Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About Wombat

  • Rank
    Obsidian Order's Mysterious Stranger


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
  1. @Infinitron Yeah, that's why I put "possible" in my post since I doubted you were talking of such extreme. I didn't know the jargon Rogue Shuffle (probably, from Ali Shuffle, which is considered as a useless but showy movement) or I am not familiar with NWN or Dragon Ages, though. Again, I wouldn't argue against making the engagement process clear although, personally, I'd use pause or trigger the slow-mo mode when I see hostiles nearing a non-melee character. For me, the main issue is the stubborn bug, where hostiles "teleport" while it became rarer but still exists. @gkathellar I guess it's now in relatively subjective area since, in NWN2, I used Rogue in a heavily micromanagement way even compared with PoE BB, where I need to be careful about timing about when to use each ability, switching characters as well as positioning. PoE BB feels still quite micro-management-heavy but I think it falls in the middle-ground of tactical usage of each ability and careful positioning, which suites the format. That said, at the end of the day, this might be related with how often we use pause/slow-mo or the party compositions (maintenance-heavy party members require more attention). In the old days, there were even comments on the net about "IE games play themselves" but, as a player like me, who heavily use the auto-pause and manual pause, I couldn't but wonder why such players didn't take over the AI.
  2. Actually, after the update (v301 bb), if you hover the cursor on the circles of engaged characters, there appear arrows which show who is attacking and who is being attacked. However, what the OP wants seems to have a window of time for the players to decide about the engagement before automatically locked into it. While I don't argue against that any tactically important factor including the engagement process should be clear, I'm not sure of the possible total control over engagement such as the players being able to avoid engagement totally without any cost since it's a part of the system. As far as I know, there are two classes which have the ability to disengage with a cost. The one is the rogue with its Escape ability (now it's much less buggy, it gets quite practical) and the other is the wizard with its Grimoire Slam, which is yet to be implemented. In fact, it's quite fan to let the Rogue bail out after having let him attract an enemy for the melee characters to surround it and beat it down with concentrated attacks (Somehow feels Commandos and IE game hybrid). Alternatively, Withdraw ability from Priest and Arcane Veil of Wizard can be of help in unwanted engagement. In any case, these abilities give nice tactical options around engagement and works pretty well in RtwP format, IMO, although I wasn't sure of their usefulness when the beta was filled with so many bugs. There are still bugs but, again, generally speaking, things appear to be getting better (Also, waiting till the traps work fine). That said, as far as the new Interface implementation goes, generally speaking, I think things are getting better with more intuitive feedbacks from the enemy AI pie-chart on stealth mode to the icon showing the actions of each party member. Great job so far, the team.
  3. @MC Hmmm…maybe, not as much as old days but, personally, I don't feel like that. Young Sawyer posted pretty quickly but some of the posts were more impulsive at times. Nowadays, when he posts something, they are almost always well-thought. Post counts do not necessarily mean efficient communication, IMO. Just my subjective opinion, of course. Yeah, I made my share of mistake by suggesting limited inventory, which, however, turned out not fitting to PoE where the best equipment depend on the situations. I've gotten an impression that they probably want more all-round feedback than same bunch of people since they are not necessarily representative the majority of the backers.
  4. Actually, Sawyer was here earlier but likely to have left the office while ago and is probably sleeping atm. Also, I have seen some cases that there are demerits when the devs talk about things prematurely. There is huge info on the paper (and quite surprisingly, all the possible counterarguments I could come up with has been already covered.) and I don't blame them if they take time, carefully examining what they could do.
  5. Yeah, it's one of the reasons why I'd like to see more active ability options for these traditionally passive classes. Of course, those who'd like to stick to the low-maintenance build should have such options by choosing more passive abilities. [Relatively off topic] Speaking of pacing during combat, is there going to be more detailed adjustment such as a slider to customize the pace of combat, further? I mean, currently, we have only slo-mo and double speed besides the normal speed, of course.
  6. To be absolutely honest, I find myself glad when I need not hesitate to throw AoE of BB Priest's spells, which discern enemies and allies, while I find much more problem in throwing the spells of BB Wizard. In terms of pure balancing, it doesn't feel right. I understand friendly fire made more sense in DnD/IE games, where AoE spells are extremely strong and can be used just in limited circumstances but, at the end of the day, I can adapt myself to new systems as long as they are well-thought and balanced. I'll be more likely to end up giving up "broken" systems, sooner or later.
  7. Yeah, you seem to agree on the needs of changing Resolve but it doesn't actually makes sense at all to involve attribute scores where no obvious problems found in the process. "If not broken, don't fix it." attitude feels quite engineer-like but it also practical. A very competent argument on concentration, too. I thought of something similar but you put it much better than I could. Generally speaking, I found your arguments quite fair. I also hope your efforts will lead to constructive conclusions in the right direction.
  8. @Hiro Protagonist II "It was you who reduced the count of the other rogues:" It's misunderstanding. I only made the other Rogues unstealthed. "So the second rogue wouldn't be able to go invisible as well? Either all rogues in a party can go invisible at the start of combat or only one can and the others can't at the start of combat. Or does this just boil down to a special super duper invisibility scouting sneak attack for one rogue to initiate combat." Any Rogue can attack during the Stealth Mode (and score Sneak Attack) but it's only the Rogue who hits the enemy first (and started the combat) can trigger the invisibility. The "magical" invisibility is only possible during the combat since it's an Special Ability of the Rogues. Before initiating the combat, even Rogues should rely on their Stealth skills. This can upset some simulationist people but how much of this game is so simulationist in the first place?
  9. @Hiro Protagonist II "It is complicated and doesn't make sense." Then, so be it in your eyes. I obviously disagree, though. So, feel free to disagree with me. Also, of course, it shouldn't make sense in simulationist point of view-at very least, that much I understand. "The player who has a party of Fighter, 2 Rogues, Mage, Priest and Cipher has one rogue that can go invisible at the start of combat but the other rogue can't because of what seems to be trying to stop exploits. And you also proposed that Rogues could go invisible during combat with an encounter/daily power. So now that power is lost for the second rogue because the first rogue used it? Sounds more like a PARTY encounter/daily power instead of an individual power. And that comes across as completely absurd when you have 2 rogues in your party." You are mixing two things here. The one is about possible implementation by the devs which seems to make the "opening" Sneak Attack less risky while the other is just my suggestion as a mere board lurker. Then, if I were to implement the additional invisibility and if I needed to integrate it with the first ability (I don't think it's necessarily IMO), I'd simply reduce one count from the Rogue who triggered the invisibility-in fact, I have absolutely no idea on why you came up with an idea of reducing the count from the other Rogues. That said, of course, I wonder how much my suggestion matters. In any case, I'd rather wait for the devs moves rather than continuing this discussion based on quite a few of conjectures. I don't have infinite time, either.
  10. With a party of 6 rogues. The rogue who initiates combat can go into stealth at the start of combat, but the other 5 can't go into stealth mode as well. Sounds complicated. And a rogue can go invisible but when they move they become visible? Uh, no thanks. Complicated? Not really. Actually, it shouldn't take a second to notice that there is no difference in the case of having a single Rogue in the party with just a simple rule-only the first hit matters to activate the invisibility ability. The strictest limit would be that any action cancels the invisibility while this can be softened into something like a certain distance of movement or time. Also, personally, I found it a useful ability since it saves the Rogue from agro at the start of the combat and gives him/her time to prepare for the combat, even offering a chance of another Sneak Attack. In any case, it's just a suggestion and nothing else. I'd rather wait for the devs to give more feedback, either by releasing newer version of the beta or just keeping us updated.
  11. Well, yes, then, it's my misunderstanding but it's not intentional at all. I haven't imagined the possibility of building a party exclusively composed of Rogues, so, I failed to understand your words "a rogue only party" till I read your following posts. I'd say, it's just another case of the simplicity of English language vs me. Yep, it's your misunderstanding since I've made it very clear to you. And as I said, if you have a party of 6 rogues which you can have in the game and they all go into stealth at the same time, even in combat, they all turn into ninjas. So yes, it's a critical misunderstanding on your part. Trying to make out that it's me is just poor form and a very weak tactic. But nice try trying to deflect this onto me instead of debating the points. Technically, it can be avoided by a Rogue who can get invisible is only the one that initiated the combat or that hits first, making the other rogues out of Scouting Mode. The solo scenario can be trickier but, off the top of my head, time or movement limit on the ability may help. For example, if the Rogue moves or attacks, it makes him/her visible. In any case, I'd rather wait till the devs work out Kaz's idea, which I'm personally looking forward to, at the moment. Somehow, I wonder this is why you supported German football in the previous World Cup-it's nice to see how they work in unison while bringing up different ideas contrasting themselves against what they were in the age of Beckenbauer "der Kaiser." As for Health/Stamina, I feel it might again have opened the Pandora's Box of classless system with choice of different abilities/talents, which was, IIRC, once D&D 4ed. was rumored to be. Personally, I like class less system but, again, I'd rather wait till I see how the new implementation will play out.
  12. We all have our own preferences but, judging from the latest info about Health/Stamina implementation, the devs seem to differentiate front-liners from ranged characters despite of what they wrote in the past. Like it or not, the change will be most likely to make it more difficult to swap these roles just relying on how you build them.
  13. And I somehow thought that he was an illustrator (I mean, a good one) while, reading what he wrote tells me he is not just that. Thanks for the heads-up, Sawyer, anyway. @Hiro Protagonist II ? Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. [Edit]"It's pretty obvious. Read my posts again." It's funny since these are the words I was going to tell you here. I read but I still don't understand. - I've gotten an impression that there is a misunderstanding but I cannot point my finger at it. My point has been being, since the invisibility is Rogue's special ability which supplements Sneak Attack, he/she is benefited by it in combat while he still needs to rely on conventional Stealth Skill as well as other classes. Since there seems to be a critical misunderstanding, I doubt it would help if I repeat myself, though. In any case, I'd rather like to enjoy the new info offered by busy Sawyer here.[/Edit]
  14. No, the suggested implementation seems like Rogue Soul-based ability, at least, that is, if I'm not mistaken. Meaning, it's not natural in our eyes since it's magical. I don't think I need to remind you that we are talking of an imaginary magic-based setting. At least, it contributes to the gameplay. Also, Fighters with high stealth skill will be benefitted as well as Rogue with it. If I have to repeat, when combat starts what counts is abilities-Rogues have got the special ability while Fighters don't. The skill of Rogue can be supplemented by the ability but Fighters are not since they are, as you wrote, defender units-while Rogues can be ninjas to some extent.
  15. Yeah, I'm torn between the fixated but solid role and possible flexibility. So, let's say, we'd better forget about 1) defensive/offensive build options. After all, what the devs could appears to end up with giving as many as valid options through Talents and Abilities as Sawyer wrote-hopefully, there will be some rooms left for interesting active abilities/talents which make these "passive"* classes into more high maintenance ones if the devs use the resources well. * At least, the word sounds less subjective than something like "boring" to my ears.
  • Create New...