Obsidian! I looked through 19 pages of suggestions so you don't have to.

[anameforobsidian]

I looked through all 19 pages of the suggestion thread in the other forum.  I recorded each time a post supported a suggestion, and there are over 150 of them.  These were the most common:

 

Top requests:

1. Deeper Companions - Basically more dialogue, more reactivity, etc.  15 mentions.
2. Legible Game Mechanics - This is actually a couple put together.  People had a hard time reading different parts of combat including too much visuals, item-stacking, attack speed mechanics, and the combat log.  10 mentions.
3. Six Party Members - At least 9 in favor of.  Oops.
4. Companions Attack - Companions get pissed off and attack you / other party members 8.
5. Better AI - Better for enemies, the party, and customizable.
6. Mod Support - Indeed.  8.
7. More Scripted Encounters - As it says.  8.
8. Improved Stronghold - Generally more content.  7.
9. Loading Times - Faster loading.  7. 
10. Bigger Big City - More content, increased focus, one not two.  7.
11. More Unique Weapons - I saw the damn talking sword from BG2 mentions so many times.  7.
12. Promancers - A horrible class of enemies that must be attacked with fire and sword.  Or you know, want slightly different gameplay that I don't value.  7.
13. More Class / Background Specific Content.  7.

 

Requests that I found interesting:

1. Necklace slot different from cloak.  4.
2. Findable Crafting recipes 4.
3. Sell trash button. 3. 
4. Get XP for using Keys. 2. 
5. More monster factions.  Wolves eating xaurips, etc.
6. Vithrack or other monstrous companion. 2. 
7. Whips & Brass knuckles!
8. Different color selection circles for neutrals.
9. Font change for Crit.
10. If you kill someone with no one watching, don't take a reputation hit. 2.

[kirottu]

Nice work! I didn't read through 19 pages of suggestions so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but here's my suggestion.

 

I have been playing as a cipher and a mage, and one of my problems with these classes is how AOE works, more accurately when the spell is foe AOE and when it is just plain old AOE. There doesn't seem to be any kind of logical or coherent rule what makes a spell foe AOE. Examples: Fan of Flames, and Ghost Blades.

 

What I would like see is spells that are bursty, fast, explosive, physical effects are AOE. Spells that are slow(caster has time to control it), hopping(why make it hopping if it doesn't hop to enemies), or mental(caster has a connection to the souls of his/her companions) are foe AOE. Only really high level spells would break these "rules".

 

Also, currently the aiming circle for AOE is made of two circles. Inner one where everybody get hurt and outer one where only enemies get hurt. I think aiming circle should be one circle only and let the spell specify if everyone or only foes get hurt in it.

 

Edit: TIGGER WARNING: S-Word! I think my example is just one of many where the game mechanics seem needlessly complex. Someone should streamline them a bit.

Edited January 30, 2017 by kirottu

[Lamppost in Winter]

Nice work! I didn't read through 19 pages of suggestions so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but here's my suggestion.

 

I have been playing as a cipher and a mage, and one of my problems with these classes is how AOE works, more accurately when the spell is foe AOE and when it is just plain old AOE. There doesn't seem to be any kind of logical or coherent rule what makes a spell foe AOE. Examples: Fan of Flames, and Ghost Blades.

 

What I would like see is spells that are bursty, fast, explosive, physical effects are AOE. Spells that are slow(caster has time to control it), hopping(why make it hopping if it doesn't hop to enemies), or mental(caster has a connection to the souls of his/her companions) are foe AOE. Only really high level spells would break these "rules".

 

Also, currently the aiming circle for AOE is made of two circles. Inner one where everybody get hurt and outer one where only enemies get hurt. I think aiming circle should be one circle only and let the spell specify if everyone or only foes get hurt in it.

 

Edit: TIGGER WARNING: S-Word! I think my example is just one of many where the game mechanics seem needlessly complex. Someone should streamline them a bit.

Agreed that some spells seemed to be foe-only arbitrarily, probably just to make things easier for the player. On the other hand, I've never found a game where enemies managed to avoid hitting their allies with friendly fire, so perhaps some spells they can use with abandon are necessary.

 

Disagreed on the extra AOE; the foe-only extra AOE rewards high Int, whereas if the whole thing caused friendly fire and was made larger, it would make the spells harder to control.

[Andraste]

Great work compiling this list!

 

Requests that I found interesting:

1. Necklace slot different from cloak.

 

According to Tumblr, we are getting this one! As someone who just had to take off a cloak to put on a necklace, I appreciate it.

[kirottu]

Requests that I found interesting:

• Necklace slot different from cloak.  4.

Ask an ye shall receive! Bobby be praised.

 

Edit: Too slow.

Edited January 30, 2017 by kirottu

[Boeroer]

Ha! My whips made it into your list! I'm flattered.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Whips sounds very cool. My humble suggestion would be tridents. It was one of the first weapons I gravitated towards when I rolled my very first fighter in D&D, decades ago, which later became a magical trident and an even more magical net. That would really fit the Valian Republic and the maritime environment and pirate setting, no?

[FlintlockJazz]

Edged rapiers like the Espada Ropera would be cool, prefer them to the epees of later eras.

[MaxQuest]

Also, currently the aiming circle for AOE is made of two circles. Inner one where everybody get hurt and outer one where only enemies get hurt. I think aiming circle should be one circle only and let the spell specify if everyone or only foes get hurt in it.

Hmm, does that break immersion for you?

I always felt that an intelligent spellcaster manipulates his AoE spells in a way that doesn't harm his teammates except in the actual epicenter.

 

But yeah, I'd like to have:

- AoE spells (that deal damage to everyone, no matter what)

- FoE spells (that damage only enemies) and

- mixed spells (the ones that have red and yellow zones).

 

---

As for whips and other new custom weapons, I suppose their usefulness strongly depends if there are going to be good unique ones, which can map into optimal new builds. For example in PoE1, clubs, maces and pollaxes felt a bit weaker than other alternatives. It's important that new weapon types to not get into the category of unused.

Edited January 30, 2017 by MaxQuest

[kirottu]

I always felt that an intelligent spellcaster manipulates his AoE spells in a way that doesn't harm his teammates except in the actual epicenter.

Then why can't an intelligent spellcaster manipulate his AoE spells in a way that doesn't harm his teammates no matter where they are? Are spells so strong at their epicenters that spellcasters can't control them? Then why don't spells do more damage at their epicenter? Why are some spells foe only and other aren't? I don't know since there seems to be no internal logic to spells.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

I always felt that an intelligent spellcaster manipulates his AoE spells in a way that doesn't harm his teammates except in the actual epicenter.

Then why can't an intelligent spellcaster manipulate his AoE spells in a way that doesn't harm his teammates no matter where they are? Are spells so strong at their epicenters that spellcasters can't control them? Then why don't spells do more damage at their epicenter? Why are some spells foe only and other aren't? I don't know since there seems to be no internal logic to spells.

 

Intelligence allows them to increase the spell beyond its minimum.  They can, being smart, choose whether to expand the spell and by how much within the outer circle range, and which parts of it expand beyond the minimum, but they cannot do less than the minimum.  So for instance a mage casting a fireball spell can use their intellect to cause flame to erupt outwards from the core explosion and smack that guy whose within the range of the increased radius but they cannot change the shape of the explosion itself.

[Karkarov]

 

I looked through all 19 pages of the suggestion thread in the other forum.  I recorded each time a post supported a suggestion, and there are over 150 of them.  These were the most common:

 

Top requests:

1. Deeper Companions - Basically more dialogue, more reactivity, etc.  15 mentions.
2. Legible Game Mechanics - This is actually a couple put together.  People had a hard time reading different parts of combat including too much visuals, item-stacking, attack speed mechanics, and the combat log.  10 mentions.
3. Six Party Members - At least 9 in favor of.  Oops.
4. Companions Attack - Companions get pissed off and attack you / other party members 8.
5. Better AI - Better for enemies, the party, and customizable.
6. Mod Support - Indeed.  8.
7. More Scripted Encounters - As it says.  8.
8. Improved Stronghold - Generally more content.  7.
9. Loading Times - Faster loading.  7. 
10. Bigger Big City - More content, increased focus, one not two.  7.
11. More Unique Weapons - I saw the damn talking sword from BG2 mentions so many times.  7.
12. Promancers - A horrible class of enemies that must be attacked with fire and sword.  Or you know, want slightly different gameplay that I don't value.  7.
13. More Class / Background Specific Content.  7.

I, as a non Obsidian Employee will address your points one by one.  Please bear in mind I am actually pretty knowledgeable about this stuff, and I did stay at a holiday inn express last night.

 

1: Pretty sure they are already doing this one, it also falls into the realm of common sense.  Of course everyone wants better companions.

2: I suspect this is part of why they are changing the mechanics a lot.  They are doing that you know.

3: Uh too late?  *Hands the people who posted this a tissue*

4: Okay this one is legit, piss them off enough they turn on you.  Kind of falls into #1 though.

5: They are already doing this one.

6: It is unity, so by default it supports mods.  It just might not be "easy" to mod it.

7: Fair enough, not sure how I feel about it personally.

8: They have already said you get a pirate ship.

9: Get a better pc.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, seriously load times were always fine.  Also seriously, no one wants their game to run bad, I am sure they will do all they can.

10: Another common sense, of course everyone wants this thing.

11: Common sense rules the day at the Friendly Arm.

12: Yeah, as much as we like to make light of it on these forums, Obsidian also knows a large RPG demographic likes Romance in games. 

13: Even though this is another common sense thing I guess it is fair, it is specific enough most people might not think of it.

 

Bear in mind when I say "common sense thing", I mean "This is so damn obvious a thing people will want, people could not post about it, and Obsidian would still know people want this".  Obsidian doesn't need this sort of feedback as it is patently obvious doing those things would be good based on "common sense" or feedback from Eternity 1.  Everyone wants more cool weapons, everyone wants better companions, everyone wants a cool stronghold, everyone wishes defiance bay was better, etc etc.

 

What people need to post are things like your second set of suggestions.  Things that are very specific and not normally thought about.  Those details are what will help them make a better game and give a general quality of life upgrade for the players.  So kudpos on set two, very good stuff.

 

Please note I am not really bashing the OP, this was good work.  I just want to throw it out there that there is such a thing as pointless or bad feedback.  The best way to get the best game possible is to focus on giving the best feedback you can.  Example "Mur uneeq weap ons lol"  is crap feedback.  "Let's add Whips to the game and give them these unique mechanics....." = not crap feedback.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Karkarov

[mumbogumshoe]

I'm not sure if everything you call common sense actually is common sense... Sure, when we're talking about "deeper companions", "better, more this or that", that's pretty much too vague and obvious for it to have to be discussed. If they can make something better or deeper or whatever, if it's within the budget and doesn't require harsh tradeoffs in other parts of the game, I'm sure they'll do it anyway. But for example the "more focus on just one big city" thing is worth discussing and seeing how people feel about it. I think there's a quote by Josh Sawyer where he said that he thought that Athkatla in BG2 was too densely packed with content, there was too much focus on it. I agree with him on a lot of things but this one I totally disagree with. Athkatla was perfect. Every district had its own unique character and there was so much to do there, it never got boring. I think having 2 big cities with overall less content density in each of them was one of the worse design decisions they've taken. 

Edited January 30, 2017 by mumbogumshoe

[kirottu]

 

 

I always felt that an intelligent spellcaster manipulates his AoE spells in a way that doesn't harm his teammates except in the actual epicenter.

Then why can't an intelligent spellcaster manipulate his AoE spells in a way that doesn't harm his teammates no matter where they are? Are spells so strong at their epicenters that spellcasters can't control them? Then why don't spells do more damage at their epicenter? Why are some spells foe only and other aren't? I don't know since there seems to be no internal logic to spells.

 

Intelligence allows them to increase the spell beyond its minimum.  They can, being smart, choose whether to expand the spell and by how much within the outer circle range, and which parts of it expand beyond the minimum, but they cannot do less than the minimum.  So for instance a mage casting a fireball spell can use their intellect to cause flame to erupt outwards from the core explosion and smack that guy whose within the range of the increased radius but they cannot change the shape of the explosion itself.

 

Yes, it's smart not to hit your friends with spells. But why did the person who originally made the fireball spell made it so the minimum part hits everybody? If I can control the "my part" of fireball spell and not hit friendlies, why couldn't the spellmaker do the same with his/her part? Why would you ever make a spell that hits everybody if it simply can be controlled?

 

There should be some rules why some spells are AoE and other are foe AoE. In it's current form it doesn't make any sense. It isn't a magic system. It is just collection of random spells.

Edited January 30, 2017 by kirottu

[MaxQuest]

Then why can't an intelligent spellcaster manipulate his AoE spells in a way that doesn't harm his teammates no matter where they are? Are spells so strong at their epicenters that spellcasters can't control them? Then why don't spells do more damage at their epicenter? Why are some spells foe only and other aren't? I don't know since there seems to be no internal logic to spells.

There should be a system, that would control that. At the simplest level:

- Throwing some ghost blades or missiles in a cone -> There are few projectiles -> Can be controlled -> FoE only

- Throwing a cone of icy shards, each the size of a needle? -> Hard to control at close distance -> Mixed AoE (red + yellow)

- Throwing a fireball? -> That's literally a ball of fire -> Hit everyone in AoE. And add kinetic impact at epicentre.

 

There should be some rules why some spells are AoE and other are foe AoE. In it's current form it doesn't make any sense. It isn't a magic system. It is just collection of random spells.

Exactly!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Those are all really good, but I think we should have underwater battles with Krakens, those shark things I read about in an in-game book, and some half squid monsters I read about from the same book. Or at least a shipside battle. Tentacles really creep me out and I would like the chance to kill fictional creatures that have them.

 

On top of that I'd like a new class, not sure what but if you're gonna revamp the class system may as well go big.

 

And reclassing as part of the import, of we're getting knocked down to lvl1 we may as well get a new class if we don't like the changes to our old one.

 

And maybe changes to the armor system where it's either plate or nude. To be honest I haven't touched PoE after my first playthrough and you may have already fixed this.

 

And I'd like PoE to be the trilogy BG wasn't, namely in that you don't pull out something like ToB.

 

You should also build a wall around these forums and make RPGCodex pay for it.

[kanisatha]

Great thread and awesome list, OP!

 

One thing I'd really love to have is a UI screen (perhaps in our stronghold) where I can access the paperdolls and inventories of my PC and all my companions simultaneously. I really love managing the equipment of my companions including even those I don't take with me as a part of my regular party.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

One thing I'd really love to have is a UI screen (perhaps in our stronghold) where I can access the paperdolls and inventories of my PC and all my companions simultaneously. I really love managing the equipment of my companions including even those I don't take with me as a part of my regular party.

 That would be so fab. +10!

[LordCrash]

Great thread and awesome list, OP!

 

One thing I'd really love to have is a UI screen (perhaps in our stronghold) where I can access the paperdolls and inventories of my PC and all my companions simultaneously. I really love managing the equipment of my companions including even those I don't take with me as a part of my regular party.

 

A combined inventory for the whole active party was already there in PoE. No paperdolls and no inactive companions though. So yes, would be nice to include something like this in the stronghold.

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by LordCrash