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

[Abelian]

a path of length 0, that is, a path containing only a single vertex, is a trivial circle

Well played, sir, well played.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Time Stop was even nerfed in 3rd edition, preventing casters from slamming spells on helpless enemies/you. That kind of experience is never coming back, ever..

yes, and why would anyone think it could come back in a game that claims to be the spiritual successor to a 2nd Edition AD&D computer game. It should be obvious to anyone that such a successor game will take ides from D&D 3rd edition, 4th edition, every fucking MMO and MOBA, but not from 2nd Edition AD&D. The idea itself is ridiculous. Also praise sawyer and his golden calf, balance.

Taking ideas from AD&D 2E is one thing, taking stupid ideas from it is another. Of course, off the top of my head I can't really think of anything in 2E that 3E made worse.

just off the top of my head, hit point inflation and bonuses for almost everything could grow way to large.

Anyway, you think 2nd edition timestop was a bad idea? or just its implementation in the infinty engine?

Fair point, the numbers can get a bit silly. But I do think the consistency and clarity of 3e+ numbers is a fair trade.

I don't really know if 2nd edition Time Stop was a bad idea for PnP. Its kind of interesting when used in a more puzzle solving way instead of just straight combat buffing/nuking. Plus any munchkin issues can be houseruled. I do think its a bad spell for any cRPG to incorporate without having some kind of tradeoff/opportunity cost because its really only going to be used as a force magnifier for standard combat tactics (i.e., casting spells you would cast anyway, but doing it faster). So it either becomes overpowered or essential, both of which are kind of boring. So I don't think it was so much that it was implemented badly, as I don't really see a good way to implement it.

 

[Hormalakh]

^ which makes complete sense in a cRPG because only one player is playing 6 characters. DnD mages don't make sense in PnP when the singular character is played by one player. it also makes sense for rogues to be skill masters because of the very reason taht only one player is playing all 6 characters.

The reason for designing a game where all classes are useful at all times isn't just because it's boring to play classes if you don't make them useful. It's also about overall party composition flexibility.

If your goal is to make a game where every party composition is a viable choice, then a "skill master class" doesn't really fit and doesn't "make sense".

thanks for reminding me - sometimes i forget the goals behind certain design decisions. although, the implementation needs to follow a fine line of not making everyhing too samey.

as for the contingency stoneskin, if there is a counter-balancing negative to this spell, it can go from being "obvious" to becoming an interesting decision. For example, if casting such a contingency locks out a certain number of spells until used or canceled, it becomes a question of "invest now for good returns later or don't waste your spell capabilties for more flexibility in the midst of combat."

See that wasn't so hard, was it roguey?

 

[tuluse]

if casting such a contingency locks out a certain number of spells until used or canceled, it becomes a question of "invest now for good returns later or don't waste your spell capabilties for more flexibility in the midst of combat."

See that wasn't so hard, was it roguey?

Just don't use contingencies and save scum if you die.

 

[dukeofwhales]

Also other Obsidian employees all-but-confirmed they'll be using His Blueprint for a Nigh-Perfect RPG for their next Kickstarter project. "

Where have they said that? Fuck You: Suck My Dick - the Josh Sawyer Dream RPG Experience would certainly be interesting. It wouldn't raise as much money as PoE because there's less nostalgia to cash in on though.

 

[tuluse]

Also other Obsidian employees all-but-confirmed they'll be using His Blueprint for a Nigh-Perfect RPG for their next Kickstarter project. "

Where have they said that? Fuck You: Suck My Dick - the Josh Sawyer Dream RPG Experience would certainly be interesting. It wouldn't raise as much money as PoE because there's less nostalgia to cash in on though.

In the reddit chat, I think two Obsidian employees including Tim motherfucking Cain said they could use the PoE system in different settings and it would be easy to extend or adapt.

 

[Shadenuat]

I really should replay these games at some point, because I'm really drawing a blank on these ass-handing hard counter fights. Mind you, I can't even remember what my default party was, or even what class my MC was. I certainly don't remember anything too frustrating, and I played as a pure storyfag with no interest in min-maxing. (No 3 int/wis/cha fighters at any rate).

Josh never mastered BG2, which is clear to anyone who played it a lot. The fact that he thinks one can't deal with other mages without your own mages is a clear sign of it, or how he said you can't play game without mage in your party.

It didn't help that BG2 was full of bugs, however. For example, Dispel Magic's formula was shit, casting it on anyone not a few levels below yourself was useless, ect.

 

[Grunker]

aleph: Hit point inflation? In 3E? Are you serious? Yes, numerically you got more hit points, but we're talking about a system famous for having initiative being one of the best stats because combat is often over in the first round on higher levels. Hit points might have been "inflated" but damage was inflated way, way more.

 

[Xor]

I really should replay these games at some point, because I'm really drawing a blank on these ass-handing hard counter fights. Mind you, I can't even remember what my default party was, or even what class my MC was. I certainly don't remember anything too frustrating, and I played as a pure storyfag with no interest in min-maxing. (No 3 int/wis/cha fighters at any rate).

Josh never mastered BG2, which is clear to anyone who played it a lot. The fact that he thinks one can't deal with other mages without your own mages is a clear sign of it, or how he said you can't play game without mage in your party.

It didn't help that BG2 was full of bugs, however. For example, Dispel Magic's formula was shit, casting it on anyone not a few levels below yourself was useless, ect.

Mages aren't even the hardest encounters in BG2, and actually they're quite pedestrian when you get a grasp of the mechanics. Even without a mage you can usually just pound away until their protections wear out; a party of 6 physical attackers would shred through stoneskin like it wasn't even there, and protection from magical weapons only lasts a few seconds. I'd still never leave home without at least 2 spellcasters in BG2, but it's totally doable. That's not even bringing up cheesy kits like the paladin that can dispel magic at clvlx2, or just using potions of invisibility to one shot a mage before their prebuff script can fire.

The only hard encounters are the dragons (if you don't blatantly cheat by force-talking them or whatever), Slayer Irenicus, Melissan (fuck that bitch, I still haven't beaten her legit with SCS2 and ascension), and maybe the demogorgon, although I don't remember having any problems with him even with ascension's tougher demogorgon and SCS2.

 

[aleph]

Harg Harfardarssen time stop has a cost evn in BG2, it takes up a level 9 spell slot that could be used for another spell. Also, you get access to it pretty late in the game anyway.

aleph: Hit point inflation? In 3E? Are you serious? Yes, numerically you got more hit points, but we're talking about a system famous for having initiative being one of the best stats because combat is often over in the first round on higher levels. Hit points might have been "inflated" but damage was inflated way, way more.

As you point out yourself this true on higher levels. In the low and mid level range. combat takes definitely longer than in previous editions. You could argue though, that 3rd edition shifted the bulk of the game in general to higher levels. For me this would be another drawback of 3rd edition, since I enjoy low to mid level d&d much more than the high level stuff.

 

[Grunker]

As you point out yourself this true on higher levels. In the low and mid level range. combat takes definitely longer than in previous editions.

In the "low- and midrange" as you call it, hit points are more or less the same as in 2E. The big change to 3E's HP system is that you keep rolling dice after you pass level 10. And that's the same point where damage starts scaling wildly. But even then, you're still wrong as I see it. There almost isn't any inflation from levels 1-10 in terms of HP, but there's a TON of inflation in damage, even on those levels.

The only reason fights can be more drawn out on lower levels is due to the way damage reduction works for some monsters, but that's a selective issue with some encounters rather than a general problem of HP inflation.

Beyond that, when it comes to defensive stats, I can't see a reason why 3E fights should be more drawn out at any level. Certainly not due to HP inflation.

Now for 4th Edition it's a whole other matter because here we have both HP inflation and damage deflation.

 

[Copper]

As you point out yourself this true on higher levels. In the low and mid level range. combat takes definitely longer than in previous editions.

In the "low- and midrange" as you call it, hit points are more or less the same as in 2E. The big change to 3E's HP system is that you keep rolling dice after you pass level 10. And that's the same point where damage starts scaling wildly. But even then, you're still wrong as I see it. There almost isn't any inflation from levels 1-10 in terms of HP, but there's a TON of inflation in damage, even on those levels.

The only reason fights can be more drawn out on lower levels is due to the way damage reduction works for some monsters, but that's a selective issue with some encounters rather than a general problem of HP inflation.

Beyond that, when it comes to defensive stats, I can't see a reason why 3E fights should be more drawn out at any level. Certainly not due to HP inflation.

Now for 4th Edition it's a whole other matter because here we have both HP inflation and damage deflation.

That was the biggest gripe I had with 4E, certainly, annoying at low levels, realy sucky at high levels, especially if you're not a Striker class or you're up against a Solo which is just boring in terms of abilities and ability to fuck with the whole party. They did fix this somewhat wish revised Monster Manuals though, didn't they?

 

[aleph]

In the "low- and midrange" as you call it, hit points are more or less the same as in 2E. The big change to 3E's HP system is that you keep rolling dice after you pass level 10. And that's the same point where damage starts scaling wildly. But even then, you're still wrong as I see it. There almost isn't any inflation from levels 1-10 in terms of HP, but there's a TON of inflation in damage, even on those levels.

You are leaving out, that in 3rd edition, there is no cutoff for constitution bonuses for non-fighter classes. Also, constitution bonuses to hitpoints started at higher values in 2nd edition. Both things are relevant in the 1-10 level scale. And increasing constitution was not easily possible before 3rd edition.

Beyond that, when it comes to defensive stats, I can't see a reason why 3E fights should be more drawn out at any level. Certainly not due to HP inflation.

Maybe you are just not looking hard enough...

 

[FeelTheRads]

FeelTheRads telling me that it shouldn't be possible to play an RPG better than another person outside of chargen.

The character is not defined only in character generation, but throughout the game. That's how you play better than other people, by creating and developing a better character.
I even mentioned that in the post. Make a better character, lose fewer hitpoints. Character input should be much more important than player input in anything but character creation, because that is the meat of an RPG.
I don't know, maybe I'm getting it wrong, but Sawyer's bullshit always sounds like he's trying to put as much as possible into player input and make character input as irrelevant as possible. See his love for minigames and other retarded shit like that.

All of it? I kinda agree with him about having prescience while playing D&D.

While I was playing IE games* most times I got my ass handed to me because I didn't have appropriate spells setup and had to reload and set my spells and sleep and fight. Maybe its because of my inexperience of D&D or something but I thought it was a little retarded.

I don't see what's so retarded. Is it retarded in other games to reload the game if you fail at something? Pretty much anything can be chalked up to "prescience". Died in a FPS from a surprise monster? Reload and now you know he's coming. Is seems like Sawyer and modern developers think people reloading is a failure on their part as developers or something or that by reloading you don't get to experience their carefully crafted emotional engagement. When the fuck did this came to me? It's fucking degeneration, that's what it is and it only leads to shit like health-regen and easy everybody-can-win games. Nothing else.

 

[Excidium]

FeelTheRads telling me that it shouldn't be possible to play an RPG better than another person outside of chargen.

The character is not defined only in character generation, but throughout the game. That's how you play better than other people, by creating and developing a better character.
I even mentioned that in the post. Make a better character, lose fewer hitpoints. Character input should be much more important than player input in anything but character creation, because that is the meat of an RPG.

Couldn't disagree more.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

I agree with FeelTheRads , at least in practice, when I think of games that play that way I think of Fallout, PS:T, FO2. Obviously in those games some players can play better than others, but when it comes down to it your character defines you most, you make your choices, but how it plays out is based primarily on stats, perks, etc.

Obviously there's a limit, at some point you might as well not even play a game, instead just watch a cutscene play out that succeeds or fails based on your creation choices. But yeah, as far as balance goes, I agree that the character should be more important.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

The character is not defined only in character generation, but throughout the game. That's how you play better than other people, by creating and developing a better character.
I even mentioned that in the post. Make a better character, lose fewer hitpoints. Character input should be much more important than player input in anything but character creation, because that is the meat of an RPG.
I don't know, maybe I'm getting it wrong, but Sawyer's bullshit always sounds like he's trying to put as much as possible into player input and make character input as irrelevant as possible. See his love for minigames and other retarded shit like that.

I don't disagree in theory but what you described sounds more like Fallout than IE games (in which player input was very important, especially in BG2). For example, if you give a Fallout noob an optimized char with all the right traits & perks that has 150% in Energy weapons, is wielding a Turbo Plasma Rifle and is wearing Power Armor he'll likely tear through Super Mutants with ease. On the other hand, if you give a BG2 noob to play a high level sorcerer with the best spell selection possible he'll still very likely struggle to beat a Dragon even with a party.

I don't see what's so retarded. Is it retarded in other games to reload the game if you fail at something? Pretty much anything can be chalked up to "prescience". Died in a FPS from a surprise monster? Reload and now you know he's coming. Is seems like Sawyer and modern developers think people reloading is a failure on their part as developers or something or that by reloading you don't get to experience their carefully crafted emotional engagement. When the fuck did this came to me? It's fucking degeneration, that's what it is and it only leads to shit like health-regen and easy everybody-can-win games. Nothing else.

 

[Answermancer]

Is it retarded in other games to reload the game if you fail at something? Pretty much anything can be chalked up to "prescience". Died in a FPS from a surprise monster? Reload and now you know he's coming. Is seems like Sawyer and modern developers think people reloading is a failure on their part as developers or something or that by reloading you don't get to experience their carefully crafted emotional engagement.

I think a lot of people who dislike the reliance on "prescience" and reloading don't care about emotional engagement so much as the fact that's it's often a sign of "trick" fights where metagaming is more important than tactics or strategy. If someone cares about tactical combat, it's annoying if most fights in the game are impossible or nearly so without having some foreknowledge (like: I need this specific spell for this battle or I lose, or: the enemy will do this specific thing at this specific time and kill me unless I do <counterintuitive thing>), especially if once you have said foreknowledge the fight becomes trivial.

At that point the combat is less about sound strategic planning at all times, and more about knowing what's coming and the obscure trick to dealing with it. Combat becomes less strategy and more puzzle.

I sometimes see strategy gamers talking about the same sort of thing, a game like Panzer Corp for instance is often mentioned as an example where the missions are basically impossible to win the first time but once you learn the positioning and pacing of enemies by failing a time or two you've basically "solved" the level and there's no compelling alternate solutions.

 

[Athelas]

I wouldn't really use Fallout with its huge randomization (both in combat and for skill checks) as an example of a game 'dependent on character skill'.

 

[Roguey]

Josh never mastered BG2, which is clear to anyone who played it a lot. The fact that he thinks one can't deal with other mages without your own mages is a clear sign of it, or how he said you can't play game without mage in your party.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hard counter

Death ward is a hard counter to any death spell, negative plane protection is a hard counter for level drain, chaotic commands is a hard counter to any mind-affecting spell, spell immunity is a hard counter to the spell school of your choice, breach, lower resistance, pierce magic, true sight, ruby ray of reversal, khelben's warding whip, pierce shield, spell strike, etc. are hard counters to various protections.

Mentioning Wasteland 2 was only meant to be a nudge in the ribs about the SRR joke. You're putting a lot more thought into what I posted than I did. From what I remember, Dead Man's Switch had a lot of dialogue options that were really well written, but seemed to amount to very little.

It has cosmetic C&C, which is fine. Ideally there would be cosmetic and more gameplay-affecting C&C.

Sure, sure. One blueprint to rule them all, and to the Balance bind them. Focus shifts, money and scope is limited, and design needs to shift with it or leads to compromises and sub-optimal solutions. If anything, this will be the fourth 'sub-optimal' game in his own freaking opinion that Josh will be lead on. I'm sympathetic to the deadline he faced getting out IWD2, the clusterfuck the NWN2 was and his role there, the deadline with F:NV and working with Gamebryo, and the appeal to nostalgia that PoE has to bear, but that should demonstrate to everyone that a universal solution is a myth. The man deserves credit for being able to juggle creative and management shit at the same time, no doubt, but presenting him to be some sort of Randian superman who is impossible of failing is not doing anyone any favours.

I disagree. His underlying goals are universally applicable.

 

[Rake]

I wouldn't really use Fallout with its huge randomization (both in combat and for skill checks) as an example of a game 'dependent on character skill'.

Randomization is still outside of player's input though.

 

[Rake]

Sure, sure. One blueprint to rule them all, and to the Balance bind them. Focus shifts, money and scope is limited, and design needs to shift with it or leads to compromises and sub-optimal solutions. If anything, this will be the fourth 'sub-optimal' game in his own freaking opinion that Josh will be lead on. I'm sympathetic to the deadline he faced getting out IWD2, the clusterfuck the NWN2 was and his role there, the deadline with F:NV and working with Gamebryo, and the appeal to nostalgia that PoE has to bear, but that should demonstrate to everyone that a universal solution is a myth. The man deserves credit for being able to juggle creative and management shit at the same time, no doubt, but presenting him to be some sort of Randian superman who is impossible of failing is not doing anyone any favours.

I disagree. His underlying goals are universally applicable.

Only if you agree with them.

 

[Athelas]

Randomization is still outside of player's input though.

It's also outside the character's input. Besides, I was talking about the randomization as implemented in Fallout, not randomization in general.

 

[Roguey]

Only if you agree with them.

"I think there should be false choices, options that are clearly better than others, skills that are only worth taking on one party member and wasted if otherwise, and extreme randomization everywhere"--a dummy

 

[Rake]

Only if you agree with them.

"I think there should be hard counters, magic should be governed by completely different rules than mundane classes,even if that makes for overpowered combinations,nothing wrong with more puzzle like battles instead of tactical ones,"

fixed
I didn't said that all his goals are wrong, in fact i agree with most of them, but to say that all his goals are clearly the one superior design and all games should follow the same blueprint is BS

Spoiler

BG2 had better combat than IWD2. Deal with it!

Spoiler

Did you play Aarklash Legasy yet? I remember you said you would at some point. What's your opinion on it?