Solasta Solasta II - coming to Early Access in 2025

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Will Solasta 2 retain a rectangular movement grid or will it use free movement like BG3?

I should have added hexagonal combat grids to the list of desired changes for Solasta II.

 

[duskvile]

I should have added hexagonal combat grids to the list of desired changes for Solasta II.

Absolutely not, hexagonal even rectangular grid takes away the immersion. Freedom of motion is the holy grail.

 

[Blutwurstritter]

Silly Cage's aside, I like how hexagons maximize the area to perimeter ration in 2 dimensional tiling, and honey.

 

[Roguey]

Nah, Rogua is just hormonal again.

I didn't mind Solasta because I no longer get enjoyment from completing difficult games. As long as it's not full of hours and hours of repetitive combat, I don't care. I'm just giving my assessment of what inclusive game design means. If someone wants to make a difficult game, that is excluding people, it has to.

 

[Mortmal]

I read the word "attuned". For the love of God, take some creative freedom, and remove attunement from the game.

If you ask for this to be removed, you might as well ask for the entire ruleset to be changed. It's built around 5E, and this aspect is necessary for balancing encounters. The system assumes fights are balanced for a party without any magic items. In official modules, magic items are relatively rare. However, in Solasta, we were already receiving far too many of them, which made encounters too easy and, consequently, less satisfying.

 

[Abu Antar]

Remove 5E, too. It's not like I think it's a good system.

 

[rogueknight333]

... I'm just giving my assessment of what inclusive game design means. If someone wants to make a difficult game, that is excluding people, it has to.

If you do not make a difficult game, someone like me is liable to be too bored to finish it, and will end up excluded. Making a game casual-friendly is probably even the correct decision from the viewpoint of maximizing sales, but "inclusive" is the wrong word for it. Someone is getting excluded no matter what.

Theoretically that is a problem that could be solved with difficulty settings, but in practice that seems not to work too well, partly because the settings are often badly designed and higher difficulties just add Hit Point bloat or other factors that make combat more tedious but not actually tactically interesting, and partly (I suppose) because some people are too proud to admit they should be playing on easy mode.

A better solution is to include a powerful and versatile toolset. That way you can make a casual-friendly official campaign, and the hard core tacticians can go make their own stuff.

 

[Gandalf]

Remove 5E, too. It's not like I think it's a good system.

What system would be better?

 

[Roguey]

Theoretically that is a problem that could be solved with difficulty settings, but in practice that seems not to work too well, partly because the settings are often badly designed and higher difficulties just add Hit Point bloat or other factors that make combat more tedious but not actually tactically interesting, and partly (I suppose) because some people are too proud to admit they should be playing on easy mode.

Depends on where the baseline is.

Deadfire targeted a larger and thus more casual audience.

When it came to Pillars of Eternity his attitude was

The game is being designed for relatively high difficulty at first and later tuned down for lower levels of difficulty. It's easier to lower difficulty from a high bar than to raise it from a shallow baseline.

With Deadfire it was

“When Deadfire came out, we erred a little—or a lot, depending on what your play style is—it being too easy,” said Sawyer. By the time Deadfire launched on May 8 of 2018, wheels were already in motion on rolling out patches that would increase difficulty for players. “I said, ‘Well, between too easy and too hard, I'd rather err on the side of too easy, and tune up from there,’” Sawyer continued.

They are ultimately not interested and not very good at making any kind of RPG tuned for the average Codexer.

And where it is depends on what audience is being targeted alongside the playing skill of the designers themselves (in PoE's case, the majority of designers wouldn't even be able to beat the game on Hard according to Sawyer himself).

 

[Abu Antar]

Remove 5E, too. It's not like I think it's a good system.

What system would be better?

Any earlier edition, but 4E.

 

[Crispy]

Is it even (legally) possible to base a game on 3.5E or earlier anymore?

 

[RPK]

Is it even (legally) possible to base a game on 3.5E or earlier anymore?

yes, it has an OGL, similar to 5e. 5e has been released in creative commons, which is different from the OGL, but functionally accomplishes much the same thing. People have been pushing for 3.5 to be released under the same creative commons license, which WOTC has said they will do, but who knows. At any rate, the OGL lets you release whatever you want. It's just that WOTC tried to retroactively change the agreement (which the OGL explicitly forbids, but that's another conversation) so that's why people are pushing for the creative commons release which would essentially be the end of the kind of run-pulling WOTC tried a couple(?) years ago with 5e's OGL.

 

[Grunker]

Some day, Roguey, I hope you’ll find out that there are two discussions: one is about quality and one is about accessibility. Right now, you are under the impressions that these two, distinct debates are one and the same - hence, great works of literature or film are lessened by their inaccessibility. Or at least, you will think “but that would make it less accessible” is a viable response for someone criticizing a work for being too shallow.

It is not. It is like responding to the sentence “this car is of bad make” with “if it was better made, it would cost more.” It does not make the first sentence any less a fact.

Solasta is a poor game because too little thought has gone into levying the strengths of its system to produce interesting results.

Whether levying its systems to produce more interesting results or not would make it less accessible or not is entirely besides the point.

Maybe when you figure this out you’ll stop sounding like a libertarian replying to any political question with “just lower taxes!” with your one-note response of “but this would lower accessibility” and engage with the actual point.

I’m not holding my breath, though.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Is it even (legally) possible to base a game on 3.5E or earlier anymore?

yes, it has an OGL, similar to 5e. 5e has been released in creative commons, which is different from the OGL, but functionally accomplishes much the same thing. People have been pushing for 3.5 to be released under the same creative commons license, which WOTC has said they will do, but who knows. At any rate, the OGL lets you release whatever you want. It's just that WOTC tried to retroactively change the agreement (which the OGL explicitly forbids, but that's another conversation) so that's why people are pushing for the creative commons release which would essentially be the end of the kind of run-pulling WOTC tried a couple(?) years ago with 5e's OGL.

Paizo also put up its own OGL thing in response to WotC fuckery. Relevant in that Pathfinder is a 3E offshoot.

 

[Roguey]

Right now, you are under the impressions that these two, distinct debates are one and the same - hence, great works of literature or film are lessened by their inaccessibility. Or at least, you will think “but that would make it less accessible” is a viable response for someone criticizing a work for being too shallow.

Not at all. I'm just saying the company has made its decision about the kind of audience they're going for.

Solasta is a poor game because too little thought has gone into levying the strengths of its system to produce interesting results.

As our old pal Tim Cain would say, it's a poor game for you. 87% of people on Steam consider it good enough for them. Will they all show up again? Eh, we'll see.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Sort of related to the earlier discussion of attunement, the system that kills me is concentration. I don't mind some spells getting blown up through damage, etc. but imo fewer spells should be concentration based or the system should be tweaked.

Having to choose between bless or bane or faerie fire or heat metal, for instance, is odd. The advantage/disadvantage system and rules around modifier stacking already removes most abusive mechanics, but being hamstrung on casting choices when the implemented spell list is already fairly thin doesn't feel great.

Even if you could concentrate on a number of spells equal to half your level round up or something like a slot for buffs and a slot for debuffs. Or more simply adjusting how many spells have the concentration tag. I think any of those would be an improvement.

 

[Harthwain]

Sort of related to the earlier discussion of attunement, the system that kills me is concentration. I don't mind some spells getting blown up through damage, etc. but imo fewer spells should be concentration based or the system should be tweaked.

I think that's the point - to make it sure that mages are protected or having high enough concentration to withstand taking some damage while casting.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Sort of related to the earlier discussion of attunement, the system that kills me is concentration. I don't mind some spells getting blown up through damage, etc. but imo fewer spells should be concentration based or the system should be tweaked.

I think that's the point - to make it sure that mages are protected or having high enough concentration to withstand taking some damage while casting.

That is the point. I don't mind that. The issue I'm talking about is where you can only concentrate on one spell at a time, pick one.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

The issue I'm talking about is where you can only concentrate on one spell at a time, pick one.

Seems like a working solution to prevent outrageous buffathons? Or is that why you're against it?

 

[mediocrepoet]

The issue I'm talking about is where you can only concentrate on one spell at a time, pick one.

Seems like a working solution to prevent outrageous buffathons? Or is that why you're against it?

God forbid you read the post in question:

Having to choose between bless or bane or faerie fire or heat metal, for instance, is odd. The advantage/disadvantage system and rules around modifier stacking already removes most abusive mechanics, but being hamstrung on casting choices when the implemented spell list is already fairly thin doesn't feel great.

Even if you could concentrate on a number of spells equal to half your level round up or something like a slot for buffs and a slot for debuffs. Or more simply adjusting how many spells have the concentration tag. I think any of those would be an improvement.

You have to choose between a buff and a debuff and can make a variety of your spell slots generally useless, depending on how you've chosen your spells unless you're just toggling ignore concentration, which is a far worse solution.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

The issue I'm talking about is where you can only concentrate on one spell at a time, pick one.

Seems like a working solution to prevent outrageous buffathons? Or is that why you're against it?

God forbid you read the post in question:

Barbarians are illiterate bro, don't you know?

Having to choose between bless or bane or faerie fire or heat metal, for instance, is odd.

Sorry man, it makes sense to me that you end up having to pick one persistent spell at one time.
But hey, nevermind, I don't even use the damn things.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I should have added hexagonal combat grids to the list of desired changes for Solasta II.

Absolutely not, hexagonal even rectangular grid takes away the immersion. Freedom of motion is the holy grail.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Having to choose between bless or bane or faerie fire or heat metal, for instance, is odd.

Sorry man, it makes sense to me that you end up having to pick one persistent spell at one time.
But hey, nevermind, I don't even use the damn things.

It's more which do and don't overlap that strikes me as odd. Spiritual weapon summons a floating weapon that can be commanded to attack or move through free actions, no concentration required. Flaming sphere summons a floating ball of fire that can be commanded to attack or move through free actions, requires concentration. Both are level two spells.

Grease creates a conjured field of grease that can cause enemies to slip every round, no concentration. Entangle creates a conjured field of vines that can cause enemies to become entangled, concentration. Both first level spells.

Mage armour conjures an AC boosting forcefield, no concentration. Shield of faith conjures an AC boosting forcefield, concentration required. Both first level spells.

Etc.

It's not even as clear cut as "conjuring a thing" vs. maintaining an arcane effect. That's what grinds my gears. Not the inability to get into a Pathfinder buff chain which I generally don't even do in Pathfinder. It's that the cure is worse than the disease, imo. (5E problem as opposed to Solasta issue, per se.) Like I say, even if you could maintain one buff and one debuff or only had buffs be concentration or something, I'd probably be less irritated about the whole thing.

 

[Grunker]

As our old pal Tim Cain would say, it's a poor game for you.

That's exactly my point. Tim Cain - and by extension you - is an idiot using the value assessment argument of a child. Using it, Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon is a greater work than War and Peace. Or, to steelman your position: at the very least you think the accessibility of the two works is a relevant value assessment, when it is clearly a completely seperate issue not related to the subject of quality at all.

Being less generous, "poor game for you" indicates you're beholden to one of the most foolish misconceptions of cultural debate; relativism. That is, that perspective is the only relevant factor in discussions about quality. If this were the case, no debate would ever be worth having, because relative perspective cannot be argued or debated. If truth - in this case the measure of something's quality - is simply in the eyes of the beholder, the truth-value of any statement is equal. Therefore, there's no sense in debating.

Fortunately, this is clearly not the case, as anyone with even a shallow sense of cultural understanding is able to argue why War and Peace is a greater work than Transformers using arguments based on the work's merits rather than popularity.

"It's just a matter of taste" is a crutch used by small minds to defend things they enjoy from the scrutiny of others. We have to figure out what we're discussing: quality/worthiness or popularity. The former is an interesting discussion that has to judge the work on a range of interesting merits that require actual scrutiny. The latter is what you use to derail just about any debate about any RPG in any thread.

Firstly, it's not an interesting discussion because it's not a discussion at all. Secondly and more importantly, you often mistake this discussion as being the same discussion as the former, when they are clearly quite unrelated. Thus, it makes no sense to reply to someone making a value assessment about something by replying that something would be less or more accessible. That's regardless of whether the person in question makes a good or poor argument - the point is you're not actually engaging with the debate at all.

Hence my example of the car. We are saying that Transformers is not a great work of fiction. You are saying that if it was, it would presumably be less accessible. Not only is that not the same debate, the second debate is an almost entirely binary discussion that is not only irrelevant but also so easily determined it is hardly worth talking about.

There's no shame in enjoying lesser things, mind. This is not a position about enjoyment at all. I'm just pointing out that what you enjoy and what is interesting or of quality is two seperate debates, the former being entirely uninteresting because it's so arbitrary and easily determined.

 

[d1r]

Remove 5E, too. It's not like I think it's a good system.

What system would be better?

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition