Sensuki

Yeah in v301 they made it way easier. I personally preferred the difficulty level in v278 to v301 and v333, although none are perfect, and each difficulty level had OP stuff - Poison, Deep Wounds, Petrify, that Cystal Shard thing etc

However it's buggy. Breaks double clicking on the portraits, or well, double-clicking on anything actually.

Agree

Yeah it's a picture of me dressed as a wigger. Fully sick subwoofa m8

Old bug: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68812-301-pistol-does-not-attack/?hl=arquebus&do=findComment&comment=1518055 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68308-v278-minor-char-with-arquebus-unable-to-attack-until-reload/ http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68530-rogue-ranged-problems/

Haha, nah in order to do a suggestion I have to at least think of one way to make them better, and I promised the Codex I would use less biting language in my videos etc as many people there feel like I am representing them or something and not helping our cause by doing anything to jeopardize changes getting in

bump

bump

bump (Had to change mice for the new version because sometimes it randomly double clicks by itself, causing the camera to move, haha)

bump

bump

bump

bump

bump

Investing in Dex does give you guaranteed extra DPS/duration seconds though. The AoE bonus from Intellect does not, it's highly situational. I'm going to experiment with Intellect 3 characters because it seems pretty viable to dump the **** out of it and pump Dex for the DPS (providing Might and Per are already maxed).

I'll add it to my list of further whistle blowing topics for you.

I don't mind a bit of a forum argument every now and again

Yes you did, let me quote it for you. That is an assumption. You assumed that the reason why I posted that you could look at my post history was that I expected you to "care" about me, likely out of perceived arrogance or self-importance. That is pretty presumptuous if you ask me. That is also not what I meant. When making statements about other people on the internet, on a forum of which you are 'new' to (and by new I mean that you have never posted before, and am unaware of my post history), is it rash and kind of rude to be honest, to make statements about people such as "obsessively rehashing of ideas on the internet", "devoid of any practical analysis" and presuming to tell me the actual reasons of why I want Melee Engagement removed, when I had in fact already stated them, all without any perspective based on post history. You say that "past actions do not matter, only the present does". I have already made practical analyses of the Melee Engagement system before this thread. I have told you that my opinion on the subject was once different and through practical analysis (you know, playing the game and then collecting my thoughts on my practical experience with the game into analyses) my opinion has been changed based on that. You ignored those words in my reply to your first post. Instead, you decided to reply to my both civil and friendly post in a hostile and patronizing manner. Your words below: Not only did you attack me as a person in your first post, you have continued to do so after I responded in a civil fashion. It is incredibly rich of you to dismiss this, and then say "Please become more of an adult", "You have what the world of psychology calls "Cognitive dissonance"", "Challenging an immature, intentionally antagonistic person does not constitute vitriol in any form." and the absolute gas You already insulted me, and are trying to give an air of 'superiority' by attempting to mask your insults and hostility within your flowery words, sentence structures and vocabulary. I honestly can't believe that you presume to do that AND include that sentence in your post. Not the finest display of intellectualism, is it? You might argue in a fancier manner than I do (so adult!), but it doesn't really do you any favors. The truth is you have your own mandate that you want to try and protect, and that is why you posted for the first time on the forum, because your mandate is being threatened. You have an ideology of what RPG combat should be like that is actually more extreme than any of the viewpoints that I have on the subject. I will outline that ideology based from the statements you have made in the quotes below for the rest of the readers to see clearly. In this quote, you are saying that (1) there should be less emphasis on player input in (at the very least) combat in roleplaying games. You think that (2) less player input in an RPG equals 'abstraction' and (3) you seem to think that the more actions that are allowed to be micromanaged by the player, the more a game emphasizes mechanical skill over the skill of the unit in the game. In this quote you reiterate (1), stressing in capital letters that combat in RPGs should have less mechanical input and that just because a game is real-time that the player should have to make unit actions. In this quote, you (4) state that while you play RTS games, but you think that there is a flaw in RTS gameplay whereby units can move freely in melee. Let me address these four points you try and make individually and make the case that you also have an ideology of how combat in RPGs (and Pillars of Eternity) should be erragal's ideological assumption #1 - "there should be less emphasis on player input in (at the very least) combat in roleplaying games." There are many styles of gameplay in RPGs - turn based, phase based, real-time/rtwp and action. There are also many subtypes of gameplay within those four distinctive RPG gameplay styles. There are real-time games that require very little player input, such as Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic, Neverwinter Nights and Drakensang: The River of Time (an attempt at a Dragon Age clone, as Stun has said). These are games where tactical positioning and movement in combat are of little importance. Units run towards each other, stop when they get to melee range and then the player presses the mouse button and hotkeys to assign units actions. The player doesn't have to do any more than that, really. If that is your RTWP gameplay preference, then that's fine, but I believe it is in stark contrast to what the majority of the forum users here want (I can't speak for the backers at large, so I will not presume to) out of Pillars of Eternity. You have stated that there should be less emphasis on player input in an RPG because of 'role-playing' and abstraction and that player input 'games' the combat system. Firstly, player input does not reduce the 'role-playing' in an RPG. Action RPGs require constant player input to control a single unit in combat, they often require more actions per minute than real-time with pause RPGs. If player input goes against the 'role-playing' of a character in an RPG, then why is an Action RPG considered an RPG ? What about a turn-based RPG? Turn-based RPGs have some automated systems (usually AoO and overwatch systems) but other than that everything requires player input and you may end up issuing more total commands in a combat encounter than you would in an RtWP one - only that units act one at a time and nothing is time critical (note that I have constantly reiterated that the pause in RTwP takes away pretty much all the time critical aspects from combat, other than the act of pausing itself - something which you have conveniently ignored as it trumps your argument about the lack of Melee Engagement requiring more mechanical skill). This is just an ideology you have of what real-time RPG gameplay should be like. The fact is that an RPG is merely a sum of it's parts. The true definition of an RPG is a loose one, but usually it is simply a game that offers a form of gameplay with character advancement and at least combat. The earlier RPGs did not have as much focus on writing and dialogue as the later ones do, perhaps that is something you are also forgetting ? Most of the early RPGs were exploration and combat simulators with character advancement and the 'role playing' was assuming the role of those characters by controlling their movement, abstracted in the gameworld. The amount of control required has nothing to do with 'role-playing'. erragal's ideological assumption #2 - "less player input in an RPG equals 'abstraction'" Your highlight of abstraction in that quote is misused, you are talking as if the abstraction of reality in the game world should not be related to player input. In all games, "real-world" scenarios are abstracted in the game to a varying degree of simulation. It has nothing to do with how much the player controls it. Attacks of Opportunity exist in turn-based games both to abstract the 'tempo' of melee combat where both combatants make an opposing move to the other one's move and to prevent the unfair situation where the unit that acts first loses in games where AP or moves are shared between movement and attacks. Neverwinter Nights was the first game (I believe) to port this concept over into real-time and it was a critical failure. The reason is because Attacks of Opportunity as implemented in any RTwP so far are abstract of time itself. The 'tempo' of melee combat exists in real-time/real-time with pause combat because both units can act at the same time and there is no situation where a unit can move freely in melee combat. For any move that a unit can make, units nearby can also make their own movements at the same time. The Attack of Opportunity mechanic is not required because the problems it fixes in turn-based don't exist in real-time. I believe it is you who refuses to acknowledge my position on this subject. erragal's ideological assumption #3 - "the more actions that are allowed to be micromanaged by the player, the more a game emphasizes mechanical skill over the skill of the unit in the game." This statement would be true in a real-time only game. A game that did not allow the player to issue commands while paused. However it is largely not the case in real-time with pause games. The only act that is time critical is the act of pausing the game. Through pausing the game, the player removes the mechanical skill required to issue commands quickly and accurately. As I stated in my first reply to erragal's first post on the forum, the skill involved in real-time with pause games is realizing that you need to make an action in the first place, it is in the problem analysis and decision making. Pillars of Eternity offers both a pause and slow feature for players to take advantage of to mitigate the time critical aspect of real-time gameplay so that they are free to conduct their problem analysis and decision making at their own pace, while still enjoying the fluidity of real-time combat. erragal's ideological assumption #4 - "there is a flaw in RTS gameplay whereby units can move freely in melee." In my reply to your the second ideological assumption I believe you have made, I state that "The 'tempo' of melee combat exists in real-time/real-time with pause combat because both units can act at the same time and there is no situation where a unit can move freely in melee combat". No movement towards, in, or away from melee combat makes a unit free from the actions of other units. The specific example which I keep bringing up in this thread is that the Melee Engagement system prevents tactical retreating in combat. You have stated that you do not believe you should be able to tactically retreat from combat, likely because you feel it is 'cheap'. Firstly, when you decide to move a melee unit away from combat, it is not free. Any melee unit that is currently performing an attack can still hit and kill the unit retreating. Any melee unit that is currently targeting the unit you are retreating can follow that unit and if they have a higher movement speed and providing there is sufficient room, can attack you while moving. Any ranged unit that is currently targeting you from wherever can still hit you and kill you while you are moving away. I think it is you who are failing to realize or acknowledge that there are other possibilities outside of the Melee Engagement system that can also create 'sticky' melee combatants without trivializing all movement in melee combat or giving units a free attack against a moving unit independent of time itself. In DotA 2, the Omniknight gets a Degen Aura that gives up to 36% movement speed slow to enemies within a 200 AoE. This makes him incredibly sticky and very hard to escape from. You think that abilities such as Rogue Escape and Fighter Knockdown should be used to break Engagement and escape? You are forgetting that disables and disjointing movement abilities (such as Blink and Force Staff in DotA 2) can and are both used for 'stickiness' - chasing / preventing targets from getting away and escaping from melee. I think I offer incredibly reasonable arguments for the removal of Melee Engagement, while also identifying that one of the 'problems' that it exists to solve can be solved by other means that are far more sensible in the realm of real-time combat. Yet you are calling me immature and intentionally antagonistic - let us look at the language you have used in your posts aimed at me extraordinarily arrogant, obsessive, arguing in bad faith, aggressive and single minded, inflexibility, kid with the most time on his hands, devoid of any practical analysis, assume I care enough about -you-, predatory, melodramatic, Please become more of an adult, Challenging an immature, intentionally antagonistic Is it me who's doing the bullying? Is it me who's arguing in bad faith? Is it me who's being aggressive and single minded? The language you have used to describe me in your three posts says otherwise. Why don't you take your own advise from your second post? (quote below) I do not have to prove my contributions to you, it's your own fault that you won't look outside of a few posts in a thread. It is not for me to decide whether my contributions have been valuable or not, why don't you ask your fellow peers?

I don't know if that would work because the whole point of characters being idle is they are supposed to be idle. That's what I mean by it being detrimental to rely on user interface help rather than actual animations etc. If the actual character is idle, most of the time it would be more obvious by the change in stance and animation. I just think it would clash with how selection circles operate currently. They 'do something' when interacted with, and they are static when they are not.

I think this is caused because all animal companions call the GetComponent<PartyMemberAI> in the source code, and are thus treated as party members for the purposes of the combat state.

That's pretty much the case, yep. All animal companions call the PartyMemberAI class, I think the specific reference is something like someobject.GetComponent<PartyMemberAI>

Not if the attacks per round are balanced against weapon damage. Daggers could attack more and do less damage (just as they do now). It's just a different time division. Just an example 1/apr - Greatsword 18-24 damage 3/apr - Dagger - 6-8 damage DPR = 18-24 Anything that increases attack speed would have to have a 1:3 effect in that instance though. To be honest ... that does actually sound way more intuitive and easier to understand

There is a mod floating around that makes recruiting adventurers free and enables the party manager, I think mutonizer made it. However it would not work with the latest patch, someone would need to port it across (I don't think it would be very difficult either).

If you want to see Infinity Engine combat I've got 35 videos here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIRfCmyR7ijJU11xQVn2SXIwmeuajTkom That is a separate issue that you mention related to PartyMember AI Auto Attack clauses and Enemy AI Targeting clauses. Currently Pillars of Eternity only has like one auto attack clause for party members, and that's to do with Engagement (which I find intrusive). The Infinity Engine games had targeting clauses for 'attack closest enemy of same type' where when a character was auto-attacking a unit, they would then search for a unit of the same type. Let's say Minsc is attacking an orc, when the orc dies, he will look for the closest orc to attack. The Baldur's Gate games also had a simple script for companions, they would auto attack the closest enemy on sight if they were idle. The reason I think recovery time needs an animation is because it's hard to tell when characters are in recovery or idle sometimes, and you also have the option to disable the Combat HUDs, which display the unit's current action and their recovery time bar. If those are disabled, you would have absolutely zero idea if your character was in recovery or not other at a glance. I said that in the video. It would be one small but critical step to clearer feedback in combat that is not related to UI features. If you can accomplish something with in-game feedback without the need for an extra user interface element - you should do it.