prodigydancer

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer the D&D/IE system over what we have in PoE right now. I always found other uses for my healers (e.g. in BG Jaheira was an OK melee figher/off tank) when I didn't need immediate access to heals. Resting wasn't a chore and a pain in IE games only because you could rest almost anywhere anytime. When you're one keypress away from regaining your spells it's not so bad. In PoE it can be much worse, if bonuses from resting in an inn prove to be significant after some balance passes.

Certainly. CC should be a situational tool to prevent enemy from healing, break a devastating AoE attack or make an emergency response (e.g. when you're ambushed and your healer is suddenly in a bad spot). When CC wins you every fight other elements of combat (positioning, aggro management, buffs/debuffs, etc.) become irrelevant.

Recent example: Divinity: Original Stun. In traditional MMOs CC may be a necessary evil but balancing combat in a single-player game around heavy reliance on CC is bad design.

I'll give you an example: in BG one the most efficient party setups you could generate in MP mode was six elven figher/mages with proficiencies in long bows. Or five plus a healer for emergency cases. Rolling for good stats wasn't necessary because CON, WIS and CHA were all dump stats. Due to how bows worked you'd have ridiculous amount of total attacks per round, pre-fight buffs and the ability to chain summon expendable meat shields. Of course playing such a party was about as exciting as eating a gallon of vanilla ice cream. There are always ways to break the game. The question is how much the combat system pushes you in that direction. If playing the game "as intended" is constant pain you start getting all kinds of powerful but nonsense party setups abusing ranged combat, summons, crowd control, etc.

By this logic you're even better off with 6 tanks. Just need to find a sweet spot between damage output and mitigation.

Now this depends on how game economy works. Usually it boils down to one question: is there enough gold (in theory) to buy everything you want in a timely manner? in DA:O, for example, gold was way too scarce with some of the best items only available through vendors.

I wonder: did they actually ask the majority or just went with a groundless assumption? In my eyes occasional "crit dead" (read: not prepared or not careful enough) certainly beats getting hit all the time and having to rest after every fight. Also "crit dead" works both ways. It's fun to hit a tough enemy and see some huge damage number in combat log. On the other hand a steady stream of low damage hits isn't nearly as much fun even if it results in a more impressive DPS. On emotional level these things aren't equal. That's why people love crit builds even at the expense of some DPS (as long as tradeoff margin is reasonable).

If even 25% of mutonizer's analysis is true then I don't have any definition for the current iteration of combat system other than "garbage". Sorry, have to call things by their proper names.

Which is exactly my point. It's a long way from zero to acceptable and yet Obsidian seems adamant about releasing the game on schedule. DNF and Diablo 3 have taught us that endless delays with major shifts in project direction aren't always productive. But extra QA passes usually only lead to overall improvements.

GW2 isn't the best example because its main selling point was "prepare for a revolutionary MMO that will shake the foundations of the genre". It was never promised to be like GW1 in any way. Consequently the problem with GW2 was that the "revolution" was phony and all we got was just another generic themepark almost as buggy (at launch) as Warhammer Online. At least WAR had great RvR. GW2 - not so much.

I want to keep a neutral stance but at this point I'm rather tempted to vote "no" just because all that pro combat XP whining is unbelievably childish. And it spills over to other threads which makes it even worse. You guys are worse than promancers.

And it can be summarized as "Oh noes, the game isn't a carbon copy of BG! Teh sky is falling!" Grossly unreasonable expectations always lead to quick disappointment. C'est la vie.

If you don't reward "degenerate" tactics you need to make sure that you appropriately reward "legitimate" tactics. E.g. I saw a thread here somewhere stating that spellcasting is currently weak and not competitive. If true, guess what it can do to how (if at all) people will play wizards. In other words insisting that players play the game the way it's "meant" to be played will do you no good if your perfect design vision is crippled by a buggy or incomplete implementation.

I'd say that weight should be the limiting factor. As for endless stash, it's just a convenience. Otherwise you have to make trips to some random place (that has enough empty containers) for no reason other than unloading excess items or picking something up. And this adds to meaningful gameplay... how exactly?

BG2 soundtrack was epic but music from Child of Light surpasses it. (Matter of taste, of course. ) P.S. Portal and Portal 2 were amazing in every way.

I think I'll pass. My D&D days are over and reading a huge manual for no reason isn't my idea of fun.

D:OS is annoying like any game that gives you powerful tools only to render them useless further down the road. After level 15 half of the enemies you encounter are invulnerable until you figure out how to weaken them. This doesn't enhance gameplay or make things more challenging because abusing invisibility isn't really hard. Cyseal area is pretty solid though.

Alignments are a D&D feature. My impression so far is that Obsidian isn't going to re-invent D&D. The ruleset they are developing for PoE is quite different so it's hardly a surprise some familiar mechanics from IE games are missing.

While not an RPG, Dishonored is a good example of a game that neither punishes nor promotes any particular playstyle. It's supposed to be a stealth game but you can take revenge on the world and brutally slaughter everyone who stands in your way if you wish so. XP awards push the player towards certain decisions that often make little sense from RP perspective. And that's why I believe that XP is overrated - not just combat XP but the whole concept. The Elder Scrolls games are a proof that you don't need XP to create non-linear open-ended CRPGs. But if Obsidian scratched XP completely... oh, I shiver as I imagine the outcry we'd have here.

Just because you like something doesn't mean it's flawless. I played ToEE long ago and can't recall how combat felt in detail. All I remember is that it was nothing special.

If Obsidian is serious about delivering a finished and satisfying product there NO WAI this game will be ready for release in six months. Mid to late 2015 could be a reasonable goal. P.S. If I were a backer I'd start a petition documenting all major flaws and specifically pointing out the issues that have to be resolved prior to release. You guys may consider this a suggestion.

Really? That's one huge step backwards from IE games.

Well, I admit that I was wrong. This thread just went from irksome to hilarious. You do realize that if you feel that way about The Wirtcher you must feel the same about any game with romances in it, don't you? A video game romance consists of a set of pre-defined triggers and dialogue options. If you find the triggers and select the right dialogue options, you get your sex scene. There's less magic in it than air in outer space. The Witcher used casual sex as a running gag to lighten up the game a little (the overall mood was quite depressing). From a technical standpoint it parodied other games' romances by "fast-forwarding" to the end goal. That's why it worked and that's why it was funny.

IWD was a very combat-driven hack-and-slash CRPG. in BG combat was less important and in PS:T it played even less significant role. Which means a game doesn't have to put heavy emphasis on combat to be great. Getting XP for kills is totally OK with me. But on the other hand not getting XP for kills may lead to fewer but more memorable fights. Let's face it: video game combat is unavoidably repetitive. Available options are limited and winning strategy is usually the same or almost the same. Classic example: roll a mage in Arcanum and spam one button (Harm) ad infinitum. Finally, there's a problem of wrong incentives, so to speak. When XP gains and loot are the only true reasons to fight then there's something fundamentally wrong with how combat is implemented in the game. Battles must be interesting on their own. And any combat vs. stealthy or peaceful approach decisions should be based on RP reasons not on metagame.

A simple solution: equipped items are gone but items in the shared inventory stay (with the possible exception of unique character-bound items, e.g. Minsc won't leave without Boo .