Some points Obsidian should consider.

[fdel71]

Above All hire someone to fix the game save issues!!!!! (win10 here not some old stuff)

 

I m playing PoE again and guess what? Saves  disapear in a aleatory manner!

To have access to them again i have to dance some voodoo dance of creating new games, save it  in a sequence of ways, so the old games reapear....This is patetic. (only fix that works)

 

And the worst ? Same **** on Tyranny!!! I didn t buy the game for this very issue, and people still complain about it!!!

 

2 games, half a dozen DLC dozens of patches, more than and 2 years and your not able to fix your freaking code for something so crucial as game save preservation?

 

How shamefull,

This reek incompetence.

 

 

As for the rest i have only wishings:

 

DLC that doesn t start in the middle of the tale....so you don t have to replay a long part of it just to make sense you getting to the DLC/expansion whaterver.

 

More than one starts, so when we start again we don t have to suffer ever the exact same tale. It would be refreshing and maybe unique in the tale of RPG. those would all converge to the main tale some way, the same way you made  multiple endings is refreshing. (don t need long introdutory tales)

 

A bit more randomness in setting so if we play a second time, or more, we can have some surprises.

Maybe pool of quests and a tool to fill it so users can create quests, and some variety of quest could be taken in a aleatory (for those who don t know it is sinonymous to random) way to fill the world.

Maybe diverse spawn points so some ennemies aren t everytime at the exact same place, or with the same companions so we know exactly what will come and prepare for it, during second of more playtrought of the same dungeon. 

 

Those 2 would do wonders for replayability.

 

Combat expanded, but i see you have already done it.

I just hope there s less logical flaws int it. But it wasn t that bad.

 

The worst thing was that you created a lot of rules for combat that in the end didn t made a diference.

EX: switching weapons for kind of damage, although nice, this was overkilled by specialization.

EX: The weapon separation by lifestyle for specialization didn t make much sense, it would have been preferable by family then sub family

And so on,

EX: pole weapon could reach beyond your pals to strike the ennemy but long sword couldn t...same size. (even if you put penalties.)

But those are minor stuffs.

 

 

That we are not restricted to some small backgrounds, and in someway we can feel a world and not a nice collection of drawings. 

The background size was quite disapointing compared to the wide space general map depicted. It needed more maps or bigger ones to maintain a sense of coesive world.

I saw you made a map i hope we can travel to it and not just by sea to land and then have to clickpoint it and magically be at a dungeon place.

 

That the party if lost (most of the characters died but you) could leave the place and be able to reform with hired people. 

 

some of these changes would be nice.

Edited September 12, 2017 by fdel71

[smjjames]

I'm on the fence whether this is supposed to be constructive criticism or a ranting manifesto.

[ManifestedISO]

I'm on the fence whether 'aleatory' is a word or not.

[JerekKruger]

If aleatory isn't a word it should be!

[ManifestedISO]

It is a word. Relating to luck or chance.

[injurai]

Op isn't using the word correctly the first time. Should have said stochastic instead.

[algroth]

*SPOILERS* for Tyranny and Pillars.

 

Some of these points are already being worked on whereas for others we'll have to see. For example: in terms of replayability, factions will be much more prominent to the overall story this time around, meaning that depending on the faction you'll choose to allign with (there are four total) you may have access to certain faction-specific quests or see a same quest be significantly altered by your allegiances. Much like Tyranny this ought to affect the content you can access in any one playthough and thus aid replayability - however they have also said that they won't make whole areas inaccessible via this mechanic as that just doesn't feel good for the players who *want* to experience the entirety of that world. Enemies won't spawn randomly or in random locations but they will be set to move and patrol this time around, meaning they'll not be always in the same spot. From what I recall of a Q&A they are also changing the way weapon proficiencies are grouped, though I might be remembering this incorrectly.

 

The matter of whether expansions will be added as new post-campaign adventures or as part of the main campaign remains to be seen, but I personally don't have a preference either way and can also see how it might either make sense or not at all to blindly request this of the devs. In the case of Pillars I think a post-campaign story could have made sense and there was a way The White March could have been made into its own story, but it wasn't really an issue for me that it wasn't - in fact, I kind of enjoyed having the ability of playing through the main campaign with all the new abilities and items and such that came alongside the expansion. Now, in Tyranny's case, it would make *very little sense* for an expansion to be addressing the post-campaign events. The game finishes as it thrusts the protagonist into an all-out war against the forces of Kyros and, considering what this implies and the sheer vastness of the land currently controlled by Kyros, there is simply no way that an expansion pack would make that arc justice, it would have to be its own separate sequel. Yes, you can make a small campaign where the protagonist battles Pox, but that wouldn't really respond to what the players would have wanted to see at the end of the main campaign, so it's a possible addition but neither here nor there. As such, expanding on the content *prior* to that moment makes a lot more sense, while the sequel (or would-be sequel, it's hardly a given that there'll be one at this point) would deal with the campaign against Kyros itself. So, depending on where Deadfire ends at, one may be a better option than the other, but so far we don't know.

 

Other points I don't really agree with or don't really understand. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the backgrounds for example.

Edited September 11, 2017 by algroth

[algroth]

It is a word. Relating to luck or chance.

In Spanish "aleatorio" means "random". I would reckon that is how the OP is using it.

[rjshae]

Rolling d20 for aleatory response...

 

12. Game saves worked fine for me. Has the OP tried removing that Win10 virusware?

[smjjames]

I suppose I could deconstruct this....

 

 "More than one starts, so when we start again we don t have to suffer ever the exact same tale. It would be refreshing and maybe unique in the tale of RPG. those would all converge to the main tale some way, the same way you made  multiple endings is refreshing. (don t need long introdutory tales)"

 

You're familiar with the conquest prologue part of Tyranny, right? Obsidian is doing something similar to that.

 

 

"A bit more randomness in setting so if we play a second time, or more, we can have some surprises.
Maybe pool of quests and a tool to fill it so users can create quests, and some variety of quest could be taken in a aleatory way to fill the world.
Maybe diverse spawn points so some ennemies aren t everytime at the exact same place, or with the same companions so we know exactly what will come and prepare for it, during second of more playtrought of the same dungeon."

 

That'd be a neat idea, don't know if they actually have the ability to do so though.
 

 

"EX: The weapon separation by lifestyle for specialization didn t make much sense, it would have been preferable by family then sub family"

 

They did away with that and have a different system with specialization of subfamilies, as you say. I think, I know they did away with the specialization system in PoE1.

"EX: pole weapon could reach beyond your pals to strike the ennemy but long sword couldn t...same size. (even if you put penalties.)
But those are minor stuffs."
 
 No they aren't the same size.

"That we are not restricted to some small backgrounds, and in someway we can feel a world and not a nice collection of drawings. 
The background size was quite disapointing compared to the wide space general map depicted. It needed more maps or bigger ones to maintain a sense of coesive world."

 

To echo other people, what are you talking about?

"I saw you made a map i hope we can travel to it and not just by sea to land and then have to clickpoint it and magically be at a dungeon place."

 

I take it that you've never read the fig updates or seen the various videos.

[fdel71]

It is a word. Relating to luck or chance.

Thank you next time i should use random for the plebe. 

[fdel71]

Op isn't using the word correctly the first time. Should have said stochastic instead.

No... the intent is randomic, so "aleatory" apply.

[fdel71]

*SPOILERS* for Tyranny and Pillars.

 

Some of these points are already being worked on whereas for others we'll have to see. For example: in terms of replayability, factions will be much more prominent to the overall story this time around, meaning that depending on the faction you'll choose to allign with (there are four total) you may have access to certain faction-specific quests or see a same quest be significantly altered by your allegiances. Much like Tyranny this ought to affect the content you can access in any one playthough and thus aid replayability - however they have also said that they won't make whole areas inaccessible via this mechanic as that just doesn't feel good for the players who *want* to experience the entirety of that world. Enemies won't spawn randomly or in random locations but they will be set to move and patrol this time around, meaning they'll not be always in the same spot. From what I recall of a Q&A they are also changing the way weapon proficiencies are grouped, though I might be remembering this incorrectly.

 

The matter of whether expansions will be added as new post-campaign adventures or as part of the main campaign remains to be seen, but I personally don't have a preference either way and can also see how it might either make sense or not at all to blindly request this of the devs. In the case of Pillars I think a post-campaign story could have made sense and there was a way The White March could have been made into its own story, but it wasn't really an issue for me that it wasn't - in fact, I kind of enjoyed having the ability of playing through the main campaign with all the new abilities and items and such that came alongside the expansion. Now, in Tyranny's case, it would make *very little sense* for an expansion to be addressing the post-campaign events. The game finishes as it thrusts the protagonist into an all-out war against the forces of Kyros and, considering what this implies and the sheer vastness of the land currently controlled by Kyros, there is simply no way that an expansion pack would make that arc justice, it would have to be its own separate sequel. Yes, you can make a small campaign where the protagonist battles Pox, but that wouldn't really respond to what the players would have wanted to see at the end of the main campaign, so it's a possible addition but neither here nor there. As such, expanding on the content *prior* to that moment makes a lot more sense, while the sequel (or would-be sequel, it's hardly a given that there'll be one at this point) would deal with the campaign against Kyros itself. So, depending on where Deadfire ends at, one may be a better option than the other, but so far we don't know.

 

Other points I don't really agree with or don't really understand. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the backgrounds for example.

I m glad to hear changes are on the work but they seem mince.

The faction quest separation is old as RPG creation and was already there in PoE, not really an advancement, just more of the same incremented. But its already something, if they could do some of it for sidequests it would enhance the freshness during replays.

 

I hope XP is not necessarily tied to factions, as it was in PoE1 so we can go the skyrim: "**** all factions faction" for example. I tried that on PoE1 but without expansions it was unfeasable XP wise. You ended too weak (lvl to confront last fight , at least  i wasn t competent enought to do it, with the party i had.

 

When i think in randomness i don t think at something bit as whole map part. but smaller increments would be sufficient.

- bosses having randomic battle ressources and stats

- Group of foes present random settings (group is not always the same, or at least doesn t always have same spells and habilities), monsters could present variation... when feasable, if doable. 

- Since we have a big map full of isles, some dungeons couls be shuffled amongs the isles so we don t know the exact location of dungeons and some spots and go straight for it on replay. On my ignorance it shouldn t be too hard to shuffle some X,Y coordinates on the map, main quest or more relevant stuff would remain static for lore sake, but i guees even indexation of name place could be done on "new game" click so we got a nice chunk of it shuffled.  

-  Some "battle rewards" could be shuffled, so killing X doesn t necessarily mean you find weapon X or armor Z, same to merchants, but i think for merchants it was already there in PoE1.

 

And yeah a tool for the comunity to create and insert content in the world missions being random would be the ice of the cake.

 

In my case POE was so unplayable by my standarts, and by bugs, when realeased, that i basically replayed it only when expansion was realeased so i don t really recall how it was before the first expansion. By the way i was so pissed that i only bought the expansions on a sale this year, just for the sake of having them, and now i m replaying just because i stumbled accidentally on the E3 video of  PoE2. 

 

As for sequels i wouldn t worry...as long as the cow have milk, odds are there will be one trilogy for Poe and one for Tyranny, nothing detrimental its just how business work.

 

 

I suppose I could deconstruct this....

 

 "More than one starts, so when we start again we don t have to suffer ever the exact same tale. It would be refreshing and maybe unique in the tale of RPG. those would all converge to the main tale some way, the same way you made  multiple endings is refreshing. (don t need long introdutory tales)"

 

You're familiar with the conquest prologue part of Tyranny, right? Obsidian is doing something similar to that.

 

 

"A bit more randomness in setting so if we play a second time, or more, we can have some surprises.

Maybe pool of quests and a tool to fill it so users can create quests, and some variety of quest could be taken in a aleatory way to fill the world.

Maybe diverse spawn points so some ennemies aren t everytime at the exact same place, or with the same companions so we know exactly what will come and prepare for it, during second of more playtrought of the same dungeon."

 

That'd be a neat idea, don't know if they actually have the ability to do so though.

 

 

"EX: The weapon separation by lifestyle for specialization didn t make much sense, it would have been preferable by family then sub family"

 

They did away with that and have a different system with specialization of subfamilies, as you say. I think, I know they did away with the specialization system in PoE1.

 

"EX: pole weapon could reach beyond your pals to strike the ennemy but long sword couldn t...same size. (even if you put penalties.)

But those are minor stuffs."

 

 No they aren't the same size.

"That we are not restricted to some small backgrounds, and in someway we can feel a world and not a nice collection of drawings. 

The background size was quite disapointing compared to the wide space general map depicted. It needed more maps or bigger ones to maintain a sense of coesive world."

 

To echo other people, what are you talking about?

"I saw you made a map i hope we can travel to it and not just by sea to land and then have to clickpoint it and magically be at a dungeon place."

 

I take it that you've never read the fig updates or seen the various videos.

Sorry, i didn t bought Tyranny. All this fake evil doesn t interest me much. 

But i m happy to know they doing something similar, althought by the introduction they ve given, i find it difficult.

But as example:

Start 1) you re at CAD NUA and suffer full effect of Eothas awakening

Start 2) You on the path of Eothas somewhere and suffer some, some more come after (if relevant)

Start 3) you way off the place and Eothas path...

All those would bind at some point but at least we would have more than 1 start to the game. Some start could even mean some extra  mission (like returning to Cad Nua to see the damage, or going after Eothas straight on).

But i suppose this won t hapen.   

 

As for the weapon matter: yes they are roughly the same size, at leat a staff, morning star and 2H Sword were but with the formers you could attack far away ennemies which you couldn t with the later. As i said small inconsistence.

 

The new map system seem way more consistent and neat if well exploited, and could allow players inserted content if we have a toolset. thats good. 

[fdel71]

Rolling d20 for aleatory response...

 

12. Game saves worked fine for me. Has the OP tried removing that Win10 virusware?

Random answer on D100

36. stop the bulltalk.

 

This is a mere stalling solution never solved anything. At least not in my case and many others. Lucky you.

 

Another random answer for the same matter at hand.

76: Obsidian could try to wonder why an absolute minority of games saves games where they ve set it....  there must be a reason why virtually noone set saves this place.

[MaxQuest]

12. Game saves worked fine for me. Has the OP tried removing that Win10 virusware?

Just chiming-in: I have personally lost exactly one save once. It was on v2.03 and on Windows 8.

I stopped giving long names to saves after that, and never encountered same problem ever again. 

Also, RPGs have taught me to save often and make backups.

[Heijoushin]

Haha, thanks guys, this thread made me lol literally. 

[Wormerine]

I think what OP asks for is a different game with and different mentality, goal and design philosophy. I am afraid that procedural "Rogue-like" elements won't mesh welll with handcrafted nature of PoE. Prerendered locations don't allow for much variation, character design tends to be tied to who they are. The encounteres you have are a way of storytelling as well. Ideally, the depth of player interactions with the world will be more fleshed out in Deadfire, and you can get desired replayibility from the way you interact with the world. I would rather have more possibilities of role playing, rather than game throwing new, shallow scenarios on multiple play through.

[fdel71]

 

12. Game saves worked fine for me. Has the OP tried removing that Win10 virusware?

Just chiming-in: I have personally lost exactly one save once. It was on v2.03 and on Windows 8.

I stopped giving long names to saves after that, and never encountered same problem ever again. 

Also, RPGs have taught me to save often and make backups.

 

Agree, i don thave pacience for long names. My saves are usually 5 to 10 letters long, when its not merely the engine giving the name place to the save. 

But in this case it s not merely one save ita all the saves that disapear. the whole bunch of all caraters. And if you create a new, save it, then move and save over the last save all the bunch of saves reappear. Thats clearly osidian problem. 

[rjshae]

 

Rolling d20 for aleatory response...

 

12. Game saves worked fine for me. Has the OP tried removing that Win10 virusware?

Random answer on D100

36. stop the bulltalk.

 

This is a mere stalling solution never solved anything. At least not in my case and many others. Lucky you.

 

I resisted assimilation, so it works for me.

 

Don't have a cow.

[fdel71]

I think what OP asks for is a different game with and different mentality, goal and design philosophy. I am afraid that procedural "Rogue-like" elements won't mesh welll with handcrafted nature of PoE. Prerendered locations don't allow for much variation, character design tends to be tied to who they are. The encounteres you have are a way of storytelling as well. Ideally, the depth of player interactions with the world will be more fleshed out in Deadfire, and you can get desired replayibility from the way you interact with the world. I would rather have more possibilities of role playing, rather than game throwing new, shallow scenarios on multiple play through.

Partially wrong or right, whatever.

 

Yes i ask for changes. More specifically modernization. 

Getting stale in the past just because  a "path" must be followed. Path that was set due to old technical limitations ain t good.

Things must be sorted out, what is tecnhical militation and what is core.

 

Main tale with good story telling with possible moral choices that cast doubts and if possible interwined side quest with the main is core.

Having an interesting way to create characters, which sometimes is the part i most like in games, is also core. 

 

 

- Now having ever the same non related sidequests was a limitation, and breaking this with a pool of side quests could show you even more diverses facts and atitude present in the world.

 - Would also allow to give a tool so comunity can share fan made missions, this is also quite mainstrean and was present in Neverwinternight, nothing new here. 

- Having slides instead of a "roling world" (or part of it) was a limitation, that is no more, it so true, they are adjusting. 

- Not start as a zero on the left, to rise as a god, is a mental limitation in RPG mindset that few have ever tried to break. (i would like to see a point system were you can buy level or skills habilities fame or LVLs, would be a trade off , let s say you could start up to LVL 5 instead of level 0, but doing, so you would lessen other kinds of benefits. Game would adjust some crucial places in accordance. Non relevant missions would stay the same. 

- If your party is being wipped (this may have been fixed) you can abandon it and flee with the survivors, instead of a live all die all approach.  Or it could be an option.

- Its not because a dungeon switches place and aquire a diferent X,Y  on a 2D map that the games is fundamentally changed. But keeping surprises high and repetitive stuff at minimal keeping the core of it intact is a move that i spell as improvement.

 

If evolution wasn t part of it we would still be playing 2d games like Curse of the azure bonds, or Pool of radiance, which by the way were excelents, and i REALLY miss. Would be an instant buyer.

FPS would still be 2d

strategic games would still be merely symbols.

 

Do not confound real advance with those who use modernization as an excuse to lower the quality bar. And there s alot, since by modernization they usually mean better FX at the expanse of interesting gameplay.

 

I love the kind of game PoE is, i just think it could shake some dusty features off not essencially going to the makeup artist. 

 

Now if someone could muster the courage and leave the D&D and give a go to Rolemaster kind of combat and world...

Shadow World would be a blast. Dirty, gritty, dusty evil, gods, avatars, sernants, walking as mere creatures/kith, but yet some hope.. Tyrrany is a good step toward this kind of setting but a bit still too festy in design, it lacks dirt, grits and exposed guts.

But this require a hugue step.

Edited September 12, 2017 by fdel71

[Wormerine]

 

I think what OP asks for is a different game with and different mentality, goal and design philosophy. I am afraid that procedural "Rogue-like" elements won't mesh welll with handcrafted nature of PoE. Prerendered locations don't allow for much variation, character design tends to be tied to who they are. The encounteres you have are a way of storytelling as well. Ideally, the depth of player interactions with the world will be more fleshed out in Deadfire, and you can get desired replayibility from the way you interact with the world. I would rather have more possibilities of role playing, rather than game throwing new, shallow scenarios on multiple play through.

 

Partially wrong or right, whatever.

 

Yes i ask for changes. More specifically modernization. 

Getting stale in the past just because  a "path" must be followed. Path that was set due to old technical limitations ain t good.

Things must be sorted out, what is tecnhical militation and what is core.

 

Main tale with good story telling with possible moral choices that cast doubts and if possible interwined side quest with the main is core.

Having an interesting way to create characters, which sometimes is the part i most like in games, is also core. 

 

 

- Now having ever the same non related sidequests was a limitation, and breaking this with a pool of side quests could show you even more diverses facts and atitude present in the world.

 - Would also allow to give a tool so comunity can share fan made missions, this is also quite mainstrean and was present in Neverwinternight, nothing new here. 

- Having slides instead of a "roling world" (or part of it) was a limitation, that is no more, it so true, they are adjusting. 

- Not start as a zero on the left, to rise as a god, is a mental limitation in RPG mindset that few have ever tried to break. (i would like to see a point system were you can buy level or skills habilities fame or LVLs, would be a trade off , let s say you could start up to LVL 5 instead of level 0, but doing, so you would lessen other kinds of benefits. Game would adjust some crucial places in accordance. Non relevant missions would stay the same. 

- If your party is being wipped (this may have been fixed) you can abandon it and flee with the survivors, instead of a live all die all approach.  Or it could be an option.

- Its not because a dungeon switches place and aquire a diferent X,Y  on a 2D map that the games is fundamentally changed. But keeping surprises high and repetitive stuff at minimal keeping the core of it intact is a move that i spell as improvement.

 

If evolution wasn t part of it we would still be playing 2d games like Curse of the azure bonds, or Pool of radiance, which by the way were excelents, and i REALLY miss. Would be an instant buyer.

FPS would still be 2d

strategic games would still be merely symbols.

 

Do not confound real advance with those who use modernization as an excuse to lower the quality bar. And there s alot, since by modernization they usually mean better FX at the expanse of interesting gameplay.

 

I love the kind of game PoE is, i just think it could shake some dusty features off not essencially going to the makeup artist. 

 

Now if someone could muster the courage and leave the D&D and give a go to Rolemaster kind of combat and world...

Shadow World would be a blast. Dirty, gritty, dusty evil, gods, avatars, sernants, walking as mere creatures/kith, but yet some hope.. Tyrrany is a good step toward this kind of setting but a bit still too festy in design, it lacks dirt, grits and exposed guts.

But this require a hugue step.

Giving community modding tools is not a modernisation but a creative decision. "What is our experience designed to be?" To create a modable engine you have to create an engine for that very purpose. In case of PoE that would mean completely changing how the game plays and looks - instead of handcrafted prerendered backgrounds you create 3D assets which can be easily used and reused. Games become modular.

 

NWN is a good example. To some it was step forward, but to me it was a disaster. Campaign was dull and unengaging, gameplay a step backward from IE. But it allowed for multiplayer and custom campaign. I don't care much for user created background. Obsidian has many talented writiers, artists and designers on their team and I am more interested in their work than a fan fiction of some random bloke.

 

POE is a bit vintage but that is what it is supposed to be. It's a successor to EI games. It values handcrafted locations, class based combat, well written prose. And they modernise it where they see the need.

[Lord_Mord]

 

let s say you could start up to LVL 5 instead of level 0, but doing, so you would lessen other kinds of benefits. Game would adjust some crucial places in accordance. Non relevant missions would stay the same.

 

Wtf would be the point of that?

 

All in all your perception of what is "forward" and "modern" is entirely subjective. You just list things that you'd like to have and claim that they are an indicator of progression.

[Messier-31]

NWN is a good example. To some it was step forward, but to me it was a disaster. Campaign was dull and unengaging, gameplay a step backward from IE. But it allowed for multiplayer and custom campaign. I don't care much for user created background. Obsidian has many talented writiers, artists and designers on their team and I am more interested in their work than a fan fiction of some random bloke.

 

Couldn't agree more, even though there are a few valuable content mods which are worth playing.

[fdel71]

 

 

let s say you could start up to LVL 5 instead of level 0, but doing, so you would lessen other kinds of benefits. Game would adjust some crucial places in accordance. Non relevant missions would stay the same.

 

Wtf would be the point of that?

 

All in all your perception of what is "forward" and "modern" is entirely subjective. You just list things that you'd like to have and claim that they are an indicator of progression.

 

Not necessarily this is a "progress". But it would nice to have an option not to be lvl 0 for once in a RPG direct sequel.   

[Wormerine]

 

 

 

let s say you could start up to LVL 5 instead of level 0, but doing, so you would lessen other kinds of benefits. Game would adjust some crucial places in accordance. Non relevant missions would stay the same.

 

 

Wtf would be the point of that?

All in all your perception of what is "forward" and "modern" is entirely subjective. You just list things that you'd like to have and claim that they are an indicator of progression.

Not necessarily this is a "progress". But it would nice to have an option not to be lvl 0 for once in a RPG direct sequel.

Sure, that is why i prefer when sequels use different protagonist than 1st title (see KOTOR, NWN2, fallouts). From th what gameplay perspective there is little point to that. Asking new players to LVL up couple times before they even start the game is silly and even furthers trickiness of creating new character if you are new to the game. I do agree with you that there usually is this odd feeling of going backwards when you start a sequel.