Divinity: Original Sin 2 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Lacrymas]

That's meta-game knowledge though, and also abuse of the save system :p Besides, in party-based RPGs one item can't conceivably break the game. Getting the Ankheg Plate in BG doesn't do that. There's also the point that there's nothing wrong with meta-game knowledge after you've played the game once or more already.

 

[imweasel]

The One Weird Trick to Break Fallout 2 involves savescumming your way to Navarro to get Advanced Power Armor so nothing can touch you.

And after all of that cheesing you would return to low level Klamath or Redding, because you still wouldn't be able to take on a bunch of Enclave soldiers.

 

[t]

The One Weird Trick to Break Fallout 2 involves savescumming your way to Navarro to get Advanced Power Armor so nothing can touch you.

And after all of that cheesing you would return to low level Klamath or Redding, because you still wouldn't be able to take on a bunch of Enclave soldiers.

Such a stupid way to cheese. As if FO2 was really hard in any way. It's so gratifying to get bigger and bigger guns and harder and harder armors all throughout the game. Killing rats in Klamath in a power armor feels like such a waste of time...

 

[deama]

I did some tests and found out some stuff...

So, every level you actually get stronger, but your weapon damage doesn't change.

LvL = 1
weapon = ~18
electric discharge(spells)= ~22
LvL = 15
weapon = ~20
electric discharge(spells)= ~104
LvL = 80
weapon = ~19
electric discharge(spells)= ~10,000

So, no change in weapon damage. I used a starting weapon that used intelligence and my int was 14 all through the testing. Health scaled up like crazy, I think I had 10k or more at lvl 80...
The damage was done on a lvl 2 who had 86 hp.

 

[Lucky]

Swen is not into enabling people who play the game wrong, and single-player is clearly playing it wrong. We're lucky single-player mode exists at all. You should be thankful.

I can live with multiplayer being prominent if it means that the same inter-party competition is applied to the singleplayer. There being no real main character and the player instead having to juggle a group of characters with conflicting goals and seeing where it takes them in a way that's systemically implemented, is by far my most anticipated part of the game.

Something as simple as an escort quest becomes so much more exciting if the party members involved have different and possibly conflicting reasons for doing it: maybe one is only in it for the money, while another deeply wants to protect them because of personal reasons and the third is only pretending to help so they can kill them along the way. Number 3 then having the option of trying to bribe number 1 to help them kill the target, going ahead of the party to set traps, mixing a poisonous health potion and planting it on the target, etc. and all the myriad of ways in which that can go well or badly - failing the bribe check and getting blackmailed by number 1 for them to stay quiet, number 2 passing a check and recognising the traps as being made by number 3 (followed by number 3 beating a difficult check and making it look as if they're being framed by number 1), target beating the poison check due to being suspiciously resistant to poison, etc. So much potential there for interesting situations.

 

[Glaucon]

But that's not a 900% increase from level 1 to level 6 :p Items should be meaningful and probably even define some builds, but it shouldn't be such a massive spike as to feel that only higher lvl of items are worth it and everything else is secondary (like your whole character). This item-centric power progression is MMO-design, where it makes sense because the game doesn't end at max level and you need that incentive, and doesn't really have a place in single-player RPGs. Items should complement power progression/build diversity, not *replace* it.

What your saying about mmo's and their itemization is true, but obviously that's not why designers make itemization prominent in SP rpgs. The answer to me seems to be that it encourages exploration. The idea that there are items out there that can fundamentally change your character means that you should go find those items, or (in the case of crafting) find the materials necessary to make them. All of this in concurrent with the shift towards open-world games which doesnt seem like a coincidence to me. Unfortunately this does make make a lot modern rpgs, particularly those that follow the Bethesda model, feel like mmos.

 

[Lacrymas]

The exploration point in the context of items doesn't hold any ground when talking about D:OS2 because the loot is randomly generated, so you'll always (sort of, depending on RNG) have access to the highest lvl of items no matter what you do. Not to mention that the old RPGs rewarded exploration without increasing your dmg by 900%. I'm replaying Planescape Torment right now and I can say that the exploration drive is very high, while the loot hunt is practically non-existent.

 

[Zombra]

I can live with multiplayer being prominent if it means that the same inter-party competition is applied to the singleplayer. There being no real main character and the player instead having to juggle a group of characters with conflicting goals and seeing where it takes them in a way that's systemically implemented, is by far my most anticipated part of the game.

Nope. That is exactly the wrong kind of fun Swen doesn't want to allow. This option was deliberately removed because he worried players would miss out without a heavily scripted Chosen One.

Incidentally, what you described is why I backed the game in the first place. Hop aboard my Rage Train, won't you?

 

[CryptRat]

Count me in.

 

[DraQ]

IMO itemization is at its best when, replacing a weapon, you feel as though you are also retiring it.

This.
If player doesn't feel like they are retiring a trusty companion, you're probably doing it wrong.

In D:OS 2 that is about once every level on average.

If you pretty much only use your weapon for stabbing a few zombies in the face before replacing it, why even bother pulling it out of the last one?

The exploration point in the context of items doesn't hold any ground when talking about D:OS2 because the loot is randomly generated, so you'll always (sort of, depending on RNG) have access to the highest lvl of items no matter what you do.

That's the fault of itemization gone wrong - game is oversaturated with high quality loot.

If such loot was rare, even if random, any extra opportunity to get something good would be very valuable.

Good randomized itemization is characterized by broad and diverse range of ways an item could be considered good by the player and rarity of such items themselves.
Ideally player should get excited if they see any colored text on mouse over - like in Diablo 1 - and have to make meaningful choices between different desirable parameters and mods. This doesn't work if you can rest assured that all the interesitng mods and their combination will keep reoccurring with great frequency.

If you can go shopping or farming enemies with the expectation of getting a specific mod on a weapon, or even just getting a weapon with a mod, then your system is broken.

 

[DraQ]

tl;dr Draq was already sold on "lizard tiddies"

You failed your DraQ Lore roll.

Lizards shouldn't have titties - those are strictly mammalian - humanoid/furry - feature.

 

[SniperHF]

Diminishing returns are an overarching theme in this version of the character system. Check out how steeply the Armor and Vitality abilities are diminishing right now; putting more than 1 point into them seems barely worth it. All of that stuff will surely be fine tuned in the months before release.

Maybe - Maybe not. There was some pushback on a similar issue for ability points in D:OS 1. Mostly the weapon related ones. They were all incremental to a fault like that in the alpha and they never really got improved enough to make them seriously worth putting tons of points in. The only exception is dual wield but that didn't come till the EE.

 

[deama]

I wish they'd remove stats and just make it so you only get 1 combat/civil point per level and occasionally a talent point. Maybe even make talents more crazy? Also, remove this scaling thing going on with levels, the hp scaling, the spell damage scaling, all of it; it seems hard for them to balance this shit.

Though I don't think it'd work too well with how itemization works right now...

 

[Gregz]

I wonder how much of the stuff that's being complained about will get fixed, it's early access after all

dos itemization was dogshit and everyone knew it yet here it is again, so I'm guessing nope

All they need to do is implement crafting containers. So when you loot base materials they automatically go into those containers instead of general inventory. An auto-collecting 'vendor trash' container would be useful too.

Add those simple features, along with a general inventory sort control (value, rarity, type, etc.), and it would be fine.

 

[Lucky]

Nope. That is exactly the wrong kind of fun Swen doesn't want to allow. This option was deliberately removed because he worried players would miss out without a heavily scripted Chosen One.

Incidentally, what you described is why I backed the game in the first place. Hop aboard my Rage Train, won't you?

Wait, are you absolutely sure about this because that makes no fucking sense. Why remove a unique feature and selling point when you can use it to draw in additional demographics - most casual players aren't going to finish the game anyway but will go crazy for the potential of endless adventures and emergent character drama, any marketer can tell you that. I thought that was the whole point of introducing the romance stretchgoal that they didn't seem to want, so that they could lure people people into getting familiar with the complex underlying systems. Did Swen actually confirm this or is it speculation?

 

[Infinitron]

Is it possible to start a "solo multiplayer game" with multiple player-created characters, Baldur's Gate-style?

 

[Bubbles]

Is it possible to start a "solo multiplayer game" with multiple player-created characters, Baldur's Gate-style?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=10387

 

[Infinitron]

Is it possible to start a "solo multiplayer game" with multiple player-created characters, Baldur's Gate-style?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=10387

Yeah, I saw that. I want proof from somebody here who's playing the game, though.

 

[Bubbles]

Is it possible to start a "solo multiplayer game" with multiple player-created characters, Baldur's Gate-style?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=10387

Yeah, I saw that. I want proof from somebody here who's playing the game, though.

Though you obviously need to keep multiple instances of the game running.

 

[Infinitron]

Hah, that's not quite what I had in mind. But it is an option! Zombra

 

[SniperHF]

From the Gamescom report he said their QA team has the ability to play that way single player.

 

[Zombra]

Nope. That is exactly the wrong kind of fun Swen doesn't want to allow. This option was deliberately removed because he worried players would miss out without a heavily scripted Chosen One.

Wait, are you absolutely sure about this because that makes no fucking sense. Why remove a unique feature and selling point when you can use it to draw in additional demographics - most casual players aren't going to finish the game anyway but will go crazy for the potential of endless adventures and emergent character drama, any marketer can tell you that. I thought that was the whole point of introducing the romance stretchgoal that they didn't seem to want, so that they could lure people people into getting familiar with the complex underlying systems. Did Swen actually confirm this or is it speculation?

Swen said it flat out, unless the Bubbles interview is a lie.

Bubbles: We've had a couple of requests from people who'd like to create their entire party from scratch at the start of the game.

Swen: Yeah, I've heard that quite a few times. In the single player campaign, that's currently not the case. I'm not gonna say “No” - we'll see where we end up with that. But we won't ship it with that option for sure; it would be an enhancement or a modification afterwards. Because I really want people to try out the Origin stories. And if you give [full party creation to them] from the get go, people are perhaps not going to pick the Origin stories; they're going to miss out on all the fun, because they won't realize how deep we went on all of the dialogue options.

Bubbles: And the competitive questing…

Swen: That's multiplayer.

Bubbles: Ah, so you don't have that in single player anymore? Because you talked about getting that to work…

Swen: No, we removed that. What I said, and I was misquoted, I think – or I talked too fast, which I sometimes do –: QA has it. The guys who have to do the testing can just activate competitive questing at all angles. Maybe we'll release that as a mode. But in single player, the experience that we want to have people [sic] is that you're the avatar, and then you have companions; and if you pick another avatar, you get an entirely different experience. If you give them all together [all the origin quests], it becomes super complex, of course, and it's not necessarily as good as you'd have it if you had a single avatar.

----------

Is it possible to start a "solo multiplayer game" with multiple player-created characters, Baldur's Gate-style?

Though you obviously need to keep multiple instances of the game running.

Hah, that's not quite what I had in mind. But it is an option! Zombra

Yeah, thanks. Not excited to alt-tab between 4 instances of the same game. If Swen is dead set on me not having fun, I'm happy to just not play his game.

 

[Black]

tl;dr Draq was already sold on "lizard tiddies"

You failed your DraQ Lore roll.

Lizards shouldn't have titties - those are strictly mammalian - humanoid/furry - feature.

Explain snake tiddies then.

 

[Aenra]

Someone more into tech shit inform this ignorant peasant please..

D:OS had this, this one does too albeit less pronounced. What the fuck is this "glow" permeating everything? It's mostly noticeable when focusing on sky or environment, like a strong white light (ie many candles, not yellow) source diffusing itself all over.
It's not sunrays, it spreads itself in a more uniform manner, and more discreetly; it's not depth of field, as it can be seen even when you're focusing on the location of your toon(s); it's not higher alpha because fog/sunny, etc. as it's everywhere and always, like some perverted version of a deity thought sunlight isn't enough, so let me add a secondary light source having no physical source of emanation that blinds you even when you're looking.. well anywhere!

What the fuck is that? Seen it in MMOs mostly, but genre being what it is, ok, not even gonna bother. But here it fucking i-r-r-i-t-a-t-e-s me. Tell me its name!!!

@larQ could you please chill with the graphikz(11!!!1!) effects? Or at the very least make the more idiotic of them optional? D:OS fucked one's eyes over, for the love of God, no need to repeat that here. We are not fucking blind Swen. We can see stuff even when it doesn't fucking shine. Please.

 

[Bubbles]

Torment 2:

74,405 backers
28,205 Steam owners

Original Sin 2:

42,713 backers
41,895 Steam owners

Hm.