Eternity Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire + DLC Thread - now with turn-based combat!

[Reader]

it's a prequel - ugh, prequels always fail to keep my interest up.

Prequels may be quite interesting if done right. Unusual revelations how shit dropped on the fan, bad guys were actually good and vice versa, plus some more lore. Now whether Obsidian able to handle it properly or not is a different question.

you do even just half of the content and you'll be radically overleveled for the vast majority of content.

there's no way not to have most of your quests in the "too easy" zone by the time you actually get to them

That's why there is an option to make all enemies at least your level. It's even enabled by default now and it really helps a lot.

 

[Desiderius]

That’s why I liked Guild Wars.

Difficulty wasn’t level dependent (more situational, although the further off the beaten path you go the more exotic the threats + attrition). Your reward was the opportunity to capture unique skills and abilities from rare bosses.

Level scaling sux.

 

[Desiderius]

You're supposed to sneak past the Drake (or use the Gunpowder barrels) and if you enter Gorecci from the bottom you can sneak past it too.

Sure, but that's bollocks design in itself.
Stealth is entirely useless in the game (with the exception of cleaning some houses I guess). It may be an alternative path sometimes, but outside of Starter Island (tm), it's just not needed anywhere.

I use it extensively throughout the game, and not just to nab some of the best items. Unfortunately doing so is of course often superfluous.

 

[Reader]

Level scaling gathered all the hate mostly due to its poor implementation in Bethesda games.
I don't remember many complains about it in BG2 for example.
It was discussed many times already and i believe you can't avoid level scaling at least to some degree if you're making a big (semi)open world.

 

[lycanwarrior]

Level scaling gathered all the hate mostly due to its poor implementation in Bethesda games.
I don't remember many complains about it in BG2 for example.
It was discussed many times already and i believe you can't avoid level scaling at least to some degree if you're making a big (semi)open world.

Level scaling is sorta like SBMM (skill-based matchmaking) in battle royale games.

In BR games, the "elite" players like to dominate and kill noobs with ease and complain when they are no longer able to do so; however, SBMM implementation tends to make it easier for newbies and makes the game more appealing and have better traction.

Same sorta principle with level scaling. But that's just my take

 

[lycanwarrior]

I enjoyed PoE2, with the combat being more enjoyable over PoE1.

However, story was definitely weaker in PoE2. And the character progress/leveling was way too fast. I ended up maxing before the endgame and before tacking the DLCs. Still haven't had a chance to take the final DLC, not sure if I'm going to as level progression is capped.

 

[oldmanpaco]

And even worse, it's a prequel - ugh, prequels always fail to keep my interest up.

Shit its a prequel? It was already low on my radar after the OW crapfest but now it drops even further.

Seems like they toned down the poz and made Tehanu much more sufferable, even sympathetic.

So he's no longer a giant faggot with dialog filled with constant sexual innuendo? Seem unlikely.

 

[Saduj]

Finished this recently, not having played the original POE. Overall I enjoyed myself but the story is the exact kind of fantasy plot I hate where everything revolves around nonsensical metaphysical fantasy lore that all boils down to "because reasons".

The one thing I did like about the story is that the game mostly allows you to play as someone who is as indifferent to all the nonsense as I am. My character said as little as possible when dealing with the gods ("Say nothing" usually being an option) and had a "just tell me what I have to do in order for you to leave me alone" type of attitude. Also appreciated the option to create my own party, which I took full advantage of once I had the option. Ended up abandoning all the annoying factions too. All this resulted in not the best ending but genuinely feeling no responsibility for the crisis or the outcome was consistent with how I played the character and how I view the protagonist as an outsider looking in.

If the next game is a prequel, at least they won't be doing the "You're the same guy starting at Level 1 again because reasons" schtick again.

 

[Desiderius]

Level scaling gathered all the hate mostly due to its poor implementation in Bethesda games.
I don't remember many complains about it in BG2 for example.
It was discussed many times already and i believe you can't avoid level scaling at least to some degree if you're making a big (semi)open world.

P:K is fine without it. Lvl = strength straight up is lazy design.

 

[oldmanpaco]

If the next game is a prequel, at least they won't be doing the "You're the same guy starting at Level 1 again because reasons" schtick again.

Naw you'll be playing the watcher before he goes to the Dyrwood. 4D chess right there.

 

[Desiderius]

So he's no longer a giant faggot with dialog filled with constant sexual innuendo? Seem unlikely.

You run into two of his old flames and they’re both female. I don’t do companion romances so not sure about that part, but yeah his come ons have been toned way down. I don’t remember any but I tune out a lot of non-mission critical dialogue.

Don't think that was really an option in original game.

 

[Reader]

Lvl = strength straight up

That's what i'm talking about.
Some people imply that equal levels means equal power and thus their characters' progression doesn't matter.. That's not always true. Depends on level scaling's implementation.
While enemies might be your level they have less gearing and you have abilities. So in the end the player always dominates. And you have better loot and worthy exp.
Also only lower level enemies scale to your level higher leveled are not and therefore you still have the thrill of discovering them, dying and planning your further adventure.

 

[Jackpot]

One of my big problems in this game is how almost all of the new companions' personality could be called "snarky and roguish".
Pallegina and Aloth were really the only companions that had kind of different personalities, and even they made sarcastic jabs semi-regularly.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

It was discussed many times already and i believe you can't avoid level scaling at least to some degree if you're making a big (semi)open world.

Yeah, it's not like there are multiple big crpgs with (semi)open worlds and completely no scaling. Some of them the most recognizable and well regarded titles in the genre. It's also not like the idea of level scaling goes directly against the idea of having an open world in a game in the first place.

 

[Oreshnik Missile]

If combat against lower level enemies is boring, then the game's combat needs more emphasis on disables, and character development needs more increases to damage/abilities and less to HP and durability

 

[Reader]

Some of them the most recognizable and well regarded titles in the genre

Like BG2 for example which i mentioned

level scaling goes directly against the idea of having an open world in a game

Look. I love the games where there is no scaling like Gothic or Divine Divinity for example. I love clearing the map and exploration despite some limitations.
It's just if there is a choice between inevitable bumping into low leveled monsters when you're op already or scaled ones i would prefer scaling.
It's like famous red herring "Democracy is the worst form of Government…”

 

[Yoomazir]

If the next game is a prequel, at least they won't be doing the "You're the same guy starting at Level 1 again because reasons" schtick again.

Wanna bet that you will play as one of his past incarnations?

 

[thesheeep]

Prequels may be quite interesting if done right. Unusual revelations how shit dropped on the fan, bad guys were actually good and vice versa, plus some more lore. Now whether Obsidian able to handle it properly or not is a different question.

None of that is relevant anymore because you already know the ultimate fate of everyone involved. Who cares why bad guy went evil? You know he'll die because you killed him in the previous game. You know that whatever threat is there is irrelevant, because it wasn't even a thing anymore in the last game.
It might be nice to read in some lore as background info, but playing it? Nah. Zero interest.
Would only play it for the gameplay - and what's the chance they'll make that kind of gameplay really well without having experience in the particular genre?

Honestly, prequels are just writers getting high on their own lore farts.
I'm interested in how things continue, not in how they started.

That's why there is an option to make all enemies at least your level. It's even enabled by default now and it really helps a lot.

Level scaling always sucks, and always ruins immersion for me - there is no reason for the majority of the world to level while you do. Though it would be fine, e.g. if there were other adventuring parties like yours that actively gained experience. For example the ship hunting contracts would make some sense to increase in difficulty the longer you wait to do them.

But on a broad global scale for every encounter?
Not going to flip that switch just to give devs an excuse to be lazy in their design.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Though it would be fine, e.g. if there were other adventuring parties like yours that actively gained experience.

patiently waiting for RPGs that actually do this, it's one of my most wanted features
attempt to simulate an actual living world(that is, verisimilitude) no longer seems to be any sort of priority for devs though

 

[thesheeep]

attempt to simulate an actual living world no longer seems to be any sort of priority for devs though

It's probably because a living world is not really relevant to story-centric experiences. It would be a lot of effort for a smaller detail.
I think the only kind of game where going that far would make sense would be games that mostly live from emergent gameplay, something like RimWorld or Dwarf Fortress. It would probably also work nicely for Cataclysm.
Basically, the less "scripted" the gameplay, the more a simulation of other parties would make sense.

Still, the rest could at least have reasonable level scaling where it does make sense, instead of just bluntly scaling everything (in which case scaling nothing is just better).

 

[rusty_shackleford]

attempt to simulate an actual living world no longer seems to be any sort of priority for devs though

It's probably because a living world is not really relevant to story-centric experiences. It would be a lot of effort for a smaller detail.
I think the only kind of game where going that far would make sense would be games that mostly live from emergent gameplay, something like RimWorld or Dwarf Fortress. It would probably also work nicely for Cataclysm.
Basically, the less "scripted" the gameplay, the more a simulation of other parties would make sense.

Still, the rest could at least have reasonable level scaling where it does make sense, instead of just bluntly scaling everything (in which case scaling nothing is just better).

It doesn't have to be autism like dwarf fortress, just an attempt at it. People vastly underestimate just how much you can get away with by faking it. If you don't believe me, go look up the AI in F.E.A.R.(the guy who wrote it also wrote some papers on it, easy to find) -- it was basic as shit, but because it gave the appearance of being smart people actually believed it was really advanced.
Enter an area(dungeon, city, ...), randomly select some existing adventure parties(or create appropriate ones), put them in the area if it's appropriate. Maybe you've encountered one of them before and you're friends or enemies. Randomly advance things like quests they've completed or somesuch so they have things to talk to you about or phat lewtz to take from their bodies. There is no need to simulate their entire lives, you merely need to create the appearance of it.

Video games are, at their most basic level, an illusion.

 

[thesheeep]

Well... in the end, it all comes down to:
We can't have nice things.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Wiz7 attempted something like that, but it's a game from 1992 and we've obviously moved past such dated design.

 

[Reader]

put them in the area if it's appropriate

So if you meet them in the dungeon then they probably killed some monsters and gathered some loot, right? Your monsters and loot.

Randomly advance things like quests they've completed

Hahahaha i'd like to see how people would melt about this.
Also it was actually implemented to some degree. In Space Rangers 2 there was a war progressing with a player. And there were three bosses. And if the player took his time to gear up these bosses were killed by "friendly parties" ultimately sending you a message that the war is won. This wasn't popular to say the least.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So if you meet them in the dungeon then they probably killed some monsters and gathered some loot, right? Your monsters and loot.

Then kill them and get their loot.