Sensuki

Design decision, perhaps if this mod is popular then they may reinstate it. The number of slots isn't the only issue with the inventory, but this should give people a sense of relief anyway.

Thanks to Liston from RPGCodex for showing me how to do this: Here is a mod that gives you 16 inventory slots per character http://www.upload.ee...CSharp.rar.html The bug with the looting UI has been fixed. Installation instructions: Backup your X:\Steam\steamapps\common\Pillars of Eternity - Public Beta\PillarsOfEternity_Data\Managed\Assembly-CSharp.dll Copy the modified Assembly-CSharp.dll into the same folder Run the game Enjoy Notes: Will not be compatible with the next patch (will have to make a new one every time) this is a pretty bad way to mod, but we have no WeiDu equivalent atm

Supposedly, anyway.

I think it makes sense and you don't - that kind of stuff is in the eye of the beholder. That's the only difference really.

That wasn't from my .pdf - I don't care about what the attributes are called. You could call them "Fox", "Cat", "Eagle", "Bear" or whatever, I wouldn't give a **** - what I do care about is that the attribute system offers balanced choices and Deflection and Concentration would be an excellent pairing mechanically, because they go hand in hand with eachother.

Or I could just make an unlimited camping supplies mod for you Shouldn't be too hard to do.

I think if you didn't nerf the base durations as much and went with 3% it would be pretty good. Then extra durations wouldn't be as much of a 'must have' on casters - something Matt and I could look into possibly by running a few test cases. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67678-the-music-good-or-no/?view=findpost&p=1503134 And I don't really like the icons either as much as the IE method, but it's not a big deal for me.

Reducing the percentage to something more sensible might be the better way to go. I have no problem with one attribute controlling it but double durations @ 20 Int is OP. maybe 3% per point would be more balanced, so you can get an extra 60% at 20 Int instead.

Yeah I don't care if they add them in as long as they can be turned off, but they SHOULD NOT be considered as a 'fix' to the actual problems in combat. Bandaid over a bullethole.

They do not make up for actually looking at the units/combat itself and being able to see what's going on - that's copping out. "We can't make combat not look like a cluster**** - so we'll just add in some UI help instead"

There's the problem right there.

Yep. Here's all his posts ITT btw: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3593502&userid=17931

Does that sound fun to you? You must be one of the few people that doesn't think Concentration is boring. We stated in the paper that Resolve with pure concentration is boring and it's not very helpful - what you are suggesting appears to in opposition to the design goals of the game IMO. I don't see your issue with Deflection and Concentration together (did you read the paper?). Deflection grants effective interrupt resistance the same as Concentration does, but it also gives you extra survivability by reducing the incoming DPS from Deflection based attacks. Based on that, why wouldn't you like those two together, they give you more of the same - except better! If you 'can't see' Deflection on Resolve - read this

Concentration on it's own is horrible. 100% DPS loss is only theoretically possible, but in actual fact you are more likely to get disabled by an ability or a spell. Encounters won't have THAT many units in them, and you have up to six party members, so even fighting four enemies with high interrupt and fast attacks, you will still get some hits in. Those would be like raaaare cases, and Constitution would give you more flat survivability, as those enemies are pounding on you, your party pounds on them.

That's selective ignorance. You're just picking out one thing I said and forming a statement based off that. I didn't even say formations?!?!? It should be apparent that this is not what I think. RTS games are usually isometric (and they pretty much all were in the 90s/early 2000s) and you can select multiple units at once. Selection circles around units is a thing born from RTS games. RTS combat involves units (player vs player or player vs AI) that attack each other at a constant rate either governed by a system where every unit has an attack animation with no cooldown between them (continuous attack) or where they do (like in PE and Warcraft 3) where there is an attack animation followed by a cooldown until the unit can next perform that action. Special Abilities and spells are governed by a different system where a unit can use them immediately after an attack animation, not having to wait for the attack recovery to cooldown. These are balanced by single ability cooldowns. RTS games do not penalize normal units for moving, some units can move and attack at the same time (Marines, Siege Tanks in Starcraft etc) and some (usually siege type units) have to 'set up' to be able to attack such as Trebuchets in AoE2. I disagree. Movement is not really important in the NWN games they try and emulate turn-based a little bit more than the IE games do. Knights of the Chalice followed by Temple of Elemental Evil are the best implementations of 3rd edition (even tho KotC is Open d20) D&D, but those are turn-based. The non-trash combat in Icewind Dale 2 beats anything in the Aurora Engine games. For a game to be declared an action game it requires constant player input, it is not automated. That just tells me that you don't like ARPGs more than anything. Some of them are really awesome. Despite this, I would say Jade Empire's combat is the most fun aurora engine game combat-wise but still pretty terrible compared to a proper action game like Jedi Knight 2 or something. I really think PE needs to move the hell away from thinking in a D&D / Turn-based mindset and concentrate on obtaining RTS fluidity.

I agree, the large AoEs do make them a bit weaker and friendly AoEs would make those persistent AoE damage spells overpowered. Concentration only prevents DPS loss, it doesn't really give you any survivability. Stamina can also be healed. Health cannot. If you can just dump healing spells, and several party members have AoE passive heals, then increased Stamina isn't really that fantastic. There's already far too much resting in this game as well, which breaks up the adventuring pace way too much. We don't need even more of that. Might, Intellect and Constitution are pretty much perfect attributes, there's no reason at all to change them.

No action queues, that won't solve the problem at all. They just need to fix the core issues such as having different animations for when units are in recovery and when they are not, as well as adding in the required visual and audio cues and UI feedback. The Infinity Engine games didn't need action queues, and they didn't need half of the stuff that Obsidian has added into PE to tell what was going on. They really need to shape up a bit to even compete with Baldur's Gate - a game that got it right 16 years ago. There has been a serious decline since then because not many games of this type have been made and people have forgotten the basics (or maybe taken then for granted). Also transparency of how long actions will take - which I mentioned in the attribute paper and this suggestion video. Spell FX are also too strong and can be very confusing when there's heaps of them going on at once.

Increased Action Speed, as stated in our paper. Sorry I don't follow. I do agree that NWN2 was too repetitive though. The IE games were built on an engine that was an RTS engine in the first place, the most recent info on that was the Matt Chat with Feargus Urquhart but it's been a known thing for a long time. Movement and commanding units in the IE games does feel like an RTS, especially an RTS from around the same era. The camera is isometric, units have selection circles, movement is responsive and movement and non-movement actions are separated. NONE of the IE games feel like an ARPG at all, if anything the single character Aurora engine games veer towards that style more. ARPG means constant input required from the player - holding down mouse = continuous attack, let go of mouse = no attack. Hold down move = move, let go of move = no move. The IE games have a click to move and click to auto attack, therefore they feel nothing like an ARPG at all. Josh also recently stated that he'd prefer to make a turn-based classless game. I think he'd be more comfortable doing that to be honest, as you can clearly see those design preferences bleeding into this game a little bit with the way that attributes, advancement and the class system works and some of the decisions regarding combat. Some of the decisions have been very good though - such as having increased IAS slow recovery time first before the action animation frames.

yep If ACC-DEF = 0 then 1-5 = Miss 6-50 = Graze 51-95 = Hit 96-100= Crit Anything below 1 will miss and anything above 100 will crit as well.

Which bit are you talking about here specifically? Adding IAS into the Attribute system? That's something the developers agree on btw. Than PE or IE? That would feel really, really terrible IMO Whether you like it or not the unique thing about the Infinity Engine games combat was that it felt like an RTS game. I compare the action speed system in Pillars of Eternity to Warcraft 3 (and DotA because DotA was a Warcraft 3 mod) because the mechanics that govern them are 95% the same. There are only like two differences and that's it. I actually do think that at the moment PE plays more like NWN2. NWN2 had absolutely shockingly bad combat, much like all of the aurora games - NWN1, Jade Empire and the Star Wars KOTOR games. This ship of failure needs to be turned around so it feels more like an RTS again. Then combat will actually feel remotely infinity engine like. One of the first steps there is removing the recovery time pause from movement. Encounter design is very important, yes.

random 1-100 + ACC - DEF = score

That's what I said in the video and in our paper - the high per-hit damage combined with normalized attack resolutions makes combat feel very fast.

That's why I suggested to split Health into your Healing Pool and have all damage deal stamina damage only. Sure that's one thing that may contribute to it. I don't like the combat huds and I think they make combat even more confusing - I did forget to talk about those and the spell fx making it even worse. I don't use auto pause, and yes all of the buttons are tiny. The IE games used 40px buttons, and PE uses 40px buttont but screen sizes are like double at least the size from back then.

He won't do that. There's a reason why it's all been simplified - and that's not going to change, so suggesting anything else is just a waste of time.

I might be doing a Let's Play of it for the RPGCodex, but more importantly I have a beta preview to write, which I am waiting until probably October to even start thinking about - as then I will have given enough time for Obsidian to show progress, which I can then appraise for the Codexers who haven't got the game yet, and give a fair assessment of how release is shaping up.