Elerond

I know there's loot down there in that corner, in a wall of some ruins iirc. Can't remember what the loot was though. A pointless encounter in the corner of the map was enough for me to never go back down there again. The IE games were filled with pointless encounters, especially BG1. And those wolves are around my favorite spot to rest on the map, so I always dispatch them. I guess that wolves in Dyrford Crossing are where they are because area is from time of the vertical slice, meaning that is from the time when you needed to use dedicate resting places to rest and I think that tower ruin where wolves are is that dedicate resting place for Dyrford Crossing and wolves were meant be just small easy encounter to take over that resting place. And as now you can rest in anywhere that encounter has lost its original meaning and works only to bring some flavor for the map.

What is that fun that balance in system destroys? Players ability get through challenges in game without getting challenged? Removing players ability to choose class that is better than other classes? Removing players ability to find which ability is better than other abilities in same level? Removing players ability to do perfect build that is better than any other build that they could do? Do you feel that classes in PoE play same regardless of which you choose?

That's actually not the attribute of a turn based system that I'm referring to, ironically enough. Turn based systems are by their nature, methodical and ponderous. Combat in PoE is methodical and ponderous. There's your linkage. Turn based systems are system where game flow is partitioned with well-defined and visible parts called turns, nothing more nothing less. Although turn-based systems can be more complex than real-time systems without causing severe issues in game flow as by nature they have more disjointed game flow. You're missing a detail here. Turn based RPGs pause the game while the player considers and enacts his turn for each party member they control. This is the methodical and ponderous part that I referred to. I've played plenty of turn based video games in my day, that pausing component is a fundamental part of the experience. I liken that experience to the longer pause times that I experience also in PoE. No in turn based game there is turns where player can do their actions and then there is turns for other parties usually AI or game master. Turns can consist very simple things like move one game piece to another square. Turn-baseness don't bring anything methodical or ponderous in the game, but turn-based systems allow more complex rules without making game unplayable in extent that most players can't play it. Because of turns there is no pausing in turn based games as time is controlled by turns not by clock.

One of their goals was to make combat feel as intense as it is in IWDs. Most of tediousness in combat comes from fact that it is often hard to tell what happens in it and that controls don't work as well as one would want. And I also think that weapons and abilities don't currently have right balance which causes combat become maybe bit too hard if one is using less optimal combinations in combat. IMO

That's actually not the attribute of a turn based system that I'm referring to, ironically enough. Turn based systems are by their nature, methodical and ponderous. Combat in PoE is methodical and ponderous. There's your linkage. Turn based systems are system where game flow is partitioned with well-defined and visible parts called turns, nothing more nothing less. Although turn-based systems can be more complex than real-time systems without causing severe issues in game flow as by nature they have more disjointed game flow. PoE having or not having complex, demanding, what ever system has nothing to do with turn-baseness. RTwP is system that is invented to allow more complex systems in real-time games by giving player option to pause game to control and command their characters/or what ever they need to do.

PoE's combat has nothing to do with turn based systems, as it don't even have anything that one could call representing turn let alone having actual turns.

http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/97094696076/would-you-consider-giving-xp-for-selected-unique

Currently, stealth applies to the whole party. Rogues would get a lot more interesting if stealth was individual and could be used during a fight for better tactical positioning. Seconded. Isn't stealth kind of broken though at the moment? With the sizes of the circles depending on not only your own stealth rating but the ratings of your other party members as well. Is this by design, Josh? If so, what's the reason for it? (no combative tone intended, just curious) In my understanding skill requirement for default size of ring depend on average perception of enemies and maybe average stealth skill in your party. And then character's personal skill/perception tells how much smaller/larger character's ring is than default ring. This is in my understanding done because they want to work with stealth and perception that are between certain limits and so that higher level areas need higher stealth skill than lower level areas.

I think eternal skeletons and phantoms would work fine as they are, if they were in wizard's, druid's or priest's spell list as they can cast only limited number of spells in day, but on chanter's, who can cast unlimited number of spell per day, I think they are overpowered. If they will be kept on chanters I would change them so that they don't have health but only stamina and that they lose one stamina per second.

Interrupts against ranged characters are currently rare as enemies about always target front liners, but I would guess that better AI could cause interrupts become meaningful factor when one considers which ranged weapons characters will wield, especially if one is such area of game where majority of enemies don't have DT 10 or more.

Yes but currently they do so much more damage that bows don't seem to can keep up with over all damage even with unarmored enemies let alone armored ones. As currently person armed with exceptional war bow does only one third of damage that what person with fine arquebus does, but can't get third shot done before person with arquebus has shot second time. And against heavily armored enemies war bows damage is negated nearly completely, where arquebus loses only one third of it damage.

I think that arbalests, arquebuses and that blunderbuss from pig farmer Rumbald (Lead Spitter with its doubled damage) have currently significant advantage against other ranged weapons especially against hunting and war bows how effective they are against everything, because they do consistently more damage during fights. I don't feel that they are necessary overpowered, but that other weapon choices are underpowered against enemies that we fight in the beta.

Chanter's summoning spells are overpowered when they don't bug out. As currently summons exist until they die or player rests and new summon destroys previous one (although this isn't always case with phantom which can in some cases summoned multiple copies at same time) With current AI behavior enemies attack always closest enemies or those that attacked them. This gives player ability to sent summons in close combat making all enemies to agro them letting your party to kill them with ranged attacks (which is helped by chanter's chant that makes ranged attacks faster and more powerful and same time generates invocation resource to summon fresh patch of minion in end of the fight). This means that chanter's party can annihilate everything (given that character vanishing bug don't cause vanishment of your main character/hired chanter) in beta without losing any health or need to rest even single time at whole time or even use single strategic resource of any sort, outside of first battle where you need to wait for invocation resources to use summoning for first time.

I would guess that "Teleport through earth" isn't meant to be final name for that ability but joke that developers made based on how its implementation in vertical slice/prototype/beta/etc. version worked. Paralyze or petrify both can work depending on do you want names that are perfectly clear what they mean or do you like more figurative names, but when you take consideration how abilities that player controlled characters have are named, paralyze seems more fitting name for that ability which crystal spiders have.

Those places are already checked and xp from them is awarded to player when they finally find someone that gives quest for the player, which I think that they should make them give hints about quest givers location if quest in question isn't activated. It would make system responses feel much better for player that focus more on exploration.

Quoting myself from previous thread But as farmer quest that beta uses is prototype version and not actual version of the quest (which you can find from game files) I think they don't necessary have all variations of xp checks in place, as prototype file seems to only check if you have quest activated when you enter in the cave and add text in journal if you do. They should in final version of quest probably add something in your journal xp check points to tell you that things that you have found or kill are part of quest/task Like for example when entering in spider cave there could be journal entry something like this "This seem very gloomy place maybe I should go back in town and try find more information before I venture forth". And if you still go forward and kill ogre or negotiate with it/him/her then there could be entry like this "I have killed orge in cave in near of the town, and as ogres are creatures that have bad habit to cause problems for near by kith settlements I decided to take it head with me and check if anybody will give reward for it" or like this "I persuaded ogre that lived in cave that was near by town to leave the area and as ogres are creatures that have bad habit to cause problems for near by kith settlements, I probably should go check if anybody is interested about getting rid of said ogre and collect easy reward".

Has anyone experimented to see what happens if you go to the cave before you talk to the farmer? I did this and killed ogre, any of this don't give you xp. But when you go town and speak with farmer I got xp from finding ogre's cavern when I got quest from him. Some reason I can't give orgre's head for the farmer to finish the quest but I think reason for that is that my main is chanter and she did vanishing act caused by bug which your character can vanish when you change area when you have skeleton minions summoned. But as farmer quest that beta uses is prototype version and not actual version of the quest (which you can find from game files) I think they don't necessary have all variations of xp checks in place, as prototype file seems to only check if you have quest activated when you enter in the cave and add text in journal if you do.

I feel that camera is more convenient to control by using mouse in this game, which is why I don't feel it is important to use most conveniently placed keyboard keys to control camera, but other things in the game.

They also defined what they meant with term, which seems not to be comparable with all meanings that people have for such term. With some generic gobbledygook And with some more specific details Added with more specifics about how they will spent money that we gave them And then they added more details about their vision in updates. But regardless do you agree with them or me or anybody about what was promised and meant about PoE being spiritual successor for IE games and how well PoE fulfills those promises and meaning, I think it is overall in that point of time bit moot thing to chew the cud, because PoE fulfill or not fulfill peoples standards for spiritual successor status and that probably will not change significantly in next few months and only thing that people can realistically hope anymore is to get PoE polished so that it will be enjoyable RPG experience regardless of fact can it fulfill one's personal standards for spiritual successor status for IE games. IMHO.

Urm... Ouch.... I guess that means I need to adjust my playstyle... Do anyone know why? Even Baldurs Gate 1 and 2 had healing, so I see no reason why not PoE should have it.. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/328976

Wait, is he designing this game for himself? Of course our opinions are what matter... not his. No, he don't design game for himself, but also it don't think it matters what you or anybody else than designer thinks when it comes to things that designer feels to be mistakes done by him, which he don't want to make again, in that it is only his opinion that matters in end of the day (as they are his personal feeling about subject) and only thing that you can do if you disagree is to try to make him see that he didn't make mistake in first place. This of course don't stop you giving favorable opinions or demanding features that designer feels to be mistakes, but if you can't convince him that he didn't made mistake in first place then it is quite likely that he will continue to think that he made mistake in first place, which usually mean that he will not want to do it again. But of course in case of PoE designer under scrutiny don't necessary have final word how things will be and you can try influence other people that has power to overrule his decision, but I don't think that even that will change his view about subject, but you could get what you want.

I don't see these things as mistakes. But I really don't think it matters if you don't see them as mistakes if person that made or was part of making said things thinks/feels that they are mistakes. Especially I don't think that it helps that people keep attacking said person on their view that said things that they made or were part of making are mistakes. Issues under discussion are things that at least some people feel to be broken at least some level, meaning that they aren't universally seen working as they are originally meant to work or that their existence makes things better, even if they aren't game ruining things.

If you know that your design or design that you have used previously has flaw in it, and then you design new system that has only spiritual/aesthetic (meaning that you don't try copy that previous design you used but only mimic overall feeling that it gave out) link to previous design you used what kind of logic you should use to just copy paste that flaw in you new design and be happy about it? Because as software designer I try always fix/avoid my design mistakes in next design I do, because I feel that it is quite idiotic not to do so.

I liked IE games as they were, but I have never hold notion that they are perfect or that their systems don't have problems, which haven't prevented me from enjoying them or holding them with high regard.

So, ultimately, you can't hover over at the start of combat and have all the information available, even with a high Lore value? With current system high lore value brings more information about enemy with each hit and kill, which I don't think is most intuitive system and beta's scope and variety of enemies don't let you benefit from that information much with character that finds it out, although you can use your meta game knowledge with next character.