Gimme your best and gimme your worst!

[vanyel54]

Something to add on my wrong list: the new inventory upper arrow icon is really disturbing.

And as i have say before, remove the global stash from inventory screen. Or remove personnal inventory and introduce a team stash and a more global ship stash.

Edited February 17, 2018 by vanyel54

[DexGames]

You do not have to come back to town every time when you have nothing left. It is an improvement.

Less Ressource Management isn't an Improvement, it's the opposite, but that's my opinion.

 

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

You mean this one ?

 

 

I am for a full list because it is more strategic.

Ok, we both have an agreement then. 

 

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.

Well, of course, if you play on Relaxed Difficulty & have 99 Resting Supplies there's no problem. 

 

When you have only two Camping Supplies for an entire dungeon, suddenly things you mention becomes less Mental & more Practical.

That's where you have to manage your ressources & stop spamming brainlessly.

 

In fact that was the whole point of why they introduced limited Camping Supplies, to avoid the "Rest Spamming" from previous Games.

That, was an Improvement.

Edited February 17, 2018 by DexGames

[Silvaren]

GOOD

1. Visuals, game looks gorgeous

- detailed character's model

- option to turn on and off helmets, cloaks, pets, draw and hide weapons at the inventory screen

- dynmaic lights & shadows

- clouds

- wheater effects

- spell effects (and fading out during the pause)

- animated foliage and water look super cool

- birds, birds, BIRDS, BIRDS!!!

- idle animations

2. Sounds, so far much imrpoved

- spell effects

- weapon sounds

- music (only few tracks but I already uploaded them on youtubbe, so I could listen music during work until OST will be released)

3. Multiclass system

- player can fulfill fantasy by making character's cooncept which works mechanically in the game

4. polished gameplay

- characters are better at finding clear path to the target and can spread out near the enemy to make room for brothers in arms

- AI customisation on the same level as in Dragon Age II (or even better), while I don't need such system in the game which doesn't have cooldows, it's nice tool for people who don't like too much micromanagement

- new stealth mechanic works really well

- new skills like Sleight of hand and specialisation in different kind of lore

- option to copy-paste items in quick slots, like shield it's great, it's literally the only one missing thing that prevents me from changing weapons set in first PoE, because I didn't want to lose benefits from certain shield or off-hand weapon

- new map which allows player to quickly embark on a journey

- huge amount of unique dialogs depeneding on class, race, background etc

- C&C are great from moral standpoint, each choice has consequences so the outcome won't be 100% perfect, bad choices should be consider as valid

 

MIXED

1. ship management

- it's cool concept to own the ship as stronghold and use it to explore Deadfire Archipelago

- ship combat seems to be confusing and repetetive, but it can be more interesting in final version with all the choices about crew members, upgrades and types of ship

- I would like an option to confront enemy ship instantly through abordage at the begining of sea encounter, I coudn't get close enough in the beta so far

- I would like an option to resolve sea encounters through quick combat (like in Hearoes of Might and Magic series)

- resource management is interesting concept but it shouldn't force player to be constantly worrying about supplies, while it can put some reasonable limits to exploration and ship's operational range it seems that it will consume too much money. I know that in PoE money at some point wasn't a problem and some kind of "gold sink" mechanic is required for Deadfire. I guess the ship will be introduce after a while, some kind of prologue.

2. Magic system

- I prefer old system because of habits from p&p RPG and Iinfinity Engine games

- 2 spells of every power level per fight seems to make caster less flexible and limited in terms of tactical choices, I understand that it add another usage for Empower to regain spells and on higher levels characters will have greater repertoire to pick from

- if currrent system stays I would like to have an option to cast lower level spells by using higher level spell's limit (without any benefits, just to have option for another cast of certain lower level spells, like in D&D 3 wizard could remember for example additional 1st level Magic Missile using second level spell's slot - or even much higher level slot - please, do not confuse it with metamagic feats)

 

BAD

1. No general talents

- I'm replaying PoE right now and it still feel fresh and deep in terms of character's build, there is so much to try, in Deadfire I have to multiclass my characters to make similar builds to those from the first game

- wizards and priests without passive abilities are lacking in terms of customisation, domains and grimoires aren't sufficient to make them as much appealing as other classes

- sequel should imrpove, provide evolution not revolution, right now it's imposible to mechanically recreate every Watcher from the first game (for example Blast Wizard)

2. Casting time

- it's too damn long, yes, it makes Dextirity more important but it shoudn't punish players who aren't min-maxing attributes because in PoE every attribute can be important for character

- in first beta build when spells didn't graze wizards were far behind other classes, too long to cast spells, too little damage or no debuffing effects8

- long casting times are easier to interrupt, long activation and recovery put them far behind martial classes

3. Confusing mechanics

- there are no indicators how Empower boosts every abiliy

- there is no clear info how much abilities gain from higher power level

- outdated tooltips (for example Penetration displayes rules from first beta build, pen mechanic was changed - wasn't?)

- even if player knows how certain formula are calculated it's hard to imagine how it will work without testing (action speed and recovery) and calcuation are complex, there is no clarity about stackings

 

EDIT

Few things I forgot to mention.

 

TERRIBLE

1. Weapons modals

- they are tradeoffs but in many cases penalties are much higher than benefits

- all classes can use all weapons without hurting themselves so in analogy to D&D, all classes are proficient with all weapons, and modals doesn't seem to require more training (aka "proficiency") while using specific weapon, most of those tradeoffs seem natural and I don't think that they need special training to perform, it's not consistent with Weapon Focus talent (grants +6 accuracy - yeah, this is true weapon proficiency)

- maybe it will be better if character could choose lesser number of modals, but designed not as harsh tradeoffs but as something like mastery in using certain weapon, purely benefit from proficient weapon in use (for example one proficiency at the strat of the game and second on higher level) it could impact Black Jacket subclass to be more interesting as master in different weapons rather than person who can basically quick draw pistols like some kind of cowboy (Black Jacke choosing more proficient weapons than other classes)

2. Wizard's subclasses (and little about priest's domain)

- too much tradeoffs in all sublclasses, it should be restricted in terms of avaliable school of magic, but I'm not sure if +1 power level compensate it enough (what it does for all spells?). And the longer recovery for spells from different school is atrocious, isn't casting and recovery long enough already for casters?

- I prefer sorcerer or general wizard in D&D, the only one specialized mage I could play in D&D was the Red Wizard from Thay. In D&D specialized mage was losing acces to few schools of magic but gained ONE ADDITIONAL SPELL per day. Something like that would be cool in Deadfire. Like now it's 2 spells from every level per encounter. Why specialized wizard can't get +1 additional spell per level (of chosen school) to use in every fight, a spell determined through leveling proces (like in first PoE one bonus spell per encounter), It could be similar for priest's domain - one additional spell over those 2 per level during the fight (just like in D&D spells from cleric's domain have different pool).

- right now I would pick general wizard, subclasses aren't appealing for me in terms of unique ability. At the beginning of the beta I liked Evoker, but when proc for second cast dropped from 30% to 15% in latest update and scepter's modal Destructive Channeling won't grant additional 20% damge for spell anymore, there is no point in giving up other school of magic and take penalties in recovery time for rest of themm.

- too long casting, it shoudn't be designed with Deleterious Alacrity of Motion in mind

Edited February 17, 2018 by Silvaren

[Christliar]

A lot of good observations here which I won't repeat, but I will mention what I think is causing all this confusion and some of my thoughts. All of these are from the perspective of PotD, I don't think the system makes sense on lower difficulties, just like in PoE1.

1. First and foremost, PoE 3.0 isn't some kind of pinnacle of combat design like the popular narrative here seems to suggest, quite the contrary. While it is much better than 1.0, there are some fundamental issues holding it back. It's too fast due to the ridiculous microsecond recovery times, which means too many things are happening too fast and it creates an unstructured and chaotic battlefield, necessitating mobs frontloading everything and spamming stuns in a futile attempt to control how many actions you perform in any given time frame. The action time shouldn't be able to be changed by anything, it needs to be consistent across the board and throughout the game. Without this, it creates all kinds of issues with encounter and class design, the almost mandatory nature of the Priest, the Cipher's focus being outside of all the other mechanics and many such things.

However, this might be a controversial opinion, and I hope it is, but I think Deadfire's system has much more potential than the jumbled mess of P1. The recovery time is much more reasonable and the limited casts per encounter create a situation where you can't spell spam your way through encounters. Which leads me to the Empower mechanic.

2. I think it's far too late to hope that resting is not a vestigial element that is trying and failing to appeal to grognards, not being restricted in any way means that I'll talk with the assumption that everyone will rest after every encounter, just like Josh Sawyer said people are doing and forcing his hand to remove per-rest abilities in the first place. The most obvious problem with the Empower mechanic is that it's only truly useful for spellcasters and the only thing that makes their spells land with some certainty and damage. This creates 4 scenarios, none of which are good -
 

• Casters can only keep up with martial classes if they use their Empower every battle. Why have Empower in this case? It's an unnecessary and automatic button to press, just buff spells to compensate and be done with it.
• Casters can keep up with martials if they don't use Empower. This obviously makes spellcasters overpowered when they do use it, inverting the current situation.
• If resting is somehow limited, which it won't be, and spellcasters can keep up with melee, spellcasters are still a bit more overpowered than melee in certain, few situations.
• If resting is somehow limited and casters can't keep up with melee without Empowering, then there would be no point to taking casters at all. Lugging baggage around that can only hope to match melee twice in a dungeon is not very lucrative.

 

The Empower mechanic itself is not very well thought-out and it doesn't affect melee in the same drastic way, if at all, making it impossible to balance casters and melee while it exists. Since it's far too late to remove it, I suggest finding some way for it to affect melee in the same radical manner that it does casters.

 

3. The lack of spellcaster sustainability compared to melee. I have read Sawyer's post where he thinks spellcasters are face-meltingly awesome and their damage is fine. This might be true on difficulties below PotD, the problem there being that the fight is over before any spells can go off. On PotD, however, the issue is different - the very limited damage potential casters have performs proportionally worse due to the higher HP of enemies, even if they Empower a spell. Melee can go on damaging forever, casters can't. And you can still make an optimized melee-heavy party where the fights will be over before spells can go off. This requires a lot of tweaking of numbers and casting times across the board to fix, but I think it's the most realistic thing to hope for for now. I don't think that the spells should cast much faster, however, and I'd like to see them make it work with the slower casting. The casting times of some spells should be faster, though, like single-target debuffs and summoned weapons

Some general things I agree with and I'd like to mention - too limited spell selection, forcing you to always choose the best spells each time; ship combat being repetitive and dull, but I don't think it will be changed significantly, what I hope for is that it isn't mandatory and that it doesn't gate powerful items, islands, encounters, talents and whatever else it shouldn't gate; too limited talent selection and the skewed advantage of passive talents compared to active ones, which compete with themselves for limited resources; Penetration needs to be extensively looked at, as it stands now it will either create a necessity to stack it in builds and rote automatic tactics that will see spellcasters always unloading their Pen buffs at the start of combat OR it will be a non-issue and pointless if they lower the enemies' AR across the board.

That's it for now.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Christliar

[Madscientist]

As good thing I have forgotten to mention the AI menu.

It is great that you can define the behaviour of your chars, so that some buffs can be used automatically and easier fights can be done on "auto pilot" while chars act in a way that makes sense.

It would be nice to add the option "auto attacks only". At the moment you cannot unselect an AI setting.

 

Another good thing (but not only related to PoE2) is the bug forum.

It is good that there is a thread for every bug and we often get an answer like: "We have confirmed this bug and it will be fixed in the next update." (my favourite answer), "We could not reproduce it, please send us a file with the bug." or "This is not a bug. We talked about it and we decided it is intended that way."

I really like this kind of feedback. Keep up the good work.

 

regarding combat speed:

I do not think the game is too slow at the moment. I pause the game a lot and over a whole battle the time where I have paused the game is longer than the real time part. OK, I am somebody who plays lots of turn based games ( Trails of cold Steel at the moment ) and I am bad in action games.

If you add a speed slider in the future, this "problem" will be solved.

 

Regarding the the whole balance/casting stuff: I do not think that casters are too weak, I think that multi classed dual wielders are too strong.

Any system without per rest limits and restricted resting will lead to fights where chars use the same strongest attacks every fight.

If you call the changes from the IE games to PoE2 "dumping down" or "making it more friendly to new players" is up to you.

 

regarding posting info everywhere but not here:

I can understand that devs post info in all kinds of media so that new people learn about the game. This forum is only used by people who already know the game and of course the devs want to adress as many people as possible. They can post as much as they want on twitter, facebook,  . . . whatever as they want.

But it would be great if all relevant information are posted here too, so you have one place to see the importent stuff.

With importent stuff I mean things like:

- feature x will be added to the next update of the game

- we are aware that x is a problem/unbalanced/buggy and we are working on it

- the interview video from Josh with the other guy where they did ship combat was very interesting, but I knew this only because another user was posting it.

[CottonWolf]

Oh, and while I think of it, one more worst in the system that I otherwise really like:

 

Some subclasses are terrible - Specifically Mage Slayer and all the wizard subclasses but Evoker. The negatives all massively outweight the benefits. I'm sure there are other subclasses that suffer the same issue, but they're the only one's I've specifically touched. They either need a reduction in malus or a dramatic increase in bonus.

[Infinitron]

Penetration needs to be extensively looked at, as it stands now it will either create a necessity to stack it in builds and rote automatic tactics that will see spellcasters always unloading their Pen buffs at the start of combat OR it will be a non-issue and pointless if they lower the enemies' AR across the board.

 

 

This is like saying that in PoE1 you had to "stack damage in builds". Damage was how you penetrated armor in PoE1, now it's something else. What's the difference? It's part of what you need to deal with to play the game well.

 

As for rote automatic tactics, there's a third option you didn't mention. The most obvious solution is removing or otherwise limiting the Pen buffs. Just like you would do with a rote damage buff in PoE1.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Infinitron

[AndreaColombo]

Is there a need to remove pen buffs in Deadfire? There are very few already, to the point that it feels like we’re pitted against a system without the means to compete. Under-penetrating by at least 1 point is almost standard and there isn’t much you can do about it, so you’re basically being punished gratuitously for a good 25% of your damage output. That’s fun because...?

[Christliar]

 

 

This is like saying that in PoE1 you had to "stack damage in builds". Damage was how you penetrated armor in PoE1, now it's something else. What's the difference? It's part of what you need to deal with to play the game well.

 

As for rote automatic tactics, there's a third option you didn't mention. The most obvious solution is removing or otherwise limiting the Pen buffs. Just like you would do with a rote damage buff in PoE1.

 

The difference is that there isn't a very specific damage threshold that you have to reach or else it will make your characters useless. Unless you slippery slope it and say "the damage threshold is downing the mobs to 0 HP" which is lol. Dealing damage is also not as limited as Pen buffs. Penetration forces every build that wants to do damage to stack Penetration as high as the highest AR enemy in the game, making every build the same in this regard and leaving very few opportunities to deviate, and automatically shooting subclasses with free access to Pen (like Devoted) up. There is no such thing with dealing damage. It also uses up the very few spells per encounter casters have on buffing Pen or debuffing armor. If there is some spell or mechanic that you have to automatically use in every encounter, it should be removed or baked into the spells/abilities.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Christliar

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

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!

 

 

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. 

 

 

-Combat in general:

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. 

 

 

-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. 

 

 

 

 

These bad points, I agree with heaps and heaps!

Edited February 17, 2018 by IndiraLightfoot

[Nixl]

For the sake of brevity, I am just going to write what I dislike or find weak in the beta.  For each issue, I tried to also include constructive feedback or a suggestion.  

 

1. Cast times.  I like the idea of long cast times, because it reinforces a sense of risk/reward in my opinion, provided the spells are worth the cast.  Many spells in the beta, however, are not worth the cast.  Furthermore, some low level buffs require the same cast-time as higher level buffs, which makes no sense to me.  For example, Priests have a tier 1 accuracy/perception buff, and later have a tier 3 accuracy/perception buff that also converts some hits to crits, both of which have the same cast time.  The cast times do not seem to line up with what the spells actually provide.   

 

I would suggest that all early-game spells receive a short cast time.  As the caster obtains stronger spells, then have longer cast times.  For example, all tier 1 and tier 2 spells have a 2 second cast times, whereas all tier 3 and tier 4 spells have a 3 second cast times, and so on.  I believe this change would accomplish three things: (1) give casters a much needed breather in the early game; (2) ease players into longer cast times; and (3) add the consideration of short-cast weak spells and long-cast strong spells, depending on the engagement.  

 

2. Modals.  I either ignore the modals or never turn them off (tanking relevant modals). 

 

Honestly, I am not sure what to suggest for modals.  Outside of tanking modals, I would perhaps suggest that you turn modals into an active ability.  For example, the Estoc modal would give your next melee attack additional penetration, but you have increased recovery time or you have decreased deflection for a short duration.      

 

3. Empowerment charges.  I like the idea of empowerment, just not the implementation or the UI.  Last time I played the beta, you could use empowerment to strengthen a spell, receive class resources, or receive additional casts.  Of those uses, I found the additional casts a no-brainer.  An empowered spell can miss or lack sufficient penetration, but additional spells provides you a variety of options.  Furthermore, with respect to the UI, if I click on empower, my UI starts to flicker and does not always respond.  

 

My main suggestion is to simply improve the UI and display of empower.  I would love if you could pre-select abilities to empower.  For example, if I click on empower, you could see an icon to instantly click for additional spells or to cast empowered fireball.  

 

My other suggestion is that I would change empower to just increase the effectiveness of a spell/ability, but also give a slight downside similar to the modal system.  For example, an empowered fireball would be stronger in all respects, except that it requires an additional 2 to 3 seconds of cast time.  I believe this change would require more planning from the player compared to free spells.  

 

4. Lack of general feats, Single Class Characters.  The lack of general feats hurt single class characters that want to expand the archetype.  For example, a single-class priest that focuses on summoned weapons is going to have a hard time, and general feats can make up for some of the weaknesses (extra deflection, accuracy, and penetration).  Furthermore, single class characters feel incredibly streamlined.  To go from the White March to the beta can be jarring, because there is so little to choose for a single class character.  

 

From what I recall, the next patch will have general feats and more spells, and so I have no suggestions.  

 

5.  Wounds.  I  find wounds too easy to circumvent via rest spam.  I still believe certain boss or mini-boss characters should have abilities that can inflict wounds.  For example, if the Titan mini-boss throws a character, the character receives a wound, even if that character is not knocked out.  I believe that would add much needed tension in the combat.  Furthermore, it could easily be turned off for story mode and normal difficulty.          

 

Edit:  I am going to add a sixth point. 

 

6. Armor Penetration.  I do not know if there is any strategy other than stacking armor penetration at the moment, similar to accuracy or deflection.  I just do not see a downside.  It would be nice if there was a distinction (or more of a distinction) between high penetration weapons/spells and low penetration weapons/spells.  For example, an estoc would provide 6 damage and 4 armor penetration, whereas a two-handed sword would provide 9 damage and 1 armor penetration.  Therefore, against a heavily armored target, the estoc would prevail, but against a non-armored target the two-handed sword would prevail.  There would be a reason to not always seek out the weapon with the most armor penetration.   

 

Edit2:  I loaded up the beta, and lower pen weapons do seem to have higher actual damage.  For example, Estoc receives 10 pen and 18-26 damage, whereas a long sword receives 6 pen and 26-32 damage.  My suggestion would be to make that difference larger.       The 130% full penetration seems to cancel out that distinction. An estoc has a better chance of reaching that 130% hit compared to a greatsword, which cancels out the benefit of a greatsword.  

 

The downside of my example is that it would be incredibly gamey (why would some weapons not have both), and there are a multitude of weapon classes to now balance out.  

Edited February 17, 2018 by Nixl

[theBalthazar]

 

You do not have to come back to town every time when you have nothing left. It is an improvement.

Less Ressource Management isn't an Improvement, it's the opposite, but that's my opinion.

 

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

You mean this one ?

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

4 per rest. If 0 is coming --> Rest. 4 again. Where is the problem ? 

 

 

In fact that was the whole point of why they introduced limited Camping Supplies, to avoid the "Rest Spamming" from previous Games.

That, was an Improvement.

 

 

No that's not an improvement. If I need rest, I return in town. 0/2 in Path of the Damned doesn't change anything... (for me) There is only a loss of time, no more, no less.

 

It is often like that "holy crap, I must return at the tavern : 2-3 loading screen to come up..."

 

So no, it is not an improvement. No need spam 4 spells, one devotion of the faithful per encounter is enough... (And you use other spell level for damage) so 12 battle and you return in town (base 4 + 4x2). Exact same cost for per encounter system, except you don't need to return in town...

 

Sorry but... in actual system, you have a limit per encounter. Your class ressource. So, it is false to tell this is no-limit. (like tyranny for exemple). You can't spam infinitly, dude.

Edited February 17, 2018 by theBalthazar

[JFutral]

Worst: Wizards in general. Out of all the spell caster rethinking I feel like wizards were harmed the most.

 

In PoE I I liked that wizards actually contributed to combat, unlike in BG where the goal was to have as many magic missile or chromatic orb spells memorized as possible, and maybe a few chain lighting spells.

 

Now in DF, especially with casting times, the best way for my wizard to contribute consistently is using a wand or scepter. Seems counter intuitive t having a wizard along.

 

Spell school subclasses is a great idea, but I don't think the depth of spells are there, outside evoker and possibly conjurer.

 

I don't see why my wizard has to be forced to select a weapon proficiency.

 

Grimoires were weird in PoE I to get used to. Now I have no idea how they will work. Will I really need a battery of grimoires to have access to various spells? And is a quick slot really necessary for them to hangout until I want a different grimoire? Or did I miss something in the beta (which is entirely possible)?

 

Out of all the changes to spell casters, wizards seem the most adversely affected to me. I'm not a big cipher fan, so I can't speak to them. Druids and Priests have other abilities that make them useful outside of casting spells.

 

But Wizards, to me, are supposed to be spell casting specialists. That seems hampered now.

 

Joe

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Grimoires were weird in PoE I to get used to. Now I have no idea how they will work. Will I really need a battery of grimoires to have access to various spells? And is a quick slot really necessary for them to hangout until I want a different grimoire? Or did I miss something in the beta (which is entirely possible)?

 

 

In Deadfire, I have yet to switch to a grimoire. As wizards are right now, more grimoires almost feels like mockery.

They should come with titles like The book of Irony Vol. III, The Tome of Indifference, The Folio of Listlessness.

"Oh, yet more slow spells at my disposal, incantations that rarely hit home anyways. Gosh, thanks a bunch..."

*The very same evening, behind the camp, grimoire pages were diligently used when Mother Nature called."

[Nixl]

My last bit of feedback is that I think the armor penetration mechanic disrupts weapon balance, and I believe removal of the 30% damage buff for full penetration would go a long way towards balance.  

 

Generally, I have found that high pen weapons have lower actual damage values, whereas lower pen weapons have higher actual damage.  For example, an estoc has a penetration rating of 10, with 18-26 actual damage, while a greatsword has a penetration rating of 6, with 26-32 actual damage.  One would think the additional damage on the greatsword would balance out 4 less penetration rating, but keep in mind full penetration (penetration rating more than twice the enemy's armor rating) gives a 30% damage buff.  The 30% full penetration buff with the estoc seems to mitigate the benefit of equipping a greatsword,even though the greatsword has a higher actual damage value.  Therefore, with an estoc, you appear to have a better chance of reaching the full penetration attack and less risk running into the 25% damage penalties. 

 

I could foresee a situation in which one could stack enough armor penetration from other sources to compensate and thereafter switch to a greatsword for more damage, but is that the intent?  At that point, it would become the reverse, and a greatsword would be better than an estoc in most situations. Under this system, it is not about using the right weapon for the right job, but rather stacking pen for 30% damage. 

 

Therefore, I would suggest removal of the 30% full penetration buff, because I think it skews weapon balance, and I believe the damage penalty for low penetration is more than enough.  If an enemy receives 25-75% damage reduction because of the choice of weapon or spell, that is more than enough reason to switch weapons and tactics.  The current system just snowballs the need for maximum penetration values.  

 

Edit: somehow copied&pasted my post twice.  Should be fixed.  

Edited February 17, 2018 by Nixl

[DexGames]

4 per rest. If 0 is coming --> Rest. 4 again. Where is the problem ?

So, from one Fight to another, you want to never run out of any spell ? Spam them Endlessly = Yey ?

Problem is, from Fight to Fight : "0" never comes.

 

Making a Hardcore Based Game > More Casual - Step One.

 

If I need rest, I return in town. 0/2 in Path of the Damned doesn't change anything... (for me) There is only a loss of time, no more, no less.

Ahh the infamous Loss of Time... What you want is to never have, anything that breaks you from adventuring ?

So, you want to :

• Never Rest ?
• Never go back to Town ?
• Never have anything that would stop you from going on ?

Making a Hardcore Based Game > More Casual - Step Two.

 

Sorry but... in actual system, you have a limit per encounter. Your class ressource.

True, & that sucks currently.

Oh, and you already had a limit before, not only "in the current system".

That limit was the Number of unused Spells left in your List, because you had more Spells to use overall. [Diversity]

Now ?

• You have, let's say... ~6 Spells for exemple, instead of a full list of Spells.
• But beware ! Even if you had a Full List of Spells...
• You could still only cast one... two... maybe four ! [~Four Spells per encounter, Oh my God ! Feels Good Man !]
• Because some of them will cost you 3, 4, 7 and even more Points ! How Great it is ! 
• You'd probably tell me : "If you wanna cast more Spells, just cast Lower Level Spells, Dude". Sure ! How Awesome that would feel too !

No diversity + Spamming the same Spells, Fights after Fights, after Fights afer Figh.... [so on & so forth]

 

Making a Hardcore Based Game > More Casual - Step Three.

 

You can't spam infinitly, dude.

Actually, that's what we do. 

• Not within one single Encounter, rest assured. I never said that. [see what I did there ?... Rest assured... Rest... Come on ! That's funny ! ]
• But... Fight after Fight after Figh... [Ok I stop]. You do Spam Indefinitely, over & over again.
• Because unless you're injured, you don't even need to rest.
• Why ? Because you'll never run out of ressources.

Making a Hardcore Based Game > More Casual - Step Four.

 

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

 

You know, most of us participated in the First Campaign to Re-Experience a Get Back, a Feel on what a true Hardcore CRPG was.

I do want the Franchise to innovate & move many steps forward... But right now, Combat is many Steps Backward from what it was.

So I'm asking you, do you want all of this to be a Casual Gaming Experience ?

Sounds like it is.

 

In the end, with proper Patches & Fine Tuning :

We will probably all enjoy the hell out of the Game, [i will, despite what I dislike currently], just have to be patient for it to be balanced... again.

Edited February 17, 2018 by DexGames

[SkySlam]

Personal opinion after dozens of hours in the beta and hundreds in Poe1

I'll keep it short and simple:

 

The Good

 

- Multiclasses and subclasses (exciting beyond expectation!)

- Atmosphere (great sense of adventure and exploring, way more than in PoE1)

- New scripted interactions

 

 

The Bad

 

- Ship battles! (I thought it would be a major selling point, turned out disappointing beyond expectation! I hope I can switch them off!)

- Empower (no sense lore-wise nor balance-wise)

- Performance issues (will my machine where I run PoE1 so smoothly really be able to run Deadfire?)

[theBalthazar]

So, from one Fight to another, you want to never run out of any spell ? Spam them Endlessly = Yey ?

Problem is, from Fight to Fight : "0" never comes.

 

 

0 Comes if you use 4 per rest ressources in one battle.

 

...like per encounter style.

 

And yes, I want to use all my possibilities each battle. I don't want the "Oh I don't have level 4 spell priest anymore, I must return in town".

 

Pay attention : I don't say I use/used per rest x4 in one battle. BUT IF YOU WANT it, you can... Like now.

 

 

Ahh the infamous Loss of Time... What you want is to never have, anything that breaks you from adventuring ?

 

 

Break yes. But for good reason : because I want return in town for x or y (finish a quest etc.). I don't want return in town while I would like to continue visiting the dungeon.... BIG difference...

 

Same problem than first version of tyranny with trainers : I don't want return in town for avoid the loss of the trainer... (the future has given me reason^^...)

 

 

You have, let's say... ~6 Spells for exemple, instead of a full list of Spells.

 

 

True but it is not the fault to per encounter choice. You can give full list and stay with per encounter style. Not an argument.

 

 

Actually, that's what we do.  

• Not within one single Encounter, rest assured. I never said that. [see what I did there ?... Rest assured... Rest... Come on ! That's funny ! ]
• But... Fight after Fight after Figh... [Ok I stop]. You do Spam Indefinitely, over & over again.
• Because unless you're injured, you don't even need to rest.
• Why ? Because you'll never run out of ressources.

 

 

 

Yes but I can do the same in POE1. I don't see your point. Except for full spell list that I can trully understand (diversity etc.), I don't understand where is the problem. On one battle : you have same possibilities. On two battle or more, you can rest in POE1, and it is auto-regen in Deadfire. No difference.

 

It is a mental bias. Feeling of loss : In POE1, you can spam like POE2. AND if you do that, indeed, you must rest. But after the rest, you have again the same possibilities. It is the only difference.

 

And yes dude : when I could not do the key spells (devotion of the faithful/relentness storm etc.), yes either I would rest/or return in the town. I will not continue the adventure without all my tools. Like "I am too strong, I have no more spells but...I continue !!".

 

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

 

I'm asking you, do you want all of this to be a Casual Gaming Experience ?

 

 

Your point of view. I prefer this system. I have less sense of reserve to use all my possibilities.

 

You want honesty? On POE1, very often I had an ambivalent slot (on 6 possible places of my team)

 

For all trash mob I took a barbarian. Very low cost on its resources (especially post 3.0 with heart of the fury) I only took a wizard for BOSSES. So a minor change for each boss (because wizard is a crazy debuffer with a lot a different damages Ice/fire etc.)

 

Why ? Because otherwise I did not like playing it. It may be a bias, but the per rest has always put me off. Fortunately, there was level 0 ability with raw damages (which made me love this class.) That's why I have greatly appreciated heart of the fury passing per encounter for exemple.

 

Aside from the boss areas, I never knew when to use it. (before arcane assault)

 

The druid ? He still has his transformation. It will always be useful, even without any spells.

 

The priest ? At worst, he could make his holy radiance +10 accuracy.

 

The wizard I took out only to kill the bosses.

 

Only the spell per encounter chosen specifically from a certain level made them more pleasant to play against trash mobs.

 

Per encounter solve a lot a problems...

Edited February 17, 2018 by theBalthazar

[Madscientist]

@DexGames:

Did Obsidian ever say that they want to make a hardcore game?

They want to sell lots of copies which means they have to attract new players. If they make it too hardcore (whatever that means) they will scare away many new players. If they make it more user friendly ( whatever that means) they might get more players and only a few hardcore players might get angry.

 

PoE1+2 is quite complex (because it is a large party based RPG) and I would not call PoE2 to be "dumbed down" (whatever that means).

The most importent thing for me is that I enjoy playing the game. I do enjoy PoE2, even though some things need to be improved. Different people have different things they enjoy or not.

 

When you mean hardcore, what do you want? A game like Age of Decadence? I finished it twice as pacifist but I have no chance as fighter.

Everything can kill you and you need an optimized build, perfect strategy and the correct use of items to stand a chance?

I respect the devs of AoD for making such a game, but I do not want every game to be like that.

If you want to play it hardcore then go for the ultimate achievement if you like. You have the option to make the game as hard as you like.

[Sedrefilos]

Sometimes devs underestimate people who play games. BG2 was hardcore for me when I started playing it. It took me to chapter 3 to understand how things work.

It was the best game I played until Fallout: New Vegas.

So I'm pretty sure there are many people who'll just like the experience Deadfire is promising from the early game and will endure whatever difficult to get mechanics it has because it's worth it.

With so many indi and smaller, supposedly, niche games poping up here and there and being successful, this "we want to appeal to a mass audience who don't like complex things" should have been ended by now.

[DexGames]

Aaanywayyys 

We just have two different visions, some like one, some prefer the other, It will all comes down to this in the end. 

With proper Patches & Fine Tuning :

We will probably all enjoy the hell out of the Game, [i will, despite what I dislike currently], just have to be patient for it to be balanced... again.

 

"Hardcore" in the 90/2000s, was simply used as a Generic Term before it became overused everywhere.

So I used it here as the Generic Term it was.

What I want, is these type of Games to not be Over-Simplified, therefore Casualized.

It distorts everything the genre represents. Like it has distorted many Franchises in the past.

Edited February 17, 2018 by DexGames

[theBalthazar]

You are not hardcore gamer because you cannot use twice your potential of spells.

 

You are not hardcore gamer because you delay your rest.

 

Never in POE1, I felt a lack of the number of spells with spellcaster.

 

But in exchange, you must return in town when you haven't spells anymore.

 

Me : This is not what holds back not to use them.

 

You : This is why you pay attention to use x or y with per rest system.

 

Me : I love C.C. very fast canon glass team. Nuke, nuke, nuke, fastest way possible to end the battle as soon as possible.

 

You : You probably play the sting to last the longest.

 

That's all I can understand for explain the difference of "feeling" on per rest ressource.

 

You see per rest like a precious ressource to save (And often finally don't use totally... !....). I see that like a normal ressource which will be boring when it is empty (rest or return in town).

 

And for the idea : I have the same feeling for empower.

 

Only explanation to our debate.

Edited February 17, 2018 by theBalthazar

[Christliar]

I wouldn't say Baldur's Gate was hardcore, it was considered a watered down system trying to cater to a wider audience even back then. It was still good in its watered down state, however, even if I personally would've made it turn-based, and is now plaguing gaming 20 years later with devs trying to emulate its style, but distinctly even more watered down. There is no chance Obs will turn Deadfire into a hardcore game, so I say let them make the best game they can on their own terms. This is why I don't bitch about resting anymore, I recognize that it's pointless and is there for no reason, but surrender myself into the calming waters of acceptance and not caring. They want to make a game without any strategic thought whatsoever? Go, do it, make the best damn game ever with as many watered down elements as you please, but it better be really good.

[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 and hardcore vs. casual elsewhere.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Unless it at the very least features Black Flag, Minor Threat, and Bad Brains then it isn't hardcore. Hardcore after 2000 is **** so I don't care of that's missing.