Elerond

I would say that they are overreacting and unnecessary invasion privacy of their journalists/writers. Because if you don't trust publication/journalist/writer/etc. then I don't think it will make any difference do you know if said publication/journalist/writer has given money for project/game/person/etc., without it being investment with monetary returns from products sales/other income, they are covering, but same time such policy causes said publication/journalist/writer/etc. lose their right to use their money as they see fit. But they are free to do what they want, but I think that this is going in comical levels.

I agree that there should be narrative reason for every encounter in the game. Which is why I would change beetles to bandits (as people spoke in town about bandits on the road [if I remember correctly]) And I think Sensuki's idea about bodies or maybe food hoard would make occurrence wolves look more natural. And I would like also know narrative reason why there are different type spiders in one nest.

I would like to see character portraits in left upper corner, because combat is currently so fast paced even with pause that it is quite important see character status changes as soon as possible and left upper corner is best place for such information for people that have used to read from left to right and from up to down. Both logs are currently quite important to actually comprehend fully what happens on screen, so logs probably should be moved in left lower corner, lower middle where they are easier to follow same time when eyes are focused on middle of the screen where action happens. Control panel I would probably put in right upper or lower corner as it see quite little of use in course of the game. EDIT: It probably should mentioned that I think that better visual feedback on battlefield would lessen significantly importance of the logs. Currently visual feedback don't give you nearly enough information what is happening in the fight.

This happened to me too, but my journal had also emptied itself which I though was probably reason why she didn't talk. Also I could not open secret door in next chamber by using lever in wall, as using didn't nothing.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/314089 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/327839 This is what Obsidian promised for backers about experience system and non-combat skills during Kickstarter campaign. And which they need to take into account when they design or alter their design for those.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd13fE5WJ3c This seems to be good fit for this topic

A guy broke up with his girlfriend and posted the "why" to a website with screencaps of texts and tweets. Girlfriend is a game developer who (according to the posted screenies) admitted to a relationship with a game journalist who wrote positively about her game while still in a relationship with guy. Internet explodes. At least that's what I've gotten out of it. Like I said before, if an insider said EA was paying kotaku to get good reviews and positives articles, the internet would explode (and rightfuly so) But since it's a woman that had sex with a journalist (instead of bribing him with money) apparently a lot of people are dismissing the issue right away, people can't even discuss this in many websites without getting their comments deleted and their accounts shadowbanned. Even here I've seen many users suggesting the thread be deleted wich is embarrasing. Internet didn't explode when GameSpot fired one of their journalist because he gave too low score for Kane&Lynch, because Eidos (games publisher) demanded it, by threatening removing their ads from GameSpot's webpage. Eidos was then one of GameSpot's biggest advertisers. And that isn't singular case where big game sites have exposed to get payments for good reviews by big publishers. Now days they only do it more subtlety by getting journalist to play their demo versions in controlled events and then hype their games.

Or move damage for fire arms to Perception. You could same time but melee damage there as hitting right place is much more important than putting strength behind hit when it comes to making most damage. And you also could put healing there, as seeing where damage is quite important to maximize your patching efforts. Then we could put interrupt in might as harder hits have higher probability to cause character to lose their concentration. And dadaa everything is solved without any actual changes in system

Stoneskin stops attack as whole, so it don't cause any effects.

One thing that I don't understand in this scandal is why 4chan and other similar online communities advertise Zoe Quinn and her game so vigorously?

You could farm your characters to level cap in couple hours in BG by killing respawning high xp monsters like sirens for example.

For part three there is already Exhaustion mechanic, although it is governed by athletics skill instead of constitution

Even 33 pages worth of bugs and more isn't something that they could not fix in 3 months, it is quite lot time to fix bugs, finding all the bugs from the game is usually the thing which fails, as it can be quite hard thing to do for any software and especially when we speak game that is over 30 hours long, with multiple ways to complete.

Wizards don't read their grimoires, but use soul energy absorbed to them to cast spells and spell pages on those grimoires do most of the work in the casting. And might also represent character's mental strength addition to physical strength and intellect represent character's logic and reasoning capabilities, it is not such general all including as D&D's intelligence attribute (and for some reason D&D's wizards never actually read books as their wisdom is generally only about average ).

Regarding bow: bow strings have a certain amount of kg of pull that they support, so a stronger bowman can pull further the string and transfer more force to the arrow once shoot, while the amount of force that a crossbow transfer to a bolt is only given to the physical structur of the crossbow itself. Bu this is an abstraction because if you apply to much force to a bow string the string could snap or a bowman with a certain level of strength could always pull the string at his max capacity, it's simply another method for calculating bow damage (with some actual logic on his side). For the rest: i'm not fairly sure what do you mean with magic add physical damage, you mean like in a lot of anime? Do we really want to move this game over the JRPG area? And lastly: Str:govern everithing that require physical force Dex:given or taken as it is in poe Con:Health Int:govern everything that require insubstantial force like magic,intelligence(the mind,the psyche call it as you want) rapresent the will that people put in controlling something invisble and insubstantial I would use only those attribute, the rest would be only a series of skill. Bows have certain draw length which is optimal them, and pulling over it will only hinder usage of bow, as if you draw arrow to behind it will not leave cleanly from bow and lose accuracy and speed and if you use longer arrows there is still limit how long you can pull bow and longer arrows are also heavier, which means that longer draw don't necessary compensate speed lose which their weight will cause, and drawing bow too much also risks their structural integrity. So stronger bow man needs to use stronger bow to actually get any more strength to their shots. You can also in theory put more gunpowder in blunderbusses, pistols and arquebuses to get more velocity for bullet, and stronger man can use more gunpowder as they can handle bigger kick from the weapon, but in reality those weapons can handle only certain amount gunpowder, before their structural integrity is compromised, which is usually amount they are recommended to use with. For example spell sharper edge that adds physical damage that your sword does, is this damage covered by strength or intelligence in you system. So what skills you would then add to replace mechanics that are in PoE (health, concentration, interrupt, size of areas and duration of effects for abilities that aren't from insubstantial force (like barbarian carnage, and rogues special attacks))

What is your reasoning that strength adds damage that bows do? Archer's strength determines only how strong bow they are able to use not how much power bow can put behind arrows that are shot with it. And if magic adds physical damage that character do should that damage be determined by character's strength or intelligence? And what is reasoning behind you choice? And how attributes should work otherwise in your system, meaning what attributes there should be, what they should do and reasoning behind them? As it is easy to demand changes in system but it is much harder to actually make them work in the game as intended.

D&D wizards have always had that versatility. Aside from choosing a specialist school and locking out some sets of spells, you could always fill out your spellbook from scrolls (plus you chose 0 spells on level up after level 1). Do you also oppose priests/druids having their full spellbook granted at each level? Having an interesting range of talents (ideally with more unique natures than the IWD2 wizard feats, which were chiefly "improve DC's for this type of spell" and "increase damage for this elemental type") is probably going to be the key to making customisation interesting on level up. Incidentally, I think it'd be nice if the pure casting classes had the odd (passive?) class ability other than just more spells. Not necessarily every level, but Osvir's level 1-5 class summary definitely shows up the lack of other defining characteristics in the absence of talents. Alternatively, having a few additional class-specific talents that may be selected in addition to the general pool could work. Pathfinder does this nicely, extending 3E a bit. Talents need to offer very specific boosts that can't be achieved by tweaking attributes alone -- that will allow higher levels to shape unique characters beyond what CC permits. I don't oppose how they get their spells, but I think that it would be nice if they would have more meaningful choices in leveling up, meaning that I think that there should be talents, attribute adds or some other things that have permanent impact in how your character is build, because otherwise only really meaningful choices you do towards your character's build are done in character creation and as currently even those choices aren't very impactful, which makes wizards quite uninteresting character's to build (which of course don't mean that they are uninteresting character's to play with.). Of course situation with wizards is about same as it was in IE games that use AD&D rule system variation, as there you rolled perfect or about perfect stat line for character and then select where you put weapon proficiency points in. Reason why I want impactful choices for character during level up instead of pure power bonus is that I think it will add more replay value in the game as it will encourage players try same classes in multiple playthroughs as they have option to build them play differently from their previous playthrough.

To me spiritual successor for IE games don't mean that you need adopt rule systems from those games, but more overall things like isometric view angle, party placed gameplay, fantasy themes, certain aesthetic look, tactical combat gameplay, exploration, interesting plot, memorable characters. To me any single detail in rule system isn't important if it is as whole fun to play with and I don't think that designers should limit themselves with certain rule system solutions only because they were used in IE games, if they feel that some other solution would make gameplay more fun.

More beef abilities have more they will influence how character is optimal to build. Of course it maybe possible to create talent system that can work around that, but I am quite certain that it will be much more difficult to design and balance. Where less beefier (but not meaningless) abilities work as in roleplay purpose to tell player what kind character they are playing, but it will not in any case fully define what build/s and roles are most optimal for that character.

It make same way sense why one stat make you hit more accurate in melee and same time gives you ability carry more stuff, or stat that gives you ability to hit more accurate with missile weapon also make you better to dodge things and etc. Attribute systems are always abstractions which is why they never can accurately represent reality.

I agree wit OP that less impactive attribute system helps make choices in leveling after first level feel more important. Although currently any of the classes don't have enough choices in level up to give player feeling that they can influence how their character is build up. Wizards are worst offenders in removing impact from player choices in leveling up, as they can always use other grimoires to use spells that they didn't select in leveling up. I think that this current lack of impactful choices in level up is probably one of the main reasons why people feel that attributes should have more impact in the game.

That seems that they were hacked, as it against indiegogo's procedures to edit project pages or/and publicly announce their take-downs.

I am fan (like I think most of people here are) of IE games, but I thought and still think that Obsidian did right decision when they decided to use widerscale objective xp instead of giving xp from specific tasks like killing enemies, using skills and etc. things. I don't have anything against xp system that IE games use, but I don't think that it is any way superior than any other xp system and Obsidian had very specific goals what they wanted to accomplish in PoE, and they thought that they can achieve those goals better with objective based system and after playing beta quite lot I must say that they seemed to succeed with those goals with quite well, sure it is quite small sample of full game so any defined judgement is hard to give about subject, but at least inside of that small sample system seems to do what it is supposed to do.

I ran beta through with monk, I has to say that their ability to take and deal damage seems to be very good. Although I found that I didn't like how wounds resource reset after every encounter, which made monks abilities in most cases less useful compared to other classes with tactics that I used.

Yep, might might seem like better stat than intellect in first glance, but to me it seems that many abilities will cause much more damage with high intellect and moderate might. And dexterity don't seem always worth of points put on it as you supporters' abilities buff so much your hit chance especially when you take account bonuses from weapons and offensive abilities, that those points probably produce better end result in some other stats. But I haven't done math yet (because of lack of knowledge about system), so best that I can do is guess.