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

[Sensuki]

That's because they don't. Great victory for Sensuki here tbh.

No it's not.

cannondwarf I haven't watched any videos on this game except for the Fig Trailer, but it could be that less units on the map with engagement makes flanking easier because it exposes other system design flaws that are/were less apparent before. If monsters dont respond to the rogue with cc abilities or even target your rogue when he comes in to flank, then that is a failure of system design and AI Targeting.

It shouldn't be difficult for an AI programmer to put in targeting clauses that check for high incoming damage from adjacent units however I would not be surprised if no one there even thought about such a thing - maybe you should request it and see what they say.

 

[Fry]

Urgh. Someone needs to tell the QA guys in the Obsidian forums that when you sign every post "you the best" and "I got your back", it comes off as a bit insincere.

 

[Sensuki]

When they reply to the thread at least you know they read (and most likely recorded) the bug report. In PoE1 they would seldom do it, so you weren't sure.

 

[CptMace]

It shouldn't be difficult for an AI programmer to put in targeting clauses that check for high incoming damage from adjacent units however I would not be surprised if no one there even thought about such a thing - maybe you should request it and see what they say.

Yeah but there needs to be some condition regarding the enemy's intelligence then. Having my rogue systematically slapped in the jaw when he shows himself on the frontline would turn any non-ranged rogue build garbage, wouldn't it ?

 

[Sensuki]

Yeah but there needs to be some condition regarding the enemy's intelligence then. Having my rogue systematically slapped in the jaw when he shows himself on the frontline would turn any non-ranged rogue build garbage, wouldn't it ?

I didn't suggest that units should automatically target any unit with the class rogue when they are adjacent (which is boring). Units in Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter would often change targets based on incoming damage. Whatever the AI targeting clauses are, the player has the opportunity to find a solution to them. If there was a clause where a specific unit would target rogues with crowd control, you could bait out the ability or spell by making the enemy acquire the rogue as a target and then move the rogue out of range to cast ... the enemy would then likely move out of formation, or do something else. Or you could simply react to such an event by buffing the rogue with defense stuff or using some shifty ability.

All hypothetical, but that kind of stuff makes for more interesting gameplay than the enegagement system does.

 

[Maculo]

cannondwarf I haven't watched any videos on this game except for the Fig Trailer, but it could be that less units on the map with engagement makes flanking easier because it exposes other system design flaws that are/were less apparent before. If monsters dont respond to the rogue with cc abilities or even target your rogue when he comes in to flank, then that is a failure of system design and AI Targeting.

It shouldn't be difficult for an AI programmer to put in targeting clauses that check for high incoming damage from adjacent units however I would not be surprised if no one there even thought about such a thing - maybe you should request it and see what they say.

Hard to tell at the moment, but they definitely do respond to casting. When I tried casting a summoned weapon on my Templar (Priest/Pally), the Fish monsters would instantly follow up with a ranged paralyze attack, effectively shutting the caster down. Same thing happened to my priest when I tried to cast a heal. I did not notice to what extent the mobs reacted to the default rogue, although some enemies on PotD hit so hard that it did not matter.

Furthermore, although I have not played enough to confirm, it does seem that optional fights (i.e., you can leave the zone or circumvent) are harder.

 

[sser]

Urgh. Someone needs to tell the QA guys in the Obsidian forums that when you sign every post "you the best" and "I got your back", it comes off as a bit insincere.

Is it still sincere if they physically type it out every time?

 

[aweigh]

how exactly does the computer determine when an enemy will break off from engagement w/ one of ur guys?

how exactly does the computer go about using those targeting clauses?

for example, i did not know that shades always avoid attacking a party member who has high freeze/piercing DR. what other lil' AI nuggets like that exist in the game?

 

[Fry]

Urgh. Someone needs to tell the QA guys in the Obsidian forums that when you sign every post "you the best" and "I got your back", it comes off as a bit insincere.

Is it still sincere if they physically type it out every time?

Only if they film themselves doing it.

 

[CptMace]

Yeah but there needs to be some condition regarding the enemy's intelligence then. Having my rogue systematically slapped in the jaw when he shows himself on the frontline would turn any non-ranged rogue build garbage, wouldn't it ?

I didn't suggest that units should automatically target any unit with the class rogue when they are adjacent (which is boring). Units in Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter would often change targets based on incoming damage. Whatever the AI targeting clauses are, the player has the opportunity to find a solution to them. If there was a clause where a specific unit would target rogues with crowd control, you could bait out the ability or spell by making the enemy acquire the rogue as a target and then move the rogue out of range to cast ... the enemy would then likely move out of formation, or do something else. Or you could simply react to such an event by buffing the rogue with defense stuff or using some shifty ability.

All hypothetical, but that kind of stuff makes for more interesting gameplay than the enegagement system does.

I think this is how POE works right now. Haven't played since release of 3.0 but I have vivid images of enemy npcs turning to face my rogue after a big hit. Might be random behaviour though.

 

[PEACH]

Hyperlinks are awful. Obviously the lore dumps were a nightmare in the original game but the idea that the best solution is to spatter a veritable rainbow into dialogue texts and make every other word a pocket for them is just as bad or worse. Can't think of a less elegant or tasteful way to do it, especially if it's like Tyranny where you could read wiki articles about shit your character didn't have any reason to know in the first place / where later dialogue all but confirmed the player knew more than the character in some circumstances.

Bad enough to see that stuff in reviews / web articles, clumsy as fuck to see it in a CRPG like Tyranny / this.

 

[CptMace]

I hovered over nightmare out of curiosity. I got a glimpse of Chris Avelonne, seemingly aged 60, bent over his desk. A pile of contracts taking dust on the side, the top one states "Writing Consultant - Dragon Age : Reincarnation". The image zoomed in on the screen of his laptop, he was writing something. Fallout 7 felt like returning home after a long absence...

 

[Lyre Mors]

Is there an option to turn off the hyperlinks?

 

[Grunker]

That may be so, but Baldur's Gate isn't my only point of reference for determing what the "RPG norm" is. I guess it's a fair argument that it should be the main point of reference. But again I'm not saying that Pillars of Eternity's writing is "good". I'm just saying its amount of exposition didn't seem unusual or particularly exasperating to me. I'm willing to accept the charge that I've become accustomed to lower standards. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Frankly this aspect was the one that got stuck in my head after the first playthrough. The comparison with BG was and still is almost natural because of how the game was pitched and how the project was born.
Now I think you're not very honest with yourself Infinitron when you say it's among the average rpgs in terms of exposition. Pillars' npcs are all the way down there with bethesda's when it comes to one-function-robots-pretending-to-be-real-persons. Bethesda kind of has an excuse - since they decided it was cool to have a fully voiced game. They can't really avoid giving the same lines to all npcs, resulting in this weird freak show in game.
In the case of Pillars - and that's why I brought that up back then - it really struck me. Did they really not want to give all these characters a semblance of characterization ?
Now, to the light of how development went, and how designers and artists alike were under pressure, I can understand their priority was elsewhere.
But still, it's pretty unusual for the genre.

Most people no longer want to engage in discussions about Pillars of Eternity's writing simply because, by now, we've poured more sentences into it than the fucking game, and that's an accomplishment. But I do like what you said about characterization, so I'll expand on it briefly.

Baldur's Gate 2:

"Greetings. I am Edwin Odesseiron. You simians may merely refer to me as 'Sir,' if you prefer a less... syllable-intensive workout."

Pillars of Eternity:

"I suppose introductions are in order after that little fiasco. Aloth Corfiser, at your service."

"I'm a wizard by training and an adventurer by necessity. I was born in the Cythwood, part of the mainland of the Aedyr Empire. Both of my parents served the nobility, which afforded me an education for which I'm grateful. However, there were no open positions in those houses, and so I decided to seek new means in a new land."

I ask you: which character has made a bigger impression within the first 10 seconds of the conversation? Which character has produced a larger emotional reaction?

I'm not talking about brilliant writing, here. Edwin Odesseiron is a walking cliche and in many respects, Aloth is actually a more complex character with better ties to the plot. But when it comes to character, Aloth - and most of Pillars of Eternity's cast - have very little of it. They're the kind of boring people that you get bored by just being around, and most of their dialogue consists of information dumps and vapid small talk that reveal a core so empty of any stylistic passion, that you assume the writers must have been bored just writing about them.

I hate to make it an issue of talent, but I do think there is a decisive absence of talent or inspiration, here, which better writers, especially those trained in screen writing, would know to avoid. Language is a window - and in text heavy games like these, THE window - into a character's soul, and when the writing covers it all up with cheap plastic dialogue, the character itself falls flat. How a character carries himself, how a character expresses himself, is of utmost importance, and we shouldn't have to wait fifty hours for the plot to explain why this character is worth our while.

Good post, but we can hardly conclude that it is a question of talent. It might as well be a question of direction. It is clear that Josh wants this style and demands it of the writers.

 

[Iznaliu]

Urgh. Someone needs to tell the QA guys in the Obsidian forums that when you sign every post "you the best" and "I got your back", it comes off as a bit insincere.

Last time I checked, they hadn't replied to any of the concerns about the new system. Has this changed, or are you referring to bugs?

 

[Ulfhednar]

Urgh. Someone needs to tell the QA guys in the Obsidian forums that when you sign every post "you the best" and "I got your back", it comes off as a bit insincere.

Last time I checked, they hadn't replied to any of the concerns about the new system. Has this changed, or are you referring to bugs?

Check out the responses to the bug reports...

 

[Prime Junta]

Every time I go on Obsidian forums and I see posts from Gromnir and I feel like sticking a hot pineapple in his ass.

I have nobody on ignore here at the Codex.

I do have Gromnir on ignore.

 

[Flou]

I dunno about Russians and Frenchies, but the Latin Americans I'm familiar with do that sort of code switching between English and Spanish routinely. The difference is, they do it when talking among themselves, not when talking to people who only speak English.

As do Finns. Some of us will throw a line of english into Finnish or Swedish sentence. Especially the swedish speaking Finns tend to do this a lot. Well, at least the ones using the same bus as I do.

 

[FreeKaner]

That may be so, but Baldur's Gate isn't my only point of reference for determing what the "RPG norm" is. I guess it's a fair argument that it should be the main point of reference. But again I'm not saying that Pillars of Eternity's writing is "good". I'm just saying its amount of exposition didn't seem unusual or particularly exasperating to me. I'm willing to accept the charge that I've become accustomed to lower standards. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Frankly this aspect was the one that got stuck in my head after the first playthrough. The comparison with BG was and still is almost natural because of how the game was pitched and how the project was born.
Now I think you're not very honest with yourself Infinitron when you say it's among the average rpgs in terms of exposition. Pillars' npcs are all the way down there with bethesda's when it comes to one-function-robots-pretending-to-be-real-persons. Bethesda kind of has an excuse - since they decided it was cool to have a fully voiced game. They can't really avoid giving the same lines to all npcs, resulting in this weird freak show in game.
In the case of Pillars - and that's why I brought that up back then - it really struck me. Did they really not want to give all these characters a semblance of characterization ?
Now, to the light of how development went, and how designers and artists alike were under pressure, I can understand their priority was elsewhere.
But still, it's pretty unusual for the genre.

Most people no longer want to engage in discussions about Pillars of Eternity's writing simply because, by now, we've poured more sentences into it than the fucking game, and that's an accomplishment. But I do like what you said about characterization, so I'll expand on it briefly.

Baldur's Gate 2:

"Greetings. I am Edwin Odesseiron. You simians may merely refer to me as 'Sir,' if you prefer a less... syllable-intensive workout."

Pillars of Eternity:

"I suppose introductions are in order after that little fiasco. Aloth Corfiser, at your service."

"I'm a wizard by training and an adventurer by necessity. I was born in the Cythwood, part of the mainland of the Aedyr Empire. Both of my parents served the nobility, which afforded me an education for which I'm grateful. However, there were no open positions in those houses, and so I decided to seek new means in a new land."

I ask you: which character has made a bigger impression within the first 10 seconds of the conversation? Which character has produced a larger emotional reaction?

I'm not talking about brilliant writing, here. Edwin Odesseiron is a walking cliche and in many respects, Aloth is actually a more complex character with better ties to the plot. But when it comes to character, Aloth - and most of Pillars of Eternity's cast - have very little of it. They're the kind of boring people that you get bored by just being around, and most of their dialogue consists of information dumps and vapid small talk that reveal a core so empty of any stylistic passion, that you assume the writers must have been bored just writing about them.

I hate to make it an issue of talent, but I do think there is a decisive absence of talent or inspiration, here, which better writers, especially those trained in screen writing, would know to avoid. Language is a window - and in text heavy games like these, THE window - into a character's soul, and when the writing covers it all up with cheap plastic dialogue, the character itself falls flat. How a character carries himself, how a character expresses himself, is of utmost importance, and we shouldn't have to wait fifty hours for the plot to explain why this character is worth our while.

Lack of proper editing also, shave off the second part of dialogue of Aloth and it ain't so bad anymore. In fact, I think in this case it highlights Aloth's stiff and formal attitude very well, while the unnecessary explanations about his family is directly against it.

"I suppose introductions are in order after that little fiasco. Aloth Corfiser, I'm a wizard by training and an adventurer by necessity, at your service."

This is in my opinion not faulty at all on its own representing both an introductory dialogue and Aloth's character.

 

[Prime Junta]

Played a bit more with CC, in particular leveling up the mercenary companions. That part really is aching for more variety -- there are so few talents that as long as you're focusing on something there's really not much thought involved: there are about two abilities per level that you'd want, and surprise surprise, you get to pick two abilities per level. This could be addressed by adding a lot more abilities, especially general (cross-class) ones.

Problem is the talent tree UI which doesn't have room for that. But then redesigning a single UI shouldn't be that hard.

Exception is, as I said earlier, the classic casters who just don't get enough spells. Merging the magic system with the talent system was a big mistake -- to give casters close to the kind of spell variety they're used to (except wizards, who can complement theirs with grimoires) would require granting them way more talents per level which would throw things out of whack. Thing feels overdesigned and not-fun.

So yeah. They have wrecked the best part about P1. They have improved in areas where it did rather poorly -- environments are better with traps that make much more sense, encounters are better and make better use of the environments, and all the rest of it -- but at this point at least this is very much a case of one step forward, two steps back. I'm yelling about this stuff on the Obsidian forums; who knows, perhaps they will listen... but I'm not too optimistic about that because this beta feels so much more finished than the P1 one. That was so obviously rough that there was much more space to be heard.

Anyway at this point it's not really worth to play a pure caster. As multiclasses they can complement builds nicely (e.g. add some arcane oomph to a fighter) but unless they make some fairly drastic changes, the classic D&D wizard and priest are DOA.

 

[Parabalus]

It shouldn't be difficult for an AI programmer to put in targeting clauses that check for high incoming damage from adjacent units however I would not be surprised if no one there even thought about such a thing - maybe you should request it and see what they say.

Yeah but there needs to be some condition regarding the enemy's intelligence then. Having my rogue systematically slapped in the jaw when he shows himself on the frontline would turn any non-ranged rogue build garbage, wouldn't it ?

They did that in PoE1, they would instantly change to the lowest deflection guy they had in range. This made playing a dual wield rogue without stunlocking weapons a major pain and why Tall Grass was really good.

 

[Rivmusique]

Are priests still accuracy boosting gods and do any of the faiths bar you from those types of spells?

 

[Prime Junta]

Are priests still accuracy boosting gods and do any of the faiths bar you from those types of spells?

ACC boosting spells are certainly in. Haven't checked all the faiths so don't know if they're barred from some of them. However priests have to pick their spells on level-up so their selection is much more limited.

 

[Jimmious]

The biggest issue by far is how fast the combat is with the simultaneous lack of a "slow mode". I can't even understand how they thought this is slow enough to remove the "slow mode"

 

[Frusciante]

The good thing is that there already is a quite good and broadly shared diagnosis of the good and bad things in the beta. Most of the things are still very possible to address, to name a few;

- fast combat speed can be addressed by lowering movement speed in combat, adding the slow-mode back in and potentially slowing down animation speed for regular attacks
- character building for single class character can still be improved by adding additional talents, be it class specific or not
- viability of casters can be increased by tweaking the number of spells they get, tweaking the spells themselves (cast time) and by lowering combat speed

Things I believe that will not be addressed:

- writing (use of hyperlinks and fictional language). There could potentially be some mild modifications to tone the use of hyperlinks and fictional language down but they will not rewrite the whole game.
- per encounter abilities and removal of health/endurance system. Won't be addressed because there is no consensus at all which system is better, PoE1 or PoE2. I personally prefer PoE2 and think the injury system is great.

My prediction for the final product: a rpg that shines in the areas of exploration, reactivity (in dialogue and scripted interactions mostly but also with the various factions), art, world building and character building (because of the multiclassing). It will be decent in terms of combat, story, quests and itemization. It will probably have only average writing at most though, with the exception of the writing for certain companions (Eder).

All in all a solid improvement over PoE1.