Solasta Solasta II - coming to Early Access in 2025

[mediocrepoet]

Sure, but think about what wilderness is. It's so vast, it's so full of absolute nothingness, that you can wander aimlessly for months before finding anything resembling civilization, a natural landmark, or anything of note whatsoever.

Solasta simulates this by only "allowing" you to visit locations that you already know about thus relieves you from the quite literally pointless exercise of experiencing every droll moment of trudging through utterly unnoteworthy terrain. By surprising you with occasional discoveries of sites and points of interest, it's giving you the most sensible method of maintaining the sense of space but without the ridiculous square map of uncover inch by inch.

If there's a better way to do it, I'm all ears.

Edit: I'd also like to hear the opinion of anyone who's ever DM'd a PnP campaign who was able to handle wilderness exploration in any other way.

I'm in the same camp as you, Crispy. For P&P we'd basically have a destination or purpose in mind such as look for X that you have reason to believe is north of where you are, all of which are best served by waypoints that you choose and then track passing time, supplies used, random encounters, etc. and I think that's the best way to do it then you "zoom back in" to the group if there's something notable for them to do/react to.

I think it's better than randomly removing fog of war and pixel hunting looking for caches of hidden crap the devs put in some random brick or trash can for reasons.

 

[Myzzrym]

Why hello there fellow doomposters, as promised I've come to answer a few questions I see being raised here.

1. Encounter Design

While I can't promise anything (since I'm not the one overseeing Encounter Design), the Design Team has taken note on the feedback we received during Solasta (and especially Lost Valley) regarding the fact that some encounters were basically "here is a big stick, run to the player and smack them on the head" - which is fine to have from time to time, but too much of the same made it very samey. Hopefully, most encounters should be more varied in terms of composition - and we're also trying to implement less "melee-only" monsters who are basically glorified stat-sticks (by giving them special attacks or powers notably).

Now, in terms of difficulty this is more of a challenge to assess. You have to remember that due to the fact that we allow ANY party-composition, and that so far in Solasta we did not have respec'ing (because it made no sense in the story - but who knows maybe we'll add that to Solasta II), we could not make fights super optimized to avoid having players getting soft-locked. Imagine giving a boss complete immunity to slashing / bludgeoning / piercing damage to encourage players to use magic, only to have it face a party composed of a Ranger, Fighter, Rogue and Monk.

I think there is a big question of how difficulty settings can be expressed, and that will (like everything else mentioned so far) depend on the time we have. Increasing / Decreasing stats is way easier than re-designing the encounter to include more monsters, or to have difficulty-specific AI for each monster, which is why we had that for Solasta I - but it's also less fun for the player as it doesn't really make you play any different.

TL;DR: We have a long list of things we want to do and a limited amount of time, and we have to see what we can do within that time.

2. Overworld Travel

The design isn't finalized for that yet, but I want to reiterate that it's not going to be full RNG - there are locations that are set. Some more optional areas will likely be randomized (within reason) to encourage exploring. Random encounters are not going to be only combat encounters, so hopefully that also means you won't get drowned under tons of XP traveling from point A to point B. It's also not always going to make you enter a new area - some events might just be flavour text or skill checks as you travel.

 

[Artyoan]

Myzzrym

1. In the twitch dev thing, the TA CEO compared the switch to Unreal as gearing up a new rocket ship that would do what Unity could not. But he was light on specifics as to what those capabilities are. So I wouldn't mind a more detailed explanation on what the potential advantages are for moving to Unreal.
2. Are the lighting, verticality, and cover systems still being implemented? How might they have changed, if they are?
3. At what point in development might you be able to state whether a dungeon maker is feasible or not? Before or after release?
4. Will reach weapons be available?
5. Will the environment now block directional spells like cone of cold and dragon's breath going through walls (as in Solasta 1)?

 

[Myzzrym]

Good to see you here Artyoan, loved your custom campaigns.

1. This I don't think I can answer in details because I am not part of the programming team. The move to Unreal was a result of many things, among which Unity's misteps (even if they arrived after we already started experimenting with Unreal) and the Art Team being showing us how much better visuals could be in Unreal. I'm sure the Programming Team also had many reasons to choose Unreal in the end, but I wouldn't want to give you any wrong information there.

2. They are still here, although verticality and lighting will change. Flying as stated during the stream is more complex to implement due to camera / pathfinding (basically since our world is no longer similar to minecraft with cells, it becomes much harder to say "I want to fly exactly here in this empty space, 6m above the ground, 3m from the left of where I'm currently at") - but we're still trying to figure out what we can do here. Lighting may also change a little as in the system is still here, but we're considering the idea of being outside at night simply be dim light instead of complete darkness, as visually many players would be like "hey it's actually quite illuminated" and not realize that gameplay-wise, it was considered darkness.

3. That I have no idea. Too early to say, but I'm sure Mathieu would like to crack that question open as soon as he can.

4. Not currently planned no, too much work.

5. That's one thing I brought up quite a lot in Solasta I. I can't tell you for certain yet, but I think it might be in the planning.

 

[Nortar]

4. Not currently planned no, too much work.

No grappling either I would guess.
So the combat system won't get any improvements at all?

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Sure, but think about what wilderness is. It's so vast, it's so full of absolute nothingness, that you can wander aimlessly for months before finding anything resembling civilization, a natural landmark, or anything of note whatsoever.

Solasta simulates this by only "allowing" you to visit locations that you already know about thus relieves you from the quite literally pointless exercise of experiencing every droll moment of trudging through utterly unnoteworthy terrain. By surprising you with occasional discoveries of sites and points of interest, it's giving you the most sensible method of maintaining the sense of space but without the ridiculous square map of uncover inch by inch.

If there's a better way to do it, I'm all ears.

Edit: I'd also like to hear the opinion of anyone who's ever DM'd a PnP campaign who was able to handle wilderness exploration in any other way.

Maybe the Pathfinder crpgs. You have a map to explore with several roads/paths you can discover gradually and follow, but you don't know where each specific path will bring you in advance. You have only a general idea of the direction to keep to reach the final target location.

 

[0sacred]

Varied overland encounters sounds great. I enjoyed Solasta despite not being a combatfag but I was wishing for more roleplaying/dialogue because I really enjoyed the personality system in conjunction with dialogue skills.

 

[IDtenT]

2. They are still here, although verticality and lighting will change. Flying as stated during the stream is more complex to implement due to camera / pathfinding (basically since our world is no longer similar to minecraft with cells, it becomes much harder to say "I want to fly exactly here in this empty space, 6m above the ground, 3m from the left of where I'm currently at") - but we're still trying to figure out what we can do here. Lighting may also change a little as in the system is still here, but we're considering the idea of being outside at night simply be dim light instead of complete darkness, as visually many players would be like "hey it's actually quite illuminated" and not realize that gameplay-wise, it was considered darkness.

I missed this when I was skipping through the stream. What exactly does this mean? Why the move away from cells? Is combat still going to be grid based?

 

[Mortmal]

1. Encounter Design


Now, in terms of difficulty this is more of a challenge to assess. You have to remember that due to the fact that we allow ANY party-composition, and that so far in Solasta we did not have respec'ing (because it made no sense in the story - but who knows maybe we'll add that to Solasta II), we could not make fights super optimized to avoid having players getting soft-locked. Imagine giving a boss complete immunity to slashing / bludgeoning / piercing damage to encourage players to use magic, only to have it face a party composed of a Ranger, Fighter, Rogue and Monk.

I think there is a big question of how difficulty settings can be expressed, and that will (like everything else mentioned so far) depend on the time we have. Increasing / Decreasing stats is way easier than re-designing the encounter to include more monsters, or to have difficulty-specific AI for each monster, which is why we had that for Solasta I - but it's also less fun for the player as it doesn't really make you play any different.

TL;DR: We have a long list of things we want to do and a limited amount of time, and we have to see what we can do within that time.

Thank you for answering. Unfortunately, you’ve confirmed my fears, and the doomposting is justified. It’s apparent that the same flaws are here to stay. While it’s not entirely your fault, this reflects a broader trend I’ve noticed in modern gaming: losing is treated as anathema and unthinkable. For example, facing melee-resistant monsters and losing because your party lacks a mage is a situation that should happen and can in smaller indie rpgs.

Modern games often allow for any party composition without real consequences. This is something you wouldn’t typically see in a real tabletop session, where the DM would allow players to choose their setup but would warn them about the risks: “Sure, do what you want, but you will be shredded.” I cannot expect a sentient AI in Solasta to act as a DM and handle this, but two distinctly different modes are possible.

Dungeons & Dragons 5E still relies heavily on its legacy systems, including the "holy trinity" of tank, DPS, and healer, which MMOs didn’t invent but certainly popularized. It’s unreasonable to think you can succeed with just any party composition in a module like Tomb of Annihilation. It’s impossible to beat that module without an optimized party. Similarly, this applies to the newer and more evolved Pathfinder 2E as well—the ruleset doesn’t allow for arbitrary setups to succeed against challenging encounters.

What concerns me is that it feels like the game difficulty is being designed to cater to the lowest-skilled players, which ultimately makes the experience unsatisfying for more experienced players. I’d prefer a design approach that doesn’t pander to the lowest common denominator ,such as the retarded YouTubers, and instead offers a meaningful challenge that rewards thoughtful party composition and and features deep gameplay.

 

[Litmanen]

1. Encounter Design


Now, in terms of difficulty this is more of a challenge to assess. You have to remember that due to the fact that we allow ANY party-composition, and that so far in Solasta we did not have respec'ing (because it made no sense in the story - but who knows maybe we'll add that to Solasta II), we could not make fights super optimized to avoid having players getting soft-locked. Imagine giving a boss complete immunity to slashing / bludgeoning / piercing damage to encourage players to use magic, only to have it face a party composed of a Ranger, Fighter, Rogue and Monk.

I think there is a big question of how difficulty settings can be expressed, and that will (like everything else mentioned so far) depend on the time we have. Increasing / Decreasing stats is way easier than re-designing the encounter to include more monsters, or to have difficulty-specific AI for each monster, which is why we had that for Solasta I - but it's also less fun for the player as it doesn't really make you play any different.

TL;DR: We have a long list of things we want to do and a limited amount of time, and we have to see what we can do within that time.

Thank you for answering. Unfortunately, you’ve confirmed my fears, and the doomposting is justified. It’s apparent that the same flaws are here to stay. While it’s not entirely your fault, this reflects a broader trend I’ve noticed in modern gaming: losing is treated as anathema and unthinkable. For example, facing melee-resistant monsters and losing because your party lacks a mage is a situation that should happen and can in smaller indie rpgs.

Completely agree. A game should have its own "philosophy/approach" and then it should be up to gamers to find a way to beat the game and its philosophy. To adapt your game to make it doable even if you do not understand basic rules, means you should have a great story/plot.

And Solasta hasn't a great story/plot.

 

[IDtenT]

Which brings you back to the 4-PC party, or that death is treated as game over.

 

[Artyoan]

basically since our world is no longer similar to minecraft with cells,

I'm guessing it is this element that also makes a dungeon maker harder to pull off.

 

[jungl]

The best thing about Solasta was exploring the scalable environments visuals then story telling which was meh. Unreal should push the visuals to the next level with its lighting and other stuff if utilized properly. Combat was a snore and felt pointless but thats 5e in general combat is brainless pointless wow basic attack or cast a spell yawn. There is no such thing as good encounter design in 5e because the game rules are boring. Character customization too also sucks but thats 5e again. Honestly I do not know how bioware made BG3 sell cause 5e dnd is ground breaking boring. Nostalgia and gooning at attractive 3d models is a hell of a dopamine drug I suppose.

 

[IDtenT]

Bioware

 

[DemonKing]

I hope they get rid of item attunement. That was one of the least intuitive and annoying parts of the original.

Also I liked in the original how you could engage enemies with your tank fighter character and keep them from bothering your more squishy characters. I remember trying this out in BG3 and the enemies basically ignored me and made a beeline for my casters which was annoying.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

The best thing about Solasta was exploring the scalable environments visuals then story telling which was meh. Unreal should push the visuals to the next level with its lighting and other stuff if utilized properly. Combat was a snore and felt pointless but thats 5e in general combat is brainless pointless wow basic attack or cast a spell yawn. There is no such thing as good encounter design in 5e because the game rules are boring. Character customization too also sucks but thats 5e again. Honestly I do not know how bioware made BG3 sell cause 5e dnd is ground breaking boring. Nostalgia and gooning at attractive 3d models is a hell of a dopamine drug I suppose.

It was discussed following Solasta's release that the game would have been much better if not constrained by the rules of "D&D 5th edition", but our assumption is that the association increased sales. Since they're no longer a new developer and can build on the reputation of their first release, perhaps they could drop that restriction, or at least be much more flexible with their implementation of the rules.

As for Baldur's Gate 3, it's rather obvious why it sold, to wit:

Lessons developers should learn from Baldur's Gate 3:

• Tactical, turn-based combat sells
• An RPG should have at least a semblance of exploration
• A considerable amount of interactivity with the world can be accomplished, even in a game with turn-based combat
• Quests can have various Choices & Consequences associated with them, and there can also be consequences for player actions outside quests
• RPGs can have a fairly non-linear structure

Lessons developers will learn from Baldur's Gate 3:

• Sex sells, especially with viral marketing
• Aside from a single player-generated character, the party members should be pre-generated and have ludicrously convoluted backstories
• Vast amounts of money should be spent on voice-acting and motion-capture, especially for those pre-generated companions
• Embrace the worst fantasy setting possible
• Players don't care about basing your game on a poor ruleset, such as "D&D 5th edition"

 

[Denim Destroyer]

I cannot imagine Tactical Adventures would be willing to drop the easily marketable and even easier to explain 5E for any other system.

 

[jungl]

I don't mind turn based I love turn based but 5e is dreadfully boring maybe they can make one that is quasi turn based. We need bioware geniuses Ray and Greg to make DnD great again.

Real time games are fun you have the company of heroes franchise which is a good example of games that feel like turn based fire emblem but in real time which happens to be insanely addicting. Is it possible to do the same with 5e somehow? Probably not with todays game developers.

 

[Myzzrym]

Thank you for answering. Unfortunately, you’ve confirmed my fears, and the doomposting is justified. It’s apparent that the same flaws are here to stay. While it’s not entirely your fault, this reflects a broader trend I’ve noticed in modern gaming: losing is treated as anathema and unthinkable. For example, facing melee-resistant monsters and losing because your party lacks a mage is a situation that should happen and can in smaller indie rpgs.

Modern games often allow for any party composition without real consequences. This is something you wouldn’t typically see in a real tabletop session, where the DM would allow players to choose their setup but would warn them about the risks: “Sure, do what you want, but you will be shredded.” I cannot expect a sentient AI in Solasta to act as a DM and handle this, but two distinctly different modes are possible.

Dungeons & Dragons 5E still relies heavily on its legacy systems, including the "holy trinity" of tank, DPS, and healer, which MMOs didn’t invent but certainly popularized. It’s unreasonable to think you can succeed with just any party composition in a module like Tomb of Annihilation. It’s impossible to beat that module without an optimized party. Similarly, this applies to the newer and more evolved Pathfinder 2E as well—the ruleset doesn’t allow for arbitrary setups to succeed against challenging encounters.

What concerns me is that it feels like the game difficulty is being designed to cater to the lowest-skilled players, which ultimately makes the experience unsatisfying for more experienced players. I’d prefer a design approach that doesn’t pander to the lowest common denominator ,such as the retarded YouTubers, and instead offers a meaningful challenge that rewards thoughtful party composition and and features deep gameplay.

I mean, it is a fair worry to have. One thing that Solasta lacks compared to a true TTRPG campaign is that a DM can adjust on the fly to make encounters hard, interesting but also not impossible (unless the players really did something stupid). A DM can also modify the content of his campaign depending on what type of players they have - if all are itching for a challenge sure thing y'all are in for a beating, but there are also players who are more here for the story, or who are just starting out, etc etc.

I don't necessarily think that the game will pander to the lowest common denominator as you would call it. We have difficulty options, story mode exists for a reason. We've seen quite a fair share of players get wiped on different bosses in Solasta I (Aksha is fairly known to be a difficulty spike if you don't know how to handle her). However, if you're wondering if we will challenge the veteran optimizer who've figured the ins and outs of the system and how to abuse every advantage they can find... probably not, no, not in the standard difficulty setting. My hope is that we can provide you with a challenge at higher difficulty level without only ressorting to increased stats, like I said above - more monsters, different composition, etc etc (but that remains to be seen).

At the end of the day I think we're still going for something that's can give you a fair challenge, the goal is not just for every player to stroll through the game without any difficulty. There will be reloads, there will be ragequit, there will be people cursing the RNG and be convinced that we somehow "made the AI cheat" because "their rolls are better". But we don't want the game to lock you in a game over because of a choice you made 10h ago either, there should always be a way to progress.

That may not be what you're looking for, and you know what that's fine, to each their own taste. Maybe in the future there are some more hardcore dungeon creators who will make some spicy campaigns! In any case, I appreciate you guys giving me your perspective on stuff.

 

[Grunker]

We obviously have reason for doomposting. They’ve mentioned focusing on just about every aspect of the game - except its weakest aspect (encounter design) and it’s main redeemable quality (verticality).

The last thing didn’t get any shine because the encounter design was so lackluster. If they focus on more open world interaction and logistics - things the original did quite poorly - they are focusing on the things that were run-of-the-mill, poor implementations if systems that were done better in other games, presumably to the exclusion of what could have made the original an amazing game and what was entirely unique about it.

Solasta had the potential to be one of my favorite games of its generation but ended up very forgettable. I’ve heard nothing that tells me it’s sequel will be different, yet.

 

[Nikanuur]

We obviously have reason for doomposting. They’ve mentioned focusing on just about every aspect of the game - except its weakest aspect (encounter design) and it’s main redeemable quality (verticality).

The last thing didn’t get any shine because the encounter design was so lackluster. If they focus on more open world interaction and logistics - things the original did quite poorly - they are focusing on the things that were run-of-the-mill, poor implementations if systems that were done better in other games, presumably to the exclusion of what could have made the original an amazing game and what was entirely unique about it.

Solasta had the potential to be one of my favorite games of its generation but ended up very forgettable. I’ve heard nothing that tells me it’s sequel will be different, yet.

I've asked about the very same thing on the official Discord. I've been told that: 1. The encounters will be various types this time around, and not 'only combat' as before. 2. There will be random encounters of those non-combat types on your journeys, too. 3. Conversations will have different courses. 4. The game will focus on exploration much more than first Solasta. On the latter—that isn't some strong saying, since Solasta's exploration was barebones to begin with, but still, it means that they will focus on things aventuring, as well.

 

[Grunker]

^ All that only deepens my worry. The whole point is that the problem with Solasta wasn’t the amount of combat but that the combat was always just some enemies plopped down in a space often without thought or intend, making it wholly uninteresting. Not enough emphasis on challenging the action economy - and even well-designed enemies and battlemaps made no effort to take advantage of their design in the implemented encounters, whether due to enemy placement, AI, difficulty or a variety of other reasons. Now they’re diversifying the content without having shown the ability to make the content that they already have interesting.

Look at how Artyoan as one single dude was able to take advantage of the engine to build interesting encounters and compare that to the base game and DLC.

 

[Nikanuur]

Now, in terms of difficulty this is more of a challenge to assess. You have to remember that due to the fact that we allow ANY party-composition, and that so far in Solasta we did not have respec'ing (because it made no sense in the story - but who knows maybe we'll add that to Solasta II), we could not make fights super optimized to avoid having players getting soft-locked. Imagine giving a boss complete immunity to slashing / bludgeoning / piercing damage to encourage players to use magic, only to have it face a party composed of a Ranger, Fighter, Rogue and Monk.

Since when has complete immunity to physical damage been anything but a well-known trope in RPGs, for crying out loud?

What about magical weapons? What about scrolls, wands, foci, hired help, or tutorials clearly stating that a well-rounded party—composed of damage dealers, tanks, healers, and casters—is generally needed to overcome the challenges of this world? And how about the warning that any other composition is inadvisable unless the player deeply understands the ruleset?

I’m not nitpicking physical immunity per se; I’m using it as an example, just like you did.

If an RPG player is dense enough to build a party of pure damage dealers despite all of that, only to whine in forums and reviews about how the game is "too hard" or "trash," then let them reap the just rewards of their own stupidity. Anyone but absolute morons would see through such nonsense.

And as for sales—there’s no need to worry. Solasta isn’t aiming to sell hundreds of millions of copies so that it also has to cater to the masses of clueless, spoiled brats who make up a significant chunk of the general gaming market. A reasonably challenging game would still attract plenty of buyers—boomers and people with the mental capacity to at least finish high school included

EDIT: Sorry, if I came off a bit rude, but it's frustrating to see hints of an indie company trying to follow the steps of nowadays horribly declining AAA's.

 

[Infinitron]

SKALD: Against the Black Priory is a much more indie game than Solasta, literally made by one guy.

Its "annoying immune enemies" area was the Tower of Ash, where enemies weren't actually fully immune to anything but were strongly resistant to most damage types.

It was really annoying to people, made combat a slog. If you're a studio that has mouths to feed, do you really want to deal with that shit? Is it really worth it?

I would say, only in optional out-of-the-way encounters.

 

[Nikanuur]

Now, in terms of difficulty this is more of a challenge to assess. You have to remember that due to the fact that we allow ANY party-composition, and that so far in Solasta we did not have respec'ing (because it made no sense in the story - but who knows maybe we'll add that to Solasta II), we could not make fights super optimized to avoid having players getting soft-locked. Imagine giving a boss complete immunity to slashing / bludgeoning / piercing damage to encourage players to use magic, only to have it face a party composed of a Ranger, Fighter, Rogue and Monk.

Since when has complete immunity to physical damage been anything but a well-known trope in RPGs, for crying out loud?

What about magical weapons? What about scrolls, wands, foci, hired help, or tutorials clearly stating that a well-rounded party—composed of damage dealers, tanks, healers, and casters—is generally needed to overcome the challenges of this world? And how about the warning that any other composition is inadvisable unless the player deeply understands the ruleset?

I’m not nitpicking physical immunity per se; I’m using it as an example, just like you did.

If an RPG player is dense enough to build a party of pure damage dealers despite all of that, only to whine in forums and reviews about how the game is "too hard" or "trash," then let them reap the just rewards of their own stupidity. Anyone but absolute morons would see through such nonsense.

And as for sales—there’s no need to worry. Solasta isn’t aiming to sell hundreds of millions of copies so that it also has to cater to the masses of clueless, spoiled brats who make up a significant chunk of the general gaming market. A reasonably challenging game would still attract plenty of buyers—boomers and people with the mental capacity to at least finish high school included

EDIT: Sorry, if I came off a bit rude, but it's frustrating to see hints of an indie company trying to follow the steps of nowadays horribly declining AAA's.

SKALD: Against the Black Priory is a much more indie game than Solasta, literally made by one guy.

Its "annoying immune enemies" area was the Tower of Ash, where enemies weren't actually fully immune to anything but were strongly resistant to most damage types.

It was really annoying to people, made combat a slog. If you're a studio that has mouths to feed, do you really want to deal with that shit? Is it really worth it?

I would say, only in optional out-of-the-way encounters.

Good point. It definitely shouldn't be overused.
Out of the two scenarios:

1. “For several hours of gameplay, I’ve mostly encountered enemies resistant to most damage types, making it frustrating to advance.”
2. “This specific creature that appears here and there or this one particular boss has been driving me crazy—it took me too long to realize I should’ve been using poison (or whichever counter...).”

The first scenario is a rather questionable design that feels tedious and uninspired. I remember that one from SKALD only too well (otherwise an awesome game).
The second, is an example of proper RPG design: an occasional enemy (of the same type) with specific immunities or a challenging boss (...with specific immunities) that demands prior research, quick thinking, or experimentation to defeat.
I'd argue that's a well-established trope, no matter how much the more nefarious part of the younger generation of players (not to lump all young players together, mind you ) might hate or trash-talk it.
When game developers cater to this group—which seems to be happening more and more these days—we end up with monstrosities like Aloy's constant self-talk, spoiling every puzzle or specific approach literally within 2 seconds of encountering it.