wih

Sounds interesting. The combat will have to make tactical use of the terrain though. Cover and suppressing fire should be essential. This is rather different than what we have in PoE.

This toggle thing for the pause is a pain point in the game. It conflicts badly with the autopause options and limits their usefulness. The game definitely needs separate hotkeys for pausing and unpausing.

How so? I'm on GOG also and I already play with the beta patch. I guess you are using Galaxy because I don't see the beta patch in the list of downloads. Ah, yes, I'm using Galaxy. It can be used just as an downloader/installer though. You don't have to run the game through Galaxy. Or are there some other downsides?

How so? I'm on GOG also and I already play with the beta patch.

Veteran mode should be hard enough for most of us and PoTD should feel damned near impossible. You said you can do it if you hire mercenaries. Then hire them. Replace them with companions later. PoTD mode will be played by the hardcore gamers for the years to come. They'll need the extra challenge. I would like to hear Boeroer's opinion on this though. If he says it is indeed impossible... then it will have to be looked upon.

will think 'pon your suggestion. no. Honestly, what is the point of replacing a letter with a quote? The letter would convey more information, especially considering that this forum is read by many people whose primary language is not English. What is the reason for this? I am genuinely curious.

Yes, this is wise. If you are bothered by the bugs, you should indeed wait a few months. There will be also iterations on balance. No point getting annoyed if you want a finished game.

Please elaborate. What could they do instead? Usually I am extremely doubtful when I hear someone claims something is very easy to do. Alright. First off you need to have a system that focusses on abilities rather than stats. Stats are what always makes you > enemy without requiring skill. This is bad. You want to become stronger? Sure give more hp, more strength and such. But adhere to the 20-50% rule (depeding on game type). A single person doesn't become 10-100000x stronger as most RPGs use. To counter this (JRPGs mostly) games use a lineair game design so enemies are scaling with progression rather than your level so you can still overpower them if you wish. Open world can't handle that because you can go anywhere you want. So devs create a level scaling system or fixed level points in the game to either force you to take a select path or allow you to wander anywhere you go without feeling really strong. The thing is, why level up at all then? The point is, focus on abilties and make those abiltiies more efficient and focus as little as possible on stats. This works from tactical RPG's to action styled RPGs. It is the only way to prevent the necessity of level scaling and to prevent you from stomping the enemy. Hopefully we will see such systems. I would like to play something like that. Are there any such CRPGs already?

Please elaborate. What could they do instead? Usually I am extremely doubtful when I hear someone claims something is very easy to do.

I always assumed Josh reads this forum, just avoids posting on it? How can he know what is going on without reading the official forum?

This is probably the right stance to take in general. In my opinion, with PoE 1 the developers made a mistake to introduce an entire new world while at the same time choosing an overly abstract and philosophical main story involving gods and reading souls. They failed to consider that the players will have much less knowledge about the world that the writers themselves. As a result the writing was often hard to follow. With Deadfire they had to continue in the same vein. Again there is a new world, new cultures and a plot that is overly abstract. The players have to be brought up to speed quickly and it becomes necessary to choose between lore dumps and this hyperlink system.

I believe the real point here is not "it's alright", but "it is an inherently hard problem".

You are right about how silly would be if Frodo started to do side quests, but I have lost count of how many times I have read a praise for some open ended game that went like this: "The game offers so much freedom! You can totally forget about the main quest and go exploring!!". Probably the people from Obsidian are afraid to try and do a really convincing story, because in this case that story is going to be too linear and restricting.

I don't know guys... It seems to me that the people out there actually want to play Deadfire but are waiting because of the bugs or probably they want to play the game along with its DLCs. Meanwhile they are buying all kinds of other isometric RTWP games - it started with PoE, then Tyranny and now all the Infinity engine games are on sale and are on the first two or three pages of steam top sellers - Planescape, BG2, Icewind Dale...

Too little combat for me. I even started a parallel PoE playthrough so that I can switch to it whenever I want to do some fighting.

Scaling disables skulls, even when it is only scaling up. The developers know full well about this by now, it was discussed a lot. It will be fixed.

Is it possible to mod all weapons to have longer reach? I think that one of the reasons for the problems with combat clarity is that everybody tries to get too close to their target. This results in a hard to read blob. I imagine that with longer reach the battle would be spaced out more and be more readable. By saying weapons I mean not only swords, flails, etc, but also monster claws and such.

Peak is almost always always on release for something like this, short of exceptional circumstances. An exceptional circumstance could be that it is an Obsidian game. From all the Obsidian fans I know, I was the only one who jumped unto it. Most of them are waiting for patch or two. I waited for a bit with PoE1 as well. I also think that many fans are waiting to buy, but it will be hard for us to notice when they do, based on the peak stat alone. Simply because the playthroughs of the new buyers will be spread over time and won't coincide with those that have played it on release. Maybe the DLCs will cause a new spike though - with luck and some good marketing.

I also don't like these open games. Here I found a nice way to proceed - I try to go after the main quest only and I don't care about the side quests at all - until the next stage of the main quest shows 2 or more skulls. This is a signal that I should level up somewhat, so now I am motivated to do some sidequests. This approach kept me focused during my first playthrough, the game stayed challenging even though I played on classic and there are still many sidequests left for my next playthroughs that I haven't seen yet.

It seems to me that not only PoE, but also Tyranny profited from Deadfire. It was on sale and stayed on the first two pages of steam top sellers for several days.

It is not universally bad to be naive. Sometimes changing established things involves someone being naive and then getting lucky. That last part happens rarely though Also, most of people here are reasonable, I think.

Guys, you are not trying to reach any common ground here. Instead of looking for things you can agree with - you are looking for things you can refute. Instead of trying to eliminate variables - you are multiplying them. It has become about proving your point and winning the fight instead of communicating ideas and learning to understand each other. I am sad watching this because I can see that everybody has something valuable to say or some perspective that has right to exist. Nobody can be absolutely wrong on each and every point. Sure, there can be some core issues on which you'll have to agree to disagree. But we should at least try to understand what are those. This is all going to end in a frustration and the moderators will have to close the thread, because we are not getting anywhere. Until the next thread when all will start anew. We are caught in a endless cycle.

The best way to do it by far is in a game with an advantages/disadvantages system, as a perk that triggers certain dialogue options or a small bonus on certain checks, while keeping it totally separate from the core mechanics. Beauty should generally be placed along things like "oh, I have photographic memory," or "oh, I know ALL THE TRIVIA," or, "oh, I'm familiar with military stuff" - miscellaneous character traits that can be independent of combat attributes. I'm agree with you but apparently a fighting penalties for a beautifull woman is a heresy for some. When it's *exclusive to female characters*, yes. When *female characters and only female characters* have a "pretty" stat and inherent penelties to combat...yeah, that's ****ed. It's *really* ****ed. And no, I don't have to tip-toe around it. I don't have to be gentle and conciliatory. I don't have to be diplomatic and concerned about their emotional reaction. I don't have to bend over backwards to make sure I don't offend their delicate sensibilities. If it's a ****ed-off misogynistic **** idea, I'll say so. It is a bad game design. But why it is misogynistic? Honest question. The basic idea is that the PC is often, and especially among casuals, a reflection of the people playing it within the setting at hand. This idea, if implemented, creates a setting where female's are pretty but weak and males are ugly but strong. Within this theoretical setting, women and men are delineated into specific roles based on inherent differences between the sexes which the person making the character has no ability to alter--and these differences create a world where female characters are pretty and thus are delineated into roles based on their sexual attractiveness while men are strong and thus delineated into roles based on physical might. At first this seems seems sexist, but not focused on one or the other, but that's only on the surface. This idea leaves male characters *the same as they've always been*. They receive no bonus and no penalty. There are no changes to male characters with this idea; you make a male character and go on with your day. You don't get the "bonus" with the social interactions and what not, but you don't receive the penalties. Men are left neutral jacks-of-all-trade; not as good as female characters at social interactions but not penalized, with no alterations to their physical capabilities. Women, on the other hand, have their entire interaction with the system altered in a way that defines their genders interaction with the game world. They are inherently good at this but bad at this; they get special options here but special limitations their. And this whole, special, female-defining trait is....physical attractiveness. That's why it's misogynistic instead of simply sexist. In this setting men are the same as men always are in every game, but female characters are uniquely defined by how pretty they are, and penalized in interactions that depend on other stats. Nice explanation, thank you.

The best way to do it by far is in a game with an advantages/disadvantages system, as a perk that triggers certain dialogue options or a small bonus on certain checks, while keeping it totally separate from the core mechanics. Beauty should generally be placed along things like "oh, I have photographic memory," or "oh, I know ALL THE TRIVIA," or, "oh, I'm familiar with military stuff" - miscellaneous character traits that can be independent of combat attributes. I'm agree with you but apparently a fighting penalties for a beautifull woman is a heresy for some. When it's *exclusive to female characters*, yes. When *female characters and only female characters* have a "pretty" stat and inherent penelties to combat...yeah, that's ****ed. It's *really* ****ed. And no, I don't have to tip-toe around it. I don't have to be gentle and conciliatory. I don't have to be diplomatic and concerned about their emotional reaction. I don't have to bend over backwards to make sure I don't offend their delicate sensibilities. If it's a ****ed-off misogynistic **** idea, I'll say so. It is a bad game design. But why it is misogynistic? Honest question. *Edit* Oh, you explained it earlier. It is about stereotypes. So what is so bad about reacting calmly to this and just saying that the idea isn't good? Without implying that someone is troll? I'm starting to think there aren't as much trolls as people think. But there are wildly differing opinions and people are quick to judge and ready to attack. Small things are blown out of proportion, like the post that started this storm.

If we go by the real world standard, men will have extra bonus on both strength and dexterity, and there is no proof that female should have a higher max intelligence or perception or resolve. So in the end female just becomes a worse choice when creating a character. There is a reason patriarchy exists in the history, and we are leaving that era behind, there is no reason to reflect that in a fantasy world setting. It actually depends on the game and what the writers want to do with it. Adding such thing mechanically wouldn't work because male characters bonuses will work automatically while "beauty" checks will need to added by the writers into the story one by one. This can't be made balanced. Also, some players will want to play a female warrior and won't care about beauty checks. In that case they will be unhappy. It doesn't mean that in this world male and female NPCs are to be considered equally strong physically. That women and men have differences is not a bad thing. What we are trying to leave behind is the notion that someone should be considered an inferior human being based on some body trait.