Divinity Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: Igniz13] #629704
11/10/17 11:55 AM
11/10/17 11:55 AM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,096
Stabbey Offline
veteran
Stabbey  Offline
veteran

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted By: Igniz13
Being brief is the issue, lot of them are just headlines and one paragraph. I'd have to write an essay on everything wrong with it, before I could even begin to discuss what was being agreed on.

The first one boils down to "the system isn't the old one" there's no indication of what you want or why it'd be better.

It sounds like you want the opportunity to have more rounds than others, which sounds really bad and dumb.


That's not the biggest issue.

If Larian wants to switch to Round Robin to maintain a challenging experience, fine, but that has gutted the Wits attribute and made the Initiative affix on items useless.

Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: Stabbey] #629723
11/10/17 12:51 PM
11/10/17 12:51 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 50
I
Igniz13 Offline
journeyman
Igniz13  Offline
journeyman
I

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted By: Stabbey
Originally Posted By: Igniz13
Being brief is the issue, lot of them are just headlines and one paragraph. I'd have to write an essay on everything wrong with it, before I could even begin to discuss what was being agreed on.

The first one boils down to "the system isn't the old one" there's no indication of what you want or why it'd be better.

It sounds like you want the opportunity to have more rounds than others, which sounds really bad and dumb.


That's not the biggest issue.

If Larian wants to switch to Round Robin to maintain a challenging experience, fine, but that has gutted the Wits attribute and made the Initiative affix on items useless.


But this isn't true, going before the enemy is valuable, but it depreciates as rounds go on and you need good openings to capitalise on starting first. But going first has undeniable benefits and saying it doesn't is just nonsense.

Wits helps with crit rate, so it's not useless unless you're a mage without savage sortilage (the magic crit talent).

But what is the problem? The text doesn't actually say and I have no clue what the issue is from the text. All there is, is nonsense hyperbole.


gambling on some rng cc affect is not a deep strategic decision. It's just a sign of gambling addiction.
Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: Draco359] #629785
11/10/17 03:15 PM
11/10/17 03:15 PM
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
N
NeoAnubis Offline
journeyman
NeoAnubis  Offline
journeyman
N

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
Originally Posted By: Draco359

There are some stats which make green and blue items no better than white items such as +x intiative, +x crit chance rate (x is always smaller than 5), +random number hp +x% dodging (if Finesse would still give a bonus to dodging then maybe this would not be so bad) +z movement speed (where z is smaller than 1 i.e 0.75) and my personal favorites +x to random civil ability I don't need (seriously I hate this last one,can't we get more civil points instead,please Larian)

If these stats were removed from the RNG machine then maybe things could get better.


My point there (and it stands), was that RNG specifically is not to blame there. The implementation might be.

Those stats you hate on items, for example, are not the problem itself, but rather a consequence of how streamlined stats are, removing them would only serve the purpose of streamlining them further.

The point of itemization is not giving you better items, shit items should absolutely exist. The problem is that, at least currently, nothing really stands out.

Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: Igniz13] #629786
11/10/17 03:17 PM
11/10/17 03:17 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,096
Stabbey Offline
veteran
Stabbey  Offline
veteran

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted By: Igniz13

But this isn't true, going before the enemy is valuable, but it depreciates as rounds go on and you need good openings to capitalise on starting first. But going first has undeniable benefits and saying it doesn't is just nonsense.

Wits helps with crit rate, so it's not useless unless you're a mage without savage sortilage (the magic crit talent).

But what is the problem? The text doesn't actually say and I have no clue what the issue is from the text. All there is, is nonsense hyperbole.


No, one person gets to go first. Wits is irrelevant to going first on every other party member. Even then I would argue that a single enemy going first is not super-important because only one enemy is going first. So I don't really agree that Wits is terribly important in terms of turn order.

Wits helps with crit rate, but that only starts to be a better investment than raw STR/INT/FIN after one of those is at 40. It's only second place because there's not really anything else to invest in.

So I completely disagree that Wits is in a good place or that Initiative is a useful random affix on items.

Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: GreatGuardsman] #629807
11/10/17 03:54 PM
11/10/17 03:54 PM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 40
Vrginia
Vignarg Offline
apprentice
Vignarg  Offline
apprentice

Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 40
Vrginia
I agree with Stabbey. Wits just doesn't seem to matter until the very very late game when other stats are capped out. Even then, you get your crit in much larger groups from so many other places, I generally put it in Con until I have enough to make a difference in crit (10% is about right).

Even with high wits and something like Peace of Mind for a big bonus, a lot of bosses seem protected by plot-initiative where they just get to go first, so it's an even bigger meh.

Factor in a primary stat is worth 5% damage and 1% more crit is effectively 1% more damage (outside of 2h builds) and it's just a disappointing stat. Doesn't ruin the game by any stretch of the imagination, but it's constructive criticism and feedback to provide IMO.

Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: GreatGuardsman] #629818
11/10/17 04:23 PM
11/10/17 04:23 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 16
L
Lenny2k3 Offline
stranger
Lenny2k3  Offline
stranger
L

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 16
Incredibly good post OP, it's not often I find myself agreeing with most, if not all points someone makes. Especially in this kind of scale. So hats off, it was a good read, and I hope someone from Larian takes it into account.

Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: GreatGuardsman] #629820
11/10/17 04:24 PM
11/10/17 04:24 PM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 40
Vrginia
Vignarg Offline
apprentice
Vignarg  Offline
apprentice

Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 40
Vrginia
Reading through the OP (which is very well written IMO) I had more feedback. I really enjoy these discussions.

Systematic Flaws
1. Initiative
Systematic is the right word here. It doesn't feel terrible, and personally I'm ok with it. I don't really have a dog in this fight. As Stabbey said, /shrug, but it makes Wits worthless. Then again, in EE, wits just felt like a stat tax to ensure all my guys weren't going dead last. So I'm not sure I liked that any more. It wasn't fun or interesting to invest in Wits.

2. Armor System
Agree, I provided similar feedback in EE. Everyone seems to have an opinion on how to fix it, but my only feedback is I agree it needs something.

3. Scaling
This is turning into the biggest one. Farming merchants is just tedious. I was so excited when I got Lohar's hammer in act 2, and sold it less than an hour later. One level made it so weak frown I haven't felt excited about loot since. It's all so ... temporary.

4. Random Loot Generation
The nonsensical part has always bothered me, but games like D3/Torchlight/Borderlands have taught me this is a lost cause. Whatever developers see in it, it's beyond my understanding.

5. Character Building
I mentioned this in my review also, but it feels like your first points are so interesting and fun and crucial. After that, you just kind of invest in the same thing for the rest of the game (Civil Abilities), or with tiny, tiny variances to grab must-haves (2 Aerothurge for instance). Otherwise, leveling up is more of a mental groan where I go re-farm merchants.

6. UI
I don't think anyone would argue the auto-adding is a PITA and unwanted.

7. The Ap System.
I disagree the AP system is painfully restricted. I feel like the flow is much better captured now in terms of weak-moderate cost abilities. I can watch the enemy make its moves and mentally tally the AP they've used or saved so far. And going back to DOS1, I was struck at how clunky the AP costs lined up in terms of planning out my turns. All in all, I feel like the AP system is a big step forward in their design. If I had one complaint, it's that the 3 point abilities just don't feel worthwhile (outside of Elemental Affinity to use them), or that some abilities just don't feel useful, but that's a whole other discussion. In terms of AP system, I like that it's fixed and I'm not always out hunting for the king of all resources - AP. It's as static as a turn in Chess or X-COM, and the enemy faces the same restraints.

Conversely, letting me up my AP presents new encounter challenges. Either they scale enemies to likewise get more AP in their own ways, thus making my AP a wash, and punishing casual players who don't min/max for the stat. Or, they leave the enemy AP the same, and trivialize the play for me (see DOS1). It's a coldwar resource and leaving it static is smart design, IMO.

Major Flaws
1. AI is riddled with issue.
Not sure I can fully agree with "The AI is riddled with issues." In EE, the problem was the exact opposite. Opportunist, Shackles of Pain, and using terrain to trap enemies was pointless. They were Neo-In-Matrix in their counterplay. Now I will agree that sometimes it feels absurd (they legit will kill themselves, ruining any step 2 to their plan), but those instances are rare enough where I feel the AI is at least in a better place (i.e. willing to punish their shackled comrade if they have more HP than me). To call it a major flaw feels like an exaggeration. It could be improved. It doesn't feel major, so it distracts from some of your better points.

2. Source as a mechanic
Mostly agree. If it just recharged itself after a fight, I wouldn't care. Making me go farm corpses is ... tedious. From an RPG standpoint, I agree it feels cool though.

3. Combat Skill/Ability balance
Again, some abilities can be improved, but this doesn't feel major. You started out pretty level in your writing, and have slid into a kind of hyperbole at this point. "absolute joke" seems a bit much. Some can be built around, some need re-balancing, and some feel good as a benchmark. That's pretty solid. I'm sure they're aware enough of it (considering their patching so far) that this doesn't need to be stressed under "major flaws" and "absolute joke." More like "could use tuning" and "some feel underwhelming."

4. Tactician Mode
I can't really say, I've only played TM outside of EE. I'm told it's just a lot more HPs, with I'm ok with. The AI seems smart, and not being able to always insta-gib an opponent feels like a tactical challenge to me, i.e. tactician mode. If I had complaints here, it would be that DOS2 suffers from what most TBS games suffer from in their later acts. Act 1 felt ok, but by late act 2, I feel like I can curb stomp anything in non-boss fights. It reminds me a lot of X-COM in that if you survive the early parts, you win. I don't have a useful solution to provide, but that's my feedback on it.

5. Aesthetic Control
I was about to write "major issue?" again, but I can see how some people might consider this big. I'll say it doesn't matter as much to me, but that it almost ties back to the gear grind issue you mentioned earlier. Even if I found/made a slick set-up, it'd be farmed out in an hour or so.

Hmm I shoudl actually do work at work. That's my feedback so far though smile Nice write-up, and thanks for taking the time to put it together and get a discussion going on it.

Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: Vignarg] #629821
11/10/17 04:40 PM
11/10/17 04:40 PM
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
N
NeoAnubis Offline
journeyman
NeoAnubis  Offline
journeyman
N

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
Originally Posted By: Vignarg
4. Tactician Mode
I can't really say, I've only played TM outside of EE. I'm told it's just a lot more HPs, with I'm ok with. The AI seems smart, and not being able to always insta-gib an opponent feels like a tactical challenge to me, i.e. tactician mode. If I had complaints here, it would be that DOS2 suffers from what most TBS games suffer from in their later acts. Act 1 felt ok, but by late act 2, I feel like I can curb stomp anything in non-boss fights. It reminds me a lot of X-COM in that if you survive the early parts, you win. I don't have a useful solution to provide, but that's my feedback on it. "


There is one major problem with this statement and the comparison with X-Com.

In X-Com you will only have a cakewalk in the lategame if you never lost a battle (or lost a very low number of them), which is not a reality unless you are very good at the game or save scum (I'm not considering lower difficulties here, it's intentional). And this is realistic on that setting, admit it or not, a war WILL be easy if you're not losing battles.

The problem with the comparison is: On Divinity you can't fail, there is no scenario where your best soldier will die permanently and/or you will lose items or progress. Which in turn means things need to be balanced in different ways.

On X-Com you can actually feel the increase in difficulty if you go there, because stat bloat is not the focus of it (it exists, but is not the focus), on Divinity, at least currently, at most you're getting longer fights.

In conclusion, a higher difficulty just increasing enemy stats is bad (plenty of examples to go around, Bethesda games are often a victim of bad difficulty scaling). Increasing the enemy stats being only one of the aspects of difficulty scaling is already a major improvement.

Last edited by NeoAnubis; 11/10/17 04:42 PM.
Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: Stabbey] #629853
11/10/17 06:03 PM
11/10/17 06:03 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 50
I
Igniz13 Offline
journeyman
Igniz13  Offline
journeyman
I

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 50
Guys, it's a 6/10, maybe a 7 at a push

Originally Posted By: Stabbey
Originally Posted By: Igniz13

But this isn't true, going before the enemy is valuable, but it depreciates as rounds go on and you need good openings to capitalise on starting first. But going first has undeniable benefits and saying it doesn't is just nonsense.

Wits helps with crit rate, so it's not useless unless you're a mage without savage sortilage (the magic crit talent).

But what is the problem? The text doesn't actually say and I have no clue what the issue is from the text. All there is, is nonsense hyperbole.


No, one person gets to go first. Wits is irrelevant to going first on every other party member. Even then I would argue that a single enemy going first is not super-important because only one enemy is going first. So I don't really agree that Wits is terribly important in terms of turn order.

Wits helps with crit rate, but that only starts to be a better investment than raw STR/INT/FIN after one of those is at 40. It's only second place because there's not really anything else to invest in.

So I completely disagree that Wits is in a good place or that Initiative is a useful random affix on items.


Wits, as a stat, is a minor investment for most people, if at all. It's useful. I want to put 5 points in it for everyone on my team, but that's it and it's low priority.

I could see that being perceived as a problem, but the stat isn't meant to be maxed (typically), but getting 30% crit chance and +30 init. I can really seeing that being built around and being tactically useful. Put it on a 2h warrior, a hunter or an offensive wizard. Add hotheaded and unload the nukes, seems legit to me.

I don't know if I really benefit from +30 init, or if 10 would be enough for most encounters. I want the bonus to detection on my rogue, rather than my warrior, but that's okay.

Starting first in combat is huge, especially if you can capitalise on it and wits seems good for that.


gambling on some rng cc affect is not a deep strategic decision. It's just a sign of gambling addiction.
Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: GreatGuardsman] #629859
11/10/17 06:14 PM
11/10/17 06:14 PM
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
N
NeoAnubis Offline
journeyman
NeoAnubis  Offline
journeyman
N

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
You just played yourself, that is the issue.

Currently there are always very clear optimal stat allocation options. Stats aren't meant to be maxed (typically) but, in Divinity 2 if you're trying to be effective, they are.

Just so that you can realise the problem in the argument you are trying to covey, start a game with high loremaster and make sure to always "examine" enemies to know their "wits" and "initiative", you will quickly notice that most enemies have both stats set to very low, with very rare exceptions where you're not likely to play before them unless your build is very sub-optimal anyway (The Advocate comes to mind).

I won't put any effort into explaining why wits is not worth the investment for "critical chance" specifically because that is a mathematical error, anyone with a calculator can prove it wrong. There is an argument to be made for initiative but other problems currently in the game prevent it from being anywhere near the best investment.

The only point in the game where it is worth the investment is on Act 4, where enemies actually have higher initiative, but at that point the relevant stat (STR, FIN, INT) is already at max.

Last edited by NeoAnubis; 11/10/17 06:18 PM.
Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: GreatGuardsman] #629946
11/10/17 10:11 PM
11/10/17 10:11 PM
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7
D
DoubleThorn Offline
stranger
DoubleThorn  Offline
stranger
D

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7
I just wanted to say to OP that I almost entirely agree with all the points on the document. While my view may differ on some points, such as the AP system, I found myself surprised with just how many significant and distinct issues I have with the game. It's why I came searching on the forums in the first place. Partially to theorycraft, but also to gauge what others thought about it.

I still love the game, but after just one play-through I already am wanting to slap on mods, correct issues, and pray for a community patch. As I read through forum posts, I realize just how much there seems to be. Perhaps I missed this with the old game, or I am more observant now, or there really is just more that arguably needs fixing. The simplification of so many attributes and talents (that become rather useless), how unimportant initiative is, or the loremaster all enemies seem to have, or the stat bloating and the randomness and lack of significant items, etc. It kind of astounds many mechanics were changed/nerfed at release and while I am happy to have a game that I still want to playthrough multiple times, even as is, I would have been willing to wait a bit longer.

Anywho, having finally had a place to voice that, thanks for creating that post, OP. Both for nailing down the issues and opening it to discussion. I'm getting inspired to see if I can't get involved to help create suggestions or even create workshop style fixes for some of the issues (despite it sadly disabling achievements, even if I just want my hotbar to not be cluttered)

Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: NeoAnubis] #629974
11/10/17 11:27 PM
11/10/17 11:27 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 50
I
Igniz13 Offline
journeyman
Igniz13  Offline
journeyman
I

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted By: NeoAnubis
You just played yourself, that is the issue.

Well no, because my original point is that the point made made no effort to explain itself. Not that it was wrong, but all it presented was hyperbole, number of other points are similar, they aren't well written and don't explain the issue.

I remade a wizard (level 14) so they have roughly 20/20 int and wits. They're looking fine, 30% spell crit seems alright. Opening with potent aoe is strong. Hasn't lost notable damage, don't know how it'll work out in the long run, will find out .

I can see problems with wit / initiative, but they're not as pronounced as the op makes out. Even if wits doesn't work as a main stat, it doesn't have to. You wouldn't put massive points into wisdom, you don't need to put all your points in the damage stat.


gambling on some rng cc affect is not a deep strategic decision. It's just a sign of gambling addiction.
Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: GreatGuardsman] #629996
12/10/17 12:15 AM
12/10/17 12:15 AM
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
N
NeoAnubis Offline
journeyman
NeoAnubis  Offline
journeyman
N

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
Unfortunatelly you're missing the point of the critic itself.

CAN you play by investing in wits? Absolutly yes.

Will it come even close in power as someone who is not? Absolutely not.

The post was not made to point out how you should play. Invest in whatever you like, put all your points in constitution and no will will bat an eye.

The issue is, if you're doing something that is blatantly sub-par because you have fun with it that has no place in a conversation about balance (unless you're argueing that even though it is unbalanced, it is fun, there is a case to be made there sometimes, not on this particular one though (I think(?))).

OP's post is very clear about this particular issue - the game completely discourages any strategy that deviates from a particular path, there is an obvious stronger choice.

Do a quick test (like several people have already done before) - save right before any particular fight (once for every level/power spike if you want precise results) and then respec before doing those fights, testing builds. The difference is massive when stats are properly alocated.

By the way, no one ever said wits should be the main stat (other than your mention of it of course). It might not even be that bad of a stat (and only be a collateral effect) if other things got fixed (less streamlined stats, different initiative system, etc.).



If what you don't like is just the way he worded things, perhaps sending a suggestion of what you consider a better version of a paragraph is a smarter way forward. He did ask for it a few times, it should be very helpful.

Last edited by NeoAnubis; 12/10/17 12:19 AM.
Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: El_Divino] #630004
12/10/17 12:33 AM
12/10/17 12:33 AM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 6
D
Dallen Offline
stranger
Dallen  Offline
stranger
D

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 6
Originally Posted By: El_Divino

Quote:
There is no way to convert the large breadth of items into a sensible amount of more universal crafting materials like many other systems.

Useful ingredients are expensive and/or difficult to find. Even trying to find A SIMPLE EMPTY BOTTLE requires A LOT of time exploring the map. It's really frustrating to see you have spent a lot of hours in the game, you have tons of 'crafting' materials cluttering your inventory, but still you are not capable of crafting 2 or 3 relevant items.


It would be nice if after drinking a bottle of water/wine would give you the bottle afterwards.

Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: GreatGuardsman] #630023
12/10/17 01:26 AM
12/10/17 01:26 AM
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 77
GreatGuardsman Offline OP
journeyman
GreatGuardsman  Offline OP
journeyman

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 77
I'm glad that there's so much discussion cropping up in this thread; even if there isn't a complete consensus on any given topic, we can still refine our arguments and better share our experiences with the game and our perspectives on any given flaw or design choice. I've been a little busy as of late, but I'm definitely keeping my eyes peeled for suggestions and criticisms.

The only thing I'd like to clarify is that the Systemic/Major/Lesser categorization is less about showing the importance of an issue and more about describing its impact on the overall design and experience, and its relation to other flaws/design choices. A systemic issue is one that has deep and numerous effects throughout the game, a major issue is closely tied to other issues or has a noticeable presence in the game, and a lesser issue is a relatively independent problem or underdeveloped aspect of the game.
This categorization is also the most subjective feature of the document, but I felt it was a good alternative than trying to objectively categorize the importance of every issue, as opposed to trying to judge its overall impact.


The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II: A list of observations of the game's shortcomings for the community.
Found HERE.
Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: GreatGuardsman] #630099
12/10/17 07:19 AM
12/10/17 07:19 AM
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 80
V
Violet Gekko Offline
journeyman
Violet Gekko  Offline
journeyman
V

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 80
to whoever said the A.I face the same restraint. Sorry you're absolutely WRONG.

Get one of your character to get loremaster 5, you will see that EVERY A.I on Tactician has 6 AP w/o glass cannon after the first act.

It's like every enemy i see is a Lone Wolf in disguise, and they still get beaten like a pup. So yeah, Larian clearly nail themselves this part.

Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: Dallen] #630139
12/10/17 10:25 AM
12/10/17 10:25 AM
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,695
Germany
Kalrakh Offline

veteran
Kalrakh  Offline

veteran

Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,695
Germany
Originally Posted By: Dallen
It would be nice if after drinking a bottle of water/wine would give you the bottle afterwards.


Yes, this totally annoyed my already in the first. I kind of forgot about it, because I hardly played the second game so far. But yes, they really should fix this shit.

Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: NeoAnubis] #630154
12/10/17 11:12 AM
12/10/17 11:12 AM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 50
I
Igniz13 Offline
journeyman
Igniz13  Offline
journeyman
I

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted By: NeoAnubis

OP's post is very clear about this particular issue - the game completely discourages any strategy that deviates from a particular path, there is an obvious stronger choice.

Do a quick test (like several people have already done before) - save right before any particular fight (once for every level/power spike if you want precise results) and then respec before doing those fights, testing builds. The difference is massive when stats are properly alocated.

By the way, no one ever said wits should be the main stat (other than your mention of it of course). It might not even be that bad of a stat (and only be a collateral effect) if other things got fixed (less streamlined stats, different initiative system,


No you don't get it

I understand power gaming works.

What I don't see, is a case why it matters, or why things should change.

If the design document for classic mode states: "any 4 chucklefucks can beat the game as long as they have a modicum of intelligence". Then what needs to change.

There's no context for issues, no solutions, no consideration for working as intended.

If I understood half the points being made and could understand them, I would suggest better wording. As it stands,I can't fully comprehend the first one


gambling on some rng cc affect is not a deep strategic decision. It's just a sign of gambling addiction.
Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: Igniz13] #630234
12/10/17 03:57 PM
12/10/17 03:57 PM
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7
D
DoubleThorn Offline
stranger
DoubleThorn  Offline
stranger
D

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7
Originally Posted By: Igniz13
Originally Posted By: NeoAnubis

OP's post is very clear about this particular issue - the game completely discourages any strategy that deviates from a particular path, there is an obvious stronger choice.

Do a quick test (like several people have already done before) - save right before any particular fight (once for every level/power spike if you want precise results) and then respec before doing those fights, testing builds. The difference is massive when stats are properly alocated.

By the way, no one ever said wits should be the main stat (other than your mention of it of course). It might not even be that bad of a stat (and only be a collateral effect) if other things got fixed (less streamlined stats, different initiative system,


No you don't get it

I understand power gaming works.

What I don't see, is a case why it matters, or why things should change.

If the design document for classic mode states: "any 4 chucklefucks can beat the game as long as they have a modicum of intelligence". Then what needs to change.

There's no context for issues, no solutions, no consideration for working as intended.

If I understood half the points being made and could understand them, I would suggest better wording. As it stands,I can't fully comprehend the first one


Your views differ and that's fine, but reading through your posts I feel like you are not fully considering what is being said. Your initial posts about the list say that the points made are unclear and uneducated. I would disagree as all of the them made perfect sense to me as they were issues I experienced while playing. You pointed out surfaces and, while it's not a massive issue, they seem negligible. You don't get crazy fire + poison combos like the original game, and late game, save for oil and spike traps (and holy fire as an undead) their damage is barely worth considering.

In addition, I'm worried this won't stay civil because you don't seem to be considering other arguments. In this case I am talking about your argument with the initiative system. People are saying it's broken because typically initiative is not round robin, it simply is descending order of initiative. But in the case of this game it is reduced to round-robin, save for the one person that goes first. To quote the wiki, "if your 4-man party of allies has an initiative of 44, 43, 42 and 41 respectively, meeting a 4-man group of enemies with an initiative of 4, 3, 2, 1 respectively... the order of taken actions would be: A44, E4, A43, E3, A42, E2, A41, E1."

There is the argument that it's working as intended, but if we step back from that, does it really seem proper that the ally initiative scores shouldn't all be going before the enemy considering they are all at least 10x as great? As for the wits stat? Well I actually agree with you for the most part, however I would say that it could afford to have some more clear advantage as one of the six primary stats.

Finally, you keep insulting OP and his document. As I already said, I think it is clear he put some time and educated thought into the document. Yes, he didn't write a persuasive essay for every point, but that's because most points can be understood by experienced players with just the first line. The other reason I imagine he left it short is so that such a long list is an easy read and will leave room for discussion. He did not propose solutions because I think he would rather we break down the points in here and propose solutions, with the hope that Larian would notice when many people are proposing similar solutions, as opposed to one guy claiming he can fix everything.

I simply ask that you try and give the arguments true consideration. These issues were rather obvious to me, perhaps because of all the time I spent in EA and in the original game. You have made some good counter arguments, while some of your other posts didn't demonstrate more than a glancing attempt to demonstrate the issue, consider the intention, and propose a solution. For example, your last post said "If I understood half the points being made and could understand them, I would suggest better wording. As it stands,I can't fully comprehend the first one."

Re: The Flaws of Divinity: Original Sin II [Re: GreatGuardsman] #630257
12/10/17 04:52 PM
12/10/17 04:52 PM
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
N
NeoAnubis Offline
journeyman
NeoAnubis  Offline
journeyman
N

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
@Igniz13 You keep, for some reason, misinterpreting what people are defending.

I never once mentioned power gaming, I don't know where you got that from. What I stated is that there is no liberty for strategical thinking on character builds. Also what the OP said by the way.


As for your constant insults to the document itself, as I said on the last post: rewrite what you think is confusing in a better way and I'm sure the author will take note of it. He specifically asked for it on previous posts. Doing exactly what you're criticizing might not be the best way to convey your message.

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.2