MaxQuest

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?

There should be a system, that would control that. At the simplest level: - Throwing some ghost blades or missiles in a cone -> There are few projectiles -> Can be controlled -> FoE only - Throwing a cone of icy shards, each the size of a needle? -> Hard to control at close distance -> Mixed AoE (red + yellow) - Throwing a fireball? -> That's literally a ball of fire -> Hit everyone in AoE. And add kinetic impact at epicentre. Exactly!

Personally the second. As for the OT question... an interesting companion has to be: [humorous and empathic] or [hilarious in some way]. Alistair, Eder, Sand, Morrigan, Merrill, Isabela, Sera, Dorian, The Iron Bull and especially Varric are my all-times favorite companions behavior and banter-wise.

To be honest, after playing Tyranny, I've started to appreciate PoE's per-encounter/rest system. Not that I like resting, but the very thing that you had to strategically plan spell usage, leaving some of per-rest spells for later use, was making combat much more diverse. In Tyranny through, I almost always used the same spells/abilities, and usually even in the same order. It got repetitive really fast. Similar thing with monsters' immunities and effective defenses. In PoE, encounters felt more unique, each requiring a different key. And it was a great feeling, building a party that could deal with all the variations of enemies in multiple different ways. I agree with PrimeJunta, mechanically Tyranny was far less balanced than Pillars (see my feedback here). Yet on the level of concept, there were a few interesting ideas: conquest, reputation bonuses and especially spell crafting (which although has no place in PoE, could find a reflection in enchanting system).

^ If there was a difficulty mod, how much exactly would you like it to be harder than PotD, and how would you name it?

Hmm, does that break immersion for you? I always felt that an intelligent spellcaster manipulates his AoE spells in a way that doesn't harm his teammates except in the actual epicenter. But yeah, I'd like to have: - AoE spells (that deal damage to everyone, no matter what) - FoE spells (that damage only enemies) and - mixed spells (the ones that have red and yellow zones). As for whips and other new custom weapons, I suppose their usefulness strongly depends if there are going to be good unique ones, which can map into optimal new builds. For example in PoE1, clubs, maces and pollaxes felt a bit weaker than other alternatives. It's important that new weapon types to not get into the category of unused.

If that scripting is made in DA:O style (if A than do X; if B than do Y), I am happy. Mod for reference.

Fair enough. How it will turn out for PoE2 depends on the multi-classing system and ability of frontliners to contribute at crowd-controling.

Voted for 6. (Mostly against 4) Reasoning: - while having 4-man party in Tyranny I had often catching myself thinking "it would be less fuss to just solo this encounter". And after a solo-potd run I just grew stronger in that thought. Encounters were designed around a small party, and as result were not as difficult. This plus the fact that you are getting more xp when solo, just leads to the fact that you'd better play without a party at all. - adventuring with only 3 companions really limits one's freedom. For instance in DA:I I always felt bound to travel with Blackwall + Cassandra + Solas, as after lots of experimentation it turned out that they are the most optimal partners for every dps-character I would make. - some classes start to really shine when you have 2 of them in your party; specifically priest and cipher. Having a small party size would potentially deny this, as first you will have to assemble the core of your party. Tbh sometimes I even wanted a 7th slot to squeeze one more niche companion and achieve (in my understanding) a perfectly balanced party, ready to face virtually any possible encounter. P.S. Yet, 5-man party might indeed work nicely as well. In my opinion it all depends on how versatile multi-classing is going to be.

Interesting... what does 75-85% of power mean... Is that hypothetical lvl 12 watcher like a level 9 fighter + level 9 druid combined? Or does he have the same spells as a lvl 12 druid, but their aoe/damage is decreased via multiplying by 0.75-0.85? (and same for fighter's abilities)? And of course how does multi-classing deal with class-specific starting stuff, i.e.: animal companion, faith and conviction, soul whip,.. and especially carnage and chanting.

Boeroer had a nice suggestion of making carnage resource based. Damage dealt, damage taken and intellect could affect how much enraged a barbarian is. And the more his rage burns the bigger his carnage aoe gets.

I'm with you on points: 1,3,5,7 and 8. I'd also add: - some manageable property (Sawyer seems to like keeps, and tbh I do too; but a customizable and upgradable ship will do too); - richer enchanting system; - some sort of reputation (NPCs could make custom remarks based on your race and deeds); - being able to equip both cloak and an amulet at the same time; - being able to assign the same weapon to different weapon sets; e.g. being able to swap from wielding single 1h to the same 1h+shield.

Out of curiosity, would anyone be interested in DA:O style party AI, as a stretch goal? It was a great feeling, controlling mostly your MC but still have your team act as a single unit.

Completely agree on everything above. PoE needs more transparent mechanics, more detailed and accurate tooltips plus richer combat log. Preferrably with a toggle option for periodic damage. This way it will be possible to both avoid log spam or check all the damage instances when needed. Not to mention that doing all this will help in revealing some of bugs and idiosincrasies earlier and would lead to a more consistent code. Also I would heavily advocate towards keeping current: - Attack Resolution system - Build diversity emerging (not only from class/talents but also) from attributes/weapons combination - Intrinsic diminishing returns for attributes instead of Tyranny-like soft-gating at 20 - Attack/Recovery system (with minor tweaks, specifically: recovery_factor set to 1 instead of 1.2; and update to speed UI types) If needed I could elaborate further on the 'why' part.

Why not use both ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So much this. I'd love to make the first playthrough with Russian localization. But if it would be text only - reading one thing and hearing another - would be a nuisance, so would just revert to English. As for stretch goals, it would be great to have some sort of property management, at least akin to NWN2 Crossroad Keep, where you had multiple mutually-exclusive upgrade options, which you could tailor under own needs. Another goal could be "enchant crafting system" similar to Tyranny's "spell crafting system". Each weapon having a certain enchant-capacity. Each enchant having a capacity cost. A new skill "enchantment" being able to a bit decrease these costs; so a skillful enchanter could squeeze in a more powerful combination of effects.

So... who's responsible for game mechanics, attributes tuning plus class and encounter balance?

Interesting... why does J.Sawyer post on somethingawful, but never appears on PoE official forums... I haven't played during beta, but judging by update notes, it is. Attributes were tuned up. Enemies got better AI, plus some of them have specific immunities. Combat became more balanced and diverse.

An offtank spellcaster specialized on crowd-control. Think of something like: 2/14/14/19/19/10 wizard or 2/15/7/20/19/15 chanter, wild-orlan with small shield and a hatchet, or utility weapon. Add there defensive talents, plus Aspirant's Mark, Enigma's Charm and paralysis scrolls, and there you go. Tbh, I always found it weird when a warrior was tanking something big, say a dragon; risking being smashed like a can. It was especially funny to see a gnome warrior in WoW, being the size of boss' toe, taking the hit. Imho, 'realistically' speaking, warriors and plate+shield wearers should tank enemies of relatively equal size, mostly humanoids. While evasive, jumping from point-to-point rogues, covered by deflection shields cast by their supportive spellcasters, should "tank" (read keep enemy's attention) when it is something really big.

I suppose Envenomed Strike working with Blast or Spirit Lance was indeed not intended. But not putting that in update notes or nerfing Pain Link is indeed mean Also, tbh I would expect Envenomed Strike to work with Kallakoth's Minor Blights, as that wand attacks everyone in AoE directly. But nope, that' also doesn't work.

^ 3-4 wizards can work fine. Get a main-tank paladin, priest, 2 control-freak wizards (1h+shield, cc-offtanks) and two blasting wizzies with duplicated Golden-Gazes. As for O.T: 1. two priests sound really fine. They will buff the team twice as fast and start dishing their aoe damage way sooner (shinning beacons + cleansing flames are a super strong combination). 2. personally I don't like the idea of having two fighters in a team. I am fine with having one dps oriented if it's my main. Otherwise I have a feeling there are stronger alternatives. 3. gunpowder team for me wound be: 1 chanter + pallegina + 4 rangers. Later on, rangers could become frontliners, encased in plate and all with quick switch + powder burns if you want maximum burst (~4x300 cone aoe), and don't mind switching micro.