Luckmann

I would go with Spears, definitely. Battleaxes has increased crit damage, yes, but Spears gets that nice bonus to Accuracy, making you crit more. And if you're one-handing, you're all about stacking that Accuracy. The fact that Cladhalíath can be made to stun on crit is just a wonderful bonus, too.

I wholly disagree. Best crpg story in years for me, and I found the setting a breath of fresh air in the genre of high fantasy. I agree, but.. the problem is.. that's not a hard thing to beat. I agree, I enver felt the whole Maerwald thing. I *did* feel the hollowborn thing though, but I still think they should've pushed it harder, I got the feeling they held back a little on it. And like I've said before, by the time I reached Defiance Bay, I had idea why I was still doing this, why I was treating the Leaden Key like antagonists for no reason, and why I went to investigate those three things I plucked out of the priestess' head. It was just like.. "Uhm... alright? I guess I'll just.. be off?". I can agree that it doesn't exactly FEEL like the Watcher (i.e. the PC) is going mad. But then again, how does one do that without making the character useless? [...] If you truly feel that you have to make the character useless in order to convey the increasing sense of unhingement (yes, I made that word up), then do so. Punish me. Make me feel the pain.

For my sake, I would not mind a constant expansion and module system instead of hard sequels. In my mind, that would be perfect, because then they'd pretty much be forced to do the whole "backwards compatibility" thing I want.

Wow, I will never understand the dislike of Durance. He's like the greatest guy.

Edit: Goddammit, second double-post of today, what is wrong with me?

But I liiiiiike the Forgotten Realms. D: * sigh * And, in other news, some people prefer the slightly astringent, fresh-sour taste of a green apple to the sweet, sharply citrus tang of the orange. Granny Smith > Pink Lady. Green apples are superior to red apples.

Just to confirm Serdan: Yes. It should be safe.

Quest Items and Enchanting Supplies are always added straight to the Stash and can't be moved from the stash, afaik.

I don't actually mind the Might thing as a concept, if the Attributes were balanced better (which they're not), but I must say that now I have the image in my head of the angriest man-nurse slapping bandages on SO HARD.

You have mastered the Sawyeran School of Game Mechanics. There is nothing more this forum can teach you. Go forth and and ruin fun everywhere, Mazeltov-San.

I wish people would stop spouting this ridiculous straw man. Game difficulty (or lack of it) Is. Not. The. Problem. That's not a ****ing straw man mutherf*ckah Yes it is. I don't think it was intended as one, and it's just general retardation at play, but it is a strawman. It implies that the position from which the critique is formed is one of difficulty, and that the argument amounts to "I'm very good, the game is too easy, change it". Which is really, really ****ing far from the truth. I have zero interest in Path of the Damned, because Path of the Damned is based on inflated numbers, which isn't what the entire issue is about at all. If it was just about flat difficulty, you could solve it by just upping all numbers across the board. It's very easy to create nigh-unkillable opponents and unsolvable encounters. The game is "too easy" because of systemic issues, not because Stun has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the game mechanics or because I've got 25 000 posts on the boards, and we've always argued around how game mechanics interacts and what can be done to improve it, not just cry about how easy it is for us 1337 harcr0e playuhs to dominate casuals for the purpose of our e-peen. My point was of course entirely pedantic, but misunderstanding the other persons position does not in itself equal a straw man. There has to be an argument either implicit or explicit for this to be the case. Fair enough. It's like with trolling, it's hard to tell whether someone is stupid or just retarded. There really should be a penalty for getting knocked out. I never understood why you only get penalized if you get knocked out with 0 Health. That should activate straight away when you reach 0 Endurance the first time, and then you just keep getting it if you keep sucking, and then you absolutely, unequivocally and irrevocably die when you reach 0 Health. Fine, have the double-HP system, fine, alright, non-negotiable, whatever. But getting to 0 Endurance is trivial. It doesn't mean anything. With a system of Wounds at 0 Endurance and absolute death at 0 Health, the lower parts of health would be the absolute "Rest. Now." red light, the point at which you absolutely have to stop, beaten, bloody and bruised, and thus tie into the limited resting system. Right now there's not even a penalty for being knocked out at all, which is just.. stupid.

Constitution should generally represent the ability to endure, remain whole, and stand by your core identity, with respect to mental influence as well as getting stabbed repeatedly in the chest. It's not like there's a shortage of supernormally persuasive people or characters with wacky mind powers in this game to build scenes of that type around. But then, Dexterity and Constitution are both just buckets of fail in this respect. Like you say, it is what it is. I forgot Dexterity. But yeah, I can at least imagine Dexterity being used a lot. Reaching out to snap people's necks, quickly getting your weapons out, throwing a knife, pickpocketing, pickpocketing, pickpocketing, dodge a sudden attack, etc, etc. Constitution could be cool if there were enemies that actually tried things in dialogue, such as wacky mind powers, or suddenly throw a cloud of angel-dust in your face. But the ball is dropped on both, I think.

That's just it, it's not inherently subjective. There are quantifiable issues with actual solutions. But even so, if it was inherently subjective, it does in no way mean that there are no logical arguments to be had on the matter, or that argumentum ad populum is suddenly permissible, or somehow valid. Saying "X amount of people say Y, therefore Y is correct" is arguably even worse on a subjective, unquantifiable matter. But even so, only arguably. I guess that comes down to what you consider "break the game". There's a good argument that the game is broken, but I see very little discussions on the topic in the vein that you describe. The fact is rather that it is painfully easy to trivialize gameplay without having to break the game, exploit game mechanics, or otherwise resorting to degenerate gameplay at all. It's not whining. Most of the discussions are very constructive, discounting the fact that there's a sense of constant repetition as clueless people such as yourself come into the discussions without even reading the threads in which they want to participate. If anything is whining, it is you, whining about people that are discussing systemic issues and what to do with them. The "extensive documentation" is already there. The "mods will fix it" cry of the ignorant has no basis in reality. We're examining the subject for the purpose of learning more and discussing it in the hopes that Obsidian takes notice for the future, because there are many concrete ways aspects of the game could be improved on a professional level. Especially considering that many of the pieces are already there. Ah, yes, of course. Let me just strap on my job helmet, and squeeze down into a job cannon and fire off into job land, where jobs grow on jobbies! There couldn't possibly be something else at play, so let me just get right on that, your grace. Edit: I think it's futile arguing with the intellectually disinclined. I already linked the most recent extensive topics that I could think of: My futile hope is that a few devs actually sits down and goes through some of the bigger threads in their entirety, not just these few.

I wish people would stop spouting this ridiculous straw man. Game difficulty (or lack of it) Is. Not. The. Problem. That's not a ****ing straw man mutherf*ckah Yes it is. I don't think it was intended as one, and it's just general retardation at play, but it is a strawman. It implies that the position from which the critique is formed is one of difficulty, and that the argument amounts to "I'm very good, the game is too easy, change it". Which is really, really ****ing far from the truth. I have zero interest in Path of the Damned, because Path of the Damned is based on inflated numbers, which isn't what the entire issue is about at all. If it was just about flat difficulty, you could solve it by just upping all numbers across the board. It's very easy to create nigh-unkillable opponents and unsolvable encounters. The game is "too easy" because of systemic issues, not because Stun has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the game mechanics or because I've got 25 000 posts on the boards, and we've always argued around how game mechanics interacts and what can be done to improve it, not just cry about how easy it is for us 1337 harcr0e playuhs to dominate casuals for the purpose of our e-peen. Yep, I often let my characters get knocked out all the time. Someone is going to get knocked out? Meh, no matter. I can finish this fight off with the rest of my party. And the characters who are knocked out are safe with not losing any more health and won't die. And after the battle is over, they're on full endurance again. And introduced new degenerative gameplay that the IE games didn't have. In 20 years we will get a new game, a spiritual sequel to the Pillars Series, with a brave lead designer with an irrational hatred for doorways and ranged combatants. Instead of a war on movement, there will be a war on health bars and healing. Such degeneracy. Much exploit. Must remove. After reaching the conclusion that losing the game is boring and only results in reloads, death is removed as a game mechanic. The tedium of picking up items is removed, and you are now instead given all the items in the game upon launching the game.

It doesn't seem to come up *very* often, and it could be done better, but.. I'd say that there's reason for pretty much anything except Constitution. Which is sad but.. understandable. I don't know how it'd feature, really. I wish a lot more options were locked and you could actually lose options with low scores, and wish there were some really, really high-score choices (above 18). But c'est la vie.

To have a "hold position" toggle per-character would be wonderful, yes. It is a bitch trying to keep the characters from moving while also trying to avoid getting caught in Engagement. You've got that split second after an enemy goes down to tell them to Cancel Action or you're screwed. Because Engagement. Such fun.

Your post numbers represent, at least partly, the amount of time you put into learning about the game. I definitely think that it illustrates quite clearly the huge divide in perception between the no-lifer forum-goers and your average game reviewers, hardcore gamers in their own right, who pointed out in their their reviews that PoE is quite difficult. Making it even more difficult means it is not accessible to all but the most hardcore of gamers. Saying that it is argumentum ad populum is just idiotic. Do you even understand what it is ? We are talking about opinions and perceptions. There is no one truth that overrides all other. In this forum we perceive the game to be not that hard, which I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH. Just that given that forumgoers already bought the game and most will buy future Obsidian games, they would be wise to focus their efforts elsewhere for the time being. As for EA and Bioware ... EA is making 150 million of net profit every quarter. Pretty sure most gaming studios would be A-okay being in their position. No. The post count represents how many posts you have on the boards. See, the vast majority of posts are posts like this, spent educating people on subjects in general, rather than actually actively accumulating knowledge of the game or it's mechanics. The only difference between us and anyone else is one of analysis, that we can collectively figure out why or how things interact by examining what's going on. It doesn't change how we play the game or how the game plays. Do you see many threads discussing interesting tactics? Do you see many threads on the exploitation of mechanics? Of course you don't. Practically the only conversations going on in that vein is discussions on PotD Solo. Making it "even more difficult" is not what it is about, and that's what we've been trying to get through your thick skull. And even if it was to become more difficult, it would in no way become "less accessible to all but the most hardcore of gamers". This is what difficulties are for. What we tend to discuss are real, systemic issues that results in overly simplistic gameplay, and I have repeatedly criticized the emphasis on difficulty itself, because if difficulty was the point, numbers bloat and stats inflation would be the solution. It is entirely possible to create virtual no-win scenarios by simply bumping up the opposition. And since you don't seem to understand the term: Argumentum ad Populum. The amount of people, big or small, is irrelevant to the actual argument. "Vocal minority" or "silent majority", or variations thereof, whether true or false, are irrelevant buzzwords used to discredit or disparage the opposition and inflate the own position. As for EAWare.. well. McDonalds quarterly reports are in the region of $6 Billions in the U.S. alone.

I want to read The Mystery: Further Musings. Why can't I read The Mystery: Further Musings? But.. PJ, you're missing the most important question. Have they added individual blood types for dwarves yet?

In PoE, all buffs fade after combat ends, and even if this were to change (because otherwise buffs would probably fade immediately when cast out of combat), inside combat their duration is measured in seconds, not hours. The whole comparison to BG2 is therefore irrelevant.This also applies to the assumption that enemies would have to be pre-buffed as well. Buff durations in PoE are just too short for this to make any sense. But, but, but muh idiot comparisons and false dichotummy?!

And lose out on the experience? Don't be ridiculous.

Well the point wasn't that it was hard, but the difference between hardcore and casuals. Dwarf Fortress isn't hard as such, but oh boy do you need to learn that losing is fun. And overcoming those challenges, mastering that learning curve, and the rewards that comes with it appeals to the hardcore mindset, which is why I enjoy it as an example. I'm actually not that big of a fan of Dwarf Fortress. Like the Engagement system, I want to love it, but I just can't.

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

They shouldn't cater to our whims. Not by a long shot. But they should listen to the discussions, because a lot of them are quite throughout. And it's still, well, yes, most of us have already bought the game, but if you don't listen to good arguments, you soon find yourself about as loved as Electronic Arts or Bioware. There's already been a lot of people mentioning how, while they think that PoE is overall good, they wouldn't back another Kickstarter. Others have expressed doubts, but have chosen to give Obsidian the benefit of the doubt after recognizing the potential of PoE, and wants to see in what direction it heads, which to me boils down in two directions, exemplified to me by Baldur's Gate vs. Dragon Age 2. And relating my number of posts to anything is.. odd, but more than that, you talk about minority/majority. Not only do I not at all feel like the people on the forum is in the minority when it comes to these discussions, but it ultimately has no bearing on anything, it is just argumentum ad populum, the dumbest argumentative error. Finally, I don't know the game inside and out. Namutree does not know the game inside and out. PrimeJunta does not know the game inside and out. Sensuki... probably does. I honestly have no real idea how a lot of things in PoE is actually supposed to work, partly due to unclear rules and a systemic obtuseness, but ultimately because there's really no need to pay attention to anything. This is part of the problem. Stumbling through the game should be possible on Easy, not on Hard.

Of course hardcore players are going to be more thorough in doing side content. Are you serious? There's a difference between hardcore and completionist, and they are not necessarily related, nor mutually exclusive in any way. Like LadyCrimson said just above me, there's a lot of casuals that enjoy a completely different state of relaxation in playing games (or games like this). Hardcore players are generally looking for a challenge and enjoys learning how a game works, being forced to come up with solutions, adapting to the tactical situation, having to consider or re-consider strategic angles, and wants to be rewarded for overcoming obstacles and earning the rewards that comes with doing so. This could mean beelining through the main story straight up, doing encounters that you in most games would be underleveled for, or playing the game in ways it wasn't (or shouldn't have been) intended to be played, such as soloing, but it in no way means that's a given. Casual players generally just wants to sit back, like reading a good book or watching a ****ty show on TV, depending on how you cut it. They may play the game specifically to avoid challenges, or just wants something, well, casual. This could mean playing on Easy and just pass by encounters a few at a time, go everywhere without worrying about your level at all, and reading all the in-game books, and find all the quests. And despite my cynical comments to the contrary, I actually do not think that either of these approaches are inherently wrong, and I don't think that it is hard to accommodate both at all. Like I've said before, the issues with PoE's are mostly systemic, and even with proposed improvements, there's no reason Easy would stop being easy, but Hard would be capable of being.. well.. hard - without massively inflated numbers and AI cheating. So while there may be an issue or a point presented by the OP, it is quite arguable whether it is of any real relevance to it. I think that it is a natural situation that, if you strive to avoid it, would most likely feel artificial and contrived. I also think that "completionist" vs. "non-completionist" is at the very least a bit of a false dichotomy, and also an imagined issue that have lead to games adopting an approach where the main storylines are watered down and diluted, simplified, as if it should be expected to be a hard line between someone that does everything, and someone that does only the main quest, and therefore the main quest needs to be easy. Which I think is horse****. I don't think it should be balanced with the intent of pleasing specifically completionists, but if anyting, should assume that players complete at the very least a large chunk of side content as they play. It would lead to a much more even gameplay experience, and a less jarring transition and border between "side content" and "main quest", and put an emphasis on people to actually use the damn difficulty levels to get the experience they want. I'll play in any difficulty I want and no one has the authority to tell me how to have fun and/or with what I should be having fun or if I fit their subjective labels. And don't get me started on people having different skill levels and such. Of course you do, but if you're a hardcore player, you can't be expected to play a game on normal. If you'd say "I'm a hardcore player. I play on easy." the actaul hardcore players are just going to laugh at you, and probably the casuals, too.

That not important. With mods I could make PoE the hardest game ever. Not that PoE is even close to the same league as vanilla BG in terms of difficulty. PoE on Path of the damned is easier than BG on normal. But, whatever. The real issue with PoE isn't that it's too easy, but why it's so easy; as Luckmann has already pointed out. You would have to completely chsnge the game mechanics and enemy classes to accomplish that. While that may be true to a degree, there are a lot of improvements possible without a complete systems overhaul, and certainly wouldn't need enemy classes to change for sure (but feel free to kill their infinite ability- and spell-use). The biggest hurdle to overcome would be Sawyeran hangups, like immunities, meaningful counters, arbitrary combat restrictions, counterspelling, etc. We're exactly the right people to judge difficulty. There are different difficulties for a reason, and even casual nooblets have criticized the difficulty and systemic issues in the game. You say that we represent years of accumulated game knowledge, but the thing is, still today, with the IE games, I learn things. I haven't gotten that pinned down to a science, I haven't unlocked a formula that I can apply on 90% of everything and just keep going, and I certainly can't boot up the game and not pay attention to anything, just kinda fall into encounters and bumble my way forward like a drunk in a china shop. Like Namutree said, the biggest issue isn't really that the game isn't hard, which is why inflated numbers like Path of the Damned won't help, or just "increasing the difficulty" won't help. The issue is why the game is easy, which is discussed extensively most recently here, here, here, here and here, along with several others threads dealing specifically with related issues, such as armour dichotomy, the attribute system, and experience bloat. "Mods will fix it" is the most naive cry of the ignorant, not just in general, but for this game in particular, because you have to fight it tooth and nail to mod it, if you can even figure out how to. Take a simple thing as changing Attributes. Should be easy, right, I mean, it's just some simple bonuses by Attribute, right? Wrong. I know. I tried. I couldn't even be sure what I should be editing. Saying that people should restrict themselves and to actively shoot themselves in the foot is ridiculous. We're not talking about cheesing encounters or abusing the AI. We're not talking about unintended exploits. We're talking about root gameplay issues that results in rote and predictable combat that in no way forces you to ever re-evaluate what you are doing, react to what is going on, or change your tactical approach; and if you consider strategy, well, no, there's really no strategies to think of.