zimcub

So we got people with Soul power casting Kamehamehas in combat, with a mouse over mechanics that display Power levels of your opponent. Can we actually get some proper spell casting animations, please???

This is a design decision made with the exact purpose of preventing the mindless pre-fight buffing of the IE games. Buffs are now a tactical decision, not a 3 minute spell spam session. Personally, I consider this to be a blessing. Pre-fight buffing was always a chore to me. I fail to see how this is different to what it is now. Now instead of prebuffing each fight, you cast aoe spells at the enemy before they can see you. How is this not degenerative game play? Literally nothing would change if they made buffs castable outside of combat now, since none of them last very long, so you wouldn't be able to get more than 2 off. Which is exactly the number of spells you usually use to aoe the enemies now.

I know this isn't a solution but i at least think this is a better idea than it is now: After your stamina reaches 0 your character doesn't fall to the ground, but instead just takes double health damage until he gets stamina back? (or whatever number is appropriate) After your character is exhausted they lost most of the power to defend themselves properly. EDIT: And reverse the portrait damage and the green health bar with each other.

Is this true? Or are you making it up?

I am and i see is you trying to backtrack and worm yourself out of an argument you got in to because you "assumed" (quote the irony) that Cubiq is another doombringer. So, what are you doing here again? Telling others they aren't allowed to "assume" because of some other people in a different thread? Why don't you stop white knighting for the developers, and telling people what they should and shouldn't imagine on this forum (It's not "encouragement", if you're the only one who thinks it is), since the developers are perfectly capable of stopping any argument they want to, with actual information about the game, if it's wrong, or by moderation if they feel they go too far. You're just telling people what to do based on the ASSUMPTION that it MIGHT not be what they think it is, so you got absolutely no ground here yourself. And what you think is too doom and gloom might not be for the rest of the people here, and you have no right to decide where the line is. The developers/moderators do. And i'm pretty sure that if you had actually been in an argument (i say argument, because you clearly have different views) with some of the people (like Cubiq) and instead of telling them they are just assuming things, you would immediately find out from them what they actually want from the game, since the topic goes hand in hand. Oh no i didn't misunderstand, i pushed you because I've been reading your posts for a while (they are hard to miss on this forum) and in most posts you talk like a politician, where you try to shift the point away after you are confronted by it with some kind of philosophy. Even now, I asked you to specificlly point out the people you believe to be the cause of this discussion, and you still have not shown a single post on who "they" are, that you keep talking about, so that we may compare it to Cubiq's post and see what exactly gave you the right to tell Cubiq he should, instead of pointing out his fears and worries for the game, in the attempt to reach out to developers and see his point, be thinking about roses and daisies. I am actually giving you a way out here, the benefit of the doubt, (and i can't believe i have to point it out for you), that maybe, just MAYBE the posts are such horrors and unspeakable monstrocities, that gives you the right to stop and repress "other" post in "other" threads from "other" people that might have something to do with "assumption" and game design in the same post, even though it might help development, in some cases. You are and I'll prove it in the next 2 quotes Never, ever said I expected that I only said that, since they haven't commented on the specifics, we don't know that quests will be like Candlekeep quests. So there's no need to point out a "flaw" in a quest system that is dependent upon the game being filled with Candlekeep-like quests. You did. A direct quote from you, from your reply to Cubiq. If we ignore the part where you just tried to worm yourself out of a point by twisting words and trying to deny what you clearly said. Please explain to me exactly HOW do you expect them to point out with "specifics" that there won't be Candlekeep like quests other than them stating it directly? Perhaps with a vague statement like: "There won't be short quests"? Really? and who defines what is short? There won't be xp attached to trivial tasks? Really? who defines what is trivial? Maybe the developers don't consider the Candlekeep quests to be short or trivial? If they consider the quests to be an "important part of getting to know the world". Then they might be an exception to any statement they use to define other quests. It's absolutely unrealistic to expect them go in to such "specifics" unless you intentionally point it out to them. (to which you have already said is not allowed because we aren't allowed to "assume")

Hahahahahahahahaha, if those are the people you're talking about, then yes i agree, you have a valid point (however that doesn't seem like what happened here). I've learned not to even bat an eyelash at those kind of comments, so i can't even take those people as a serious point of discussion. Probably also why i can't actually remember seeing them, because i probably erased them from my mind.

I can't read the threads, because i have serious lack of time, because of my job and i probably won't be able to for another month or two. And saying go read about "them" doesn't really tell me much. Lephys first commented how things aren't the truth and that we don't know what the truth will be so it's better to imagine a "perfect world", where everything comes true, because a discussion based on speculation is a bad thing. We explain why we think the discussion is important about this, even if it's speculation. And now he's telling me, he said that because some guys in ANOTHER thread annoy hm and are ruining things by taking it too far? I pushed Lephys because he talks like a politician, where every post ends with "maybe i think that way, maybe i don't", and when i push him on what on earth he's actually talking about, all i get is "they" and "them" are doing "that", which i still fail to see what it has to do with this thread. If you have a bone to pick with some of the posts, then point it out specifically, but don't tell new posters on what they should be imagining instead. Especially if your only problem here is "other" people with brick-like minds in "other" threads. There will be flame wars on every forum, where people actually care about the product and i think it's a necessary evil, if it means that developers can find gold nuggets among the discussion, because that is when posters actually give it their all to make a point. And for all we know, those brick-walled people, just might be right, since we know just as much as them. And Lephys's expectation, that developers will actually mention things specifically, like "we plan to make Candlekeep-like quests", is unrealistic as they won't comment on every single thing they do. Things like this will be apparent only when the game is actually complete, which will be too late, so i see nothing wrong with him posting his fear about it either, and thus notifying the developers (if the read it) on what they should also be careful about.

Really? you could have fooled me. Bull****, you're talking like a politician, you specifically slammed people who so called "complained" based on speculation and you're obviously talking about them in the lower quote. This makes absolutely no sense. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying this game will DEFINITELY have achievement based xp. Because developers said it will (unless someone convinces them otherwise, which has not yet happened, which is why people are complaining, yes?). If it's the truth, then there's no problem discussing about it, especially if people don't like it. And like with absolutely every information it sometimes gets distorted, and this will happen even after actual game comes out and there's no going around that. And there's also absolutely nothing wrong with saying that it MIGHT have such an Armor design, if it's true. I just rechecked and i saw that there has been no update on the official armor design thread. And the last thing that Sawyer said was that they are working on a new system, however if it fails they will move back to the 50% reduction. There is no reason why you can't bring up the issue and point out that it's a bad design, even as a failsafe. There's no reason to wait for the system to already be implemented before bringing it up, especially if they might not change it later because of time constraints. There is EVERY reason for people to discuss these things, as they aren't even speculations. And if you have an issue with any specific claims where people say things will DEFINITELY be in the game, and aren't true please feel free to point them out. Otherwise these two are true facts and if a player decides not to invest in the game because of them, then he has every right not to. And if you're going to point out that "things might change", then it's the player's own fault for not grasping what it means when the game is in development.

Oh? Who died and made you king? Lephys this is a thread made for exactly this sort of discussion, you can't slam anyone down as you yourself have "absolutely" no idea what the game will be like and for all we know it could be exactly as some people fear it will be. People are postings their fears so that the developers can get a grasp in which way to develop the game. If they take the wrong turn and give an update that players don't like, they will lose money and development time, just to fix what they could have prevented by knowing what people like and dislike, even if they are speculations. The fact that you are bashing people's speculations is doing more harm than good. If the developers are going to make a game that's to everyone's liking, they can prove it themselves without your white knighting. If this discussion annoys you then perhaps you shouldn't be in this "specific" thread. EDIT: oh and they aren't complaining about speculations, they are giving reasons why they believe something is a bad idea. And the only way to do that is to create a scenario, with the assumption, it will be implemented in the game.

It's funny because i genuinely question the mentality of people who believe it's wrong to kill children, but forget to mention that they are apparently fine with killing other people. You shouldn't kill others full stop The fact that some even try to have the moral high ground on this actually makes me sick. It's exactly BECAUSE this is a rpg and not a simulator, like someone else mentioned, that you shouldn't take it seriously. And you should know well enough that the developers need to write extra code just to make theses characters unkillable without any bugs. It's easier to just give them the default AI of every other civilian. It's fine if the developers want to go extra mile to stop having problems down the road with politics, but to bring up an issue with killing, only when it comes to kids, makes me question the sanity of everyone, that plan to play this game, and try to connect video games morals with real life.

I disagree that they were cheesy. They were great source of grind and when i wanted the fun of combat and money grind, this was the fastest way to initiate it. it could have used some tweaking. Perhaps adding more diversity to it would have been better and adding an easier way out if you needed healing, but it had it's uses and added more realism to the game. Don't take this as an attack but the thing about making a point as a designer doesn't really mean much since it's the players that decide if things are good or not. I'm off to sleep now.

decado, i think you're just taking the very bad design of NWN and using it to extreme. The rest system in IE series wasn't bad because it had the chance of getting interrupted and attacked, so spamming rest did have it's drawbacks and you had to evaluate, if you wanted to risk getting attacked without your spells. Perhaps it could ahve used a little tweaking, because if you were in bad position and needed rest there was nothing you could do but risk it, but the concept behind it wasn't really bad.

That's not really "more in-depth" By the sound of it they just made it less relevant to make the damage less unpredictable. Which isn't always a good thing because, because it can make it too predictable and boring, and it usually leads to heal/potion spamming.

is this true? Obsidian, i am disappoint. The main thing about IE combat that made it fun was that no fight was ever the same. This is exactly what made the IE games withstand the age of time and are still playable. If the game has only positioning puzzle then you will breeze through it the second time with ease because you know what to prepare for and there will be no fun in playing it the third time, because it will be all the same and boring. Yes maybe some things do need improvement, but this is absolutely NOT one of them.

Soooooo.... Any news on which weapon vs armor system the game will use then?

1. Apparently it is since they already showed what they have plans on how the paladin will function and it fits with the original lore 2. I know but it doesn't really matter what it is, i used it to make a point. Even if he is evil, as a definition of a knight/paladin he will be in service to a evil lord (using the term loosely), and as being the most driven he is willing to empower those around him at the expense of his own benefit for the greater good/evil, which will also cause the people around him to support and follow him if they have the same goal.

Because it's main goal is to protect others. That's the whole definition of a Paladin/Knight. You cant just portrait him as a berserker in shiny armor. A knight or a paladin always has been in the service of a lord or a lady, even if they were the leader of an army. It kind of does, if his main goal is to do utmost good.

Knight or cniht is an old English word for servant. Which is exactly what a paladin does with buffs. He is there to protects and serve those in need. And what better way to do that than instant long range stat boosting auras. I think your philosophy would fit a Lawful Good Fighter much better.

So will the paladin have only 1 aura active at a time? So 2 paladins in group could each have a different aura? I'm a bit worried about Zealous March and ranged weapon kiting. Increased movement speed could mean the AI would never be able to catch him, so what if someone made a party of 5 ranged classes and 1 ranged paladin? Will they be able to whipe out everyone without getting hit by melee?

If i remeber correctly they won't make any tank specific abilities.

Well yeah late game was like that but only because the overall dificulty of the game was that high, if you set the slider to easiest you could even complete first time without dieing, (if you at least know how spells and rolls work). But i fail to see how smarter AI will prevent this; the reason it was puzzle oriented was mainly because you didn't know what spells they were going to cast, which could sometimes criple your whole party. If they were smarter, than you wouldn't even be able to prepare acordingly because the AI would see right through it. But i persoanly enjoied the puzzle challange of the game, i kind of don't want to just breeze through it, i like that it forces me to think on what i could have done different, and because no battle was the same it has such a good replay value. I feel like you are more brute forcing the game if you overpower through it without any puzzle solving. I'm just thinking that if you want to complete it on first go then there is always an easier setting. I just wish that it still has that puzzle solving quality on harder setting. But like i said, if you make the AI smart enough to know who to kill first then, how do you plan to make classes that are weak to missile (or other type) damage useful? The only thing you will be able to do with them is keep them at a safe distance out of the fight.

I don't really remeber being able to be invulnerable in Bg2 even the meatshields you were using had to run for cover and switch bewen tanking sometimes, unless you outleveld them. This is something you would never be able to do if the AI was smart enough that every time you bring your wounded melee back in to the fight they would just focus on him again. Or are you are talking about the fighter/wiz multicalss, which is a simple solution; don't add invunrability spells/armor to the game. As for the monk situation you descibed, i doubt it will be like that because i doubt he will be able to 1-2 shot enemies and he would die pretty fast after that. The passive aura bonuses are most likely very minor since they affect the whole group not just specific person. However I see nothing wrong with the tactic in Bg2 or IWD2 where you could send your rogue to backstab and send a fireball right at him (high reflex save) when the group started chasing him, because while it did some damage it didn't really kill that many and you had to get him to safety again. If AI is going to just direct all the archers/gunners at your mages then at the start of every fight you will have to send your mage away and he will be uselses for the rest of the fight. And as soon as your healers come to help the wounded they will be mowed down. The best combat i find is when you can evenly spred the damage across your party, and for that you need to have some sort of control on who will take damage.

I don't really find anything wrong with such AI. Some people call it cheesing but i call it tactics. You can easly make an AI smart enough that it always attacks your weakest fighters or mages and healers first, but then what's the point of having them in the pary at all if all you will do with them is run away. If 5 melee group on 1 paladin he's going to go down pretty fast, or take so much damage that you will be too scared to even get him close for the rest of the fight, because they will turn on him as soon as he comes close again. I rather like the design where the AI has overpowering stats and you need to rely on tactics to get through the fight by making sure the members with highest defensees takes the blows first, and supporting them with magic at the back.

i'm not that huge of a fan of the fact that your class is tied to a specific single order, and that you will probably get associated with it even if you don't like it. I think the same for monks... I think it needs a name change, it sounds like an invitation to the dance floor. (Would have been funnier if it was called Walk It Off)

I find the UI color design really pleasing, but i do agree that portraits are very important for characters, because it gives the character their personaility. Unlike first person shooters and such, it is the only thing that you can indentify them with, so i agree that they should be bigger. It was fine in IWD2 because the characters didn't have much of a story except what you wrote in biography but even then i felt disconected with the characters. One thing that kind of bothers me are the spell icons. I really hope they get changed. You have this beautiful artistic UI design that feels like it's part of the enviroment, then you have those neon glowing icons that make you think you are weilding flash sticks.