List of things to improve upon in PoE II

[MaxQuest]

 

If you want to have the largest, longest-lasting buffs for your chanter (and why wouldn't you), you have to be a godlike.

Well the White Crest Helm gives +3 Intellect, and Godlikes can't wear it, so actually they're arguably the worst race from this point of view. In fact Godlike's inability to wear helms has gone from being relatively unimportant in vanilla Pillars to quite a big disadvantage in White March II.

 

On the other hand there is that +4 INT ring, and since it doesn't stack with the helm's +INT...

 

I would like godlikes having the bonuses and/or abilities from their base race and the godlike bonuses, that way it would feel more special at the start , after all they are kiths "blesses by the gods", and this would be compensated later with the helmets so they are no overpowered

I recall it was mentioned at some point that godlikes will likely have two racials. Strange, but can't find the source atm.

 

/speculation on

- one racial ability/passive will probably be inline with the rest of races

- and the second one could be with some sort of built-in scaling mechanism, in order to start small but stay on par with various head items we can get through the game

/speculation off

 

I wanted to bring along a Bard instead in many cases, but nooooope! Not good enough, you need Rogue, sorry, for no reason other than to give the Rogue-class a reason to exist.

Personally I am usually ok with rogues as a class. What I don't like in them is: if the game gives them some really unique possibilities.

For example: Dragon Age and lock picking. It's great that rogue can do it and can really master this. But hey, maybe give warriors ability to bash some weak locks/doors as well? Or allow mages to cast a very long and costly channeling spell that they can learn somewhere on a specific quest? Sure rogue will do it easier and faster, but I am no longer forced to have him in party if I don't want to.

Although yeah, there are only 3 classes in DA, so not really sure if "Bring the Player not the Class" should apply here. In WoW through I would consider normal if class buffs would partially overlap; e.g. you can get +x% stats from paladin or druid; you can get +x stamina from priest or imp; you can get +x mana from mage or felhunter; and so on. So the situation were you need exactly class Z happens less frequently.

Edited September 15, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Lephys]

The fewer the limits, the closer we get to a classless system. The limits make the difference between the classless and classbased systems.

 

Yes and no... It's not so much about the limits as it is about the differences. The whole point of a class-based system is to have one choice function in a unique way compared to another choice. That naturally generates a limit; if a Wizard casts arcane spells and a Fighter is not a Wizard, then a Fighter cannot cast arcane spells. He is limited to the things that a Fighter can do.

 

However, it's the approach to this that matters. Some games just put a bunch of stuff in, then go "Well this class is gonna be LIMITED 'cause we're just gonna remove their ability to do X." That's different from having all your basic stuff in, then deciding "this class is going to get to be the only class that can do X, in addition to the basic stuff."

 

There are just things that aren't contributing to class distinction at all. It's one reason I hate the whole stupid MMO "trinity" idea. "Ohhhh, this class deals the damage, and this other class doesn't deal the damage." That's ridiculous. All classes should deal plenty of damage. HOW they deal the damage should be what's interesting. Like, within the category of dealing damage in combat, "I want to take this big dude out of commission really fast... can I do that?" I dunno. Maybe as your class you can't, but you can deal lots of damage in a different way. A good simple example is just AoE versus single-target abilities. If one class has AoE abilities out the wazoo, and another mainly has single-target abilities, they're probably going to do more damage than the plethora of AoE abilities, but the AoE ones are still doing a large QUANTITY of damage, just not as much to each individual target. That's a good distinction. A bad one would be "No, your class is limited to ONLY hitting single targets, ever. And this other guy ONLY gets to hit groups for lesser damage."

 

Feasibly, there are going to be times when you are trying to take down a big tanky dude, and it's useless to only have lower-damage AoE (that's extremely wasteful to spend on the big tanky dude).

 

Basically, it's the difference in methods that is important, and not so much the difference in capability. So, even though a non-Rogue still has the ability to pick locks to get into places (which is good, since "I can just never get past barriers without person X" is a bit silly, in the grand scheme of things), the Rogue and non-Rogue aren't doing anything differently to get past locks. The Rogue's just doing it with a mathematical head-start. And, not that that doesn't have its place, but sheer numbers is the single most boring way in which you can differentiate ANYTHING between classes.

 

"What's the difference between a Wizard and a Fighter? The Fighter gets +2 to hit and has 6 base damage instead of 4." No one would ever give a crap about that distinction, ever. If they're not doing cool different attacks, then I couldn't care HOW different their numbers are, to be honest. Numbers have to support dynamics. If there's no dynamic difference in function, there's no point in changing numbers. That's one reason I honestly hate the idea of "Oh, Fighters are tanky, and Wizards are squishy." I think if you want a beefy Wizard with 100 hitpoints, and a relatively "squishy" Fighter next to him with only 80, that should be a thing. Maybe a Fighter has more dynamic capabilities whilst wearing heavy armor or something, sure, so his hitpoints last longer and/or he gets to do cool defensive maneuvers in combat that a Wizard can't do, but why should he inherently be any beefier than a Wizard? Who says that a Wizard can't work out twice a day? Or wasn't simply born a behemoth? The numbers don't matter. The methods matter.

[Mygaffer]

One thing I would really like is the ability to perhaps right click on an enemy and get a window that has all their current status effects. For my own characters I can either hover their icons or look at the character sheet.

 

For enemies I can hover over them, sure, but I can't then go and read their statuses and what the effects are. Sometimes there are ten+ different spells and abilities effecting an enemy and I don't know what all of them are doing. It would be nice to see this information.

 

Like the inspect in Divinity Original Sin.

 

EDIT: Another small thing, I just saw the chain that replaces the simple line to show engagement in the console version. That really helps convey the meaning of being engaged, Obsidian should consider using that for Deadfire.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Mygaffer

[Cartesii]

I would love to see those improvements :

 

1. Pls for the love of all gods: Enhance the story...not only main story but side-storys as well. The main story was so boring till the end, and the side-storys were merely just like: GO KILL THERE AND THERE done...

Not to speak of the awful companion storys...pls be more creative this time !!

I want rly fine immersion...:/

 

2. As far as i loved the castle/stronghold...it was just boring too.

The dungeon could have been MUCH ! larger and deeper...and a simple dragon at the end,..RLY?! :/ Why not a super nasty +mega monster+ with different heads.....a ultimate wizard and 1 strong melee..or different forms e.g. ?

The +quests+ were also not rly good..or the different +events+.

Think at BG 2..where every +mainclass-type+ got a different stronghold..with special quests :/....there was so much more POSSIBLE !!

 

3. Dialoges...(i won t speak here bout the rly boring tyranny) but the dialoges were rly boring at pillars 1....pls enchance the writing !

 

4. The combat system: It was decent, but nothing comparable to BG.

 

Pls add MUCH MORE ! spells to the game...different shields , atk spells (that you can learn from papers..and not only have to pick from some list), weakening magic, heal spells, barrier spells....there a tons of possibilities !

 

5.Bugs: Pls use more of your time to test the entire-game !

I can remember the stronghold bugs at start: Sometimes after i defended it vs monsters, my own mercs attacked me..and they were still hostile till the end of the game / reload. :/

Corrupted savegames e.g e.g e.g....pls test everything before !

 

6. If you create an addon: Pls make REAL addons...not some quests in the middle of the game...but addons that take place AFTER ! the mainstory....who want to play everything again only to play 1-2 more quest areas ?!

An addon for that price must add a lot more to the game and pls release it at once...no one wants it cut or even more cut to 33% ...

 

If you work a bit, POE 2 could rly be better than BG 2, im having high hopes guys, but pls don t make anything more simple that it was in POE 1..that would be a huge mistake !

Edited September 18, 2017 by Cartesii

[Lord_Mord]

 

Basically, it's the difference in methods that is important,

 

I agree, but if all characters can have the mechanics ability and the mechanics ablility enables you to pick locks, disarm traps and probably more stuff in PoE2, then where is the difference in method?

 

In BG your mage could open locks, but he had to use a spell. OK, that was a bit clunky, but it would be an interesting thing to expand upon.

 

What's the point in having a thief if everybody can open locks?

 

What's the point in having a ranger, when everybody can use traps?

 

Yes of course, you can invent something, but in my opinion that would be only to justify those classes. And to be honest: Backstabbing is just playing with bonuses. It does not immediately feel that way, but it is. Basically there is no real difference between backstbbing and lets say Wounding Shot or something. You know that ranger thing with the arrow icon. For me the real distinction begins, when a class is able to use a game mechanic, the others can't.

[Wormerine]

 

 

Basically, it's the difference in methods that is important,

 

I agree, but if all characters can have the mechanics ability and the mechanics ablility enables you to pick locks, disarm traps and probably more stuff in PoE2, then where is the difference in method?

 

In BG your mage could open locks, but he had to use a spell. OK, that was a bit clunky, but it would be an interesting thing to expand upon.

 

What's the point in having a thief if everybody can open locks?

 

What's the point in having a ranger, when everybody can use traps?

 

Yes of course, you can invent something, but in my opinion that would be only to justify those classes. And to be honest: Backstabbing is just playing with bonuses. It does not immediately feel that way, but it is. Basically there is no real difference between backstbbing and lets say Wounding Shot or something. You know that ranger thing with the arrow icon. For me the real distinction begins, when a class is able to use a game mechanic, the others can't.

 

Didn't they do that to some extend already? I really liked how different classes had different mechanics attatched to them - cyphers gained focus from damage, while chanters neede phrases to cast spells, rangers had a pet, barbarians AOE attacks etc. With rogues and fighter the issue was that they didn't do anything particularly interesting. After just being WOTC for XCOM2 I wonder if it wouldn't be cool to have rogues operate from stealth a bit like the Reapers in said expansion. 

[Lord_Mord]

 

Didn't they do that to some extend already? I really liked how different classes had different mechanics attatched to them - cyphers gained focus from damage, while chanters neede phrases to cast spells, rangers had a pet, barbarians AOE attacks etc. With rogues and fighter the issue was that they didn't do anything particularly interesting. After just being WOTC for XCOM2 I wonder if it wouldn't be cool to have rogues operate from stealth a bit like the Reapers in said expansion.

 

Why not a more elaborate thiefing mechanic? Why has everything to be combat only?

[Lephys]

I agree, but if all characters can have the mechanics ability and the mechanics ablility enables you to pick locks, disarm traps and probably more stuff in PoE2, then where is the difference in method?

 

That's a good question. If there isn't one, then there should be. That's the point. My point -- to be clear -- was not "So that's why PoE2's way is better." It's that, when approaching a system like this, there needs to be a distinct difference in the manner in which you go about trying to achieve the ultimately-same result. For example (and purely for example), what if one class could bypass a locked door by T1000-ing (melting, if you're not familiar with the reference) his way through the tiny holes in the door? Basically, they could physically get themselves past the door, but couldn't do the same with the rest of the party. Boom. Instant method difference. You just bypassed a locked gate, but you didn't just open the gate, which is the method by which a lockpicker bypasses the lock. The result is "the same" (the lock has been bypassed), but it isn't the same (the door is not freely traversible by anyone who wishes to get past it).

 

Especially with Deadfire's improvements to stealth (what with hearing radii AND sight, etc.), maybe a Lockpicker (it really doesn't matter if it's a Rogue or not who lockpicks, which is the point brought up earlier in this thread, I believe... just matters that it's hard to be awesome at multiple methods of getting past barriers) can pick the lock, open the door, get everyone past the door, then even re-lock it if they so choose. Whereas, someone with enough brute force (against the right type of door/barrier) could simply heel-kick the door in, but almost everyone on the floor would be alerted to your presence. And/or any patrolling guards who passed by behind you would IMMEDIATELY notice that something was wrong when the door was smashed in. Difference in method. Actual difference. Not just "Oh, I used a spell, and you used a lockpick, but the result was the EXACT same."