ISC

Overall I very much agree with this post, people seems to ignore the few arguments that are presented and keep posting/questioning opinions. However, it is not that simple. I don't like to ignore the easy way to win a battle because part of my playstyle is about optimization, but I also don't like cheesy, abusive or 'unrealistic' ways to win, because it is also about immersion. What should I do? For me and my playstyle it is obviously preferable and most enjoyable if the devs attempt to limit such tactics.

The more I think of it, the more the more suggestion 1 makes sense. Beyond the additional click saved, some of us do care about matching portrait and appearance to such a degree that one might be going back and forth to match these. However, I am not sure about the culture tab, it could easily be missed and since it affects gameplay and not only appearance/flavor it's kind of important. Regarding the all-in-one character sheet: I get it and kind of like it. This has been done more than once and it is kind of old school and brings back pen and paper nostalgia etc. But the current set-up is more noob friendly and allows for the text window to explain things one at the time, rather than overwhelming new players with tons of digits which may be a bit off-putting to some.

There's also the amount of loot, whatever that counts for.

More!

This. I cant imagine how it could take more than a day or two, and that investment seems quite worthwhile..

Rogue, with tons of perception!

What? They are represented on the backdrop. Its a shame the icons obscures that though. That's only evident with the Dragon's Eye, which is obviously placed near the dragon's skeleton. My point was that the icons don't have any representation or connection to the backdrop, which is why it doesn't feel like a map at all. It's a beautiful backdrop though. Oh but there are some more, Kuldahars tree is obvious, and so are the severed hand. Then there's the pass and wyrms tomb which are less obvious... I can imagine that some detailed representations are entirely obscured by the icons as well, such as Easthaven and maybe the vale.. Anyway, I think we agree then in that the superimposed icons mess up the feel of the map and kind of reduce it to a backdrop. In that regard I think that PoE's map does a better job than the IE games did of integrating the icons with the map.

What? They are represented on the backdrop. Its a shame the icons obscures that though.

Twohanded stiletto? Excellent..

The generic ones serve a purpose by distinguishing the class specifics, information which would be lost if replaced by unique icons. Other than that I'm all for spicing up the talents.

All these misleading metaphors.. In this case the alternative door and frame is just standing next to the faulty one, while the faulty one has to be more or less rebuilt in order to work equally well. The point argued against engagement is not just replacement vs fixing, it is the amount of effort required to achieve the same result. Okay, that's why I asked "What takes most time?". Because I don't know, and I think Obsidian probably knows best. Not trying to discredit you, but I'll take their word of what they think is best professionally. Also, the code isn't running right all the time, the combat log doesn't represent the phase or pacing of combat always (or so it feels), it auto-scrolls to the top on my machine (frustratingly), a sword says one type of damage, but deals another type of damage. "Most damage" done doesn't represent personal "most damage done" (IIRC it read 44.4 damage "In Party" but on "Personal" the character had 41.6 or something). DT seems to be an issue as well according to the mathematicians, and this is probably a bug as well. Disengagement Attacks attack when they shouldn't (which is a bug, not "design"), AI is clunky (not implemented 100%, I presume, not a priority I think). etc. etc. the list goes on. These things, I believe, also needs to be taken into account in the combat system in the Beta. A lot of frustration comes from bugs as well, I'm sure. I don't think that the game is supposed to function or be expected to have such a faulty and technically flawed final product. Bugs are not Design, they are flies over a smelly pond, and to rid them you have to wade into the waters and clean them out. Or we can go to another lake, and try to clean out the bugs there as well. Remember the Bug Reporting Format? "Expected behavior?" or "What should have happened?" Should my Druid have been knocked out by 2 of Medreth's followers automatically because the code didn't run correctly and she was disengaged to death when she's both facing and have been targeting an adjacent enemy the whole time? Was it expected behavior? (She never attacked even though within range, she was just beaten down) I presume this is a bug, not a feature, or the game will have to visually show me a better behavior so I can expect better what happens and why it happens. The colorful GUI with arrows and rings and stuff really helped me with how the Engagement system works, and made it easier for me to understand it, so if we had more clarity on range and all of that, it'd be easier to understand the system I'm sure. Still, some of the things being discussed to great lengths seem to me to be either a bug, or an exploit. I could summon 15 Skeletons with the Chanters (I forgot/failed to cast with 1 Chanter, you can abstract 1 Chanter casting 3 extra Skeletons). This was an exploit, and presumably even a bug or a missed design consideration (And if you look at the portraits, it's most likely a bug or incomplete summoning feature, as the portraits simply interlap with the rest of the HUD). Heck, in an earlier build Skeletons were immortal and couldn't even die* or be unsummoned. That was a bug too. Disengagement attacks hitting my characters when I don't understand why it does it, is also a bug or needs clarification, and if it does it exploitably it is presumably a bug as well (as it presumably isn't "Expected behavior"). If something happens when it shouldn't happen mechanically... that's a bug? Isn't it? Remember this? Or did you ever encounter this "exploit"? (Spider couldn't fit through the gap, and was stuck, it couldn't reach the party in essence) this doesn't mean that the Engagement system is bad just because the Spider couldn't reach and attack, it meant that the Spider was too fat or bugged out for the walk-mesh. Should I have considered this "reach-exploit" as a final version expectancy... or as a bug in the work in progress product? I think it was Josh who said that they are working on showing Engagement Circles better IIRC "I have put a guy at work on showing the circles better". This might mean "We are putting work hours on it right now, and we've got a work schedule on it, and we intend to work on this system" or it might far-fetchedly mean "we're ready to drop it any second now". * I'm not sure how Chanters function in this build tbh, so consider all of my Chanter talk as of the first build, as I haven't tested them whatsoever since. EDIT: In essence, a lot of complaints doesn't seem to me to be "Expected behavior", it seems a bit "I want a completely different behavior". And of course, such feedback shouldn't be neglected, it should be taken into consideration as well as long as it's Obsidian that decides. Alright, I agree with you on that we don't know what is the most efficient solution (although I think that Sensuki seems to be making a good point in that possible solutions are readily availability without having to design much new stuff). I was just objecting to your metaphor as the point of it was to imply that one way is more efficient than another, and - as you just said - we don't know much about that. But as long as Obsidian don't refute Sensuki's suggestions as somehow more demanding, I'm willing to support the guy making reasonable arguments for one methods efficiency over another. I'm not saying that he is necessarily right, but without any reasonable arguments against his claims there's little reason to oppose him.

As I understand it, Sensuki is saying that some level of stickiness has been around all along in the AI targeting system. Currently the AI is actually just 'attacking whatever is closest/most recent to attack it' due to engagement. Improving the AI to reacquire targets cannot be done as easily with the engagement system because it would be stupid for the AI to break engagement. And we already know that the devs are not going to build an incredibly advanced AI that can efficiently determine when to break engagement or not. So the problem here is not that people are against melee stickiness, or even necessarily engagement as an idea, but that engagement leaves us with more problems than it solves. All these misleading metaphors.. In this case the alternative door and frame is just standing next to the faulty one, while the faulty one has to be more or less rebuilt in order to work equally well. The point argued against engagement is not just replacement vs fixing, it is the amount of effort required to achieve the same result.

The point is not to appease a limited set of backers, but to suggest an efficient solution that gets everyone what they want - with less time spent on (re)designing stuff. Sensuki is saying that a fairly simple AI could achive the goals of engagement with less work. The argument is less about preference than it is about pragmatic implementation.

You have my like.

Somehow the point of all this sarcasm escapes me... is it perhaps based on more assumptions of other peoples motives?

Isn't there also a function of trash mobs in terms of differentiating the power of different enemies as well as of different player levels? What I mean is that if you dispatch 3 heaps of orcs before you get to that difficult mage, the mage will feel more powerful and special, and perhaps meeting 4 mages along a random corridor would get tiresome as well? The other point is that players may feel increasingly powerful as the mobs they struggled with at level 1 are easily crushed at level 5, and so on. This does of course not say anything about a good amount or ratio of trash mobs, but still, its a somewhat meaningful function with them.

Some people in this threat seem to have trouble differentiating 'forced' from 'motivated' or 'encouraged'. I have s**tloads of impulse control, but I have limited control over what I find entertaining. Do I find save-scumming entertaining? No. Do I find missing out on exp from one of the few sources there is entertaining? No. I can do either of them, but neither is entertaining, and thus I dislike trap-exp.

Well, I think the point is that health will remain from one battle to another, and therefor you have to play more strategically and reserve health/camping supplies than you would have if you could simply rest/heal at any moment.

The thing is, I think, that bad AI (and it can apparently be done better) produces less additional problems and problem-solving than engagement (which doesn't have better AI anyway?).

I agree with the OP. It seems like a lot of people find it difficult to understand that you would want a system which makes "powergaming" difficult if you like powergaming. There's a misunderstanding how motivation works here. I am a "serial powergamer" but that does not mean that I just want to pile up as high numbers as possible with any means available. I want a consistent ("realistic") game world in which the challenge motivating me is to optimize whatever character I'm interested in. This is where the main fun is. It is not about winning the game and I dont want anything immersion-breaking. The game should not encourage meta-reloading for crap like that, and it is not a matter of choice on the player to just 'do what you like' since what I like is to chase "pithy XP" within the game world. However, the problem comes down to how, or rather why, xp is distributed. Again.

I dont know how much a gp is, but shouldn't a plate mail be crazy expensive? Beyond making sense (i.e. "realism") it also increases the reward-feeling once you get a hold of one, making them cooler, rarer and more powerful.

On the wiki under "Endurance" it is stated that "If a character loses all of his or her Stamina, they will be knocked unconscious and will die unless tended." I dont know where this is from, but it supports the idea that other party members apparently tend to the wounded 'off-screen'.

This is a major concern for a game that is largely about combat. There is a very real risk that combat, with all its work hours, systems, mechanisms, abilities, spell vfx etc behind it, will become boring with once's you've done it a few times if it is equally meaningful to circumvent it to get on with the story. Interesting and/or exciting loot certainly can make up for a lack of combat xp in this regard.

This would be fine, deal.

It is fair to say that the Engagement topic was where the hostility commenced, but the actual issue behind it always seems to revolve around the question of whether PoE should innovate or not. I dont think that's the case, but a very common misunderstanding between players hostile to each others views (i.e. yes-man vs nay-sayer). Although he's certainly on the conservative side, as I understand Sensuki's main concern with engagement it's not that it's changing IE combat per se but that it adds more problems than it solves, because the AI is way to simple to consider engagement as anything more than just a permanently locked target.