Things you want PoE 2 to specifically avoid if possible

[Katarack21]

It was also *very* common to capture and ransom nobles as opposed to kill, so that impacts the numbers. My point was that it's a time line; bows and guns leapfrogged around each other vs armor, with armor being more or less effective vs one or the other at different points within that hundred years time span.

[Yougottawanna]

I agree with the first point (repositioning during cutscenes so that my squishy is in front) and would extend it to say that any cutscene that repositions my party at all should be avoided if possible. I hate fights where my party is relocated to some awful place in a pre-fight cutscene (just because I played it recently, one example from PoE1 is the boss fight in the Skaen temple where opening the door triggers a cutscene that puts you inside the room. That would be bad even if the main character wasn't in front). A similar thing is having dialogue or other interactions, forced or otherwise, pull you out of stealth.

 

I agree with the second point (godlike character being asked about siring a hollowborn child)k, but things like that are likely to slip through in a big game.

 

Someone mentioned the wonky potion-drinking process that fails half the time. I absolutely agree, drinking potions was a pain in PoE1 and you had to doublecheck several times to make sure the character actually drank it. So fix that.

 

On guns vs. bows, they should aim for having the difference between the two be intuitive and then let game design steer them from there rather than try to achieve a specific historical accuracy which we'll probably never have consensus on anyway. I think the current setup is pretty good: guns are more powerful and pierce arcane veils, but reload more slowly. 

 

Something I don't want to see again is discord in tone between the style of play encouraged by the game and the style implied by the main quest. What I mean is that in PoE1 the main questline had you beginning to possibly go insane at first, and then chasing Thaos in the end. Given those quests, puttering off and doing a bunch of side quests seems strange, like you're ignoring a pressing, time-sensitive problem to help someone with one of their errands. In PoE2, I hope they're careful not to suggest time pressure in the main quest unless they actually mean for you to focus on it to the exclusion of other things.

 

On five party members vs. six: I don't mind. Melee classes need more micromanagement in PoE than they did in BG for example, so I understand the reasoning behind bumping things down to five. I guess I would slightly prefer six but I don't think five is terrible or anything. And if you ask me the whole console vs. PC angle to the debate is a red herring.

 

On Tyranny and its combat: I liked Tyranny overall but I don't want PoE2's combat to be like Tyranny's (I would like its reactivity to be more like Tyranny's though, within reason). I don't think that's a risk though. I haven't heard any of the devs specifically cite Tyranny as something they want to emulate or anything.

 

One thing I would like to see change is pre-buffing. I have a whole list of reasons why I think they should allow pre-buffing (that is, casting buff spells, drinking potions, etc... outside of combat) that's too long for this post, but suffice to say I think the pros of allowing it outweigh the cons. Even if it's not part of the default game, it's something they could add as a difficulty toggle or possibly a Berath's Boon option.

 

EDIT: One final thing I just thought of is something that they've already mentioned they're doing and that's cutting down on the amount of trash mobs. I think that's a good idea as there were parts of PoE1 that got a little tedious with all the trash fights. I don't want a huge decrease, just like a small-medium sized one.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Yougottawanna

[rjshae]

The one thing I wish they would do is put a little reminder in the quest messages about where you need to journey to reach the end point. Typically they'll just give a name of somebody, who I met once briefly several weeks ago (in real time) and then quickly forgot. I usually have to visit a cheat site to remember where they were found.

 

Yeah, okay, so I'm old and have a memory like a rusty piece of... wait, what was I saying?

[molotov.]

 

You specifically said "british bowmen" when talking about lowest rank and british bowmen use longbows which did take years of training. Why dont you go take a look at the sources provided on the longbow wiki page instead of taking my word or just continue to substitute in your own reality...

 

I already explained that.... I used british bowmen because I knew that the longbow was a difficult weapon to master and the stronger of the trio longbow, bow, crossbow, I could have said "crossbowmen were the lowest rank of the french army".

I really don't know why you are so salty about it. I'm a big fan of armours and arms that is why I know this stuff, I'm not creatting nor "substitute in your own reality" anything, if you want any proof just go to youtube, you have Skallagrim, Lindybeige, Shadiversity, scholagladiatoria are good sources.

 

Ps: I think you didn't got my full comment, I edited some stuff to make it more understandable.

 

See if that makes sense to you:

You use a lot of longbowmen in your army, at least 3/5 of your army are longbowmen, but you lost a battle, you need to get more longbowmen and fast, you have more 5.000 training, but the training takes 5 years... sorry, you will have to wait...

 

"My point is: The King of England was so preoccupied with the training of longbowman, because they needed a lot of longbowman, people could learn that fast and be introduced into the fray fast, but they needed more training to master, the best solution? Make it a common sport!"

Edited March 7, 2017 by molotov.

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

By the middle of the 16th century, metallurgy and armor technology had evolved to the point of being very resistant to bows. In the 15th century, this was not so much the case.

The Battle of Agincourt showed that the longbow was highly effective against armor *of the time*. In 1415.The arquebus I believe first showed up in mass war around 1460? At the time, bows would've been perfectly, and probably more, effective.

 

But the game is not situated in the 15th century.

Their game isn't situated in *any* historical era directly analogous to *any* Earth period. Middle 15th to early 16th is the technological range shown, that's all.

Your thread is "Things you want PoE 2 to specifically avoid if possible" I said that I wanted them to avoid being unrealistic with guns, some people tried to debunk this by saying that bows were better than guns in that time period 16th century in the real world, the period that the game is based, and using real life examples so I debunked their argument with an argument adressing the real world 16th century, that's all.

So I should have just said to them "hey it's just a fantasy" or "hey it's my opinion" instead of making a little research and proving my point? So discussing anything in the forum is pointless? Everyone can just say "hey it's fantasy"?

They're game is not "based" on the 16th century tech. It's based on tech from *various points with a hundred years time span*. There's isn't an exact "guns, armor, and bows from 1540" deal. It's just what they thought was cool. The conflict is that your looking for hard definitions when they're using broad strokes. Edited March 7, 2017 by Katarack21

[molotov.]

 

 

 

 

By the middle of the 16th century, metallurgy and armor technology had evolved to the point of being very resistant to bows. In the 15th century, this was not so much the case.

The Battle of Agincourt showed that the longbow was highly effective against armor *of the time*. In 1415.The arquebus I believe first showed up in mass war around 1460? At the time, bows would've been perfectly, and probably more, effective.

But the game is not situated in the 15th century.

Their game isn't situated in *any* historical era directly analogous to *any* Earth period. Middle 15th to early 16th is the technological range shown, that's all.

Your thread is "Things you want PoE 2 to specifically avoid if possible" I said that I wanted them to avoid being unrealistic with guns, some people tried to debunk this by saying that bows were better than guns in that time period 16th century in the real world, the period that the game is based, and using real life examples so I debunked their argument with an argument adressing the real world 16th century, that's all.

So I should have just said to them "hey it's just a fantasy" or "hey it's my opinion" instead of making a little research and proving my point? So discussing anything in the forum is pointless? Everyone can just say "hey it's fantasy"?

They're game is not "based" on the 16th century tech. It's based on tech from *various points with a hundred years time span*. There's isn't an exact "guns, armor, and bows from 1540" deal. It's just what they thought was cool. The conflict is that your looking for hard definitions when they're using broad strokes.

 

Well... you have to tell that to Obsidian, they advertized the game as based on the 16th century technology, just look at ANY site advertizing the game...

 

And... Deadfire is just a confirmation of this information, which century the colonization and conquests of the land previous owned by indiginous people began?

[Yougottawanna]

 

 

 

 

 

By the middle of the 16th century, metallurgy and armor technology had evolved to the point of being very resistant to bows. In the 15th century, this was not so much the case.

The Battle of Agincourt showed that the longbow was highly effective against armor *of the time*. In 1415.The arquebus I believe first showed up in mass war around 1460? At the time, bows would've been perfectly, and probably more, effective.

But the game is not situated in the 15th century.

Their game isn't situated in *any* historical era directly analogous to *any* Earth period. Middle 15th to early 16th is the technological range shown, that's all.

Your thread is "Things you want PoE 2 to specifically avoid if possible" I said that I wanted them to avoid being unrealistic with guns, some people tried to debunk this by saying that bows were better than guns in that time period 16th century in the real world, the period that the game is based, and using real life examples so I debunked their argument with an argument adressing the real world 16th century, that's all.

So I should have just said to them "hey it's just a fantasy" or "hey it's my opinion" instead of making a little research and proving my point? So discussing anything in the forum is pointless? Everyone can just say "hey it's fantasy"?

They're game is not "based" on the 16th century tech. It's based on tech from *various points with a hundred years time span*. There's isn't an exact "guns, armor, and bows from 1540" deal. It's just what they thought was cool. The conflict is that your looking for hard definitions when they're using broad strokes.

 

Well... you have to tell that to Obsidian, they advertized the game as based on the 16th century technology, just look at ANY site advertizing the game...

 

And... Deadfire is just a confirmation of this information, which century the colonization and conquests of the land previous owned by indiginous people began?

 

 

In the PoE universe Dyrwood and Readcearas are both former Aedyran colonies that have been independent for over a century though. Eora's history hasn't followed Earth's that closely.

[Katarack21]

Deadfire seems to be based somewhat on the Dutch/Portuguese cluster ****ing of the Maluka Islands, which began in 1600., also known as the 17th century. So...yeah.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Katarack21

[molotov.]

Deadfire seems to be based somewhat on the Dutch/Portuguese cluster ****ing of the Maluka Islands, which began in 1600., also known as the 17th century. So...yeah.

YES! The colonizations were from, approximately, the 16th-18th century! You are correct. That is why the tech of the first game is from the 16th century, and I bet that the tech for Deadfire will be from 17th century.

 

Again, Obsidian and Josh said that PoE 1 had tech from the 16th era, I'm not making this up it's on the various sites that made anything about Pillars. I'm not discussing guns in Deadfire.

[molotov.]

 

 

In the PoE universe Dyrwood and Readcearas are both former Aedyran colonies that have been independent for over a century though. Eora's history hasn't followed Earth's that closely.

 

Deadfire have a really distinct atmosphere, colonization, big ships, conquests, war between big nations and tribes, what that reminds you of?

Edited March 7, 2017 by molotov.

[Katarack21]

 

Deadfire seems to be based somewhat on the Dutch/Portuguese cluster ****ing of the Maluka Islands, which began in 1600., also known as the 17th century. So...yeah.

 

YES! The colonizations were from, approximately, the 16th-18th century! You are correct. That is why the tech of the first game is from the 16th century, and I bet that the tech for Deadfire will be from 17th century.

Again, Obsidian and Josh said that PoE 1 had tech from the 16th era, I'm not making this up it's on the various sites that made anything about Pillars. I'm not discussing guns in Deadfire.

Yeah...but its onlyba *five year difference in game*. You see the problem? Tech from *many eras*...together.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

You'd logically have tech from a lot of different eras, though. The Dyrwood is a frontier territory -- if you read the lore, it's basically like post-revolutionary-war America if the British had teamed up with the Native Americans. Similarly, the Deadfire is an area that's being actively colonized by different competing powers. It makes sense for advanced 'technology" to be rare and for a wide range of technology levels to be present.

[Katarack21]

Exactly. In Eora, the colonization and displacement of Natives is aleeady centuries underway.

[molotov.]

 

 

Deadfire seems to be based somewhat on the Dutch/Portuguese cluster ****ing of the Maluka Islands, which began in 1600., also known as the 17th century. So...yeah.

YES! The colonizations were from, approximately, the 16th-18th century! You are correct. That is why the tech of the first game is from the 16th century, and I bet that the tech for Deadfire will be from 17th century.

Again, Obsidian and Josh said that PoE 1 had tech from the 16th era, I'm not making this up it's on the various sites that made anything about Pillars. I'm not discussing guns in Deadfire.

Yeah...but its onlyba *five year difference in game*. You see the problem? Tech from *many eras*...together.

 

I want guns to be treated better than they were in the first game, so someone tried to prove me wrong by saying that bows were better than guns in the 16th century then I procceded to use a bunch of material to prove that they were much better than bows in the 16th century, the era that the game was based on, that's all. And here you are trying to prove me wrong by saying that the game was based on tech of various eras... but you don't have any example of that right? So you are trying to use Deadfire as one... and well... we don't know if the tech will still be the same, I doubt that, but we have to wait to see. But we are discussing the tech from the FIRST GAME right? So give me examples from the first game. Try to debunk Obsidian, because, like I already said, even they said that the game was based on 16th century tech... and hey... if you live in the 16th century you can still use a gun from the 15th century...

Edited March 7, 2017 by molotov.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

I think the argument is that while they could manufacture high-end guns in the 16th century that might have been able to outperform bows in certain situations, bows and crossbows were still common and effective, especially in  rural areas. 

 

We kinda see this in the first game, where guns and plate armor are harder to find than other gear  by about one quality rank, consistently - at the same time you're finding "fine" bows and chain you're finding base plate and guns, etc., 

 

I expect we are going to be seeing guns get treated better in the next game. 

 

The modal ability for proficiency in pistol is to flip it over and use it as a club.

 

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3807509&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=153#post470098791

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Katarack21]

From Obsidians official "Pillars of Eternity" wiki:

The cultures in the world of Pillars of Eternity are in a variety of different technological states. Though some remote civilizations are still in the equivalent of Earth's Stone Age or Bronze Age, most large civilizations are the equivalent of Earth's high or late Middle Ages. The most aggressive and powerful civilizations are in the early stages of what would be our early modern period, technologically, even if they are not culturally undergoing "Renaissance"-style changes."

So there you have it. You've got Rennaissance-era tech and Medieval-era tech, co-existing. In some situations you'll have advanced armor and ****ty guns. In other situations, great bows and ****ty armor. So on and so forth.

I think you're right about guns not being treated as good as they should be, actually. My point is simply that there is no established technological baseline analogous to the real world to say that guns should be better than arrows because in the real world at this point they are.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Katarack21

[molotov.]

From Obsidians official "Pillars of Eternity" wiki:

 

The cultures in the world of Pillars of Eternity are in a variety of different technological states. Though some remote civilizations are still in the equivalent of Earth's Stone Age or Bronze Age, most large civilizations are the equivalent of Earth's high or late Middle Ages. The most aggressive and powerful civilizations are in the early stages of what would be our early modern period, technologically, even if they are not culturally undergoing "Renaissance"-style changes."

So it's basically saying that the most powerfull nations are on the early modern period, 16th-18th century...so... thanks for proving me right?

 

Or are you trying to say that it's not the 16th century because other civilizations were living in the stone age?  Of course some of the more remote civilizations are still on the stone age or bronze age, that happened in the real world as well, Azteks didn't had any guns, it's normal, not every civilization has the same technology, some advance more than others... just look nowadays, some cities in Africa are still living on the middle ages, **** even here in Brazil, some places don't even have electricity, so if we follow your logic, here in Brazil we don't live in the 21th century we are on the 20th century, lol, I guess I'm speaking from the past!

 

You do realize that you are achieving nothing right? Your arguments don't debunk any of my previous arguments... I really don't see your point...

[Katarack21]

 

From Obsidians official "Pillars of Eternity" wiki:

 

The cultures in the world of Pillars of Eternity are in a variety of different technological states. Though some remote civilizations are still in the equivalent of Earth's Stone Age or Bronze Age, most large civilizations are the equivalent of Earth's high or late Middle Ages. The most aggressive and powerful civilizations are in the early stages of what would be our early modern period, technologically, even if they are not culturally undergoing "Renaissance"-style changes."

So it's basically saying that the most powerfull nations are on the early modern period, 16th-18th century...so... thanks for proving me right?

 

Or are you trying to say that it's not the 16th century because other civilizations were living in the stone age?  Of course some of the more remote civilizations are still on the stone age or bronze age, that happened in the real world as well, Azteks didn't had any guns, it's normal, not every civilization has the same technology, some advance more than others... just look nowadays, some cities in Africa are still living on the middle ages, **** even here in Brazil, some places don't even have electricity, so if we follow your logic, here in Brazil we don't live in the 21th century we are on the 20th century, lol, I guess I'm speaking from the past!

 

You do realize that you are achieving nothing right? Your arguments don't debunk any of my previous arguments... I really don't see your point...

 

It's pretty ****ing clear about a mixture of technology from Medieval trough Rennaisance. *THE* most *AGGRESSIVE* and *POWERFUL* nations have Rennaisaince-era technology. That's, like...two countries. The Vaillian Republic and Readceras, I'm guessing. The other powerful nations--you know, the other 8 on the top 10?--are Medieval-era technology. Then some are Stone Age, but note that it says remote civilizations, not isolated tribes like in the modern era.

 

This is a mixture of Eearth periods. You have Rennaisaince-era Italy. You have Medieval Europe. You have Colonial North America. You have Colonization-Era Near-East.

 

So yeah. That's some seriously twisted logic you're using there to try and justify your "This is all 16th century!" bull****.

[JerekKruger]

The Vaillian Republic and Readceras, I'm guessing.

 

Do you mean Ruatai? Readceras is described as being a huge mess due to the failure of their economy followed by the fallout from losing the Saint's War.

[molotov.]

 

 

From Obsidians official "Pillars of Eternity" wiki:

 

The cultures in the world of Pillars of Eternity are in a variety of different technological states. Though some remote civilizations are still in the equivalent of Earth's Stone Age or Bronze Age, most large civilizations are the equivalent of Earth's high or late Middle Ages. The most aggressive and powerful civilizations are in the early stages of what would be our early modern period, technologically, even if they are not culturally undergoing "Renaissance"-style changes."

So it's basically saying that the most powerfull nations are on the early modern period, 16th-18th century...so... thanks for proving me right?

 

Or are you trying to say that it's not the 16th century because other civilizations were living in the stone age?  Of course some of the more remote civilizations are still on the stone age or bronze age, that happened in the real world as well, Azteks didn't had any guns, it's normal, not every civilization has the same technology, some advance more than others... just look nowadays, some cities in Africa are still living on the middle ages, **** even here in Brazil, some places don't even have electricity, so if we follow your logic, here in Brazil we don't live in the 21th century we are on the 20th century, lol, I guess I'm speaking from the past!

 

You do realize that you are achieving nothing right? Your arguments don't debunk any of my previous arguments... I really don't see your point...

 

It's pretty ****ing clear about a mixture of technology from Medieval trough Rennaisance. *THE* most *AGGRESSIVE* and *POWERFUL* nations have Rennaisaince-era technology. That's, like...two countries. The Vaillian Republic and Readceras, I'm guessing. The other powerful nations--you know, the other 8 on the top 10?--are Medieval-era technology. Then some are Stone Age, but note that it says remote civilizations, not isolated tribes like in the modern era.

 

This is a mixture of Eearth periods. You have Rennaisaince-era Italy. You have Medieval Europe. You have Colonial North America. You have Colonization-Era Near-East.

 

So yeah. That's some seriously twisted logic you're using there to try and justify your "This is all 16th century!" bull****.

 

You didn't even read my previous comment?

 

If the most powerfull countries have modern technology so the world lives in the modern era, because the strong countires control the market, politics and war, that is pretty basic history lol.

I'll explain to you, the early modern era began when the navigations began, it was something that impacted the whole world, the late modern era began after the the french revolution because it affected the whole world.

 

"*THE* most *AGGRESSIVE* and *POWERFUL* nations have Rennaisaince-era technology. That's, like...two countries. The Vaillian Republic and Readceras, I'm guessing. The other powerful nations--you know, the other 8 on the top 10?--are Medieval-era technology. . "that is plainly wrong. I think you didn't got the lore right... but the Rautai are extremely agressive, they even built a big wall separetting them from the world - lol...-, the Rautai armada is famous, they possess the best weapons and ships in the World, Kana and Pallegina had a banter about it. So Rautai and the Vailians Republic have the best technology avaible, which are based on 16th century, so the game is on a World that the top quality weapons have 16th century tech... because the Vailian Republic and Rautai have made a big impact on how the people on the world lives.

"Then some are Stone Age, but note that it says remote civilizations, not isolated tribes like in the modern era." That could have happened even in England, the rural areas didn't had top quality technology like Londom, sure some of them were living by medieval age standards.

"This is a mixture of Eearth periods. You have Rennaisaince-era Italy. You have Medieval Europe. You have Colonial North America. You have Colonization-Era Near-East." Yes... the real world is a mixture of periods, but the one that we live in is the contemporary era because the most powerfull nations, that control the world have the technology of the contemporary era.

"So yeah. That's some seriously twisted logic you're using there to try and justify your "This is all 16th century!" bull****." Yes they live in the 16th century but not everyone can afford the technology, ****, I have to teach history to someone in the forum...

 

Let me illustrate why you are wrong:

By your logic, some countries in Africa and some places here in Brazil live in the past, because they don't have electricity.

[Katarack21]

 

The Vaillian Republic and Readceras, I'm guessing.

Do you mean Ruatai? Readceras is described as being a huge mess due to the failure of their economy followed by the fallout from losing the Saint's War.

Yup. My bad. ****ty memory.

[Ninjamestari]

I wish they would avoid half measures and designs that require more commitment than they're able to invest in them.

 

The godlike problem illustrates perfectly why the godlike race was a bad idea to begin with; obsidian wasn't committed to taking the concept all the way through. Same with ciphers. If you can make choices in your character creation that drastically alter the way that character would approach dialogue, you have to make sure that those classes get the special treatment, otherwise you end up with an experience that detracts from the characters class identity, which detracts from the overall involvement of the player, which leads to an inferior overall experience. The godlike are too different to realistically expect them to be treated the same as any other character, and the cipher's whole ability of reading and influencing the thoughts of others, even in the most mundane of situations, is almost completely absent from the game.

 

Let's have an example of a 'class' that has a special approach to dialogue. If anyone has played Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, you may remember that the Vampire Clan of Lunatics, the Malkavians, had their own special dialogue choices for every single encounter to reflect their madness and even in that game the responses that still had to be mostly tied to the same lines that a 'normal' vampire would get would sometimes produce the feeling that the game didn't properly represent how the world should react to the character. Overall, if you allow the player to have an option that is vastly different, you'll have to be committed to going all the way through, like Troika did. It's one of those situations that demonstrate the stupidity of half-measures.

 

As an important side note to those who have been involved with the whole resting-system discussion; you should notice how the trend that when creating a system, you don't really achieve anything with it if you don't fully commit to it, meaning that you can't get a meaningful resting mechanism unless you make it really hardcore. I'm only bringing up this off-topic issue here in order to illustrate the importance of commitment, and recognizing design choices that require more commitment to make them work. The godlikes and ciphers are one example.

 

So back to the original topic here, I wish they will specifically avoid making design choices they are not fully committed to see through to the end; a half measure is usually a lot worse than no measure at all, so again I stress this point emphatically: avoid designs that require more commitment than you are prepared to invest in them, and avoid half measures.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[Yougottawanna]

I thought of a couple more things:

 

1 - In PoE1 finishing the main quest stopped the playthrough - that is, once you went down to Sun-in-Shadow there was no coming back out and continuing on. I've always preferred games where you can continue playing after completing the main quest. Now if Obsidian has some really cool story idea that requires that the main quest stop the playthrough (ie, it makes some major change in the game world or something) then I suppose you can have the main quest end the playthrough, but if possible I would like to be able to continue on.

 

2 - RPGs like PoE have a predictable problem where being a completionist and doing all the side content overlevels you for the critical path. Personally I think this is usually a relatively minor, manageable problem - however, it gets exacerbated when the expansions (WM1 and WM2 in this case) are designed to come before the endgame rather than after. Following the suggestion in #1 above opens up the option of putting the expansion (if there is one) after the main quest and making it high level content, which is the way I prefer.

 

(2 also heads off a potential problem: according to Josh Sawyer, PoE2 will be roughly the same length as PoE1. And yet after the stretch goals the level cap is going to be 20, whereas in vanilla PoE1 it was 12. Unless they're going to significantly speed up the pace of leveling, which I don't think I'd want, how to resolve this? One answer is to include more endgame-type content to keep us busy after the critical path is complete.)

[rjshae]

The godlike problem illustrates perfectly why the godlike race was a bad idea to begin with; obsidian wasn't committed to taking the concept all the way through. Same with ciphers. If you can make choices in your character creation that drastically alter the way that character would approach dialogue, you have to make sure that those classes get the special treatment, otherwise you end up with an experience that detracts from the characters class identity, which detracts from the overall involvement of the player, which leads to an inferior overall experience. The godlike are too different to realistically expect them to be treated the same as any other character, and the cipher's whole ability of reading and influencing the thoughts of others, even in the most mundane of situations, is almost completely absent from the game.

 

Yeah, but we've seen this in other cRPGS as well. It takes resources to develop NPC reactions based on race during conversations, and most times implementation of racial reaction is probably toward the bottom of the priority stack. The godlike are otherwise mostly fine as an alternative race and they provide a lot of color and variety to the setting. However, they are supposed to be rare. There were too many of them present in PoE, I think in large part because of the backer NPC selections. We may see fewer of them in PoE2.

[Gromnir]

thing to avoid in poe2?  wasted opportunities such as bestiary and exploration xp.  am realizing such token xp were added late in the game to appease the per-kill xp folks, but coulda' been refined and enhanced rather than being simple mechanical.  

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68164-a-different-view-on-the-whole-xp-controversy/?p=1502749

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68164-a-different-view-on-the-whole-xp-controversy/?p=1502756

 

utilized as part o' quests, players would still be getting mechanical rewards for completing bestiary and exploration objectives, but why not tie into an actual quest as well? 

 

HA! Good Fun!