be the basis for an entirely new class as well.  A class with significant commonalities with monks, but made into a new class so that it could have abilities and in-class talents that were more appropriate for a "kensei".  I don't know if it'd be a good idea to outright prevent a "kensei" from picking up a non-favored weapon.  But the kensei should only be able to get all his special bonuses while using his favored weapon, possibly even take significant accuracy and damage penalties for trying to wield a non-favored weapon as a strong incentive for not doing so.

 

 
Thanks for the response. I didn't have much time at posting so some of my ideas probably weren't flashed out enough. Let me clarify a bit:
 
First, I think wounds as a resource are conceptually a good idea. What I don't like is the way they are explained in the lore and how they interact with armor. I think it would have made more sense to split the monks into different orders where each order has a different interpretation / philosophy about wounds:
For example, you could have one order that embraces wounds (flagelants, pain will clean them from distractions), you could have one order that feels encouraged about being wounded (aiming for perfection where a wound shows there is room for improvement, which is closer to the DnD monk as I understood them) and other interpretations.
 
Then you add something similiar to turning wheel, a passive ability that increases with # of wounds and whose effect is determined by the monk order. Give each order a class ability that further enhance this passive bonus and another one which modifies transcenced suffering.
 
This modification does not change much mechanically but makes the lore much more open and closer to the interpretation as the DnD archetype. You can easily implement the kensai and other archetypes through using appropriate orders. I don't think it's that much of a stretch, really, but that is not relevant for this game anymore anyway.
 
 
Second, It's not like I think the monks in PoE suck, I think zahua and his philosophies are actually kind of cool. While I could do without the drug stuff, it has a different vibe than the usual archetype, and it would be nice to have both instead of having to choose.
 
 
Third, regarding the armor - although it is intended to be a trade-off between damage taken and damage dished out, it's actually more complicared than that since light armor also helps you to spend the wounds faster as well. However, I feel my ability to generate wounds depends more on the enemy targeting than the actual choice of armor, so I'm not sure the mechanics turned out so fine.
 

I'm not very sympathetic to monks breaking archetypes as a complaint for a couple reasons:
- Unless you're playing PotD lower armored monks work fine.  Put on an enchanted robe and put that **** through the white forge.  Grab duality of soul, and a few other powers.
- They get a huge unarmed bonus, to the point where on a first run monks will almost always have some of the best weapons in your party.
- Archetype changes over time.  The archetype of the unarmed / unarmored monk is not accurate for either Western or Eastern monks.  The fact that they're more accurate to a centuries old tradition than a forty year old one makes it better grounded.  Why would verisimilitude break immersion?
- I really like the mix of flagellate and kung-fu.  I think it makes a cool image.
- Why is the asian monk a more valid archetype than the European one in a highly European setting?
 
On the other hand:
- I wouldn't mind wounds as damage mitigation returned.
-  Another option would be adding a talent to benefit light armor wearing monks.  (Archetype restored with minimal effort)
- Talents adding whole new class mechanics is really stretching the point of talents by a lot (cross-class talents not withstanding), and it makes characters harder to build.
 
-snip

As said above, I did not mean to introduce new class mechanics or an abundance of talents, so I won't comment on the mechanical issues you raised. Apart from that, low DR monks work also well on PotD, but so does every other character in low DR gear if you play around that fact.

 

In DnD, you only have Armor Class which represents armor rating and your abilitiy to dodge/reflect. The concept of a character in light armor that dodges a lot is well supported by the mechanics. In PoE, light armor means hitting faster but has nothing to do with evasion, which makes an dodge centric character difficult to describe. This is more or less the reason why a light armor monk as martial artist is not quite represented in the mechanics, since such a character gets automatically pushed towards glass canon. Personally, I would have made armor trade off damage reduction to additional deflection and govern attack speed by weapons and weapon styles, but this is besides the point of my post.

 

Regarding the archetypes:

I'm not for choosing either or, but I would have prefered the option to have both instead of being locked in by the lore. Every other class can fall back to the way it is defined in DnD, but for the Monk it seems much harder. There is a difference between trying to aim for perfection through training and meditation compared to smoking weed and getting hit repeatedly.

 

There is no objective argument to prefer one over the other though, I just prefer my asian martial artist. I try to play this kind of character whenever I can in any RPG, but PoE makes it actually quite hard from the setting point of view. To the best of my knowledge, there is neither an asian inspired region nor culture in whole Eora, in stark contrast to the IE games, where character creation and exotic items aknowledged their existence (although it was not part of the regions of the games).

It is completely fine to build a setting this way, and I like Eora, but I still would have expected something along those lines at some point, so I feel justified in feeling let down by the lack of that.


Edited by Doppelschwert, 24 March 2016 - 03:55 PM.


#27
KDubya

KDubya

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1438 posts
  • Deadfire Backer

I really like the way they made Monks. Robe wearing guys are how they are always portrayed. "You know Kung Fu but put on some leather armor and you can't use it" has always felt to be really artificial in every game that had it. Here you have choice - you can armor up and slow down your attacks or go lighter and attack faster. Both styles work well.

 

Due to game mechanics everyone does better in heavy armor for the beginning of the game. Once you gain some levels and your endurance is high enough to give you some cushion, you can go lighter for more speed



#28
Stoner

Stoner

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 114 posts
And I started playing and noticed few problems (aside from the bloody Kickstarter NPCs whom I ignored), but more and more built up as the game progressed. Finally, I came to a terrible conclusion as I attempted a second playthrough:

 

It's not like they're shoved in your face, I personally enjoyed reading some their stories... They have no plot connection and can be easily ignored.

 

For starters, I played a Monk. Yeah, I remembered Monks being lame in DnD, but I assumed that in Pillars, based on the previews, it'd be fun. And it was fun, until every encounter became slogging it out with broad-sword wielding thugs in plate or Elder High Mega Dragons, or Invisible Deathtouch Demons or what have you. Monks lack the durability, dodging power and damage to be fantastic PCs... but what annoyed me the most was the supposition that every class would have something interesting to contribute to the story.

 

Load of bull, Monk is pretty strong class, check out builds section and ask ppl how to build him right. And choosing character for the sake of tiny dialogue with some NPC... that's rich.

 

Oh, except the Monk. The class that doesn't even get an NPC partymember. The only five Monks in the game outside of the waves of cannonfodder I carved through are one dying messenger who was mauled to death by a mountain lion, and his four brothers who waited patiently in a tavern while their companion was mauled to death by a mountain lion.

 

As already mentioned, Zahua. And I don't really get complaints about side quest... that's just a side quest, right?...

 

Speaking of that tavern, I have words for that as well. There's no real plot important reason to go into that place. You can just saunter past it accidentally, as I did three times. I did the Monk Scroll quest and then left, assuming nothing more.

 

You actually can skip lots of places and interactions, and that's perfectly fine IMO, game doesn't have trendy handheld walkthrough shoving stuff and event in your face want it or not. Pretty awkward complaint from an RPG player...

 

Whoopsy. The village I went on a long, epic quest to save, defeating an entire castle of badasses over is now dead. Oh well. Sometimes a random NPC just spontaneously returns to life and invalidates all your work. If they'd wanted to live they'd have given a messenger five gold to actually deliver the message instead of relying on gossip, right?

 

Mindblowing argument about an RPG again, whos to blame if you SKIP STUFF?...

 

Well, then there's the other problem of the people of the Dyrwood. They're all horribly monstrous, evil scumbags barring maybe ten individuals and the Glanfathans. Cultists of Skaen, Cultists of Woedica, the Volunteer Anti-Cypher Nazis, the Knights, one cruel, decadent, evil group after another. And then, then, after you bend over backwards and ensure that everything is perfect to make sure the Soul Arts get a fair trial?

 

Well, like people actually are, it's not fairy rale, you see... Feels like you've been playing too much jRPGs and not used to these kinds of fantasy like at all, which is somewhat surprising...

 

 

DIDN'T MATTER! An evil reincarnating wizard jumps into the body of the defendant lightnings to death the entire city aristocracy, causing a mass riot to break out and destroy everything, including murdering all the Soul Doctors.

 

Huge plot breaking point, can be seen in many cRPGs, nothing new. I don't think any other approach would make any sense for subsequent events.

 

If you switch off the evil machine in the Northwest of the city instead of blowing it up? OOPS! NO ONE STUDIED IT! SOMEONE SWITCHED IT ON AGAIN AND IT KILLED EVERYONE!

 

Seriously?...

 

So you understand why I think the "Choice" system is overhyped and doesn't really matter. It's either "Do what the lead writer wants or 100% of the population dies" or it doesn't matter at all because Woedica Ninjas jump out of a closet and murder 100% of the population.

 

Why would I want to play in this setting? Hell, why would I want to save the Dyrwood? Apparently EVERYONE is evil and stupid!

 

You really need to play Wasteland 2, I guess you'll be crying by the end of first half of the game =/

 
I have no idea how someone who is in cRPGs can have any problems with "population dies", that's just an outcome, yes, sometimes good actions can have bad outcomes, and that's something I value, not like go with programmed good choices = get happy ending, flowers and ponies. Nope.
 
OP, say honestly, you have been playing only jRPGs before Pillars, right? I'm not trying to discriminate genres, but overly positive characters and handheld progresson with inevitable happy endings are usually those kind of things...
 
As for motivation, dunno about you, but I didn't roleplay any "saviour of the galaxy", my PC went through this ****storm to avoid going nuts and plainly for self survival. You can surely have any motivation you want, but it's funny to assume that once you choose to be the saviour, all people around you gonna become so nice and cheerful... Judging from the ending, it gives impression that not even a single soul will know who actually ended Waidwen's Legacy, and that goes without saying that ending options are pretty broad, almost for any taste I presume...

Edited by Stoner, 25 March 2016 - 12:28 AM.

  • illathid and Messier-31 like this

#29
the_dog_days

the_dog_days

    (7) Enchanter

  • Members
  • 855 posts
  • Location:Over yonder.
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

Sorry you don't like the game and the writing. But plenty of people do. It all comes down to personal taste and opinion. There is just no getting around that.


Succinctly put and accurate.

#30
kvaak

kvaak

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 98 posts

- The machine in the city gives you the option to overload.  Why wouldn't the Leaden key use it again?

 

Because at the end of the game you kill the only member of Leaden Key who knows more about the organization than their own name.


Edited by kvaak, 26 March 2016 - 09:29 AM.

  • jsaving, Wynne, DreamWayfarer and 1 other like this

#31
JadedWolf

JadedWolf

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 95 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

For example, if I were say, a follower of Eothas, I could go to the temple or talk to Edir or do all sorts of things and get a little snippet in relation to the plot at large or just giving more insight into the characters and the world around them. Priests, Paladins, Cyphers, Wizards, all of them get little extra options and such they can choose.

 

Have you actually tried playing a priest of Eothas? Trust me, it's an incredibly underwhelming affair.



#32
DreamWayfarer

DreamWayfarer

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 655 posts


- The machine in the city gives you the option to overload. Why wouldn't the Leaden key use it again?


Because at the end of the game you kill the only member of Leaden Key who knows more about the organization than their own name.

Exactly. And because you should be able to warn the Crucible Knights, Dozens or Doemenels(sp?), all of which would have more than enough reason to secure the perimeter against the Leaden Key or just organize a raid to tear it down stone by stone abd wire by wire. Adra and copper are far from indestructible, and even if they have some sort of protective enchantment, it most likely isn't infallible.
  • Wynne and daveyeisley like this

#33
house2fly

house2fly

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 273 posts

Thaos leaves standing orders for the Leaden Key to do stuff in his absence.  Anyway, rather than tearing it down stone by stone and wire by wire why not just destroy it when you're given the option.



#34
Vaneglorious

Vaneglorious

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Some fair points raised. I guess they didn't have the budget, which is unfortunate. I know Obsidian can make a solid RPG experience.

 

My personal letdown with PoE is the attribute system. While it does have merits, it goes against logic and classic RPG mechanics. For example, in order to be a powerful Wizard or any spellcaster for that matter, you need Might (arguably the Strength equivalent) for the damage and healing power. Which is...weird, but I'll let it slide. But when my spellcaster needs Might to do certain actions in dialogue, for example, that's clearly based on physical prowess. It's weird to me that my Wizard needs to be physically buff, or that my Barbarian needs to be a genius (high INT) to be efficient.

 

The other beef I got with the game is that most reputations are meaningless. Yes, they do hold consequence every now and then, but nothing too heavy.

 

Then there's follower disposition. Only a very few specific actions force certain followers to leave your group, but only that can happen, nothing positive, afaik.

 

These are all valid criticisms imo, but I still like this game, and will continue playing it, and will buy PoE 2 on release day.


Edited by Vaneglorious, 28 January 2018 - 02:37 AM.


#35
Crucis

Crucis

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1349 posts

Some fair points raised. I guess they didn't have the budget, which is unfortunate. I know Obsidian can make a solid RPG experience.

 

My personal letdown with PoE is the attribute system. While it does have merits, it goes against logic and classic RPG mechanics. For example, in order to be a powerful Wizard or any spellcaster for that matter, you need Might (arguably the Strength equivalent) for the damage and healing power. Which is...weird, but I'll let it slide. But when my spellcaster needs Might to do certain actions in dialogue, for example, that's clearly based on physical prowess. It's weird to me that my Wizard needs to be physically buff, or that my Barbarian needs to be a genius (high INT) to be efficient.

 

The other beef I got with the game is that most reputations are meaningless. Yes, they do hold consequence every now and then, but nothing too heavy.

 

Then there's follower disposition. Only a very few specific actions force certain followers to leave your group, but only that can happen, nothing positive, afaik.

 

These are all valid criticisms imo, but I still like this game, and will continue playing it, and will buy PoE 2 on release day.

 

Vane, I agree with you on the attribute system.  I didn't like that Might combined both physical and arcane power.  I also didn't like that Barbarians essentially needed to have a high INT to be good.

 

For what it's worth, PoE2 is supposed to have some changes to the attribute system.  I don't know all the details because I'm not a backer, haven't played the backer beta, nor have I watched any of the videos covering this stuff.  I have heard that they're turning Might back into Strength.  And I think I might have heard that they're moving spellcasting related "power" off of Might/Strength and onto a different attribute (Resolve, I think).  This seems like a good thing.

 

It's always seemed to me that the different classes should have different attribute needs, much more so than was seen in PoE1.  It seems like certain classes should really require pretty good Resolve, while others might require a good Strength, and so on. 

 

I won't argue that all Barbarians should be dumb, but there's something wrong when the way the overall system is constructed that the best barbarians need to be geniuses.  It seems to me that barbarians as a class should care considerably more about Strength, Constitution, and perhaps Dexterity and Perception.  That is, the more physical attributes.

 

OTOH, it seems to me that classes like wizards and ciphers should probably care more about intelligence, perception, and resolve.

 

And perhaps paladins should care about the physical stats, but perhaps Resolve as well.  It just seems to me that Resolve would be a very important characteristic in a paladin's makeup.

 

Of course, some classes already value some attributes they probably should, like Rogues valuing Dex and Perception, though sometimes I think that it wouldn't hurt for there to be additional ways to enhance the value of these attributes to a class.   Like perhaps Dexterity could generate a modifier for disabling traps and opening locks.  Basically, perhaps different attributes acting as modifiers to certain (appropriate) skills.

 

Ah well, whatever.  Just some random thoughts...



#36
Boeroer

Boeroer

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 10282 posts
  • Location:Bucharest, Romania
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
Might got changed into Strength and is only good for weapon damage now. All other damage is influenced by Resolve now, as well as healing.

Intellect in its current state in the backer beta also lost a lot of impact on the size of AoE. While its effect on duration remains unchanged, it now only raises the actual area of AoE by 6% per point of INT, not the radius as it used to be in PoE. In other words: in the beta 1 point of INT raises the radius by only 1.6% compared to 6% in PoE.

Thus, a Barbarian with 3 INT has a Carnage radius that's only 11% smaller than a Barb with 10 INT. A Barbarian with 20 INT will only have an increase of 16% radius. Both is nearly invisible.

I don't know if the later is a bug/oversight or intended.

Edited by Boeroer, 28 January 2018 - 03:59 AM.


#37
daven

daven

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 395 posts
  • Location:Yorkshire

I do feel the first game is a disappointing chore. It has some good parts, mainly the expansions.

 

Here's hoping they've learned from this for the second game!



#38
Vaneglorious

Vaneglorious

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Might got changed into Strength and is only good for weapon damage now. All other damage is influenced by Resolve now, as well as healing.

Intellect in its current state in the backer beta also lost a lot of impact on the size of AoE. While its effect on duration remains unchanged, it now only raises the actual area of AoE by 6% per point of INT, not the radius as it used to be in PoE. In other words: in the beta 1 point of INT raises the radius by only 1.6% compared to 6% in PoE.

Thus, a Barbarian with 3 INT has a Carnage radius that's only 11% smaller than a Barb with 10 INT. A Barbarian with 20 INT will only have an increase of 16% radius. Both is nearly invisible.

I don't know if the later is a bug/oversight or intended.

Well, that's a relief. Most of the time I felt like RES is a dump stat, with its usefulness extending mostly to tanks and role playing. And the mixing of physical and magical attributes just made no sense to me, frankly. I'm really hopeful that PoE2 will be an improvement not only visually (which I already confirmed), but also in all the other aspects, as well.

 

I also just noticed that they had announced the release date. That day can't come fast enough.


Edited by Vaneglorious, 01 February 2018 - 10:45 AM.


#39
Valmy

Valmy

    (7) Enchanter

  • Members
  • 953 posts
  • Steam:valmy77
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

- Pillars did need more content.  Act II is by far the worst offender.  I see the expansions with hope to how a sequel could look.  However, it's far improved from its original state, and I easily think it would garner a few more metacritic points now.

 

Holy crap. This game took me FOREVER. And the White March I and II are incredibly long for in game expansions.

 

I mean geez people I have things to do.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Spoilers, Grumpy, Opinions, Noob, Balance, Plot, Writing

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users