Luckmann

Ah, I thought I had read somewhere that Obs included CNPC rerolls in one of the updates. I understand the confusion, because the first reveal was easily misunderstood, but what it really is is an option to not have the CNPC:s auto-level. They start at level 1 and you can assign Skills, Talents, etc, according to how much experience they happen to have at that point. But you can't reassign Attributes. Easily done with the console, though. The only mucking with the Attributes that's been done to hte CNPC:s were to screw a bit with their characterizations because the Attribute Bonuses are broken as hell, still. Hopefully, if they fix the Attribute Bonuses in 2.0, they'll be confident enough to revert the CNPC Attribute spreads back to what it originally was, without the CNPC:s sucking horrifically.

They're likely part of the background ambience track(s), so I don't think it's something you could just "find". The laughs themselves likely do not exist as a separate track.

CNPC:s have pre-assigned spreads, and the player assigns points freely. Monsters always have set stats, and I don't know any game where rolling for stats has affected enemies, anyway.

Nope, no chance. And I actuallly prefer it that way. If your goal is perfect stats, you might as well use the console and just set your Attributes to whatever you want.

Zealous Focus. The best defence is a good offence, which might sound like a cop-out, but never has there been a game where it's more true than in PoE. Zealous Endurance adds survivability, yes, but the relatively small effect will never determine the outcome of a fight. An extra critical, another dead enemy dead faster, might. Also, Zealous Focus gives you that nice extra Talent that lets it also increase Criticals. I don't think Zealous Endurance has a booster Talent.

I think it's an issue that needs to be fixed with the base game, and that any proper solution needs to be more fundamental/invasive than tweaking the levels and ranks. Basically, imo: Entire Spell Ranks should not become available at some given level. At some point, some spells should become Per Encounter in some way. These spells or such need not be traditionally available spells or abilities pre-existing in a given Rank in a spellbook. The way this happens should be different from class to class. Some of the more interesting suggestions that have floated around have been; Specific Per-Encounter Spell Slots for Wizards, allowing them to slot a spell into a specific spell slot that will be Per-Encounter, while the others are still Per-Rest, and as you level, more of these special slots unlock for each spell rank (or rather, pre-existing Per Rest slots become Per Encounter slots). Specific spells of the Priest spellbook, or special spells altogether, becomes Per-Encounter for specific Deities, for Priests. This could work very much like Domain Spells work in DnD 3.5, except Per-Encounter and perhaps chosen from a broader list depending on deity, not domains. Druids could get Per-Encounter Abilities or Spell-Like Abilities focused around their spiritshifting/shapeshifting, or generally just nature-focused choices that works much like the suggestion for Priests.

I can confirm this. Probably should've reported it, but yeah. Sometimes the Recall button is replaced with the Assign button, and pressing Assign at that point Recalls them, breaking off the Adventure. Much sadness is had unless many saves, wow.

If you've only got PoE on Steam, you need to have Steam installed to play it. If you have issues with connecting to Steam or running Steam, you should contact Steam support. There's no way around that, really. That said, when you do re-install Steam and re-install Pillars of Eternity, unless I'm mistaken, your saves (and settings?) should still be there, because they are kept outside of the Steam installation path(s). So there's that.

What we know is that Part 1 will add 2 levels. I would be very surprised if Part 2 does not add another 2 levels. Pleasantly so, but still. It might sound like nothing, but 2-4 levels in a game intended at it's base for a cap of 12, where the levels range from important to outrageously strong, it's actually massive. Especially unless they're going to change and individualize spellcasting progression based on class, because 2 levels means Rank 1-3 spells as Per Encounter; 4 levels means Rank 1-4 spells as Per Encounter. Imagine casting every single Druid spell, your choice out of the entire Ranks, 4 times per Rank, for Ranks 1 through 4. Out of all the mechanical oopsies in the game, this one stands out as the biggest snafu in terms of progression, I think. not necessarily. in more than a few gameplay previews for poe, the obsidians were playing max level characters, regardless o' the inappropriateness o' such a level for the given content. we wouldn't read too much into the videos. regardless, if the expansion increases the level cap, then am suspecting that without playing any additional content you could reach level thirteen, or better, simple by playing a completionist run o' the core game areas. get less than 2 full levels from the additional content would not surprise us in the least. HA! Good Fun! Well even if that's true, it doesn't really change anything. When the cap is increased to 14, or later 16, does it really matter if the levels are gained from the expansion content or from the main content? That said, there's something else we should be considering, and that's the possibility of changed level brackets. There's been several throught-through suggestions and discussions regarding the increase of experience needed to level, and that the curve should be adjusted upwards, making each level progressively harder to reach. With some luck, that could end up being implemented into 2.0, meaning that it won't be so ridiculously easy to make it to level 12 in a single playthrough of the main game anymore, and maybe, even if the level cap is raised by 2 for each part, the actual content in the expansions won't carry you all the way. The entire world needs some German wrath. This would be so unfunny if you're this Luckmann http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Complaints_about_Gothemasticator's_ban_of_User:Luckmann http://luckmann.deviantart.com/

The entire world needs some German wrath.

... don't even see the contradiction, eh? HA! Good Fun! There is none. Me personally not having contemplated or noticed something does not make that something a hypothetical. There are, contrary to popular belief, things outside my frames of reference and expertise. Just because I personally haven't experienced something does not make it's existance a hypothetical. Gkthellar makes a pretty good point. Your only argument hinges on it being a hypothetical - which it is not - and the fact that you want the Stronghold to be a gold-sink, something entirely subjective; I, for example, would prefer the game to not need such gold-sinks to begin with, and that sinks gives something back. If not necessarily economically equitable, then at least narratively or mechanically interesting enough to warrant said gold-sink-ing. lordy. hypothetical don't hinge 'cause you failed to suffer the problem. it is GK's hypo... yutz. he poses a potential problem that will occur IF a player rests some indefinite number o' times. that is a spot-on example o' a freaking hypothetical problem. mathematical certitude that will occur at some obscure point does not change the hypothetical nature o' the problem. duh. is not that gk had a problem. you personally didn't face the problem. Gromnir didn't face the problem, but with enough resting... sooooooo slow. let us know when you catch up with the rest o' the class. 'course 'quibble over definitions, as luck is once again wrong 'bout, ignores the actual issue. the stronghold creates considerable revenue via taxes and quests and resources. infinite resting is clear a ridiculous example and is not worth consideration. Gromnir faced no prohibitive stronghold copper/gold loss issue with multiple plays. luckman did not face a noteworthy money sink issue. so, at what point does the stronghold transform from well to sink? at what point does the sink become a genuine issue for the typical player who would still gladly sink copper and gold to be able to continue getting stronghold benefits such as resource generation and the special items vendor. given all the potential resources generated, the transformation from well to prohibitive sink strikes us being remote, but that is based on little more than our personal play o' the game. *sigh* am suspecting you will continue to struggle with basic definitions, but we will try and help you reach understanding. our optimism is boundless. HA! Good Fun! http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothetical http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis Since you seem to be struggling, Strawnir, there you go. I'm sure you can find some Wikipedia entry on it or something, if you're still having problems. And since it's going over your head, it's the fact that this is possible to do at all in the game that is the problem, not whether you or I personally end up running into it. That's why it's not just a hypothetical issue, but a concrete, demonstratable one. The fact that you personally do not care about it does not mean it's not a problem. It tends to come down to "I don't care so it doesn't matter" with you, though, so I guess you'll just deflect, attempt to ridicule, or pull out yet another strawman. You're not Strawnir for nothing, after all. *yawn* Which is a problem entirely because of the lack of any limitations imposed on blatant lootwhoring; infinite stash/inventory, no encumbrance, infinigold merchants, etc. Which also contributes to the murderhobo aspects of the game (along with kill XP).

Well depending on how much you've done in Defiance Bay and how many you killed, you might be boned doing it the Reputation way. Generally speaking, killing the locals isn't a good way to ingratiate yourself, whether they're annoying or not. There's some alternate way(s), but I don't remember the specifics myself. Could've been Might, could've been Intellect, could've been Resolve, not sure. Since you're seemingly not adverse to some wanton murder, have you tried repeatedly beating the records keeper with a sharp object?

This is getting under my skin, because that's not "current info". It is an completely baseless assumption made due to the fact that we know that they were/are considering adding +Accuracy to Perception as part of the Attribute Bonus changes in 2.0. To recap: We have no idea what other changes will be made to the Attribute Bonuses, and it is silly to assume that Perception getting +Accuracy would be the only change, so we cannot look at the Perception change in isolation, and assume that all other bonuses (boni?) will be the same. We have no idea if Perception getting +Accuracy will or will not be the only bonus Perception has, and I think that it's silly to assume that it's the only aspect the entire Attribute will have to it, because it would pretty much be the opposite of what an Attribute Bonus overhaul should try to do, which is to make attributes more diversely useful for a variety of builds. Also, nothing in the mechanics works with fractions like that, so expecting +0,5 (or variations thereof) on anything is beyond hopeful. In the name of consistency, the game'd need quite the overhaul to accomodate that. I'd personally welcome it, for a variety of reasons, but I think it's beyond the scope of a mere patch intended to be backwards compatible. Now, that idea for a Director's Cut overseen by Avellone, though..

... don't even see the contradiction, eh? HA! Good Fun! There is none. Me personally not having contemplated or noticed something does not make that something a hypothetical. There are, contrary to popular belief, things outside my frames of reference and expertise. Just because I personally haven't experienced something does not make it's existance a hypothetical. Gkthellar makes a pretty good point. Your only argument hinges on it being a hypothetical - which it is not - and the fact that you want the Stronghold to be a gold-sink, something entirely subjective; I, for example, would prefer the game to not need such gold-sinks to begin with, and that sinks gives something back. If not necessarily economically equitable, then at least narratively or mechanically interesting enough to warrant said gold-sink-ing.

Completing quests is no guarantee that you'll come out with a good reputation. The fact that you're pegged as a Merciful Brute suggests that you've got a less-than-stellar reputation and may not have been entirely nice in your dealings with the local populace. There are other way to finish the quest or get through the conversation I am assuming you're at, should you fail to gain the favour of the mud-covered peasantry of Defiance Bay.

Not in concrete terms, but it was indicated as a possibility in the future: Here Indicated as a possibility to be looked into is an insurmountable gulch of a difference compared to making a promise that we should see it sooner or later. Which was really my whole point.

This. The current set-up completely nukes any semblance of balance, not just between spellcasters and everyone else, but also between Wizards and Druids/Priests, as well as the relative climbs in power per level (which by no means needs to be identical, but it'd be nice if they's not so disproportionate that a single level is suddenly more powerful than four earlier levels combined).

Again, though, this time aimed at Gkthellar; don't look at the Perception change in isolation, or as an isolated mechanic. While Perception may lose +Deflection, another Attribute might (and should, probably) gain +Deflection. And having most enemies in the game gain a few points of Accuracy would probably be a pretty good thing, come to think of it.

A problem which is both readily verifiable and mathematically definable is pretty much the opposite of a hypothetical, Strawnir. I'll go so far as to say that the issue is unlikely to actually become a serious issue in the game, and it's not something I've actually contemplated or noticed, but it's actually a hell of an oversight. And personally, I'd prefer it if the game didn't need explicit gold sinks at all, but without other limiters, it's pretty much impossible to not end up in the whole "Buy the game"-situation; and to have a (forced?) gold sink capable of alleviating that would likely just come across as frustrating - much more frustrating than had the player not been allowed to acquire such vast amounts of wealth to begin with.

I don't go on Facebook, so I will just trust the comparison. I do feel as though a Stronghold has not been well done in any game that asks you to regularly leave it (NWN2, DAA to name a couple), and I felt the same here. I felt quite slighted by the bonuses for resting at the keep having sunk thousands of gold into it so that I could get +1 to an attribute. The thing that most bothers me though is the lack of mods on the Nexus. I had hoped to find a keep overhaul mod, but alas, nope. I did not follow development closely enough and I don't know if there are significant mods for other games on this engine, but I had put the game aside until this last weekend in hopes that some mods would arrive. I didn't look anywhere other than the Nexus though, so maybe there are some here on the website. When I play it again I will check more broadly. The Unity Engine is pretty damn modular, so yeah, sure, there's games made in Unity that there are significant mods for other games on this engine, but that's saying extremely little, honestly. The lack of mod content comes down to accessability of assets, and a lot of PoE stuff appears to be hard-coded in various ways, or simply not externalized in a way that allows you to pick-and-choose what to poke your fingers into. PoE is not a very friendly game to mod, and it has nothing to do with the Unity Engine in itself.

The problem is that for PoE, there's still no reason to have the function, save cheating. And if someone wants to cheat, there's the console, capable of doing pretty much anything to the character(s). Until such a time as when there's a solid reason beyond abuse to include the feature, I don't think we'll be seeing it. That being said, I in no way oppose it's implementation. I just wanted to point out the lack of a real point. When did they say that?

Again, I think most everyone has understood what you're talking about, what you want, and most have also explained that that's not at all what they want, or otherwise explained to you why what you want isn't feasible, realistic, or compatible with what you want.

Is that why they're the only good entries in the EU? Myself being german I think germany is quite a good entry in the European Union. Your mileage may differ, of course. Myself being Swedish, I don't think any country is a good entry in the European Union. Least of all Sweden. Kick us out. Please. D: Hey man, even if Greece leaves the Eurozone, it's not like we're all just gonna pretend it never happened. If Britain leaves the Eurozone, I'm going to pretend that the EU never happened.

One arguable "bug" with the spell is that they count as Wands and an Implement (which makes sense, since Wands are Implements), which is an undocumented quirk not clarified or alluded to anywhere, with some serious ramifications. Perferably, Minor Blights should count as Implements but not as specifically wands, or, even better, count as either of the three possible implements, Rod, Wand or Scepter. Since only Weapon Focus: Adventurer has Wands and there is no Weapon Focus focusing on Implements, this quirk/issue/bug means that the Weapon Focus: Adventurer is the best available Weapon Focus for Blast Wizards by default, and by extension Wands the best Implement by default.

I wanted to single out this from the discussion. While Pistols are two-handed, they do not benefit from the Two-Handed Weapon Style, which does not affect any ranged weapons. All ranged weapons in the entire game are two-handed, but none of them benefits from a Style Talent (unless things have changed).