Fiebras

Cant say Ive counted the amount of clicks it takes to move things around in IE games compared to PoE but I will say I find having all the slots you are moving things around in visible at the same time is infinitely better than moving it around inventories you have to click individually to see. Of course, this means that what you have is basically one big segmented stash. But I think it would be best to keep this big stash segmented per-character simply because it -feels- better that way and it is a rather quaint way to organize your items (Potions and scrolls on the wizard, armors and weapons on the fighter, food on the plumb chanter). Of course, a check, tab, and filter system would probably be better for organizaton, but wouldnt have as much character even if you have no real reason to give one character all your items of a certain type as there is no encumberance mechanic (which at this point I would assume would be governed my Athelics or CON if one would even think of implementing it). I feel it feels better to have segmented spaces rather than one huge inventory space. Feel what Im feeling? It all depends on the presentation and subjective opinions and experiences. at least the way I see it.

Agree with people saying that lore isnt just to fill your cyclopedia, its used in conversations and probably interactions. Consider it a dialouge skill if the thought of finding out monster information on your own without consulting a wiki doesnt appeal to you, even if it would be only usable for your first playthrough. Skills probably shouldnt affect combat imo. Though if you feel you need to have everything be about how it affects combat maybe having a full cyclopedia about a creature gives you a small +% damage bonus against it (not several bonuses based on current lore skill) so lore comes in in helping you fill it faster as well as serving for conversations. I feel what you are proposing is a little convoluted when a simple + damage could be enough. What I think you are really trying to say is that you lack incentives for the lore skill beyond dialouge choices and cyclopedia-filing, correct? There are ways to do that without bringing in combat mechanics. Not everything needs to be about combat. Sometimes having a skill serve only for conversations is good enough. In fact Id be grateful the conversation skills get as fleshed out as the combat skills (+2% chance of convincing someone/-1 atribute/skill requirement for dialouge/interaction option per point in [insert atribute/skill]). EDIT: Also, if we consider that unlocking the cyclopedia entries could be a way of getting XP (as per Sawyer´s recent coments), then the way you unlock these (currently being limited to fighting everything until it unlocks) may have to be changed to include some non-combat options (books that you can only read at certain lore thresholds maybe? And have each of these books contribute to your unlocking "progress bar" so you dont have to rely ONLY on combat to unlock cyclopedia XP. This would work well agaisnt monsters that your part may not fight enough times to unlock the XP from the cyclopedia like fully grown dragons, chimeras and whatnot. the XP/information ammount would come in clearly identifiable tiers or progress bars that depend on lore to unlock). Though that is probably for the xp thread.

Having each character´s inventory in one screen in addition to an extra "everyone" stash is fine with me.

The most annoying thing about Per-Character inventories in games is having to switch windows every time you want to move items between diferent characters. Im extremely grateful PoE has all the character inventories in a single window. Hope that doesnt change. I dont want to be moving gems from Imoen to Minsc without seeing how its being auto-organized and having to switch windows 4 times every time I want to equip an item in the inventory of a character that has a full inventory, among other very annoying IE design quirks. And I love inventory managing.

What's illogical about Might being representative of strength and magic drawing power from physical strength? I wish we had an actual STR stat just so I could say "I wish we had spells that are based on STR so I could make a proper Muscle Wizard". They would be touch-range spells that required a to-hit check of course. Armstrong´s spellcasting always involved punching something in some way. Thats why hes the best.

You can have glowing blue magic veins with neat animations in the UI for the Atributes. Thats enough explanation about them being special. Subtlety. Chic. But yeah I think changing the atribute explanations just a bit would at least prevent people and reviewers from thinking Might makes Muscle Mages. (Everyone knows its Might + CON that makes a Muscle Mage, then again almost every class is a Mage at this point). Agreed. Hopefully PoE designers will hear you and finally stop making random non sentient mobs with no soul have high Might just so they can do high damage! mutonizer everyone knows wolves and beetles have a soul in this setting. Youre being silly. Stop being silly!

I think a restrictive stash is fine provided you have enough inventory slots on your characters so that you arent relying on your stash to store your loot after every single fight. Having only 8 slots ends up being rather restrictive considering the sheer amount of weapon, consumables and the like that are available. 16 inventory slots per characters seems to fix this. Maybe. "Quest Only" item stash is brilliant and I hope it never leaves. "Restrictive stash" can be good or bad, even OP. You could replace it with "item holder" items. Not a "bag of holding" per se but things like BG EE gem bag, scroll case and potion stash. Or you could have a "restricticted Stash" but with limited storage or storage limited by party atributes or have it be the party "bag of holding" that you get at some point in the game or have it expand in size at certain story points. Hell, you could even have it be your Morte. The semi-sentient companion cube of the party that stores all their things and will only allow things to be taken out at resting or inns because it has "standards". I rather like the idea of the "restrictive party stash", though it may need to be toyed around with. Oh man. Now I want a talking bag of holding with attitude probles to take the place of the stash. You can justify every mechanic by having it say "because I want to".

Lets get back on the rails: I keep getting slightly miffed at people still confusing Might with just physical STR. Is not the same thing, stop arguing like it is. High Might =/= muscles it is more than that. I would like to ask Obsidian to change the name "atributes" into "SOUL atributes" to better illustrate what they are suposed to be. Athletics is your physical attribite/skill, sorta, if you want a stat thats related to your physical prowess go with that. I needed to get that nitpick off my chest.

Where does the 8-party size limit from Sawyer´s quote come from then? I feel we are both getting mixed up with the quote. Ahhh I dont care enough to look for the quote, you got my point anyway: that its viable to just make one custom character and play that from the begining with written companions that are aquired early.

Eh, I think you misunderstood those Sawyer quotes. The early game content is not made for a 6 member party, but for less, and 6 is the maximum amount of characters in a party. (Whether that's PC+5 written Companions or PC+5 hired Adventurers doesn't matter.) You can send currently-not-in-party Companions/Adventurers to your stronghold, but the total number of (self-made) Adventurers can't exceed 8 at a time. (So, 5 in party, 3 at stronghold or all 8 at stronghold - again, doesn't matter.) Yeah I was refering to them from memory. My point about not wanting you to make a big enough party that you steamroll early content stands. Starting with 8 party members would be wrong, but being able to get 4-5 companion party members with one player-made character very very early as oposed to having 4 player-made adventurers would be ideal imo.

Either Ranger, Cipher, Druid, Paladin or Barbarian. Pallegina/Birdface is already a paladin so thats covered but shes a unique Paladin with a unique race. Paladins and Priests are interesting from an RP standpoint as they sorta condition your behaviour, I like that (especially the "no mercy" paladins and skaen priests, it feels like a refreshing and more neutral way to play as an "evil" party). Theres already an Aumaua Chanter so Im not worried about that. Theres a Wizard already, an Rouge, Monk and Fighter are also covered by NPCs. Currently leaning towards either Ranger or Barbarian. The jack-of-all-physical-combat-traits and animal companion of the Ranger is apealing to me as is the self-sustain, cleave and general sturdiness of the Barbarian class (also because heavy armors, heres hoping for sallets for the Ranger). Im also curious just how much flak you will take from NPCs if you were a Wild Orlan/Death Godlike Barbarian/Cipher.

Considering just how strong a player-optimized character is compared to an NPC one (provided they dont have NPC-exclusive abilities) and considering that +1 adventurer has serious balance implications I think its fine if adventurers cost a bucketload of money to hire. The price isnt set in stone though. Also dont think of it as penalization, its like purchasing a new weapon instead of using the ones that drop from mobs. Somewhere Sawyer said that early game the content is made for a 6 member party so it would make sense to prevent you from steamrolling everything with 8 party members, which is the max. You may agree or disagree with that design, especially if you like the BG munchkin style of party building which amounts to "bumrush through everything, not killing anything to get all your party members ASAP before they get to level 2 and have their hp pools ruined". Not to start an xp debate here but with quest-progression-only xp you dont have to fear engaging in combat for wanting to keep as low a level as possible. But we dont know how companion NPC levels and accesability is going to be so theres that to ponder. Im personally hoping for a full-companion party from the start as oposed to having 5 silent protagonists + 3 companions. Then again I dont know how much companion banter there is if at all. Would be nice to get a companion to test in the backer beta area.

In the interest of saving time, for things like Humans, Dwarfs and Elfs I think its fine for them to say "they can use their own/we have enough" though I dont think there is a female Dwarf one (unless thats suposed to be the long-haired blond in plate). For the OC races however, they are sorely lacking in portraits. Theres 2 Orlan portraits. One male, One female. Both Hearth Orlan. No Wild Orlans. Theres 4 Aumaua portraits. Two Male Oceanic. One Male Island. One Female Island. Also one of the portraits has a beard despite Aumauma not having beard options. Godlikes are all represented but their head options are so distinct and unique they each need a portrait. Also, Moon Godlike models dont look at all like their portraits. Same goes for the Aumaua (muddy textures in their models). There are also some racial variants that have no representation like Ocean Folk and Boreal Dwarves. I think at least two portraits of each racial variant is needed (one male, one female). The portraits we have seen so far are beautiful so Im gonna give them the "we are working on them but it takes time" benefit of the doubt. Theres also like 3+ months left to go and that should be plenty for the artists. At least thats what my ignorant brain that has very little idea how game development cycles work for 2D artists in a "2D BG with 3D models game" thinks. Fingers crossed.

Rangers make terrible tanks and aren't great at DPS. With four Rangers you would have a small army, but it would be very weak. I don't know if you've been playing them, but they are clearly too weak. Read the rest of the post before replying.

Rangers suck? What? They are the best class in the game man. No other class gives you tank, DPS and what amounts to one additional free adventurer all in one. For just mindless DPS-ing and Tanking you could have 4 rangers and with the chanter buffs and summons you basically have a small army. They are just buggy atm and limited to a single target (which is fine). But in all honesty, I do think they require a bit more work. The shared health pool can make sense as a more prevalent and more benign version of D&D´s "your animal companion/familiar dies you suffer huge permanent penalties". I get it: Your bond with your companion gives you several bonuses but has this drawback. I like the idea of it. I agree that animal companions and ranger skill pool do feel underwhelming. As it is now they are more passive than the Fighter and Rouge. Probably the mos passive "Illjust autoattack forever" clas in the game atm. The animal companion probably should get some unique front-line skills but not enough that it becomes a second adventurer. One or two actives and passives are good enough. Otherwise the animal companion ends up becoming the real character and the ranger is just there as an accesory. As it is right now the only companions I see myself getting are the Bear for its DT as the single skills of the rest of the companions make me think of them as exclusively meatshields, of which the Bear is the best at this. Regarding the Ranger itself im not sure. The whole purpose of the class seems to be sustained single-target DPS which is fine but the Rogue and Cipher also give you this. If you want to attack two targets at once (one with companion other with ranger) you miss out on your passive and active class bonuses/abilities/talents so you are sorta restricted to single-target damage despite not being the best at it. If you want to get beefy and have your animal companon tank then there are better tank classes out there, some which can even heal themselves. So your companion ends up being an off-tank at most. And even then if you have low CON (because you try to maximise your role as a DPS dealer) then your companion cant realy tank. So the advantage of having two units to control is narrowed down to the role of "DPS/TANK". The Ranger is an all-rounder class, not really meant to excell as either DPS or TANK but to sorta fill up the holes of your party compasition should those roles be ocupied by only one character each maybe more. You basically get half a rouge/cipher and half a Fighter/monk/barbarian for the price of one. I think this is a fine role for the Ranger. Not every class must be super-specialized for one role like the Fighter. I rather very much like the Ranger. But I would like to see more tactical options available for the ranger so they can build themselves into more specialized roles should they want to. PS: DPS/TANK are very narrow-minded terms and arent 100% apropiate to use I think but they serve here for lack of better vocabulary. PS2:If possible Id love some more amphibian companions. We are always fightning lizards and toads but with a fish-people race we should maybe get amphibian companions. This is just personal preference.

They have been pretty active these last few days. Well, more active than normal. They may not be as active as other kickstarter devs, but that doesnt mean they arent listening.

I think its fine to have mods for an in-beta-testing game sor the purposes of testing theories and design concepts. Its one thing to show graphs and images of how an inventory would be better with more slots per character, and a completely different thing to test it out for yourself in-game. People should remove the mod after they are done fiddling with it though as its very detrimental and counterproductive to test a game and report errors, bugs, and mechanics while you have a mod on, as others have said. Id suggest that unless its for the purpose of demonstrating ideas for the purposes of discussion we refrain from making mods at this stage of development. You will have plenty of time to change everything you may not like about the game once its released.

The one area lacking in mayor not-discussed-to-death feedback are spells and abilities, particulary high-lvel ones. The most productive thing we can do now is to test them out and report the bugs we see as even with an atribute and health/mechanic change Im sure most abilities need to be acounted for individually and wont change massively.

I rather like the item icons. They could be bigger though. Thanks for the mod Sensuki. While I dont have a problem with the inventory system having a more spacious per-character inventory just feels better. Its mostly the rectangular two rows. It just FEELS better, like its not so scramped in there anymore. There should be a more noticeable separation between each character´s inventory though, either with a thicker separation or a darker line. Preferably the darker line as the current inventory height just barely allows for a sixth character and even then I think hes hidden. As it is right now it just looks like one massive inventory, which is kinda iffy. Also, congrats on first PoE mod ever I guess?

I arrived pretty late to the thread so I wont coment much beyond thanking you guys for the effort and that DEX should be chaned to SPD for speed maybe to better clarify its purpose. That way the only remants of the D&D system would be INT and CON.

You do get XP in stages, only the stages are dictated by quest stages. You get XP for entering the ogre cave and entering the Skaen Dungeon. At least last i checked. Overall I think the level progression might be fine but I cant possibly know for sure since the XP we recieve is more than normal for the purposes of the Backer Beta. I honestly felt like I leveled TOO FAST in BG, particulary at early levels. I could have a full party of 6 level 1s and could get everyone to level 4 before Nashkel Mines without ever deviating to any side area except maybe the gnoll stronghold, which felt like too much at the time. I rather like a slow pacing on leveling. Give me time to enjoy the struggles of my low level characters. Im fond of low level adventures before everything becomes mage duels.

Would rather they add the mayor changes and fixes before releasing the new version. Though I do feel the current version´s mayor bugs and desired changes to the system and presentation have been mostly reported and documented so theres not that much more to give lots of feedback on atm. I have faith they can get the game out in good shape by the release date but Im sure no matter what its gonna require a few post-release patches before people can play "the very definite version".

I hope the bear doesnt get smaller, but his collision radius does. The Rouge´s most valuable skill Ive seen so far is the escape ability for instant reposition and manuevering which makes it the ideal scouting class imo. Theres also the sneak attacks though I havent seen them multiply the damage in any perceptible way. Deep wounds is nice too though the ranger has her own version in her active and ven if its not something you can aply to every enemy it still does the job. Bot to mention the Ranger has the pet to provide more front line cover. And Ciphers can do more consistent damage per attack even without reckless assault and sneak attacks plus they have their abilities to do even more damage and control

Barbarians have a per-encounter heal and the best STAM to HEALTH ratio. They are pretty damn good frontliners. I would assume the Carnage cleaves stack so they would be the best brute force response to the current dogpiling enemies. Literal meatgrinder.

y youre so concernd about speling dud? Theres beter thinggies wich are more important.