Elerond

I don't say that MS don't have nefarious intentions for data they collect and collect it shady ways, but data they mention to collect is data they have to actually collect to make system to work. Like for example speech-to-text service uses internet/cloud based services to assist in speech recognition, and to use such service to assist speech recognition Windows needs to sent recorded sound file to said service over internet and said service needs to process it, which means that MS collected that sound file consisting your voice for at least little bit of time so that their assisting service actually can work Same goes for anything that you write in Windows search bar, as it also search from net using bing/or some other search service, so things that you write in that search bar needs to be sent in the search service, meaning that MS collects that data so that they can sent you back results from that search service. And addition to these data collections that MS need to do to make their services work they also collect some use data from technical preview users to see what programs, files etc. they use and how well Windows can handle them. This is done according to MS to help them to find problems in Windows 10 and optimize its performance and that these data collection features will not be at least compulsory part of Windows 10. And MS tell users of technical preview that they will do these things, so that people know that they will collect these pieces of data. But anyway MS is evil so I wouldn't stop anybody who wants bash them.

Media outlets are everything from big companies (which in certain forms can even hold religious beliefs in US now) to entities that are run by single individual, but anyway they have right to freedom of speech and express any views they want. Media has right to produce any content they see fit and consumers have right to consume any content they see fit. If media outlets didn't have right to free speech government would have right to tell them what to write, which one could argue to be much bigger risk to any objectivity/neutrality that media outlets have as whole. To make media give people comprehensive picture about things, there is option to everybody to create their own media outlet that produces content from other perspective and it is to consumers to decide which media outlet gives them best coverage about subjects that they care about. Media outlets obligation to their readership is to produce content that their readership wants them to produce and their readership has right to move to read other media outlet if one don't produce content they want. Objective media doesn't exist and it can't exist because all content is produced, edited, approved and consumed by subjective persons, which means that all content that has even little bit complexity in it becomes a subjective piece. As even deciding which things are news and which isn't is subjective procedure, which means that even news that focus only objective facts about things are actually exposed to subjective judgement of someone/s before they are shown to people.

I don't see issue any different from campaigns to get advertisers remove their ads from site or just not reading sites because you don't like personal opinions of one of their writers. Media outlets have right to freedom of speech in same way as any other organization, which means that they don't have any obligation to write things they don't want to write. And it is their readers to decide if their coverage is wide, deep fast enough to matter them. Freedom to change what media outlets you read is one of those main principalities of capitalistic media, where belief is that reader/watcher/listeners will change their media outlet to another if their current one don't serve them right. Objective media is similar to unicorns that both sound fantastic but in reality neither actually exist.

Right now, from what I tested yesterday, you can put 4 enchantments on a weapon (armor or shield). The "Exceptional" is a single enchantment. I need to verify if the DT Reduction count has one, I don't remember. So you can add 2 more enchantments on that Estoc. Also, the enchant button on the weapon always show up, you need to go in the enchant panel to see that you can't put more enchantments on a weapons and try some enchantments (nothing is telling you that you reached the max anywhere). When I try enchant it, the known recipes list don't show +weapon mods selection, so I can't add any enchantments on it. Same thing has happened also other equipment that should be enchant-able, which is I think it is bug, but I can't be sure as I don't know for sure that I should be able to enchant it (and those other items). It work fine for me, I just enchanted a rapier, some armor and an exceptional estoc. Might want to open a bug (with your output_log.txt file and probably a screenshot), seems like your enchantment UI isn't working properly. It works for some items, but with some items +weapon mods is missing. Which I now know to be a bug for sure because after loading game today I could enchant that exceptional estoc, but weapon that I enchanted in last play session was missing +weapon mod from its known recipes list. I just don't know what causes it and how I can replicate problem, as it don't seem to be tied on any singular item, but some other factor. So I probably need to play current build with couple time more with different character and see if I can pin point source of problem before I write bug report about it.

Standing enemies are much more important on battle field than downed enemies and often it is better just heavily injury enemies than kill them, because wailing enemies in ground lower morally of enemy troop usually more effectively than dead enemies and after battle wounded enemy soldiers force enemy army to spent their resource (food, beds, dressings, etc.) and men power to take care of them, where dead soldier get only buried or carried home. And wounded enemy soldiers if left behind by their 'friends' can be taken as prisoners and interrogate and then ransomed back or exchanged to prisoner taken from your side. Of course modern military practice don't necessary work in all the scenarios that come up in PoE (as there is dragons, giant beetles etc. things that modern military rarely fight against), but they at least give some incline why someone would not just finish off downed enemy.

I would guess that they have plans to add more, but they aren't currently very high in to-do list for artists.

They could use exploration xp for that, by awarding player xp if they reach the room/whatever is behind the locked door/trap field/etc..

Difficulty level is different from game mechanics in that way that it changes how rules and mechanics in game work and so creating different challenge for the player Players can challenge themselves by deciding not to use certain mechanics or rules that developers are given them, but that has little to do with developers letting players to do what they want and more that developers didn't offer enough challenge modes for players. Selecting higher or lower difficulty level isn't as itself way to play game in more or less efficiently, but it can change what is most efficient or lest efficient way play the game. And in my opinion player electing not to use some mechanics in the game don't make original design better even if it makes game more enjoyable for the player.

Right now, from what I tested yesterday, you can put 4 enchantments on a weapon (armor or shield). The "Exceptional" is a single enchantment. I need to verify if the DT Reduction count has one, I don't remember. So you can add 2 more enchantments on that Estoc. Also, the enchant button on the weapon always show up, you need to go in the enchant panel to see that you can't put more enchantments on a weapons and try some enchantments (nothing is telling you that you reached the max anywhere). When I try enchant it, the known recipes list don't show +weapon mods selection, so I can't add any enchantments on it. Same thing has happened also other equipment that should be enchant-able, which is I think it is bug, but I can't be sure as I don't know for sure that I should be able to enchant it (and those other items).

I find it bit strange that you can enchant that Exceptional Estoc, I think it is bug also but I am not sure.

Save-scumming is not problem as itself, but it can become problem if using save-scumming is most efficient or in worst case necessary way to play the game, then one could argue that there is something wrong in how game mechanics are designed, especially how rewards and punishments are designed. In WL2 it is not necessary, main quest cannot be stopped by a random roll (outside of combat :D). It is not necessary, but in many cases it is most efficient way to play the game, because of high reward for successes and heavy punishment for failures design ideology that game uses. But save scumming is not necessary problem in WL2, as game is designed so that players can save-scum if they want, meaning that it's feature that designer of the game were fully aware of and decided to included it any way, so it is intended feature that is purposefully included in the game, so its existence is problematic only if it makes game feel less fun to play, which is thing that depends on individual that you ask about it.

Save-scumming is not problem as itself, but it can become problem if using save-scumming is most efficient or in worst case necessary way to play the game, then one could argue that there is something wrong in how game mechanics are designed, especially how rewards and punishments are designed.

1. And that is still OK if you can also finish the game without everyone using ARs.3. No there are no such doors/containers. Everything can be passed in multiple ways. I would say that shooting twice per turn with end game sniper rifles using head shot with 100% accuracy is much more effective than using end game assault rifles with burst, as sniper can single shot most of the enemies quite far away.

E3 video showed that there is background specific choices in conversations, but in interviews developers said that background choices don't lock out any content (quest/items/etc.), but they give player ability to have personalized character, meaning that those background specific conversation options are there only for roleplaying purposes, like for example player can tell npc where their character is originating from and what they did before they joined doomed caravan, etc..

I disagree because in this point because BB_Fighter does fine with 1H weapon. Constantly over 30 points damage per hit and weaker enemies he slaughter with ease as you can see from my screen shot, where he uses that default axe which he starts with.

I would say that fighter is most OP class in current build, here see for yourself

yup, you are correct if goal is to get same actual change instead of just setting 30% relative difference between attribute values and then adjusting base values according to that. For such goal they should use formula like "damage/healing base value * (1.2 + might bonus)" which would give out exact same numbers than previous version.

I would say that it depends how you want look at it. Difference in between might 3 and might 18 is in both cases is 30% (0 as zero point might 3 gives character +6% and might 18 gives character +36%, 10 as zero point might 3 gives -14% and might 18 gives +16% ). So in that sense it cosmetic change. But if base values in game aren't changed accordingly then there will be changes in in final values of things in the game. But one could argue that base values are actually interdependent thing from attribute bonuses, which can be adjusted independently to change balance in the game. So ultimately you can say that change is cosmetic or that it isn't cosmetic and be right depending on how you want to look at it.

I think helmets could be changed so that they give +1 - +2 DT and -1 - -5 to accuracy. Which gives them role that isn't fully cosmetic but don't make them too overpowered.

Pathfinder added active abilities through feats.5e added fighter subtypes where some are passive and some have active abilities so they catered to both type of players. OE can do the same. They can, but is there any more compelling reason to do so than catering hypothetical groups of players that may or may not exists in meaningful scale? Meaning is there some reason from point of view game mechanics or gameplay that would be better with such approach instead of going with quite low maintenance (singular active ability and some modal abilities) build that can be made more high maintenance with feats by adding more modal and active abilities, even though current set of feats don't yet convey this fully (but at least it is or has been the plan to give fighters such feats)? So is the point that fighters should be even more passive in their basic build or do you only feel that there isn't enough feats that give fighters more active abilities? I feel PoE should give its backers a way to play the game similarly to IE games where some classes were very low maintenance while also providing active abilities for newer players. It does not need to be through feets but through multiple choice of class abilities during level up. So you feel that fighters (and some other classes) in PoE are currently too high maintenance by default?

Why effect in the game is not good enough? Because effect isn't as massive as it is in AD&D. And I would point out that when you calculate average damage increase caused by might in combat compared to AD&D you should also take account factor that character's in PoE do damage with their attacks more regularly than character's in AD&D, because default hit change is higher in PoE.

It's not cosmetic. The attribute bonuses have been nerfed through the roof. Previously 18 Might gave you +36% damage, and changed your Morningstar damage (base 18-28) to 24.48 - 38.08 Now 18 Might gives you +16% damage, and you get 20.88 - 32.48 Pretty big difference. 18 Dexterity used to give you 18 Accuracy, now 18 Perception gives you 8. And so on and so forth. If something didn't change in Obsidian end after discussion in attribute thread it should have been only cosmetic change, but they may have forgotten or not have time or wanted to adjust every creatures' and characters' stats in world lower but haven't made all the changes yet or maybe wanted to rise relative power level of some creatures and characters, hard to say when we don't know what their intentions behind changes are. I would say if they would disclose their intentions we could give more accurate feedback how we feel about how well they have succeeded in those intentions, but maybe their intention is just to adjust numbers around until most of the feedback about them become positive/accepting/something like that.

Pathfinder added active abilities through feats.5e added fighter subtypes where some are passive and some have active abilities so they catered to both type of players. OE can do the same. They can, but is there any more compelling reason to do so than catering hypothetical groups of players that may or may not exists in meaningful scale? Meaning is there some reason from point of view game mechanics or gameplay that would be better with such approach instead of going with quite low maintenance (singular active ability and some modal abilities) build that can be made more high maintenance with feats by adding more modal and active abilities, even though current set of feats don't yet convey this fully (but at least it is or has been the plan to give fighters such feats)? So is the point that fighters should be even more passive in their basic build or do you only feel that there isn't enough feats that give fighters more active abilities?

It is minor

Wizards are somewhat good in 301, but I think they need bit faster casting or their spells need their power tuned up little bit. Of course we don't currently see one of wizards major advantages in BB, which is versatility in their spell list and ability to switch grimoires in middle of battle to get access spell that are better suited on your needs.