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

[Lhynn]

So far PE sounds really good and accessible for any dota/wow player that cares to try it.

 

[Avellion]

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.

The problem when too much information is revealed, like the exact ammount of hitpoints, it tuns into that I start to optimize every single attack to factor in for every single armor point and remaining hitpoint.

As for the toggle, fair enough. Should mean that I get my lower ammount of info and people who want more can get more.

 

[Hormalakh]

I think the issue for people like me is exemplified by the point josh made about the rogue not needing anther class to play off of to utilize the sneak attack. Personally, I just think it's dangerous to have this concept of everybody's self-sufficient and this is where the fear of "everything is too similar" comes from.

I know josh has said in the past that during play testing he's really felt the loss of his party classes whenever he didn't use them, but I fear that when josh makes it a design goal that as more class abilities become self-sufficient and play less off of the other classes, that the reason to have a party of six is less enjoyable. Why have a Mage a priest and a thief in a party if they can all be done by one character? Put some points in each category and you can lock pick, heal, and cast spells, admittedly not as great as each specialist, but not too far from them either. What's the point of a six person party then?

It's the kensai kit all over again. Skill imbalances played a protective role here and josh is designing them out. Class specializations also played a protective role but the dumbasses want rangers and rogues and fighters and barbarians to play the same and are trying to convince josh to do this too.

 

[Infinitron]

What's the point of a six person party then?

Well, the obvious answer to that is "six party members have more HP collectively and do more damage than just one".

If the rogue is really a kind of guerilla fighter than it makes sense that he's self-sufficient. I haven't seen JES talking about making other classes more self-sufficient.

 

[Hormalakh]

It seemed that he was making it more of a design goal in his quote than strictly a rogue thing. But then you still have the kensai kit fiasco all over again. Single member parties also leveled faster...

Not too mention that it no longer becomes an interesting decision: it's difficulty adjusting (how many hp do I need to beat the game?) that josh spoke ill of.

There is no longer a decision. It will become "the right thing to do" to play as a rogue and expand into other roles like the kensai-Mage was the right thing to do.

Edit: reread the quote, so far it's just the rogue, but my point stands about kensai mages

 

[Arkeus]

I am not sure how you go from 'Rogues will do a lot of damage but will go down really quickly if they aren't being protected by fighters/whatever' to 'Rogues are the only choices'.

Hell, Josh even made a post a couple of days ago about how he was making bows slightly less strong than IRL because compared to Melee you don't have to move, so you are always firing, and having the damage too high will make it a no-brainer.

 

[Roguey]

ive spent the last two hours reading impassioned debates about whether passive voice is ever okay

it's fine in a lot of circumstances and people who think otherwise are fail and should be destroyed.

someone left two copies of elements of style on the free table at work. i took them and now keep them in my office, much as i would with the necronomicon and other corrupting tomes.

sounds like you're taking up the passive aggressive voice!

i have made my stance on elements of style clear at work and all who defend it or leave copies in my presence reap the whirlwind.

The problem when too much information is revealed, like the exact ammount of hitpoints, it tuns into that I start to optimize every single attack to factor in for every single armor point and remaining hitpoint.

Never been an issue with me. Knights of the Chalice has spoiled me when it comes to enemy statistics, so anything that offers less information is all the worse for it.

 

[Lhynn]

It seemed that he was making it more of a design goal in his quote than strictly a rogue thing. But then you still have the kensai kit fiasco all over again. Single member parties also leveled faster...
Not too mention that it no longer becomes an interesting decision: it's difficulty adjusting (how many hp do I need to beat the game?) that josh spoke ill of.
There is no longer a decision. It will become "the right thing to do" to play as a rogue and expand into other roles like the kensai-Mage was the right thing to do.
Edit: reread the quote, so far it's just the rogue, but my point stands about kensai mages

Never saw the problem with a kensai, it was powerful, yes but the fact that it existed on a single player game and that you got to choose whether to use it or no kinda invalidates any complain you might have about how powerful it was.
To tell the truth with its abysmal AC it didnt make the game any easier at first, and when AC stopped being an issue it really was just another heavy hitter and you could say that some of the joinable npcs were almost as good.
Anyway, this is what sawyer hates , class imbalance, so even if each class can do its job independently they all need eachother to succeed, because you need the numbers they bring to the table (damage, attacks, etc).

 

[l3loodAngel]

What's a non-compelling, non-worthwhile choice? You know those Dan Simpson FAQs for the Infinity Engine games on GameFAQs, that would give the classes, spells, etc "grades", from A to D? If something has a D grade, if it's one of those things that makes you go "LOL I would never take this, obvious trap choice" then it's not compelling and one needs to consider why it even made it into the game.

And this game will be a living testament that the goal of everything A is just not possible.

IF we would apply simple logic and accept the fact that there will be skills that are superior ( or A), that means that there will always be skills that are below the A grade. You could theoretically get all other skills to B or C. But at what cost?

1. There's a certain school of RPG design that believes that failure should be when your 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.

2. Furthermore, the designers of PoE believe that it's deceptive and doesn't make much sense to allow the player to create a "Fighter" character who isn't actually good at fighting. For maximum "roleplaying" (if you define that as the ability to create characters who aren't good at combat) one should seek out games with classless systems, since the classes in class-based games typically revolve around combat utility.

1. Rofl. If there is skill specialization some sets of skills will always be above others. You like it or not. Furthermore, if you are cannot create a failed character what are your choices? I want a fucking 20 STR - 3 Int mage and Josh will make this character viable? How does this even makes sense. But I get it, it's called guidance :



2. Read above>Watch video>start crying. If I cannot build a character that is not actually good at fighting, I will never be able to build a character that's better at fighting than other fighters. Nice. 50$ down the drain.

 

[Infinitron]

That's right. In PoE, chargen is where you choose HOW you will fight, not whether you can fight at all. All fighters can fight. That's why they're called fighters.

Of course, different types of encounters call for different types of fighters, so that doesn't mean all fighters will be equally effective in EVERY battle.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Glad you agree that it will suck. Taking freedom to make mistakes is taking the joy out of the game. There is no point in winning if all combinations are winning ones. There is problem when toddler's game is more complicated.

See and be amazed that you can't win with one shape.

 

[Infinitron]

That's a poor analogy. What you're asking for is equivalent to a toy in which you have dozens of shapes that don't fit into ANY hole.

Like I said, class-based CRPGs by their nature limit the scope of roleplaying choice that a player has. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Mage? Fuck, why can't I be a farmer? Because you can't. The ability to construct Fighters who suck at fighting in every way has never really made sense in this type of game.

 

[l3loodAngel]

@l3l00dAngel That's a poor analogy. What you're asking for is equivalent to a toy in which you have dozens of shapes don't fit into ANY hole.

Yeah, If it was designed by Josh the hole would automatically adjust to shape toddler is holding to fit in. That's the whole point. There are right holes and wrong holes, you cant win the game with just cube.

 

[Excidium]

Everyone can fight in a game about fighting WTF

@l3l00dAngel That's a poor analogy. What you're asking for is equivalent to a toy in which you have dozens of shapes don't fit into ANY hole.

Yeah, If it was designed by Josh the hole would automatically adjust to shape toddle is holding to fit in. That's the whole point. There are right holes and wrong holes, you cant win the game with just cube.

And who said you can? Some builds and team setups will obviously be much better than others

 

[Infinitron]

Yeah, If it was designed by Josh the hole would automatically adjust to shape toddle is holding to fit in. That's the whole point. There are right holes and wrong holes, you cant win the game with just cube.

Nope, like I said, tactical combat will still require that the player use the right abilities of the right classes at the right moments. That's a whole layer of challenge that you're ignoring here. Tactical combat requires more than just building the right character.

You might resent this game for not allowing you to build gimped characters, but don't pretend that means the game will be easy. It doesn't.

 

[Excidium]

I'm p. sure you can still build gimped characters, as far as I know the game won't auto select your stats, feats, abilities, weapons, etc. If you think any combination will be equally viable you are very naive

 

[Jagged Appliance]

There's plenty of people here more obsessed with balance than Sawyer.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Yeah, If it was designed by Josh the hole would automatically adjust to shape toddle is holding to fit in. That's the whole point. There are right holes and wrong holes, you cant win the game with just cube.

Nope, like I said, tactical combat will still require that the player use the right abilities of the right classes at the right moments. That's a whole layer of challenge that you're ignoring here. Tactical combat requires more than just building the right character.

Now you are just repeating stuff without thinking. There is no right abilities if ALL ABILITIES ARE EQUAL!!! IF all skills are equal you can just use few skills and lawn mow everything.

 

[Infinitron]

Now you are just repeating stuff without thinking. There is not right abilities if ALL ABILITIES ARE EQUAL!!! IF all skills are equal you can just use few skills and lawn mow everything.

But they're not all equal. They're all useful, sure, but they're not all equal. They do different things. They're useful in different tactical situations. One of them is good against the heavily armored boss with high DT. The other one is good against trash mob hordes. The third one is good against casters. And you can't build a character who has all three. This is what we call "tactical combat".

 

[tuluse]

I'm p. sure you can still build gimped characters, as far as I know the game won't auto select your stats, feats, abilities, weapons, etc. If you think any combination will be equally viable you are very naive

The idea is that there is a high "floor" of characters. So you can't build one who completely sucks.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Now you are just repeating stuff without thinking. There is not right abilities if ALL ABILITIES ARE EQUAL!!! IF all skills are equal you can just use few skills and lawn mow everything.

But they're not all equal. They're all useful, sure, but they're not all equal. They do different things. 1. They're useful in different tactical situations. One of them is good against the heavily armored boss with high DT. The other one is good against trash mob hordes. The third one is good against casters. And you can't build a character who has all three. This is what we call "tactical combat".

I meant equal in their usefulness. But that's essentially same as equal.
1. OK. So that means that if you will lack some skills you fail. Unless they are mandatory. So that's failure for not building a right character or right party. What were you saying previously?

 

[Shadowfang]

I'm p. sure you can still build gimped characters, as far as I know the game won't auto select your stats, feats, abilities, weapons, etc. If you think any combination will be equally viable you are very naive

Probably making a Fighter with high intellect and high resolve.

I thought some of us were upset about the lack of variety within a character class and not between each class.
Clearly they are quite different. The ranger is stuck with ranged weapons or he will not benefit from most of his abilities.
You wont also be able to build a Paladin as a Fighter, since they want him to be a more supportive class.

 

[Infinitron]

1. OK. So that means that if you will lack some skills you fail.

Oh come on, it's not that simple.

1) You have six characters in your party. If one character is bad against something, another one is bound to be good. Be smart, use tactics!
2) If they are somehow all weak against a particular foe (very unlikely), then use up some of your consumables to buff your party. If you don't have any consumables, go and buy some.
3) If that still doesn't help, the game isn't linear, go do something else, level up and come back later.
4) If that still doesn't help, go to the Adventurer's Hall and recruit another character that's more effective than the ones you have now against this particular enemy.
5) When all else fails, save-scum until you get a bunch of critical hits. Even PoE isn't completely immune to this tactic.
6) If you still can't progress at this point, this game probably isn't for you.

 

[l3loodAngel]

snip...

At this point you are just circle jerking. There is no point to defend an intellectually weak idea of perfect balance. Which A. Cannot be achieved. B. Even if it's achieved does not guarantee fun. Therefore, it is waste of resources.

I personally would "endorse" (for the lack of better expression) a game design, that aims to be both fun and challenging, rather than balanced.

 

[Infinitron]

At this point you are just circle jerking. There is no point to defend an intellectually weak idea of perfect balance. Which A. Cannot be achieved. B. Even if it's achieved does not guarantee fun. Therefore, it is waste of resources.

Circle jerking about what? You're the one with the strawman idea of "perfect balance". I've just explained to you what balance means. It means no useless options, no way to make a fighter that sucks at everything.

That's all it means. It doesn't mean you can't fail. It doesn't mean every ability and every skill is an awesome button.

If that sounds like it's not a big deal, that's because it isn't. The IE games could easily have embraced such a philosophy without changing too much. If you read Dan Simpson's FAQ when you created your characters, you were basically eliminating all useless builds. Did this make the games easy? No, it didn't.