Eternity Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Pre-Release Thread [BETA RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Sentinel]

Did you replace Edér too?

 

[Lacrymas]

Funny story that, I managed to resist his aforementioned blue eyes and strong arms and didn't even talk to him, but it seems like Obsidian couldn't fathom the possibility that someone wouldn't have him in the party, so his banter in the Temple of Eothas triggers even if he isn't there, lol.

 

[Quillon]

Can't decide if you guys are discussing class choices or re-speccing.

I agree there should be repeccing for attributes too but class choice is more fundamental; I suggested the same thing 1.5 years ago(http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...rnity-ii-deadfire.108836/page-59#post-4937222) they came half way to it with Deadfire which is more than enough without changing the whole nature of the game.

There is near zero connection between character-class-narrative/lore in DOS, not the same for PoE & likes. I guess f.i. they could allow us to make Eder any class but they'd have to sacrifice some narrative strength for the character & they can't do nothing for Pallegina cos of stronger ties to lore etc. Not the same type of games. For DOS Larian focuses on about %80 combat - %20 narrative, for PoE its about 50-50.

 

[Grunker]

I would like both, but respeccing is better than nothing.

Also, as far as the narrative goes, I don't care that there's dissonance between what it says on the sheet/what I do during combat, and what happens in the narrative. I totally understand why most people do, I just personally don't.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Reminds me of an anecdote btw: when I visited Logic Artists while they were working on Conquistador, there were a lot of debates about game balance and they said they were considering implementing an "Expert" screen under difficulty options with sliders for literally every variable in the combat to allow veteran players to customize their experience exactly how they wanted to. I quickly said "I can understand why you wouldn't do that without consideration, sounds like a huge ordeal to implement."

Surprisingly they told me no, it would take one dude working one hour and they already had most of the interface working for their own playtesters. Baffled I asked why they didn't do it, and they told me:

"It's sort of looked down upon among developers, leaving that kind of choice to the player. You're supposed to present them a complete package and allowing player control over everything is viewed as a cop-out even if you actually balance set difficulty modes on top of that. The assumption is that players don't know what they like."

"But that makes no sense - it's hidden behind an "Experts" tab, i.e. it's for players who know the game and know what they want," I said.

"Yeah, but it's an issue of control, i.e.: "What if players play my game in a way I didn't intend?""

IMO goes against the whole idea of play. Fortunately Logic Artists actually ended up including a lot of those sliders.

Difficulty sliders seem to have a lot of weirdass psychological baggage attached to them. A lot people just get married to the settings they picked at the start of the game, and would rather uninstall the game than tone the sliders down. Or they hit the forums/social media and whine that game is too hard, rather than tone the sliders down. Some people just can't face the possibility that they might simply suck. So I can relate to them having doubts about including expert mode, because you know there's going to be bunch of morons who turn every slider to the max and then blame the devs the game turns out too hard.

 

[Hyperion]

Is it really that dissonant to allow for a Wizardry-esque character creation for your entire party, but still have pre-determined character personalities and looks? Is the dissonance that much greater than the fact we're talking about a game whose mechanics make a Wizard who specializes in Might, but is dumb as a rock cast more powerful than some nerd with an IQ of 194, but has 3" biceps?

Not enough games allow for full creation, because, like in Grunker's anecdote, game developers are a little too controlling and think players should be playing a game according to their vision. Which is pathetic, for a genre whose origins lie entirely on making your own character, your own story, and your adventure with D&D.

 

[Grunker]

At its simplest, I don't get why the designers go to so many lengths to implement all this awesome choice and customization only to lock full control away from anything except one character per playthrough

 

[Lacrymas]

I don't know why people think that Might = physical strength, it's clearly not. It can, and does, represent all kinds of destructive power, that includes spells. It's destructive because Resolve handles strength of personality. I think the most dissonant attribute is Intelligence, while I can understand the increased radius of AoE attacks (smarter positioning) it doesn't explain how a 3 INT Wizard can cast any spells at all, as the entire class revolves around the memorization of knowledge. I guess some narrative logic has to be sacrificed at the altar of mechanics.

 

[Quillon]

how a 3 INT Wizard can cast any spells at all, as the entire class revolves around the memorization of knowledge.

Why they carry a big ass book around if they are so good at memorization?

 

[Lacrymas]

They don't memorize the spell incantations as they are mind-bogglingly complex, they memorize hand gestures and stuff, it was all explained in the tiniest detail somewhere. You can't pass Wizard school without using any kind of mental faculty, so it's still iffy to have 3 INT as a Wizard.

 

[Hyperion]

I don't know why people think that Might = physical strength

might

[mahyt]
noun
1.
physical strength:
He swung with all his might.

It's literally the first definition for the 'noun' version of the word, and is the most accepted form of the word.

 

[Lacrymas]

Actually, Merriam-Webster give it as


might
1 a :the power, authority, or resources wielded (as by an individual or group)
b (1) :bodily strength
(2) :the power, energy, or intensity of which one is capable of

Which is correct and much more in line with what PoE's Might is.

 

[Hyperion]

But it doesn't line up with the game's usage of Might during dialogue, or cutscenes. Why should a Wizard with 18 Might be able to physically bend the bars leading into the sewer of Raedric's Keep? It's pretty obvious that it refers to physical strength, and brute force.

 

[Quillon]

Hyperion is right. (wanna see more PoE defending by Lacrymas, initiate Sawyerist)

 

[Lacrymas]

Yeah, that's an oversight, the whole game is full of them, so no surprise there.

 

[Infinitron]

Why should having a higher IQ make your fireballs hotter, eh? The Int->AoE mechanic makes more sense insofar as one can rationalize intelligence as allowing the caster to manipulate the spell's spatial physics more efficiently or something.

As for the companions, it might not be anything more than not wanting to discourage people with a sequence like "Hi, meet Eder, your first companion. He can be anything. Choose one of 11 classes."

 

[Sentinel]

Why should having a higher IQ make your fireballs hotter, eh?

Are you arguing against spell scaling? 'Cause I agree

 

[Anthony Davis]

Most game developers I know (myself included) have a much better grasp on Eurocentric concepts than just about anything else. It isn't even close, really. Asking them to spend hundreds of hours researching Aztec and conquistador culture/civilization is probably a hard sell.

you make it sound like run-of-the-mill fantasy settings are grounded in houndreds of hours spent on researching medieval times. i even highly doubt that the average game developer ever takes an actual history book in hand.

10-15 years ago you would have been sorely mistaken. Some designers still read research books, Josh for example still carries* around whatever he is reading at the moment, but a lot of the younger designers use online resources, and no, not just Wikipedia.

*Last thing I saw Josh carry around was some famous book with martial sword maneuvers, with real "names" for the maneuvers, and these medieval sketches showing swordsmen giving people the business.

 

[Lacrymas]

I use online books/dissertations for my research as well, mostly because there isn't anywhere to get these materials from or they are too expensive. Even Harvard, the wealthiest university in the world, complained about how they couldn't afford the scientific literature they themselves created. I sometimes use physical books, like for my last exam on the history of Bulgarian music, but that's because they aren't available online anywhere. Not to mention how outdated and socialist they are, it was a pain, but I digress. Unless you mean internet resources that aren't scanned or converted to PDF books, which is iffy.

 

[Hyperion]

Why should having a higher IQ make your fireballs hotter, eh? The Int->AoE mechanic makes more sense insofar as one can rationalize intelligence as allowing the caster to manipulate the spell's spatial physics more efficiently or something.

As for the companions, it might not be anything more than not wanting to discourage people with a sequence like "Hi, meet Eder, your first companion. He can be anything. Choose one of 11 classes."

Because a higher Intelligence correlated with better control over Arcane strength makes a lot more sense than bodily strength. It doesn't completely make sense either. The perfect example is Carnage.

The barbarian's attacks become so forceful as to impact other around the target enemy. For every successful melee attack, the barbarian makes reduced-damage attacks at all other enemies within short distance of the target.

It would make perfect sense for Might to scale the AoE of Carnage, but it would have made Barbarians obviously overpowered as shit to have their damage and the AoE of their core skill scale off the same stat. There would be no reason to ever make a Barbarian with <20 Might at character creation, and would severely limit build options. It's just a question of what amount of dissonance is acceptable.

 

[pomenitul]

To possess 'might' means you 'may,' i.e. you are able to perform such and such an act. Much like 'power' (derived from the Vulgar Latin potere), it evokes the notion of possibility, which covers bodily strength but also goes far beyond it.

 

[Lacrymas]

Pretty interesting etymology.

 

[aweigh]

Reeeee speck... MUH HEEEEEAAAART...


SAAAY YOU'LL LOOOVE MEEE AGAAAIN!!!!!!

 

[KateMicucci]

This discussion of the PoE class system the perfect reminder of why I probably shouldn't bother with the sequel.

Implementing a classless system would surely be easier, and produce better results, than trying to recreate the abomination of D&D multi-classing.

 

[aweigh]

Kate


Class-less systems are an opiate of the masses! Sad!