Pillars of Eternity Beta Discussion [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Abu Antar]

Try harder.

"Joke failed. You lose 2 willpower."

Sensuki: I really don't see how controlling the game with a controller would work well.

 

[polo]

Who said it would work well, game doesn't even work well with keyboard right now .
PS: I liked the Pre-order trailer.

 

[Grotesque]

Something tells me that this game will be as buggy as hell at the release. The name "bugsidian" will be taken to new heights.

 

[Sensuki]

Especially if their QA team neglects the bug reports from the forums.

 

[Duraframe300]

Something tells me that this game will be as buggy as hell at the release. The name "bugsidian" will be taken to new heights.

NWN2 exists, so doubt they manage that.

 

[aeonsim]

Dragons won't have spells I'm guessing so I doubt the Dragon fights will be as good as BG2. They probably won't slap your characters across the room either (notice how all BG2 dragons are fought in a confined round space or something? Haha).

One of the big things they said they could do with the new engine is force effects from abilities and spells (fireballs knocking characters back). So I'd expect dragons to be able to do that.

I'd also expect breath attacks to have secondary effects, and abilities are more spell like in PoE anyways.

On the other hand, if you're just looking for hard counters, you won't get what you want.

Fireballs don't knock characters back though. Have you played the game recently? Spell casting essentially boils down to casting pure damage and debuffing. There is no point casting any self-buffs 99% of the time. It's really boring.

Yeah they don't knock people back though there is at least 1 druid spell (winters wind) that does do that so it certainly would be possible to change fireballs to do so or have some other spell/ability that pushes characters back while doing damage.

 

[Sensuki]

But that's not what a Fireball does in D&D or in the IE games. Winter Wind is a 4E Druid Ability that "pushes" an enemy 1 square or something. Derka derka turn-based spell design.

 

[Infinitron]

Make up your mind, Sensuki. Either Pillars of Eternity is horrible for discouraging movement, or it's horrible for having spells and abilities that move you.

 

[Sensuki]

No, the design wants you to pretty much not be able to move in melee unless you use an ability. That's retarded and that's a turn-based thing. The Winter Wind spell (if it hits) is part of that shitty design.

Real-time games other than the (really bad) NWN1, NWN2 are the opposite, if you want to fucking stop someone moving, you need to use an ability.

Currently quote mining on the issue and

I certainly understand if not everyone likes it, but it feels more in the spirit of D&D mechanics as well as mechanics that were in NWN and NWN2.

He should have specified 3E+

BUT ALSO

Practically speaking, NWN2's combat rarely requires much tactical thought.

Gee, wonder why.

A bunch of backers requested front-line stickiness. Without adding an aggro mechanic (which again, many backers rejected out of hand) there are only so many ways to accomplish that.

Doesn't play enough real-time games, tbh.

 

[Infinitron]

No, the design wants you to pretty much not be able to move in melee unless you use an ability. That's retarded and that's a turn-based thing. The Winter Wind spell (if it hits) is part of that shitty design.

You can not like that design, but it doesn't really have anything to do with turn-based. There are real-time combat games where moving units who are engaged in melee is fatal, although it might be implemented in a different way than a binary melee engagement-->disengagement attack check.

For example, there are games where when entering and exiting melee, your characters slow down to enter/exit a melee stance, and during that time they're vulnerable.

 

[Sensuki]

That doesn't happen in Pillars of Eternity, and those games are usually either action games or single unit style games. You are not thinking about what the system actually is, and judging by your counted hours in the game, I doubt you've ever experienced one first hand.

The Engagement mechanic is a combination of a targeting clause (auto-attack engager) and a disengagement attack. The targeting clause is in effect, an aggro mechanic just like what people were complaining about being in the game in the first place, and attacks of opportunity (free attacks, independent of standard actions, invisible, automatic, not subject to the rules of real-time gameplay) are a turn-based mechanic. No one can deny that. They were created for turn-based games to solve issues in turn-based games. These issues are not apparent in real-time games. I understand the reason why they went with the mechanic, but I think that it is severely detrimental to the gameplay, even more so than in NWN1 and NWN2.

If they want to make the gameplay feel like the Infinity Engine games then they need to remove it, and move unit stickiness to abilities.

I am against both components of the system - I do not want shit in the game that cancels my units actions, and I don't want automatic mechanics in the game to penalize movement. Their mindset from the beginning has been completely barfed - like with the recovery time paused while moving. That combined with the engagement system, it was completely pointless to move in combat at all unless moving from a dead target to the next one.

I dunno if I can see them removing it because it restricts movement though, probably only if they can't get it working.

 

[Infinitron]

That doesn't happen in Pillars of Eternity, and those games are usually either action games or single unit style games.

Nope. Play Rome: Total War and try to disengage a formation that's committed to melee. Massive carnage. Only instead of it being a binary WHACK like in PoE, it's a long process of a bunch of your guys getting whittled down as the unit slowly retreats out of melee before escaping.

You are not think about what the disengagement attack actually is, and judging by your counted hours in the game, I doubt you've ever experienced one first hand.

The Engagement mechanic is a combination of a targeting clause (auto-attack engager) and a disengagement attack. The targeting clause is in effect, an aggro mechanic just like what people were complaining about being in the game in the first place, and attacks of opportunity (free attacks, independent of standard actions, invisible, automatic, not subject to the rules of real-time gameplay) are a turn-based mechanic. No one can deny that. They were created for turn-based games to solve issues in turn-based games. These issues are not apparent in real-time games.

It's not a question of solving issues. Systems that incentivize relatively static orders of battle can be both turn-based and real-time. And same is true for systems with relatively free movement - with the right tuning (lots of APs, weak or no attacks of opportunity), a turn-based game can also let you run around the battlefield and kick ass on your turn.

 

[Sensuki]

Nope. Play Rome: Total War and try to disengage a formation that's committed to melee. Massive carnage. Only instead of it being a binary WHACK like in PoE, it's a long process of a bunch of your guys getting whittled down as the unit slowly retreats out of melee before escaping.

I'll pay that, although that mechanic actually makes sense for that game, those units are commanded as one big clump and moving them is a slow process. Not to mention that when two groups of units are in melee, they converge with one another and take up the same physical space in the square. The units that get dropped are the ones that fall behind enemy lines. The units in the game are making real attacks that are more effective because the unit is moving.

with the right tuning (lots of APs, weak or no attacks of opportunity), a turn-based game can also let you run around the battlefield and kick ass on your turn.

or you just separate AP and MP. Problem solved.

Systems that incentivize relatively static orders of battle can be both turn-based and real-time.

The Infinity Engine games were not like that, and every time I've heard Josh talk about combat he has always emphasized the word tactical, the systems he has put in place makes the game less tactical than games that reward in combat movement and positioning.

If they want the combat to play like an Infinity Engine game they need to free this up, otherwise it will be pretty banal. There are people who like the NWN1 stand there and do nothing combat, but the people who enjoyed the IE game combat will almost certainly be disappointed.

Removing this mechanic and moving stickiness to abilities will reward and encourage tactical play in combat.

 

[Athelas]

Sensuki, have you started a thread on the Obsidian forums specifically about the problems with the engagement system? If not, you should.

 

[Infinitron]

I'll pay that, although that mechanic actually makes sense for that game, those units are commanded as one big clump and moving them is a slow process. Not to mention that when two groups of units are in melee, they converge with one another and take up the same physical space in the square. The units that get dropped are the ones that fall behind enemy lines. The units in the game are making real attacks that are more effective because the unit is moving.

Well, I've already advocated a melee engagement system that uses slowing down and speeding up character movement to signal to the character when he's entering and exiting melee: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68...-game-its-not-just-about-the-visual-feedback/

What Total War does is just the logical evolution of that, now that I think of it. Rather than entering and exiting a melee state that locks you into a position where you can't move without getting hit by a disengagement attack, the process of entering and exiting is itself the disengagement attack, spaced out over a longer period of time.

I doubt Obsidian will implement something like that for this game, but I think it's something they should consider for the future. It fits in with Josh's MO of making things less discrete and "spikey" and more continuous. I don't think the current concept of melee engagement is an OMG DISASTER, but it could be better.

But I digress.

The Infinity Engine games were not like that, and every time I've heard Josh talk about combat he has always emphasized the word tactical, the systems he has put in place makes the game less tactical than games that reward in combat movement and positioning.

If they want the combat to play like an Infinity Engine game they need to free this up, otherwise it will be pretty banal. There are people who like the NWN1 stand there and do nothing combat, but the people who enjoyed the IE game combat will almost certainly be disappointed.

Yes, that's your opinion, but contrary to what you say, I don't think everybody played the Infinity Engine games that way, or was particularly attached to the notion of playing them that way. I'm also not sure the IE games really were that "movementy" in the first place. Yes, you could do that stuff, but how important was it it really?

But that's what this is about, after all, right? They're keeping the things people care about and that they believe are core to the experience, and changing the things they believe people don't care about and aren't core to the experience. *shrug* Good luck convincing them.

 

[Sensuki]

I don't mind those slow down for melee mechanics you talk about, I just don't think they fit this game.

Athelas, I am going to make a thread but I don't want to blow it. I'm going to make videos, write something and maybe even modify some class abilities with the type of stuff I would like to see and demonstrate them in the game with no Engagement.

Yes, that's your opinion, but contrary to what you say, I don't think everybody played the Infinity Engine games that way, or was particularly attached to the notion of playing them that way. I'm also not sure the IE games really were that "movementy" in the first place. Yes, you could do that stuff, but how important was it it really?

But that's what this is about, after all, right? They're keeping the things people care about and that they believe are core to the experience, and changing the things they believe people don't care about and aren't core to the experience. *shrug* Good luck convincing them.

Most people are more concerned about kiting. Kiting is not prevented by the Melee Engagement system at all, I've already demonstrated that. Sticky abilities (slows, disables) is what prevents kiting in other games. So I'm going to tie that into my argument.

 

[tuluse]

I think everyone did the have one guy run in a circle while the other 5 characters pelt his chaser with arrows

 

[Sensuki]

See my above edit.

 

[Sensuki]

Okay I figured out how to add new elements to StatusEffect arrays in the Unity Inspector today, took me a while to figure out that it is an array, an I have to change the array size and voila, it creates new elements!

I am going to modify the Fighter Knock Down into a Cone AoE Movement Slow (just as an example of melee stickiness).

 

[Sensuki]

badler feedback from dev playthrough so far:

I can only speak for myself but... I am having a blast. There are still tons of balance and polish bugs that we need to clean up, but I am having a great time running through the beginning of the game.

Things I think we need to work on after playing for a couple of days:

• Feedback in UI - there are some UI screens that we need to tweak to give better feedback. One example is when you are buying camping supplies, the store UI doesn't mention when you are at max capacity. You aren't allowed to buy more, but it never informs you why that is the case. There are lots of little things like this that we will need to clean up.
• Fatigue - I think we need to tweak the fatigue numbers a bit. I feel like it needs to take a bit longer before fatigue starts to set in. I like the system, but since resting out in the field is a resource, it forces me to run back to an inn more often than I would like.
• Balance - Like I mentioned before we need to do more balance passes on many of the systems. This is pretty normal, though.
• Save/Load - We are still having strange behavior from save/load. Nothing particularly game-breaking, but lots of little annoyance things.

That is my quick list. I am sure it will change or morph throughout the week.

Also, I am loving my chanter. I was a little cold on it when I first started her, but I am loving her invocations now.

Yes, fatigue does set in quite early if you have 0 Athletics.

 

[Athelas]

I can only speak for myself but... I am having a blast.

What game is he playing?

 

[Bester]

I can only speak for myself but... I am having a blast.

What game is he playing?

You shouldn't forget the context. They're playing during their working hours right now. Naturally in comparison to working their asses off, PoE may seem like a pleasant experience. On its own though, not so sure.

Things I think we need to work on after playing for a couple of days:

Well nice job, you just found out what everyone already knew, so much for efficiently spending your employees' time.

Say they make all obs employees play PoE for 5 hours. Say they have 40 people on the team. It's 200 hours spent on finding out what everyone already knows. It takes much more than 5 hours to really appreciate the whole situation, and none of them will put in that much time. So after 200 of manhours spent, all they have is superficial remarks. Everyone congratulates everyone, pats on the back across the office, "good job everyone"... "Oh, and don't forget - don't read those forums on account of all the trolls there that just want to see us fail. I swear, the negativity there, bweh!"

 

[Sensuki]

I can only speak for myself but... I am having a blast.

What game is he playing?

You shouldn't forget the context. They're playing during their working hours right now. Naturally in comparison to working their asses off, PoE may seem like a pleasant experience. On its own though, not so sure.

Yeah good point.

Josh replying to my post about slowing down recovery of classes

The creatures that drop party members in 2 hits (e.g., forest/swamp lurkers) are outliers. When people (externally and internally) give examples of the typical situations where combat moves too fast, it usually isn't the party vs. one big dude, it's the party vs. a pack of creatures that are attacking and re-attacking en masse before the player's reactive commands can be of value (or simply enough value to outpace the damage output).

Almost all party members wear armor, so they're all suffering penalties to recovery time. Adding a flat recovery penalty to creature armor makes them act more at the pace of party members (a good thing, IMO). It's also very easy because I can mass select all creature armors in the creature armor folder and set the Recovery Penalty to one value. Tuning up global recovery time is also incredibly easy. It's one variable in the editor. It is almost always better to turn the big dials (like global recovery) first and make broad changes if there seem to be broad problems.

I put in most of these changes last night (in addition to lowering the standard cast time from 3 seconds to 2) and it felt better in the testing that I did.

 

[Semper]

I am going to modify the Fighter Knock Down into a Cone AoE Movement Slow (just as an example of melee stickiness).

which is totally useless if the ai ain't re-evaluating targets while in combat. it would be nice to have some taunt like talents in addition to ones similar to the rogue's escape. this way there would be different tactically viable options, both offensive and defensive in combination with an intact engagement system. just shuffling around meat shields to spread out damage without any penalty ain't that interesting either, though i agree that in comparison to the ie games the positioning feels a bit too static.

 

[tuluse]

which is totally useless if the ai ain't re-evaluating targets while in combat. it would be nice to have some taunt like talents in addition to ones similar to the rogue's escape. this way there would be different tactically viable options, both offensive and defensive in combination with an intact engagement system. just shuffling around meat shields to spread out damage without any penalty ain't that interesting either, though i agree that in comparison to the ie games the positioning feels a bit too static.

The backers made it clear they didn't want MMO style threat management ^_^