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

[Grunker]

Yeah, but afterwards they'll feel unclean and shameful.

It's very telling that the most discussed part of character building in the IE games by far is all the dual- and multi-class options, which basically allowed you be classless (to a limited extent).

Fallacy bro. There are plenty of excellent class-based systems that enable multiclassing but have awesome single-class options. Pathfinder being the crown.

Classbased vs. Open is in no way a contest of merit. It's apples and oranges.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

how did they end up dealing with the problem of bigger AoE due to wisdom(? not the right attribute, I know) not being an unqualified bonus? The mooted solution of having only the extra AoE immune to friendly fire seemed a bit silly.

 

[tuluse]

how did they end up dealing with the problem of bigger AoE due to wisdom(? not the right attribute, I know) not being an unqualified bonus? The mooted solution of having only the extra AoE immune to friendly fire seemed a bit silly.

I think that's exactly how they did it. There is an inner circle which does friendly fire and an outer circle that does not.

 

[GordonHalfman]

how did they end up dealing with the problem of bigger AoE due to wisdom(? not the right attribute, I know) not being an unqualified bonus? The mooted solution of having only the extra AoE immune to friendly fire seemed a bit silly.

They stuck with that. Surprised there isn't more grog complaining about it tbh, I find it pretty derp.

 

[ushas]

I don't think that's the problem Zed is referring to (although it might be). The problem is that to work out how effective something is, it requires knowing the math/formula. Anything here that isn't an integer has the potential to be misleading and NONE of the formulas are explained in game.
There's also a lot of issues where abilities and talents are misleading and don't display the information about what they do correctly.
Weapon Focus still doesn't tell you how much Accuracy it gives (it's now +6).

The half-backed numerization also baffles me. As the game brings good ideas and looks, like it's genuine trying to provide all the relevant info...

I'm thinking about bumping your thread on Obsidian forums about character panel tooltips with additional concrete suggestions for this beta. Especially when your's aren't implemented, yet. (concetration/interrupt. on char panel etc.)

Or is this attempt already futile? On one hand, it's just about consistency of tooltip/description info and showing players all the numbers so they don't need to do try/error or mod, for example. And that may quiet effective translate a further work on implementation into a gameplay enhancement. On the other hand, even additional info in cyclopedia would need additional testing. So maybe even tooltiop/description suggestions we should already aim on patches/mods/expansion? As all you here are talking about mods already...

 

[Rake]

Don't mind me. As i said i'm not part of the targeted audience. The lack of hard counters, the unification of PoE's sustems, the toned down effects where you just manipulate registanses for softer +% , -% bonuses in attacks and stats, the magic system, the attribute system where honestly can't give two shits about since the effects of each attribute seem irrelevant etc.
I just can't be arsed to care about the whole thing.

Having all attributes being useful is a great goal. But the way i would like it to be is that if the effect of each attribute was so great that the attribute placement changed the way your character played fundamentaly.
So min maxing would come with huge benefits and gigandic drawbacks and figuring the way to play your character in a way which sidestep his weaknesses and exploit his strenghts was nessecery to win.
The way it is... meh.

The attributes make a reasonable difference when you compare min vs max in each one. The problem is that the range is too big for their impact. If each attribute was a 5 point range you'd feel the appropriate impact. Maybe even 10, but certainly not the 17 point range it is now.

The drawbacks aren't big enough. A 20 Might/3 accuracy character should hit like a truck (i'm talking 2 times the damage someone with 10 might would have done,let alone someone 3 might), but shouldn't be able to hit a sitting target. 9 out of 10 attacs should be outright misses.
Someone with 3 Might/20 resolve/perseption should be able to cause status effects with each hit, and have them last 3 times as much as a normal character's would, but all his hits should cause 1-3 points of damage. A 3 con character should be one-shoted by every enemy close to his level etc.

That way you should be forced to pay attention to your character's attributes, and the correct way to play him. There would be no "bad characters", but bad players who can't play the character they created in the corect way. All characters would excel in different things and would be terrible at others. Leaving all attributes the same would be the more safe, well balanced character, while minmaxed characters would be wildly different from each other in the way they played.
That way more character concepts would be viable, the CC would be way more interesting, and the gameplay more reactive to your choices. And you would be forced to pay attention in order for your character to be able to fit the way you want to play him. No amound of player skill would be enough to make a character that isn't be played correctly/in his strenghts to win the game.

 

[Roguey]

how did they end up dealing with the problem of bigger AoE due to wisdom(? not the right attribute, I know) not being an unqualified bonus? The mooted solution of having only the extra AoE immune to friendly fire seemed a bit silly.

They stuck with that. Surprised there isn't more grog complaining about it tbh, I find it pretty derp.

The spellcaster is controlling the shape of the outer edges so it doesn't hit party members.

 

[Infinitron]

The drawbacks aren't big enough. A 20 Might/3 accuracy character should hit like a truck (i'm talking 2 times the damage someone with 10 might would have done,let alone someone 3 might)

Again, this is an oversimplification of how these types of RPGs work. Characters in D&D-style RPGs aren't just defined by their attributes. Their power is primarily determined by character level with attributes as a secondary modulating factor. There has to be an upper limit on how different two characters of equal level can be from each other. Otherwise, you'd have Level 1 characters with 20 Might one-shotting characters who are 5 levels higher than them.

 

[Ninjerk]

how did they end up dealing with the problem of bigger AoE due to wisdom(? not the right attribute, I know) not being an unqualified bonus? The mooted solution of having only the extra AoE immune to friendly fire seemed a bit silly.

They stuck with that. Surprised there isn't more grog complaining about it tbh, I find it pretty derp.

It represents a character who is wise enough not to hurt his friends

 

[tuluse]

The drawbacks aren't big enough. A 20 Might/3 accuracy character should hit like a truck (i'm talking 2 times the damage someone with 10 might would have done,let alone someone 3 might), but shouldn't be able to hit a sitting target. 9 out of 10 attacs should be outright misses.
Someone with 3 Might/20 resolve/perseption should be able to cause status effects with each hit, and have them last 3 times as much as a normal character's would, but all his hits should cause 1-3 points of damage. A 3 con character should be one-shoted by every enemy close to his level etc.

That way you should be forced to pay attention to your character's attributes, and the correct way to play him. There would be no "bad characters", but bad players who can't play the character they created in the corect way. All characters would excel in different things and would be terrible at others. Leaving all attributes the same would be the more safe, well balanced character, while minmaxed characters would be wildly different from each other in the way they played.
That way more character concepts would be viable, the CC would be way more interesting, and the gameplay more reactive to your choices. And you would be forced to pay attention in order for your character to be able to fit the way you want to play him. No amound of player skill would be enough to make a character that isn't be played correctly/in his strenghts to win the game.

A d&d character with 18 str doesn't hit 3 times as hard as someone with 3. You're looking at a difference of about 8 dam per attack (depending on the /xx). With say a d12 weapon, that's not even 2x all the time.

(I went through this with someone else, max STR difference in PoE is about equal to the difference between 9 and 18/99 in AD&D. If the game simply restricted you to 10-20 str instead of going down to 3, the whole thing would feel way better).

 

[ushas]

how did they end up dealing with the problem of bigger AoE due to wisdom(? not the right attribute, I know) not being an unqualified bonus? The mooted solution of having only the extra AoE immune to friendly fire seemed a bit silly.

I think that's exactly how they did it. There is an inner circle which does friendly fire and an outer circle that does not.

There was also an issue in the past beta, when AI didn't take into account the extended AoE, and moved much closer than needed, in case you don't position your characters manually yourself...

Matt, about BBv392:
When casting spells, there is an "ideal" range that's set so if you cast a spell from outside of your range, you won't move to your maximum range and cast but instead move a bit closer and then cast. To maximize the flow of combat, and utilizing the increased AoE from Intellect, I normally position my casters so I can get the most optimal cast off when needed. This requires some trial and error to get the mechanics down to where you feel like you might make a better decision on how much you should move to get off your spell vs letting the AI do it for you.

BAdler, fixed issues in BB435:
AI will no longer move into standard range if they are commanded to cast at a distant target despite Perception range bonus.

But didn't have time to test it yet.

 

[Rake]

The drawbacks aren't big enough. A 20 Might/3 accuracy character should hit like a truck (i'm talking 2 times the damage someone with 10 might would have done,let alone someone 3 might)

Again, this is an oversimplification of how these types of RPGs work. Characters in D&D-style RPGs aren't just defined by their attributes. Their power is primarily determined by character level with attributes as a secondary modulating factor. There has to be an upper limit on how different two characters of equal level can be from each other. Otherwise, you'd have Level 1 characters with 20 Might one-shotting characters who are 5 levels higher than them.

Only if the5 level character has a CON of 3 and is being played terrible. After all, all these points he saved from CON have to be somewhere. Let him use it.

The drawbacks aren't big enough. A 20 Might/3 accuracy character should hit like a truck (i'm talking 2 times the damage someone with 10 might would have done,let alone someone 3 might), but shouldn't be able to hit a sitting target. 9 out of 10 attacs should be outright misses.
Someone with 3 Might/20 resolve/perseption should be able to cause status effects with each hit, and have them last 3 times as much as a normal character's would, but all his hits should cause 1-3 points of damage. A 3 con character should be one-shoted by every enemy close to his level etc.

That way you should be forced to pay attention to your character's attributes, and the correct way to play him. There would be no "bad characters", but bad players who can't play the character they created in the corect way. All characters would excel in different things and would be terrible at others. Leaving all attributes the same would be the more safe, well balanced character, while minmaxed characters would be wildly different from each other in the way they played.
That way more character concepts would be viable, the CC would be way more interesting, and the gameplay more reactive to your choices. And you would be forced to pay attention in order for your character to be able to fit the way you want to play him. No amound of player skill would be enough to make a character that isn't be played correctly/in his strenghts to win the game.

A d&d character with 18 str doesn't hit 3 times as hard as someone with 3. You're looking at a difference of about 8 dam per attack (depending on the /xx). With say a d12 weapon, that's not even 2x all the time.

(I went through this with someone else, max STR difference in PoE is about equal to the difference between 9 and 18/99 in AD&D. If the game simply restricted you to 10-20 str instead of going down to 3, the whole thing would feel way better).

who cares about D&D? I thought we all agreed that D&D attribute use wasn't optimal, or else why the need to change them?

 

[tuluse]

who cares about D&D? I thought we all agreed that D&D attribute use wasn't optimal, or else why the need to change them?

 

[aeonsim]

how did they end up dealing with the problem of bigger AoE due to wisdom(? not the right attribute, I know) not being an unqualified bonus? The mooted solution of having only the extra AoE immune to friendly fire seemed a bit silly.

They stuck with that. Surprised there isn't more grog complaining about it tbh, I find it pretty derp.

The Genius level spell casters are able to adjust the spell on the fly shaping it to fit the circumstances, which seems reasonable enough. The smarter they are the more they're able to shape the spell and expanded it out to a larger area.

 

[Roguey]

From some news site tl;dr lol kickstarter for PoE 2

"We're going to do some expansions because we said we would as a part of the Kickstarter," said Obsidian Entertainment CEO Feargus Urquhart. "We've already started working on artwork. So we've already kind of figured out where we want to go in the world and the artists are doing some tests.

"But with Eternity 2, that's the next thing. Probably at the end of this month, Josh [Sawyer] and Adam [Brennecke], the key guys on the team are all going to sit down. They've already come up with a list of what they want to do, kind of new game systems and that kind of stuff. We're going to try and get going on that as soon as we can."

It sounds like the question isn't whether a sequel is going to be made, but how it will be funded.

Urquhart said he thinks they might once more pursue Kickstarter for funding, but was hesitant.

""I think so, I think that's what we'll do," he said. "It's not 100 percent. The reason is because first we didn't want to do it until [Pillars of Eternity] came out. The second thing is that the Kickstarter stuff is kind of up and down here and there. But the Shadowrun guys look like they're pretty successful, they're like one and a half or two million. I know if we put exploding kittens in it we could make billions.

"I think it might be a good time again for a Kickstarter, so we're talking about it."

He said the team needs to have a reason for going to Kickstarter for money, not just a request for more money.

"So we need to start talking about Eternity 2 so we can say we would like you to back us so we can do these things."

While Pillars of Eternity is set to launch on March 26, the team continues to work on it. Mostly focusing on polish and giving the title a once over, Urquhart said.

A lot of the final changes to the game were driven by a required playthrough back in December.

"We told the entire team that no one works for a week and instead they just play the game," Urquhart said. "It gave everyone a chance to be proud of what they had done and to figure out what they wanted to fix and change."

A lot of those tweaks included balance changes, work on the stronghold and the interfaces, Urquhart said.

"This whole process has been great," he said.

Hey Achiman, looks like Roguey was right (in reference to http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...e-87-beta-progress-report.95573/#post-3617708)

 

[Infinitron]

What the fuck? How did Duraframe300 and Sensuki not spot that?

http://www.polygon.com/2015/2/4/798...y-nears-launch-dev-team-begins-work-on-sequel

 

[tuluse]

Didn't Feargus previously say or hint they would go to kickstarter for new franchise and fund PoE sequels from sales?

This is profoundly disappointing if their second ks is just PoE2.

 

[Roguey]

With the way he phrases it, they're going the Larian/Harebrained route of using Kickstarter to provide additional funding.

Perhaps they're getting some not-so-great forecasts from Paradox or being pessimistic/realistic/non-optimistic.

 

[Achiman]

From some news site tl;dr lol kickstarter for PoE 2

"We're going to do some expansions because we said we would as a part of the Kickstarter," said Obsidian Entertainment CEO Feargus Urquhart. "We've already started working on artwork. So we've already kind of figured out where we want to go in the world and the artists are doing some tests.

"But with Eternity 2, that's the next thing. Probably at the end of this month, Josh [Sawyer] and Adam [Brennecke], the key guys on the team are all going to sit down. They've already come up with a list of what they want to do, kind of new game systems and that kind of stuff. We're going to try and get going on that as soon as we can."

It sounds like the question isn't whether a sequel is going to be made, but how it will be funded.

Urquhart said he thinks they might once more pursue Kickstarter for funding, but was hesitant.

""I think so, I think that's what we'll do," he said. "It's not 100 percent. The reason is because first we didn't want to do it until [Pillars of Eternity] came out. The second thing is that the Kickstarter stuff is kind of up and down here and there. But the Shadowrun guys look like they're pretty successful, they're like one and a half or two million. I know if we put exploding kittens in it we could make billions.

"I think it might be a good time again for a Kickstarter, so we're talking about it."

He said the team needs to have a reason for going to Kickstarter for money, not just a request for more money.

"So we need to start talking about Eternity 2 so we can say we would like you to back us so we can do these things."

While Pillars of Eternity is set to launch on March 26, the team continues to work on it. Mostly focusing on polish and giving the title a once over, Urquhart said.

A lot of the final changes to the game were driven by a required playthrough back in December.

"We told the entire team that no one works for a week and instead they just play the game," Urquhart said. "It gave everyone a chance to be proud of what they had done and to figure out what they wanted to fix and change."

A lot of those tweaks included balance changes, work on the stronghold and the interfaces, Urquhart said.

"This whole process has been great," he said.

Hey Achiman, looks like Roguey was right (in reference to http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...e-87-beta-progress-report.95573/#post-3617708)

Let's all go to work and game for a week!

Makes me wonder how many times the did this with the South park RPG....

 

[dukeofwhales]

Let's all go to work and game for a week!


Makes me wonder how many times the did this with the South park RPG....

You don't think actually playing the game they're making might be useful towards improving the final product?

Nobody expects me to test what I'm working on after hours at home, I don't see why the PoE team should have to either.

 

[Western]

lol at all the posers ITT acting like they'll "play for the story" and won't powergame the shit out of this game the minute it comes out

Power game easy mode to get through the story faster

 

[Achiman]

Let's all go to work and game for a week!


Makes me wonder how many times the did this with the South park RPG....

You don't think actually playing the game they're making might be useful towards improving the final product?

Nobody expects me to test what I'm working on after hours at home, I don't see why the PoE team should have to either.

I'm not a videya game developer so ofc I don't know. But it seems inefficient to me to have EVERYONE playing the game for an entire week. Is that such an unreasonable statement? Wait, yes it is because (I do love their RPG's too) its not just anyone it's OBSIDIAN!
I hope it is good, I hope they did find a heap of shit to fix and tweak and wrangle out. I still think it's an extravagance for a company that couldn't get a gig for a while, making an RPG they wanted without going to kickstarter.

 

[hiver]

Don't mind me. As i said i'm not part of the targeted audience. The lack of hard counters, the unification of - /snip included /

Well not necessarily, if one would be completely true about it there is always an example of ToEEs encounters, that were interesting; for those times especially, and did not rely so much on specific big hard encounters for the most of the game. Of course wackiness of that setting and DnD style and all non withstanding.

Honestly, i think if some of the later mini bosses encounters were removed nothing substantial would be lost. You may as well instead design a different encounter relying on different types of enemies, environment and tactical stuff.

 

[Infinitron]

They played in December. Who says it didn't go out of their Christmas vacation.

 

[Nihiliste]

Interesting if they don't kickstart a new IP. Perhaps not as optimistic about sales as expected. Or perhaps if they really are working on some AAA project they want to keep it at two main projects at a time and avoid bloat.