DCParry

Technically they have changed the release date window at least twice now.

Yet to wade through the thread, but I might have a minority opinion here. I am deeply disappointed in this. The inability to stick to their schedule makes me feel more and more unsure about this game. I want this to be a good game, but endless cycles of development do a good game automatically make. Obsidisan had a chance to really stand out among the various Kickstarter developers and raise the bar. I know that isn't their job, but I am still disappointed that they can't make their own schedule. I just hope this isn't indicative of greater issues being under the wide rubric of polishing.

But the game takes place IN the colonies! You imperial bastard ;-)

Is the icon for interrupt a finger, for poking? For poking someone in the eye? If so, awesome. Awesome to the max.

What if a tool tip for the mouse-over reflected the contribution of particular stats to the derived values? This seems like it might things more transparent, and give multiple sources of information in that you could see the primary stat contributions on mouse over/tool tip pop-up (which includes both derived stat contribution as well any independent effects) and also mouse over the derived stat to see the source of the score.

Yes, in all your opinion. Thank you. The only people I see trolling in this thread are the ones who attacked the OP straight off the bat. And Caladian and yourself are still trying to justify your trolling. You actually just proved my point. I straight up admitted that I was posting was my opinion. I went the extra step of explaining how I arrived at my interruption, in order to explain why I thought the OP did not actually want any discussion and was in fact just posting to stir up trouble. I was just responding in kind, and perhaps I should have just held my tongue. I could also have just dropped my pants, shat on my keyboard, and press post, which seems to be a great hobby on the boards nowadays. Or I could post a delusional self congratulatory statement on how I have debunked the secret codes of everyone else's posts and refuse to engage in any actually discussion in order to act like I have "won" some sort of contest. This entire process is a waste of time. The OP. My response. Your meandering claims of victory. There are some good discussions going on in this section of the board. This is not one of them.

Ok, here is what I saw reading the OP: First: It has become apparent that Obsidian seems to really want to rush this game out the door. There is no basis for this. The impersonal use of the pronoun was employed in order to give his opinion an air of objective assessment instead of it being the result of his own impression. He could have easily said "I think Obsidian is trying to rush this game out the door," then the discussion could have been about those things that made him feel that way, and others could have offered their own reactions to these evens. Second: little known fact, this game was going to be released even earlier than December. How is this a little know fact? This statement is couched in terms as if he has busted some conspiracy and used to imply that Obsidian was even more unrealistic in their previous expectations. In addition, the only thing resembling an official release has always been Winter 2014. During the KS event, I believe they had hinted at a spring 2014 release, but later said that the scope of the project made them delay to winter. Of course this contradicts that poster's claim that Obsidian is trying rush the game out since they have in fact developed a schedule based on the scope of the project and not on initial expectations. But they wanted to keep it from releasing close to Dragon age 3. This statement implies that the OP has some sort of intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the decision project for release, when in fact it is entirely conjecture on the part of the OP. And the So called ""Beta"" IS acouly a alpha they just relised to make time for the December relise. And how can this NOT be trolling? Others have pointed out the problems with this statement in the thread. It is obviously in a beta state, the developers have called it a beta. It is a small slice of the game. So, in my opinion, much of what the OP wrote he just made up, and made up specifically to incite other people. It masqueraded as a constructive post (complete with the implication of evidence to back up his opinion). He could have very well expressed his concern as his own impressions and invited a discussion (or, if this wasn't just for attention, join another thread I am sure discusses this very topic somewhere else on the boards).

Funny but false as you obviously haven't read the first page of this thread. I wasn't the one to accuse the OP for complaining for complaining sake, calling the OP are moron and saying this is another troll thread. Also, when have I accused others of being a fanboy? You keep making that stuff up and believing what you want. Hey, he could be psychic. Then there would be egg on my face.

So. is this the part of the process where we come to the boards and make **** up? I assume you are either a psychic precog or a moron based on this post.

I LOVE the new combat UI changes. I feel like I have such a clearer picture of what is going on now. I was able to use arcane view preemptively and save my wizard from becoming beetle chow with greater reliability. I love the new armor stats (as I have said in other places, I also love jsawyer mod for FONV, so that may have something to do with it).

Issue - See screenshot. Crossbow description is missing important information like damage range. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=319045008

It also opens some opportunity for particular class talents to add variety (think things like Shotgun Surgeon from FONV). Certain attacks could bypass DT abd/or DR, or attacks with a certain weapon type could reduce DT. After relatively recently getting through FONV with the jsawyer mod I am mildly excited to see the DT/DR system return (even though I will never forgive whoever made the change to Barton Thorne. 12 piles of green goo and 12 reloads until that monotone marauder died!).

yes they did. Maybe not using the exact phrase "spiritual successor", but they did communicate that idea in many ways. In their kickstarter pitch, which plainly and purposefully targeted IE nostalgia. In interviews with gaming sites during and after the kickstarter - there was probably not a single one that failed to mention the IE games. By not objecting to interviews/articles on popular gaming sites where the authors actually did use the phrase "spiritual successor" in the introduction/headline/commentary. (At least where I live, it's customary for a journalist to send the interviewee a draft of the edited interview article before release, to get confirmation that the way it was edited/cut/presented still represents their views correctly. And even if they didn't get that chance, they could have complained after the articles were released.) In presentations at gaming conventions, where they started the presentation with huge slides showing the IE games. In their two-sentence pitch on the game's official website, where they boil down the essence of what they are selling to this:"Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PILLARS OF ETERNITY." Seriously, the effort by some posters here to shout down arguments that involve comparisons to the IE games, and trying to convince us that the whole IE connection is just in our heads and our own fault, is starting to approach the abusive tactic of gaslighting. You can't say they claimed to be a spiritual successor and then go on to say they never said spiritual successor. You (and a whole crew of individuals) may have inferred this, but Obsidian never used the term spiritual successor, and they are in no way obligated to pander to whatever restrictions you feel are imposed by such a terms. So stop it already. EDIT - DAMNIT, the craziness, it drew me in again. I will stop. THIS TIME. I CAN.

Personally, I would like to see lore used as it is now, as well as a complimentary skill to other non-combat skills. For example, a high survival could tell you which mushrooms are poisonous or tasty, but combined with a moderate lore score you would know that a particular toxic mushroom was used by the Ehthicc Nol in orgiastic rituals hundreds of years ago.

I tend to agree. But they did claim they were making a spiritual successor to BG2. THEY NEVER CLAIMED THIS. Christ, it is like I am stuck in a freaking loop of insanity seeing the same exact posts, repeated over and over again, all having no basis in any sort of reality.

A couple things - Beta =\= entire game. Since combat is something that needs a lot of testing, of course the beta is going to focus on combat. Getting your panties in a wad about this is myopic at best (or most likely disingenuous and an excuse to go on a tirade about investors or what not). Josh's post is completely inline with the stated design direction of the experience system (sans the trap/lock, which is a terrible idea). No one who wasn't a complete maniac thought you were only going to get experience for things explicitly in your quest log. Objectives that award experience do not have to be known before hand (although of course they will after the first play throughs and such). EDIT - DAMNIT! Evil magic made me post in an experience thread again even though I swore I wouldn't!

So, I have been playing Wasteland 2 mostly enjoying my experience, but I wanted to mention something that seems to bother me now (I assume it didn't before because I don't remember feeling the the white hot rage of simmering disappointment in these particular encounters). Traps. They should make sense. Please. Make them sensible. 1) Don't put an exotic clockwork mechanism that shoots a steel needle covered with an obscure and deadly poison on the drawer to your dresser where Lord Peasantoppressor keeps his knickers. 2) I might buy it once, if the contents of a treasure chest were so dangerous that the mere possibility of me getting my grubby little mitts on it might spell doom for all the realms, but why in the nine hells would anyone put an EXPLOSIVE trap on their VALUABLES (in Wasteland 2 where such explosives are no doubt relatively rare and could be put to better use I find it frustrating, but why would someone do this in a setting where everything everyone owns in flammable?!). Just some thoughts. Traps can add some variety and all for some tension in progression, but adding them just so someone has a chance to use the mechanics skill seems like degenerative game design.

My hope is two years from now, a patch will be released with Sawyer still trying to balance the game with tweaks to the attributes, skills, etc.

Boni works, but if we want to be technically correct (which is the best kind of correct) I would suggest using the neuter plural bona.

Out of context it's hard to tell how well this is going to work. Because it all depends on the implementation. For example, if they'll have dynamic aggro tables and aggro management skills, we'll have traditional MMO combat. Which isn't odd at all though I doubt it's what we want. If there'll be enemies that will ignore all aggro and simply go for the squishiest target then the question is how often we'll encounter those. If they're few and far between, crowd control and clever positioning (maybe with occasional kiting) should suffice. But if they're common enough the most efficient party composition may turn out pretty awkward: either six glass cannons betting on destroying everything really fast or six tanky characters winning fights through impenetrable defense and slow attrition. The latter possibility is particularly disturbing because it'll certainly kill all the fun. The latter does not, by definition, kill all the fun. It is just a different way of approaching combat. You may not personally enjoy it, which is fine, but I don't think making players (many of whom are complaining about the nudery going on in their backline in beta) deal with non-optimal situations is a bad thing.

I only use my pollaxe on election day.

First, a big YES on tab highlighting ingredients. Second, I think the ability to enchant things is dependent on in world justification. In most settings, enchanting is a particular craft, like blacksmithing and such, that I find it somewhat absurd that my PC, unless I specifically pick an option that says I have spent a chunk of my life practising a craft, can surpass master craftsman after completing my apprenticeship in making 2 daggers. Hell, even if I picked up blacksmithing I should only have the experience to make simple, mundane objects like horseshoes. Same with something like alchemy, I mean, I wouldn't trust Harry Potter to mix me a milkshake much less a healing potion. However, if enchanting is just a matter or focusing your will, then if you have sufficient will than you could do it with a little training. Of course, this should then logically result in a greater density of enchanted items in the world.

Yes, one is a tactical choice, the other is a lifestyle! Anyways, I think we might be making too much of the intricate nature of combat. It is a new system STILL. We all talk about BG and how little thought could be put into so off the fights. What if, however, you think of the beetles as skeletons. Would you attack a mob of skeletons (wasn't there a low-level graveyard in NWN2? I forget. I am old) with your spears and pikes would you? Even if you had a long sword specialization, it is better to switch over your morning star and bash away. This encounter didn't foreshadow that every encounter required a dedicated weapon set, so we might take a deep breath and not assume that the beetles do either. 1: NWN2 isn't an IE game. 2: Whether or not it was a good idea to switch weapons depended on how specialized your pc was in that weapon type. I can't remember how much better crushing weapons were against skeletons exactly, but the difference between crushing weapons and others wasn't this extreme. It was an Obsidian game. It was a game based of a D&D rule set. IE games were based of a D&D rule set. Most CRPG's adaptations of D&D rule sets implemented skeletons in a consistent manner. It follows that discussing skeletons as they were implemented in NWN2 is similar enough to IE games for inclusion. In addition, you are working on the assumption that IE games are the only previous system that is usable as a comparison for the current game. So, your point is useless. As for 2, half damage is a big deal in my book with a mostly static hit/miss system. In PoE you have to take into account DR, grazes and so on, so it is not particularly surprising to see 1 point of damage. Even with non-crushing weapons, you are not doing all 1 point hits. It is perfect possible to clear the area without crushing weapons as well. EDIT - Also, apparently in 3ED, skeletons had a DR of 5 vs. non-blunt, which is huge. All of this is besides the point. The point is, beetles can be beaten with any weapon (didn't Sensuki do a 94 crit with a crossbow?); crushing weapons make this easier; this is one encounter in a limited beta that can be made easier with specific weapon selections. It does not follow that all encounters will require such micromanaging (if you call weapon selection that) to succeed on NORMAL.

Yes, one is a tactical choice, the other is a lifestyle! Anyways, I think we might be making too much of the intricate nature of combat. It is a new system STILL. We all talk about BG and how little thought could be put into so off the fights. What if, however, you think of the beetles as skeletons. Would you attack a mob of skeletons (wasn't there a low-level graveyard in NWN2? I forget. I am old) with your spears and pikes would you? Even if you had a long sword specialization, it is better to switch over your morning star and bash away. This encounter didn't foreshadow that every encounter required a dedicated weapon set, so we might take a deep breath and not assume that the beetles do either.

No. Working Systems, by definition, must operate with a modicum of consistency. Otherwise they're amateurishly flawed and you can't even call them systems. And When it comes to experience distribution the problem is magnified. Lack of consistency does nothing but cause confusion and makes players feel like the game is a buggy mess. (ie. "hey, I got no XP for completing this quest!" Or "how come the last hidden passage I found granted me 200XP but, this one granted me none?") I think the issue is where the level of arbitrariness lies. It is a sliding scale. A system can be internally consistent but still be an arbitrary system.