Poll on preferred party size

[Katarack21]

You've never heard of a tank? Seriously?!

[molotov.]

Dude. Ydwin is the 8th companion. Shes in. 5 mill is easy. Stretchgoals keep going AFTER fig with the backerportal.

 

Already at 4 mill now. (400k investments being vetted)

 

4.25 minimum when fig stops.

 

So only 750k

 

Next week the paypall boost and then it will trickle in slowly to 5mill over tge next month

My question is: Why we have to reach 5 million? PoE 1 didn't had this crazy stretch goal for more companions. Why they are trying to hold companions so much?

Xoti was introduced in an early stretch goal and I suspect that she was introduced because there were no healers, If you watch some of the early gameplay the PC is always a priest... that is really strange...

[Fenixp]

My question is: Why we have to reach 5 million? PoE 1 didn't had this crazy stretch goal for more companions. Why they are trying to hold companions so much?

Because people kept complaining that companions in the original didn't have enough work put into them and you can't really have both a lot of companions and well fleshed out ones too.

[JerekKruger]

Because the game already was balanced towards 6?

 

And Deadfire is being balanced towards five, so presumably you're in favour of five for Deadfire.

 

So you are implying that a tank, healer and dps is not a universal role in the RPG genre? Ok.

 

 

That's a list of three. Your list was six long.

 

Also no, these archetypes are not universal. They came to prominence with the rise of MMOs.

 

If they are so bad why I'm almost finishing Hard mode without a single death? To be honest I don't use a mercenary party full of min-max, my only min-max character is the PC which is a fighter tank, he is almost invencible, the only abilitie that almost killed him was that laser from the big sentinels from WM II ( I can't remember their names), but the others in my party Edér, Aloth, Kana, Durance, all of them have builds created by him, of course with some tweaks.

 

 

Because hard more really isn't very hard. Once you understand all the mechanics of Pillars even PotD is pretty easy with a party.

 

Casual is the same thing to say simplified... it's just a term used in video games. Dark Souls II pve is more casual than Dark Souls I pve to attract more players, that is fine for the company that created the game but bad for their old fans. I guess Obsdian is trying to do the same thing... 

 

 

Casual is used to mean simplified, but it has negative undertones. When people say a game is casual they mean it's simplified in a bad way, and when they refer to other players as casuals it's obvious it's meant as a term of derision. That's why I don't like it.

 

... but I really don't care about party size that much, I only made a response because I like to train my english. 

 

 

 

Heh, okay well I hope I gave you a chance to do so.

 

My biggest disappointment so far is that Ydwin will not be a fully companion, instead of her we got some boring sidekicks... here is a question for you... why PoE 1 can have 8 companions in the vanilla, but PoE 2 can't? Why we had to endure that boring grieving mother but we can't have a interesting necromancer?

 

 

I think it's partly because a lot of the companions in PoE were rather bland that Obsidian have decided to reduce the number in Deadfire. They want to make sure the ones they do have are deep and well written. Whether they manage remains to be seen I guess.

[Katarack21]

 

Also no, these archetypes are not universal. They came to prominence with the rise of MMOs.

Um...try Second Edition AD&D being literally built around these archetypes.

[molotov.]

"And Deadfire is being balanced towards five, so presumably you're in favour of five for Deadfire." Why they had to change? The logic is that they are trying to make the combat simplier.

 

"That's a list of three. Your list was six long.

 

Also no, these archetypes are not universal. They came to prominence with the rise of MMOs." I don't need to make a response to that...


"Because hard more really isn't very hard. Once you understand all the mechanics of Pillars even PotD is pretty easy with a party." So that means that the builds I'm using count for nothing? You are saying that I'm almost finishing the game without deaths because Hard Mode isn't very hard? So, I can make a party of only dps, oh... I'm sorry... that role doesn't exist right? I can make a party of rogues and select the abilities with a random dice and I'll finish the game without any deaths because hard is easy?

"Casual is used to mean simplified, but it has negative undertones. When people say a game is casual they mean it's simplified in a bad way, and when they refer to other players as casuals it's obvious it's meant as a term of derision. That's why I don't like it." Because every single introduction of casual gameplay has led to a inferior quality of combat? Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Dark Souls II are some examples. I think that is why casual is a bad term... but hey... it's bad because of a reason...

"I think it's partly because a lot of the companions in PoE were rather bland that Obsidian have decided to reduce the number in Deadfire. They want to make sure the ones they do have are deep and well written. Whether they manage remains to be seen I guess." Fair enough, that is a good argument. But why Xorti only needs 1.8 million stretch goal and Ydwin needs 5 million? Like I said in another post, ships are cool, sidekicks are meh, but an animancer companion is the best way to adress the error towards animancy, the error being that every single animancer we saw in PoE1 had only 2 archetypes, a lunatic or a poorly prepared academic.

Edited February 23, 2017 by molotov.

[Leeuwenhart]

 

My question is: Why we have to reach 5 million? PoE 1 didn't had this crazy stretch goal for more companions. Why they are trying to hold companions so much?

Because people kept complaining that companions in the original didn't have enough work put into them and you can't really have both a lot of companions and well fleshed out ones too.

 

Because its a great appealer to backers. They want a profit you know.

Also this game is bigger and more beautiful. Upgrades cost cash. People want more. Pay more

[DigitalCrack]

 

@molotov for someone using "more options" as an argument for 6 vs 5 man party you came up with a very rigid set of roles and party makeup... the design philosphy of the game was built around people being able to go with whatever roles and party comps they wanted and still be viable. So it doesnt make sense to argue that YOUR pigeon holed view of roles and party comp is enough reason to justify 6 over 5. your arguement is totally premised on these "community defined must have roles" thats no different than saying "well some us really like playing this way and it works better with 6 than 5.."

You do realize that 1 class can fill almost all of the roles? For example, the fighter class can be a tank - and the best tank in the game in my opinion - a semi tank and a dps - even a ranged dps-, that is the beauty about this game. Yes, the roles are rigid but the classes aren't. It's something that the community realized pretty quickly, there are hundreds of builds, even I created one with the help of Nerd Commando. Josh talked a little about all of the builds we created and he told us that he used the builds to balance the game, I think that the Q&A he said that is on the youtube.

The only role that is static is the healer, there are only 2 classes that can heal well, priest and druid, but priests are much better in healling.

 

You played PoE1? You do realize that party centered RPG's tend to have rigid roles?

Played through PoE1 multiple times now. played all the infinity engine rpgs as well back in the day and their enhanced counter parts now and have done so sucessfully without following such a rigid role structure. So not sure what your point is?

[Jozape]

I would prefer no party limit, but of the limited options in the poll I would definitely prefer 6. I think we should try to abandon these party limits in role-playing games though, except perhaps the player shouldn't be able to create more than some arbitrary number of characters in the interest of not crashing the game.

[JerekKruger]

Um...try Second Edition AD&D being literally built around these archetypes.

 

It really didn't though. Fighters might have been intended to be able to soak more damage than other classes, but they were also designed to be capable of putting out damage. Tanks are, by very design, meant to sacrifice offensive capabilities in exchange for extremely good survivability and, more crucially, tools that allow them to protect their party.

 

In fact, if you actually look into the origins of the term tank it does precede MMOs, appearing first in MUDs*. I'd argue that it's a fundamentally CRPG term since it relies heavily on manipulating AI targeting rules to ensure that most enemies attack the tank whilst the rest of the party focuses on killing the enemies. This simply doesn't work in tabletop games where the GM can decide on behalf of the enemies who they will attack, and isn't bound by some artifical targeting rules.

 

*Unless you can provide me with a quote that refers to AD&D Fighters as "acting in the role of tank" of course.

[JerekKruger]

So that means that the builds I'm using count for nothing? You are saying that I'm almost finishing the game without deaths because Hard Mode isn't very hard? So, I can make a party of only dps, oh... I'm sorry... that role doesn't exist right? I can make a party of rogues and select the abilities with a random dice and I'll finish the game without any deaths because hard is easy?

 

For gods sake! I've never said that tank, healer dps etc. don't exist: I said the idea that your list of six archetypes are some sort of universal standard that everyone follows is rubbish. It would be stupid to claim that "dps" doesn't exist since it's simply a descriptive term. It's that you try to argue that you have to have a tank, a semi-tank, a melee dps, a healer, a ranged dps and a ranged cc that I have a problem with.

 

And no, obviously not. Builds aren't divided into amazing and rubbish, there's a whole spectrum in between. A randomly selected Rogue build will (probably) fall in the rubbish end of the spectrum and, since Rogues are easily the weakest class in the game right now your party will have a hard time finishing hard mode without any deaths. It won't have a hard time beating hard mode at all though, unless you insist on killing all dragons etc.

 

Because every single introduction of casual gameplay has led to a inferior quality of combat

 

 

 

Rubbish.

 

Fair enough, that is a good argument. But why Xorti only needs 1.8 million stretch goal and Ydwin needs 5 million? Like I said in another post, ships are cool, sidekicks are meh, but an animancer companion is the best way to adress the error towards animancy, the error being that every single animancer we saw in PoE1 had only 2 archetypes, a lunatic or a poorly prepared academic.

 

 

Well I imagine writing a fully fleshed out companion is much more time consuming that adding in some of this other content, but honestly I suspect they've placed her at 5 million as a tool to encourage backing. Remember that they've said that they'll allow funds raised after the campaign ends to count towards her stretch goal so I'm guessing they're hoping they'll reach that over the next few months.

[Blarghagh]

If you need a different character for all those roles it's only a sign of rigid character customization options. Thank god you have to actually get tactically creative with your characters now instead of having to get one dude per role every time. It made it incredibly dull.

 

:D

[molotov.]

"For gods sake! I've never said that tank, healer dps etc. don't exist: I said the idea that your list of six archetypes are some sort of universal standard that everyone follows is rubbish. It would be stupid to claim that "dps" doesn't exist since it's simply a descriptive term. It's that you try to argue that you have to have a tank, a semi-tank, a melee dps, a healer, a ranged dps and a ranged cc that I have a problem with." Please, describe the party you used to beat PotD.

"Rubbish." Now, that is some good argument! Just quote half of what I said and say it's rubbish. Incrível.

"Well I imagine writing a fully fleshed out companion is much more time consuming that adding in some of this other content, but honestly I suspect they've placed her at 5 million as a tool to encourage backing. Remember that they've said that they'll allow funds raised after the campaign ends to count towards her stretch goal so I'm guessing they're hoping they'll reach that over the next few months." You know why they add Xoti in a small stretch goal? Because they had no healers and a lot of players don't like to play with a healer as the main character, but hey... as you said, healers don't exist.


"If you need a different character for all those roles it's only a sign of rigid character customization options. Thank god you have to actually get tactically creative with your characters now instead of having to get one dude per role every time. It made it incredibly dull." That is why PoE is so good for me, any character can fill all of those roles. Expect for the healer role.

[JerekKruger]

... as you said, healers don't exist.

 

Yeah, this is the end of this conversation. 

[molotov.]

 

... as you said, healers don't exist.

 

Yeah, this is the end of this conversation. 

 

"Also no, these archetypes are not universal. They came to prominence with the rise of MMOs." Rubbish.

"Played through PoE1 multiple times now. played all the infinity engine rpgs as well back in the day and their enhanced counter parts now and have done so sucessfully without following such a rigid role structure. So not sure what your point is?"Just amazing, you and JerekKruger must be the only two players that can play a RPG without any roles. I just want that both of you explain to me the party that each one of you used to beat the game. Let's see if they don't have any roles.

 

"As for your perfect party: that's an awfully specific set of roles that you must have." Please copy and paste where I said that you MUST have those 6 roles.

Edited February 24, 2017 by molotov.

[JerekKruger]

I just want that both of you explain to me the party that each one of you used to beat the game.

 

If you wanted a response from me you might have tried not misrepresenting what I said. Unfortunately that ship has sailed so, like I said, this conversation is over.

[molotov.]

 

I just want that both of you explain to me the party that each one of you used to beat the game.

 

If you wanted a response from me you might have tried not misrepresenting what I said. Unfortunately that ship has sailed so, like I said, this conversation is over.

 

"Also no, these archetypes are not universal. They came to prominence with the rise of MMOs."

""As for your perfect party: that's an awfully specific set of roles that you must have."

 

Those are quotes of what YOU said, I didn't add anything. In the first you said that archetypes are not universal, tank, healer, dps, they are not universal, I think that is quite hard to believe, that is why I wanted to know your amazing party without a tank, healer or dps. The second one you said: "that's an awfully specific set of roles that you MUST have", I've never said that you MUST have those specific role, please, quote me where I said that you MUST have. Better than that, let me help you!

"Combat wise, 6 is by far the best number, 4 is really simplistic, generic and full casul, 5 is just weird and casul, PoE1 had the perfect party, 3 melees: 1 tank, 1 semi tank, 1 melee dps; 3 ranged characters: 1 healer, 1 dps, 1 dps/support. You could make a party with any of the classes without limitation, with 5 you will have a huge limitation, you will have to choose between 1 semi tank and 1 support/dps, both of them are great for CC  and battlefield control, without them the battlefield will turn into a mess - just like Dragon Age."

Where is the "you must have"? I can't find it! I basically said it was a perfect party, with balancing, of course you can beat the game whatever you want, but you are arguing with me that those roles don't exist, so, please, tell me what was your party?

 

And I'm the one misrepresenting...

 

[PugPug]

Many times I have found myself wishing for 7 spots in POE1, but I think multiclassing is going to help. I'm cautiously open-minded.

[Katarack21]

 

Um...try Second Edition AD&D being literally built around these archetypes.

 

It really didn't though. Fighters might have been intended to be able to soak more damage than other classes, but they were also designed to be capable of putting out damage.

Ha! No. No, you clearly didn't play 2nd Edition D&D--or at least you don't remember it. Highest DPS in 2nd Edition was mages and/or thieves. Or thief/mages if you're a powergamer.

 

Or a psionicist if you're a munchikin.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Katarack21

[JerekKruger]

Ha! No. No, you clearly didn't play 2nd Edition D&D--or at least you don't remember it. Highest DPS in 2nd Edition was mages and/or thieves. Or thief/mages if you're a powergamer.

 

I realise Fighters weren't the highest DPS, nor did I say they were. What I said was that, unlike tanks in MMOs they weren't designed to be passive roadblocks, but were also capable of doing some damage.

[Katarack21]

 

Ha! No. No, you clearly didn't play 2nd Edition D&D--or at least you don't remember it. Highest DPS in 2nd Edition was mages and/or thieves. Or thief/mages if you're a powergamer.

 

I realise Fighters weren't the highest DPS, nor did I say they were. What I said was that, unlike tanks in MMOs they weren't designed to be passive roadblocks, but were also capable of doing some damage.

 

You mean like tanks in 3rd Edition? Or a big burly troll with high body in Shadowrun? Or basically every tank ever?

 

You're confusing the aggro mechanic popular with MMO's with the tank archetype. At low levels, fighters--that is, tanks--have pretty much *always* outpaced other classes on damage. It's not until mid-levels that fighters start to lose capability; that switch is what PoE was avoiding, and that quadratic-wizards-linear-fighters problem was very definitely present in D&D 2nd Edition.

[Leeuwenhart]

Why hasnt this thread died a silent death yet...

 

"Our quest is vaaaaaiinnn..."

[JerekKruger]

You're confusing the aggro mechanic popular with MMO's with the tank archetype.

 

No I'm saying that aggro mechanics, or other game mechanics that allow a character to force an enemy to attack them or in some other way redirect damage from a friend to themselves are what makes tanks tanks. These aren't present in AD&D*. You can argue that that's not the definition of "tank", but the term first appears in MUDs, not in AD&D.

 

*Or at least weren't in the implementation for AD&D in BG2, which was my only experience of it.

[JerekKruger]

Why hasnt this thread died a silent death yet...

 

You're right. Given that Josh has made it pretty clear that five is remaining five, I really ought to stop bothering with this thread.

[hilfazer]

 

Why hasnt this thread died a silent death yet...

 

You're right. Given that Josh has made it pretty clear that five is remaining five, I really ought to stop bothering with this thread.

 

Where/when did he made it clear?

In one of Q&A streams he said "probably", it looks like he made up his mind.