Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About XxDarkonxX

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. Nobody minds, aside from the creator of the IE mod, that autosave takes place after a map transition instead of before it?
  2. Currently I'm a little bit confused as to why summoned creatures to not contribute to specific combat stats. Suppose my character, Darkon, has an entire village watching him as he steps into a monster-infested hovel. A few minutes pass. Darkon steps out unscathed. The villagers peer into the hovel and find a bloody mess of what used to be real and living threats. Even in instances that directly are related to the lore and immersion in the game, Darkon has killed the enemies. The villagers know it and so does Darkon and songs will sung for years to follow of the deeds that took place that night. Darkon is responsible. But Darkon's Most Powerful Enemy Killed statistic, as well as total enemies killed, has not been updated. Evidently he's not responsible for the kills because his minion killed it. Darkon also must not have gotten his hands dirty as his total damage dealt didn't appear to move up. I would assume then that the villagers believe that he walked in the room and sweet-talked the enemies into spontaneously exploding. So... hmm... Darkon isn't responsible for the damages brought upon by his creation then. Okay. But.. wait. What? If that were true then Darkon would be able to kill villagers without negative consequences. Darkon loves this idea as he's already Cruel and Deceptive beyond measure so he decides to go on a rampage across the village fighting only with his minion. No negative fame, right? The guards should kill the minion and recognize Darkon to be neutral as he didn't do any damage or kill anyone, right? Sounds silly but that is how the game treats the situation from a statistical aspect. Statistically? Darkon didn't do anything at all but watch. Realistically? Darkon summoned a little piece of hell, ravaged the village with his creations, and should be burnt at the stake for his crimes against humanity. Arguing that the summoned creature is separate from the caster is as if saying that the fireball is apart from the wizard. The fireball killed the enemy, the wizard just watched. They are both spells and are both born of the caster and their intentions. So why then does the minion's offensive contribution not count toward any of the caster's statistics? How can someone summon a weapon to wield and have it count statistically but a summoned creature doesn't count? They're both dealing damage and they both are being used by the caster. In countless games before it has been agreed that a summoner fights vicariously through his summons. The caster's HP pool typically remains separate of his summon's but it's the caster that gets the kills, the caster that gets the exp from the battle, and the caster that is recognized for the feats of daring. Lore, immersion, quests, exp, everything is counted as the caster being the cause but, statistically as recorded, the caster has done nothing to contribute. I'm Darkon. Entire cities have been bent to their knees at my approach and it is on those knees they die. I've spilled blood across the entire countryside until hardly a voice can be heard. It's been whispered from lands afar that my kills number in the thousands... (which of course cannot be accurate or true as my personal statistics show only that I've killed maybe a handful tops throughout my entire adventure and I have more pure a number than even those who consider themselves the righteous; I'd offer to contest this in front of any council were there anyone left alive locally to hear my defense)
  3. I'm sure this happens in several portions of the game and is not isolated to the below example. Particles generated passively (by monsters etc?) appear to loop behind the scenes while the game is paused. Upon unpausing after a long wait the particles all attempt to animate at once and cause massive stuttering and leave the game unplayable for upwards of a minute while all of the effects attempt to play out in a giant explosive mess. If you assume that a monster such as a Greater Earth Blight generates it's particles once every 10 seconds (or it's particle animation loops after 10 seconds) then if the game is paused for 10 minutes then there would be 60 animations attempting to render at once. When I first encountered this bug I was fighting a Greater Earth Blight and a Troll that I managed to separate from the group during the bounty "The Dweller." My attention was required elsewhere so I had left the game in pause during combat for approximately 10-20 minutes. Upon coming back and unpausing combat the area around the Earth Blight immediately became a royal cluster@$%! of particles all attempting to animate on top of one another. I imagine the results would be far easier to replicate on a computer that is lower-end as mine is a pretty beasty gaming pc. Despite this after unpausing I could only hear the battle resume as the screen crawled to a halt while trying to render what appeared to be a hundred or more itterations of the Earth Blight's particle trail in one concentrated location, all at once. If a member of development is unable to reproduce the issue then I will attempt to reproduce it and record it as well as document exact steps required. I imagine though it should be pretty self explanitory and a dev member could easily just spawn 5 earth blights and leave it paused for like 10 minutes and see if it happens for them.
  4. I suggest a temporary fix that could work and is worth trying. FindCharacter (Your Watcher's Name Here) FindCharacter Kana Make note of both ID's and make sure the game still thinks Kana is named as you described above. For example we'll pretend Kana still has the same ID. AddToParty Companion_Kana(Clone)_-1 ChangeClass Companion_Kana(Clone)_-1 Chanter TeleportPartyToLocation (Your Watcher's ID Here) Since the game is saying Kana is a chanter, but no traits of a chanter present, then maybe assigning Kana to be a Chanter and leveling back up may fix it. If that does nothing, what happens if you try to change Kana to a fighter for instance and then back to a chanter to reaffirm the class elective? Doing the above will: Add Kana to the party Reaffirm Kana's class as Chanter (be sure to spend the points and immediately level back up before changing maps) Teleport your party as one unit back to where the player is standing just in case Kana is present on the map but stuck in some terrain at some point as many summons have been reportedly doing.
  5. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/75304-gamebreaking-bug-in-visions-and-whispers/ Bug in Visions and Whispers. If you Kill Raedric before talking to Caldara in the tree then the quest will permanently become unavailable for completion as all the corpses in the trees will have been removed. If you kill him before resting for the first time then even the dream portion of the quest will not trigger. Say goodbye to progressing as you cannot even make it to the stronghold. I posted a temporary fix in the thread that I found to work in case this happened to anyone else.
  6. Heh I typed a reply to a post but had hit the back button. Thought I was posting in a 1.03 bug tracker thread. Ignore this comment lol
  7. I think for me the solution you presented wouldn't solve a lot in the long run as I'd still be forced to initiate combat with an action. Being a chanter (and I'm sure other solo classes could run into this as well) I don't have an immediate supply of per encounter or even per rest castings. So in your suggestion I'd be able to start combat with a scroll, or maybe a figurine summon if they worked the details out in that scenario, but it wouldn't be a viable solution for me once my inventory of castings is exhausted. In my current save I could probably start combat about 5 times that way before I'd be right back where I started and tugging on bow strings to initiate a combat state. But that is still 5 more times than I could now. It'd still be a step in the right direction though. Every person has their own idea of what is best or what will work or what will not. What's most important to me is that we can recognize that there is no outside publisher stress for obsidian to design a game in a specific fashion. If enough people can come to an agreement on one suggestion then we can help solidify that suggestion as an actual mechanic. We all have a voice and it's louder than a few nameplates.
  8. Thank you Abel. I've started reading a lot on the player input around "combat-only" and can agree with a lot that's said. I can also play the devil's advocate loosely in a lot of those scenarios. Questions like "what happens to per encounter spells outside of combat?" and "what happens to chanter verse counters outside of combat?" are very good points that would likely take a large amount of theorycrafting. In it's current state though the only solution I can see is a declare combat button as it'd allow users to: use currently combat-only abilities as an opening move, start an encounter for per encounter abilities, and more. Maybe with a little tweaking it could even be the ideal solution to the big "combat-only" debate. For that maybe the combat declaration button could even be... delayed? You could initiate the combat state by the press of the button while highlighting the enemy but the combat state starts like, what, 10-?? seconds before drawing the enemy into combat? Chanters would only be able to store 1-2 verses, prebuffs could be cast with a strategic time-limit window, per encounter abilities would count toward the encounter, etc. All of this would require very little change to the current system and the coding around it. In short? It wouldn't be perfect but it would be leaps and bounds better than what we have. At the very least I'd still like to see the button to fix my current problems. Even with the "combat only" abilities the way they are I still shouldn't have to have my solo spellcaster attack with a 12m bow, and suffer recovery frames, just to initiate the combat state with a group of enemies. It's completely counter to my initial vision of a caster to have to use a bow or a gun simply because of a 2m advantage over even a wand.. and both being horrible means anyway for starting combat with a group of enemies. I could work with the "combat only" system despite how awful it is if only I could at least declare combat and not be forced into illogically throwing away my initiative by taking senseless action.
  9. Why is the answer so obvious? Is it because it makes sense? Is it because we've seen the scenario a thousand times already and know how it plays out? If the right answer is so obvious then why isn't that an available option for players to start combat with? Why must the player, like a solo spellcaster, be forced into choosing option 1, 2, or 3 to start combat with any enemy? Why have we been content to sit back and sign it off as "oh, well, that's just how it is?" I don't mind some abilities being restricted to combat-only. I agree that many should be combat-only in fact. What I do mind is that I have no way to simply declare a state of mutual combat so that I can cast that in-combat-only ability as my first action instead of having to suffer the recovery frames from a senseless ranged attack or become too close to the enemy and allow them to declare combat. Solution? A Declare Combat button. By pressing the button while highlighting an enemy or friendly unit within range (open to suggestions) a state of combat is declared. Both the enemy and the player are drawn into combat as though a physical aggression against them were made. From an immersion or lore sense this could be achieved by suggesting the enemy became alerted to your presence by a shout, your weapon became unsheathed and you assumed a combatitive posture, or even that some choice dialogue had taken place. It could even be named the "Draw Weapons" button or "Shout" button. Whatever. I mean... this state of immediate combat is already made able to be declared through dialogue choices. Saying something aggressive in a dialogue choice doesn't require you or the enemy to make a physical attack to start combat. I am submitting this in the technical support forum as, after consideration, I truly believe the lack of this mechanic is an actual issue with the game. I've spent several "hours" in recovery frames that were counterproductive to my cause. It makes no sense whatsoever that the player has to sacrifice distance or that the player has to sacrifice recovery time to start combat where an enemy has to do neither and instead gets to take their ideal first action from their safe distance. This makes little to no difference for large parties- I'd actually prefer to open with a beefy archer ranged attack so that I can land a strong preemptive blow! And once combat is started with that arrow landing using my ideal first spell with my caster. With a solo spellcaster though you're not benefitting from a weak ranged attack as your opening move. You're not benefitting from forcing yourself to get close to the enemy, sometimes even immediately within melee range due to small rooms or corners or teleporting enemies. This isn't just restricted to solo spellcasters though it hits them the hardest. A lot of solo adventurers could benefit from the mechanic that's already used by enemies but not even an option to the player. You're a solo adventurer and see a group of 5 enemies? You know your first priority against this group is using your figurine for a summon? Well you'd best get close to the enemy to alert them, or perform a ranged attack and pray you have a low recovery so you have enough time to use your item before the enemies have teleported to you, peppered you with arrows, cast all forms of spells, or simply closed enough distance that they'll still engage you once the summon is cast (if you're lucky to afford that much time even). Because these are your options. Or, hey, why not just declare combat with a button and be able to take your first action, how you see fit, in a combat state with the enemy? Again- this isn't an issue with abilities or items being only available during combat. That's a whole other arena of debate. Items like scrolls of stealth should be allowed to be used outside of combat. I understand the restrictions in almost all other cases. This is an issue with having to take unwanted actions or place yourself in unrealistic distances of an enemy just to start the combat state. This is an issue with not having a means to start combat without an action against both friendly and hostile npcs. If dialogue can start combat without action, if enemies can start combat without action, why can't the player? This is a reiteration of a previous post that I have chosen to abandon as I communicated the idea poorly. Thank you.
  10. Yeah the formatting could use a change. Because my post isn't about the absurdity of "Combat Only" spells and abilities. I'm okay with the restriction on a lot of them aside from active boosts to Stealth, Lore, etc. Those should assuredly be allowable outside of combat. My complaint is that a character is forced to either take an action or be too close to an enemy to start combat. You do not have a button to press to simply initiate combat with the same functionality as how an aggressive dialogue choice inititates combat. I get that I shouldn't be able to (as in an example above) charm an enemy to start combat. Cool, agreed. I should, however, be allowed to initiate combat with an Initiate/Declare Combat button (enemies and I are now made aware of each other and auto-paused into combat) and then cast charm as my first action. I shouldn't be forced to walk too closely to them or make a ranged attack and suffer recovery frames, both placing the solo spellcaster at disadvantage born of combat mechanics, not of their role. Pretend you see an enemy spellcaster from the edge of the fog. You get close enough for them to see you. What happens? Does the enemy spellcaster first have to cast an unwanted ability or make a wand attack to initiate combat with you? No. The enemy spellcaster starts combat the same way as any other enemy- with a combat declaration that places both the party and the enemy in an "in combat" state. As their first action they will surely start casting some favorable spell. Why is it that as a player spellcaster who sees an enemy you must instead get too close and let the enemy make the declaration for you or start combat with a wand/bow attack to get their attention and waste your first action in recovery? Why can't we just declare combat with a button press the same way the enemy can? Again this makes little difference to parties. Minimal at best. To a solo spellcaster this makes a world of difference. I will likely let this thread die and recommunicate my concerns in a new thread at a later point with formatting in mind. I may link to this thread as an example of how an amazing idea with proof-of-concept in fairness and utility can be snuffed before even being considered due to poor formatting choices.
  11. My qualm isn't with chanter being a challenge. I love the class. And I'm not complaining at having undertaken a difficulty like this. I'm complaining at the senselessness of having to declare combat by either A) being too close to the enemy so that they initiate or B) having to take a wasted action and suffer the recovery frames to declare combat and give up any advantage you would have had in range. I'm suggesting the functionality of a means to initiate combat outside of those two options as they are currently our only two options. And being thusly restricted does not make sense for solo spellcasters at all. Your options are to get too close or take an unwanted action, both unfavorable, and both avoidable with allowing the ability to declare combat. Again to keep with immersion it could be seen as raising your weapon against an enemy, a shout, a shift in body language that appears offensive, whatever.
  12. Yeah I mentioned that a couple times too =P You can either be close enough that they see you and suddenly you don't have time to cast your spell since they are too close or you can pull with a ranged attack and suffer the recovery frames which will also result in not having enough time to cast the spell you wanted to open with.
  13. tl;dr- I play a triple crown chanter with zero rests. Every. Second. Counts. Fireball as an example may have been jumping the gun lol My apologies there. My main concern is, in place of the spell or ability you actually want to cast, you have to select a different ability or open with a physical attack because there isn't an option present to just instead initiate combat. It's not a matter of being able to cast certain spells before combat it's a matter of having to initiate combat and waste time locked in recovery in what's often a senseless and needless action. Take your example even of using an ability to charm. Suppose you do want to charm them. Suppose also that you have a party of 2 or more. Easy. One party member initiates combat however they want like your archer shoots. That arrow lands, combat is started and auto paused. Your caster, at the very second combat is started, has access to start casting his charm ability. Now suppose you are the solo spellcaster. You open combat with an action like shooting an arrow and the enemy is halfway to you before you can even recover to start casting your charm spell. Big difference. Congratulations you've now experienced every single engagement I've ever been in lol Both scenarios involve the same spell being cast and the same actions being performed. On a solo spellcaster does it really make sense to have to open with an attack that you know will render you useless? I can't even get a summon out by a quickslot item in half the close-quarters engagements before I've been hit because of that recovery time I have to deal with from opening in such an illogical way. It makes zero sense to force me to shoot an arrow or use a wand fully knowing that I need to get a distraction out on to the field for this battle instead of letting me just declare combat and have free choice of the first action I take. It's already been proven fair when dialogue results in immediate combat that both parties can become engaged without either taking an action first. Why should you have to suffer the recovery of an attack that you don't want to make just so that you can be in combat status so that you can cast that ability later? Announce combat with an initiate combat button, auto-pause kicks in, both parties are now engaged in combat, both parties have time to take their first action without having to first recover from an unwanted action. It may sound absurd but I keep asking myself "If this were real life, would that even make sense?" If you point a gun at someone, they know you mean business. Combat has started without dealing damage. Why does the game essentially make you shoot and put the gun away just to initiate combat? I am already very disappointed that combat cannot cross maps. No spoilers but, hey, there are caves. Every game has them. You sneak in the cave, you see something that looks like it'd wreck your face, you step out of the cave. Okay, you can do this. It's already dismal that unlike real life you can't draw the enemy out. So you go back in. And that massive cave opening behind you once you're in the cave and engaged? Nope. Must be an invisible wall, suddenly you find you can't just walk out the way you came in. To add insult to injury you must initiate combat in that cave by shooting an arrow because every spell and item that you have that's favorable to the situation requires that they see you first (and are then too close to safely cast or use in time). Want to use a scroll to cast a pre-combat buff to prepare for the upcoming battle you know is about to go down? Can't do that without shooting the enemy first and they are teleported on you before your bow is lowered. Want to use your scroll to increase your stealth ability? Nope, you have to.. wait, what? You have to be in combat to use a scroll to increase your stealth? Okay... well. Sad but true. Oh! Wait! I need to buy time, that's the problem, since I can't just leave the way I came once combat has started so... so... I'll cause a distraction! I'll use an item to summon something, the enemies will fight it, and should give me enough time to position myself and cast my spell! Oh. Yeah. To buy myself that time first requires that I initiate combat. Again by either shooting them and giving them enough time to rip me in two before I can recover or by standing close enough to them that they can just teleport to me and kill me before the casting is completed. Or maybe I could shoot them to initiate combat, use the item to summon, then try to position and make a logical casting? Oh... yeah.. again... if I initiate by shooting them then I'm stuck in recovery frames that will give them enough time to kill me. Why do you have to take an action to start combat? Why can't you just initiate combat as dialogue does? Why can't you start combat against an enemy the same way that they start combat against you, by an immediate mutual agreement followed by an auto-pause? They see you? Combat without them having taken an action. You see them? Best get to shooting because you don't have a button that just starts combat like they do.
  14. I initially formatted it that way thinking it'd be easier to pick out the important parts and then allow the reader to bypass the unbolded additional details/reasoning lol I didn't even see the update as I formatted it then left the thread =/ I'd edit the formatting if I could but at this point it will no longer allow me to. If a blue would be so kind as to save our eyes I'd be thankful as I'd really like some input around this functionality. Thanks!
  • Create New...