Daemonjax

The location changed in the 1.03.530 version of the IE mod, but it's still FOURTH instance of F4 01 00 00: 07 6F F2 02 00 0A 26 38 0D 00 00 00 02 7B 0C 05 00 04 07 09 6F F3 02 00 0A 12 02 28 F4 02 00 0A 3A B1 FF FF FF DD 0C 00 00 00 08 8C 7F 00 00 1B 6F 1A 00 00 0A DC 2A 00 41 1C 00 00 02 00 00 00 29 00 00 00 59 00 00 00 82 00 00 00 0C 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 32 02 02 17 58 5A 20 F4 01 00 00 5A 2A 00 00 00 32 02 17 59 02 5A 20 F4 01 00 00 5A 2A 00 00 00 13 30 07 00 14 00 00 00 48 00 00 11 02 6F 12 00 00 2B 0A 06 6F 58 07 00 06 03 28 08 00 00 0A 2A 13 30 07 00 27 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 28 04 00 00 0A 39 0C 00 00 00 02 6F 0C 00 00 0A 28 DC 06 00 06 2A 72 B9 1F 00 70 28 42 00 00 0A 72 A1 1F 00 70 2A 00 13 30 0D 00 45 00 00 00 ... at hex location 2D88B.

I don't need actual data to know that the equation currently used to calculate the amount of XP for next level is fundamentally incapable of achieving both the design goals I outlined here: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76649-the-leveling-and-xp-curve-whats-wrong-and-the-only-way-to-fix-it/?p=1648467 That's just a consequence (literally) of the laws of logic and mathematics. This is "mathematical possibility" talk, not "specific balance" talk. And I want a pony for my birthday.

Just change the experience requirement to whatever you want it to be. I posted instructions on the previous page.

I found the hex code location to modify the experience per level formula. I'll post simple to follow instructions in a few minutes. EDIT: 1. Go to your game folder: ...\Pillars of Eternity\PillarsOfEternity_Data\Managed 2. make a backup copy of Assembly-CSharp.dll 3. open then original Assembly-CSharp.dll in your favorite hex editor (I like HxD found here: http://mh-nexus.de/en/downloads.php?product=HxD) 4. Search for the following hex code: 6F AC 02 00 0A 12 02 28 AD 02 00 0A 3A B1 FF FF FF DD 0C 00 00 00 08 8C 7E 00 00 1B 6F 1A 00 00 0A DC 2A 00 41 1C 00 00 02 00 00 00 29 00 00 00 59 00 00 00 82 00 00 00 0C 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 32 02 02 17 58 5A 20 F4 01 00 00 5A 2A 00 00 00 32 02 17 59 02 5A 20 5. The hex code immediately following the above should look like: F4 01 00 00 5A 2A 00 00 00 13 30 07 00 14 00 00 00 48 00 00 11 02 6F 12 00 00 2B 0A 06 6F 57 07 00 06 03 28 08 00 00 0A 2A 13 30 07 00 27 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 28 04 00 00 0A 39 0C 00 00 00 02 6F 0C 00 00 0A 28 DB 06 00 06 2A 72 B9 1F 00 70 28 42 00 00 0A 72 A1 1F Note1: You're only interested in changing the underlined hex code above. Note2: Alternatively, you can search for and find the FOURTH instance of F4 01 00 00 (starting from the top of the file). 6. Change the F4 01 00 00 (which is a little-endian 32-bit integer for 500) to whatever you want (use a programming calculator -- the one that comes with windows works fine for this) For example, changing it to E8 03 00 00 (which is the integer 1000 in little-endian) will double the xp required per level. Notes: 1) I use IE mod, which replaces Assembly-CSharp.dll, so this may or may not work for you if not using the IE mod. 2) I'm on Windows, so this may or may not work for you on linux and/or mac. 3) The change isn't retro-active -- it only affects experience needed for your next level. A full restart would be required if you want to see how this affects gameplay.

I found the hexcode change for modifying the experience requirement per level formula. I'll share instructions in a couple minutes. EDIT: 1. Go to your game folder: ...\Pillars of Eternity\PillarsOfEternity_Data\Managed 2. make a backup copy of Assembly-CSharp.dll 3. open the original Assembly-CSharp.dll in your favorite hex editor (I like HxD found here: http://mh-nexus.de/e...hp?product=HxD) 4. Search for the following hex code: 6F AC 02 00 0A 12 02 28 AD 02 00 0A 3A B1 FF FF FF DD 0C 00 00 00 08 8C 7E 00 00 1B 6F 1A 00 00 0A DC 2A 00 41 1C 00 00 02 00 00 00 29 00 00 00 59 00 00 00 82 00 00 00 0C 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 32 02 02 17 58 5A 20 F4 01 00 00 5A 2A 00 00 00 32 02 17 59 02 5A 20 5. The hex code immediately following the above should look like: F4 01 00 00 5A 2A 00 00 00 13 30 07 00 14 00 00 00 48 00 00 11 02 6F 12 00 00 2B 0A 06 6F 57 07 00 06 03 28 08 00 00 0A 2A 13 30 07 00 27 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 28 04 00 00 0A 39 0C 00 00 00 02 6F 0C 00 00 0A 28 DB 06 00 06 2A 72 B9 1F 00 70 28 42 00 00 0A 72 A1 1F Note1: You're only interested in changing the underlined hex code above. Note2: Alternatively, you can search for and find the FOURTH instance of F4 01 00 00 (starting from the top of the file). Note3: This is at hex location 2D707 for me. 6. Change the F4 01 00 00 (which is a little-endian 32-bit integer for 500) to whatever you want (use a programming calculator -- the one that comes with windows works fine for this) For example, changing it to E8 03 00 00 (which is the integer 1000 in little-endian) will double the xp required per level. Notes: 1) I use IE mod, which replaces Assembly-CSharp.dll, so this may or may not work for you if not using the IE mod. 2) I'm on Windows, so this may or may not work for you on linux and/or mac. 3) The change isn't retro-active -- it only affects experience needed for your next level. A full restart would be required if you want to see how this affects gameplay. 4) XP formula is: ((currentLevel * (currentLevel + 1)) * 500)

We'd need to know the actual maximum amount of exp attainable in the game (sans sources of infinite exp). That being said, changing: ((currentLevel * (currentLevel + 1)) * 500) to: ((currentLevel * (currentLevel + something_else)) * 500) and/or: ((currentLevel * (currentLevel + 1)) * something_else) ... would be relatively simple because it wouldn't require changing the code size, so no optimization necessary to make room. I probably could just guess the assembly code for the existing formula, convert it to hex, do a hex search in the dll, and make the change. EDIT: There's not many instances (30ish) of little-endian 32-bit integer 500 (F4 01 00 00) in Assembly-CSharp.dll

First load for me is ~6 seconds, and reloading the same save is ~4 seconds. Dunno. My system stats (grabbed them from one of my posts while beta testing elite dangerous): CPU: 3570k @ 4.4Ghz GPU: ATI 7970 1125/1540 +26% PT / 14.12 cats LCD: Acer S242HL 1920x1080@60hz MEM: 16GB PC3 19200 MB: Asus P8Z77-V LK HD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (2x RAID 0) Sound: Asus Xonar DS (Uni Xonar 1.75a; 97ns DPC ingame) OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 PSU: Corsair RM750

Eh, disassembly + hexedits is always an option. It was how we modded back in the day... X-Com (original game) and D2 come to mind. Had to dissassemble the exe, understand how the code worked, then make room for code edits by optimizing the assembly by hand (the fun part) because you can't change the exe file size. A dll wouldn't be any different, so it's possible. Should it be so hard these days. No, probably not. One of the things that pissed me off early on about modding X-Com (2014 version) was how ridiculously close it was to doing the above. But, we also had to get around their encryption, so that was yet another hoop to jump through. Hand-optimzing assembly code is so far removed from the average gamer's experience that it looks like wizardry.

What if you have your party travel back to one of the earlier areas, like guilded vale, saved, and then loaded that? Does it make a difference in load times where the party is saved when you load it? My savegame files do get progressively larger over time, but not ridiculously so.

They could really go two ways about it: A) balance the game so that side-quests are required B) balance the game around just the main quest line, but allow you to keep playing the game after the main quest is over I think they went with B, and that's a perfectly valid choice. Maybe you think they didn't go far enough. Maybe you'd prefer A. Those are perfectly valid stances to take, and why difficulty balance should be left to modders. Obsidian should focus on stuff modders can't change, and it would be really cool if Obsidian works with the modding community (leveraging free labor) to ensure that what people want modded can be.

What's the problem with white circles? The circles were fixed in the IE mod. Neutrals are blue.

I have a SSD. Still having these issues. It's not the hardware. My SSD performance is relatively crappy unless I put windows into high performance mode in power management. ymmv I have batch files set up for gaming, using command lines to change power profiles before/after the game runs : Turns high performance on: powercfg -setactive 8c5e7fda-e8bf-4a96-9a85-a6e23a8c635c Turns power save on........: powercfg -setactive a1841308-3541-4fab-bc81-f71556f20b4a ... but I think those above hash keys would be different for each system. I forgot how I got them for my machine, but I believe some google searching would lead to the answer. You can just use control panel, though. That would be too inconvenient for me, though. My machine is overclocked to the moon and I notice a huge difference in performance in all things when using the high performance profile. The performance difference may be more drastic than you'd expect. EDIT: see https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc748940%28v=ws.10%29.aspx

A little over a year ago I sprung for 2x Samsung 840 Pro SSD drives (raid 0). The load times on those are comparable to running a game from a ramdisk -- not quite as good, though. Maybe people with long load times without an SSD should try a ramdisk (would only need ~13gig free) and see how that helps? Also, I have a vbs script that can pre-load a game (current folder + all subfolders, recursively) to cache it in ram, but it would still require enough ram to have used a ramdisk in the first place (but, it may be more convenient and the performance is close):

Half your list is just different ways to make the game harder. I'm near the end and have reached level 12 and I get it to a degree. The bounties in particular offer absurd amounts of xp when they really shouldn't since they already award the player with gold and often a unique item. I also do think some enemies later on are undertuned (Adra Animats do literally no damage for instance), but if they go too far with it a lot of people will be unhappy. I think some xp should be scaled back (bounties especially) and some enemies need buffs. I hope they don't do more than that. Also general weapon, armor, class balance would be great as long as they don't nerf a bunch of stuff. I really dislike nerfs in single player games. I agree, and difficulty tuning/number balancing is best left to modders, so people can choose for themselves how really difficult the game should be. Eventually, one mod would shake it's way to the top and become the one "true" way to play.

I agree, and I would imagine that the xp requirement per level is something player-created mods can address.

There is a rogue Backstab talent that's separate from their ability to sneak attack... and it is a garbage talent, mostly due to party stealth mechanics (but not only that). "Infuriated"? Really? I would recommend to try not to get annoyed by the internet so much. Why does criticism of a video game infuriate you?

Would be cool if rogues could use traps better than anyone else (damage boost). That class needs help.

I agree. In uncleared dungeons, I would have preferred if there were specific rooms where you could rest, but it would only be a one-time use... like, "You notice this room can be easilly barricaded for a rest". Then, after resting, the game tells you that the barricades were destroyed by monsters, but the traps you set killed them before they could get to you. Something like that. Leave and come back? Monsters have set ambushes/traps/called their buddies/an evil wizard/whatever moved in. Congrats, it's now just as difficult as if you've never left. Try to get closer to what a PnP DM would do (hey, sometimes you do have to flee to live to fight another day, but you couldn't just come back in the same play session and have everything the way you left it). I think the turn-based strategy Stronghold mini-game idea is a decent way to discourage resting while building it up (you want to gather enough loot/coins to immediately start another building another building when the one under construction completes since it's tied to game time not the abstracted turns) -- I'm just not sure they took that idea far enough to matter.

Screw it, let it stack. Rogue needs something, because it sure isn't Backstab.

I was testing this myself today and can confirm you're right. The higher you get your additive multiplier (rogues get start at 1.5 for sneak attack and ciphers start with 1.4 with talent, and then there's other talents and weapon damage enchants), the less crits/grazes matter.

All barb vs all cipher.

I wouldn't be surprised if it stacks with blunderbuss, since that weapon is kinda broken. Especially on a cipher.

Yeah, I considered that, and the damage done matches what's in the combat log. EDIT1: Testing again and paying closer attention. EDIT2: Yeah, it matches. Any extra damage is done by dot ticks, but the ticks aren't forced per hit. EDIT3: Tested again to confirm. Confirmed. EDIT4: Verified it does not force a dot tick even per full attack (using a 1h weapon) Looks to me like this talent is a stinker... adds 1.33 dps and has no synergy with anything. Cipher makes a better rogue.

I've seen some comments in several threads and on reddit that Deep Wounds forces a dot damage tick every time it's re-applied. I just tested the **** out of it, and I can find no evidence of any such thing. The only thing that gets applied is: 1) first hit applies the DOT as written 2) each subsequent hit refreshes the duration I found no evidence of anything stacking at all. What happens is every few seconds, they take 4 damage when the dot ticks. That's all I've observed. Maybe my tests are screwy, but I've tested it against enemies and other party members with the same results. So, if someone knows of a way I can test Deep Wounds to show that it does stack or force a damage tick on hit, please let me know. Thanks in advance.

You can purchase a 6th companion at the Inn. That would make it easier. I never tried easy difficulty. It would be interesting if it was bugged and harder than Hard. I rush through that area to grab all the companions by level 4, so it should be doable on Easy difficulty.