Eternity Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pre-DLC Thread [GO TO NEW THREAD]

High impact low chance procs on items makes encounters a lot more varied and tests your adaptability. They should add them to some enemies too.

 

On-hit items existed in POE as well. I don't have an issue with them showing up in the sequel.

 

If they did that people would just game it by standing outside the enemies' sight and hitting party members 9 times before starting the fight. Then they would complain that they are "forced" to play that way

 

you have 2 options for enchant for best weapon of it's type in the game,

1. 5% to fatshame target on hit

or

2. summon 2 dragons

pick your best

 

Unless the dragons also have the fatshame on hit skill, I'd go with the fatshame.

 

It simply makes killing enemies easier when it procs, I don't know what adaptability is being tested like this.

 

I will go with the dragons,i have a magical ring that gives me fatshame 100%.

 

People love playing the slots.

 

Just disable the counter on allied hits. I know they can do it because you couldn't hit your party members in PoE1 to level soulbound weapons when you needed to reach a certain damage threshold. Interestingly enough, things like "cause blind 9 times" did work when hitting allies.

 

Pets are just part of the RPG evolution Sawyer is pioneering. Stop throwing sticks in the wheel of progress bro.

 

What’s the advantage of using a counter system rather than RNG? VD was talking about using token based RNG rather than dice based RNG because too many people don’t understand how randomness works in his latest update, but aside from making outcomes more palatable to the innumerate, I don’t see any benefit.

Over a long enough period of time both systems will give you the same distribution of outcomes, one is just a lot more predictable. And predictability is not super desirable when most of the mechanics are meant to simulate randomness. Plus, we use dice to resolve everything else in RPGs, why not status effects? Maybe it would be better to make it apply 100% of the time but with the status effect having a very low accuracy (although in practice this would give you similar results).

Think of these items like shitty old cars. You keep turning the ignition and eventually it will start on one of those turns, but you will never know why. It’s temperamental machinery.

 

All those talk about balance yet no one mentions you can finally wear hats without losing all your hair.

 

I tend to skip the 5% chance of whatever stuff, but Deadfire has plenty of other types, from granting active abilities to weird (and often super-munchkin) possibilities re. things like recovery procs, bouncing arrows and on-near-death hail mary triggers.

 

All this bitching and whining about nerfs instead of boosts is so retarded. People play 1.0 and that's their reference point. Everything that changes after that is "you broke the game, it was fine", while in reality the balance was already broken in 1.0. Nothing makes 1.0 superior, except in your eyes it's the best because it's the first thing you saw.

 

How much experience do you have balancing complex cRPGs?

Changing one item at a time is almost insignificant. Nerfing or buffing entire categories of items is the way to go if you want to see any difference.

 

Right, you get my point but actually it's your point.

 

Genetic Fallacy - Attacking the origin of an argument is not equivalent to attacking its merit.

Straw man - The thesis of my argument is that balancing all encounters and then evaluating whether or not items are OP (i.e. isolating variables) would have greater and more predictable returns than trying to balance both encounters and items at the same time. My argument is not, and never has been, that they should try to isolate and make changes to each item individually.

 

For whatever reason the PoE fans have chosen Pallegina as the sexualized object instead of Xoti? Hmm. I can go with that.

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

 

But you weren't making an argument. You were stating an opinion regarding a technical matter (how to best balance a cRPG). In my view, expert opinions should be given more weight than layman opinions.

That's not an argument. It's an opinion. You believe that's the best way to do it. I was wondering if you have any practical experience about that sort of thing, or if you're just theorising.

 

Just go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong...

 

All I can say is that in my limited experience balancing a game, especially early on, (yeah, that one), it's easier to attack it from both sides at once: if it's too easy, nerf assets and buff challenges. If you only do one or the other, you're likely to get inflated numbers (only buff challenges) or too coarse a scale (only nerf assets).

As I said, it's an opinion -- and mine is by no means an expert one either. (Josh's OTOH is an expert opinion -- he's been doing this kind of shit for 20 years, and that qualifies him as an expert.)

 

I know they do this at development stage, except buffs are *2 not *1.5.

However, after game is released they are not afraid to /4 or /5 things. In PoE1 Blizzard's slow was /4ed, Sure Handed Ila's reload - /5ed. I wonder where are their testers if they need to make such drastic changes after release.

 

You do not deserve that moustache.

 

Hunting down game- and quest-breaking bugs I have no doubt.

Last game Obsidian released that didn't need a shitload of balance patching was South Park and that was (1) massively delayed due to publisher shenanigans (2) mechanically very simple and (3) easy.

 

I've always initially thought that the issues for Obsidian were publisher related and Obsidian had no fault, but after the interview thread here with Avellone, and how terribly Obsidian has handled their personal game creations, leads me to believe Obsidian holds more fault with these companies than either party lets on. I would not be surprised if some of the delays for South Park were due to Obsidian as well.