frapillo80

Ok, I can't help it, putting up with stupid-a** patronizing (and a lot of dumb misquoting, as anybody who will actually read the xp thread will realize). The moderators threat, to a n00b from someone who evidently enjoys a special status when Iit comes to being an obnoxious-a**, is always a classy touch. So I guess this is my goodbye to the forum, but a last though for Grominator, because I still wonder about how he came to be like this: Now, I understand that your life peaked sharply about 14 years ago when some half-orc BG2 mob was named after your avatar, and it's been all downhill ever since. But that's only because you've been giving far too much importance to that moment: developers name minor characters after their obnoxious neighbour, dog, or favourite hooker all the time. So get a grip, man. HA! GREAT fun!

Just got accused in the "Fighters are not boring" thread of having being complaining about the lack of combat xp and that it wasn't advertized on kickstarter. I can't believe it keeps happening after having stating ad nauseam that I've never been about kill-xp how many times? 20? 30? Enough to make everybody sick of hearing it? There must be a shadow "PoE beta xp system" thread I'm not aware of, with a shadow Frapillo80 spamming in favour of kill-xp. I'll have to accept my doom, to be remembered and vilified forever as "that bloody combat-xp obsessed guy".

I find males who play as females in games rather obnoxious.It's like they constantly have to sexually titillate themselves in every aspect of life. My skin just crawls when I see that kind of pathetic behavior. I think it says more about you that you automatically assume a guy playing as a female character is doing it for sexual tillation. FFS this isn't WoW. I'm sure rag-doll effects play a very important role in that kind of sexual titillation.

What? Have you read anything I've posted at all, or you just labeled it as noise and skipped it as you always claim to do? But you are right, this is becoming moderators' work, so, it's been a pleasure, I feel blessed by your, ehm, words, and many apologies to the rest of the posters.

I have the feeling they are saving that kind of thing for the expansion. After all, right now characters can get only so many levels.I would be a really happy camper if such warrior only, single weapon further specialization unlocked a new warrior-only bonus/use (of the kind of hatchet gives deflection, stiletto bypasses dt), a different one for each weapon. Although it would probably be a lot of work.

But bundles make sense exactly from a non-metagaming perspective, because you play being sure that you'll find at least a few weapons within your bundle that are good enough to justify the talent-point spent, without any need for metagaming knowledge. Also, bundles encourage trying different weapons and styles, while feeling freed from specialization-related considerations. Shouldn't this be seen as a positive? I find it a very stress-free system.

One of my things was exactly "if at least stealth had compelling, tactical challenging, interesting mechanics, I'd actually be more or less fine with the current setup." P.S. Immortalis, middle grounders like me are invariably just some snide, undercover provokers. In the Blood War, the declaredly neutral faction is actually the worst of all!

Certain tasks do make them obsolete. For example lock picking. Why would you have a second character have a high mechanics skill? Also, if a task asks you to send a character to do something, like cross a ravine with a grappling hook and rope you send the one with the highest skill and the rest of your party follows automatically. There's also no way I'm going to put points in Mechanics for my Cipher when my Rogue already does a good job at that. Stealth or Athletics? Maybe. But I'd rather put points in skills like Lore because that opens up dialogue options. Does mechanics or stealth open dialogue options? No? Then it's better to give those skills to an NPC. And if I'm pumping points in Lore to open up dialogue options, then what is my BB Wizard going to do? The game doesn't recognise lore in dialogue options with my BB Wizard or any companion. The game's dialogue only goes off your main character. So I'd rather spend points on skills for my main character to open those dialogue options, not on skills that don't. Which is why I would give those skills like mechanics to a NPC rogue. It also doesn't get around the fact that my BB Priest skills are ALL worthless now in my current party. Every other character has higher points in EVERY skill than the BB Priest. I guess it turns out to be the (possibly inevitable) consequence of the dycotomy between skill/attribute conversation checks (protagonist only) and skill/attribute vignette checks (send whoever is best at it). Party vignette checks, well, how would you go? Minimum threshold for the worst party member, or party-average threshold? But after all, the system seems to be doing admirably in avoiding STR 18 INT 3 builds with attributes, so I don't see gaving a bit of that with skills so bad. Ok, I should shut up then... Edit: sorry, I hadn't seen Hiro's next post on the subject while typing.

The only problem (if it is actually such given the melee/ranged split for accuracy is gone) with current Perception is tricky to solve: I mean, the most obvious fix might seem to have Perception give some small impact melee bonus that doesn't overlap with that of other attributes (like chance of critical or some very small DT bypassing, although they'd be hell to balance properly), and the ranged character would benefit as well from them should he go melee, although it would be a sub-optimal choice. But then one might say, if Perception gives a bonus to i.e. crit change, why shouldn't it work with ranged attacks too? And if you do that you are back from the start, only with Perception giving 2 bonus to ranged and 1 to melee instead of 1 to ranged and 0 to melee. So it should be some melee bonus that reasonably would not be applicable to ranged attacks, but what are we left with? Although this might just be nitpicking, the new attributes sound really solid.

Although then you'd need a bunch of Throne of Bhaal-like loot, raining down high-level equivalent weapons of every single type. I mean, BG2 specializations made me slightly annoyed the first playthrough, since of course I went for longsword grandmastery only to find out that the game (vanilla BG2) had no longsword I liked enough to justify sinking 5 spec points into it. Maybe the devs want to avoid this kind of scenario, I don't know. Personally, I find the tematic weapon sets quite immersive and realistic: after all, no real-life military man specialized in just one weapon, since you end up many times having to fight with whatever you have at disposal, have equipment shortcomings, lose/break weapons, etc. That's me, but I like the thing like Legionary: specialized in pilum, gladius, pugio, hasta, plumbatae, etc. I find it quite realistic, actually. But that doesn't mean I am insesitive to the appeal of highly focused specialization in gameplay terms.

I haven't had the time to try the build yet (and thanks again, Hiro), but I'd like a thing that was spinning since a bit: does Resolve influence negative durations as well? Not a big deal, just out of curiosity. P.S. From what I'm reading the new improvements sound awesome.

And on top of that NWN2 (unmodded) didn't allow to multiclass companions, which made playing with the dwarf as a plain fighter excruciatingly dull (I always saw the monk conversion a really forced way to try and fix this problem, since they recognized that forcing players to use him as a plain fighter would be...well...just plain cruel).

You are right on everything, Gro-Gro. I must be really stupid as you say. First, I keep replying, which is stupid enough. Gromnir says that the fighter's role as a tank is unique, but that monk and barbarian kind can of tank too: that'd just what I'd call unique. I didn't get that before, for being stupid. And recognizing the essential tanking role of the fighter implies that it should be his only role, it's so obvious. How embarassingly stupid of me. I'll start pushing for a healing-only priest, since healing others is a crucial role as well. That should make both classes so much fun to play. Yo man, you've enlightened another rage monkey. Be proud of yourself! The only reason I keep replying is that the House motto here is "Never put up with any stupid-a** patronizing". I'm sorry, I really can't help not putting up with that kind of thing, that's a flaw of me. Especially when it comes from some ridiculous 15 year dramatis persona that makes the patronizer the forum equivalent of that Shermanator guy from American Pie. It's not the schools, man, it's the dumb teachers.

Agree on everything, and actually not picking a side can even make things worse: in this same thread I was accused both of wanting xp kills at all costs and of b***s****ing my way to defend quest only xp (and I was simply pointing to the problem of stealth being the no-brainer choice to deal with non-quest mobs)..

I said previusly, and quite clearly "the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial actually exacerbates the issue". You know, that almost sounds like implying that I consider the role in itself, well, crucial. which is why your recent post referencing the d&d cartoon character is particular enlightening. you have a little hizzy fit and then you get clarity? don't feel bad. it happens. as Gromnir has noted many times in this thread, what folks say about the PoE fighter is countered as sooon as we see what they want to do to improve the fighter. you observe the role, even note the value o' the role (a mischaracterization as barbarian and even monk may serve adequately as tanks even if they cannot do so as does the fighter) then ask for changes that would change the role. is... amusing. folks don't even know what they is doing, and they invariably balk when confronted. HA! Good Fun! Cute! Well guess what: if the role is perceived as dull/inflexible/boring/limited, of course the proposed changes will aim at changing/expanding/variating such role. I'm blown away, really. By the way, the argument you never get tired of using, "you don't like feature X, but you are wrong in that, and that is because the status of things you say you don't like is actually intentional. And because it's intentional it would be wrong and misguided to change anything about it" is not especially clever. Ok, enough. My original intention was just to talk about possible increases in flexibility of the Fighter's role, that's all. thank you for responding. you is compounding and adding to your folly. would be soooo easy to go with straw man + irony given your recent elementary logic comment, but we will forbear. too easy. please note that we observed that karkarov were dubious about the vanilla fighter's role and you don't see us being critical o' him, yes? is 'cause he is not in denial. is 'cause he has been consistent. you, on the other hand... well, is no sense being mean 'bout your shortcomings. can scroll back up now that you is aware that you were posting at cross-purposes with yourself and either accept that the criticisms you garnered were accurate even if you not see as fair, or... you don't like PoE fighter? fine. sadly, am wondering just how long it will take you to realize how your criticisms and suggestions ain't helping solve that problem, if it is a problem. sheesh HA! Good Fun! Cuter and cuter. No, please, do be mean about my shortcomings and folly. I'm so scared of forum bogeymen. And please keep enlightening me with argumentations such "the fighter's current role is crucial, therefore nothing should be changed about it". I'll tell you what: an invulnerable, 1000+ damage-per-hit dealing warrior would play an even more crucial role for the party. Does it mean it would be good design, or that nothing should be changed about it? I thought I had said "enough", because I didn't want to keep contributing to pollute the thread. Of course, it did not work. Let's save time, and just stay away from me, in case shoddy argumentations are contagious.

Just add Aerosmith to the game soundtrack, that should get the rag-dolls covered...

Really, it was not meant as an opened can of worms against the devs. And Josh Sawyer in the link says exactly what I did, that is, that the dev, not the player, should be considered responsible of degenerative gameplay. I was referring to those forumists who use poor arguments like accusing players of degenerative gamplay, or like equivalents of the evergreen "it's not a bug it's a feature" in order to shoot any attempted criticism, without even realizing that by accusing the player of degenerative gameplay they are unwittingly and implicity accusing the devs of incompetence, and without realizing that they are doing the devs a bad service, since they create resentment that invariably rebounds onto the devs (unfairly). Which is what I am afraid is what might be happening just here and now. Please, forget the issue and that I ever mentioned it.

Just to clarify: when I said "I keep finding flaming accusations to degenerative gameplay etc. etc." I meant in the forums, and that they are used by forumists, not by devs, to predictably shoot down any attempt of criticism to game design. But I stand on my position that should a dev complain about degenerative playing, he's shooting himself in the foot since it's exclusively his own resposibility to design/balance the game in order to encourage the kind of gaming he prefers.I mean, if I complain that people are not using my articles properly because they use them to make roll-ups instead of reading them, it's probably because my articles suck. But developers (at least PoE's) don't complain that people play their game wrongly, but instead they blame themselves doing bad job with game's design. It is forumists nature to use degenerative gameplay and any other term as they see fit best with their current argument. This goes especially for such terms like "spiritual successor", "combat xp", "objective xp", "quest xp" and "romance" in this forums. Exactly. The problem is mainly forumists, not devs. P.S. Sorry for the bad form with the previous post, I thought you were replying to me, while it was a reply to Captain.

It is hardly witch burning. If you actually ever played obsidian games, you'd automatically realize that their strong suit is Storytelling and not combat/game play design. I would have conceded to your point if there was SINGLE game where the combat was good. I am sorry to report, that there isn't. And I mean not just the design of the combat mechanics, I mean the encounters themselves which are practically very easy to get right even if you are working with a bad engine / some one else'e mechanics. Frankly, I am very surprised that they went for RTwP with Elves the first chance they got to go free for their own desires. I would think that if they haven't ever succeeded to design good combat there is even more need to them to emphasize their design efforts this time in that aspect of the game, so that they don't yet again reproduce their past mistakes, yes? I would guess that they went with their own sense of nostalgia . But again, it was not meant for the devs, and from what I've read these days they've shown to be more receptive than I would have thought (which doesn't prevent this big mouth of mine from criticizing all the time those which I perceive, probably incorrectly, as flaws). I hope with all my heart the final version will blow me away. But I still want David Wallace's "PoE Stratagems".

Just to clarify: when I said "I keep finding flaming accusations to degenerative gameplay etc. etc." I meant in the forums, and that they are used by forumists, not by devs, to predictably shoot down any attempt of criticism to game design. But I stand on my position that should a dev complain about degenerative playing, he's shooting himself in the foot since it's exclusively his own resposibility to design/balance the game in order to encourage the kind of gaming he prefers.I mean, if I complain that people are not using my articles properly because they use them to make roll-ups instead of reading them, it's probably because my articles suck.

I said previusly, and quite clearly "the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial actually exacerbates the issue". You know, that almost sounds like implying that I consider the role in itself, well, crucial. which is why your recent post referencing the d&d cartoon character is particular enlightening. you have a little hizzy fit and then you get clarity? don't feel bad. it happens. as Gromnir has noted many times in this thread, what folks say about the PoE fighter is countered as sooon as we see what they want to do to improve the fighter. you observe the role, even note the value o' the role (a mischaracterization as barbarian and even monk may serve adequately as tanks even if they cannot do so as does the fighter) then ask for changes that would change the role. is... amusing. folks don't even know what they is doing, and they invariably balk when confronted. HA! Good Fun! Cute! Well guess what: if the role is perceived as dull/inflexible/boring/limited, of course the proposed changes will aim at changing/expanding/variating such role. I'm blown away, really. By the way, the argument you never get tired of using, "you don't like feature X, but you are wrong in that, and that is because the status of things you say you don't like is actually intentional. And because it's intentional it would be wrong and misguided to change anything about it" is not especially clever. Ok, enough. My original intention was just to talk about possible increases in flexibility of the Fighter's role, that's all.

It's odd. I keep finding flaming accusations to the players' degenerative playing, but I never come across the actual term "developer degenerative design". As I see it, the dev has the responsibility to design the game competently enough so that encourages what he considers "non degenerative design" (granted, some players will still play their way, but if they have fun, what's the problem). Else he has failed ad a designer, at least according to his own parameters. I don't think anybody (well, possibly somebody did) ever played PS:T in that kind of way that would currently be called "degenerative", and guess why? Because the content that encouraged playing it in the way the devs wanted was Top Notch. It's just as simple as that.

I said previusly, and quite clearly "the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial actually exacerbates the issue". You know, that almost sounds like implying that I consider the role in itself, well, crucial. Ahhh, the unfathomable mysteries of elementary logic... But please do keep on with the patronizing, it's actually starting to come across as cute.

As I explained (and quite clearly, one might even say. You know, in the post you just quoted yourself. In just a few lines, even) I genuinely though it amounted to a rethorical/marketing thing. But this would actually explain why the current trash mobs were never perceived as bad design. Oh, well. I hope at least that David Wallace will grant us all the gift of a "PoE Stratagems" mod...

I liked how you conveniently dropped out other examples. And yeah, IWD2 is pretty much a definition of trash mobs. No need to defend it. You are right to point out that it is the reason it was created; to be a diablo clone in IE with party. Frankly that is exactly how I would describe PoE combat right now. Except Diablo is a more honest game and plays better as it has no party. Sorry for the OT, but are the devs really taking IWD1/2's combat as a model? I thought it was just a rethorical thing, I mean, interactions like in BG2, exploration like in BG1, story like Ps:T, and of course, what have you got left when you get to IWD? you have to say 'combat', I thought. *shudders* IWD1/2, with their rail-roaded sequence of never-ending, ever-winding tunnels filled with identical trash-mob after trash-mob, no AI to speak of...oh, my.