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

[Zorba the Hutt]

I just took it as a few offhand comments and impressions from someone playing the game for the first time, quite refreshing in a way after all the convoluted arguments in this thread. I'd certainly expect different from a proper VD review.

Enjoyable read imo.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Asking for enhanced AI to make everything better is basically the almighty "ADD MOAR CONTENT" trump card for balancing a system.

That's beside the point. My argument was that Sawyer is wrong that hard counters necessarily lead to bad gameplay and his total rejection of this mechanical tool leads to wonky designs. When one refuses to utilize a legitimate mechanic on principled grounds, things become silly. Hence the Sawyer's Spell Turning example.

I would say that maybe things like SCS-caliber EXTREEM TACTICS can only ever be the province of mods made on a fan's free time. Game developers work with a limited time and budget.

Lack of available computing power was probably one of many reasons Infinity Engine AI scripting was truncated. SCS2 can cause significant slowdown on machines that were more than able to run vanilla BG2, so perhaps long scripts would have pushed minimum hardware requirements beyond an acceptable level. Labor hours may not have necessarily been the sole reason IE games (as well as other past RPGs) had less-than-stellar AI.

I thought the LOOK AT ME ALL THE SPELLS ARE BOUNCING OFF OF ME I'M INVINCEEBEEEEEEEL stuff in BG2 was pretty derpy.

Well, yeah, disingenuous mischaracterizations of games can easily serve to make them seem derpy. Spell Turning was far from invincibility/immunity to spells, as most of the powerful magics were AoE and bypassed that specific defense.

Denigrating older games, often mistakenly/falsely, in order to prop of the visionary works of Sawyer is probably what draws the most ire from folks (especially on the Codex). I myself am cautiously optimistic about PoE, and there's a lot of mechanics that interest me, especially Ciphers/Chanters. But it's hard not to be grouchy when discussing flaws given the tone taken by both Sawyer and his advocates. Sawyer may not believe in dump stats, but he certainly seemed to neglect Charisma in his build; too busy adding Racial Enemy: Grognards to the character sheet.

Don't see anything wrong with adding more risk factors into the equation - especially if you have ways of mitigating them.

Risk factors are already built in; it's a narrow defense, likely to only be relevant against a fraction of enemies and even the only guarding against a fraction of their movesets. And it only effects one character and has a limited capacity to function.

It's already an ability with a low power level, additional risks/drawbacks aren't warranted...unless the designer has an irrational hatred for anything resembling a hard counter.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Dismissing noobs' complaints that the game is too hard because they died in the first fight is one thing. Asking what some mechanics do is another.

You're not "asking what some mechanics do", you're making inaccurate statements about them.

In response to "omg, VD asked about reputations mechanics!!! Can't the fucker read?"

You're confusing my initial impressions with a proper review.

The format doesn't justify inaccuracy, it justifies lack of depth.

Like I said, I'm playing the game and sharing my thoughts, not giving the final verdict. Usually, I do it over 3 days - day 1 impressions, day 2, etc. I like this approach precisely because these thoughts are unfiltered. I've even added that I know absolutely nothing about the game and when I made the comment about the weapon group, I added "I think". As in not a fact.

 

[Grunker]

Dismissing noobs' complaints that the game is too hard because they died in the first fight is one thing. Asking what some mechanics do is another.

You're not "asking what some mechanics do", you're making inaccurate statements about them.

In response to "omg, VD asked about reputations mechanics!!! Can't the fucker read?"

You're confusing my initial impressions with a proper review.

The format doesn't justify inaccuracy, it justifies lack of depth.

Like I said, I'm playing the game and sharing my thoughts, not giving the final verdict. Usually, I do it over 3 days - day 1 impressions, day 2, etc. I like this approach precisely because these thoughts are unfiltered.

Yeah, you're not really stating how making inaccurate statements based on your own ignorance is justifiable here. I wouldn't call you out on this if it wasn't because I know from previous conversations that you share my dislike for this sort of thing.

 

[Zeriel]

Quick, VD was wrong the internet, hammer him until you receive your perceived victory!

 

[Grunker]

Lack of available computing power was probably one of many reasons Infinity Engine AI scripting was truncated. SCS2 can cause significant slowdown on machines that were more than able to run vanilla BG2, so perhaps long scripts would have pushed minimum hardware requirements beyond an acceptable level. Labor hours may not have necessarily been the sole reason IE games (as well as other past RPGs) had less-than-stellar AI

SCS is definetely a question of man hours and testing. The mod wouldn't have been possible without the first iteration of Tactics, multiple years of forum discussion and 22 iterations of the final version of compiled scripts. It's a result of one of the most extensive periods of playtesting for a game, and someone with the time and skill to react properly to said testing. There's no way anything like SCS could make it into a game developed with short external testing time. Which, incidentally, defines nearly all actually released games.

Quick, VD was wrong the internet, hammer him until you receive your perceived victory!

Quick, someone is debating something on the Codex, point in out in a sarcastic manner!

I love VD, and he knows it. Of course I'm going to point out when I disagree with the man. Why the fuck else do we have this place?

 

[Zeriel]

This isn't debate. He admitted he was wrong several times, and you kept going at it. There's literally nothing more to discuss here. "Oh I was wrong" "No, you were wrong and this isn't up your own standards, bastard!" "Well, it was just a quick impressions. Anyway..." "Why won't you just admit you were wrong?!"

I suppose this is a great preview of what we have to look forward to in the PoE thread from here on out. The honeymoon period is over, and everyone has either settled into full-on fan mode or full-on anti-fan mode, with the poor people who just started playing it stuck in between.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Grunker

I dislike errors and inaccurate statements in reviews because the reviewers are expected to take their time and understand the game. I dislike such errors when people say game X is shit even though that it's clear that they failed to understand the relevant mechanics.

I said "I don't think there is a fundamental difference between two groups of various weapons". Is there a fundamental difference? So far you said that bow is a better weapon. It's a balance issue, not a fundamental difference that affects how you play the game. Either way, I didn't say the game sucks or unplayable because I don't think different weapon groups are different enough. In fact, I didn't even expect them to be different as the new player has no idea either and has to make this choice early on. Thus, I expect them to be more or less balanced.

 

[Grunker]

This isn't debate. He admitted he was wrong several times, and you kept going at it.

Please show me to where I'm "going at" something he has expressed his agreement to. I'm not sure VD needs your shielding from the terrible Grunker who keeps writing evil and hurtful posts in response to his.

Besides, read the above post and tell me again how that is VD conceding to my point? We still disagree, hence we're still debating. Now chime in or fuck off.

 

[Jaedar]

Example: Pillars of Eternity has 11 classes with completely different ability kits and customizable talents. Divinity: Original Sin had an "open" system consisting of 4 different paths with a small ability kit that expanded a bit throughout the game (with many upgrades simply being more power iterations of older abilities). In one playthrough of Divinity: Original Sin, I have played with every single ability, talent and skill that the game had to offer, and I have exhausted most options given to me by the gameplay. This will be impossible in Pillars of Eternity.

I'm not sure how it can be controversial to say that Divinity had a smaller scope than PoE. I'm pretty sure even Swen would agree with me.

You're kidding right? Everything in PoE is "balanced" so the experience will not be that different based on your character class. You may not be able to explore every combination, but you will probably have explored 90%+ of the "experience" for lack of a better word, within a fairly short time of starting the game. I might be wrong about this, after all, it's just a beta, and it's not like I can claim to have finished it, and I can only hope there are some cool talents that will make me change my mind.

Compare this to Divos where you can make gimmick builds like not having companions, reducing your hp by 80%(or something like that) and changing what things heal you. That can have a drastic effect on your tactics. And I'm not a huge fan of divos system either. It's far from perfect, and I'd even go so far as to say it's the weakest part of the game.

I'd say divos has a slightly larger scope. It has more interactions between combat and non combat, even some of that mythical emergent gameplay. And unless I'm mistaken, both feature linearish story lines with open hubs with sidequests and non combat solutions for some things.

 

[Grunker]

So far you said that bow is a better weapon. It's a balance issues, not a fundamental difference that affects how you play the game. Either way, I didn't say the game sucks or unplayable because I don't think different weapon groups are different enough. In fact, I didn't even expect them to be different as the new player has no idea either and has to make this choice early on. Thus, I expect them to be more or less balanced.

Now, of course, this could be you pulling an Excidium on me and saying "well, Grunker, I define fundamental (which I have neatly italized for your convenience) as one shooting unicorns of love and one raining frost giants from the realm of Ur'zo Gahr on my foes." I argued based on weapon difference in most RPGs, where PoE indeed looks like it has pretty big differences. We're all comparing to the IE-games here, like you did in your post. Here, the difference between two ranged weapons came down to a very small difference in damage range. Try equipping an Arbalest and a hunting bow in PoE. You'll find that the differences between the two weapons are much greater. Are they fundamental in the 'VD definition(tm)'? You tell me. They certainly handle distinctly from each other and thus make out a style choice as I'm sure we'd agree weapon style feats are meant for.

(like I said, I'd rather they had offed the whole specialization thing altogether, but groups are still better than single weapons I guess)

I dislike errors and inaccurate statements in reviews because the reviewers are expected to take their time and understand the game. I dislike such errors when people say game X is shit even though that it's clear that they failed to understand the relevant mechanics.

Come on, man. There's a difference between an error, an honest question and then you, with obvious disdain, exlaiming that you are

I'm sure that the difference is mostly cosmetic

If you won't give me that, then fine, you have no obligation to do so. But it's pretty obvious.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

And Grunk he did...

 

[Grunker]

Example: Pillars of Eternity has 11 classes with completely different ability kits and customizable talents. Divinity: Original Sin had an "open" system consisting of 4 different paths with a small ability kit that expanded a bit throughout the game (with many upgrades simply being more power iterations of older abilities). In one playthrough of Divinity: Original Sin, I have played with every single ability, talent and skill that the game had to offer, and I have exhausted most options given to me by the gameplay. This will be impossible in Pillars of Eternity.

I'm not sure how it can be controversial to say that Divinity had a smaller scope than PoE. I'm pretty sure even Swen would agree with me.

You're kidding right? Everything in PoE is "balanced" so the experience will not be that different based on your character class.

If you found using your Chanter and using your Fighter to be "not that different" then I'm not sure what I can say. To me, it comes across as a completely ludacris statement in the vein of "I think Demolition Man and Hamlet is pretty much the same book."

You may not be able to explore every combination, but you will probably have explored 90%+ of the "experience" for lack of a better word, within a fairly short time of starting the game.

I have no idea what you're basing this on, but if it's the aforementioned fallacy about classes, well, then see above.

there are some cool talents that will make me change my mind.

It has been discussed multiple times throughout the thread that internal class variety is very small, while variation between the 11 classes is very big. I disagree with this design, but that's how it is. I.e. talents certainly won't change your mind - the major difference in gameplay is offered by class variety. Well, and the factional reputation mechanics and stuff like that, obviously.

Which incidentally, was also in D:OS but played an almost non-existant role.

Compare this to Divos where you can make gimmick builds like not having companions, reducing your hp by 80%(or something like that) and changing what things heal you. That can have a drastic effect on your tactics. And I'm not a huge fan of divos system either. It's far from perfect, and I'd even go so far as to say it's the weakest part of the game.

My opinions about D:OS sums up to:

1) Shitty, boring system.

2) Great environmental and world interaction.

3) Many examples of great encounter design.

4) Basically bad/non-essential/boring everything else. Not that this was much of a problem (see below).

I'd say divos has a slightly larger scope. It has more interactions between combat and non combat, even some of that mythical emergent gameplay. And unless I'm mistaken, both feature linearish story lines with open hubs with sidequests and non combat solutions for some things.

I'd be very, very sad if I found out that significant resources went into anything in D:OS other than combat design and world interaction. That would mean that a lot of time and resources was spent on something exceedingly poor. The rest of the game is very superficially designed and crafted. Not that that's a problem mind, it is by far the two first things that make the game so enjoyable.

 

[Grunker]

And Grunk he did...

I bet you feel incredibly clever right now

 

[tuluse]

SCS is definetely a question of man hours and testing. The mod wouldn't have been possible without the first iteration of Tactics, multiple years of forum discussion and 22 iterations of the final version of compiled scripts. It's a result of one of the most extensive periods of playtesting for a game, and someone with the time and skill to react properly to said testing. There's no way anything like SCS could make it into a game developed with short external testing time. Which, incidentally, defines nearly all actually released games.

On the other hand didn't Blizzard keep doing balance patches for Starcraft for like 10 years?

If a company kept getting income from a game maybe they could eventually do something like that. Not that it would really be pointful. I'd rather have BG3 with the BG2 AI than BG2 with SCS.

 

[Infinitron]

Risk factors are already built in; it's a narrow defense, likely to only be relevant against a fraction of enemies and even the only guarding against a fraction of their movesets. And it only effects one character and has a limited capacity to function.

It's already an ability with a low power level, additional risks/drawbacks aren't warranted...unless the designer has an irrational hatred for anything resembling a hard counter.

I'm not saying I consider this type of limited immunity to be terrible and game-ruining. I'm just saying I don't see anything wrong with bringing the game's saving throw system into the mix and making things more involving. If you can pump your resistances enough, or reduce the enemy's resistances enough, you gain an effect that's practically identical to those beloved hard counters.

Do you want your cool exploit-like tactics? Fucking earn them, I say.

In any case, I do wonder if you're not being disingenuous, because I suspect you want a lot more than that limited low-level Spell Turning effect.

 

[Grunker]

SCS is definetely a question of man hours and testing. The mod wouldn't have been possible without the first iteration of Tactics, multiple years of forum discussion and 22 iterations of the final version of compiled scripts. It's a result of one of the most extensive periods of playtesting for a game, and someone with the time and skill to react properly to said testing. There's no way anything like SCS could make it into a game developed with short external testing time. Which, incidentally, defines nearly all actually released games.

On the other hand didn't Blizzard keep doing balance patches for Starcraft for like 10 years?

If a company kept getting income from a game maybe they could eventually do something like that. Not that it would really be pointful. I'd rather have BG3 with the BG2 AI than BG2 with SCS.

I disagree with that last bit a little I think (I really, really like SCS), but the rest is true enough. I mean it's an obvious assertion, but of course you're right that companies can basically make SCSes themselves if they're so inclined. Few companies are, though. The central point in my reply to Edward_R_Murrow was about the time needed though, and that stands

 

[Vault Dweller]

Try equipping an Arbalest and a hunting bow in PoE. You'll find that the differences between the two weapons are much greater. Are they fundamental in the 'VD definition(tm)'? You tell me. They certainly handle distinctly from each other and thus make out a style choice as I'm sure we'd agree weapon style feats are meant for.

I will once I equip them and perform field testing.

I'm sure that the difference is mostly cosmetic

If you won't give me that, then fine, you have no obligation to do so. But it's pretty obvious.

I agree that 'sure' made it a stronger statement than was intended. I'll test different weapons and get back to you.

Btw, how challenging is the game so far?

 

[Jaedar]

Example: Pillars of Eternity has 11 classes with completely different ability kits and customizable talents. Divinity: Original Sin had an "open" system consisting of 4 different paths with a small ability kit that expanded a bit throughout the game (with many upgrades simply being more power iterations of older abilities). In one playthrough of Divinity: Original Sin, I have played with every single ability, talent and skill that the game had to offer, and I have exhausted most options given to me by the gameplay. This will be impossible in Pillars of Eternity.

I'm not sure how it can be controversial to say that Divinity had a smaller scope than PoE. I'm pretty sure even Swen would agree with me.

You're kidding right? Everything in PoE is "balanced" so the experience will not be that different based on your character class.

If you found using your Chanter and using your Fighter to be "not that different" then I'm not sure what I can say. To me, it comes across as a completely ludacris statement in the vein of "I think Demolition Man and Hamlet is pretty much the same book."

I meant the difference between a party with a chanter and say a wizard(other parts being equal) is not that different. I also think you can exchange a warrior for a paladin and not really notice the difference. A wizard isn't similar to a fighter though, sort of similar to how it works in divos.
This is what I mean when I say you will explore most of the depth of the combat quickly; you may not have used all the different gears, but the clock will tick mostly the same way(with some gimmick party exceptions, I'm sure). Especially for the presented beta, since your character is but one of 5. The spells and abilities I have seen so far feel sorta generic and samey, even across classes. Although I realize I'm on thin ice here since I haven't explored much of the beta(it doesn't want to work ).

This discussion will have more of a purpose once the game is finished I think.

 

[Grunker]

Try equipping an Arbalest and a hunting bow in PoE. You'll find that the differences between the two weapons are much greater. Are they fundamental in the 'VD definition(tm)'? You tell me. They certainly handle distinctly from each other and thus make out a style choice as I'm sure we'd agree weapon style feats are meant for.

I will once I equip them and perform field testing.

I'm sure that the difference is mostly cosmetic

If you won't give me that, then fine, you have no obligation to do so. But it's pretty obvious.

I agree that 'sure' made it a stronger statement than was intended. I'll test different weapons and get back to you.

Alright. Incidentally, I am sorry if I misunderstood the intention of your wording.

Btw, how challenging is the game so far?

Well, to be honest, the lack of clarity and messiness of the combat currently makes it really difficult to answer that question. The combat really is in a rough state

 

[Infinitron]

re: DivOS vs PoE

I think that from the perspective of most laymen, DivOS definitely has a wider scope than Pillars (or any other purely Kickstarter-funded game). However, from a pure "systemfag" perspective what Grunker is saying isn't inaccurate.

 

[Grunker]

I also think you can exchange a warrior for a paladin and not really notice the difference. sort of similar to how it works in divos.

Not at all, IMO. The Paladin and the Fighter are obviously different in how they handle compared to the very few ways you can kit your fighter-type dude in D:OS. I also think this diversity will spread out even more as the fighter and paladin level.

Again, it seems some (not you, mind) took my comments on D:OS as some sort of attack on the game. It's not. I consider D:OS to be easily the most fun I've had with a Kickstarter so far. It's a good time.

The spells and abilities I have seen so far feel sorta generic and samey, even across classes.

Suffice it to say, we have really disparaging views on this. I'm not sure how we could argue meaningfully about it, since to a large degree currently it's a matter of observance. But man, I'm surprised you're saying this. About the only excellent part of PoE combat right now is that the classes and their abilities all feel very distinctive and (IMO) fun to use.

Although I realize I'm on thin ice here since I haven't explored much of the beta(it doesn't want to work ).

None of us have. Well, except Sensuki

This discussion will have more of a purpose once the game is finished I think.

True. I didn't anticipate the storm of comments that post would bring.

I think that from the perspective of most laymen, DivOS definitely has a wider scope than than Pillars (or any other purely Kickstarter-funded game). However, from a pure "systemfag" perspective what Grunker is saying isn't inaccurate.

Well, I guess since everybody is disagreeing with me on this I should throw in the towel here. I just don't equate breadth of content with scope. Maybe I should. But that would mean conceding that Skyrim has a vast scope

Perhaps it has. Then I will accept your definition and change my statement to this: PoE has more depth of content and more complexity in its systems (and I'm not refering to just the character system here, obviously, also stuff like reputation mechanics etc).

EDIT: btw, Jaedar, the fact that a few choices in the D:OS-system (like Lone Wolf) have a *huge* impact on the game doesn't change the fact that the selection is very small and most do not have anything near the impact that Lone Wolf has.

EDIT2: The more I think about it, the more your statements seem really weird, Jaedar. You're comparing the ranger's ranged flanking run-and-gun with his pet with the fights defensive abilities. Or the druid's shifting support with the Chanters chain-buffs. I'm not sure I get how the classes are all that simillar.

 

[tuluse]

Combat is p easy and exploitable on normal right now. Get the right ranged weapons and you can kill most things with single volley. Often only needs 3-4 party members attacking. Some abilities seem amazingly good, like web.

It only gets hard when you get swarmed, and then it's so confusing I have no idea what's going on.

 

[Grunker]

It only gets hard when you get swarmed, and then it's so confusing I have no idea what's going on.

In the first beetle assault out of town, certain movement patterns will end up making the fight look like one giant blob of blue.

 

[Infinitron]

I asked this before the beta was released, not so relevant anymore: http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/95660040186/can-you-auto-attack-with-the-wizards-blast-ability-if

melnorme said: Can you auto-attack with the wizard's Blast ability? If so, could there be some way for it to auto-attack NEXT to a target so it hits it?

Blast is automatically applied to any of a wizard’s wand, rod, or sceptre attacks and the AoE is foe-only. Since it’s effectively just added on top of the standard weapon attack, Blast can’t be targeted on open ground.

Answer faster next time, Josh.