Luckmann

I roleplay, and I find it an utterly ridiculous premise that because I roleplay and because everything is "viable", my character would settle for anything less than what works the best. In-universe, the characters would know what would be best, based on available information and experience. If anything, it's a disconnect between roleplaying and mechanics when you are unable to make the most reasonable of calls, because math.

This is very viable, yes.

I've said it before and I'm saying it again; the human racials should be split up, and I think the poll should reflect that. But yeah, I'm going to go with the Deathlike, and it's racial is meh as balls.

You know what we need? A remake of the extremely old, extremely classic "Edwin"-style portrait. And honestly, after the travesty that was the BG2 version, the closer to source material, the better. I realized I wanted this after someone mentioned people using avatars based on PoE portaits, and for a second I almost changed into the hooded female (because it looks amazing) and then I realized that I really want a male version of that, followed by the sudden realization that damn, we need the ol' mage portrait up in this, "as according to Kaz".

LOL I know you're just trolling and you never make sense...especially since you post that "no one forces you to pick up or loot items" then carry on about PoE eliminating back and forths and inventory juggling because it added tedium lulz. Take your own advice no one forces you to play inventory tetris or return to town. Weighted inventory system works just fine and is a successful model to follow...certainly didn't hurt D:OS sales. One thing the old games could have done better(and is a much more valid argument) is the number of inventory slots and item stack count. I think weighted inventory with unlimited space works the best. Those two statements of mine aren't even related. And I'm pretty sure D:OS doesn't owe its sales to its weighted inventory system. This is your idea of an argument? Quoting me out of context and calling me a troll? Let's not pretend it's not part of it, though. Games are essentially gestalts. No, why? While we are on the subject of tedium and what's adding to it, let's consider the tedium of having to walk to the merchant to sell loot. Why bother? I already have infinite inventory, I already have "All to stash" button, I already have loot area to make looting faster, and I already have merchants with infinite money who accept all item types unconditionally. So what's with this tedium of having merchants at all? Why not just click on an item and transform it into cp? That's your logic after all. @CaptainMace, I haven't tested it in the current version actually, but from what I have tried in previous versions, it was possible to send loot to your inventory (and separately from there to the stash) or to the stash (directly). I'll check how ot works now. I admit that if in outdoors you can move loot only to the inventory this would limit the vacuum cleaner tactic significantly. This. People that cannot follow this very simple chain of logic but still bring up these arguments are suffering from some really die-hard cognitive dissonance.

While I really enjoyed Multi-/Dual-Classing in the IE games, given how classes are structured in PoE, it wouldn't make sense to have anything like that. So yeah, there's no Dual-/Multi-Classing.

The game is built to be extremely min/max-y, so the modifiers to attributes being largely meaningless unless you min/max makes complete sense from a design perspective. Now, I'm not sure I agree with that ideal, but it does make sense.

The odds of that working is non-existent, and also, .gif is a terrible format. You could try .apng, because a lot of places that supports .png just hammes to support .apng too, but yeah, I don't see any chance of that working either.

But still no animation. Which I can understand, but not forgive.

Isn't that, well, pretty much what the entire forum is for? Discussing the way in which we're able to do something in a game, I mean. Because if we're not... we're not really discussing the game, are we?

Yeah there are. I think Ogres and Trolls can. Wouldn't be surprised if Dragons could too. On Hard there's way more enemies (and on PotD even more), so in those instances moving can equal dying - which is NOT fun. Especially when it happens instantly and magically, without as much as a sound effect or flash. Bopp, bopp, damage taken, shown in the combat log, dead.

Really? Petitions? We've sunken low enough for this? Really?

Right....and for most characters and mobs, aren't you only engaging the target you are actively attacking? Otherwise, why the referenced talents that expand the number of targets you can engage? Giving out disengagement hits and recieving them are entirely different issues. It makes sense that you would take 3 disengagement attacks if 3 mobs are actively attacking you, but that you'd only apply such an attack to the 1 of the 3 you are attacking... Am I completely wrong about how the system is implemented? Na it doesn't matter whose attacking you...Sensuki did a video showing that it works. It matters whose engaged with you like others have said...you can perform the engagement attack without having the character targeted. One of the big problems is the range once you're involved in the mosh pit...for example you could move around a bit in D:OS without getting hit with an AoO performed on you...the "grace zone" in PoE isn't big enough. Yeah, I understand that. I guess my question is, are there many mobs capable of engaging 2 or 3 targets, and thus are player characters shuffling around in the melee scrum getting hit with triple and quadruple disengagement attacks? Depends on the difficulty, really. If you're playing on easy, no. If you are playing on hard, you'll consistently be facing a lot more opponents and while most of those only engage 1 person at a time, there's a lot of them. The Engagement system completely locks down the battlefield and leaves it in a static, unmoving mess. It's about as dynamic as a fridge, with all the tactical depth of a toaster oven.

Apparently it is, because you've completely missed the points 1) Having a wizard put on a robe shouldn't be a punishment for the wizard 2) Some people want robes to be functional rather than bad, even if only for costume variety. 3) Robes are not any more restrictive and confining than several other outfits of the same period, nor do they use thread any more capable of turning sword blades than anything else. 4) The armor system is borked to the point that only specific character builds should bother with any sort of armor at all, and everyone else should lounge around in casual clothing, or be naked. Which given the setting and historical parallels, isn't as ridiculous as you seem to think it is. Why shouldn't it have the same sort of penalty as putting on any other armor? It's not like the robe isn't giving you something in return (just like other armors) and now you have an alternate choice if you don't want to deal with the penalty and still want to wear something enchantable. As for there being any setting or historical parallels that would make adventuring (facing dangerous foes and trekking through towns and wilds comunicating with the local inhabitants etc.) naked a reasonable option from any roleplaying perspective LOL... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_in_combatHere you go. Meet the Celts not-actually-Glanfathans, honest. Would you like something on the Greek Olympics? As for the first part- because the trivial amount of DR you get is absolutely worthless (given health and damage numbers) and the recovery penalty you get in exchange is borderline obscene. It's like getting a penny for being punched in the face. Inb4 a "Buh.. but.. muh penny"-argument. Some people really like to earn their shekels.

Apparently it is, because you've completely missed the points 1) Having a wizard put on a robe shouldn't be a punishment for the wizard 2) Some people want robes to be functional rather than bad, even if only for costume variety. 3) Robes are not any more restrictive and confining than several other outfits of the same period, nor do they use thread any more capable of turning sword blades than anything else. 4) The armor system is borked to the point that only specific character builds should bother with any sort of armor at all, and everyone else should lounge around in casual clothing, or be naked. Which given the setting and historical parallels, isn't as ridiculous as you seem to think it is. Why shouldn't it have the same sort of penalty as putting on any other armor? It's not like the robe isn't giving you something in return (just like other armors) and now you have an alternate choice if you don't want to deal with the penalty and still want to wear something enchantable. As for there being any setting or historical parallels that would make adventuring (facing dangerous foes and trekking through towns and wilds comunicating with the local inhabitants etc.) naked a reasonable option from any roleplaying perspective LOL... BecauseThe distinction between robes and clothes makes no sense whatsoever thematically. Robes are literally just pieces of cloth sown together in a certain shape, no different from any two other articles of clothing in the game. Robes serve absolutely no mechanical purpose. There is no situation where you will be wearing a robe, where you would not be better served wearing other articles of clothing that comes without penalty. It is a trap choice with no mechanical value or strategic worth. Do we really need to draw you a road map?

Dost thou not cherish our great and benevolent social justice overlords?

You think it's "pretty crap gameplay" to bullrush a dangerous opponent, take his weapon from his corpse as he falls, and then immediately use it to fight his allies? I don't even know what to respond to that, because that's pretty much the best form of emergent gameplay I can imagine. I'm quite literally at a loss for words. [...] does not outweigh all the possible abuses of it. [...] What abuse would that be?

Well yeah, most systemic/mechanical ones, at least. And it'll probably introduce a plethora of new, exotic, and interesting bugs to be fixed, too.

You think it's "pretty crap gameplay" to bullrush a dangerous opponent, take his weapon from his corpse as he falls, and then immediately use it to fight his allies? I don't even know what to respond to that, because that's pretty much the best form of emergent gameplay I can imagine. I'm quite literally at a loss for words. Big thumbs down. An even bigger thumbs down if it's true that loot on the ground all looks the same (ie: NWN2), rather than actually appearing to be what it was (as was done in the IE games). And! Aaaaaand. It shimmers, glitters and shines. Not making this up.

Traps lead to reloads? Huh. Better remove traps. Bounty Hunter is the worst class for cheesing. So much cheese. Best class. The best class for cheesing. That said, if we're talking single classes, Assassin is easily better for cheese, once we get into HLA:s. Any rogue can get Spike Trap, which completely outclasses all the Bounty Hunter traps anyway.

You're expecting a freaking truckload of patches in short order. I sincerely doubt they'd keep an update rate like that, and there's no way the game will be "perfect" in ~1 year.

Which are? Woah, Eldoth is having a monologue. Trippy Yeah, I know, it's less than ideal and confuses even me.

Which are?

Been an issue since forever, it seems. Sawyer enjoys the hugbox and the echo chamber more than any locale which will question his sometimes odd decisions or hangups. God forbid he'd have to defend the decisions. So of course, when X designer doesn't agree with you, he must just "enjoy the hugbox". What an asinine thing to say, but all to common around these parts... No, that's not the point. The point is that he knowingly stays away from places that are liable to criticize him or pick apart the mechanics, and so on. Making decisions I don't agree with is fine, as long as you are willing to explain the rationale, what is trying to be achieved, and why X is set in stone. As it is, he really surrounds himself with yes-sayers that never actually dig into the meat of the game, primarily on a forum you literally cannot even read unless you pay $10 to participate. He then selectively picks out commentary which he often either misunderstands or flat-out don't understand, responding with a hearty "nu-uh".

That is beside the point, but what is on the point of your point, is that the IE games also didn't feature an infinite teleport-a-stash that could be accessed from everywhere at any time. You said it was a change. I was saying it was not a change. Sorry if that was confusing. Yes the infinite inventory is annoying. I am not looking forward to it filling with junk and me having problems finding things. Ah, sorry, so I did. My intent was to list issues that taken together is, well, an issue, but I see now that I actually do mention it as a change. I apologize. As for the infinite inventory, I'm having horrible flashbacks (which is impressive, considering that I'm playing it right now) of Divinity: Original Sin's inventory, which is rather large, and the messiest piece of garbage I've seen in an RPG so far. Great game, but the way items are sorted and an inventory that you fill up and then have to scroll in is tantamount to clinical insanity. There is literally no reason to ever pass on any kind of loot whatsoever in PoE, which just leads to compulsive hoarding and bulk sales of chaff loot.