Kal Adan

Don't mistake game design for logic. It's not supposed to be logical. It's supposed to be done in a certain way to achieve certain purpose. Camping supplies are consumables to prevent save-scumming and promote more thoughtful approach to combat, or even discourage combat in some cases (you can use stealth, some enemies you can avoid or talk down, etc.). As for stash being unlimited: what having a limited inventory would accomplish in a game? It's same as ammo, while it was more "realistic" in IE games in reality it didn't add anything to the game, so it was taken away. I find way too much to be happening on screen to be bored with a wizard using a crossbow and a priest using a bow between spells (if they are needed). I have 6 characters in my team (7 if companion counts), so there is quite a bit to manage and everyone has their place in the group. There is no clear dominance and that's good in my book.

Same here for the Cinders of Faith quest. I am not on Linux. GoG version as well.

Here is what I've found: - It looks like high accuracy is better than damage type bonus. Bonus damage gained from critical hit resulted from high accuracy is way bigger than bonus gained from damage type. - Deflection seems to be not that important if you wear really heavy armor, because heavy armor reduces damage taken to grazes anyway. It's more important for characters who want to avoid attacks altogether, so I guess it's better to equip shields on characters with high deflection rather than give shields to heavily armored characters and since all that matters is accuracy you're better off using high accuracy (and high damage, if possible, weapons). I see. This means that if non-fighters gets engaged they'll suffer dramatically due to health damage sustained as they don't have that much health. I just wonder why he gets downed so quickly. He has deflection as good as that of fighters and his endurance is not that much lower. Is endurance recovery that significant a bonus? I suspect it might be a combination of both not having good enough deflection (meaning enemies hit him anyway) and no endurance recovery. He just losses endurance faster than warriors while fighting same enemies. If I give him the heaviest armor the best he can do is try to survive until help arrives. Mages and priests are in much worse position... I thought the goal was to get away from pre-designed roles by making any approach viable?

I've a dilemma. Should I use weapons my characters have higher accuracy with or use damage type that gives bonus against that particular enemy? As far as I understand I want high accuracy to not miss or graze enemies and get hits or critical hits them. On the other hand, damage type gives me extra power when I hit and my accuracy isn't that much worse overall (a few points). Problem is I have no idea how to gauge when accuracy is good and when too low. How you deal with this? Additionally, should I want to sacrifice accuracy while boosting my deflection as much as possible or not when my characters have heavy armor on them? Should I have as much deflection as possible on my key frontline characters only? Additionaly, does damage reduction helps only against attacks versus health or versus endurance as well? I try to use heavy armor on Kana Rua and I am underwhelmed by his longevity in combat when he fights side-by-side with my two warriors (Eder and myself). He just doesn't last very long for all that iron he wears on himself.

Raedric is doing everything he can to stop the curse. Problem is he's doing wrong for the right reasons: - Animancer examining his wife dies just because she couldn't fix the curse. She also says Raedric's wife is fine in mind and body. - Raedric kills his wife for worshipping some other god or something like that, thus casing his newborn being a Hollowborn. A poor excuse. - Raedric planned on jailing or executing people worshipping Eothas (he failed doing so for different reasons). - The offer for new settlers is basically the way to counteract his policy of killing people left and right. He then puts his offer on hold and there is a clear warning he'll kill even more people later on to "purge" the land of the curse, because his son was born as a Hollowborn. The worst of all is that it's clear this ain't helping. Raedric is basically killing his people in addition to whatever effects the curse already has on the populace of the land. There is no surprise Kolsc found a good ground for his rebellion and there is no excuse for Raedric's forces being spread too thin to contain rebellion and bandits both. He is using his troops to kill people anyway and he could've done the same even if there were no rebellion. I could understand the situation if Kolsc has manipulated the people to rebel to rise to power, but given what's happening in the Gilded Vale after the player's arrival Raedric's actions are not dictated by Kolsc's actions alone. Kolsc might be a bad ruler, power-hungry or too young, etc. but in the end he seems like the better choice out of the two. Raedric was probably not bad a person or ruler prior the curse, but circumstances made him cling to desperate methods that are inexcusable and as such I find removing him the best course of action. It's not the ideal choice, but given the circumstances I find little doubt to be had here.

Answer to this question is exactly why rest limit exists in Pillars of Eternity. It's not just "some players" who called others exploiting the resting system. The developers themselves directly stated the resting system was misused and they introduced rest limit in Pillars of Eternity to prevent that. If it takes you much more effort than somebody else (because you need to use more supplies), then it certainly means it's more challenging to you. It's up to you to decide how much you want to sleep. If you ask why there is a limit if you want to sleep as much as you like, then we go back to the question number one. I think save and load is a part of learning process - you do something and you fail, so you try something else and see how that goes. If you do that to minimize resting, then I'd call it pointless, because the only way to minimize resting is by getting a firm grip on the combat system, your own tactics, etc. I try to be efficient, but it's not the end of the world if I will have to come back for more supplies to finish something. In the end I see camping supplies as encouragement to involve more tactics. Honestly, I am playing another game where camping is very important (it's Darkest Dungeon) and I think it's much more interesting than what you're proposing. There is simply no trade-off. It's saves you a minute or two of going between locations, but nothing more than that. There is no thought, no creative process behind it whatsoever. It does not produce any interesting situations nor makes you consider your chances.

I find this amusing when someone is upset about killing children in a game, but don't mind killing people in general [in all games].

I like what they tried to do, but execution leaves much to be desired. I often see enemies teleporting, but I can't click on enemy (because teleportation is taking place) so my characters have to move and as effect I get disengagement attack. Or my character is moving around to engage his target, only to be hit by a disengagement attack. I end up moving my characters in straight lines to engage enemies and avoid accidental disengagement attacks. Other than that I think it's better than what we had.

My position is - if you need to rest very often, then you're doing something wrong. Splitting standard health into life and endurance means you can fight more often without needing to rest after each fight, as long as you're being efficient. Instead of blaming the system try to improve the way you engage enemies, because clearly there is the problem. Not with resting being limited. I play on hard (and have 2 camping supplies. Total) and I find resting mechanic fine.

You mean badmouthing something until things are the way one likes them to be? Isn't that what kids do to get what they want?

I have to disagree. Dragon Age: Inquisition is one big mess when it comes to controlling what your companions do. I prefer Pillars of Eternity, because I can at least decide what to do, without bots doing something stupid (like a mage throwing a fireball into my team, not caring for friendly fire in Dragon Age: Inquisition). I wouldn't mind scripts to set behavior of companions myself to automate at least some aspects, but all in all micromanagement is important part of this game. It's same as in turn-based games: you give orders to units and active pause is there to help you with that. If enemies surround your party you should be able to direct spells in a way that gets at least some of them and that's why some classes are meant for: to tie enemies at the front, to not let them surround you. Once enemies are engaged a mage can run where you want him to. You're mixing up two different issues. One is spell limit, he other is their usefulness. Spell limit makes their use more tactical, because you can't spam them each battle. The fact you complain about spells being limited proves you didn't play Infinity Engine games that used DnD system, where limit to spells was standard, so you're most likely not the target audience anyway. Put warriors (or their equivalent) in front? Besides that there are a couple of abilities and spells that help disengaging (as well as talents, etc.). I don't like micromanagement of multiple units in real time myself, but with active pause it's easy to think of this as a form of turn-based game, because you can always pause and think as long as you want over your next action. I agree game can get too fast and I have to play in slow motion, but if your problem is micromanagement as such, then it's your fault. Nobody hid the fact that game is supposed to be played with active pause (it's even called Real Time with Pause, for a reason). Or this is an RPG. You know, a Role Playing Game? And not a combat game, where you HAVE to kill all your enemies, because reasons? Combat is important - no denying that - but it should not overshadow more important aspects of the game (like role playing).

What worries me are not bugs themselves, but how bugs are going to be fixed. I hope they will not expect from people who bought GOG version to download the whole 6 GB to patch their game?

How is this a problem now? Surely Obsidian did put work of Backers into Pillars of Eternity in the first place?

I find it problematic to find out how calculate deflection and accuracy values between high and low. Is 23 accuracy low? Is 56 deflection high?

There is a reason - streamers generate more interest when they show "hey, here is this game and it might interest you guys!" to all of their subscribers. That's very important to reach all people who can be potentially interested and hyped for Pillars of Eternity before the release day. Darkest Dungeon did this and was a massive success. I don't see on what grounds you criticize a proven marketing strategy?

I think the reviewers won't spoil too much. Unless the story is that bad it'll require context to highlight how bad it is. I am actually content that embargo will be lifted a few days before the release, because I want to read some reviews to be sure I am not buying a cat in a bag when Pillars of Eternity will be released to the masses.

You're the one talking crap here. Your argument is XP for kills was in IE games and so it should be in Pillars of Eternity. My argument is that while Baldur's Gate is supposed to be target title for Project Eternity - as quoted - it doesn't have XP for kills. I even supported this by stating that my Baldur's Gate experience didn't concern XP for kills (or XP as such) in the slightest, because that wasn't what made that game (or IE games in general) great for me.

I already proved you wrong - Pillars of Eternity is a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate (link). I can't read it for you. It's pretty clear as it is.

That's your notion what spiritual successor is or what spiritual successor is supposed to contain. To me XP (overall XP, combat XP especially) wasn't even part of IE games experience. It was only a mechanical calculation that has always been done in the background (oh, I leveled up!), much like rolls in combat. That's why shifting XP heavily into the quests' side in Pillars of Eternity does not bother me. So that argument you make ain't universal or even true, depending on whom you ask. You seem to think that any RPG element in a game automatically makes something an RPG.

The question is pretty simple. It's either "yes" or "no". Instead I see a lot of remarks that aren't helpful. From what I've seen Pillars of Eternity should be able to run on Windows XP and higher systems. However, I wouldn't expect official support for Windows XP.

Why stop at kill-XP only? I say the whole system is full of holes. Just pointed that out in case you thought it for a fact.

Killing for XP is not a motive in an RPG. That's what's wrong with it. If you kill for XP, then you're not role playing. If that's the case, then how exactly is RPG different from hack'n'slash? Because in hack'n'slash all that matters is loot and XP. And killing stuff. Not really. You can still kill. I simply wouldn't tie progression of a character in an RPG around killing. Or XP. NEO Scavenger did progression in an interesting way. 1. If I will want to know your suggestions what should I play or not, then I will ask you. Not a moment before. So keep your suggestions concerning my person to yourself. 2. "XP is a fun abstraction" is just your opinion. For me "that's dumb", to quote you. Especially in the context you provide. Having to kill an arbitrary number of creatures in order to raise my diplomacy skill makes no sense at all. In such light calling XP for quests dumb when you defend no less dumb system is hypocritical.

I am not talking about XP. I am talking about when combat has a meaning behind it. Meaning other than "I need to kill it for XP". XP in itself is stupid way to grow a character. Why I learn something after fighting an arbitrary number of Ogres?

Actually the combat should generate no reward on its own. The point is not to attack everything in sight (although it's definitely possible to do so), but engage in combat when it's meaningful for some reason.

Indeed. For some reason people think the "spiritual successor" = "same as X". I am pretty sure that Baldur's Gate III wouldn't be a carbon copy of Baldur's Gate II. Games do evolve, even within their own series. Unless your goal is to make same game, only with a few changes to be able to market it as a new games. Contesting changes for the sake of contesting changes is foolish just as well as keeping game unchanged for the sake of the past.