Luckmann

I can see how they'd not add tracking numbers to all the initial shipments, but when something's gone awry, you'd think they'd attach tracking ID:s to replacement packages.

Last time I looked, my initial post in this thread had 7 likes, and 40%? That's extremely generous. In reality, polls aren't just a bad way to gauge interest or desire, let alone merit, but the one you are referring to baked "Yes" and "Possibly" into the same option. While I voted "No" in that poll, I could just as well have voted "Yes/Possibly" by virtue of not minding co-op multiplayer, but just not finding it financially viable or excusable as part of the base game. Which is a mile-wide difference to what you're asking for. What you're suggesting wouldn't just be ridiculous, unnecessary and financially insane, but functionally impossible with the way PoE works. You'd have to make a completely new game to make anything resembling NWN work. It's not about making a toolset. You're asking for a separate game. And while I have no interest in such a game, I fully support it's creation. I know a lot of people would want a game like that.

I like the idea too, but if memory serves, I liked the idea of the engagement system, too. I'm just not sure. That being said, my standing suggestion actually is CON: ±1 Endurance, ±3% Endurance, ±2% Armour Recovery Penalty, ±2 Concentration, ±2 Fortitude. It's just that I'm not entirely sure. Agreed, Con is the biggest problem, but they should never just look at one stat in isolation - if they are going to change one, they should re-evaluate them all. How about, instead of accuracy, Perception boosting critical hit chance or multiplier? How about Con giving a small DR multiplier, or reducing the speed penalty for armour? I don't see the need to change Perception from +1 Accuracy, really. Adding Critical Chance is the same as adding +Accuracy, and adding Critical Multiplier is too narrow, only benefiting specific builds. The beauty of +1 Accuracy is that it benefits everyone, whether it's the Tank that tries to compensate for his loss of Accuracy as a meatshield, the rogue trying to get more consistent critical hits, or the wizard that wants to bump up his aim (which is hard for wizards, because they don't get the same bonuses other combatants do) at the tradeoff of maybe not being able to boost both +AoE and +Duration (assuming that it's finally split up between Intellect and Resolve again). Nevermind an option to being a Muscle-wizard.

No idea, I haven't actually played in weeks now. I'd check it, but at this point I'm just sitting and waiting for 2.0 to hit before I pick the game up again. I put it away after the end of Durance's quest chain right at the end of the game, in sheer disgust. Anyone else care to corroborate?

Haven't heard this one before, I think. If Windows, what's your install path? What do you mean with "pass the first phase?". Do you mean when the storm comes and the group runs into the ruins? That'd be the first loading screen, afaik. And what happens when you try to save before that point? Does it crash or hang? Or does it seem to save fine, but nothing is being saved?

Actually, yes. There was a calculation error for combat resolutions in regards to additive/multiplicative stacking, although the exact specifics is something you'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable than me about. Perception used to give +2 Accuracy per point, but it was wildly overpowered because the calculations were off, and when they fixed the math, they also changed the Attribute Bonuses at the same time, meaning that Perception was "double-fixed" as an issue. If Perception gets +Accuracy, it's getting +1 Accuracy per point, and it should be fine, and I've been asking for that since pretty much forever. At the end of the day, we're talking a maximum of a +11 Accuracy, and even so it requires you to sink all your points into it at the expense of other things, and be of a specific race and culture. Accuracy isn't the be-all/end-all that it's sometimes made out to be; it's important, yes, but not to the point of making everything else moot. I agree insofar that Perception isn't really a problem, but I think that Perception suffers from a thematic/conceptual issue. I don't think that Interrupt is worthwhile, though, although I'll be honest and say that I haven't tried an interrupt Barbarian build - but if it works (and I have no reason to doubt your word) then it's likely because of how Barbarians work with Carnage - it's hardly something that's really applicable to most other classes or builds, and does little to ultimately save Perception. The overall issue that I see is that the system is lopsided and too easy to min-max, because most attributes are only useful if you are either a Tank or DPS. Tank? Perception/Resolve. DPS? Might/Intellect/Dexterity. Constitution? Never. But that's partly an issue with the armour dichotomy, and won't be resolved with attribute tweaks alone. That's the kind of "balance" issue I see. But from a power-per-points point of view, I agree that Constitution is by far the worst offender, followed by Intellect. Constitution because it's largely useless for everyone - the ones that needs it doesn't benefit from it, and those that benefit, doesn't need it. Intellect because it's a consolidated caster attribute and a no-brainer for all spellcasters (and Barbarians).

Many of the best priest buffs (armor and accuracy) do not stack with auras. Devotions for the faithful is godlike ofcourse, and many of the priests utility spells are good too. I just prefer to try out new comps from time to time, so my current one is: 2x paladin Barb Druid Wizard Cipher So far im lvl 8, with the hardest fight being the wailing banshee on top of the lighthouse on Ondras goft ( 4ppl got KO'ed) Are you certain? I was under the impression that Auras should be stacking with virtually everything (except other auras).

But Strawnir, it was never about what you fundamentally can or cannot do, but that the current setup so blatantly favours min-maxing. Yes, it is possible to play just about any combination of Attributes, but no-one has ever said that you couldn't. What is always discussed is the relative viability of the attributes and the balance between them, and yes, this includes role-playing feels. Like how it feels odd that Constitution would be useless for almost everyone, but feels especially odd for tanks and/or fighters. Or how it feels odd that Intellect is the absolutely best stat for Barbarians, and simultaneously a one-stop-shop for all spellcasters. If it was anyone else, I'd find the argument odd that just because you can do something and survive doing it, it works well and shouldn't be changed, or, worse, possible change or improvement shouldn't even be discussed. Because it is possible to make a high-Constitution Spellcaster with Resolve and dumped Intellect, that somehow means that the goal of build variety and less rigid classes and roles is achieved? With your track record, I'm not surprised you somehow reach a conclusion opposite to everyone else. A good system would be one where the attribute bonuses supports build variety and the less rigid classes and roles, not one where the most obvious min/max is apparent at a mere glance, and half the Attributes doesn't support your class or role or desired build. Currently, the "you can make pretty much anything and still stumble through the game"-thing is in spite of the attribute bonuses - and one of my least favourite aspects of th game - not because of them, and most Attributes do in no way support what you suggest, that "poe is different. poe is intentional different. classes and roles is far less rigid in poe. duh.".

stopped reading. we agree that deflection is far too important compared to health, but if the reason you is averse to the current attribute system is 'cause it offends your role-play preconceptions, then we need not read any further, and we hope that the obsidian developers do not bother doing so. relative impotence of constitution= bad viability of non-traditional attribute load-outs resulting in grognard discomfort = good. it were a GOAL o' developers to allow players to explore unique and non-traditional builds. the classes themselves were initially not built to conform to traditional crpg conventions. differing from expectations is not a flaw. that being said, the poe implementation o' constitution, as with so many crpgs that has reloads, is a relative weak attribute. HA! Good Fun! ps am gonna note again that this is another example o' something so simple and inane as the naming choice for classes led to player inability to accept poe differences. what a terrible and predictable shame. Strawnir, replace "Fighter" with "Tank" and your complaint holds no water; which I believe to be the intent of Matiati's post to begin with, not specifically all fighters as a class, but some fighters. It is just plain weird that the best tanks would be those that dump Constitution and Might. Also, roleplaying tends to be a viable basis for complaints or calls for improvements in a roleplaying game. I dunno, your mileage may vary. I think that it should be perfectly viable to have a low-Might/low-Con Fighter, sure, but as an easy default for tanks? Melee DPS dumping Con? It doesn't matter how you cut it, it feels wrong as hell. It is no different than Intellect being the most crazy good Attribute for Barbarians; I'm not opposed to builds that makes good use of Intellect for Barbarians, but when it's such a no-brainer? Yeah, it offends my roleplaying sensibilities. Mechanics and fluff should match up to some degree.

I know the idea behind it, I just think that it's a mistake, even if the enemies were more thematically/mechanically pronounced (which I really, really, really want them to be).

No, I think we are fully aware of what you're talking about, and we don't want it. We know, and we don't want it. Also, it's completely unrealistic to expect a toolset for a game such as this. Even with full access to the files (which I support; PoE is currently less than friendly to work with) what do you expect to be done? This isn't some 3D world-set any mook in a basement can use a toolkit to slap together what passes for a map in. Did you ever try to make a custom IE map that fitted into the game? No? What a surprise. And no-one has been talking about server support, you're basically addressing a windmill. Giving whole world's RPG nerds the possibility to build their own worlds have been met with less than stellar success in the past, but furthermore, the trade-offs simply aren't worth it in any way. It's not a 3D map system, implementing multiplayer takes a ton of resources, and there is very little actual interest in multiplayer, even less in a bare-bones model. And if you're thinking persistent worlds, you're absolutely mad, and are practically talking about making a completely different game, on the side of the game, just to support multiplayer. The best you can hope for is some kind of co-op, but even then, I would question the use of it and lament the resources poured into something that'd no doubt ultimately be quite useless.

Not remotely true. I played NWN. Still wouldn't want PoE to sink resources into multiplayer in any fashion or form.

How about all kinds of no?

The problem with the weapon foci right now is that they're not actually random at all, they're incredibly deliberate in how they work, to give you a selection of weapons that in no way can hurt you; a ranged weapon, a blunt weapon, a piercing weapon, and a slashing weapon, more or less. And I'm sure that's balanced and everything, but it's also boring as all hell and feels forced and uninteresting. If they're presenting the foci from a thematic perspective, then they should've focused on the thematicism of them, and assume that if someone takes Knight, it's because they're playing a Knight, and so on and so forth. But this hasn't really been taken to heart. Look at Edér. Does the peasant veteran get Weapon Focus: Soldier? No. So, does he get Weapon Focus: Peasant? Of course not. He gets Weapon Focus: Ruffian. Liek wat.

Will it address AI Pathfinding? Well, that's.. we can hope. I certainly hope so. I also hope that pathfinding overall gets a pass, which is an issue in part due to world geometry, and not just an AI issue. As for tank-and-spank.. unlikely, honestly. There's been no hint at them considering any of the many suggested changes to how the base combat system works (sensible immunities/thematic resistances, etc), and the armour and weapon systems doesn't seem to be getting any major overhaul. Which means that all in all, it's unlikely that tank-and-spank or doorway-tank/ranged DPS is going anywhere, or that tactical or strategic depth will suddenly materialize. No mention of it. I'm not sure what can be done about that, really. The best solution (or workaround) would probably be a hold position command/toggle to prevent the "Run in and get stuck in Engagement" situation at chokepoints, but nothing's been said. It's a well-known issue due to the Engagement system as implemented that upon enemy death, the tank will immediately leap forward and jam himself squarely in the doorway, and then be unable to move back (because of instant, horrific disengagement attacks), and block party members from helping. I've seen tanks actually slowly leave the chokepoint due to this, and get swamped in enemies just past the chokepoint, unable to move, and the other melee party members spazzing out behind him over not being able to reach the enemies. It's probably one of the reasons people were very quick to find the "1 Tank, 5 naked ranged DPS" I-WIN-button.

Anywhere is about as bad as anywhere else, really. Honestly, it doesn't matter where you put it, and ultimately, thank god for us not having a dedicated Suggestions Forum where everyone and their mother can make threads that everyone else will ignore, especially those with any knowledge of the game. It's better like this, I think.

Also reaffirms my belief that we need more and more different Weapon Foci, including Weapon Focus: Mystic, which would cover all of the implements at once. How about a U-pick foci where the player gets to pick which weapons belong to it? Maybe keep the number lower than the pre-built ones - like a choice of 3? I actually like the idea of thematic weapon focus groups and that free picks would lead to cherry-picking, I'd just like to see more options.

Well that completely changes Blights as a spell for me. You'd think that'd be something mentioned in the spell description. ...it isn't, is it? I wonder if there's any way for the game to do "and/or"-qualifiers, because optimally, they should count as any one Implement, not just one of them. Blights being specifically Wand means that the best Blast-Wizard is most definitely one with Weapon Focus: Adventurer, no contest. Also reaffirms my belief that we need more and more different Weapon Foci, including Weapon Focus: Mystic, which would cover all of the implements at once.

Looks like it’s common practice nowadays…*cough*StarCraft 2*cough* When is a game finished? The IE games had expansions added to them. Many games since then have had DLCs and expansions added. Sequels continue the previous games or are at least theoretically built on the previous game. I think the difference is whether the game is planned to be sold and marketed as a finished product, or knowingly divided into pieces that are doled out at market-opportune times in the interest of profit maximization and franchise popularization (keeping the interest up by a trickle of content, etc).

The question is; will Durance's staff become a soulbound weapon? Would be appropriate, I think.

It should.

Shieldbearers are probably about the easiest and the least prone to mistakes when playing blind; Diplomatic/Honest vs. Aggressive/Cruel. They're pretty hard to mix up, and it doesn't matter to the Shieldbearer if some Passionate, Rational, Clever and Stoic slips in there. The issue really is which constitutes what. Rational and Diplomatic are all over the map sometimes, and Passionate/Benevolent gets mixed up a lot. Shieldbearers basically comes down to don't be a douche and you'll be fine.

Marksman applies to anything ranged. I think it even used to apply to spells, but I think that was "fixed" at some point. The effective distance necessary is 4m, which is actually a very close range, making Marksman a really solid choice. I'd personally like to see the distance increased to 8m, or at least 6m, but that's just me. And yeah, it should apply to Minor Blights and the like. If it doesn't, I'd report that as a bug. Minor Blights counts as Implements? That's... extremely interesting. I never had any interest in Minor Blights, but if they count as Implements, it's probably an extremely good spell for the kind of Blast-focused build you describe. And Blast-based Wizards were already pretty good.

Abilities, especially Passives and Modals, are pretty inconsistent in how they work or when they seemingly apply. For example, some Auras are always active, while others only activate during combat. I know I keep harping on it, but the "Combat Only" restriction/state needs to die in a fire. It's probably the cause of 99% of these issues. Mid-game the easiest way to tell that combat has started isn't the musical cues, but the massive sudden spam in the combat log showing all the Combat Only Passives & Modals that just activated.

I can't confirm this, but to my understanding of the rules and how Knockdown works, yes, this should all work, and you're correct in assuming that Knockdown basically does two melee attacks ("regular" attack/damage vs. Deflection, and the Knockdown effect vs. Fortitude), and bonuses to Accuracy as well as Graze-to-Hit conversions should apply to both. I can't guarantee that it's true, but that's my understanding.