Gimme your best and gimme your worst!

[AndreaColombo]

Best

It's pretty, except for hair

 

and beards.

Seriously, beards as they are now look like placeholders. Only a teenager's growing for the first time would look that patchy and irregular.

[JFutral]

I have nothing to really add. Some of it is hard to judge since the beta is such a deliberately limited experience. But in terms of mechanics and what is currently known about the game with the beta, I agree with most of what everyone has already written.

 

I actually dug the Might vs Strength thing in PoE I. I liked that Might didn't HAVE to mean physical strength. But, okay. The change isn't a deal breaker.

 

I would like an 18 stat to actually have a stronger effect. Where I think diminishing returns should start to set in is as one get's higher than 18. A nice "hockey stick" curve of benefits as you get to 18 and an inverted hockey stick as you go past 18. [eta: I mean it's not like I can keep rolling until I get all 18s anyway. You have balanced that out by giving a limited number of points available with limited chances to add more depending on race. After that it is a dependent on gear and inns]

 

I don't want to see imposed level caps. But if you really don't want people to advance beyond a certain level before expansions, then just don't offer as many experience points. Or make certain choice paths exclusive. I admit to my problem of being a "completionist". I've tried seeking help for it, but it is a hard monkey to get off my back.

 

I hope the performance of the finished game is better than the beta. If how the beta performs on my computer now is indicative of how the release will perform, I'm pretty screwed.

 

I am looking forward to the release of the full game.

 

Joe

Edited February 16, 2018 by JFutral

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Best

It's pretty, except for hair

 

 

and beards.

 

Seriously, beards as they are now look like placeholders. Only a teenager's growing for the first time would look that patchy and irregular.

I could grow a full beard as a teenager, don't insult my high school beard by comparing it to Deadfire beta beards.

[Cdiaz]

Thanks a lot everyone! We definitely appreciate the feedback and if you had to repeat yourselves here from other posts I thank you for taking the time to get your thoughts out again! Please keep them coming

 

As far as things I will try to do, I did notice the worry for posts on other sites as opposed to here. I will definitely try to ensure we are updated on our forums with information that can be gathered from other sites as Josh and other travel around and get interviewed I apologize for letting you guys down thus far! I will do my best to step it up. If you do see something somewhere else that isn't here, shoot me a line.

 

You all the best and you know it,

 

-Caleb

[demeisen]

+ The artwork, the world building, the writing, it's astonishingly lovely.  Pillars is a top tier RPG world, and I think Obsidian are masters of that craft, second to no other studio.  Whoever is doing all that stuff... I'm a little bit in awe.

 

- What others have said about caster problems, loss of long term resources, etc.  E.g:

 

Casters in dnd-style games are usually resource-management types of characters, and that's what makes them so damn fun to play - rationing the gadgets you have in your toolbelt, gauging encounters, saving your resources and going all-out in a boss fight...the per-rest spells make "easy" encounters mentally engaging when you try to figure out the most efficient use of your spells

 

Oh wow do I ever agree with LampStaple.  I feel like that core aspect of the RPG experience is being eroded to appease the "action RPG" crowd.  And as DexGames said:

 

I used to think before using a Spells, now I just spam, Fights after Fights.

 

Those two posters (and others too) identified the root cause of some of the problems, IMO.  That's not a balance tweak, it's a core change to the nature of the classes.  Casters were always my fav to play in RPGs for the reasons LampStaple and DexGames get to: they were about planning, rationing, efficiency, breaking out the most powerful toys only when things got dire.  Being forced to improvise when your fav spells are gone, and you are left with a few weirder ones in a tough situation.  See what LampStaple said above about even the "easy" encounters being mentally engaging.  While that's not 100% gone in DF, the game has moved the wrong way.  As several up-thread have said also... it's just not as much fun now.  Balance tweaks might help a little there, but it's not the core of the problem.

 

RPGs for me are about journeys, not one-off fights.  I don't want the game to woosh my health bars right back up (even if there's a bolted on injury system).  I don't want it to give me all my spells back so I can spam them again in the next room.

 

I will still play the game, because of how astonishingly immersive and beautiful the Pillars world is.  But it'll be bittersweet, I admit.  It absolutely nails one thing I want (an immersive world), while abandoning another.  My hope lies in a future community mod to restore long term dynamics, and rebalance accordingly.

Edited February 16, 2018 by demeisen

[IndiraLightfoot]

Another bad:

 

Alright, I haven't seen this mentioned by anyone, so this may come out a bit leftfield:

I have a bit of a hard time finding and using the talents of each character in my party that I select.

 

What I'd love to see is some quickbar á la NWN2, where I can place any talents or skills or whatever I use often.

Then I always have the most frequently used stuff at my finger tips as I select a specific character.

[Wormerine]

Another bad:

 

Alright, I haven't seen this mentioned by anyone, so this may come out a bit leftfield:

I have a bit of a hard time finding and using the talents of each character in my party that I select.

 

What I'd love to see is some quickbar á la NWN2, where I can place any talents or skills or whatever I use often.

Then I always have the most frequently used stuff at my finger tips as I select a specific character.

key shortcuts are still in (hover over desired skill and press shortcut like "Q"). They will shop up right above the main bar.

[theBalthazar]

I don't want it to give me all my spells back so I can spam them again in the next room.

 

 

You have already a limit (class ressources). Contrary to Tyranny for exemple.

 

But now, it is more strategic because you can use all your spells for each battle, each new situation.

 

Problem is more full list of spells for casters (druid/priest) which has been removed. This limits possibilities.

Edited February 16, 2018 by theBalthazar

[DexGames]

 

I don't want it to give me all my spells back so I can spam them again in the next room.

 

 

You have already a limit (class ressources). Contrary to Tyranny for exemple.

 

But now, it is more strategic because you can use all your spells for each battle, each new situation.

 

Problem is more full list of spells for casters (druid/priest) which has been removed. This limits possibilities.

 

 

, Maybe I'm misreading this but these lines seem full of Contradictions.

• How can it be more strategic to spam every spells in every fights, versus, having to think twice before using one that you may need in the next fight ? You know, that One very specific Spell, you wish you didn't use, because you really need it this time ?

I'm sorry but "spamming every spell you have, like no brain, just because you can"... Cause they will all be available in the next fight anyway, is less Strategic than having to think twice before taking any Action you might regret afterward. 

• How a Full List of Spells can be more limiting, versus having 2, [Max 3] Spells only to use ? I mean, it's literraly written : 2-3 Spells Max are more limiting than a Full List of Spells, no ? 

It's like you're mixing everything up, and then taking all of it upside down. Or I really don't understand you're way of thinking.

I mean no offense of course.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Demeisen & LampStaple's approach is the correct one for me here. And to be honest, I could not describe it better than what they did here.

Edited February 16, 2018 by DexGames

[anfoglia]

Best

 

+ Improved reactivity: even in this relatively small area of the game, there are a wide range of dialogue options based on race, origin, class, and skills. This is tremendously encouraging.

 

+ AI scripting: I admit that this was not a priority for me during the crowdfunding campaign, but it's a very cool feature, and I've enjoyed my experiments with it. I can't wait for someone to send me improvements on my garbage scripts.

 

+ Subclasses: these are fun, and I appreciate Obsidian giving multiple options for every class.

 

Worst

 

- Rules communication: Taking a step back, the team deserves credit for how much information it does communicate in a clear and visually attractive fashion. But the biggest thing nagging me through my beta playthroughs (from the character creation menu on through ship encounters) is missing information about what certain choices will do. For example, and we've had a few threads on this, the proficiency screen doesn't allow you to see any of the weapons' parameters (speed, base damage, damage type, etc.). The level-up screen isn't clear about which abilities will stack. Naval combat has this whole "advantage" mechanic without explaining how it works.

 

- Penetration: changes since the beta's release have brought this to a more comfortable place, where I at least can do something other than stack penetration. But I don't think the system is either clearer or more fun than the one it replaced.

 

- Spell selection: I actually don't mind the longer casting times (particularly if you all are going to be refunding canceled spells), but right now wizards aren't much fun for me because their spell selection feels constrained. I'm also not wild about the new grimoire mechanic, which adds clutter and busywork to the wizard's life for a pretty limited return. I think I'd prefer a system where a wizard could still copy spells, but either her power level or the grimoire itself influenced the total "weight" of spells she could keep in her grimoire at once, with higher-tier spells costing more than lower-tier ones. 

 

- Weapon proficiency: I don't really understand what this system is accomplishing. The modals are either boring or bad, so the only time I feel good about getting a new proficiency is when I've got a separate ability (like the fighter's) that gives bonuses with proficient weapons. It's just not a choice that feels interesting on the merits or as a statement of character identity.

 

EDIT: It looks like Josh just discussed some of the system's goals on tumblr: https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/

 

One goal, according to Josh, was to allow players to associate skill with a particular weapon type with their character(s). I don't think this is working all that well at the moment. Most characters get so many proficient weapons, with so little effect, that it doesn't feel to me like, "yeah, this cipher's trained with a flail and can do better than most with a flail." Increasing the rate of proficiency gain (from 1/4 levels to 1/3 levels) is only going to make this problem worse.

 

A second goal was to "move most/all of the weapon-based talent modals to proficiencies, with the focus on the modals being situational rather than "turn on and leave on." I'm afraid the first part is more a description of what the system does than an explanation of why the designers would want to do it.

 

A third goal was to avoid discouraging players from using non-proficient weapons. This is naturally in tension with goal number one. Obsidian has attempted to resolve the tension by making proficiency bonuses situational, but right now the system seems to be in a place where the bonuses aren't interesting enough for to feel like a meaningful character choice but the mere existence of the proficiency mechanic is still driving people to stick with proficient weapons. Question: if you're going to be handing out tons of weapon proficiencies, then why is it so important that players not feel discouraged from using non-proficient weapons?

 

- Dialogue icons: Sorry to be annoying on this point (last time I'll bring it up, promise!), but I don't like the tiny icons replacing bracketed text (e.g., [rational] or [benevolent]) to indicate a particular reputation, skill, or background is associated with a dialogue option. Several of the icons are not obvious. Is a dove diplomacy or benevolence? Is a human head insight or intelligence? The tooltips resolve any initial confusion, and I guess over time players will just learn the icons. But is the extra text space that valuable?

 

Otherwise

 

Multiclassing is pretty fun at the moment, even if I prefer a more class-less direction. I'm neutral so far on the Might change.

Edited February 17, 2018 by anfoglia

[Wormerine]

 

Casters in dnd-style games are usually resource-management types of characters, and that's what makes them so damn fun to play - rationing the gadgets you have in your toolbelt, gauging encounters, saving your resources and going all-out in a boss fight...the per-rest spells make "easy" encounters mentally engaging when you try to figure out the most efficient use of your spells

 

I used to think before using a Spells, now I just spam, Fights after Fights.

 

Really. Old casters made easy encounters mentally engaging. By spamming autoattack? In IE and PoE there was one, and only one decision to make: "can I win current fight without using spells" - and in most cases the answer was "yes". PoE already improved over IE as casters didn't just stand around missing sling shots, but: "mentally engaging"? pffff.

 

Resources could be recovered with no trouble (I don't think I ever had to abandon dungeon to get supplies) so there was no resource management. It is hardly a resource management if you can regain all spent resources by pressing a button. The only real resource management was happening thoughout single engagements only - curiously the same as it is now. It is as if Obs looked at game mechanics PoE actually had, and fleshed them out more, instead of keeping a pretence of bigger economy. How one can claim that new system is less "mentally engaging" because you are encouraged to use tools at your disposal instead of spamming autoattack is beyond my understanding. 

Current system has just as much resource management as previous games had, except it is happening in every encounter, instead of every 10 encounters. It's not about "do I cast a spell" but "what spells do I cast". While previously you would go ham during one fight, now you have to select spells which will help your situation best. 

 

Maybe creating genuine resource management using old system would be better received by many long time players - maybe having to complete dungeons in one go, or something like that. Than I again, I feel that if players actually had to conserve spells with potential consequences I am willing to bet that there would be a push back as well.

[mrmonocle]

best:

 

1. visuals

2. multiclassing and subclassing

3. skill and ability trees revamp.

 

worst:

1. portraits - should be replaced with 3d models since they are a lot better than in PoE1.

2. wizard school restrictions - too taxing since wizard can't learn all spells as in PoE1.

3. weapon modals - penalties are too heavy.

 

In general get rid of the penalty driven approach! It only frustrates since it's super hard to evaluate how strong the penalty is and you end up discarding the modals even if they are not as bad.

[demeisen]

Resources could be recovered with no trouble (I don't think I ever had to abandon dungeon to get supplies) so there was no resource management.

 

It is hardly a Maybe creating genuine resource management using old system would be better received by many long time players - maybe having to complete dungeons in one go, or something like that. Than I again, I feel that if players actually had to conserve spells with potential consequences I am willing to bet that there would be a push back as well.

 

 

True, but thing is, POE1 could be easily played in the spirit of resource constraints by treating its soft constraints as hard ones.  Then it is more strategic to think about how to handle an extended series of encounters, than just a single one, like a whole chess game is more strategic than just the opening few moves.

 

The DF system doesn't really allow for that.  It forces spells and health back after every fight, so it can't easily be played in a resource constrained style the way POE1 could by treating soft caps as hard ones.  The unit of tactical consideration has simply shrunk and is now (aside from minor factors) a single fight.  I think that's the objection, and why we don't find the DF system as fun.  There is less long term thinking.  You are insulated from the future consequences of your choices by all the resource regen the game heaps upon you, wanted or not.  Thing is, we liked planning for a whole outing, to survive a trip into a dangerous dungeon and back with nothing more than what we started out with.  When you keep giving us new resources, that satisfaction evaporates.

 

I'd certainly like the solution you propose in your second paragraph I quoted above.  POE1:WM had that in a few places, and they were (IMO) the most fun parts of the game to play through, because they forced you to try to play well, even on the fights you were certain to win.  The small fights were were part of a larger picture.  It's that larger picture which is greatly reduced now, in a way I can't do much about with my own local "house rules".

 

I'm still hoping Obsidian would consider a new-game switch to switch off per-fight regeneration, and enable the former style of casters and per-rest melee resources.  Certainly many people do like being given things back each and every fight, so it's more balance work, but both camps could have their preferred style.

[acbatchelor]

I highly support the new per-encounter spell system. Something that I always hated with IE games or POE was the per-rest spells. I would end up using auto-attack instead of using spells in nearly every battle. It made wizards not very fun. I've always believed that if you made spells and abilities per-encounter and had regenerating health, that you could balanced the game around each encounter rather than a whole map or dungeon. Then you wouldn't have trash mobs everywhere.

 

If you do decide to change this system, then I would do a method similar to ciphers. Have a resource pool (like maybe mana?) and have the resource regenerate over time. This would still allow casting spells without worrying about running out of casts later while limiting how much you can cast now.

 

Also, I agree with theBalthazar on weapon proficiency. I like to specialize in just 1 or 2 (maybe 3) weapons per character. The proficiencies should have multiple levels or ranks per weapon. Additional ranks in each proficiency can increase the bonus and lower the penalty. 

[MortyTheGobbo]

The "larger picture" of per-rest spells mostly consisted of trying to win an encounter without spells, reloading if it failed and trying it again with spells. If you knew what you were doing, spellcasters had plenty of ways to contribute without casting spells... while also having the option to nuke an encounter by dropping them.

 

I can get behind the desire for more long-term attrition of resources, but per-rest spells are just a terrible way of doing that. Particularly since whatever tactical decisions they enable evaporate on a replay, or after reloading. An inexperienced player will agonize over how to ration their spells and an experienced one will know exactly when to drop them and which ones, trivializing many encounters. There's a reason Pillars had a very sudden shift from "I struggle with each encounter" to "I'm a destroyer of worlds". So once again, per-rest spells just introduce extremes.

 

Then there's the way powerful per-rest spells make enemy spellcasters by far the most dangerous enemies, seeing as they can drop all those powerful spells on our heads without worrying about later fights. And, of course, how it made tactics revolve around spellcasters in general. Not to the degree D&D-based games have it, obviously, but uncomfortably close.

Edited February 17, 2018 by MortyTheGobbo

[demeisen]

​​

Particularly since whatever tactical decisions they enable evaporate on a replay, or after reloading.

​

​Well, I don't think it's a good choice to orient a system around save-spam style gaming.  Sure, some people will play that way, but I don't find it very fun myself, so I don't.  And I disagree about replays.  I played POE1 in a very resource constrained way on both my replays, even more than on my first run.  I didn't remember the minutia of what I would encounter next, so there wasn't too much metagaming at work (a little is inevitable), but I got to play through whole areas without rest, which led to a lot of pretty fun situations where I had to dig deep to scrape by, using abilities I'd never use normally.  I had to play carefully, even on the small fights.  That made them fun, in a way they weren't if I had unlimited resources to expend.

​

​I don't think per-rest is an ideal system, so I'll agree with you that far.  But I think the DF system throws the baby out with the bathwater, and negates a lot of the satisfaction people get from managing a party of characters over a dungeon.

​

[lunattic]

Hey everyone,

 

I'm one of the high end backers and a long term fan of obsidian and Pillars of Eternity 1. I didn't really post anything before this to withhold judgment and give the team more time to polish. Given that it's specifically asked now by a QA member I felt I might as well add my few cents. A lot of what I'll add below here has already been covered but I do feel these things can't be stressed enough. I should also add that I haven't played the last 5 or so days so if I missed an update that fixed one of the below, apologies for that. Finally, the goal of this post is to point out the weaknesses of the current build in an effort to make the final game better, not to 'bash' the beta or the developers. If any of those are reading this, know you have my faith; you made an awesome game once and can do it again, so I'm holding onto hope that you'll find a way to make it work in the end. 

 

The good:

-The atmosphere.

-Visual improvements.

-The ability to multiclass and the addition of subclasses. 

-Supposedly the ability to select different classes for your companions. 

 

The bad:

-Extremely limited set of selectable AND usable abilities for all classes.

For a non-caster it almost feels as if I have no choice, as there are usually 1 or 2 good abilities in any given tier with the rest being extremely situational or actively bad/outclassed by other abilities of the same class. In example, the fighter dps cooldown (disciplined strikes especially with the crit upgrade) virtually obsoletes the passive fighter ability of turning misses to grazes. Sure, that saves me a power point but 50% crit rate just outweighs everything else. What further adds to this problem is that characters have extremely limited pools of resources to actively use abilities. This means that all active abilities compete with eachother for resoources and thus push me further towards the few good passive talents the class has available. If I have one good spender ability, why would I waste points in getting another? Especially since I can only use two or so abilities each fight  before running out of power points to use!

 

>Proposed fix: Change system of active abilities back to pillars 1 in which every active ability can be used a set X times per fight or per day. This would make selecting active abilities much more attractive compared to passive ones and both fixes the problem with no options in combat and running out of abilities instantly. Having empower as a seperate mechanic is enough of a mechanical upgrade to me. 

 

For casters this problem is even worse (I've played chanters, wizards and clerics in the beta): since they have no innate spells, have to buy every spell seperately, have no selectable options other than their spells and are now also bound of per encounter spellcasting, caster classes just feel extremely 'empty' to me. They have no passives or meaningful choices at all, it's just selecting the best spells and their upgrades if any and just using those same spells over and over. As someone who enjoys building characters, i'm legitimately sad to say that this is probably the most boring iteration of caster character creation I have ever seen in RPG's. I have a strong preference for how casters were in pillars 1, with their spells being limited per day but also much varied and useable than what they currently are. Plus, I had the ability to actually build the character with additional utility the way I wanted them, which is impossible now. 

 

> Proposed fix: return at least a basic set of innate spells for all casters and fill their talent tree with meaningful talents. 

 

-Combat in general:

Combat feels extremely slow paced to me. In addition, armor penetration as a mechanic is way too powerful (30% damage if you fail to meet the armor, 100% if you do? What? That's a 333% damage increase depending sorely on penetration? Way too much of a difference, and any party not having this is severely screwed). Wizards and clerics also seem particularly weak in fights since they have gigantic casting times and are way too open to being interrupted by ranged enemies. I'd say casters are too reliant on having their concentration buff from somewhere the same way melee are too reliant on having a penetration mechanic from somewhere. 

 

>Proposed fix: severely tone down penetration by reducing the damage penalty for not meeting it. 30% is way too much, 60 or 70 % damage is much more reasonable. Reduce casting time for casters. Actually, heck, return the combat to what it was in Pillars 1. I'm currently replaying this to get the last few achievements and it's shocking to me how much better that combat feels than what is currently in the pillars 2 beta. I wish I didn't have to feel that way

 

-Lack of clear information on the workings of spells and mechanics. 

One of my largest gripes with the beta. Others have already spoken of this, but to give one example the effect of empower on the abilities are too unclear. 

 

-Ship combat.

The current iteration again suffers from lack of clarity and information. In addition, it is really hurt by the lack of an ability to either flee or reload the game. If you are losing a fight, you have no option but to wait for the enemy to very slowly kill you.  I should also add here that the amount of resources used by the crew feels much too high for me. 

 

-The 'Might' change to strength:

This seems to go against your own design goal of having every stat being important for every character. This is what I liked about the stats in pillars, they actually were all important to the different builds, except perhaps resolve, which was still unique but underpowered. With might now being strength and only applying to weapons, it is now virtually useless for any caster. 

 

>Proposed fix: If resolve is the problem, and required you to give half of might's old benefit to fix it, I would either remove constitution and add that effect to resolve (to characterize a character's internal drive and ability to fight on despite injury - has an additional benefit of not having to rewrite resolve dialogue options and in pillars 1 the constituation ones were extremely rare anyway) or remove resolve alltogether and add the deflection bonus to constitution (let's be honest, constitution is also fairly weak since it's a stat that doesn't actively make you either better at dealing damage or better at reducing damage taken, which is why it's the second most dumped stat next to resolve).

Removing either resolve or constitution and buffing the other with the removed effect would leave you with 5 stats, but they would all be useful to all builds and unique. Every conversation option for removing resolve can easily be added to either intelligence or might since it always comes down to knowing exactly what to say or intimidating someone into cooperating.

 

Well, that's everything from the top of my hat. I hope the team can still fix a few of the issues before launch, since I want this game to be as awesome as it can be!

[Lamppost in Winter]

The good:

• Multiclassing and subclasses are cool (most of them anyway)
• The expanded skills are really good for RP
• New scripted interaction system seems very strong; cool that you can do stuff like select any ability with the "Fire" tag to burn something, for example
• Stealth system is fun
• Much prefer the resource-based system to the X per-encounter abilities
• Companion help for stat checks
• The Afflictions/Inspirations system is neat, especially the countering between them
• I like Armor/Pen as it is now and think it'll work better at higher levels than DR did, though the people who care to dive deeper into the numbers may have their concerns.

The mixed:

• World map exploration is pretty good right now but can feel tedious, especially when it can take 12 in-game hours to reach some small alcove that gives you 5 berries (understand that Josh said this is being worked on). Taking the time to explore an island that just gives you some generic items with no other interactions or story to it also feels bad.
• It's cool that my casters can actually cast every fight now,, but it can make fights feel really repetitive.
• Ship duels can be exciting, once I watched some videos on how you're supposed to do it, but managing ship resources seems like it could get pretty tedious in the actual game.
• Affliction nerfs: it's fine for hard CC to not be gamebreaking, but it feels like there should be some more effect to them. I feel like somewhere between -10 to -20 to, say, Deflection and Reflex for Paralyze/Stun is pretty reasonable, for example. Having some of the non-CC Afflictions reduce defenses as well would also help I think
• The NPC schedules seem pretty limited right now, though I guess that might be beta roughness.
• I like the idea of schools of magic, but it seems hard to make a specific character type with some the Wizard subclasses
• Perception for detecting traps/secrets is good, though I feel having high Mechanics should still contribute to that

The bad:

• I liked the Accuracy buff/Defense debuff juggle of PoE combat, and I feel like that's less present in Deadfire. Fewer accuracy buffs (which I'm aware is intentional), and you seem to have to use a spell that specifically reduces Defense rather than an Affliction to do it, related to what I just said about Afflictions.
• Lack of passives/general talents, though I know this is being worked on
• Empower doesn't feel like a good replacement for per-rest abilities; feels very video-gamey, though using it in combat can still be interesting
• The Black Jacket subclass just seems pretty bad
• Still prefer Health to Injuries

Edited February 17, 2018 by Lamppost in Winter

[Boeroer]

When I look at the title of the thread, who opened it and remember what the intention was then I suddenly feel the urge to discuss per-encounter vs. per-rest elsewhere.

[ShadySands]

Good - No more Vancian casting

 

Bad - No pen no pen no pen

[Archaven]

When I look at the title of the thread, who opened it and remember what the intention was then I suddenly feel the urge to discuss per-encounter vs. per-rest elsewhere.

 

I personally prefer the change as per-encounter. It was a big tedium for me that they use campfire as the resource. Could it be per-encounter was badly implemented in DF?. Maybe you should create a separate thread and it be interesting to read through your thoughts about it. Sorry for deviating the thread. And i would like to thank Obsidian team, at least they read through these feedback and concerns and are aware of it.

[dunehunter]

Bad:

 

1. benefit over penetration is too low, punishment for no pen is too harsh. It feels too binary and shall be changed to be more linear. And critical attack feels not rewarding enough because over penetration bonus is an additive.

 

2. Recovery time too long, I’m fine with 3-5sec cast time, but at least reduce recovery time so we don’t idle there watch each other.

 

3. No generic talents.

 

4. Might split to Str and Res.

 

On the phone so can’t text a lot.

Edited February 17, 2018 by dunehunter

[draego]

Bad:

 

Weapon proficiencies models. They would be better done away with and some re-purposed as general talent models that arent so punishing and can be used by any weapon types you choose for your run. Its feels wonky trying to remember to turn on and off after all arent models meant to stay on for a while. I also would rather think about picking weapon types for my playthrough without thinking if the ability synergyses with my class and if it doesnt then feeling bad for wanting but ultimately moving on to some other weapon types.

 

I think when people complained about not having weapon proficiencies in POE1, they were thinking more in terms of points to spend to get better over time in weapons. Obsidian explicitly went away from this in POE 1 and now it feels like split the baby situation. They dont want to bring back d&d proficiencies but want to appease the complaints so we get this stuff

Edited February 17, 2018 by draego

[Boeroer]

 

When I look at the title of the thread, who opened it and remember what the intention was then I suddenly feel the urge to discuss per-encounter vs. per-rest elsewhere.

 

I personally prefer the change as per-encounter. It was a big tedium for me that they use campfire as the resource. Could it be per-encounter was badly implemented in DF?. Maybe you should create a separate thread and it be interesting to read through your thoughts about it. Sorry for deviating the thread. And i would like to thank Obsidian team, at least they read through these feedback and concerns and are aware of it.

 

Erm, the emphasis was on "elsewhere" rather than "I feel the urge to discuss". Ach, another ironic post gone wrong on the internt.

[theBalthazar]

How can it be more strategic to spam every spells in every fights, versus, having to think twice before using one that you may need in the next fight ? You know, that One very specific Spell, you wish you didn't use, because you really need it this time ?

 

 

Yes you misreading. You have always all your possibilities. You think a strategic man do something with less possibilities ? He play with all his cards. Here, in each battle, you have all your cards.

 

Example : When you are at a boss battle, you don't want 4 spells by level of spell ? You rest, end of the problem in POE1.

 

And in this situation, you have a full list, like per encounter (like now). You are just prepared for that. It is a tiny difference we do not feel.

 

Also avoid the "I did not rest and it's a surprise fight, I'm without anything".

 

What has changed is the rest.

 

Simple.

 

So those who rest often give the illusion that it is by encounter. There is almost no difference between Encounter / Rest in this case. Eventually is a mental difference, no more.

 

And since we are talking mental/illusions, for me, per rest are problemetic like "I do not know when to use / I don't use them for now". I do not use them enough (as Josh found that too few people use empower = the same phenomenon). The feeling of loss is a mental effect.

 

The only difference in fact, it is for trash mob, you do not have to come back to town every time when you have nothing left. It is an improvement.

 

I'm sorry but "spamming every spell you have, like no brain, just because you can"... Cause they will all be available in the next fight anyway, is less Strategic than having to think twice before taking any Action you might regret afterward. 

 

 

False. In POE1, I spam Devotion of the faithful, it is no less no brain.

 

How a Full List of Spells can be more limiting, versus having 2, [Max 3] Spells only to use ? I mean, it's literraly written : 2-3 Spells Max are more limiting than a Full List of Spells, no ?  

 

 

You don't read what I say exacly. I tell you Full list of spells AND per encounter/per rest are two differents problems. I am for a full list because it is more strategic.

Edited February 17, 2018 by theBalthazar