MaxQuest

We currently lack information. I could think of couple of reasons, but these would be just speculations:- classes have the same starting acc/deflection. - classes have the same starting acc/deflection, but gain a bonus acc/deflection on each levelup, based on what class you just selected. - classes have different acc/deflection (as it is now), but there are more powerful dual-class combinations than fighter-x. Indeed. Also it could be that a pure-class gets access to a bonus/deeper specialization, or has access to lets say a third subclass. Looking at video, we now have the full list of power source names: Barbarian - rage Chanter - spirits Cipher - psionics Druid - nature Fighter - discipline Monk - mortification Paladin - zeal Priest - faith Ranger - bond Rogue - guile Wizard - arcane Also looking at Josh' board, we can notice that: - abilities improve through power_level - he keeps experimenting with power_points to power_level conversion.

Hmm, lets say a maximum of 5 cc-scrolls and maximum of 5 dmg-scrolls are allowed. Other scrolls/potions are unrestricted. I tried 8+ times to bring the dragon down, with priest without scrolls. No luck. I know it's definitely possible, but will be very unreliable. In the end I used 2 scrolls of Confusion to buy some time for pre-buffing and avoid face-tanking, plus 1 scroll of Valor.

A bit unrelated, just curious, which classes (besides priest) do you think could solo this dragon in ascetic (naked) way? (including no weapons)

Since it's not an online game, and we are safe from seeing stuff like "Red Riding Hood of Wael", "Holy Batman" and so on, indeed why not? These could be editable like chant sequences are. But ofc with an initial standard name.

No preferrence. Usually I'd say after the end of the game. Because deviating from main quest in the middle of it, would detrimently affect the feel of urgency that most main quests try to build up. But Obsidian did really well with both White March expansions. So.. No preferrence. (Just let it be the same character).

Yeap. Excited about multi-classing as well. It increases the number of possible variants by a whole lot, which makes build tinkering deeper and more fun. Not to mention the amount of subclass combinations.

So it's more VO. Not a big fan, but... if it adds extra watcher voice presets, and more Eder, I mean banter jokes, imo that's a decent goal.

Had the same thought - Bard? (he would require some unique mechanic, to not interfere with Chanter) - Warlock? (haven't seen much demons; but I guess he could be focused on damage over time spells and drain-tanking) - Necromancer? (lots of skeletons and vessels out there, but would require quite lot of unique spells besides Raise Dead) But what else could there be?

This means: not intuitively-friendly, hence confusing) Agreed here. And tbh I really liked the hp/endurance split system. If anything I'd like to hear Josh' thoughts on this subject. The thing is: we gather information piece by piece, while he sees the whole picture. Maybe he had some solid reasons, and the confusing-part was just the first to come into his mind?

Any predictions for the $2.4M stretch goal? Like: - ship customization (sails colors, interior designs buyable in ports, laboratories, various improvements for the hinted naval battles, like: cannons, ship speed and durability enhancements) - deeper enchanting system (already hinted by Josh as part of the game, but never hurts to add some more,.. like ability to move an enchant from one item to another, (optionally) destroying the former in process) - crafting (armor and weapons included, with item icon/appearance selection out of predefined/existing options) (or at least something like ability to copy the appearance of one armor to another, if they are of the same type) - optional hard bosses (comparable to PoE1 dragons in difficulty and higher) - arena (could be Oblivion style)

If a player likes to experiment, but feels pleasure mostly when playing / coming-up with an optimal build, he will feel very limited if many choices are clearly subpar. Unless there will be some epic feats or specializations, or we'll be getting access to next tier spells at even levels, 17/1 is indeed likely to be better than 18/0 in majority of cases.Also there is one more sweet spot at 14+10 power_level, which corresponds to 12/6 lvl split Although it's also very important: - at what levels exactly will we be getting some key spells and abilities (think Dragon Thrashed, Sacred Immolation, Shining Beacon, Minor Avatar, Kalakoth's Minor Blights, etc) - and how the damage will scale with source_points.

Agreed; it's not such a hard concept to grasp, in order to throw away the split mechanic. But it seems that some players were indeed getting confused; e.g: link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, etc. Anyway, lets think of possible pros and cons: 1. hp/endurance split pros over single hp pool: - limited max healing. Fights have a clear end point and cannot be cheesed via endless tank and heal; or running around in circles once you get low, letting your passive regen to bring you back to full, and repeat that tactic over and over ad-infinitum. - because of endurance-to-hp factor being different for different classes: for some of them you can use constitution as an alternative to traditional defenses. 2. single hp pool pros over hp/endurance split - less confusing - in PoE2: if you don't use empower often and have enough per-encounter healing, theoretically can stay longer without resting. - single hp pool is very likely to be higher than current endurance pool, as such wounds gathering might be slower. - anything else? Although we need to know how gaining wounds in PoE2 will work. Will a character get wounded only once he falls unconscious, or even if just reaches low-hp. What if he is hit by an ability that deals high damage percent wise (comparing to his health pool)?.

That's right. Unless Empowered spells will also get some secondary effects (cc or single-target -> aoe; e.g. empowered Fireball not just deals more damage, but also knockbacks enemies; or lets say empowered Minor Avatar also partially affects team members), it will indeed remove one layer of resource management. Although the idea itself, is quite interesting, plus it makes sense RP wise. A wizard can easily throw minor missiles all day without any signs of fatigue. But to make a cast more powerful, empower it, would require a special amount of focus and effort. The main question is... how are they going to balance that. Currently: A level 3 priest has access to 18 spells and can cast 6 spells (4 rank 1, and 2 rank 2) before resting. Does that mean that he will be able open-up each fight with 6 per-encounter casts? If so, vancian spells are likely to be nerfed quite below the level of abilities that use focus, phrases or wounds, as those cannot be thrown just as easy, and require build-up.

Judging by this reply, it looks like: A Fighter level 10 will have Discipline at 30 + 10 virtual points. (that's also were his 0.75 is coming from: 3/4) A Fighter/Rogue level 5/5 will have Discipline at 20 and Guile at 20. (20 = 5*3 + 5*1) Also, correct me if I understood wrong, 20 [power source] corresponds to 6 [power level], i.e. power_level = Math.floor(power_source / 3), or as Josh wrote it: 0-2=0, 3-5=1, 6-8=2, etc So a 5/5 fighter/rogue split, has the same power level as [fighter level 6] plus [rogue level 6]. On the other hand a 6/5 fighter/rogue, would have 23 discipline and 21 guile, making him of the same power level as a [fighter level 7] plus [rogue level 7]. And one more example: a 9/1 fighter/rogue, would have 28 discipline and 12 guile, making him of the same power level as [fighter level 9] plus [rogue level 4].

Last time I checked, it was still there. I'd like to make a comparison of the same character with 4 arquebuses (unbuffed, 10 Dex), and see how big is the gain: - v1: 4 consecutive shots with the same arquebus: total duration = 4 x (5 + 45 + 75 + 204) = 4 x 329 = 1316 frames = 43.866 seconds- v2: 4 shots; one with each arquebus, switching before reloading start: (reloading is substituted by weapon switch duration: 2s) total duration = 4 x (5 + 45 + 75 + 60) = 4 x 185 = 740 frames = 24.666 seconds- v3: 4 shots; one with each arquebus, switching before reloading start:: (with Quick Switch talent -1.5s) total duration = 4 x (5 + 45 + 75 + 15) = 4 x 140 = 560 frames = 18.666 seconds- v4: 4 shots; one with each arquebus, switching before reloading start:: (with Quick Switch talent and Coil of Resourcefulness) total duration = 4 x (5 + 45 + 75 + 0) = 4 x 125 = 500 frames = 16.666 secondsAnd now the same, but with switching before recovery start, which currently leads to skipping it entirely. Note: you can switch right after the bullet hit it's target, which happens at 22-28 frame depending on distance. So: - v2.2: 4 shots; one with each arquebus, switching before recovery start: (reloading is substituted by weapon switch duration: 2s) total duration = 4 x (5 + 28 + 0 + 60) = 4 x 93 = 372 frames = 12.4 seconds- v3.2: 4 shots; one with each arquebus, switching before recovery start: (with Quick Switch talent -1.5s) total duration = 4 x (5 + 28 + 0 + 15) = 4 x 48 = 192 frames = 6.4 seconds- v4.2: 4 shots; one with each arquebus, switching before recovery start: (with Quick Switch talent and Coil of Resourcefulness) total duration = 4 x (5 + 28 + 0 + 0) = 4 x 33 = 132 frames = 4.4 secondsThat's one of the reasons why I was advocating for a plate-encased ranger frontliner with powder burns. As (with enough and precise micro) he doesn't care of recovery penalties by just skipping them entirely and being able to open each fight with 4 per-encounter analogs of fan of flames.

I really like where it is going) Although (basing on the information we currently have) it seems Josh wasn't completely sincere on the "multiclassing ins't mean to be a no brainer") A level 18 fighter would have 54 discipline points and 18 virtual. A level 17 fighter and 1 level in rogue would have 52 discipline points and 20 guile. If next-tier spells and abilities will be available at the odd levels (like it was in PoE1: Dragon Trashed on lvl 9, Sacred Immolation on 13, and so on), sacrificing 18th level would actually be a no brainer Cannot wait to learn more details Playing with NWN2 builds, trying to find the most optimal combination was so much fun)

The one and only (number /1): IEMod Edit: ok, and this one: Wooden HUD Textures

The tongue and the cheek were indeed there. As my goal was to indirectly, half-jokingly point out something I perceived as rude (specifically naming poe1 folks as less enlightened). Since you explicitly wrote that you were not making such a suggestion, pardon me if that was not your original intention. I bet you understand that your unique manner of speech, acts as a double edged sword: originality vs difficulty in comprehension. I am through more interested in your thoughts on the better approach to PoE2 spell-system, as you seemed to favor the cooldown-based one. At least that was the impression a non-native speaker could get.

Well, you've already found a viable use on a fighter Now lets think of the optimal one. - Fear aura applies terrified effect, which results in -20acc, -8reflex, -6%action speed, -8will, -4def and -12concentration; so we really want to apply it, and need decent accuracy. (btw, terrified is double as powerful as Executioner's frightening effect) - Taste of the Hunt has a 25% chance to proc on hit or crit only; so we'd want to eliminate misses and grazes. - You use a battle axe, which deals bonus damage on crit. Again you want higher accuracy. You mentioned that you don't have problems with your endurance/hp. So it's safe to drop resolve, and maybe even con a little, in favor of maxing Perception and if there is something left, than distribute between Dex and Mig. Also you could try swapping Edge of Reason with We-Toki, as a prone target cannot hit and in the end it will be of the same benefit as draining, except that you will lose less of health. Or even better give Rimecutter or Spelltongue a try. That extra mile towards zero recovery makes a solid difference.

I microed all characters in PoE1 and liked it. Even more if I had to micro only 4 of them, and 2 were supporting on auto-pilot. While in Dragon Age series, I microed mostly my main character, with the party members having set strict orders via tactics. To answer your question: yeap, I am interested in AI party scripting if it is flexible enough and allows to cover most of situations for casual (trash) fights, especially buff/debuff openers, alpha-striking, emergency heals, and leaving dangerous AoEs when not engaged. That's the minimum required. Otherwise... there would be not so much use for it. Also it would be nice if it would be modable, or at least have clean and legible structure in the game files.

Hey, I thought you were against logical fallacies And if I am not mistaken this one looks like a reverse ad hominem (i.e. praising the defence instead of attacking the opposition). To be honest, it's not that cooldown-system is bad. As it depends how devs implement it. But the first thing that comes to mind, when one mentions cooldowns is Tyranny. Without much thinking, I suppose spells can be implemented as: 1. in PoE1: per-encounter/per-resource/per-rest. - per-resource are spells cast for focus, wounds or based on chants counter (i.e. spells which don't have a limit specified) 2. Mixed: same as above; but per-rest spells get a cooldown attached. - e.g. Envenomed Strike instead of 3 uses per rest; can have 3 charges, with a restock time of 2 minutes per charge, but resting will still restore all of them. 3. Just cooldown based The last category could be organized as: a). Without cost: - v1. Simplest form. As in Tyranny. Spells without cost, but with big cooldowns. - v2. Same as above; but also with few filler no-cd spells which are either low-damaging on auto-cast; or have long cast-time and are on manual-cast. b). With cost. Resource based: - v1. big initial resource pool (enough for 5-10 casts), slow restoration rate - v2. small initial resource pool (enough for 2-3 casts), fast restoration rate - v3. empty initial resource pool . - p1. either fast regeneration rate (time based) . - p2. or you get n of resource after casting m free spells, and those resources are used for special spells . - p3. or you get resources when you inflict/take/prevent damage Going for a simplistic cooldown-based system as it was in Tyranny, is a big no, for the reasons already mentioned. (specifically because it decreases combat diversity by taking away spell usage planning. In the end, using the same spells all over again, moreover usually in the same order, was just getting boring. There was no depth to it.) A less aggravant but similar problem threatens some of the cd-based resource-based models too, as players will just come up with the optimal spell rotation. And it will take a lot of play-testing to balance spells' power, in order to make under-used abilities a viable alternative. Then again, if that state of balance is achieved, there will be a risk of getting the "it doesn't matter what you cast anymore, just mash the buttons" situation. As result the system will have to become deeper, quite likely confusing for usual players, and only power-gamers will dive into it's intricacies, in order to get just a marginal benefit. So the question is: is it worth switching to a completely new spell system? Sure I could see vancian classes getting cooldown-based spells, and their power gated by limited mana pool. But it would also take a lot of testing to balance out first of all the pool/cost values and second the mana restoration means. Or maybe it's ok to keep the current, familiar and well play-tested system; and just tweak it a bit. Something like toning-down vancian classes' late game, tone-up their early game, and (optinally) use the mixed approach 2.?

I definitely would it just reminded me of this poor guy, getting insta-killed by oozes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"In most circumstances, party members can grant bonuses to the main party member performing an action. The math is a little complex, but the end result is that nothing is really redundant. It the very least, you’ll gain a marginal bonus if multiple party members have points in a skill." Reminds me of that injured wolf in White March. Iirc you could not heal it, if you had Field Triage on a companion but not MC.

Technically you are correct. LordCrash used a false dilemma fallacy, as both options are neither mutually exclusive nor they cover all possible variants. I suppose he didn't mean it. And instead of answering his A vs B question, provided a personal preference on [A && !B] vs [b && !A] matter despite of any C, pedantly speaking. Geez... how could I forget about Witcher characters?.. And how could you forget about Zoltan, the glorious bastard that never drinks alone)

So in the end it's smarter AI... If that was only stats or bonus acc/defenses I could probably mod that. Or at least try. But AI, especially making enemies act like a group, like a unit is a goal as reachable as the end of that gauntlet run) At best it's possible to make enemies to almost ignore incoming engagement and increase their target preference towards squishy, low-endurance/defense party members. But would that be pleasant to get focus-fired by Ogre Druids, Oozes and everyone with ranged nuke?