Divinity Divinity: Original Sin 2 - Definitive Edition

[Jimmious]

I don't think the game even properly explains how initiative works... that's why nobody knows. It's so obscure.

Do we have any idea why they decided for it to work this way? It's so puzzling.

Apparently people were cheesing initiative in the beta killing off encounters in the first turn before the AI had a chance..
It's a head hurts, cut head solution

 

[Luckmann]

It also creates some very real issues that most people don't think about but that results in gameplay being/feeling random for reasons that I suspect most people can't put their finger on, due to how it makes you lose turns and bump enemies forward in the turn order.

For anyone interested, read the section on "The Round-Robin Turn Orders" here.

Basically, you can end up screwing yourself or have the order of turns shift massively (and yes, inserting three characters between the expected turn order of two characters is something I'd consider "massive") from one round to another simply because you summoned something, and in other cases you can end up having a much more powerful or present/near-by enemy move earlier than expected simply because you killed a weaker opponent. In both cases, you end up fucking yourself in unpredictable manners for doing things that you very much expected would improve your situation - you're very much fighting against the mechanics, rather than the mechanics working with you in an expected and consistent manner for a pleasant game experience.

Retards tend to boil the issues with initiative down to "Initiative is a dead stat" or "Wits need to be buffed", but it completely ignores the more fundamental problems such as this. Wits could be buffed to turn you invincible with a single point and initiative could make you one-hit-kill things in a drive-by, and the underlying system would still be fucking broken.

 

[Luckmann]

I don't think the game even properly explains how initiative works... that's why nobody knows. It's so obscure.

Do we have any idea why they decided for it to work this way? It's so puzzling.

Apparently people were cheesing initiative in the beta killing off encounters in the first turn before the AI had a chance..
It's a head hurts, cut head solution

The worst thing is that this could easily be solved by actually balancing the encounters, to have encounters with enemies with very high initiative, and other encounters where alpha-striking would be extremely good because the enemy has low initiative, and then you could have combats that are a mix of both. But no, that didn't fit into the game's endemic auto-scaling and massive stat bloat, so it was easier to just say no, no alpha-striking, and make initiative useless. It also explains all the issues I described, because the game fundamentally was not meant to work like this.

It came in as a shitty band-aid right on the end.

We're not alone in noticing either, even if it gets buried by the overwhelming response. If you go to punch in "divinity original sin 2 initiative" on Google, what's the auto-fill? Is it "gear", because people want to know what gear there is to boost Initiative? Is it "mechanics", because people want to figure out how it works? Or is it "strategy" or "strategies" because people want to consider the various ways initiative can be used as a worthwhile character statistic?

No.

No it is not.

It's not any of those things.

 

[Jimmious]

It's a very stupid decision and it sucks that it was not criticized more. I really wonder if anyone asked Swen directly about this, I don't remember if the codex did

 

[Roguey]

It's a very stupid decision and it sucks that it was not criticized more. I really wonder if anyone asked Swen directly about this, I don't remember if the codex did

He'd just repeat the official line already given
http://larian.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=616872#Post616872

the turnorder system is indeed code-based. As one would expect this is not a simple data file, but an integral part of the underlying game system. Many iterations were done, as it evidently is not the same compared to DOS1, and a lot of balancing and combat design accounts for this system.

Integral blah blah many iterations blah blah lot of balancing and and combat design accounts this system yadda yadda

 

[Jimmious]

Dunno I guess I maybe hope that he specifically since he has this vision of the ultimate RPG and so on, would get the problem at least

 

[LESS T_T]

Superdata estimates that D:OS 2 generated $85m in revenues last year: https://wccftech.com/divinity-original-sin-2-85m-revenue-2017/

PREMIUM PC

1 PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds – $714M
2 Overwatch – $382M
3 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive – $341M
4 Destiny 2 – $218M
5 Grand Theft Auto V – $118M
6 Battlefield 1 – $113M
7 Minecraft – $92M
8 Guild Wars 2 – $87M
9 Divinity: Original Sin 2 – $85M
10 Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Siege – $67M

I don't get it. In most naive estimation* no way it could exceed even $50m.

* Assume all copies are sold at list price, ignore regional prices (Russian Ruble price is a third of USD!), ignore KS copies, assume GOG sales are 20% of Steam, i.e. $43m (44.99 * (1,149,531 * 1.2) *0.7 = 43,442,615.7396)

Yes, that was bullshit, and my naive estimation was rather accurate: https://www.pcgamer.com/pubg-tops-premium-pc-digital-market-with-714-million-in-2017/

They've sold 1.3 million units btw.

There's just one problem with that story: Larian boss Swen Vincke says it's not so. Divinity: Original Sin 2 is a hit, yes, but not nearly to that degree.

"If only that were true," he said. "I don’t know where they got that data but we’re currently at 1.3M units, so even if you disregard VAT, the cut Steam and GOG take, and the price differences per country (i.e. you assume we sell the game at $45 everywhere), you still don’t get to $85 million. My faith in Superdata numbers received a big blow today. But that doesn’t take away that we’re still super happy about so many people picking up D:OS 2."

Superdata explained the discrepancy in a follow-up statement saying that its estimates are "based on partnerships with publishers, developers and payment providers," which enable the creation of "bottom-up algorithms for individual games based on the point of sale tracking data of over 160 million paying customers."

"Occasionally we see differences in definitions and recognition for revenue—for example, when people are reporting gross vs net revenue (SuperData is always gross), deferred revenue, non-GAAP accounting practices, and other allocations which may show different figures depending on the source. For compliance reasons, we also don't typically comment on feedback from private companies—who may be motivated by investor concerns—outside of a formal data relationship," a rep said. "However, Divinity: Original Sin 2 was a breakout success in 2017—commercially and critically—and we congratulate Larian."

 

[LESS T_T]

Heh, I wonder if Focus Home will be announce console releases of D:OS 2 at their upcoming press conference (Feb 7-8).

 

[Fairfax]

Dunno I guess I maybe hope that he specifically since he has this vision of the ultimate RPG and so on, would get the problem at least

Even if he knows it's bad, the game has been popular with casuals and critics as it is. I'd be very surprised if he fixed the initiative system, as it'd make the game more challenging for most of them.

 

[Black]

It's a very stupid decision and it sucks that it was not criticized more. I really wonder if anyone asked Swen directly about this, I don't remember if the codex did

You think he cares about small fish in the pond such as Codex? If it's not coming from some big (literally) twitch streamers like Jesse Cucks he won't care.

 

[Blaine]

The game mechanics worked perfectly fine in D:OS. They weren't anything incredible, but they were perfectly serviceable. I just don't understand why they were changed so dramatically for the worse.

 

[Roguey]

The game mechanics worked perfectly fine in D:OS. They weren't anything incredible, but they were perfectly serviceable. I just don't understand why they were changed so dramatically for the worse.

Not casual friendly enough. D:OS 2's sales and scores compared to its predecessor are proof that he made the right call.

 

[Darth Roxor]

(((right call)))

 

[Infinitron]

If D:OS 2 really did better than its predecessor on its own merits (as opposed to just successfully building on the previous game's hype and positive worth of mouth), I'd say it's more likely to be on account of things like the increased focus on role-playing, companions, multiplayer, voice acting, etc. I see little reason to believe they couldn't have just copied D:OS 1's overall system, added more skills and all the tag system stuff, and done just as well.

 

[Roguey]

If D:OS 2 really did better than its predecessor on its own merits (as opposed to just successfully building on the previous game's hype and positive worth of mouth), I'd say it's more likely to be on account of things like the increased focus on role-playing, companions, multiplayer, voice acting, etc. I see little reason to believe they couldn't have just copied D:OS 1's overall system, added more skills and all the tag system stuff, and done just as well.

I'm not certain if these are elements that would keep people playing for significantly longer.
Classic D:OS Playtime total: 34:27 (average) 11:16 (median)
Enhanced D:OS Playtime total: 28:33 (average) 08:22 (median)
D:OS 2 Playtime total: 58:33 (average) 36:14 (median)

 

[JasonNH]

Even if he knows it's bad, the game has been popular with casuals and critics as it is. I'd be very surprised if he fixed the initiative system, as it'd make the game more challenging for most of them.

How would the older, more predictable initiative system make the game harder compared to pseudo-randomly generated turns? It was easier back then to plan and anticipate moves compared to now.

 

[Fairfax]

Even if he knows it's bad, the game has been popular with casuals and critics as it is. I'd be very surprised if he fixed the initiative system, as it'd make the game more challenging for most of them.

How would the older, more predictable initiative system make the game harder compared to pseudo-randomly generated turns? It was easier back then to plan and anticipate moves compared to now.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread. It's not about what knowledgeable players could do, it's about the experience for casual players.

The round-robin initiative and the armour system make elaborate plans and set-ups unreliable, but that seems to working as intended. You know for a fact you won't be able to stomp the enemies with an opening sequence, but that means it won't happen to you either. They killed creative set-ups in favour of making things less random and safer for the average player.

The new initiative system was a late decision in the game's development. Some users said the early access builds didn't have the new system, and the video updates still featured the old system just months before launch. You can see it in the release date announcement update (May 24, 2017):


Swen/Larian probably noticed testers using a party with low initiative across the board, not exploiting or paying the attention to the turn order at all, getting frustrated after suffering multiple attacks in a row, etc. It was easier for them to just make it pointless and dumb things down under the hood, which helps maintain the illusion that it's a deep, yet accessible old-school CRPG.

 

[JasonNH]

The round-robin initiative and the armour system make elaborate plans and set-ups unreliable, but that seems to working as intended. You know for a fact you won't be able to stomp the enemies with an opening sequence, but that means it won't happen to you either. They killed creative set-ups in favour of making things less random and safer for the average player.

...
Swen/Larian probably noticed testers using a party with low initiative across the board, not exploiting or paying the attention to the turn order at all, getting frustrated after suffering multiple attacks in a row, etc. It was easier for them to just make it pointless and dumb things down under the hood, which helps maintain the illusion that it's a deep, yet accessible old-school CRPG.

I think it's more likely that Larian was looking to limit the possibility of stomping with the opening sequences than making it safer for the average player. It's the same reason they introduced physical and magical armor. I highly doubt early access adopters were using low initiative across the board because another one of the frequent complaints was that wits was the only really meaningful stat aside from main stat worth taking after sufficient memory was accounted for. Just pump main stat, wits, and a little memory for every build. It was pretty standard.

I hate the change too but it was pretty clear to me at the time that it was a quick and dirty hack to try and fend off meta gaming. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the real solution would have been to re-balance the fights so that enemies had a better variation of initiative, but I'm guessing they simply didn't want to review every fight and stat allocation to address it given the proximity to release. I see it more as a grotesque solution of expediency rather than fishing for casuals.

 

[Blaine]

Ironically, the change only made metagaming easier, since 75% of the party now has a total dump stat.

 

[JasonNH]

Ironically, the change only made metagaming easier, since 75% of the party now has a total dump stat.

Yeah, but the amount you gain with that extra stat point isn't as influential as being able to stack the initiative deck.

 

[Fairfax]

I think it's more likely that Larian was looking to limit the possibility of stomping with the opening sequences than making it safer for the average player. It's the same reason they introduced physical and magical armor.

Why do you assume they'd care more about powergamers than the vast majority of their potential customers? Also, both are inherently connected in this case. If powergamers can stomp mobs in the opening sequence, mobs can do it to bad players/weak parties. Same with the armour system: if you can't abuse cc to beat enemies, enemies can't do it to you either.

With the certainty that armour will completely block most status effects, the player is safe from a wide variety of options for a significant portion of the fight. So are the enemies, of course, but the average player doesn't mind if they can't steamroll enemies with cc and whatnot, they only feel passionately when it happens to them. Casuals savescum and rage at XCOM for a single missed attack, to the point where it's a meme. Getting stomped in an RPG makes these players feel even worse.

I highly doubt early access adopters were using low initiative across the board because another one of the frequent complaints was that wits was the only really meaningful stat aside from main stat worth taking after sufficient memory was accounted for. Just pump main stat, wits, and a little memory for every build. It was pretty standard.

I hate the change too but it was pretty clear to me at the time that it was a quick and dirty hack to try and fend off meta gaming. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the real solution would have been to re-balance the fights so that enemies had a better variation of initiative, but I'm guessing they simply didn't want to review every fight and stat allocation to address it given the proximity to release. I see it more as a grotesque solution of expediency rather than fishing for casuals.

Early access players were powergamers for the most part, especially the ones who were criticizing these things in the forums. However, Larian was much more interested in PAX attendees, play testers, journalists and streamers, as they represent the bulk of their audience. It more than paid off for them in sales, so they're even less likely to care now.

 

[Blaine]

Casuals savescum and rage at XCOM for a single missed attack, to the point where it's a meme.

Oh, dear... I looked at the comments.

 

[catfood]

Best review out there yet.

 

[JasonNH]

Why do you assume they'd care more about powergamers than the vast majority of their potential customers?

I don't think they would cater to powergamers more than the majority of their playerbase, no. That would be idiotic. At the same time, putting some points in wits is hardly powergaming so I don't see much relevance in your point.

Also, both are inherently connected in this case. If powergamers can stomp mobs in the opening sequence, mobs can do it to bad players/weak parties. Same with the armour system: if you can't abuse cc to beat enemies, enemies can't do it to you either.

Yes, I heard you the first time but it simply doesn't line up with the facts nor the history of the game's iterations. You seem to think that the likelihood of "the vast majority of the playerbase" not taking any points in wits and getting stomped by fights that aren't designed with mobs that have high wits in the first place is greater than the possibility that they re-balanced this due to wits being an easy dump stat that led to fights being too easy to control. The latter is far more consistent with how they've handled combat throughout the two games, I don't see a reason to turn this into a dumbing down for casuals maneuver unless you're looking to find it there. In fact, they purposefully scripted some fights to force just this scenario where the enemy owns the opening sequence.

Early access players were powergamers for the most part, especially the ones who were criticizing these things in the forums. However, Larian was much more interested in PAX attendees, play testers, journalists and streamers, as they represent the bulk of their audience. It more than paid off for them in sales, so they're even less likely to care now.

The vast majority of their data comes from early access players. There wouldn't be any meaningful data from PAX attendees that would result in a change like this. The playtesters wouldn't fit your ultra-casual demographic either. So you're down to saying that Larian changed this because of a couple of journalists and streamers getting stomped in opening sequences as opposed to the vast majority of the criticism being that wits was an obvious dump stat. So did you actually witness journalists and streamers getting stomped in opening sequences because of poor initiative setups or are you just making this up as you go along?

I still find it comical that you're defining the investment of a few points in wits as powergaming. Honestly, it looks like you really have little familiarity with the development of the game and just looking for reasons to reinforce your narrative. There are plenty of other decisions that can account for bringing in a larger tent of players like the origin stories, voice acting, etc. No need to be find boogeymen in every change.

 

[Jimmious]

Spoiler

Best review out there yet.

Where do I remember this "Ludo Lense" guy from?