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

[Infinitron]

It is funny how not one person on the Codex commented on Roxor's Sawyeristic ruminations on the class imbalance in Shadowrun Returns.

 

[felipepepe]

It is funny how not one person on the Codex commented on Roxor's Sawyeristic ruminations on the class imbalance in Shadowrun Returns.

Don't go into binary views, there is a middle ground between having a class that is clearly shitty and inferior to others and having all classes playing the same.

 

[Grunker]

Yeah, the focus on balance in a singleplayer party-based game is rather pointless. I guess it's just Sawyer's personal little obsession, and as far as obsessions go, it's more on the benign side. Just hoping he won't make the whole system banalshitboring in pursuit of this mythical balance.

Frankly, Adept Powers (or the later ones at least) aren't good enough for the karma investment they require. At the very least, the self-buffs should be significantly better than mage/shaman equivalents, and should last a lot longer as well.

Errr, so?

"Balance in single-player games is pointless."

"This should be significantly better because it's worse than something else."

Alright bro

@felipepepe is right of course. Anyone claiming balance is totally irrelevant or the only important thing are obviously both completely wrong.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

I am pissed at that and Josh's hypocrisy. I could have understood such a heavy focus on balance if the game was supposed to have a single PC only. isn't having a party meant to cover the weakness of individual party member. (specific damage immunities, skill check penalties etc)

Because then you have to use a specific party composition - in a game with only eight NPC companions, no less. What if I don't want the standard D&D party of two fighters, a cleric, a mage and a thief? What if I really hate the only thief NPC the game has?

never provided a satisfactory answer why RTwP was chosen over TB

Because it's an Infinity Engine-like game. Get over it.

And it's not "twitchy". Haven't you noticed all the retards complaining that Dragon Age was too "slow paced"? Slow paced is the opposite of twitchy.

he was introduced to RTwP before TB for RPG combat

The man's in his late 30s. Two of his favorite RPGs are Fallout and Pool of Radiance.

Sounds like you're more mad about no TB than anything Josh says.

This is the biggest issue I have with such a heavy emphasis on balance in this game.

never provided a satisfactory answer why RTwP was chosen over TB...

Get over the already.
The answer was simple. They promished an IE successor and IE games had RTwP. That was the only reason. They want the combat to feel the same as IE combat. That cannot be with TB.
Now, if someone didn't liked IE combat in the first place it's another story, but tough luck.Chances are he won't like the combat in PE either as their goal is to recapture the feeling of IE combat.

I was just sperging. but putting my massive about RTwP aside:

@Infinitron even if i hate all the npcs isn't there and adventurers guild or something which will allow me to recruit NPCs of any class i want?

At most PE will be worth 1 playthrough for the lore and setting. also hoping Josh includes some tasteful rape in the plot. All classes are supposed to be equally viable throughout the game (some hurdles/cakewalks) on an average. of cuorse if you go and take party of only fighters... even then by swayerism, you should be able to complete the full game.

 

[felipepepe]

If I can take 3 playthroughts of the game: regular party, derp party and solo, I'm ok.

 

[Rake]

I am pissed at that and Josh's hypocrisy. I could have understood such a heavy focus on balance if the game was supposed to have a single PC only. isn't having a party meant to cover the weakness of individual party member. (specific damage immunities, skill check penalties etc)

Because then you have to use a specific party composition - in a game with only eight NPC companions, no less. What if I don't want the standard D&D party of two fighters, a cleric, a mage and a thief? What if I really hate the only thief NPC the game has?

never provided a satisfactory answer why RTwP was chosen over TB

Because it's an Infinity Engine-like game. Get over it.

And it's not "twitchy". Haven't you noticed all the retards complaining that Dragon Age was too "slow paced"? Slow paced is the opposite of twitchy.

he was introduced to RTwP before TB for RPG combat

The man's in his late 30s. Two of his favorite RPGs are Fallout and Pool of Radiance.

Sounds like you're more mad about no TB than anything Josh says.

This is the biggest issue I have with such a heavy emphasis on balance in this game.

never provided a satisfactory answer why RTwP was chosen over TB...

Get over the already.
The answer was simple. They promished an IE successor and IE games had RTwP. That was the only reason. They want the combat to feel the same as IE combat. That cannot be with TB.
Now, if someone didn't liked IE combat in the first place it's another story, but tough luck.Chances are he won't like the combat in PE either as their goal is to recapture the feeling of IE combat.

I was just sperging. but putting my massive about RTwP aside:

@Infinitron even if i hate all the npcs isn't there and adventurers guild or something which will allow me to recruit NPCs of any class i want?

At most PE will be worth 1 playthrough for the lore and setting. also hoping Josh includes some tasteful rape in the plot. All classes are supposed to be equally viable throughout the game (some hurdles/cakewalks) on an average. of cuorse if you go and take party of only fighters... even then by swayerism, you should be able to complete the full game.

Yes, but the Adventurers Hall where you recruite your whole team yourself is an extra. The game won't be balanced with that in mind.
Also, IE games could be soloed. And if 1 fighter can solo the game, 6 fighters can as well. It will be posible to complete the full game with a party of 6 ..............
Just don't expect it to manage it in your first or second playthroughs, unless you are realy realy good, or Sawyer fucks up the game's balance

 

[Sensuki]

The character I want to play won't be supported because females won't have boobs.

 

[Liston]

Errr, so? It's not like making SRR balanced would make it significantly better, which is my point. I completed the game with an Adept just fine and had a lot of fun with it.

I do commend you on your txt updating skills though bro, quite a feat for a newfag. How long is your file on Grunker, I wonder.

So you had fun with the game which means that all of its flaws are insignificant? Even the ones you found appropriate to post about? Games are either shit or perfect?

Balancing SRR doesn't seem so important because it has many other (bigger) flaws. While on the other hand balancing games like BG would make them significantly better because most other parts of their design is good.

Btw don't take this so personally I'm just proving the point, balance isn't pointless as most people here agreed with SRR review.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Errr, so? It's not like making SRR balanced would make it significantly better, which is my point. I completed the game with an Adept just fine and had a lot of fun with it.

I do commend you on your txt updating skills though bro, quite a feat for a newfag. How long is your file on Grunker, I wonder.

So you had fun with the game which means that all of its flaws are insignificant? Even the ones you found appropriate to post about? Games are either shit or perfect?

Balancing SRR doesn't seem so important because it has many other (bigger) flaws. While on the other hand balancing games like BG would make them significantly better because most other parts of their design is good.

Btw don't take this so personally I'm just proving the point, balance isn't pointless as most people here agreed with SRR review.

Bro what you are essentially saying is that if you improve an aspect of SRR, it becomes a better game. Which, while true, isn't exactly helpful. Balance isn't irrelevant, obviously, because neglecting it completely leads to stupid crap like Harm in Arcanum. What I've said in my initial post, that both you and Grunker tried hard to misread, is that focusing on balance is pointless, and it is. Once you have a system with character builds/classes which are significantly different and interesting to play in their own right, and content that can support this system, then you can start tweaking numbers to achieve a measure of balanced performance between them. Honestly though, if you can complete the game with a class, and the gameplay is good, then what the fuck does it really matter if another class is more effective, as long as it's not to an extreme extent.

I'm currently replaying Dark Souls and it's a great example of this. This is because developers focused on having good core systems and varied gameplay, and not whether greatswords are balanced compared to daggers or whatever the fuck. Also, for the record, I don't think "balancing" BG2 (you meant BG2, yes?) would make it significantly better.

What makes you think I'm taking this personally anyway? I just found it kind of funny that you dug up some throwaway comment of mine from a short discussion about Adepts in the SRR thread just to make a point here. Thus, I'm curious if it's just coincidence or whether you're Wyrmlord's alt and systematically keep tabs on everything people say.

 

[Infinitron]

This is because developers focused on having good core systems and varied gameplay, and not whether greatswords are balanced compared to daggers or whatever the fuck.

How do you know?

This is what I call the "content creation theory" of RPG design - the assumption that great RPGs are made by basically creating lots of content and letting it all work out "naturally". Design a sword that behaves like a sword, design a dagger that works like a dagger, and voila, presto, great RPG! It's so easy!

In reality, the creators of Dark Souls may have thought about "balance" (I like how that's considered almost a dirty word here) far more than any of us realize.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Yes, but the Adventurers Hall where you recruite your whole team yourself is an extra. The game won't be balanced with that in mind.
Also, IE games could be soloed. And if 1 fighter can solo the game, 6 fighters can as well. It will be posible to complete the full game with a party of 6 ..............
Just don't expect it to manage it in your first or second playthroughs, unless you are realy realy good, or Sawyer fucks up the game's balance

If Sawyer messes up balanced... lol won't he be a big joke in codexia?

This is because developers focused on having good core systems and varied gameplay, and not whether greatswords are balanced compared to daggers or whatever the fuck.

How do you know?

This is what I call the "content creation theory" of RPG design - the assumption that great RPGs are made by basically creating lots of content and letting it all work out "naturally". Design a sword that behaves like a sword, design a dagger that works like dagger, and voila, presto, great RPG! It's so easy!

In reality, the creators of Dark Souls may have thought about "balance" (I like how that's considered almost a dirty word here) far more than any of us realize.

This. balance is important no doubt. But being anal retentive like Sawyer and removing the possibility of gimped/slightly uber builds is what I hate the most, now that I am sober.

 

[tuluse]

This is because developers focused on having good core systems and varied gameplay, and not whether greatswords are balanced compared to daggers or whatever the fuck.

Sawyer isn't doing this. That's why weapon skills cover a variety of weapons, and not a single type.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

This is because developers focused on having good core systems and varied gameplay, and not whether greatswords are balanced compared to daggers or whatever the fuck.

Sawyer isn't doing this. That's why weapon skills cover a variety of weapons, and not a single type.

yeah, that bugs me too. I mean a small bonus synergy like AoD could have easily been implemented...

 

[Cowboy Moment]

This is because developers focused on having good core systems and varied gameplay, and not whether greatswords are balanced compared to daggers or whatever the fuck.

How do you know?

This is what I call the "content creation theory" of RPG design - the assumption that great RPGs are made by basically creating lots of content and letting it all work out "naturally". Design a sword that behaves like a sword, design a dagger that works like dagger, and voila, presto, great RPG! It's so easy!

In reality, the creators of Dark Souls may have thought about "balance" (I like how that's considered almost a dirty word here) far more than any of us realize.

If they have focused on balance, they've failed rather spectacularly. The game's difficulty varies wildly depending on how you choose to play.

And you're painfully wrong about your "content creation theory", at least in this instance. What makes DS combat good isn't the content itself, but the underlying combat system, and the way various stats interact and trade off with each other. Where you got this idea after I spent my whole post talking about systems, I don't know.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

If I can take 3 playthroughts of the game: regular party, derp party and solo, I'm ok.

Yes, but the Adventurers Hall where you recruite your whole team yourself is an extra. The game won't be balanced with that in mind.
Also, IE games could be soloed. And if 1 fighter can solo the game, 6 fighters can as well. It will be posible to complete the full game with a party of 6 ..............
Just don't expect it to manage it in your first or second playthroughs, unless you are realy realy good, or Sawyer fucks up the game's balance

Oh yeah, i also forgot... no hard counters right? Josh doesn't like SoD spells. Looks like being smart will allow to complete a playthrough with a derp party.

 

[Infinitron]

If they have focused on balance, they've failed rather spectacularly. The game's difficulty varies wildly depending on how you choose to play.

What do you mean by "how you choose to play"? Do you think "balance" means "the game is always easy even if you play like MCA an idiot?"

the way various stats interact and trade off with each other.

Sounds like balance!

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

If they have focused on balance, they've failed rather spectacularly. The game's difficulty varies wildly depending on how you choose to play.

What do you mean by "how you choose to play"? Do you think "balance" means "the game is always easy even if you play like MCA an idiot?"

the way various stats interact and trade off with each other.

Sounds like balance!

Sawyer wants all stats/feats/skills to be equally viable. Dark Souls has resistance. And has OP pyromancy and munchkin favorite scaling weapons. lets not forget the Ricard's rapier + Greater Magic Weapon boss raper.

Sawyer is obsessed about preventing all of these.

 

[Lancehead]

Oh yeah, i also forgot... no hard counters right? Josh doesn't like SoD spells. Looks like being smart will allow to complete a playthrough with a derp party.

It's called the player being resourceful, and is a desired quality that games should encourage, and it wouldn't be a "derp party" if the player can manage challenges with a given party. Unless of course you're fond of Chargen: The Game.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Sawyer doesnt want any build to not be viable. and any build to not be OP.

Although to be fair, he was in charge of FNV right? and he managed to turn that shitty engine into something bearable..

 

[Cowboy Moment]

If they have focused on balance, they've failed rather spectacularly. The game's difficulty varies wildly depending on how you choose to play.

What do you mean by "how you choose to play"? Do you think "balance" means "the game is always easy even if you play like MCA an idiot?"

the way various stats interact and trade off with each other.

Sounds like balance!

Have you actually played Dark Souls? Do you have the faintest idea what we're talking about?

 

[tuluse]

yeah, that bugs me too. I mean a small bonus synergy like AoD could have easily been implemented...

You know in AoD the irontower crew made sure every single skill was useful and that all combats could be beaten with any of the melee skills. Oh god they balanced it

 

[Lancehead]

Sawyer doesnt want any build to not be viable. and any build to not be OP.

Although to be fair, he was in charge of FNV right? and he managed to turn that shitty engine into something bearable..

And what is the point of a non-viable build, besides wasting player's time and demonstrating that the developer didn't have resources and/or capabilities to make content for it?

 

[NotTale]

@tuluse This is exactly what is NOT balance.

What AoD does is create content for all the skills. If you play like an idiot (e.g. Sawyer) and invest point in Swords AND Axes you are fucked in AoD.

I somehow doubt that Sawyer's intent is to let a build be viable when it's functions are intentionally eschewed.
Put all points in swords, then only use a rifle.

 

[felipepepe]

MCA seems to enjoy playing Arcanum that way, creating a diplomatic guy that attacks everything and skips dialog... Sawyer might be worried of making a game his boss can't play.

 

[felipepepe]

He could be smart and say "I rolled that character so I could see all the game's dialog and challenge myself with a handicap in combat" - that would be commendable - but his "ADD kid" play style kills any illusion of .