Gairnulf

This is still present in v.364

Still not fixed in v364. I should have written "timestamps" in the thread name.

So you can kill enemies just by kiting and engagement abuse Could you make a video of this. It would be hilarious.

See the screenshots. I liked the archaic sound of pronouncing "switchs", but if that's how it should be, then fix the writing style everywhere. I think it would be cool

[Description of the issue] Basically, what the title says. When You level up while in a conversation, which is often the case, the highlighting of the levelup "+" icons is visible through the dialogue's overlay although the portraits are not visible themselves. [DETAILED list of steps to reproduce the issue AND what to look for] 1) Finish any quest that allows you to level up while in a conversation 2) The highlights are visible in the lower left corner of the screen. [Expected behaviour] The highlighting shouldn't be visible. [Other remarks / Comments] Screenshot attached.

If that won't catch the devs attention to do something about engagement, I don't know what will. I still dind't understand how can you force an enemy to disengage from you.

[Description of the issue] When trying to put a two-handed weapon over a one-handed weapon you can easily replace it. However, trying to put a two-handed weapon in the empty slot next to the one-handed weapon is disallowed and no feedback is given. [DETAILED list of steps to reproduce the issue AND what to look for] 1) Equip a character with a one handed weapon, leave the other slot in that weapon-slot empty. 2) Try to put a two-handed weapon in the empty slot next to the one-handed weapon. 3) The empty slot turns red. [Expected behaviour] I think some textual feedback should appear to tell the player why he can't put a wepon there, or the one-handed weapon should go to the inventory, same as if you had put the two handed weapon over the one-handed weapon in the occupied slot. [Other remarks / Comments] Screenshot attached.

[Description of the issue] At times trying to exit Dyrford Crossing and go to Dyrford Village will show the time to travel as 0 seconds and when trying to travel the game freezes in a black screen. Actually I'm not sure if it freezes because I can still press the interface's buttons and hear sounds from interface windows opening and closing. [DETAILED list of steps to reproduce the issue AND what to look for] Example: 1) Load attached savegame 2) Exit the Dyrford Crossing area. Any exit will produce the same result 3) Click on Dyrford Village, the dialog window will say "0 seconds" as in the screenshot. 4) Travel to Stormwall Gorge instead. The window will say it will take you 6 hours. 5) Now, from Stormwall Gorge travel to Dyrford Village. It will say it will take you 6 hours. 6) Now you can safely travel back to Dyrford Crossing and back from there to Dyrford Village directly [Other remarks / Comments] Savegame attached. Also, a screenshot. DyrfordCrossing.zip

Well, there hasn't been a new version for over a month. They'll probably update it with the fixes done in 364

The only one who owes anybody is Bioware owing you 70 euro. As you wish though, I am playing it, so I felt obliged to warn you

BTW I just (re)discovered this thread: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66785-known-issues-list/?p=1493754 It does help some, but there isn't a detailed list of the changes to the game rules.

More wrong assumptions. Honestly I don't really know what you are talking about. What is Katniss? Never mind, I don't want to know. Katniss is main character from Hunger Games. She is face of people opposing the faceless corporation he is talking about. I don't know how this relates to this forums, but Shevek is a special sort. Now I remember. I wrote that series off as something targeted at pubescent girls. Never mind. That's pretty much how I feel, although I think combat could be made fun even with engagement, if the punishment for breaking engagement isn't so severe, and if the AI would actually learn to re-acquire targets, and weigh reacquiring targets vs. breaking of engagement, when it is in engagement... Of course that's easier said than done. That's why I am offering that we try to specify what the backers understand under 'feels' and under 'what this game was promised to be'. I was surprised that there were people opposed to this, as I think it would lead to us understanding each other better instead of going over the same arguments in every other thread.

Of course it isn't. Nobody is claiming it is. More wrong assumptions. Honestly I don't really know what you are talking about. What is Katniss? Never mind, I don't want to know. I know what's a discussion forum Shevek. Please in the future ignore my posts if you don't understand them.

It's funny how the question finally boils down to power and authority in the political sense. The answer I give myself to your question would be that the developers are as free or as bound as they are allowed to be. When there are centers of power they will tend to increase their power, so in our situation - the hardcore players would strive to dictate everything, while the developers would strive to have as much freedom as they can without endangering the project's profitability (as percieved by them). I'm not saying either party is evil, just that there are interests which are common to some extent but diverge from one point onwards. I agree that it's the minority of the market that gives significant input in the forums, but to put it blunt - it's not this minority's problem that it's a minority They are still a group which pursues its interests. Another argument - if someone doesn't voice their opinion or take part in democratic procedures they are not really in a position to complain that their opinions are not taken into account by the decision-makers. And lastly - if the majority of backers don't express their opinions, then nobody who is more voiced can play "representative of the silent majority", because nobody has the information to be such a representative. What do you think is the developers' reaction to this phenomenon - would you suppose that they are using the hardcore fans' (those who express their) wishes and concerns to infer what the softer periphery would be content to roll with? That's what I imagine they do. The problems of information overload. Similar to what the player experiences with ultrafast combat and cluttered UI I don't think it's harder to get a representative opinion, it just requires an increase in computing power in order to analyze all the inputs coming from the public. That's due not only to the increased bandwith for communication, but to the increased size of this public. Games are now mainstream pastime, very much like TV and music. The market's now radically different from when BGII came out, but you probably don't need me to tell you that. What's my concern isn't that it's become more difficult to find out what the public wants - there are professionals in that area who can narrow it down very accurately. My concern is that when a publisher (one publisher in particular comes to mind when it comes to RPGs) has the capability to know what the public at large would buy, this publisher will most probably start producing sh*t, or at least "sh*t from a hardcore player's point of view". From which comes my conclusion that we, the hardcore players who would invest the time to betatest and post in forums, are a minority. And for a minority to push forward its agenda it has to stick together and stay coherent, no way around this I wouldn't assume to know which opinions the developers value or how they make their decisions in such detail as you assume to know.

At least my explanation is that these icons have been exported in a wrong color mode. Probably the issue is something different but here are some examples: The description says this is a copper coin. The same image is shown for the Golden Duc, although I haven't taken a screenshot of that too, it looks the same. Maybe the idea is that it will get progressively closer to gold, as the game gets closer to gold? I suppose this book should actually have a dark-orange or yellow cover as well.

If "Lol" is the best argument you can come up with, I am satisfied.

Oh no. A single party's monopoly over the meaning of language that extends over everyone else means totalitarianism. I can't agree they determine the meaning of any term. They kind of do when they're the ones who used it. It's not like you can go... "Obsidian! When you said that word with subjective implications, this is what you meant." No. Every new word you hear is up to you to figure out until you learn its commonly established meaning from somewhere. There is no static definition of the term given by the PoE team (be that intentional or not), so it's up to anyone to define it. And we are not supposed to tell Obsidian what they meant, I am not proposing that and would be against that. I rather think we can agree on what we mean if we discuss the question.

Oh no. A single party's monopoly over the meaning of language that extends over everyone else means totalitarianism. I can't agree they determine the meaning of any term. If you want your PC always on the front (via pre-made or custom party positioning), that is totally fine by me. It then makes sense that whenever you move to a given direction, your party positioning gets rotated so that, in your case, your PC stays on the front. This is what I have been talking about. Actually I had forgotten about the custom party option.

I don't propose we use the forum to generate lists as opposed to discussions. I just propose that when we talk about the "zeitgeist of the IE games" etc. we have a common definition. Establishing a common terminological body between parties is a required step for any rational discussion. I'd rather call ludicrous arguing endlessly while using words which have a different meaning for you than for the other guy. That's arguing for the sake of argument, without trying to reach a solution.

I want to have my rogue on the front, to scout ahead. Depends if I'm in a dungeon or not. I'm also used to arranging my party so that my PC is always at the front, and tanks etc are after him, although that's unneeded now. That's another deviation from the IE games (at least from BG games) but I doubt anyone will protest, especially if they play a class that usually has few hitpoints. So it's not guaranteed everyone will want their tanks in the front. All kinds of people out there.

What made no sense to you? I'm willing to explain better. Mainly, if you set a team of developers off with the words "Make it in such a way so that IE feels are there" you'll get worse results than if you give them more precise description what end result you want.

That's what I've been saying - if it's been some way in the IE games that doesn't automatically make it good design. I would roll with it though, doesn't bother me.

Regarding the second point, don't you use right-click+rotate? It's become a habit for me. Regarding the first, I think Josh is the chief Lore authority, but personally I don't see why would anyone who wants an elf with a beard be stopped.

Nicely put. However, once you leave the presentation room and you have to set goals to your team where you're lead designer, you have to resort to a concrete list of features. Also, I'm not talking about a list of what makes it, leaving aside the question "what makes it... to where?". I'm talking about demystifying "IE feels" and explaining them in an objective way. Having a list of such features we consider core IE experience wouldn't stop people from posting their ideas.

What? I was serious. I have my own list of things I'd like to have in PoE and were in the IE games. Probably others do as well. It may be an exercise in futility, or it may actually help the developers, or maybe even impair them to do things they want but we are against