Eternity Pillars of Eternity + The White March Expansion Thread

[vortex]

Why would they be unable to use their own engine? Did they lose documentation or is there something else that could stop them?

Maintaining the engine and keeping up with competition is expensive generally.

 

[Prime Junta]

Why would they be unable to use their own engine? Did they lose documentation or is there something else that could stop them?

Expensive middleware. If you want to sell your games at less than AAA prices, the licenses will eat up your profits like a bitch.

 

[Jaesun]

Why would they be unable to use their own engine? Did they lose documentation or is there something else that could stop them?

Expensive middleware. If you want to sell your games at less than AAA prices, the licenses will eat up your profits like a bitch.

Yep. I still fondly remember Obsidian being so proud of their new Onyx Engine:

Spoiler

Of which they were doing Alien: Crucible on

Of which they then learned about the VERY expensive cost of Middleware. Unity™ then came along and had all of this functionality already available, and at a MUCH better cost...

 

[ilitarist]

Unity may be slow, but it saves devs from many many compatibility issues. They'd probably spend much more time on support and had hired 3rd party devs porting it to Mac and Linux if it wasn't for Unity. For us, end users, Unity only means lower performance and higher loading times, but also fewer bugs and less times spend on said times. I bet adapting this Onyx would consume couple of developers full time, kinda like Bethesda is now obligated to spend so many resources on their engine. Engine that supports one game in 5 years. And is still shitty, buggy and laggy.

 

[Turjan]

So I'm finally playing through this (hopefully). I don't think I will do several runs, so I'd like to play something that doesn't drag too much. Does anyone have a suggestion for stats on a caster druid? I went with Mig 15 Con 10 Dex 10 Int 16 Per 10 Res 14, but I have the feeling that is suboptimal. I just don't know what works and what doesn't.

 

[Prime Junta]

So I'm finally playing through this (hopefully). I don't think I will do several runs, so I'd like to play something that doesn't drag too much. Does anyone have a suggestion for stats on caster druid? I went with Mig 15 Con 10 Dex 10 Int 16 Per 10 Res 14, but I have the feeling that is suboptimal. I just don't know what works and what doesn't.

Off the bat, swap Perception and Resolve. Back-row types don't really need Res, whereas Per will improve your spell hit rate.

That said, stats are far less important than using your abilities intelligently. A minmaxed character attempting to brute-force with direct-damage spells will be far less effective than a character with all stats at 12 using the spells intelligently.

If you want to play a caster, the druid is a very good starter choice as they have a really nice mix of attack, support, and even healing spells. Note that a lot of them have conical AoEs though, which means firing them from the back row will be somewhat finicky. I had most fun with a front-row druid: I did pump Res a bit and then picked all the tanky talents I could, and blasted away with those conical attack spells.

 

[Infinitron]

He might want the Resolve for dialogue checks, though.

 

[Prime Junta]

He might want the Resolve for dialogue checks, though.

Eh, they're mostly flavour. And Per is pretty nice to have in dialogues also. If you want those high-Resolve dialogue checks, better to roll with a tanky paladin IMO -- some of the paladin order dialogues are kind of nice too, and you get the best gameplay mileage out of the stat.

 

[Turjan]

So I'm finally playing through this (hopefully). I don't think I will do several runs, so I'd like to play something that doesn't drag too much. Does anyone have a suggestion for stats on caster druid? I went with Mig 15 Con 10 Dex 10 Int 16 Per 10 Res 14, but I have the feeling that is suboptimal. I just don't know what works and what doesn't.

Off the bat, swap Perception and Resolve. Back-row types don't really need Res, whereas Per will improve your spell hit rate.

That said, stats are far less important than using your abilities intelligently. A minmaxed character attempting to brute-force with direct-damage spells will be far less effective than a character with all stats at 12 using the spells intelligently.

If you want to play a caster, the druid is a very good starter choice as they have a really nice mix of attack, support, and even healing spells. Note that a lot of them have conical AoEs though, which means firing them from the back row will be somewhat finicky. I had most fun with a front-row druid: I did pump Res a bit and then picked all the tanky talents I could, and blasted away with those conical attack spells.

Okay, if most spells have conical effects, a front-row druid may be the better choice. In that case, I guess those stats I chose aren't too shabby. Or maybe move two Res points to Per.

 

[Excidium II]

He might want the Resolve for dialogue checks, though.

Eh, they're mostly flavour. And Per is pretty nice to have in dialogues also. If you want those high-Resolve dialogue checks, better to roll with a tanky paladin IMO -- some of the paladin order dialogues are kind of nice too, and you get the best gameplay mileage out of the stat.

The weird thing is that a lot if not most resolve check I remember are for lying...so make sure you're not kind wayfarer at least.

 

[Ziggy]

Just duked out Crägholdt but the cheevos say that there's two archmages in the game. How and where do I trigger the quest for the second one?

 

[Grunker]

Just duked out Crägholdt but the cheevos say that there's two archmages in the game. How and where do I trigger the quest for the second one?

Return to Stalwart and look around for a bit. Also prepare for more deliciously unapologetic AD&D-era fantasy plotting. It's amazeballs.

EDIT: You might need the

Spoiler

phylactery

iirc

 

[Ziggy]

Thanks! Just finished it, the final fight was pretty great.
After the battle of yenwood, WM and archmages is there any post-release content I haven't played yet?
And how does the level scaling for Act 3 works, does it affect only the critical path or everything? Had the same problem on my original 1.0 run, when after endless paths and all the bounties Twin Elms was just laughable.

 

[Prime Junta]

After the battle of yenwood, WM and archmages is there any post-release content I haven't played yet?

Nope that's it.

And how does the level scaling for Act 3 works, does it affect only the critical path or everything?

AFAIK everything but it won't make much difference, if you've finished with WM2 and beat the archmages it'll be a sleepwalk even level-scaled. Only reason to continue is story.

 

[Rivmusique]

There're bounties in TWM pt2 Stalwart map that send you to locations from vanilla PoE, they could still be good for you.

 

[Ziggy]

been there done that

 

[GordonHalfman]

I dislike the concept of "bounties" and the way in which the harder fights feel disconnected from the game as a whole. This might be nostalgia talking since I suppose you could say the same thing about the Twisted Rune, it's not like you have a deep personal connection to them after all. But at the same time they felt more a part of the game world than these random groups of pirates that now live in a cemetery for no reason. I'm not sure why they made so many as well, I would have preferred a smaller number of high level encounters with more attention paid to each.

 

[Dorateen]

Bounties were one of the best things about Pillars. Loved launching a bounty-hunting operation from Caed Nua. It had more of a personal connection to me than the developer's forced narrative. No chosen one, special snowflake background necessary. Same with the White March content and Cragholdt Bluffs. The more divorced from the writers story, the better.

 

[Starwars]

I'm torn on the bounties. I mean, I love the idea of optional, really hard fights that you can do if you want to challenge yourself. But I'm not crazy about the idea that the game spawns in those encounters just because you decide to take the quest. I would much rather have them be a part of the world at all time. Now, this would mean that the gameworld need to be larger in order to accomodate those encounters as well because the world, as is in Pillars, already feels pretty full as it is.

 

[Roguey]

Such a thing would be sensible if it were possible to run away from fights. However, it is not.

As noted by Vogel years ago, there's another factor to consider. http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-bushwhacking-your-players-is-bad.html

When I started writing role-playing games for a living, I had a lot of ideas for how an RPG should be. Many of those ideas were good. And quite a few were stupid. This post (like a similar post a few weeks ago) is about one of the errors I've made in the past. And error I've made again and again, with increasing energy, until I finally went way too far in Avernum 6 and made a resolution to never, ever to do it again.

It's like this. I have long thought it was cool to, in any given area in a game, place one encounter that was far harder than the stuff around it. It would be some special named or boss with tougher abilities and better loot. These little nuggets of toughness were always optional and always had special text warning the player that there was a really nasty foe here.

The basic idea behind this was that it gave the player a challenge. A place to stretch his or her abilities. Something to come back and try later to test your strength and see how much power you have gained. Sure, it'll slaughter you the first couple of times you run across it, but it will give you the motivation to work harder and prevail! It's a hardcore gamer way of thinking. This sort of thing is something I think is neat and has a place, if you're very, very careful about it.

But in Avernum 6, I went way, WAY too far with this. There were way too many encounters that were rough and meant to be returned to later. I actually had one bandit dungeon where the boss was super-tough. "Ah," I thought, in a moment of exhaustion and idiocy. "This will be cool. The player will kill the early bandits, get some lewt, and then see that the final boss is an entirely different sort of character and back off and come back later."

How sadistic and stupid is that? To let the player fight through a dungeon and not give the satisfaction of finishing it off. To add one more item to an ever-increasing list of things to remember to return to. To doom most players to several attempts to kill the boss and getting slaughtered before they figure out that they have to return later, wasting their time and goodwill.

I just patched Avernum 6 and removed a bunch of those dumb encounters, but the structure of the game means there are a few that have to stay. That really aggravates me. But, at last, after fifteen years, I think I have finally learned the main lesson:

Difficulty In a Game Should Have a Curve With As Few Bumps As Possible

When you are supposed to enter an area, you should be able to handle all of the encounters and quests in that area. Want to put in something tough? Save it for the next area. Seriously.

There is no way around this. If you put in a little nugget of difficulty, most players will still try to take it on. And they will fail and be frustrated and hate you and not play your next game.

When you suddenly make the game's difficulty jump without warning, you aren't playing fair with the player. And if you give a warning, most players will ignore it. I swear, I put in "OMG this room ahead is megahard guys srsly!!!" warnings all the time, and nobody ever listens to them. Nor should they. Characters in games tell them how lethal the territory ahead is all the time, and then they enter it and prevail. No reason to think things should be different here.

If there's an unexplored area, people will enter it. And, if they get killed, they won't remember that they were warned. They'll just hate you.

Also, making players go back to already-explored areas is bad form. People have enough to worry about in their lives as it is without remembering where they left behind some giant they need to go back and kill. Some games pad out their length by making you paw over old dungeons looking for secret goodies (and Batman: Arkham Asylum and Shadow Complex do manage to make this fun), but, unless you handle it really well, most of the time it's best to just let the player go on to cool new stuff.

Of Course, There Are Exceptions

There's no need to be absolute about it. Putting one or two badasses in your game can be all right, if they're cool. A perfect example is in Dragon Age: Origins. There's this valley with a dragon in it. When you enter, you see the dragon sleeping there. Then you find a gong. And, if you ring the gong, the dragon wakes up, flies over, and hands out the pwnage. You can beat it, but it's really tough.

This is a perfect example of how to handle a difficulty spike. Totally optional. Very clear that it's there. And, if you get yourself killed, you totally know you deserved it. And it's the ONLY encounter like that. So that's OK.

But outside that? Players hate to lose. You're in the Adolescent Power Fantasy business, after all. If the player has every reason to expect that they should be winning, you should let them win. Or, at least, have a very good chance of not dying.

Sure, there's a bit of nonsense in there, but I agree with what I bolded.

 

[Prime Junta]

The original Gothics did this well though. Few physical barriers to stop you from exploring, but after I got et by one of those shadow beasts a couple of times, I learned to be careful.

 

[Infinitron]

Have recent events reminded you to up your troll-fu, Roguey? I'm quite sure the lead designer of this game doesn't agree with those bolded remarks.

That said, having the bounties be in the world permanently as they are wouldn't be a good idea, because of the way they're implemented as mobs of mute baddies just standing around in the countryside. The obvious artificiality of that is only acceptable because of how they only how they show up only when it's time for you to hunt them down. To be permanent, those encounters would have to be designed as a more elaborate and organic part of the game world.

 

[Excidium II]

Ideally you want to give the player a reason to return to the area later that isn't just to finish clearing it.

 

[Roguey]

Have recent events reminded you to up your troll-fu, Roguey? I'm quite sure the lead designer of this game doesn't agree with those bolded remarks.

Considering how content is structured in Pillars of Eternity, I believe he does (though there were a handful of areas in PoE where I had to put off some optional encounters until a bit later; I assume this was because I was playing on hard and those maps could be cleared well enough on normal or lower).

 

[Infinitron]

Have recent events reminded you to up your troll-fu, Roguey? I'm quite sure the lead designer of this game doesn't agree with those bolded remarks.

Considering how content is structured in Pillars of Eternity, I believe he does (though there were a handful of areas in PoE where I had to put off some optional encounters until a bit later; I assume this was because I was playing on hard and those maps could be cleared well enough on normal or lower).

I totally disagree with that reading. The game's maps are dotted with those hard optional encounters in an obviously deliberate fashion. I call it the "Deathclaw Promontory design pattern".