Duel / multiplayer / pvp PoE II: Deadfire

[Nail]

I guess it's about <5% of overall Pillars players who would like duels.

[algroth]

Personally I can only see this game lending itself for co-op at best, and even that is somewhat sketchy: the first game at least is a very personal story of the protagonist, and doesn't really lend itself to giving two players equal protagonism; on top of that, my personaly experience with RTwP combat especially in these latest Obsidian games is usually that of pausing every few *frames*, let alone seconds, meaning it would probably make for a very clumsy and annoying experience to play with another who may himself have the ability to pause and unpause at any given time. Were this a TB game there's a chance the first issue could be circumvented by a friendly agreement on "who should play the main character", but with the latter I just see no chance of this working.

 

And yes, Baldur's Gate did it, but its combat was much simpler and leisurely-paced, and to be honest the game simply didn't work all that well as a multiplayer experience. So yeah, with all that said, I would rather they dedicate the time on other things instead.

[Amentep]

My singular memory of playing BGII back in the day in co-op multiplayer was sitting around waiting for everyone to finish outfitting themselves at the shops.

[FlintlockJazz]

My singular memory of playing BGII back in the day in co-op multiplayer was sitting around waiting for everyone to finish outfitting themselves at the shops.

The first time I ever played BGII multiplayer, it was with a group of friends who had already worked their way quite a way into the game and I was joining partway through.  Created my character, joined in, took a look at my inventory and was like "Wow, I got lots of gold!  Must be to help gear me out."  Immediately ran over to the shops and set about buying the best, most expensive weapons and armour I could find.  The concept of shared gold didn't cross my mind...

[Nail]

Please don't throw rocks at me, but Dungeons and Dragons Online, last time I've played  (30.07.2011 ) had (or has) great pvp mode.

I would love something like this in PoE II or any other Obsidian product that will be on same engine as PoE II (or better)

 

Also, it would be awesome if there will be character export / import option as we saw in BG1 - BG2.

For me that awesome experience to complete Baldur’s Gate + Tales of the Sword Coast with all nooks and crannies to make my perfect character for Baldur’s Gate II: Shadows of Amn.

I see the same potential for PoE II : Deadfire, at least the talents:

Blooded Hunter
Dozens Luck
Dungeon Delver / Wild Running
Effigy's Resentment (various options)
Flick of the Wrist
Gift from the Machine
Scale-Breaker
Second Skin / The Merciless Hand / Mob Justice
Song of the Heavens

 

It's very interesting how Obsidian will implement transition from PoE I to PoE II : Deadfire

If the keep is destroyed there is a possibility, that your items are gone with the keep, but what about talents...

Soul cleansing to wipe all of them or something like that?

Edited March 23, 2017 by Nail

[Abel]

It's very interesting how Obsidian will implement transition from PoE I to PoE II : Deadfire

If the keep is destroyed there is a possibility, that your items are gone with the keep, but what about talents...

Soul cleansing to wipe all of them or something like that?

 

These talents are obtained through quests. Since you can export a complete save at the end of Pillars 1, and since Pillars 2 will put an emphasis on the consequences of the choices you made both in Pillars 1 and Pillars 2, i would be really surprised if these were not exported too. It would be a damn huge bummer, even though i don't plan to get the "evil" talents.

[anameforobsidian]

I must admit, it's my unfulfilled dream: I've always wanted to compete party vs party or one on one in any AD&D game series.

It's something that was poorly, but implemented in Neverwinter Nights 2 Storm of Zehir, so I thought something like that would be fine with Pillars.

 

Offtop: fig.co update a bit more baker effort for the sea monsters!

 

NWN has live realms I'm pretty sure you could do that there.

[anameforobsidian]

 

I'd rather they make a spin-off to Pillars game based on multiplayer (co-op or competitive) than trying to squeeze it in the original game.

 

Pillars of Eternity: Tactics? I'd back that I think.

 

 

Hell, I'd love a single player Pillars Tactics game.  Something like Ogre Tactics with multiple parties moving in the world to accomplish strategic objectives.

[amazeing4art]

I have no interest in this game including PvP, and I think it would be a mistake for developers to include this and devote resources to it.

 

With multiclassing and 10 classes that is really something like (Sigma) 1-10 or in other words 1+2+3+4 ... +9+10 which is a total of 55 possible class choices (like Paladin/Wizard or Rogue/Barbarian or plain Chanter).

 

Trying to balance PVP so that all of these class choice possibilities are viable, if played correctly, against every other correctly played combo would be a nightmare. Either it would take enormous time and resources (if done right), or it would lead to a real dumbing down of builds and spell/ability combat mechanics if done the "quick way". Neither way would likely ever work well. And this is not even taking into account character levels, do we want it to also be balanced so that every level 10 build (if played correctly) has an equal chance against every other level 10 build? That would add another whole dimension of complexity.

 

The only way to do PvP in a game like this would be to ignore class balance and say things like... so what if every Wizard, Druid or Wizard/Druid can always kick every ranger's and rogue's ass with ease, every time? But then, what is the point of PvP? it would really not be much fun for the rangers and rogues, or the Ranger/Rogues, ever.

 

So that's a very strong No vote from me.

Edited March 24, 2017 by amazeing4art

[Nail]

 

I must admit, it's my unfulfilled dream: I've always wanted to compete party vs party or one on one in any AD&D game series.

It's something that was poorly, but implemented in Neverwinter Nights 2 Storm of Zehir, so I thought something like that would be fine with Pillars.

 

Offtop: fig.co update a bit more baker effort for the sea monsters!

 

NWN has live realms I'm pretty sure you could do that there.

 

The thing is I'm fond of what Josh Sawyer does, and PoE realm as well.

[Nail]

I have no interest in this game including PvP, and I think it would be a mistake for developers to include this and devote resources to it.

 

With multiclassing and 10 classes that is really something like (Sigma) 1-10 or in other words 1+2+3+4 ... +9+10 which is a total of 55 possible class choices (like Paladin/Wizard or Rogue/Barbarian or plain Chanter).

 

Trying to balance PVP so that all of these class choice possibilities are viable, if played correctly, against every other correctly played combo would be a nightmare. Either it would take enormous time and resources (if done right), or it would lead to a real dumbing down of builds and spell/ability combat mechanics if done the "quick way". Neither way would likely ever work well. And this is not even taking into account character levels, do we want it to also be balanced so that every level 10 build (if played correctly) has an equal chance against every other level 10 build? That would add another whole dimension of complexity.

 

The only way to do PvP in a game like this would be to ignore class balance and say things like... so what if every Wizard, Druid or Wizard/Druid can always kick every ranger's and rogue's ass with ease, every time? But then, what is the point of PvP? it would really not be much fun for the rangers and rogues, or the Ranger/Rogues, ever.

 

So that's a very strong No vote from me.

No need to do this at this stage, it's more about extension or a mere possibility.

I see this option more for the endgame, when you've done everything and would like to test your champion vs other try hard people.

For me such games are only good at their hardest achievements, like "The Ultimate", which I could achieve only with wizard.

So I guess wizard is the best vs the game content, but how will wizard class do against others - that's the question we will never know, assumption is the only thing.

[Nail]

So, the statistic shows that about 10% are interested in duels / co-op in Pillars game.

Is it enough for developers for possible add-on (paid of course), your thoughts?

Duels are so much better then new NPCs, like Ydwin (for some reasoun I've thought about Edwin first time I've read the info.)

[alsey]

I'm way too control freak to play an RPG coop, and if I wanted pvp I'd play counter strike or something.

[DrTomT18]

Oh dear gods no.

The last thing we need is an unnecessary multiplayer tack on.

It's a total waste of time a resources.

[rheingold]

I'd be fine with co op, though the problem is that it takes a substantial amount of resources that could be spent elsewhere.

Pvp, not so much. The classes would have to be designed specifically for that in mind. Would really complicate balancing.

[FreeMayk]

I am also for just co-op. For PvP, not at all. 

[Katarack21]

Duels are so much better then new NPCs, like Ydwin (for some reasoun I've thought about Edwin first time I've read the info.)

And this is where we see the distinction between playstyles. I literally do not give two ****s about duels, co-op, PVP, etc. I would *MUCH* rather have NPC's. MUCH rather.

 

Like...*SO* much lmao

[Nail]

Should I end this poll or let it stay for awhile?

[molotov.]

No, that is a terrible idea.

[Kl3in]

Personally i dont need any kind of PvP-Style in PoE 2.

I would like to enjoy some co-op sessions with a friend of mine.

While nearly every old RPG has multiplayer elements, why its that hard/expensive to implement this to PoE 2?

[Regggler]

While nearly every old RPG has multiplayer elements, why its that hard/expensive to implement this to PoE 2?

"Every old RPG has multiplayer elements"? I contest that. Check out the games on http://crpgaddict.blogspot.de/

 

Nevertheless: It was hard and expensive to implement back then as well.

 

Several new design decisions must be made. Do you allow one player to leave the map while the other stays? When one player enters combat mode, does the other as well? How do you deal with pause conflicts? Will story decisions only be made by player 1? While all of these can be answered reasonably easily, the list probably can be extended virtually endlessly.

 

One single justification of the impact multiplayer has on cost suffices, though:

Multiplayer (other than hotseat) requires network functionality. Depending on the way you do it, this means integrating several protocols into your game. In addition, everything you do here makes your code more complex, meaning the costs balloon into testing as well.

 

I don't know how easy all that is in Unity, but my intuition is that the cost would be significant. Perhaps someone more knowledgable about Unity and network programming could give an assessment?

[Varana]

In BG+IWD times, you could get away with much crappier multiplayer than today.

[Kl3in]

In BG+IWD times, you could get away with much crappier multiplayer than today.

That answer is on point! @Regggler

[Varana]

... explaining why people don't do it anymore - if you write "has multiplayer" on your box ... on your Steam page (as boxes aren't a thing any more), and then deliver a MP like BG (everything is halted for all players while dialogue is in progress, dialogue shows for everyone regardless of whether they are in the vicinity, NPCs can only talk to each other if the same player controls them, you have to do manual port forwarding and set up a server when creating a game, there is very little tolerance for differring game versions, only rudimentary communication between players unless they use an external program, gold is shared among the party without any restrictions, or just generally not much in terms of failsaves, and things like that): your game will get voted down. Either you leave MP out, or you do it properly, and that's costly.

[ThatUndeadLegacy]

Multiplayer can ruin games, Especially like this. 

Edited April 5, 2017 by ThatUndeadLegacy