hilfazer

Besides that backer (without whom there would be no game) content you mentioned it's very hard to find unique items with quality enchant only (one such weapon on wiki) or even with enchantable properties only (two such weapons on wiki).

Thanks. I failed at reading. Total damage being reduced by full DR makes a lot of sense. More DOTs should work like that.

Are not DOTs supposed to go against 25% of target's DR?

Same thing happens. As JerekKruger already said "+x% Attack Speed" only affects recovery duration. So it's still in the game. Either we don't complain nearly enough or devs ignore their boards too much. Also, i don't see Blizzard being mention. Sure it's effect is minimal now (nerfed from 80% to 20%) but it's still not zero. Unless it got nerfed even harder but ... i refuse to believe it. BTW great work, MaxQuest.

Yeah, that arbalest nerf was unnecessary.

It will also weaken paladin's Behold The Martyr because loosing one person will be bigger of a deal.

Not me because Twin Sting has one reload animation and dual pistols will have 2.

Time limited critical path. No workarounds. Problem solved.

They cost you spell slots. Pre buffing in Pillars would work better than in IE games for 2 (if not more) reasons: 1. You have less spell slots per rest, spending them on buffs is relatively more 'expensive' 2. Durations are much shorter than in D&D so casting all of your buffs before combat starts may not be the best idea.

Being able to pick only 6 options out of 1007 instead of 11 is quite a sacrifice if you ask me.

Care to elaborate?

That's no different than savescumming to win a handplaced fight. Savescumming is solved by Ironman mode and POE had that. Otherwise devs should not bother with savescumming because it's not their problem but player's, just like cheating or reading guides online.

The Great Unification. It may take many forms, for example: - EVERY ability is per encounter, EVERY class has a number of per rest powerups that can be used to boost EVERY ability. - EVERY class has same accuracy and/or deflection.

Soulbound weapons are ancient artifacts and guns are not so ancient.

You still need to understand it

For balance! There is no law, sure, but some games do this, POE too, for whatever reason designers had and scaling XP causes problems there. Another problem of scaling XP is it encourages players to do scaled content (enemies) first and non scaled content (quests) second. It's and example of Order Dependent Character Development, although not the worst one (i'm looking at you G2:NotR and Geneforge 2 ). The above problem could be avoided by making every XP reward scale but there's another one - it encourages players to do content from lowest challange rating to highest. For open world games, like Witcher 3 or POE2, it's a bad match. I forgot to mention i was killing stuff in Divinity2 from lowest level to highest. But maybe i'm a little biased, after all i [shamelessselfpromotion] made a Witcher 3 mod called "No Lvl Diff Adjustment" that deals with both XP and enemy scaling [/shamelessselfpromotion]

And it shouldn't. Scaling XP may sound good on paper but there's only one advantage to it and even that one advantage is questionable. What i'm talking about is ability to quickly lvl up low level party members. Why is it questionable? Because it's a good candidate for money sink. You pay gold and get XP for your companions. It should be obvious that you can't buy more XP than your PC has but i'll say this just in case. It's bad because smaller parties do not have lvl advantage over larger ones they should have. I made 4 man (woman, actually) party in IWD2 and their lvl was, like, 1 higher than lvls of full 6 person party. Not what i expected. Another problem is that is controls your level way too much. From what i gathered players were finishing Divinity 2 at average level of 35. I've done all possible content, skipped fortifications (XP from them do not scale) until all enemies were dead and my level at the end of the game was 36. Sure, designers love such feature because it allows them extreme control over player but games are for players, first and foremost. I'm not saying control over player level is a complete evil, some of it is fine but it can be achieved with just XP curve.

But we won't be able to choose how to upgrade quality. We can either upgrade or not.

For upgrading lashes we'll have a choice. For Slayings we'll have a choice. For quality... we won't. Hmm, inconsistent.

It's really surprising to see what poll option is leading. I would have never guessed that myself. That's a valuable thread, thank you, OP. Voted "same as POE1". BTW what's "trash mob"? Is is a trash creature or trash encounter? If the latter than what exactly is trash encounter? Is it an encounter that can't challange competent player or maybe something else? I think it would be useful to define this.

Perhaps the problem in POE is just communication not being good enough. Remember the backer NPCs? Oh boy, how much rage they generated. Eric F. admitted they didn't communicate well enough that backer NPCs are the necessary evil and should be generally ignored. How i understand POE is "You should not spam rest, but this option exists for player who want to do something unusual like soloing with a priest. And we prefer this option to hard counters". I have my reasons to believe this is the case. The problem with soft counters is that there will be players who will be abusing them. Abusing in itself is not a bad thing because it's their game but some of those players might think that abusing the game is how it should be played and complain. That's the poor communication i mentioned before. OTOH if we do hard counter like time limit or rest limit per game there will be even more complaints. Even if reducing difficulty was increasing those limits (with Story Mode removing them entirely, of course) some players will still complain because they are too proud to lower difficulty level. Problem with resting at "correct" intervals is that you are encouraged to wait but in some cases, like 2 difficult battles in a row, you should not wait but do 2 rests in a quick succession. The game would be giving 2 contradictory messages. On a plus side restspammers would not need to do anything tedious to abuse rest. As for having to be injured or tired, i bet some players will be hurting their own guys just to be able to rest and complain that game forces them to do this. And they would be at least partially right! You want to be fully rested before a boss fight but what if you're not 'tired enough' to rest? The only good way to solve resting i can see is a proper economy with resting that costs no small amount of gold. But making proper economy is teh hard. Also, what is 'good' for me may not be 'good' for others as making proper economy might involve using 'unpopular' solutions. In theory players should be happy that there's finally a game where they are not too rich but practice can differ from theory rather greatly. But hey, Obsidian apparently does not consider rest spam to be a problem. They even want to encourage players to rest in POE2.

I don't think some of you guys realize that felipepepe (yup, it's 3 times 'pe') made his post before 2.0/WM existed. I don't think there's a problem with expressing an opinion before a game gets all expansions/DLCs/patches.

You must be a player who cares only (or mostly) about his PC. Nothing wrong with that but there are players who care about their whole 6 person party and they can't enchant 12 or how many weapons their party needs to Legendary. For such players there's still a lot of that choice you are talking about. Also, quality is a factor when you still can't enchant to that level. You can find superb items before lvl 12 but you can't enchant superb before you reach it. Sure, it stops to matter when you reach level high enough but endgame is not everything that matters.

The thing I don't understand is this: if you didn't like it, you didn't have to do it. Is the fact that it was possible really so bad that you want to remove that possibility for everyone who did like it? I find this to be the base argument for alot of issues going around. I dont know the answer or what the line between limiting the gamer or giving option but that option is not necessarily more optimal. Maybe that is the line if what you allow is more optimal then its hard resist using that function. But... "more optimal" is incorrect! It's not possible to be better than the best If a player has a problem resisting doing something in a video game, which is easy because hey, it's not even real, then perhaps he should work on his willpower. I don't think video game devs should aspire to be doctors or good daddies.

Funny part is that the reason for this change: "some players didn't like they can enchant early game weapons to maximum level" is not even true.