Gimme your best and gimme your worst!

[Sedrefilos]

I'm sure that there are ways around lack of pen and the rest but my problem is that I don't want to micro, pause, bring up combat log etc every time I see "no pen!no pen!no pen!" and start calculating if my buffs are enough or not. Bad design in my book. And don;t want to be forced to walk around with a estoc or this or that weapon because the devs came up with bad combat mechanics. This is the first time ever I think so much over combat mechanics of a game in general. Usually I either really like them (the mechanics) or I'm indifferent. This sounds frustrating - hope it's not that much at the end.

[Wormerine]

I'm sure that there are ways around lack of pen and the rest but my problem is that I don't want to micro, pause, bring up combat log etc every time I see "no pen!no pen!no pen!" and start calculating if my buffs are enough or not. Bad design in my book. And don;t want to be forced to walk around with a estoc or this or that weapon because the devs came up with bad combat mechanics. This is the first time ever I think so much over combat mechanics of a game in general. Usually I either really like them (the mechanics) or I'm indifferent. This sounds frustrating - hope it's not that much at the end.

It’s actually not nearly as complicated as you make it out to be. UI clearly tells you you are below pen, when you hover over enemy. See:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zFSsIEApvKo

1:37

 

For some reason they don’t show you pen info anymore when you are above armour rating. It still comes down to checking out enemy sheet and seeing what it’s least resistant to. Enemies in beta tend to favour crush damage for some reason.

[Sedrefilos]

Still don't like it. I don't like at all that it has dead zones and I might add up or remove 1,2,3 pen and it'll be irrelevant. And even if it shows when I mouse-over I don't feel like doing so in a real-time game even with pause. When I pause in these games I only give orders, I don't hover the cursor over every combatant on the screen to gather basic info... I don't know. I really hope in action is very different.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Enemies in beta tend to favour crush damage for some reason.

 

 

They are mostly made of bone, animated metal, chitin exo-skeleton, or thick lizard hide, no?

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by IndiraLightfoot

[anfoglia]

Still don't like it. I don't like at all that it has dead zones and I might add up or remove 1,2,3 pen and it'll be irrelevant. And even if it shows when I mouse-over I don't feel like doing so in a real-time game even with pause. When I pause in these games I only give orders, I don't hover the cursor over every combatant on the screen to gather basic info... I don't know. I really hope in action is very different.

 

I wonder about this. The penetration and proficiency mechanics both seem designed with the idea that players would comfortably switch between weapons, but if it turns out many players don't like pausing to check penetration for each party member and each enemy and/or don't like switching from a preferred weapon, then those mechanics become something of a dead weight. Going back to the change from DR to pen, I believe Josh said that POE players found DR mushy or unclear about what damage types were appropriate. But what if they just didn't like reviewing the numbers? Penetration may be a little clearer (less so now that different scaling thresholds have been introduced), but it doesn't change the basic task for the player.

 

EDIT: To be clear, I have no idea if a significant number of players feel that way. It just crossed my mind because I was separately curious about Josh's comment that players still seem reluctant to use non-proficient weapons, even with a system designed to make proficiency both common and low-value. (although the more likely explanation there is that everyone except devoted starts the beta with a ton of proficiency points, so why wouldn't players fill their weapon slots with proficient weapons?)

Edited February 21, 2018 by anfoglia

[Sedrefilos]

What bad whould do if 1 point or armor reduced 10% of damage and 1 point on pen negated 1 point of armor? Simple, straight, easy to explain.

 

Edit: OK, sorry this isn't the thread to complain about the mechanic. Won't waste OPs time any longer.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Sedrefilos

[Wormerine]

When I pause in these games I only give orders, I don't hover the cursor over every combatant on the screen to gather basic info... I don't know. I really hope in action is very different.

Strangely enough this is one of the main reasons Josh said he decided to change to system - to make it clearer when your weapon is working and when it is not. In beta1 it was even more extreme as you would do only 30% damage when you were below pen. This change should actually make it easier to play with less digging into stats. What it does, is communicate to you clearly when you play badly, while in PoE1 you had to do more analyzing. 

[Sedrefilos]

 

When I pause in these games I only give orders, I don't hover the cursor over every combatant on the screen to gather basic info... I don't know. I really hope in action is very different.

Strangely enough this is one of the main reasons Josh said he decided to change to system - to make it clearer when your weapon is working and when it is not. In beta1 it was even more extreme as you would do only 30% damage when you were below pen. This change should actually make it easier to play with less digging into stats. What it does, is communicate to you clearly when you play badly, while in PoE1 you had to do more analyzing. 

 

Many complained about thac0 system. Was it complicated? Not when it was explained. It made sense. But it was a badly designed system, that's why Wizards switched to D20 system. It accomplished the same thing but it was easier to use and explain. I feel that Deadfire makes a switch from D20 to thac0 with this new pen mechanic. Is it that complicated? No it's not; not when it's explained at least, but it's bad - it has holes and there are way better solutions that make even more sense and are easier to explain/communicate.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Sedrefilos

[Ancelor]

 

When I look again the first POE, the only change I’d made in the DR system would be to have it at percentile basis.

DR bypass too.

[andnico]

So I have not posted much during the beta process as of yet. My thinking was I wanted to let things evolve a bit and to let savvier minds than my own debate the maths and mechanics of the new systems. I figured this thread might be a good jump-in point though, so I'd like to offer my feedback, largely echoing previous observations, but with one or two gripes I think might be new(ish) to the party I hope might be useful.

 

Let me begin by saying I adore POE 1 and do think, with some patching (either before or after release) that POE 2 will live up to the stellar legacy of Pillars 1. Moreover, I have every confidence that the Pillars team will get all the issues ironed out. However, as part of that process, some griping on forums like this plays an important part in adressing issues.

 

Best:

Graphics, animations : Gorgeous and really make the characters feel more lively and animated.

Multiclassing: This, to me, seems a wealth of replayability temptation. The moment I heard of multiclassing, I began contemplating all manner of builds and I think this is the single greatest expansion of the Pillars series.

 

Worst:

Here I'm going to hone in on specifics, there are minor gripes I could make, but I'll keep it to main points, things that I found were significantly limiting my enjoyment of the betas when I have tried them.

 

First, the common ones:

Penetration: Even after the adjustments, I find I am extremely unfond of this mechanic. Whatever is supposed to be interesting or strategic about the new system this switch away from DR introduces is outweighed by the imbalances generated by the system and the ways it prioritizes a single focal stat (pen). It is my wish the game could just go back to Pillars 1's DR system. There I wanted to add to the chorus suggesting this is a misstep in terms of combat that makes it less rich and much more frustrating.

 

Ships: Things associated with ship management, exploration range, ship combat, etc... seems to be time sinks, micromanaging, semi-inscrutable UIs, and so forth that are disconnected from the gameplay that Pillars is centered on. Sailing seems a obstacle to get around/through to get to the content I enjoy and is the overall focus of the game. My most basic suggestions in that regard would be to a) clarify the interfaces b) minimize any penalties associated with the morale system (which seems extremely opaque) and c) overall limit the demands and costs of the the ship/sailing mechanics in terms of accessing content, be that main questline or side content.

 

Ciphers:

I like(d) playing CC ciphers. That is obviously not possible in all current versions of POE2 where, as I look at the numbers, still manage to CC themselves longer than they CC themselves with most disables. I don't know how this is even an issue, but I am certainly hoping there's a fix to cast times. Moreover, those who are fond of wizards, you also have my sympathies.

 

Lastly, the key gripe,

Bluff, Diplomacy, Resolve:

 

I understand the rebalancing of stats (though I am against the new strength stat, as it seems to abandon part of Pillars identity). I also understand and acknowledge Pillars 1's conversation system placed, perhaps, too much emphasis on Resolve and Intelligence as keys to winning dialog checks.

 

However, the KEY difference between Pillars 1 and Deadfire is that it was intentionally make a character that was a conversation winner. Going back to the first Fallouts, I have always enjoyed the chance to build a character who, even if slightly weaker in combat, had the ability to win as many conversation checks as possible. This was also doable in Pillars 1, an investment in resolve and intellgence ensured you could make a character who could (with some clever resting) hit the conversation checks needed for key things like defusing a hostile encounter or not getting murdered by an ice dragon. Moreover, you could, through your building, create a character that was actually invested in being conversation focused as opposed to combat focus.

 

With the diplomacy/bluff skill-based system in Pillars 2, that approach is, functionally, gone. Yes, you can invest in the talking skills, but all characters have equal points. You cannot negotiate combat efficacy for better speech skills. Moreover, with the extremely limited skill selection system, you can't even ensure your character is strong at both speech skills. This makes it less a matter of investment in persuasion skills ("I put lots of points in resolve to ensure I can win speech checks") to, ultimately, a matter of gambling ("Did I guess right that diplomacy is counted more often, or that a crucial story-related check won't be bluff instead?"). With the resolve/int structure, players could say "winning speech checks is my primary goal" and build accordingly. With this new system that is functionally not possible. I will note that party members can help speech checks, but that party assistance is never going to be enough to beat the high-level checks that a speech focused player would have been able to hit with a high int/res build in Pillars 1.

 

This is the element of the beta I have found the most dissapointing, and the aspect of the skill system that I could see having the overall largest impact on my enjoyment of the final game. Adding speech skills, counterintuitively, seems to have had the effect of getting rid of truly speech-focused characters. While I understand that the resolve/int system wasn't perfect, it did allow a player to say "i want this character to be focused on speech skills, and I am willing to sacrifice some combat skill for that".  The skill system in Pillars 2, more importantly, the bifurcation of the bluff/diplomacy scores means that is now something that is unachievable in Pillars 2. I also add that the idea of bluff/diplomacy split seems doubly frustrating as the concept that a consummate liar or master negotiator couldn't lie or deal their way out of a situation seems unlilkely.

 

In short, my solution is as follows: I get that resolve/int isn't coming back, but kill the bluff/diplo split. Make it "speech." That way, at least there's a chance it won't feel like you took the wrong side of a coin flip when picking your speech skill. This is, by far, my least favorite change about the game. I am, as many are, excited about the project as a whole, but I did want to make sure I at least added my two cents regarding speech changes.

Edited February 24, 2018 by andnico

[andnico]

Whoops, double post.

Edited February 24, 2018 by andnico