Tartantyco

Seriously? You'd be happy with wonky broken un-fun combat, if you get more portraits? Don't know about "people," but that would certainly not make me happy. Maybe he assumes that balancing and bug fixing will actually take place during the balancing and bug fixing part of the development schedule, and isn't too keen on yelling "the sky is falling" from a position of ignorance, like most people on this forum are?

Subtly sneaking in some inspiration for Justin: Roman Hurko - Come Let Us Worship

You're assuming a bit too much based on an individual encounter with a specific enemy type in a beta undergoing balancing, Karkarov. Do you really think most enemies will do minimum damage against heavy armor? Do they now? No. This is like judging combat difficulty in Baldur's Gate based on Gibberling encounters.

And as was pointed out, there really isn't any reason why "naked" ranged characters shouldn't be viable in many encounters.

Oh, I forgot that roleplaying games don't have rules.

You're missing a pretty important part of the equation here, though: Incoming damage. By virtue of being a tank, that character will generally take on more enemies. More enemies means more incoming damage. The DT will affect every single one of those incoming attacks, whereas an attack speed increase will only affect that character's damage output. I think you will quickly find that greater DT avoids a hell of a lot more damage to the tank, than an increase in attack speed will affect damage output.

That was the issue since I came to these forums, I think it's about time he fixes that. For petes sake he sees the guy who made this forum every day... I'm pretty sure it's so he can retain his sanity by not spending the weekend on these forums.

No it doesn't, there's a thing called roleplaying. And even if they/we do, why the **** should that be a problem. **** off. "herp derp, roleplaying" isn't an argument in design contexts, Seari. They're making a game, not a sandbox.

I don't see that in any of the documentation. These arguments don't strike me as particularly convincing. I think inventory could be reduced to 6 slots per character, and quick slots reduced to 3. It makes them more tactically relevant, and creates actual decision-making in the inventory system. I can only assume that you're doing something horribly wrong. The pace is off due to balancing issues and bugs. As for pausing, you are literally describing the IE games combat in that sentence. It's RTwP, it is designed that way. The trading instead of selling is likely meant to slow down currency accumulation, so the game currency can actually have relevance in the game. You can't trade for companions, you can't trade for sleeping at inns, and there's likely going to be many more uses for currency in the game. Although the gold limitation might seem annoying in the limited context of the game, it is likely going to have a greater positive impact on the overall gameplay. I guess pretty much all of it needs some "work", but I don't think there's any inherent systemic issues. I'm okay with the relatively simple and passive utility of the fighter, and would probably like to see an overall reduction in abilities and uses. When it comes to the spells I simply don't have the informational foundation to express any opinion. I think pretty much everyone on this forum would make that claim.

Basically what I pointed out in the Armor thread. I have no idea why people were actively looking for reasons to artificially require ranged characters to wear armor.

Almost nothing of that is combat related, Sensuki, which is what I asked for. You're also being pretty vague about what exactly the issues are. ------------------------ I think PER and RES can be made relevant through some simple stat adjustments, especially when it comes to the secondary stats like Will, Reflex, and Concentration. We really aren't given many situations in the beta where these are relevant. I think Obsidian is wrong to even have racial and cultural bonuses. It just leads to players picking the race and culture based on what class they're playing. Race and culture should only be relevant to the character's interaction with the game world, through NPC attitudes, dialogue options, new quests, new quest resolutions, etc. So, shy of Obsidian actually jumping on my ship I'm fine with racial and cultural bonuses being as weak as they can possibly be. Exploration I agree with. When it comes to UI, I'm okay with the current layout. I would love the good old IE games layout, but it's not that important. In regards to inventory, I have no issues with it except that I think it should be even more restrictive. There's the obvious performance issue, but I think that is simply an optimization issue. To me combat feels pretty IE already, with the buggy and not fully implemented feedback system being the only real detractor. There are obviously differences, with the more active combat as a result of abilities, but I think a lot of the combat issues are bug related, or an issue of player error. Shopping is pretty much identical to the IE games, with the exception of the stash. Once again, a performance issue, but beyond that I don't see any actual issues. In regards to class flexibility, it's tough to say anything unless you're more specific. Advancement. It's a little unimaginative, but no more so than the IE games on the same levels. ------------------------ I think your argumentation is a little schizophrenic right now. You want combat to be more IE like(Which I think it already is), but you're criticizing parts of the design that are very IE like. I don't think you can have your cake and eat it, too.

they did it to make it simple and easy. its not a dump stat its a standard attribute for anyone who is serious in rpgs. I am not confused by it I am annoyed they are dumbing it down and making it simple. All the other ones make sense except this one, all they have to do is remove the damage increase for magic and its over. Nonsense detected. You're just proving me right with your reply here. Because you are either unwilling or unable to understand the current PoEt attribute system, you do not actually discuss the issue that is relevant to the development of the game, you simply insist that your opinion should be considered the correct opinion.

Not the best example because the Lead Designer was set on that from the beginning. Other members of the development team were not. The CEO of their own company prefers combat XP. You're continued attitude of "the developers are better than you" is tiresome. Straw man detected. I'm saying that you're arguing from a position of ignorance, but with the attitude of someone who's omniscient. (Also, are you saying that a situation in which developers would be more likely to discuss the XP system would somehow make it less likely that they would discuss the XP system?)

Probably because it appears you don't care whether the combat feels like an IE game or not. Tell me what these problems are that aren't fixed through balancing, bug fixing, or the implementation of pending features such as feedback.

They're not going to change it, because separating physical and magical damage only creates dump stats. Instead of complaining about how you're so confused by a very simple abstraction, maybe you should ask yourselves why they did it this way.

I think the false assumption you're making here is that the developers do not generate this same feedback internally, discuss it in a reasonable manner, and resolved the issue. The reason why they ignore a lot of feedback may just be because they've dealt with that discussion already. Take the combat XP discussion, for instance. They've had those discussions, they've done those tests, they have already resolved that issue. Something would have to come completely out of left field for them to even re-consider the issue. The "discussions" and "feedback" this forum has generated on the subject is rarely of more value than recording small children crying, but even those few reasonable pro-Kill-XP points that have come up in these threads have more than likely been raised in internal discussions already.

Just because you think the game has a lot of problems, doesn't mean those problems actually exist. You may disagree with the design, but that does not make the design bad. I can't really think of much that isn't fixed through the balancing and bug fixing process that is scheduled to take place, and is taking place, right now.

Why are you people trying to create artificial reasons for ranged characters to wear armor?

Don't touch my Weredeer, you bastards!

Well, I can't remember saying we should drag this thread out back and execute it, so I'm not sure what's up with the defensive attitude.

mutonizer, this isn't complicated. Your actions define your reputation, so your reputation is literally based on your behavior. And that reputation literally propagates through the game world ahead of you, because it's your reputation.

Well, there's 8 companions and they'll probably all have their own, unique portraits. If not, they'll just do what they did in the BG games and switch to an alternate portrait for the companion in question.

You do understand that the answer to your question is literally in the name of the system, right?

There had better be a 24 hour clock in the shipped game, as opposed to the archaic am/pm nonsense you use in the colonies.

I see the Might debate as a silly one that is not worth having. As for short adventuring days, I'm pretty sure it's caused by a) unbalanced values and bugs in the game, and b) people playing the game poorly. For a): This is solved through the balancing and bug fixing process that usually takes place during betas. You know, like the one you're playing right now. For b): Stop demanding that the game conform to how you want it to play, and instead learn the game mechanics.