The annoying noob strikes back!

[Slack83er]

I will..

[Abel]

Guys, I'm not arguing about party members, I'm just complaining (in a somewhat silly way, admittedly) about the fact that this game requires me to manoeuver six different characters, while I like to only handle mine, and let the others act as they were "instructed" by the devs..

 

The fact that you need to control the six party members is, imho, the core of the combat in Pillars. It allows rewarding strategies, once the combined actions of all six members lead to a result you planned ahead yourself (be it with microing of finely tuned AI settings you set beforehand). This kind of microing make for a really deep, and fun game experience, and that is exactly what the backers of the game wanted and could not find anymore in the game industry. Personaly, i would never invest even one hour in things like the late DA, because it's utterly dull (for me at least). Plus, microing in combat your party members has nothing to do with roleplay. It's all about strategy. It may need some time to get used to this system and understand why there are players who longed for such a game, but after having extensively tried it, if you still feel that it's still not your thing (even with the help of the AI Ben told you about), i'm afraid you'll miss the whole point of the strategic aspect of the game. Pillars, in this regard, is really like Baldur's Gate. If combats in Pillars or Baldur's gate are rewarding once you get used to it, it is definitely not a "click to win game".

 

In conclusion, if you are not into that combat aspect of things, and you can't find a way to overcome this with the limited AI settings, then, i guess the best choice may be to use the story time mode.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Abel

[Slack83er]

While recognizing that what you say might be true, I can't find any possible connection between role AND strategy. If you want strategy, play Total War. I want to roleplay. But I can't really jump from a mage to a cleric to a rogue. I make my own Toon, and that's the only one I want to manage. The one whose story and evolution I want to live. All the other are simple add-ons, and should act on their own. Interaction with them should be limited to what they want to share with you, everyone of them should have a personality, and I don't want to be entitled to decide what they can or cannot do. For example... if I find Durance, and he has a staff, it's because I imagine him to be proficient with that weapon. I don't want to give him a crossbow only because in my strategy I require a crossbow.. True, you can manage every aspect of the battle, but the game becomes very "mechanic". A sum of numbers and stats but no feelings. My humble opinion obviously.

[Boeroer]

Man, you must have hated Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age Origins, Wasteland and nearly any other party based rpg so far... 

[Climhazzard]

All interactions outside of combat that aren't between your MC and your companions are between your MC and NPCs only, there is plenty of RP there that deals with only your MC.  Combat in this game is a complex tactical affair that rewards you for thinking about and understanding it's interactions, as others have said, in the vein of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.  It's not about roleplaying one guy, it's about deep tactics involving your party, you can roleplay outside of combat.  If that's not your thing maybe just try storytime mode?  It should be noted that certain classes require a lot less micro to be effective...  such as...

 

Ranger:  Set his AI to:  Cautious - aggressive - aggressive, you can now literally ignore him forever while he shoots stuff for you.

Monk:  Take torment's reach and set him to aggressive - aggressive, he can be ignored most of the time.

Fighter:  Set fighter to aggressive - aggressive, ignore him forever

Barbarian:  Set barb to aggressive - aggressive, ignore him forever

Chanter: Set chanter to summon -aggressive, ignore him forever

 

You can build any class to require less micro, wizards are really powerful when you micro them but you can build them to do decent damage with a wand when you don't want to.  Obviously even simple classes like fighter will be a bit more effective if you tell them what to hit occasionally, and though monk will do very well if built right and ignored, he'll do amazing if you micro him.  

 

What I would do if I wanted to focus on my MC during combat is play either a priest, wizard,  druid, or cipher.  These 4 require the most work, then I would conform the rest of my team to not require much micro.  Wizard or Druid are especially fun classes, but Wizard requires a deeper understanding of his spells to play than Druid.  Most melee classes don't require much work, though lining up a good torment's reach or force of anguish can be quite rewarding as a monk, or using a timely lay on hands or liberating exhortation as a Paladin.  For the most part though all you have to do is stick them between the enemies and your casters.

 

Anyhow, not really sure where I was going with this...  if you really don't like it perhaps you could try storytime mode?  It's an easier difficulty designed for players that don't want to worry about the combat to much.

 

Also every companion has their own questline and storyline, don't write them off so easily.  How you interact with them during their questline is reactive and will determine their part in the ending sequence of the game.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Climhazzard

[Slack83er]

Man, you must have hated Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age Origins, Wasteland and nearly any other party based rpg so far... 

 

I finished Baldur's, Icewind, Neverwinter... but that's all. Then I grew tired of that kind of games. Now I look for awesome stories, great interactions, role in its purest form. Tactical combat is of no importance to me. As I said, I want to care about me. In real life would you hold your comrade's arm to help him swing his sword? I don't want to be a tactician, I want ONLY to roleplay and grow my MC. Open to suggestions

[Boeroer]

Play another game I'd say...?

[Loren Tyr]

To be honest, in that case my suggestion would be: play a different game. You can play around with the AI and such, but at the end of the day tactical party-based combat is an integral part of this (type of) game. There's really no getting around that (the possibility of soloing notwithstanding). You're not playing just your self-created protagonist, you're playing the rest of the party as well; that has nothing to do with holding your comrade's arms to swing his sword. Hence also the top down, isometric perspective; you're not looking at the world from the (1st or 3rd person) perspective of the character you created, because in a relevant sense you're more than just that character.

[Slack83er]

Perhaps you're right....

[Abel]

While recognizing that what you say might be true, I can't find any possible connection between role AND strategy. If you want strategy, play Total War. I want to roleplay. But I can't really jump from a mage to a cleric to a rogue. I make my own Toon, and that's the only one I want to manage. The one whose story and evolution I want to live. All the other are simple add-ons, and should act on their own. Interaction with them should be limited to what they want to share with you, everyone of them should have a personality, and I don't want to be entitled to decide what they can or cannot do. For example... if I find Durance, and he has a staff, it's because I imagine him to be proficient with that weapon. I don't want to give him a crossbow only because in my strategy I require a crossbow.. True, you can manage every aspect of the battle, but the game becomes very "mechanic". A sum of numbers and stats but no feelings. My humble opinion obviously.

 

Don't worry, i understood your whole point the first time . And i'm not trying to say your way to play is bad. I'm just saying that Pillars is much like Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment and the other games Boeroer lists, and that their design goals regarding combat are mostly the same. Furthermore, you can definitely build Durance to be proficient in battle with his staff. Though, story-wise, i'm not sure it will necessarily be the most relevant for him. This staff has a special story and Magran has her own prefered weapons.

 

I'm roleplaying in Pillars like i almost never did in a solo RPG. There are many things in the story, side quests, or universe that echo deeply within my character. And actually, the combats are one of these many things. Because they are sometimes hard and she feels her life only hangs to one thin thread (fear), because she has to deal with undeads (walking corpses!) (fear), because she gets sick when looking at the light disappearing in the eyes of people she had no other choices but to kill (fear, disgust, feeling guilty for taking the life of another kith), and because she is fighting alongside her companions (the ropes that prevent her from turning crazy), with whom she has weaved bounds. While i see your point regarding the need to look your companions be independent all the time, as if they had their very own life, i much rather microing them to perform various actions in combat that make sense, rather than just looking at them spaming the same suboptimal patterns all the time. Because they are not bots, and because doing so make them look like an actual party of people rather than an addition of stereotyped scripts. I did not try the AI in recent RPGs, but i quite disliked them back in DAO days.

 

My point is that in a RPG, strategy and roleplay are not mutually exclusive. So, if there is one thing i don't understand about your post, it is the Total War reference. And the reason why i bring this point is that i feel like, for some reason, you began to feel that combat is frustrating in some way, and want to seperate the 2 aspects of the game (i feel there is no way you did not know that Pillars was somewhat like BG, since the game was always advertised like a spiritual successor). You can't really take one aspect and not the other in Pillars. That's why i suggested you to try story mode while using the scripted AI. Pillars has not the greatest story in history (though i feel like it's still really good), but the ambiance, the universe, the feel you get from the aesthetics, everything is great. If you like roleplaying, it would be a shame to miss this game.

 

You should try Story mode + AI. But, if Story mode + AI can't bring you to bear the party based combat system, and you rather not play solo, then, sadly,  i would probably conclude the same thing as Boeroer and Loren... Play another game. Don't play Torment Numenara, Wasteland 2, Divinity OS, Tyrany or Pillars 2.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Abel

[Arddv]

Another option is to roleplay the whole party. Ie you create 3-4 party members and roleplay each of them as "your own"(they can be members of a family, or pirates on the same ship and a love triangle - possibilities are limitless), but one of them turns out to be the Watcher.

[Slack83er]

Hail, I've been away for a while.

 

I also own Divinity OS... never went past the first hour of play. The reaction of the character are pre-generated, so you already know what's going to happen. Different thing is playing co-op, never done it, so can't judge. Nothing to do, I just can't stand handling many characters. I don't want to "imagine" a particular reason why they're fighting together, I want to interact with people with a solid written story and behavior. DAI remains my model. Forgive my OT but... I'm the inquisitor, everyone else plays around me, they got opinions, they can be romanced, they have quests... main game plus the expansions went to 153hrs of solid rpg play. Story counts far more than positioning your toons before battle.. I want to live a story, not play chess and move my pawns. As to the fact that Pillars should be BG's heir.... yes, of course I figured that out. But also thought that in 2016 and 16gb of hd space, one could fit some more quality. 

Edited August 20, 2016 by Slack83er

[Loren Tyr]

 

Hail, I've been away for a while.

 

I also own Divinity OS... never went past the first hour of play. The reaction of the character are pre-generated, so you already know what's going to happen. Different thing is playing co-op, never done it, so can't judge. Nothing to do, I just can't stand handling many characters. I don't want to "imagine" a particular reason why they're fighting together, I want to interact with people with a solid written story and behavior. DAI remains my model. Forgive my OT but... I'm the inquisitor, everyone else plays around me, they got opinions, they can be romanced, they have quests... main game plus the expansions went to 153hrs of solid rpg play. Story counts far more than positioning your toons before battle.. I want to live a story, not play chess and move my pawns. As to the fact that Pillars should be BG's heir.... yes, of course I figured that out. But also thought that in 2016 and 16gb of hd space, one could fit some more quality. 

 

 

Right... because if it doesn't meet what you look for in a game, it must be lacking in quality. This isn't Dragon Age (thankfully; that series was a solid 'meh' all the way through), if that's the kind of game you're looking for I'd suggest you keep on looking. To be honest, I have no idea why you tried PoE in the first place if you knew it was a game in the style of BG. 

[Slack83er]

Hey, everyone has got his own opinion.. no need to be sarcastic... I expected more work done on the Npcs, what's so bad in it? I may call your opinion of DA strictly unjustified, and the number of copies sold are there to testify it. But even without this, the only thing I see is you mocking me because I don't like a game...  

[Loren Tyr]

Hmm, yes... commercial success being a solid indicator of quality and all that. Not sure how you can reasonably call my view of DA unjustified (or otherwise), given that I have not shared my reasons for it. So how can you judge whether those reasons adequately support my conclusions, I wonder?

 

Anyway, sarcasm isn't about need; at best, there is an occasional need to refrain from sarcasm. This is not such an occasion. Like the game or not, that's up to you; I don't care. But from your posts it is clear that what you are looking for in a game just doesn't match the type of game PoE was designed to be, the kind of focus it has. It seems strange to then suggest that this is somehow a lack of quality in the game, or even the genre as a whole; a flaw that apparently may have been somewhat excusable in the BG era but really should have been ironed out by now. Just because you strongly favour story and dialogue over tactical combat and complex gameplay, doesn't mean everyone else does, or that a game is flawed for catering to preferences other than your own. 

 

So yes, I am quite puzzled as to what you are doing here; especially since you apparently knew in advance that it was a game in the style of BG2, and should thus have known what to expect. I see no problem with expressing this puzzlement. 

Edited August 21, 2016 by Loren Tyr

[Climhazzard]

Hey, everyone has got his own opinion.. no need to be sarcastic... I expected more work done on the Npcs, what's so bad in it? I may call your opinion of DA strictly unjustified, and the number of copies sold are there to testify it. But even without this, the only thing I see is you mocking me because I don't like a game...  

 

How can you even judge the NPCs without actually playing the game?  Based on your interaction with them at level 3?  You're judging a game without hardly having even played it.  People who've played the game through to the end then read your post are obviously going to respond with a negative opinion to you.

 

I've played and enjoyed DA, and all the older games that this one is modeled after.  DA has no advantage over PoE in the depth of it's story nor the depth of it's characters.  The biggest difference is the depth of it's combat, which is shallow, that may be your thing, for those who enjoy PoE it's not (or perhaps they enjoy both games for what they are).  If you want shallow combat you can try story mode which was designed just for that, then experience the actual full story of the game, then come back here and pass judgement, until then you don't have the right.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Climhazzard

[QuiteGoneJin]

 

Man, you must have hated Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age Origins, Wasteland and nearly any other party based rpg so far... 

 

I finished Baldur's, Icewind, Neverwinter... but that's all. Then I grew tired of that kind of games. Now I look for awesome stories, great interactions, role in its purest form. Tactical combat is of no importance to me. As I said, I want to care about me. In real life would you hold your comrade's arm to help him swing his sword? I don't want to be a tactician, I want ONLY to roleplay and grow my MC. Open to suggestions

 

I sometimes feel like this, what games did you thoroughly enjoy? I'm guessing Witcher, Skyrim, fallout are your cup of tea. 

[Abel]

Hey, everyone has got his own opinion.. no need to be sarcastic... I expected more work done on the Npcs, what's so bad in it? I may call your opinion of DA strictly unjustified, and the number of copies sold are there to testify it. But even without this, the only thing I see is you mocking me because I don't like a game...  

 

I only played DA:O, and not the 2 sequels. I read a lot (for hours and hours) about these sequels, looked at videos, read countless players opinions on metacritic, and i guess it was enough to grasp roughly what these games were like. Let's bring a point though: DAI sold many copies, but have you taken a look at the metactric players score for DA 2 and DAI? I did. And when Loren suggests that commercial success is not a solid indicator of quality, i feel he's right, because these low scores tend to prove his assumption. I've seen much about the DAI story and sidequests (through dozens of long players critics, and some videos). While some would argue that the (short) main plot is ok, the game seems to be filled with nonsensical grinding. Many feel it disrupts the story and it's just fillers to artificially increase the game lenght. So, it's no surprise that you played 153h to finish the game. If for you, it was solid RPG, then, there are things i don't understand. How can someone who played RPGs with so many written quests as BG can feel MMO quests fully statisfying? I don't pass judement, i'm wondering in earnest.

 

Maybe you are a player that considers RPGs as a way to relax yourself at times, something like sitting before the TV. And thus, you need a no brainer, easy game, that barely need you to "click to win". It's probably not a bad way to consider games. But if it's the case, PoE is definitely not for you. Because even the side stories, the main plot will need you to be invested, to think things thoroughly, and to ponder many details. PoE is definitely not a no brainer game (though not to the extent of Planescape). And that is precisely what the guys who backed it liked. Pillars does not just tell you a story through dialogues. It tries to make you concerned about plot and side quests. And thus, it needs efforts to play through them.

 

When you say that you expected more work on the NPCs, i guess you mean "i expected them to be fully automatized through AI and to follow my character mindlessly even in the bathrooms". Well, PoE is not this kind of game. The fact that you need to handle more than one character in combat is not because of a lack of work. It's a design choice, since the very start. I still don't understand how you did not expect that. PoE exists because there are people who are fed up with mindless RPG like Skyrim or DA. It's obvious you would not find in PoE the same things than in DAI.

 

We are not mocking you. We are not saying that your tastes are wrong (even though i despise games like DAI or Fallout 4 more than i could ever say). Because tastes are personal matters, and they don't result of some boring, well grounded mathematical formulae. We are merely pointing out that the things you said in your last posts are irrelevant. And even i, will agree with some things Loren said. It's worth pointing this out, because it's really a rare occasion lol.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Abel

[Arddv]

 

Well said.

 

I own DA:I but I played the game for 2-3 hours and then found out that I can't refund it (don't remember why, something with preorder). So I contributed to it's commercial success, but just can't force myself to play it. It tastes like wet paper. But it was a lesson for me so I didn't preorder F4. Shadowrun series were much more satisfying despite its simplicity.

[Climhazzard]

I liked Fallout 4, built a castle on the biggest base site I could find, it was epic.  http://imgur.com/a/MQ9zG

 

DA:O was a good game too, simpler combat than PoE but I still enjoyed it quite a lot.  DA:2 could only be described as a godawful cash grab trying to capitalize on the success of DA:O... imo.  DA:I was probably good but I only rented it and I got really annoyed with the limited inventory before I actually accomplished anything...

Edited August 26, 2016 by Climhazzard

[Raven Darkholme]

I love Fallout 4.

Whover isn't challenged enough by it needs to try out new survival mode. :D

[Sfzrx]

I love Fallout 4.

Whover isn't challenged enough by it needs to try out new survival mode. :D

The new survival mode looks more like a chore than a challenge to me, having to eat/drink like every 14 real life mins to stay healthy or some crap, and no fast travel in a game with such a huge map, sure there are vertibirds later but that's way later, but it's really just a waste of time, the designers expected people to have insane amount of free time and patience to pour into this mode or some ****. I don't really see challenge in this, which requires people to think about how to overcome, but more like a pain in the ass.

 

Skill design is really lame in fallout 4 also, the no level cap design, again encouraging people to pour time into the game, gauss rifles won't even appear in the game unless the player spend like 50 hours leveling up, and makes it annoying for people like me to theorycraft builds because there isn't a level restriction, and weapon mods, one can spend many skill points and many int sacrificing build paths to unlock certain weapon mods only to find that a lot of them can be dropped and bought, and it's pure rng, idk what to even say about this system.

 

DA:I looks more like a dating sim to me, the first map is huge, then the rest of the maps were just dullaf, a lot of useless features like those points you get with nowhere to spend on, and again, no level cap, idk why people even like this feature.

 

I'm more looking forward to elder scrolls 6, although skyrim's combat wasn't exactly great either, my favourite game in this genre, or around this genre is probably kingdom of amalur: reckoning, the combat in that game is pretty amazing, and it has a pretty good skill tree system, open for theorycraft, too bad the art and story fall short.

[rheingold]

Origins was great, one of my favourites, dark, gritty.... Never quite forgiven Bioware for ruining the franchise ( for me).

For me Pillars is up there with some great company. Origins, Witcher2&2, BG2, IWD 1&2, Torment and Mask.... Which one is best? Depends on which one I am playing

[Boeroer]

I also loved Legends of Grimrock. Sure, it's a bit of a different genre, dungeon crawling and all like Eye of the Beholder was. But I put so many hours into it, trying so many builds despite the relatively simple skill system.

DA:O was really nice. I especially liked the feature that you could combine spells to a powerful effect (Storm of the Century wtf?).

I didn't even finish DA2. Had a bit of Fable feeling - which I don't like.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Boeroer

[Raven Darkholme]

 

I love Fallout 4.

Whover isn't challenged enough by it needs to try out new survival mode. :D

The new survival mode looks more like a chore than a challenge to me, having to eat/drink like every 14 real life mins to stay healthy or some crap, and no fast travel in a game with such a huge map, sure there are vertibirds later but that's way later, but it's really just a waste of time, the designers expected people to have insane amount of free time and patience to pour into this mode or some ****. I don't really see challenge in this, which requires people to think about how to overcome, but more like a pain in the ass.

 

Skill design is really lame in fallout 4 also, the no level cap design, again encouraging people to pour time into the game, gauss rifles won't even appear in the game unless the player spend like 50 hours leveling up, and makes it annoying for people like me to theorycraft builds because there isn't a level restriction, and weapon mods, one can spend many skill points and many int sacrificing build paths to unlock certain weapon mods only to find that a lot of them can be dropped and bought, and it's pure rng, idk what to even say about this system.

 

DA:I looks more like a dating sim to me, the first map is huge, then the rest of the maps were just dullaf, a lot of useless features like those points you get with nowhere to spend on, and again, no level cap, idk why people even like this feature.

 

I'm more looking forward to elder scrolls 6, although skyrim's combat wasn't exactly great either, my favourite game in this genre, or around this genre is probably kingdom of amalur: reckoning, the combat in that game is pretty amazing, and it has a pretty good skill tree system, open for theorycraft, too bad the art and story fall short.

 

Well the challenge comes from you not being able to manually save.

If you really play that game mode the other additions like no fast travel will make sense all of a sudden, goes very well with having to sleep to save.

 

I never got around playing more than the tutorial in DA2 but I probably should have tried DA:O before which I never even touched, sadly.