Eternity Pillars of Eternity + The White March Expansion Thread

[Infinitron]

Even if they remove "per-rest" as such, it seems unlikely to me that the sequel would move to a Dragon Age-like system. Seems like too radical a shift. I'd sooner expect Josh to try to come up with some third way, a unified resource mechanic that bridges the gap between per-rest and per-encounter and still maintains some kind of strategic element.

 

[Excidium II]

I'd sooner expect Josh to try to come up with some third way, a unified resource mechanic that bridges the gap between per-rest and per-encounter and still maintains some kind of strategic element.

How would that work? Like all abilities being per-encounter but with a pool you can spend to make them more awesome that refreshes on rest?

 

[Sensuki]

Even if they remove "per-rest" as such, it seems unlikely to me that the sequel would move to a Dragon Age-like system. Seems like too radical a shift. I'd sooner expect Josh to try to come up with some third way, a unified resource mechanic that bridges the gap between per-rest and per-encounter and still maintains some kind of strategic element.

Possibly, it depends on whether or not they alter the resting system. I don't think they'll actively try and tackle strategical resource issues, I think they'll go the easier route and remove them.

I didn't suggest they would move to a Dragon Age cooldown system. What I *think* they might do is go for a small group of per-encounter abilities, possibly even mutually exclusive and more passive and modal stuff. On items at least they've done stuff like abilities proc on crits 1/encounter - they may end up making abilities like that so that the player does not have to actually perform the action.

At the moment there are generally too many per-encounter abilities per class, and because of the freedom of choice during level up, every action that a unit might take in an encounter could be the use of a per-encounter ability ... which aint the case in D&D 4E at least at the lower levels. It's that mix of the D&D 4E and 3.5E style progression that causes this issue, so I think they may end up going with something more structured/homogeneous like 4E in the future. As that is what they know (and like).

 

[Excidium II]

I never thought I had too many per-encounter abilities, I just felt like they almost never had any tactical consideration besides chain CCing people since 9 out of 10 are attack + extra damage

 

[Sensuki]

Well as a Rogue, I had like 3-4 per-encounter actives that gave me damage bonuses, and basically every attack was using one of those. As a Fighter you might have 3 knockdowns to use at the beginning of combat and then possibly some other stuff. I always used the two Wizard Blasts every single encounter because it was a fast AoE damage that caused a status effect. Every character had more than two active abilities to be used at the start of combat, every encounter basically.

In the IE games, rather than using stuff just because it was there, I used stuff when I thought I needed to - because it was all resource based and in a cooldown-based game like DotA - which uses a combo of cooldowns and mana, I would not throw a stun until the right moment, because I've only got one and because of the cooldown and mana cost, I need to make sure it counts, not just throw it every time it comes off cooldown.

 

[Excidium II]

See but that's the problem, they're mostly just attack substitutes that you spam with no consideration.

 

[Sensuki]

Exactly. They're kind of the same in D&D 4E as well ... depends what it is. I found that when we played everyone would open up with their per-encounters in the first couple of rounds, every single encounter. Josh actually mentioned that being one of 4E's problems somewhere yet here it is ten times worse.

The thing is, I'm not sure that they are interested in making them anything else. The devs don't play real-time games AFAIK. They play lots of tabletop and turn-based and non-RPG stuff so if anything they'll probably draw from their experiences rather than go out of their comfort zones.

 

[Infinitron]

How would that work? Like all abilities being per-encounter but with a pool you can spend to make them more awesome that refreshes on rest?

Just making every ability both per-rest and per-encounter with a hefty Accuracy bonus if you choose to use the per-rest version would be a simpler way of doing that.

But I was actually envisioning some kind of generalization of resting. Like maybe make everything "per-rest" but with different abilities requiring different amounts of rest to recharge. The kind of stuff that was per-encounter before would only require a small amount of resting. That way you could have abilities that everybody uses "a lot" yet not obsessively at every single opportunity for gaining a miniscule advantage.

 

[Sensuki]

A better solution might be to give characters a pool of per-encounter and per-rest charges, rather than having an individual cost for every ability. Item-based ones may have to be external to that list though, or possibly add to the number.

That may be difficult to balance though because done wrong, we'd just end up with Slicken every single action.

Personally I think the complaint that classes like the Fighter are too passive in the IE games is part of the problem. If you have six fighters then yeah, maybe but with a mix of classes that are active and a mix of passive ones, it ends up being an enjoyable mix. In Pillars every class is active. You can certainly make passive builds but they tend to end up not being very good if you have more than one as you're missing out on a lot of damage/afflictions.

 

[Excidium II]

Yeah all per-encounter abilities using an independent resource is the core of the problem. Reason that for active characters I found Monk way more fun even though i mostly just had two decide between Torment Reach and Force of Anguish.

 

[Infinitron]

You'd also end up with what's ultimately a form of mana system.

 

[Excidium II]

You'd also end up with what's ultimately a form of mana system.

Maybe for some classes. What's actually fun is having a different resource for each class just like monks, chanters and ciphers already have it.

 

[Sensuki]

I also thought that was nice as well. Not the best implementation but nonetheless a good idea that makes classes feel a bit more unique.

 

[prodigydancer]

The Fighter was built to be a pure tank, a hybrid or the poor man's damage-dealer. Its design as a tank was heavily dependent on the original mechanics. It was not flexible enough to be adapted the post-2.0 updates, so they simply gave up, almost all of the changes to the class increased damage, not defensive capabilities.

I think they need to bite the bullet and officially remove Engagement. It'd make Fighter redesign much easier because there'd be a reason to scratch currently useless stuff like Defender and replace it with something that could work, e.g. modal that would apply a short living but nasty debuff (say, -30 Acc with addition graze-to-miss conversion) when attacking an enemy who is targeting someone else.

Clear Out should be per encounter and since it's basically a cleave it should do much more damage if you're using it with a 2H weapon. Take the Hit should apply a small radius aura where the outcome incoming attacks is calculated against the fighter's defense scores and any remaining damage or debuff time is split between the fighter and the original target.

Tanking shouldn't be about applying green tethers and shrugging off all incoming attacks. It should be more along the lines of "you can ignore me... at your own peril."

 

[roshan]

Honestly I feel that nothing really beats having all abilities be per rest. In the IE games, I didn't rest spam, so it was a lot of fun memorizing a variety of different spells, and as I progressed through battles, I'd end up in fights with less HP, have used up my usual spells, and would have to cast other spells that I wouldn't have used otherwise. It made battles more distinctive and unique, and thus, a heck of a lot more fun. I also thought that class design in 2E/3E was excellent and very much suited to party based gameplay, since different members of your party played differently and fulfilled different purposes, and if you had a mixed party, the overall level of micromanagement was almost perfect.

 

[Sensuki]

I think they need to bite the bullet and officially remove Engagement.

Tanking shouldn't be about applying green tethers and shrugging off all incoming attacks. It should be more along the lines of "you can ignore me... at your own peril."

I know you're ignoring me but yes, and I've been saying this since the beginning of the beta.

Honestly I feel that nothing really beats having all abilities be per rest. In the IE games, I didn't rest spam, so it was a lot of fun memorizing a variety of different spells, and as I progressed through battles, I'd end up in fights with less HP, have used up my usual spells, and would have to cast other spells that I wouldn't have used otherwise. It made battles more distinctive and unique, and thus, a heck of a lot more fun. I also thought that class design in 2E/3E was excellent and very much suited to party based gameplay, since different members of your party played differently and fulfilled different purposes, and if you had a mixed party, the overall level of micromanagement was almost perfect.

I absolutely agree, but I'm fairly sure they'll go in the opposite direction to this as they and their target audience do not seem to be interested in resource management.

 

[prodigydancer]

I know you're ignoring me.

Only when your "I hate PoE" thing gets too annoying.

I absolutely agree, but I'm fairly sure they'll go in the opposite direction to this as they and their target audience do not seem to be interested in resource management.

IDK. Latest patches show signs of hope. They finally realized that making low level spells spammable was a bad idea even for endgame. And 2.0 AI changes could be a hint that Engagement is on its way out too.

I'm not sure how far they're prepared to go but TWM2 release would be a good time for a systems overhaul. It's the last expansion, so why not make the game feel fresh again even if mostly by cutting stuff that didn't live up to your expectations? Remove Engagement (or at least make disengagement attacks very low damage), remove combat-only restrictions. Not so sure about removing Health and leaving only Endurance - that would probably require lots of additional rework to make sense. Make stealth 50% more effective for Ciphers and 100% more effective for Rogues.

There are also ways to make combat more dynamic with minor changes. Make everything that targets Ref have -10 penalty against moving targets. On the other hand give ranged weapons +10 Acc vs. standing targets. It's an RTwP game, so why not make use of everything happening in the same time frame? I would also suggest class-specific changes like replacing underpowered abilities with something that is potentially good but requires proper positioning but first they need to get rid of some obviously dumb staff (like Barbarian's Carnage) that makes clever playstyles redundant.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

Well, we'll see. I think that even if they had other ideas at first, after everybody saw how Larian rolled right onto a sequel on Kickstarter, the chances of a PoE2 crowdfunding campaign got a lot higher.

That's a very good point that I hadn't considered.

 

[Sensuki]

I'm not sure how far they're prepared to go but TWM2 release would be a good time for a systems overhaul. It's the last expansion, so why not make the game feel fresh again even if mostly by cutting stuff that didn't live up to your expectations? Remove Engagement (or at least make disengagement attacks very low damage), remove combat-only restrictions. Not so sure about removing Health and leaving only Endurance - that would probably require lots of additional rework to make sense. Make stealth 50% more effective for Ciphers and 100% more effective for Rogues.

I don't think we'll see anything radical like that. Big changes will be saved for the sequel.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

BTW is there any info on the scrapped MCA cipher orlan Private Eye companion? I know he was scrapped pretty early on, but that character seemed bad-ass to me.

 

[Sensuki]

He was in the game, just not as a recruitable NPC. You meet him at Lady Webb's house.

 

[Infinitron]

http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/132132140676/greatswords-arming-swords-sabers-rapiers

muslimgamer asked: Greatswords, arming swords, sabers, rapiers, daggers, estocs ... but no longswords?

For all practical purposes, great swords in PoE are closest to historical “long swords” (though they have exaggerated thick blades to visually contrast estocs). To most A/D&D players, the term “long sword” denotes a one-handed weapon that visually correlates with what sword historians would consider Oakeshott Types XIa, XII, XIII, and XIIIb – i.e., not a long sword.

Great sword is a more general term, but it’s also one that A/D&D players are familiar with and they expect those weapons to be two-handed.

Sword nomenclature is difficult to fit everyone’s expectations, especially when dealing with a A/D&D legacy vs. historical typologies that continue to develop with increased research. Sorry for any confusion.

Andhaira? Nah, then he would have asked about katanas.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

IHaveHugeNick

Care to explain why you think RTWP games don't require any?

Because they don't.

Skill is either execution of something that's manually difficult, or making correct decision with incomplete information. None of which you have to do in RWTP, ever. You can just pause, get more information while under no risk whatsoever, go to Codex and boast about how amazing you are in video games, unpause and keep going.

 

[Sensuki]

That argument doesn't work.

You provide your definition of what being 'skilled' is and say that you do not have the ability to be skilled in RTWP because you can just pause the game. Yet you do not say what 'skills' the ability to pause nullifies.

Using that same argument you could say that turn-based requires no skill because you have all the time in the world to 'get more information under no risk whatsoever'.

By removing the time critical element pause takes away the need to both make and perform decisions quickly under time pressure but players are still required to identify problems and whether or not they need to address them, but how exactly is 'making correct decision with incomplete information' any different than in turn-based ?

 

[prodigydancer]

something that's manually difficult

Soultard detected.