Pillars of Eternity Beta Discussion [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[The Fish]

That isn't irrational. Most RPG's (MMORPG's, jRPG's, aRPG's and even many cRPG's) do favor dealing damage over buffs and debuffs - I assume people playing them simply developed the mindset that (de)buffs are never worth it in RPG's. Even with D&D, the iconic spells are offensive ones - Magic Missile and Fireball.

PoE doesn't really do anything to change that impression.

Yeah I really hate this trend in games. In Temple of Elemental Evil I played through the game with a party consisting of one wizard and one rogue and it seemed extremely inefficient to use mostly damage dealing spells. I couldn't really imagine spamming fireballs when charming, roots or sneak attack triggering spells were often so much more effective. There's something especially satisfying about using, to great effect, abilities which don't do direct damage because it feels like you actually have to engage with the mechanics. Though I suppose saying all this is quite redundant as I'm preaching to the choir.

An MMORPG example is Dark Age of Camelot which did a great job of giving organised groups a huge advantage over larger forces through using things like mass mesmerisations and roots while also providing counters to those strategies. It's sad but I can't imagine a game like that being created in the near future.

I'd like to see a fantasy rpg in which wizards were incapable of doing direct damage. That might actual force developers to do something interesting for once.

 

[Infinitron]

More Infinitron vs Josh: http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/107912230941/although-i-always-appreciate-your-lectures-on-the

melnorme asked: Although I always appreciate your lectures on the evils of hard counters, I was hoping you'd address the larger issue of responding to the demands of players with irrational incentives.

I don’t think the design of a game should be changed to accommodate an irrational segment of players if doing so would make the game significantly worse for a larger portion of players who want to play the game. Accommodating irrational players is fine if it has a marginal impact on how other people play the game.

With support classes, I’ve often found that a lot of players simply don’t like the idea of support-oriented characters. Even if they acknowledge in discussions that they understand their value, they don’t like them. That’s fine as long as those classes aren’t required. If someone tells me they hate priests, have always hated priests, and won’t play priests until they become damage output powerhouses or their support abilities are ludicrously strong, the solution is for them to not play priests, not for us to turn priests into killing machines.

If the people who do like to play priests — or support/buff-oriented characters in general — enjoy playing those characters, that’s more important. If those players find the support-oriented abilities valuable, it shouldn’t really matter if everyone does. Accommodating an irrational segment of players to make them extremely powerful would make them almost required, since combat would have to be balanced around their presence. In turn, that would make the game worse for the larger group of players because their choices are becoming more constrained.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

"I don’t think the design of a game should be changed to accommodate an irrational segment of players if doing so would make the game significantly worse for a larger portion of players who want to play the game. "

What about irrational players who wanted muscle wizards?

Spoiler

Just kidding, don't want to kick that debate off again

 

[Hormalakh]

More Infinitron vs Josh: http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/107912230941/although-i-always-appreciate-your-lectures-on-the

Doesn't this whole argument run counter to the idea that "everyone should be good in combat"? If you aren't a damage powerhouse and can only throw out buffs/debuffs, then by definition you aren't a very good solo combatant. Having a strictly-support class would mean that it would be impossible to play well with that class if there are not other classes there for them to support.

Please explain.

Something smells fishy and it's not the Aumaua.

 

[Infinitron]

Nobody ever said anything about solo. PoE is less solo-able than the IE games were

Anyway, "can only throw buffs and debuffs" doesn't actually describe any class in the game.

 

[Infinitron]

http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/107918067681/dr-based-damage-reduction-allows-armor

tdphys asked: DR ( % based damage reduction ) allows armor effectiveness to scale with damage amplitude. By removing damage resistance and leaving damage threshold, armor doesn't scale anymore. Would you consider changing damage calculations so that DT is subtracted from base damage after modifications from might and perhaps weapons bonuses, but before critical hit modifiers and backstab, so that armor could at least scale with these types of attack ?

Armor DT does scale with the game’s damage output through the Fine, Exceptional, and Superb qualities.

 

[Hormalakh]

Nobody ever said anything about solo. PoE is less solo-able than the IE games were

If you want to solo the game (which will probably be pretty hard regardless of class), I don’t want you to hit a roadblock where we say “Sorry, you’re never going to get by here unless there’s a wizard in the party with Move Earth memorized.”

Josh wants you to be able to solo the class.

Anyway, "can only throw buffs and debuffs" doesn't actually describe any class in the game.

You're right. So that tells me that what Josh is saying in your quotes is either theoretical or not really about PoE.

I think you said irrational so many times that you both didn't realize what was being said is irrational. PLease stop sucking his cock Infinitron, it's not becoming.

 

[tuluse]

Doesn't this whole argument run counter to the idea that "everyone should be good in combat"? If you aren't a damage powerhouse and can only throw out buffs/debuffs, then by definition you aren't a very good solo combatant. Having a strictly-support class would mean that it would be impossible to play well with that class if there are not other classes there for them to support.

Please explain.

Something smells fishy and it's not the Aumaua.

If a buffs and debuffs are balanced against damage a class that throws those out with *some* damage is viable. QED.

 

[Sensuki]

If you use two weapon style and make a weapon based attack - it actually uses both weapons for the attack, rather than just the single attack. I thought it was a bug, but apparently not.

Hello Sensuki,

Thank you for your posting and clear video. This is actually working as intended. Many abilities in the game have "Full Attack" listed in their description. When Full Attack is shown, this means that it will be executed using the character's weapons as a base for the effect. In the case of Dual Wielding, Full Attack also means that the ability will make an attack with the off hand and the main hand simultaneously.

In the video above your rogue uses Blinding Strike. Since you are wielding two daggers and Blinding Strike is a Full Attack ability, your rogue makes both a Main Hand and an Off Hand attack. Both hits have the effects of Blinding Strike, but only the longer duration Blind effect will apply, the shorter duration effect will be suppressed.

Hope this helps to clear things up.

Thanks for your support!

 

[Sensuki]

Made a post about shields and weapon damage here, if anyone is interested: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70023-shields-and-weapon-damage-ranges/

 

[aeonsim]

If you use two weapon style and make a weapon based attack - it actually uses both weapons for the attack, rather than just the single attack. I thought it was a bug, but apparently not.

That's kinda a cool provides another advantage to dual wielding to offset it's lower overall damage if you've effectively got two chances to apply an ability affect when using a per encounter or daily full attack ability. Not sure it entirely helps off set the damage difference but still helps.

 

[Sensuki]

Here's a snippet from Chris Avellone's latest interview that sort of gives insight as to his minimal involvement on Pillars of Eternity

http://www.pcgamesn.com/pillars-of-eternity/the-big-interview-chris-avellone-on-how-to-write-an-rpg

Sitting down to write two characters for Eternity, Avellone felt as if the chains were off.

“I’m not writing for a publisher right now,” he thought. “So I can write about subjects we’re normally not allowed to. What’s interesting about the world of Eternity that I think these two companions could have something to say about?”

In the end, Avellone went too far even for his colleagues at Obsidian - those characters won’t appear in the game as he originally intended. But the finished game will return to the literary quality that Avellone agrees Obsidian and BioWare both lost in the transition to full 3D - from the Infinity Engine games, through Neverwinter Nights, to Knights of the Old Republic.

 

[Abu Antar]

Here's a snippet from Chris Avellone's latest interview that sort of gives insight as to his minimal involvement on Pillars of Eternity

In the end, Avellone went too far even for his colleagues at Obsidian - those characters won’t appear in the game as he originally intended.

http://www.pcgamesn.com/pillars-of-eternity/the-big-interview-chris-avellone-on-how-to-write-an-rpg

Fuck.

 

[Sensuki]

It sounds like the Codex Detectives need to find out more about that at some point. I summon Crooked Bee to ask questions about why they were changed

 

[Infinitron]

It sounds like the Codex Detectives need to find out more about that at some point. I summon Crooked Bee to ask questions about why they were changed

It is pretty normal for characters to get changed and repurposed. Maybe one of them was poor Cadegund.

The interview makes it sound like things were somehow drastic in this particular case, but that could be the author trying to be sensationalistic, or simply misunderstanding the gravity of the situation.

 

[aeonsim]

It is pretty normal for characters to get changed and repurposed. Maybe one of them was poor Cadegund.

The interview makes it sound like things were somehow drastic in this particular case, but that could be the author trying to be sensationalistic, or simply misunderstanding the gravity of the situation.

It could just be that the companion storylines seemed like it'd conflict with the primary storyline or was powerfully enough that they thought it would over whelm the primary storyline.

Would certainly be interesting to learn more about the initial versions of these story lines.

 

[Sensuki]

It is pretty normal for characters to get changed and repurposed. Maybe one of them was poor Cadegund.

The interview makes it sound like things were somehow drastic in this particular case, but that could be the author trying to be sensationalistic, or simply misunderstanding the gravity of the situation.

I think one of them was Hiravias. He was supposed to be an Orlan Cipher but was changed to a Druid. Not sure about the others. Still it would be nice to know whether the article overblows the situation or whether he's a bit disappointed about it.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I enjoyed the writing on the beta quite a bit, so if they needed to tone down Avellone's work to fit into the setting, im fine with it.

 

[Raghar]

Writting is one of better points. RPG system sucks.

Also where are non combat skills?

 

[Sensuki]

I got a response from NCarver about the damage issue

Yes,

Damage Calculations are multiplicative in game currently, so any damage that you see will be calculated in this way.

As to whether or not this will be changing or staying the same, I'm not certain.

Though, for the examples you listed it seems as though all of the data is calculating correctly.

For example:

If base damage is 10 and the user has 20 Might (30%), Sneak Attack (50%), Reckless Assault (20%), and the fine Quality Mod (15%) then the result on a hit would be 26.91 before DR. 10 x 1.3 x 1.5 x 1.2 x 1.15 = 26.91 Damage.

If this were additive then the result would be 21.5 Damage. 0.3 + 0.5 + 0.2 + 0.15 = 1.15 + 1 (for base effect) = 2.15 x 10 - 21.5 Damage.

I hope this helps to clarify.

-N

Interesting that Josh thought they were additive but they're actually multiplicative, and the end result ends up being that stacking up on damage multipliers ends up being really strong. Also means you get more out of your Might bonus than initially suspected.

 

[Abu Antar]

I got a response from NCarver about the damage issue



Interesting that Josh thought they were additive but they're actually multiplicative, and the end result ends up being that stacking up on damage multipliers ends up being really strong. Also means you get more out of your Might bonus than initially suspected.

You should send that response to Josh. One would think that if the same question was asked, that you would get the same answer.

 

[Sensuki]

Not sure if it's necessary really. I might just bring it up on the forums. There's a bunch of people that are into doing math, so we'll see what they say. I know Matt516 would prefer additive bonuses, so I'll msg him on steam too.

 

[Duraframe300]

I think one of them was Hiravias. He was supposed to be an Orlan Cipher but was changed to a Druid. Not sure about the others. Still it would be nice to know whether the article overblows the situation or whether he's a bit disappointed about it.

99% overblows (as it happens so often) That said theres always some disappointment lingering even if you think it ended up better.

 

[Athelas]

As it happens, Avellone is currently the creative lead on a new project. The precise makeup of his workday changes from month to month, but lately he’s designed lore and background material for a new fantasy world - conceiving environments and coming up with companions.

Avellone’s occasional irritation with RPG convention has bubbled to the surface more than once in his career. In Icewind Dale II, he designed a boss battle that required in-game research if players were going to stand a chance of success (“For once, make the lore useful!”).

Hmm, is this true? I thought he didn't contribute to IWD II.

 

[Infinitron]

Hmm, is this true? I thought he didn't contribute to IWD II.

Where'd you hear that? He contributed a lot to it. Targos, for example, was Avellone's attempt to make an RPG intro town that "puts you right in the action". IWD2 even has a Ravel Puzzlewell incarnation.