Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Witiko]

I am familiar with them, but I believe that, to a certain extent, this is a non-issue in singleplayer games. If you want to minmax the game, there's no stopping you. On the other hand, giving the player the ability to roll a failure of an character and make the wrong choices while levelling up gives you both greater freedom as far as roleplaying is concerned, and improves replayability. Afterall – where's the fun in winning, if you aren't allowed to fail?

There's a certain school of RPG design that believes that failure should be when you party gets wiped in a battle because the AI outsmarted you, not because you failed to create a viable character. Pillars of Eternity subscribes to this school.

That's solving an issue that doesn't imo need solving. The IE games did this right – The difficulty setting allowed you to set what "viable" was. At normal difficulty, you could create an average character that would still be viable, while core difficulty would require you to minmax your character. Everyone's happy.

 

[poetic codex]

I don't know Crosmando, but in that one specific post, he does have a point.

I absolutely hate it when rpg abilities have cool sounding names, but functionally perform the exact same role in combat. If your game doesn't have an environment system like Divinity Original Sin, then there really is no point to have: Lightning bolt: The mage calls upon the gods to reign down powerful surges of electricity upon his foes and does 1d6 lightning damage; Firebolt: a bolt of magical fire shoots out from his fingertips to engulf his enemies in flames and does 1d6 fire damage; Icebolt: A freezing bolt of energy chills his enemies to their marrow and does 1d6 ice damage. If all they do is lower enemy hit points and nothing more, what's the point?

 

[Harold]

The IE games did this right – The difficulty setting allowed you to set what "viable" was. At normal difficulty, you could create an average character that would still be viable, while core difficulty would require you to minmax your character. Everyone's happy.

You are aware that PoE will have a shitton of difficulty modes, right? Plus Sawyer is a firm believer in 'no retard (who forgets to buy equipment from Pomab's even though the game just told him to) left behind', so everyone should be happy once again. Well, except for the resident architects, though they were awfully quiet about the non-sensical design of dungeons in BG2. But that game didn't have rigid classes, so I guess being able to roll say, a worthless totemic druid that was capped at lvl 14 and thus, much more fun and conductive to role-playing, assuaged all architectural woes. Ok, I'll stop now.

 

[Jasede]

The druid classes were shit, but fun to play.

Face it, many people like having "bad" choices.


If we extend this Sawyer approach ad absurdum, all weapons should do the same DPS over the course of the game, so they're equally viable. (Strawman!)

 

[Witiko]

You are aware that PoE will have a shitton of difficulty modes, right? Plus Sawyer is a firm believer in 'no retard (who forgets to buy equipment from Pomab's even though the game just told him to) left behind', so everyone should be happy once again.

All the more reason to question why making each class put out the exact same amount of DPS / Threat / Healing in combat should be a game design priority rather than also focusing on low-combat content, where class diversity and non-combat characters shine.

 

[Arkeus]

All the more reason to question why making each class put out the exact same amount of DPS / Threat / Healing in combat should be a game design priority rather than also focusing on low-combat content, where class diversity and non-combat characters shine.

i...what the hell are you taking about?

 

[Zed]

Architects of Eternity would have been a much cooler title by the way.

 

[Harold]

All the more reason to question why making each class put out the exact same amount of DPS / Threat / Healing in combat should be a game design priority

It isn't. Where the hell did you get that from?

class diversity and non-combat characters shine

There won't be any 'non-combat charcters'. What a character will be able to do out of combat will depend mostly on his Stats.

Architects of Eternity would have been a much cooler title by the way.

JewMasons of Eternity

 

[Witiko]

All the more reason to question why making each class put out the exact same amount of DPS / Threat / Healing in combat should be a game design priority

It isn't. Where the hell did you get that from?

It follows from the fact that

There won't be any 'non-combat characters'.

Hence, each class is going to be ballanced around being as combat-savvy as the rest of the group.

What a character will be able to do out of combat will depend mostly on his Stats.

Abandoning the classful system for low-combat content only adds to the making-the-classes-feel-all-the-same vibe, which Sawyer's ill-advised attempts to "ballance" and "fix" the tactical combat give off.

 

[tuluse]

If the game is not competitive and has a difficulty setting, it's hard to see the merits of Sawyer's attempts to make every class combat-savvy, since it will hurt roleplaying and low-combat content with little to no gain in return. If there is any low-combat content, that is.

Name all the low combat content in Baldur's Gate.

I expect pe to blow it away with obsidian writing and the cyoa stuff

 

[Infinitron]

All the more reason to question why making each class put out the exact same amount of DPS / Threat / Healing in combat should be a game design priority

It isn't. Where the hell did you get that from?

It follows from the fact that

There won't be any 'non-combat characters'.

Hence, each class is going to be ballanced around being as combat-savvy as the rest of the group.

Only if you define "combat-savvy" as "DPS". In reality, what "combat-savvy" means is "This character doesn't need to hide in a corner during fights while the Combat Classes Who Are Good At Combat™ do their work. Instead he has cool and useful things that he can do to help".

 

[Witiko]

Only if you define "combat-savvy" as "DPS". In reality, what "combat-savvy" means is "this character doesn't need to hide in a corner during fights while the Combat Classes Who Are Good At Combat™ do their work".

It still boils down to "each character is able to do this much damage / tanking / healing", though.

Name all the low combat content in Baldur's Gate.

P:T would be a better example, since the BG games are quite combat-heavy (not as much as the IWD games, but I hope that's not what they're going for with this), but the cities of Baldur's Gate and Athkatla are very much low-combat areas.

 

[Infinitron]

It still boils down to "each character is able to do this much damage / tanking / healing", though.

Yes, but "this much" isn't "equal". I mean, for god's sake, the latest update just defined the Rogue and the Ranger as "Heavy Hitter" DPS classes. That automatically means that all classes do NOT have equal DPS, otherwise why make the distinction?

 

[Witiko]

Yes, but "this much" isn't "equal". I mean, for god's sake, the latest update just defined the Rogue and the Ranger as "Heavy Hitter" DPS classes. That automatically means that all classes do NOT have equal DPS, otherwise why make the distinction?

You keep on pointing out the dps part. Clearly, the classes that do less dps will have other combat utility (tanking / healing) to counter-ballance that. The operative word being "combat" utility, rather than utility in general.

 

[Infinitron]

Yes, but "this much" isn't "equal". I mean, for god's sake, the latest update just defined the Rogue and the Ranger as "Heavy Hitter" DPS classes. That automatically means that all classes do NOT have equal DPS, otherwise why make the distinction?

You keep on pointing out the dps part. Clearly, the classes that do less dps will have other combat utility (tanking / healing) to counter-ballance that. The operative word being "combat" utility, rather than utility in general.

Well, healing and DPS do use the same stat.

More seriously, you've forgotten about buffing and crowd control. But okay, if they all have roughly the same "combat utility" then there's still plenty of room for the classes to feel differently, to play differently. They are not carbon copies. Isn't that what everybody's worried about?

 

[Roguey]

I like the ideas for combat log and character sheet info, but I don't think they should add mouse-over boxes with information other than HP (preferably just damaged state, e.g. "weak", "almost dead") and Name. Here's my take on it

Personally I would argue more info could be given through mouseovers about an enemy if they are stuff your character can clearly see, like the enemy being crippled or trapped, or if you use some kind of detect magic spell on the enemy. But I agree that health state is much better than 99/134 HP and no to stuff like showing their values such as their armor class.

I want all the information exposed. All of it. Guesswork is a waste of time.

Josh said there'd be a toggle to determine how much info gets revealed.

 

[Witiko]

Well, healing and DPS do use the same stat.

Damage and Healing do, but the resulting DPS will be affected by PoE's equivalent of THAC0 (accuracy, afaik?), so a might-heavy magic user doesn't automatically equal a heavy hitter.

But okay, if they all have roughly the same "combat utility" then there's still plenty of room for the classes to feel differently, to play differently.

I wonder how, if they are streamlined in combat and at the same time the non-combat content is stats-, not class-based. Clever character writing is the only way for Obsidian to redeem themselves now.

 

[Infinitron]

I wonder how, if they are streamlined in combat and at the same time the non-combat content is stats-, not class-based. Clever character writing is the only way for Obsidian to redeem themselves now.

What does "streamlined in combat" even mean? And since when is stats-based non-combat content a bad thing that needs "redeeming"? And since when was class-based non-combat content even a thing in the IE games?

It appears that you're just trolling now.

 

[gromit]

If all they do is lower enemy hit points and nothing more, what's the point?

How am I supposed to have my intelligence validated by a videogame, if I can't swap my ice spells out for fire when the game telegraphs that I should?

Through fucking gameplay? Ugh.

 

[Roguey]

Funny thing is that Josh had to tell off the grognards again just a couple of weeks ago.

Most of the challenges I listed are logically obviated on successive playthroughs. If those elements were really as important to your enjoyment as you say they are, and so many of them manifest due to a lack of foreknowledge/familiarity, that doesn't add up. If literally "half the fun" of playing a bad build is discovering it's bad halfway through the game and you've played the game over and over and over, how does that circumstance (the discovery) even arise for you?

As for attributes and bad builds, let me put it this way: in D&D 3rd Ed., let's say Str, Dex, and Con are the only three stats in the game. You make a fighter and you can have an 18 in one, 16 in another, and a 10 in the last. The things that fighter is good at will shift significantly based on how you place those stats -- but the character is still clearly a fighter. You may be able to make a convincing case that one build is markedly better than another, but they'll all give you different strengths and weaknesses. Now figure out a way to do the same thing for Int, Wis, and Cha in the core rules and that's essentially what we're trying to do for PoE.

"No bad builds" is not the same as "all builds are equal" and "all builds are functionally the same". It means that if you distribute your points in different ways across our attributes for a character of any class, the strengths and weaknesses of the character will shift in interesting ways and still be viable. If you dump Resolve for your fighter, you will suffer. If you boost Resolve for your fighter, you will benefit. Some classes in D&D already do this better than others. Monks and paladins have a more difficult allocation of stats to consider than fighters. If you want to shift the difficulty of combat, we have a level of difficulty slider. The attribute system is not meant to be a covert way of haphazardly achieving difficulty.

 

[Witiko]

What does "streamlined in combat" even mean?

Non-diversified / alike

And since when is stats-based non-combat content a bad thing that needs "redeeming"?

It isn't eo ipso, but at this point it seems to add to the problem of the lack of inter-class diversity.

And since when was class-based non-combat content even a thing in the IE games?

You had a multitude of ways to interact with your surroundings based on your abilities, which were derived from your class. Confessedly, most of the scripted class-based content was also character-based.

It appears that you're just trolling now.

It does?

 

[Infinitron]

Non-diversified / alike

Rogues and Rangers: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/732064
Ciphers: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/615816
Monks: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/474740
Paladins: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/514250

No, not really. Many people on the Obsidian forums seem to agree with me, and they're not happy about it.

 

[Witiko]

Non-diversified / alike

Rogues and Rangers: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/732064
Ciphers: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/615816
Monks: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/474740
Paladins: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/514250

No, not really. Many people on the Obsidian forums seem to agree with me, and they're not happy about it.

To paraphrase your post – that's quite a lot of abilities there. Let's just hope that, in the end, the classes will play any different.

 

[sea]

Most of the challenges I listed are logically obviated on successive playthroughs. If those elements were really as important to your enjoyment as you say they are, and so many of them manifest due to a lack of foreknowledge/familiarity, that doesn't add up. If literally "half the fun" of playing a bad build is discovering it's bad halfway through the game and you've played the game over and over and over, how does that circumstance (the discovery) even arise for you?

Aww snap.

 

[tuluse]

Only if you define "combat-savvy" as "DPS". In reality, what "combat-savvy" means is "this character doesn't need to hide in a corner during fights while the Combat Classes Who Are Good At Combat™ do their work".

It still boils down to "each character is able to do this much damage / tanking / healing", though.

Name all the low combat content in Baldur's Gate.

P:T would be a better example, since the BG games are quite combat-heavy (not as much as the IWD games, but I hope that's not what they're going for with this), but the cities of Baldur's Gate and Athkatla are very much low-combat areas.

PE will also have walking around in cities with no checks of stats.