Zwiebelchen

Min/Maxing in this game is overrated. Due to the reverse difficulty curve of the game (game starts out incredibly hard, then gets progressively easier as you reach higher levels), you can do just fine in PotD with non-min/maxed chars. I tried it.

I think all new created official portraits should be either Orlan, Godlike or Aumaua. Simply because humans, elves and dwarves can be found all over the interwebs. What we need are the unique races. I voted for the furry gnomes!

Unfortunately, tax laws favour large-budget-large-return projects over small-budget-small-return projects. Which is why we don't see small releases from the big developers. They got to invest big for maximum tax write-off.

People that take internet for granted are amusing. How did you deal with the 7 gigs steam download then?

Gehe ich recht in der Annahme dass diese Bezeichnungen nur die Bezeichnungen der Buffs im Tooltip sind und sonst nirgendwo verwendet werden? In dem Fall sehe ich ehrlich gesagt keinen Grund warum alles Adjektive sein müssen? Es könnten eigentlich auch substantivierte Verben sein oder? Hier daher meine Vorschläge: Brennen: +25% Brandschaden Zersetzen: +25% Zersetzungsschaden Schmettern: +25% Wuchtschaden Gefrieren: +25% Frostschaden Durchbohren: +25% Stichschaden Schocken: +25% Schockschaden Häckseln: +25% Hiebschaden

Seriously? You complain about 600mb? Oo That's hardly the size of a decent-quality episode of your favorite pirated show!

****, I totally got that reference.I'm a nerd.

I think there should be a brothel upgrade to the stronghold to generate some extra cash by pimpin' dat hoes. Just to upset SJWs ...

There is no such thing as layering. The "image" contains all z-depth and occlusion information just like a normal or bump map in 3D games. It's entirely 3D, just stored in a 2D file format. Your GPU reads the 2D-images as fully-functional 3D-scenery. There is no illusion of depth. What you see is real depth. Given some software, you could even see the landscape entirely in 3D by using hardware like the oculus rift. Every pixel has it's own z-position just like a vertex has in typical 3D games.

The problem is that the increased AoE radius was kind of an afterthought of the stat system. Initially, we didn't have that mechanic. They (as in the devs) implemented it because they felt stats were too one-sided beneficial to attacks and neglected spells way too much. In the original concept, INT affected the size of AoEs, but there was no difference between the inner and outer circle. The enlarged radius always hit both friends and foes. Then people (rightfully) complained that increasing INT actually caused a decrease in usability of spells instead of the opposite, due to the fact that the larger circles made it harder to position those spells and you rarely needed the extra-range. To fix this, the devs came up with the double-circle mechanic. When the community proposed a scalable AoE instead to fix the foe-only cheesing, the devs responded that it would be difficult to implement (they never gave us a reason why, though...). So I'd say the current solution was more or less just plain lazy design. And yes, cheesing is very much the result of this mechanic. Given enough INT, you will mostly ignore the inner circle completely and aim only with the outer circle. That is cheesy, as it basicly bypasses the friendly-fire mechanic of the game entirely. It doesn't help that the radius increases to almost comical levels if you stack enough INT. A scalable AoE would eliminate the problem of more int = less usability of spells, but in the same time fix the foe-only cheesing of spells. It's the best solution hands down. The two-circle mechanic is just lazy implementation that breaks game balance by allowing players to mindlessly spam AoEs without any risk. Btw, you will find the discussion that caused this change of mechanics here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67742-how-to-solve-the-aoe-problem-while-making-the-int-stat-more-compelling-and-int-characters-smarter/?hl=+friendly +fire The 2-circle mechanic is btw the basic reason for most spell imbalances we see currently. Especially Fan of Flames. Cone-spells are meant to be highly situational and are meant to put the wizard as risk by placing him on the frontline to cast. This is how it was in the IE games and it was awesome. In PoE, you basicly use cone-shaped spells by moving farther behind, then aim it so that all the action happens in the yellow area, ignoring the red area. This is clearly cheesing as it basicly allows you to bypass the risk of what is clearly meant as a risk-vs-reward spell.

Just because I keep reading this same old mantra: Pillars of Eternity is not 2D. The landscapes have been modelled in 3D to begin with and the characters and interactable objects are all 3D. In fact, Pillars of Eternity is not less 3D than any other new game release. The only difference is that PoE uses pixel-based occlusion instead of vertex occlusion and has a static camera. Technically, there is exactly the same z information in PoE as in any other 3D game; it's just stored in a different way. If we think about it, then PoE appears kind of as the natural evolution of 3D games: All neccesary 3D information baked into a static camera, to optimize games for the booming market of cellphones and overall declining speed of hardware evolution.

Ich möchte das an dieser Stelle nochmal hervorheben; meines Erachtens fast schon wichtiger als die kleinen Übersetzungsfehler hier und da. Wer wie ich nur die wörtliche Rede liest und die grauen Passagen überspringt (ich bins halt von BG gewohnt mir die Gesten selbst auszumalen), wird durch die falschen Anführungszeichen quasi ununterbrochen aus dem Lesefluss gerissen. Das irritiert teilweise so stark, dass man die Texte dreimal lesen muss, bevor man alles versteht. Ich würde gerne direkt bei der Übersetzung helfen, aber mir fehlt die Zeit dafür. Darum hier nur meine Votes für die populären Probleme: - Ich finde "Gestandene" gar nicht mal so übel, ehrlich gesagt. Hat irgendwie was, auch wenns vermutlich eher nach Notlösung klingt (auf den ersten Blick). In Witcher mochte ich auch "Anderlinge" für Elfen und Zwerge. Ich persönlich find "Gestandene" besser als "Kith". "Humanoide" widerum hat einen Selbsterklärungs-bonus. Ich vote hier sowohl für "Gestandene" als auch für "humanoide". "Kith" würde ich ablehnen. Wir brauchen nicht noch mehr Fremdworte in der Spielsprache... ich bin ohnehin für die Einführung der Dreier-Regel in Fantasy-Werken: Man darf maximal 3 neue Wörter erfinden. Herr der Ringe würde also schon auf der ersten Seite sein Wort-Pensum erfüllt haben... - "Gefäß" macht Sinn, ist aber nicht selbsterklärend. Besser wäre hier meines erachtens "Seelenlose". Zumindest bei dem Gattungsbegriff. "Gefäß" sollte weiterhin verwendet werden, sobald es um den Körper an sich geht.

The problem with Int is that the increased AoE radius is foe-only. This creates the weird situation in that you can always aim your spells in a fashion that damages all enemies, but doesn't harm your allies. This creates a heavy imbalance, as certain spells are meant to hit your allies and are balanced around the fact that the AoE is so huge that it's very impractical to use most of the time. A fix to this was already proposed during Backer-Beta times: make the AoE scalable via the mousewheel instead of just adding a foe-only extra radius. That way, intelligence increases your radius and adds flexibility to your spell without making it a braindead foe-only ability.

I don't think that just altering the XP curve is enough to fix the front-loaded difficulty of PotD and Pillars in general. There's a severe mob balancing issue in this game in the way that later enemies have not enough accuracy to even hit a decently equipped tank. This will not be fixed by just altering the XP gained throughout the game. On hard, accuracy values seem to vary between different types of mobs by +/- 30. And for some weird reason, the mobs with the highest accuracy ratings appear very early in the game. This creates the weird effect that the game is incredibly hard on PotD around Gilded Vale, where most of the high-accuracy enemies are and then it becomes almost laughable. I hope Obsidian will not give in to the naysayers and will buff enemies of Act 2 and Act 3 all across the board.

Maybe she just has issues with unemployed monsters? Would explain why she terminates them so violently. "It's not working!!" - Headshot! ..maybe she's thinking of her ex every time... "It's not working!" headshot. Or maybe she just has tourette syndrom? "Hey guys, don't you think that hat suites m- ITS NOT WORKING ... ahem, sorry ... I was trying to say that ITS NOT WORKING ... damnit!" Anyways I don't have this bug. Maybe that only happens for one of the available voices?

There seems to be a massive general problem with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_leak on lots of temporary objects in the game. Obviously, the programmers probably relied on language garbage collection way too much. I remember in the backer beta people complained about the game slowing down the longer you played. I haven't had this happen in PoE in the current build yet, but there might be remnants of this left in the save/load routine.

Das Problem ist, dass man nicht einfach alle "du"s mit find & replace durch "ihr" ersetzen kann, weil sich dadurch auch entsprechend das Verb im Satz verändert: "Du findest ..." --> "Ihr findet ..." Um das großflächig zu beheben, müsste man sämtliche "Du" manuell durchgehen...

Okay, I have multiple theories on this that could explain all that: 1) Maybe Xaurip spears and Xaurip shields were the first item objects ever created for the game and thus had a different item ID (like "0") which doesn't get adressed by the cleanup algorithm? 2) Maybe it's how you loot those items; did you use the "loot all" button frequently or do you drag and drop or click every item manually? 3) Possibly a bug related to the loot mechanics when there is an unlootable item like camping supplies in the loot container. Are there some Xaurips in the game that drop camping supplies? The 59 second chance armors could be in the save once for every procc that triggered so far? Is 59 roughly the amount that someone with second chance armor dropped in your game? Those 26 spell occurances could be because of saving when the spell was still on the screen and wasn't properly cleaned up via the out of combat mechanic before hitting quicksave?

These values are definitely broken. Even the level 2/3 wolves and boars on Magran's fork have 55-60 accuracy for me. I'll check out the accuracy scores in beastiary and combat log for comparison when I get back home (unfortunately, no PoE for me over the easter holidays).

The beholder dungeon is actually victim of the ****ed up mob balancing of beholders. Basicly, the smaller ones (Gauths) are way more dangerous than the large beholders. And while you can avoid most of the beholders in the actual beholder cave (basicly, the only one you have to kill is the single Gauth in the sceptre room) the real sucker punch of this quest is the level-adjusted spawn after the bridge riddle that can not be avoided. The game assumes Gauths to be easier than grown Beholders. But this is unfortunately not the case. I'd say this is more of a bug than an intended feature. If you happen to do this quest at a later point in the game and get the level adjusted spawn that contains grown beholders, you'll find that battle much easier to win. Actually, I've found that most of the unavoidable sucker-punches in BG2 are due to the few level adjusted spawning zones. Getting a Lich surrounded by greater Mummies in spellhold is a slap in the face if you happened to be just slightly above the level treshold for the next encounter size to trigger. PoE doesn't have this mechanic, fortunately.

Have you checked your encyclopedia for the lowlevel foes like the boars or wolves in the game already? Or the monsters from the second floor in eothas temple in Gilded Vale (not talking about the Shadows but the things in the final room with the helmet)? They should all have around 55-60 accuracy already. Depends on the encounter. Basicly, the difference between normal and hard is the amount and type of enemies you will encounter. If f.ex. an encounter on normal only has two Xaurips, the same encounter on hard might have a Xaurip champion and a priest. On PotD, you will have all monsters of easy, normal and hard difficulty combined AND they also get a 50% stat boost.

I don't get how anyone could possibly NOT like those sucker punches. If I wanted encounters to scale strictly by area, I'd play MMOs. Also, fooking realism. It makes no sense that a Lich or Dragon is weak just because it happens to reside in a starting area. A dragon is a dragon. It's not meant to be killed by lowlevel adventurers. Granted, BG2 wouldn't be as good as it is without encounters like Kangaxx, Firkraag, the roguestone house in the bridge district or the mindflayer dungeon in the sewers. Having all those secret, sinister places filled with legendary battles readily available early in the game is what made BG2 magical. There is nothing like "I'll definitely come back to you, mofo!" after getting your ass whooped and then return several levels later to show them who is the boss. All those encounters were perfectly optional. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people didn't even find them in their first game. And except for the roguestone dungeon, you always have the option to back out again if you realize it's way beyond your party's capabilities.

Maybe she just has issues with unemployed monsters? Would explain why she terminates them so violently. "It's not working!!" - Headshot!

Define "many". A PC game is bound to have bugs upon release, much of it due to the fact that you have to account for different hardware and OS configurations. Are the current bugs "game-breaking" in the true sense of the word, as is the case with a lot of games nowadays? Not by a long shot. Also, we don't know the internal reasons for those bugs. Sometimes two seemingly unrelated bugs share the same internal reason. On several projects I've worked on so far, some of the most gamebreaking bugs were caused by simple coding errors. Forgetting about a temporary variable change for testing purposes (this is especially frustrating, as this usually breaks stuff that was working before, so you obviously don't bugtest this feature again), wrong variable indexing (incrementing an array variable starting with 1 instead of 0 or the opposite), use of ">" instead of ">=", etc. ... Often, you look over your code and simply can not find anything wrong and when you finally notice what you did wrong, you just want to slam your head into a wall repeatedly.

So it's only the Xaurip Spears that show up? In that case, i think it's a safe assumption that it's a bug.