Hassat Hunter

So much for all those complains about "Witcher-cards/sex scenes" are sexist and all woman must hate them! I am also still amused at everyone here thinking PoE will be #1 on sales when GTA V is about to be released. Think The Witcher is bad? What about the garguantan openworld game of them all? If you don't see it you're just fooling yourself.

Let me correct that for you: Who do you trust more on the issue of the engagement system? A) A guy who obsessivly dismantles the game to the pixel, finds obscure bugs because of his attention to detail, who's first RPG was Baldurs Gate, has hours upon hours of footage and many more hours of gametime invested in the beta or B) A guy who obsessivly dismantles games to the pixel, finds obscure bugs because of his attention to detail, who's first RPG was Baldurs Gate, has spend a good 5 years or so on a fanpatch to another Obsidian Game (removing almost all scripted bugs from the game), and has a character in the popular Divinity: Original Sin not because he was backer, but because of his many bugreport or C) The developers + Rest * Repeat I think Cloudkilling things offscreen so the AI didn't react was also a fan favorite. But let's ignore facts now and continue on with the discussion.

Haven't really read the entire thread but... "RPG's are too hard!" *plays 4X games* ... ... ... WHAT?

It's not like we're flooded with RPG releases (sadly enough). It's better than it was before, but nowhere near saturated.

... What? How do a modern 3D Sandbox RPG compare with an isometric old-school RPG that can even be relate with each other? Infact, they are probably screwed since GTA V will release on PC around their release... all is doomed!

@ Minsc; It *is* quite telling. For an apparent issue that a large part of the community has, it's odd that only a single person actually makes threads about them. That while several other things (like UI) have many different users starting topics. It would make sense if there was a guided all-compassing topic (like the romance discussion) to keep the forum cleaner, but that's not the case here. So, I will once again ask; If this is a problem for the majority of the players why are there only Sensuki topics about the subject? That's an AI-issue, not related to the mechanic itself. As soon as they just add "if in engagement circle, stop and attack said person"... or if they really want to kill the guy (is mage or so) they use one of their abilities to break engagement, and then lock their target in *their* engagement circle. We'll have to see how the system works with proper AI before straightwardly cutting it out since the AI at this state is at basic. You'll never get advancement if anything if you simply cut it out at the first sight of issue rather than improving upon it. This is true for more areas than just engagement. No, I don't want to stand still. I just want that if I decide to retreat I need to prepare for it. Either by having the right skills active, the right spells cast, or just the right time so I can still escape alive rather than dead. There's nothing tactical about retreating if it's simply "select all" > "click other side of the map"... you've retreated! I want tactical re-positioning to be *actually* tactical. Something I need to plan for and execute properly for it to be effective. There's nothing tactical about just moving my players all over the field to the most muchkin position I can imagine. But I suppose my definition of tactical is wrong, right? Cause obviously tactical can't mean having to actually plan a retreat before you can execute it properly rather than simply running blindly away from the warrior at 1HP and expecting to survive without even having the warrior be affected by something, right? Please stop using tactical wrong already. @ Hor; Did all of these threads incite for the removal of engagement... or fixing them? I checked them, and they are all for fixing. Heck, the 3rd listed isn't even about discussing the engagement system, it's just a question from a gamer how it exactly works. But do go ahead and make my point for me unwittingly... I'll be here when you find another post that actually counters my argument, rather than just searching 'engagement' and posting everything you find unknowing of my point or those threads OP's content.

Isn't positioning and movement MORE important if there's an area of engagement allowing you to specifically place melee enemies properly or if you improperly place yourself you have to deal with the consequences. I am still amused people reading "positioning is important" when they want to remove an element that does exactly that, and replace it with one where you can just move anywhere you desire during combat, making position frivial, not important.

Oh, I did... that the only person ever making threads on this topic is Sensuki (check it out, it's true!) and that he keeps spamming the same "proofs" and points to try and get OE to change it just cause he's got some personal issue with it (tell me, where did engagement touch you?) does tend to make that rather easy though. I am well aware he's on a (lonely?) crusade against it and tries to grasp at every tiny inconsequential straw to get Obsidian to remove it. And here people are saying "Sure, they can improve the AI, but Sensuki will abuse it with engagement again!" conveniently forgetting he does the same without the engagement, and if the AI is improved he can and will still do that, so it's neither an argument for or against engagement, all AI related instead. But feel free to ignore that elephant in the room... EDIT: It's telling both of you had to resort to petty insults rather than argument my points...

I still don't get why we don't get a L-shaped IE-like UI, but I'm pretty sure I've stated that in over a dozen threads by now... so let's look at that combat log. * I agree it has too many colors. Also rather odd white is rare rather than common. Why is the standard green? * Colors could be used for rare instances, like crit. Oddly, crit has no special color! * Not sure that stash info needs to belong there.

And once it's removed Sensuki can just kite them around, as he's also proven already... but apparently that's not exploiting? Anyone want to fill me in on the major part of the fandom being against this? So far I only have seen Sensuki going about it, making 30+ threads about it, having most post in them himself, and still not getting the majority in all these threads to back them. I, personally, am very happy Obsidian doesn't bow to one incredibly loud single person. If they removed stuff left and right because just one person has some personal vendetta with it, not much of the game would be left, would there be now? And, seriously here people... the "proof" a system needs to be removed is because the AI can't handle it yet? Might aswell throw all systems off the table. Why have bots at in games? Heck, why have the game itself, if the AI can't handle I'm sure we just need to remove it. As for the "It must play like DoTA"... nope... It must play like you control 6 DoTA's at the same time. Can't handle that in realtime? That's okay, we've got pause for that. It's not just there for ****s and giggles you know. Use it before we take it out since the AI doesn't use it!

So after a World of Tanks clone a Hearstone clone... Is it going *that* badly with Obsidian?

Can't see why even talents can't use their own icon... works fine in, say, Knights of the Old Republic II I would also want to point out a good way to get around this would be... the bookstructure of Baldur's Gate. It would be a shame if so many good (and great looking to boot) UI elements of the old Infinity Games were simply overlooked because, why actually?

Just finished South Park... now the age-old question of "what to do next" So many games on Steam, yet still so hard to choose...

Thruth... what 'needs' patching anyway, if I may ask?

It would rather be a waste to make a full game, an expension to this one would be better (though of course that would probably make less money than a standalone or sequel). IMO of course.

Sewers needs the alien probe... For the rest, not much, shrinking for some bonus loot though (and nagasaki fart for achievement/friend). Sadly I didn't notice the path at the 'acid bath' till after the game was long finished... ugh... every battle was one-shottable though. Very tricky area-transition that one...

First game; 118 here... :/ Missed Ike (why doesn't he add in the park) and killed the bishop... oops. Also seemed to miss 1 weapon in the school, which I cannot get back too... aaargh. Oh well, for the next game then...

Tsk, tsk, shame on you. But yeah, looks good. I usually avoid most "high-res texture" mods since they do outrageous different stuff, but high-quality versions of what it was in the first place I don't say no to

Way to prove most gamers have no idea of what Alpha and Beta mean...

In my own opinion, with a L-shape (since I do agree U would take too much space, and the horizontal buttons of the old IE could easily fit a lower bar with 16:9) the log would floaty. If you want to use the full length it's probably best to cut it up. Combat log left/convolog right. Or one that gives a summary (X took Y damage) with the other being more extensive in rolls, and armor and how the damage came to be (so you have extensive and conviently compact in one log). I'm sure there are way more things that can be thought up regarding that... I've always found putting the log in the HUD like IWD2 was a grand mistake in that game and here still. Floating above the bottom bar we can hide it or blow it up as much as we want, if stuck within an ugly bottom bar there are no such options.

Then OE is being idiotic, since there's a reason most games place their portrait information in the top or along the side rather than the bottom... Bottom is more RTS field (since there's also the minimap there)

I really hate pretty much all suggestions form the original post. Though the IE-fakery one does show just how much better portraits on the side are than at the bottom. Saari comes a lot closer, but I don't see the point of having so much empty space on the vertical and horizontal bar, they can easily be merged. So my option is still, and always has been an L shaped UI, which has no floating elements, though the combat log would be floating. And you can move the characters left or right of the the screen to desire, whatever one suits best. All those bottom UI's still look horrible compared to the old IE (except IWD-2) HUD.

Reminds me a bit of FTL, generally assaulting all pirates, rebel and slavers. Just to keep others from suffering from their traps. No XP was given at all, and sometimes the rewards where worse than if I let them alive... sometimes better. It feels good to make choices since you want to make them, are forced into them due to circumstance (heavily damaged, offered the slaves, which would die if you kept assaulting) rather than for an arbitrary XP hanger to the best option. In before "HASSAN HUNTER WANTS POE TO BE LIKE FTL!" even though I don't know this Hassan fellow myself. Take it or leave it Deus Ex and Bloodlines show you how to do an Objective XP system well. How not to reward one playstyle over the other (okay, Bloodlines gave bonus XP for stealth so it's less appliable there, but overall it did a good job. Deus Ex does it all around). It's very typical of modern developers that they don't get that and try to "improve" the system or think they know how it worked, yet still come up with the XP-system attrocity that was Human Revolution. Game was quite okay, but they totally failed to have the proper XP system for their game, instead resorting, indeed, to XP per "kill" and giant bonusses for one playstyle (if in Vampire bloodlines it was 1 extra point every once in a while, here it would be the V:B equavalant of 5 PER MAP). I totally understand that they're different games, yet their XP system is not type-bound. It can infact be used pretty much every single game, heck even a RTS, or a racinggame, anything really! So I don't quite seem to see the argument "you want it to be like Deus Ex. It wont be, it will be like IE" not understanding I'm not even talking about Deus Ex, just it's experience granting system... and yes, that it would work perfectly fine on an IE-title. The concept isn't really hard to understand, why is it still not understood. Or do you understand it just fine, but happilly twist it around to make a point of your own or something? That's a shame... can't say I ever used it, but there were some interesting things that could be achieved by that reading various walkthroughs. Because unlike some people I can actually support systems to allow for different ways, even if I wont be using those myself. Of course they are. The story doesn't need much testing now does it. It's also written by Chris Avellone. If they are starting to be worried about THAT, we sure as hell all have a reason to get worried. Their system is totally new, so obviously they want to get it just right before release. Does that mean they care less about getting story "just right"? Probably not, otherwise they would just give you the start to play rather than something else to avoid spoilers. They don't want those for the people who are going to play their game. Does that tell you they do or don't care about that subject of the game? If the answer is not, it explains a lot. I certainly hope for any decent RPG to this not being the case. If you can totally skip every dialogue on your first PoE game and win, I will be sorely dissapointed... You seem to have missed every single page of every single thread (around 1 or 2 dozen) on the subject. Your budy Stun has been one of the most loud proprietors of this standpoint from the start. Just look through his post-history for a long summary of posts where "no combat XP = run past all enemies"... You seriously need to inform yourself of the standpoints of your own party. As for the second part, see the above quote reply. I could simarly say the same. I find one lone kobold, I smack his puny little face in 2 in seconds... So why should it give XP? Oh boy, do I look forward to the reply on that one. Sadly I know I will never get it as it would be just another point swept under the rug so you can keep pretending there have not be 1 or 2 dozen full of threads with post explaining just why objective XP (not quest XP) is still good for combat-focused games aswell. But, but, that requires reading. Didn't you say just lines before that that's not required, skippable in seconds and something of no importance? Games were released in far better quality back in 1998 than they are now. It's also quite demeaning that the people who worked so hard to give us the games we love where crappy programmers, which is undoubtfully not true. But yes, human error is prone to show up somewhere in one way or the other. So tell me which of the 2 make it more likely? In designing values per enemy, then designing a non-combat workaround bonus of around the same or an alternative dialogue option for that, and then keep that up to date if XP values are adjusted throughout the game or the enemy's encounter is modified with less/more or different foes. Or setting a single value, and just granting said value in all 3 cases (you fought, talked out of it, or stealth, no matter same value), and the combat encounter can be tweaked to hearts content without having to worry about the outlying problem of bringing 2 other values to shape. Or if re-balancing XP is needed, just one value needs adjusting rather than multiple (the monster XP value) throughout multiple maps in the game. Heck, the combat-pro group (of which I am part too, something you guys still don't seem to grasp) also profits from this since unbound to experience encounters allows creators to modify them to their content to the needs of the encounter, without having to worry how this modifaction affects the XP balance. Encounter feels easy? 2 archers are added to provide ranged support. * In the kill-xp system this means taking into account the xp of those additional 2 archers. Does that give too much XP in the encounter? Does something else needs to change to offset that? Do we need to raise the conversation XP bonus to measure up. Hey, this gives too much too soon to players, we need to nerf something else elsewhere... etc. * In the objective XP system these 2 archers are added, the combat designer deems the encounter good, and he can move on without having worried that he changed anything but the balance of a single encounter. But hey... I've been saying this for a dozen or 2 threads, and you probably (again) retort the designer from the objective XP system is a lazy incompetant idiot or something. Since making stuff quicker to work with and less bugprone for designers never lead to more content in the same timespan or something. But hey, who cares about content, right? I mean aside from Hassat Hunter who wants a system that works good for all players, be they heavily stealth or more conversation-orientated, easier on the developer (Obsidian has the reputation to produce buggy games, wouldn't you support a way that seriously lessens this while still benefiting players too?) and allows for rapid rebalancing to the final designer (I assume Sawyer in this case)? But hey, screw that right? I haven't thought about this at all and are just looking for another Deus Ex right. While the kill-XP argument has been build around... eeehm, remind me again? Go replay, without mods if you have them. It's definitely true. It was also the most ridicilous bad developer decision I have seen till date. I especially recall since when I wasn't aware of D&D at all (first time BG1) I figured I should pick easy to help me go through it better. Oh my, what mistake that was with the long leveling that gave compared to normal. @ Stun; Well, heavily broken systems still can be successful and produce successful sequals. I think I might have mentioned a game called "Oblivion" before? A fundamental to the leving system being indeed broken, still being produced, heavily sold and producing offspring. And some even dare call it good. Also if you bothered reading my post (go ahead, I'll wait) you know 'patches' reffered to that they tried to patch up a broken system rather than fixing it entirely. So instead of reworking to an objective-XP system they tried methods as huge bonusses for quests, but that was really only a "patch to the wound." (not a gamepatch... it was pretty clear if you actually read my post) Now that we're so many years later and have a start at beginning anew, yes, I would like for them to rework the core system rather than taking the same flawed system of old and riggidly trying to make it work properly with adding needless stuff like mine or lockpick XP (sadly, the same suggestions being presented today ) @ Immortalis; Of course I never played the Infinity Engine games. Or I would have seen them for what you know they are, perfect games without any flaws what-so-ever. So we should keep everything the same. Except Obsdian already reworks a lot of IE-things people had issues with. Rest-spam, spells-per-rest, D&D combat. Why aren't those kept since they were perfect? Do things just because IE-games did them is no argument. Since many things have changed from there already, mostly due to much complain of the mechanics. Surely you can think of faults of you own (oh no, wait, perfect, nvm)? Things they can now after all this year finally solve starting anew? Rather than working forth on old mistakes? I am sad to inform you however you can't expect your IE-game, because while like it, it will have signifcant changes. This game isn't made for people who think IE were perfect and any change (for the better) is going to become horrible bad and ruin the game. I am sure everyone who played IE-games played them just like you, thought just like you. Someone like me who thought "okay, it's kinda bad this choice between dialogue and murdering has a 75000XP award difference?" I ask you... have you ever played Knights of the Old Republic II? If so, tell me... what did you think of the Nar Shaddaa Refugee sector, where the "conversation" sollution wielded 3000XP and murdering the entire sector wielded 80000XP? Surely anyone who thinks thats utterly ridicilous just doesn't want an IE-game... or played IE-games, right? Can't be we have valid reasons to object... And yes, I am still of the opinion Bestiary XP *can* be good, if there are other sources of information aside from combat. If it's just murdering off until "ding" and there are no alternatives, it's just another patch to lap up an issue rather than fix it. Now don't dissapoint me when you fail to see my point, pick certain parts of my posts to complain rather than taking the whole in mind, or just keep rambling the same boring old line of "you have no argument, I don't understand why you would, you never posted any reasons..."

Well, if you want a "normal" beta you probably couldn't boot it up right now... since even the "backer beta" is a long-term away from actual "beta" status. But yes, Flow is severly correct in stating that "beta" seems to be demoted to "demo" to the generic gamerpublic. Even "Alpha" isn't save... I played Prison Architect briefly and altough confusing as **** (I didn't really get into it) it's pretty far away from technical Alpha-status. Guess that's the modern time with Steam Early Access and just pasting random titles on something. Then again gamers have been abusing it a long time with many a forum holding topics like "How could they release this as full game. It's more like a beta. Look at that small clipping issue no-one gives a damn about. Yeah, I can't believe developers let that huge gamebreaking issue slip through their QA"... can't help but feel ashamed of my fellow gamers each time such a thread pops up...

Can't... IP is SEGA's. They can kickstart a spiritual sequal though... but the oomph kinda left Kickstarter, so I doubt the necessary funds would be raised.