Tigranes

It would be awesome - traditionally animations are very resource-costly, and is the primary restriction for things like playable monster races, but whatever they can squeeze in would make a difference.

Great, I don't want to play massive high levels full of super saiyan bandits or dragon hoards or whatever in the untenable arms race of 'higher levels more epic'. Couldn't care less if the explanation for losing levels is hackneyed or not, I'd rather play a good game for 50 hours than suffer an inferior experience for the sake of more 'realistic' premise. 'Oh no my Watcher's story now doesn't make as much sense and I am robbed of my immersion' - *shrug* I don't see how it's any worse than the millions of other things RPGs have to do to make a fun game with a narrative. My appreciation of the Watcher's story and of the world of Eora is not really dependent on making sure I don't lose any XP/levels or making him more and more powerful until he is a demigod - if anything, starting from level 16 and going up is what would make me think this character is a preposterous and nonimmersive one. Start from Level 1, and it's a whole lot easier to make the many improvements to game mechanics and it's historically proven that early/mid-levels are much easier to provide tactical challenge and sense of progression.

Uncapped really doesn't make sense - game balance would completely break down, and it would only satisfy a tiny number of super-obsessed guys who can't bear to leave a single companion home even if it means playing a broken game. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having your weird quirks while playing video games, but we can't expect the games themselves to be able to cater to all of them. Anyway, sure, it's much more reasonable to argue, "what was wrong with six in POE1, we like six." I don't know why they think 5 is a good number this time. I wouldn't even necessarily argue for 5 - I'd probably go for 4 or 6 if it was my call. All I wanted to point out was that 6->5 doesn't really massively change the tactical complexity, so it shouldn't ruin the game for most people.

I'd rather have a hackneyed explanation for going back to level 1, than be forced into an inferior game experience for the next 50 hours fighting super saiyan bandits and armies of dragons because they couldn't come up with a good reason.

This is one of those things where on paper it looks like a big deal but when you play, it doesn't make or break your game. Five characters doesn't change the fundamentals of building a party, doing a crapload of build tailoring, synergising different characters, putting them in formation, having different roles, etc., etc. Having played IE games and POE with parties of literally every size from 1 to 6, usually the change between 4/5/6 parties is one of degrees and not a qualitative change - e.g. it's the difference of comfortably giving yourself two front-line fighters or having one go hybrid, or rethinking your personal quirk of always having two mages. When you get down below that, you start having major shifts - e.g. having one character death be really significant, have to deal with the environment in combat differently because of the lack of bodies. Also, when you play a game that's designed for 2 or 3-man parties, there's a clear cut difference in degree of tactical complexity. That's not really the case when you're looking at 5 or 6-man; you might as well say that BG and POE were simplified Diablo clones already because they dropped from 8-man parties of some earlier RPGs. It's not like there's a linear progression and more party members means more complexity - and fundamentally you'd have to think the game system in POE2 is going to be closest to POE1. As for "just make it player choice" arguments, you have to set a proper cap so you can balance literally everything from classes to encounter difficulty to health gain to damage to equipment to loot drop... basically everything in the game. That's why, for example, POE or IWD wasn't designed for 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 parties, it was designed for 6-man parties and then minor adjustments might be made for people who want to run 4-parties or solo. At some point they have to say, we think based on how all the different systems work 5 is the answer. (It's a popular misconception to think 'just make everything a choice and it's ok' - in that case you might as well let people run 12-man parties, or to let mages wear heavy armour in BG2, and simply remove every kind of restriction in every game.) *shrug* once you start playing, you're not really going to notice if it's 5 or 6, because it's not like you're taking BG (a game designed for 6) and being forced to play with 5. You don't fire up Final Fantasy VII and say this would be so much better if I could take all 12 party members, and you don't say oh I wish there were only 2 so I don't have to leave anyone behind. What you do say is that the tactical complexity in a game like POE tends to be much higher due in part to large party sizes, not because it's the magical number 6 as if it could be even better with 8 or 12.

You can't give people more companions than there are party slots, and then avoid obsessive completionists feeling like they missed out on something. Solution 1, for example, takes away choice that a lot of players will appreciate, creating new frustrations - only to solve a very specific frustration that some players have due to their own quirks. Of course, your frustrations are important to address as well, but it's an example of how we can't really expect to get have choice or branching content and make sure you can experience every single piece in one go. If you find yourself wasting hours of your time noting down which companion has 2 lines of dialogue where, going back and forth to switch them in and out, etc., etc., then maybe you're better off... not obsessing over it so much, or simply replaying the game with different party members as a more enjoyable way to experience the content? That said, a mild version of solution 2 could certainly work. In a more high-tech setting, party members could simply call you when you pick up a quest, to say they're interested in tagging along.

Teasers over the last couple of days seem to strongly suggest the Deadfire Archipelago, a set of volcanic islands.

As someone who's played pen and paper, IE games, Wizardry, Might and Magic, and most other kinds of CRPG systems, forgive me if "hey I played BG it worked there" alone doesn't persuade. Spells don't "miss more" than attacks in POE. Starting and ending with a simple factual error wasn't going to get you very far, unless you have the powers of Donald Trump. Maybe if you didn't want people to make conclusions that you're arguing for something silly... There are no 'permanent' stuns and that is another simple factual error, though at least here I can see that you're just exaggerating. Crit paralyzes can definitely go for 30+ seconds - for your abilities as well as enemies'. And a poorly built party would find themselves being stunned and killed by Lagufaeth in POTD all the time. Of course, if you know the rule system, and don't want to play it exactly like you played BG, then you can also get the drop on Lagufaeth in POTD easily. Or, you know, there is a Priest spell that protects against their paralyse spells, if you want the AD&D-style defence route. If your spells are missing "all the time", then you're clearly either not buffing your accuracy enough for POTD's challenges, and/or you are not targeting enemies' respective defences and debuffing them. Casting Fort save spells on a high Fort enemy and complaining is basically the same as casting fireball on fire elementals in BG2 then complaining your spells never do anything. Sorry, after over half a dozen POE playthroughs without "permanent stuns" or spells that "miss all the time", and over a dozen playthroughs of IE games, I can well appreciate the respective pros and cons of the systems (and would rate BG2 easily above POE), but all I am hearing so far is "these enemies paralyse SUPER LONG and my spells miss SUPER MUCH i hate this game." But maybe I'm wrong, and so are all the other folks who have beaten POTD solo, party, etc. by uh, landing their spells and not getting perma-stunned.

Yes self-help books are always a good idea or books on exotic holiday destinations always help to motivate the poor to pull themselves out of poverty ....you need to give the poor something to aspire to If you ever end up broke, sick, or otherwise in need, I'll be sure to toss a self-help book at your hat and say something infuriatingly closeminded as well.

Other issues aside, commuting Manning achieves two practical benefits: (1) it dilutes Snowden, Assange, and other future whistleblowers' moral ground, because now James Clapper can say "look, we are fair and merciful, he's just dodging justice." Of course it's more complicated than that, but it's about diluting the claim. (2) a nice little bonus is dispensing with the extended PR headache caused by Manning's various protests. Keep in mind that the number of people who actually get charged via the Espionage Act is extremely low: there are only eleven cases by most common counts. Eight of them are under Obama, but it's unclear whether the Obama Administration has deliberately ramped things up as a change of strategy or it's just a combination of (1) more relevant cases, and (2) not particularly trying to avoid suing leakers who work in the government. And of course, Granddaddy Daniel Ellsberg got away with it...

So... you're complaining that some things you do are high risk in a battle? Or that casting spells should never miss because when you miss you lose it? Or simply, spells should miss less than attacks because when you miss one they are a 'waste' - except they are a 'waste' because they are so powerful, meaning spells should be completely OP? There is no perma-stun. Since you played the game multiple times, I assume you understand how the combat rules work. Meaning you probably understand how graze/hit/crit works, and how stun durations are calculated, and how even solo POTD characters can often find ways to protect themselves against getting hit reliably by long stuns. Except, you know, you were complaining spells shouldn't miss so much, so if we got rid of that, enemies would be able to 'perma' stun you all the time. And even in the current situation, you will stun enemies for 20, 30 seconds easily while enemies will struggle to do the same against properly built party members. So if you want spells to miss less... or do you just mean your spells should miss less, and not the enemies? In that case I could easily keep every mob stunned forever all game. There's a big gulf between "I want this I can't have it this sucks" and spelling out what's the problem and how it could reasonably be solved.

Spells aren't calculated to miss more than attacks, though certain spells and abilities will have bonuses and maluses to accuracy. There are no perma-stuns, so you'll have to explain what you're actually talking about.

Destructible environments are awesome, but in both 2D and 3D it has so far proven prohibitively costly for most games. I remember about 15 years ago when I looked at all these 3D games and the physics hype and hoping we'd get this kind of stuff all over the place, but there are precious few - Dark Messiah and, heh, Ultima Underworld from the early 90s, in the RPG genre. Icewind Dale 2 had exploding barrels and enemies banging on war-drums, and a few other interactions, those kind of things would be nice if unlikely.

What the hell is this now? An "upgrade" to 3D? It's not an "upgrade" - it's a choice with pros and cons. I won't claim 2D backgrounds look "better", because that would make the same mistake of giving some blanket superiority. More specifically, there's an artistic style that comes through beautifully in IE-style backgrounds that just cannot be replicated to equal or greater effect in most 3D solutions, just like you would not wish to make a first person game filled with hallucinations and platforming sequences, or something like The Last Guardian, in 2D isometric. I and many others kickstarted POE not because 2D backgrounds are always better and should be how every game is made, but because this type of game with this kind of style wasn't being made anymore and we were willing to pay especially for it to exist in the ecosystem. That also goes for many other 'old school' aspects. There should be more unique games that draw from all eras and all styles, making for a richer market for everybody. Now, one could argue that there's nothing very good about the style, but then it's a question of preferences, and POE is a franchise that exists because enough people spoke in hearty support of that style (amongst other things). Personally, I can't see for the life of me how D:OS' World of Warcraft cartoon assets look better than anything, for example, but if someone else prefers it, that's just fine - but there's nothing there to argue that 3D or whatever is 'better' or that a franchise specifically developed for an underserved style should suddenly switch to a style that is already plentiful.

Re. the original question about the value of tertiary education, as someone who has a Ph.D without it being an 'obvious choice' (I was the first in the family to finish a Bachelors, and my family never had a way to fund my education), and having got it in the humanities which is currently under widespread public threat to prove it's any good for anybody: At a presentist, practical level, i.e. what makes sense for you personally to do, that's governed very much by what those degrees mean for your employer on your CV and what kind of competency it signals. In this sense, what I tell prospective graduate students is don't ****ing do it unless you are sure you are such a nerd at Spanish history or molecular biology that you know you'd study its intricacies for life unless someone shot you in the balls. Academic careers have lost / are losing a great deal of prestige and job security, but incredibly, there are still huge amount of people who do a Masters/PhD because they're scared of getting a real job or think it's a way to stay comfortable in school while figuring out their life or think a PhD will help them get good jobs later. It doesn't, except in very specific fields. At the Bachelors level, the question is more complicated and regionally divergent. Take South Korea, now super-modernised economy powerhouse, where you have the paradox: tens of thousands of university graduates who cannot find work, but a society which still uses a graduation certificate as an irreplaceable certificate of basic labour competency, such that you end up finishing university then working part-time at a Costco equivalent but you wouldn't have that job without your degree because your competitors would have degrees. I think some of this is still the case in many Western countries as well, where you find people getting a degree because they feel like you do need one, even if you can't really see why. I think this is a deplorable corruption of the point of university education and it's ****ty for both the people and universities, but there it is. So let's be a bit more normative, and talk about what you actually learn from that degree and whether it's good for anything. And I'll talk about the humanities which is what I more or less know. The frustration in the present is that much of what you learn seems to have no direct connection to most jobs you could conceivably have. It would certainly be nice if folk working on urban zoning learnt about Foucault and Jane Jacobs and whatnot, but usually you don't - and if you do, you only need to know as much as you can pick up within 15 minutes of Wiki/Googling. What about more general skills, like good writing? The meaning of what constitutes 'good' writing has changed a lot throughout the decades, and what you need to write well academically is currently quite far from what you need to write well in most other contexts. And isn't a university degree supposed to give you a broad and canonical background intellectually? Yes, but unlike, say, Europe couple centuries ago (and even that is a bit mythical), there is no longer an expectation that you know specific canonical names and contents in literature or philosophy in order to signal your basic competency. In other words, there are certainly skills that you get from humanities education, and from university education - but there's currently a gulf and disjuncture between those skills and how they're valued in the job market and society at large. Many people are prepared to agree, on paper, in principle, that 'critical thinking' or a 'general, canonical intellectual heritage' is important and good for people - but then it's tough these days to make the jump and say those things are what employers value or what you employ on a daily basis at your workplace. Now, you could go one way and conclude that society has left universities behind and you don't really need a degree to learn the things you need to do well in life. I think, in many cases, I would agree with that, and say that we should stop valuing degrees 'just for their own sake' so that people can stop going to university because 'it feels risky to not get a degree'. But in the other direction, I think it's also important to ask: what should be the things you need to do well in life? And how should each of us decide what is important in life, beyond what the current fashions in job markets or newspapers' front pages about 'the future of work' and 'how to optimise yourself'?

No.

Personally, I'd feel cheapened if that option was available - it would feel like a feelgood deus ex machina 'everyone lives happily ever after'. So much of POE is about how in life, you can't get everything you want, sometimes your sacrifice is in vain, sometimes the clear truth can never be known - and how you still have to live with that, live on with that. I appreciated that Eder never finds out the full truth about his brother, Kana never finds the Super Secret Lore, etc., and in the same vein it makes sense to me that charname can't just drop in on Iovara and her thousand-year-old struggle and simply say "hey now you're free" or "hey I'll end your suffering".

Dungeon Be Gone isn't popular because it alleviates low-level combat (it hardly does in BG1 or BG2), the point is that opening tutorial areas are often boring as crapola. Higher levels are usually handled poorly by most RPGs / RPG systems, so I'm all for going from level 1, 3, 5, whatever. Developers get boxed into an impossible situation where people want to level up every couple of hours so you have to gain like 15 or 20 levels in a game, and then a lot of people want to pick up where they left off in a sequel, etc... but I never want to be level 30 or 40. SOA solution is also OK, but they'll have to do some serious overhauling. As things stand the character system gets saturated from level 9 onwards. Between levels 4-8 or so you're still at a stage where your character is clearly defined but you haven't maxed out things or taken everything you'd want to; in POE1 around level 9/10 you've usually taken everything that defines your character and you start to just get icing on the cake, or even redundant stuff you don't need because the system doesn't have much else to offer you.

It could be cool if the story suited it, e.g. Bastion where the visuals, storytelling, etc. all dovetail together with the omniscient narrator. It's also more sensible, since games spend a stupid amount of money on voice acting that constrains word count and editing, and most of it ends up being crap or average. The narration idea, as if it's the dungeon master, I quite like.

I guess my experience generally has been that given POE's many classes and its design goal of allowing many different builds within each class (which I think was overall successful), most characters have ready ways to make themselves at least a bit more flexible than terms like 'tank' or 'glass cannon' would suggest. And one thing I hold positive about the latter-day POE is that it forces players to think beyond 3CON/RES carpet bombers and 3 MIGHT brick walls. That said, I haven't played fighters in a long time and not a great deal of POE recently, so I take your word about the emerging class imbalances. And more broadly, I certainly agree that over its lengthy and complicated post-release lifespan POE balance has become extremely unwieldy. As I said, engagement system as a whole should get an overhaul for poe2, connected to what they want to achieve with encounters and AI, and indeed what kind of character roles they want to encourage. Vanilla POE was essentially a game of setting up static battlefields then playing the numbers game with enemy defences; right now it's much more of an every man on his own kind of struggle.

They hover their cursor over your party at battle start and check the tooltips. I didn't find post-3.0 AI too ridiculous most of the time, but it's clear that POE never solved the positionign problem from the player's end; initially it was far too easy for everyone to get stuck and for the player to funnel the enemy exactly where they wanted them, now every battle is a mess with people running around everywhere. Engagement probably needs a rethink at this point in tandem with however they want to set enemy priorities for POE2. (And actually, I found Tyranny to be a lot worse - every other encounter had enemies who could teleport to your backline, and those who couldn't would run to your backline anyway. I had enemie srunning in circles around my party.) I think post-3.0 is a lot simpler to think about if you pretend you're playing through an IE campaign, i.e. not worry about engagement too much. I never built characters specifically around engagement rules even in 1.0, and as the campaign goes on all the characters start to find ways to defend themselves and to make themselves dangerous - whether it be equipment-boosted defences or specific abilities, etc. - and nobody's sitting there going "but I'm a tank and the only thing I know is to take damage". (Is that what a tank actually is, for people who play MMOs and stuff? What's with all these boilerplate roles?)

1> You shouldn't be resting 10 times in a dungeon - it usually means the combat is too difficult for your party and you are having to throw the kitchen sink every time. I agree that solo wiz/priest is an exception, though in my solo wizard POTD runs I rarely ever needed to trek back, since in solo you're building your wizard to be pretty competent fighters anyway. Sometimes, a restriction is designed to make you rethink your tactics - and frustration only comes when you refuse to change, and continue doing the same thing. Maybe a slight boost to supplies when going solo? 2> Now, tell me I'm a moron if I remember wrong, but you don't absolutely need 10 mechanics to navigate the Skaen temple, you only need it to get the optimum path through the central gates, no? The game is also reasonably nonlinear at that point, so it's easy to complete other tasks in Defiance Bay? 3> Yes. 4> It was a conscious design decision to not have 'hard' immunities, I believe, and very few enemies feature any kind of hard immunity as well. So the playing field is fair, and that means things like scrolls of defence/valour actually become important as you look for ways to overcome or build up relevant defences. Personally, I would prefer POE2 to include some hard immunities, especially for enemies, even though in POE it never really screwed you over very bad. I think Sawyer has spoken about revisiting this decision.

I'm sure you're perfectly confident that nothing you do will ever be misunderstood, that evidence will never be used against you in unexpected ways, that governments never abuse excessive power, etc. They should probably also watch you have sex with your wife, to make sure you aren't domestically abusing her. We're sure you don't do anything of the sort, but we can only be really sure if we watch you, right? (I'm just saying. It's a very ill-thought out cliche people just dump on the table, as if it answers all the questions.)

Writing of this kind has been a staple of our technological optimism for over a century. You had people talk about the death of space and time and instant, ethereal communication across the universe.... back in the late 19th century. This is just bog standard stuff that you'll find with a slight more sophistication in the latest Silicon Valley shoutout about the future, and probably was written in 15 minutes by one of her aides. Actually, what should alarm you is that the way she treats privacy - i.e. zero brain cells, just 'huh i guess whatever lol' - is not that different from what you'll find in, say, a Wired article about the future of self-tracking devices, where they'd just say "oh privacy's important of course but there's pros and cons and somebody will have to think hard about the right balance, anyway the new gadget is so cool!!! And this isn't about privacy, whatever that word means anymore; it's about how the future is thought of purely as technological progress and its political / economic consequences, and how the question of what happens to civil rights, or collective psychologies and emotional lives, or patterns of social interaction and collectivities, etc. is basically blanked out as afterthoughts, side effects, etc.

Traps were always rubbish/useless in POE, and I always wondered why. This might be some/all of the answer. Kudos to figuring it out the hard way.