Inherent flaws in Soulbound items...

[Wormerine]

Are we really getting stuck on single words? Yeah, generic doesn’t have to be negative, but it can be used to bring attention to unoriginal or uninteresting of a nature of an item which by design should be unique like “a generic action film”.

 

My stance still is the same - choosing from one-of-a-kind handcrafted weapons is more interesting than choosing from weapons which are easily recreatable and interchangeable with each other.

[blotter]

In terms of their place in the setting, soulbound items don't really need a unique explanation for their existence as a category of items (which is what I assume Ninjamestari meant by "no real story", since, individually, they all have stories about their origins which are gradually unlocked alongside their enchantments). Pillars 1 already established that a) souls can linger within objects/places and/or b) soul energy can change how objects/environments function - soulbound items are just examples of either phenomenon.

 

There are also multiple cases in which soulbound items are acquired under special circumstances, contrary to Ninjamestari's claim. The Hammer of Abydon is the most prominent example, given its importance to the White March 2 storyline, but there are others to which this applies to varying degrees: the Grey Sleeper has a specific location and scripted interaction tied to its acquisition, while the Stormcaller has to be assembled through parts uncovered via exploration. I wouldn't consider killing a monster/enemy to be "special circumstances" in games like this, but even so it is fairly appropriate for soulbound items to be gained from certain "boss" fights, as in the case of the Dragon's Maw Shield or Steadfast (if you don't resolve things with Adaryc peacefully). A similar case could be made even for purchasing soulbound items, if the seller is important enough and the price is high enough (but I don't think the former standard is met in Pillars 1 for the soulbound items that you can purchase in the game and access to them should probably be gated via special stock access requirements). 

 

That said, I do agree that too many soulbound items end up being plopped into your stash rather trivially. For example, getting Ydwen's Redeemer from what is essentially one random bandit encounter among many seems "off" to me, I barely noticed when Gyrd Haewanes Stenes ended up in my inventor at the end of a fairly insignificant opener quest for the conflict with Lord Gathbin over Caed Nua, and I actually had to look up Nightshroud in the wiki to recall where I got it. The Unlabored Blade finding its way to you as an afterthought at the end of a fairly simple sidequest is actually narratively appropriate for it, but I still have mixed feelings about it overall.

 

I also agree that soulbound items are too cut off from the world in general after you acquire them, with the exception of Abydon's Hammer, given its use in dealing with the Eyeless. They don't all necessarily have to attract special dialogue from NPCs (and a number of them probably shouldn't, given how obscure they are), but tying their enchantments to scripted interactions where appropriate may be an interesting way to give them a bit more life throughout the game. 

 

That said, none of these things amount to a case against the idea of soulbound items in general or the soulbound item system itself, but rather how they're handled/introduced throughout the game. In part, these problems are related to the fact that soulbound items were introduced via the White March and Deadfire Pack add-ons, which comes with some constraints in terms where and how we get them in the interest of ensuring that they're accessible to players regardless of how far they've already gone in the game. Since they'll be present in Deadfire from the start, the same restrictions need not apply.

 

I would like to see more differentiation between greater and lesser soulbound specimens: some are legendary or even divine artifacts, while some are merely items that have inherited a few of their past owners' quirks. The effort involved in mastering one type should not be the same as mastering the other type, and they shouldn't necessarily have the same number of enchantments to unlock, and lesser soulbound items wouldn't necessarily have the same expectations associated with them as far as in-game preamble and reactivity are concerned.

 

Additionally, it might be interesting for ranks in a particular skill (Arcana, History, or Metaphysics come to mind) to introduce more variability to the unlocking requirements, though this should be more of a reward for high ranks in the skill than a punishment for low ranks. If this would be unbalancing for the skill in question, then it could be tied to a proficiency/general talent (if the developers are still planning to widen the range of choices available there).

Edited January 6, 2018 by blotter

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

My issue with Soulbound weapons is their relative power compared to other items. In PoE they were all over the place, but in general were inferior to a 3rd tier (Superb I think) weapon with a lash. Like Superb Bittercut + Corrosive Lash or Tidefall + Lash were goddamn beasts that beat out most soulbound counterparts. I hope PoE2 does a better job and includes more soulbound weapons with a lash, but I fear that with the enchantment system having certain items with less possible points and restricting what kind of enchantments can go on items the issue will repeat itself.

 

The dumb stuff to unlock abilities I found pretty fun tbh, though I can see how it can be repetitive and boring after a while.

[algroth]

I just noticed that quote of mine on your signature, Kaine.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I just noticed that quote of mine on your signature, Kaine.

It seems my stealth is at an acceptable level then.

[ShadySands]

I'm curious to see how intelligent weapons pan out and if they have the same issues

Edited January 6, 2018 by ShadySands

[Gromnir]

 

What's so wrong with generic?

 

adjective

adjective: generic

1. derogatory

   lacking imagination or individuality; predictable and unoriginal.

   "generic dance-floor fillers"

 

naughty boy

 

let google light the way... at least this once.

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generic

 

sure, generic can be derogatory, but am suspecting we weren't only person to be surprised to see "1." for such a definition.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

[huang]

I like the core idea of a soulbound weapon. If I could change anything about them, it would be to make them really rare. There probably shouldn't be more than 3 or 4 of them in the entire game. Seriously. Pillars 1 had so many soulbound items, some of my characters had 2 of them equipped. I'd also like to see them changed into quests essentially. Like the Grey Sleeper (the fact that I still know the name of this weapon says everything). It's so much more interesting than just doing a certain amount of damage with them or something.

 

So again, in my view the only thing that crushes the idea of soulbound weapons, is if they don't feel like anything special. Such an item shouldn't be a dime a dozen.

 

Really curious how they are implementing those items in Pillars 2!

[algroth]

 

 

What's so wrong with generic?

 

adjective

adjective: generic

1. derogatory

   lacking imagination or individuality; predictable and unoriginal.

   "generic dance-floor fillers"

 

naughty boy

 

let google light the way... at least this once.

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generic

 

sure, generic can be derogatory, but am suspecting we weren't only person to be surprised to see "1." for such a definition.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

That was due to trying to cut and highlight what I wanted to. Quoting in this forum is... Weird. At least for me. It took a few tries to get it to look close to right. It's not that I was putting it as the primary definition, simply as *a* definition, which is the one used above.

[Ninjamestari]

But the problem with the soulbound weapons is that they didn't really feel unique, they felt like generic super-items that try too hard not to be generic and end up being a generic representation of a category of their own. IE, soulbound weapons. I'm all for making unique weapons and other equipment, but making a special category for all of them and have them all behave in the same manner just defeats the whole point. I'd rather just have all the honestly generic stuff. I know that the way crafting worked kinda killed all the non-soulbound items in the game as far as personality goes, but that's not a problem in how the items were made, it's a problem with the crafting.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

What's so wrong with generic?

 

adjective

adjective: generic

 

1. "..."

 

1.1 "..."

 

1.2 derogatory lacking imagination or individuality; predictable and unoriginal.

 

naughty boy

 

let google light the way... at least this once.

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generic

 

sure, generic can be derogatory, but am suspecting we weren't only person to be surprised to see "1." for such a definition.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

That was due to trying to cut and highlight what I wanted to. Quoting in this forum is... Weird. At least for me. It took a few tries to get it to look close to right. It's not that I was putting it as the primary definition, simply as *a* definition, which is the one used above.

 

 

10 second fix.

 

and yeah, by labelling as "1" (unnecessarily we might add if you were simple posting a definition rather than the definition) you were being misleading, particular as you didn't bother to include the link, as did Gromnir. 

 

maybe a mistake.  maybe not.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

What's so wrong with generic?

 

adjective

adjective: generic

 

1. "..."

 

1.1 "..."

 

1.2 derogatory lacking imagination or individuality; predictable and unoriginal.

 

naughty boy

 

let google light the way... at least this once.

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generic

 

sure, generic can be derogatory, but am suspecting we weren't only person to be surprised to see "1." for such a definition.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

That was due to trying to cut and highlight what I wanted to. Quoting in this forum is... Weird. At least for me. It took a few tries to get it to look close to right. It's not that I was putting it as the primary definition, simply as *a* definition, which is the one used above.

 

 

10 second fix.

 

and yeah, by labelling as "1" (unnecessarily we might add if you were simple posting a definition rather than the definition) you were being misleading, particular as you didn't bother to include the link, as did Gromnir. 

 

maybe a mistake.  maybe not.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

If you want to twist a minor detail into a deliberate attempt to mislead or misinform the rest, suit yourself. I'm not getting into this again.

Edited January 7, 2018 by algroth

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

 

What's so wrong with generic?

 

adjective

adjective: generic

 

1. "..."

 

1.1 "..."

 

1.2 derogatory lacking imagination or individuality; predictable and unoriginal.

 

naughty boy

 

let google light the way... at least this once.

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generic

 

sure, generic can be derogatory, but am suspecting we weren't only person to be surprised to see "1." for such a definition.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

That was due to trying to cut and highlight what I wanted to. Quoting in this forum is... Weird. At least for me. It took a few tries to get it to look close to right. It's not that I was putting it as the primary definition, simply as *a* definition, which is the one used above.

 

 

10 second fix.

 

and yeah, by labelling as "1" (unnecessarily we might add if you were simple posting a definition rather than the definition) you were being misleading, particular as you didn't bother to include the link, as did Gromnir. 

 

maybe a mistake.  maybe not.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

If you want to twist a minor detail into a deliberate attempt to mislead or misinform the rest, suit yourself. I'm not getting into this again.

 

"The lady protests too much, methinks."--  hamlet, act 3, scene 2.

 

dunno, this quote thing don't seem so difficult to us, but if you wanna actual protest, then we will continue. welcome.

 

in addition to the clear mislabeling o' the definition, you chose the one readily available online dictionary definition which actual included a derogatory aspect for generic.

 

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS699US699&ei=-E9SWt38J8eV0gKD8ILgDg&q=generic+definition&oq=generic+d&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l7j0i10k1j0l2.13117.14178.0.16155.4.3.1.0.0.0.187.540.0j3.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.542...0i67k1j0i20i264k1.0.czqc4hYKPmY

 

dictionary.com

 

merriam-webster

 

cambridge

 

etc.

 

so, you cherry pick a dictionary definition which provides a derogatory aspect for generic denotative as 'posed to mere connotative, and then you mislabel and fail to provide linky. to a reasonable onlooker it would appear as if you tailored your response for effect... and you got caught.  no biggie... but don't do it again. john 8:11.

 

 

quack.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[algroth]

I didn't post a link because a simple google search would have validated as much. Are you seriously this pedantic, and paranoid to boot so that you'd misconstrue some minor detail or error with ennumeration as a deliberate attempt to deceive? Again, this is a casual conversation on an internet forum, you are reading too much into it.

Edited January 7, 2018 by algroth

[Gromnir]

I didn't post a link because a simple google search would have validated as much. Are you seriously this pedantic, and paranoid to boot so that you'd misconstrue some minor detail or error with ennumeration as a deliberate attempt to deceive? Again, this is a casual conversation on an internet forum, you are reading too much into it.

so, it appears you did want to get "into it." 

 

as we noted 'bove, were clear not simple a matter of mislabeling as you did selective choose... and the google search were precise the problem for you, which would explain why you didn't link.  most such google search definitions for generic do not include denotative derogatory.  google search is part o' your problem, not your rescue.  you used a mislabeled and, in hindsight, anomalous dictionary definition to refute ninjamestar.  try and reverse so is Gromnir error is amusing. 

 

am only continuing 'cause you cannot seem to let it go. am not certain why we always need be the grownup in these situations.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[algroth]

 

I didn't post a link because a simple google search would have validated as much. Are you seriously this pedantic, and paranoid to boot so that you'd misconstrue some minor detail or error with ennumeration as a deliberate attempt to deceive? Again, this is a casual conversation on an internet forum, you are reading too much into it.

so, it appears you did want to get "into it." 

 

as we noted 'bove, were clear not simple a matter of mislabeling as you did selective choose... and the google search were precise the problem for you, which would explain why you didn't link.  most such google search definitions for generic do not include denotative derogatory.  google search is part o' your problem, not your rescue.  you used a mislabeled and, in hindsight, anomalous dictionary definition to refute ninjamestar.  try and reverse so is Gromnir error is amusing.

 

Upon searching for "generic definition" on Google, the result I get *does* list the derogatory form as a definition for it. Likewise it is seen in the Oxford dictionaries site: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generic I didn't feel further clarification was needed, but fair enough, since you're so bent on making a fuss out of it.

[Gromnir]

 

 

I didn't post a link because a simple google search would have validated as much. Are you seriously this pedantic, and paranoid to boot so that you'd misconstrue some minor detail or error with ennumeration as a deliberate attempt to deceive? Again, this is a casual conversation on an internet forum, you are reading too much into it.

so, it appears you did want to get "into it." 

 

as we noted 'bove, were clear not simple a matter of mislabeling as you did selective choose... and the google search were precise the problem for you, which would explain why you didn't link.  most such google search definitions for generic do not include denotative derogatory.  google search is part o' your problem, not your rescue.  you used a mislabeled and, in hindsight, anomalous dictionary definition to refute ninjamestar.  try and reverse so is Gromnir error is amusing.

 

Upon searching for "generic definition" on Google, the result I get *does* list the derogatory form as a definition for it. Likewise it is seen in the Oxford dictionaries site: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generic I didn't feel further clarification was needed, but fair enough, since you're so bent on making a fuss out of it.

 

ofcourse the definition you selective listed is at the oxforddictionaries site.  we linked the oxford site earlier to point out how your efforts, intentional or otherwise, were misleading.

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/95496-inherent-flaws-in-soulbound-items/?p=1968447

 

"I've always known it as a derogatory term when used in a derogatory fashion, and it is recognized as such by all dictionaries I'm looking at. "

 

again, no.  you cherry picked.  oxford is actual the outlier from the dictionaries you were likely looking at.

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/95496-inherent-flaws-in-soulbound-items/?p=1968620

 

is becoming spam with Gromnir need having relink previous posts from mere a page past.

 

in any event, took you two days to correct your original misleading post, but am guessing you deserve some kinda credit for doing so.

 

am suspecting you will need continue this... one wonders how long you can maintain the charade.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Tigranes]

Gromnir, of all people, reading too much into something? Say it ain't so!

 

[Ninjamestari]

Gromnir, of all people, reading too much into something? Say it ain't so!

 

 

Meh, I agree with him, the lady really doth protest too much ^^

[Tigranes]

I mean, after all these years, his prose just sounds normal to me now. We're like an old, married couple, except in a polygamous commune.

[Pharaun159]

I have a confession to make: I never liked the soul-bound weapons. They always felt kinda out of place and silly, with no real story to them and they just had this feature that was apparently a thing in the world but no one never talked about any of them and they didn't have any value what so ever outside combat. If it was up to me, I'd simply remove the feature from deadfire, they're dead weight that add zero value to the game due to being just another powerful item no one cares about.

I whole heartedly disagree. One of the first things i noticed in pillars, was the lack of lore behind weapons. In the early days of pillers even "unique" weapons were not all that exciting. Soulbound items have waaaaaay more lore and story behind each, and as unlocking parts reveals more lore each... Id say they are much more rewards. By end game you can enchant some of the unique weapons past soulbounds, but the trade off is the soulbounds have more abilities tied to them. Try a twohanded paladin with the deadfire belt (+3 str +3 dex +2 int 3x firebrand and pillar of flames) and use st ywydwins redeemer ( exceptional, ressurection abilties, pillar of faith... Stuff that only enhances paladins further)... And you walk around kicking ass and taking names.

[rothamon81]

Yeah, and can I have a soulbound item that increases spellcasting? Or any item that does more than: +10% radius. PoE1 items focused very much on conventional damage which I found a bit boring playing a "Mage". Of course, Eoras general magic isn't as developed as it is in D&D but at least throw us a bone here and there.

[Elkor_Alish]

I found the majority of weapons pretty uninteresting to be honest, but the ones which did stand out certainly weren't soulbound.

 

Spelltongue was pretty special, Drake's Bell was very useful, but far and beyond my favorite was Puitènte med Príncipi. I can't remember my skill point allocation, but on my solo wizard run, I remember that thing (along with Blast) alone was able to keep most trashmobs flattened throughout entire encounters which allowed to me conserve my spell usage quite efficiently. Between that and tentacles, most of that run was a breeze.

[daven]

The Grey Sleeper was the only one which really stood out to me. Probably cos of the associated quest.

 

Not really into the whole 'kill ten enemies to upgrade' thing. Just reminds me of Call of Duty style perks or whatever. When you have to do the same crap to level up.

[Messier-31]

The first level of unlocks just require taking some hits. Fine, this is doable, even in normal play.

 

The second level requires getting Critical Hit to trigger the Confuse Proc... okay, a bit more difficult, but doable. However there is the added wrinkle that it can only happen once per Encounter!?  Hopefully the next unlock of the hat is extremely powerful, because that is statistically unlikely through normal play. In Pillars 1 there are probably enough trash fights to get this hat unlocked by the end of the game, but supposedly Pillars 2 has less encounters?

 

Ryona's Breastplate.

"Get revived a bunch of times."

Give the item to a character.

Send the character solo for a suicide attack.

Revive said character.

Repeat till level unlocks.

???

Profit.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Messier-31