The annoying noob strikes back!

[Ben No.3]

Which would be sad on a first game

[Ben No.3]

You can set their (the companions) AI behaviour (the head in the action bar) and tell them how to behave and they will automatically in every fight... Manual is always a notch better but it works decent you can tell them how to handle spells, to focus on offends defense or support and so on

Edited August 15, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Boeroer]

Then play the game solo. It works perfectly well. It's more difficult of course, but not too difficult. You just need to acknowledge that you can't win every fight on every map you're on - and focus more on the quests.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Boeroer

[Ben No.3]

Just wondering, how am I the only one recommending party AI? Yes, it's worse than manual but honestly it's better than solo and it might just be what he is looking for, no?

 

But hey, if you wanna go solo I won't be the one to stop you. Perhaps use a Druid... As I said, they have a bit of everything and in the beginning the spiritshift forgives a lot of mistakes, especially on the lower difficulties

Edited August 15, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Slack83er]

So I tell you what happened... I was doing Magran's crossroad (or something like that, can't remember the name) with my party, composed by me, Eder, Aloth, and finally durance, found along the way. We find some foes, and I order to attack.. I handle my own toon, with his attacks. Eder does nothing except attacking. I figured he'd use some prones, but nothing. Durance just waves his staff, not a single spell cast. Same for the Mage. Just scepter but not a single spell cast... I want them to run on their own, without my orders...

[Ben No.3]

Then use that party AI button. It opens a menu where you can tell them when and how often to use spells and how to behave in general (of/def/sup)

Edited August 15, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

Every character has his button in the action bar all the way on the left... Blue head

[Slack83er]

But will they use spells or anything else?

Edited August 15, 2016 by Slack83er

[Ben No.3]

They will use spells if you tell them to... Even more so you can tell them what kind of spells to focus on (DD, AoE, sup, heal, CC,....)

Simply look for yourself

[Slack83er]

I will..

[Ben No.3]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I0GvsA6exuY

[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