Mr. Magniloquent

Saudi Arabia cannot suppress prices forever. The Ghawar reservoir is depleting. The House of Saud may take its marching orders from the US, but they can only endure so much. This gambit is not likely to strengthen western presence in Syria either, which is the ultimate intention of this play (by weakening Russia). There are secondary benefits in that it provides the illusion of strength for the US dollar and promotes confidence in the all important Petro-Dollar Standard. The US and Israel better be careful not to overplay their hand though. If the House of Saud were to get nervous over lost revenue or overselling of their only product...it could be disaster for The West.

That's the problem with The State though, it's a tool with only malignant methods. The State only enacts anything through theft, kidnapping, and murder. Every act carried out by it, no matter what the goal nor intention is ultimately accomplished through theft, kidnapping, murder. There is nothing good or productive about forcibly organizing society around a compulsory system of theft and violence.

I was logging out when I saw your statement. Name 5 meaningful ways Obama is different than Bush. Blue vs. Red is a false dichotomy that compose your left and right shackles. The only way to win is not to play.

I was always very cautious without how I regard Rand Paul because of his hawkish tendencies. When he "came out" by "happily endorsing" Mitt Romney, he showed that in the end--he was bought and paid for. How cheaply, nobody knows. The price doesn't matter though. He espoused support for a State-worshiping, thoughtless, talentless, self-aggrandizing, Fascist. The only thing good about Rand Paul's endorsement is that it removed all doubt about what he actually is made of.

Conservative Anarchist Total-Isolationist Humanist Liberal Collectivism score: -67% Authoritarianism score: -100% Internationalism score: -100% Tribalism score: -50% Liberalism score: 17% Some of it is operating on bogus definitions though. Deciding not carve a bloody crusade across the globe to eradicate perceived threats to my culture makes me an isolationist? Every question dealing with foreign issues involved State participation. They are kind of a false choice. I didn't see the "unregulated voluntary trade and travel with everyone" option. Other than that, the title doesn't feel too off-the-mark.

If frequent pausing is a problem for you, this game will treat you harshly. Personally, it demands the kind of pausing that I would use in the IE games anyhow, so it doesn't bother me in the slightest. The slow-motion option was a wise addition though, and I'd recommend using it.

Good luck with that. That's what my wizard thread was for. It denigrated immediately and only took 6 pages for me not merely succumb to, but lead the riot.

No. I do not accept your distinction. The power and versatility of the IE games were fundamental to their game play. They have still not been matched, rivaled, or duplicated in any cRPG since. I don't loathe Mr. Sawyer or Obsidian. I generally have high regard for them, which is why I funded. If my acute and valid criticisms appear harsh, then it is likely because they are accurate. This is an excellent example of a spell you shall not see in PoE. With Mirror Image, any attack that strikes an image will have its damage and effects absolutely negated. That is undesirable by Mr. Sawyer's design philosophy. As such, the spell only grants +20 Deflection and decreases with each hit. I use the Stoneskin Ironskin to further illustrate this point. Rather than absolutely negating the physical damage of 1 attack per 2 caster levels as with the IE games, the user is granted +8 DT for 10 attacks. This is a monumental difference. If you're not sure why, I can explain the reasons if you so desire. This is what is meant by Mr. Sawyer disapproving of "hard-counters". It is far more insidious than simply omitting spells like Protection from Fire.

Every spell does not have a uniform casting time. Spells have one of three casting times: instant, short, and long. Instant and short are both used a lot. Long is currently used less frequently. We could subdivide casting times even more, but I think past a certain point, differentiating your choices becomes difficult. Classes don't have the ability to do everything. Yes, any class has the ability to access any skill. A single character cannot excel at all skills. Any class can equip a great sword. If you want to rush a barbarian, a rogue, and a wizard into a mob swinging that sword, it's going to proceed differently for those three characters. PoE's fighters don't have class abilities to chuck fireballs. Rogues don't have class abilities to revive people. Paladins can't transform into animalistic forms. If you do a comparison of class abilities, wizards have the most by a good margin (a little below 70). Druids and priests also have a lot of spells (about 45 each), but still fewer than wizards. Chanters and ciphers have the smallest list. I don't disagree that it would be cool to have more diverse options like polymorphs, spell doublers, sequencers, contingencies, time stop, etc. We designed a list of more diverse, complex, niche spells and most of them didn't wind up being implemented because of the enormous amount of time (and often specialized UI) that they demand. I would like to implement more of these in the future, but it wasn't realistic for core PoE because we were building all of the game systems from scratch. No, the response is not surprising. Even so, I have always tried to be straightforward about why I make design decisions. None of these stated reasons have ever been because I have animosity toward caster classes (which would be pretty weird for any reason). Throughout the project I've tried to give casters the majority of the ability time, with wizards receiving the most even in that select group. I've tried to ensure that wizards have good access to personal protection magic, personal strengthening magic, and a mix of different offensive spells that do a variety of things: bounding from target to target, temporarily negating enemies' beneficial magic, sickening/terrifying anyone who comes near the wizard, swapping locations with an ally and hurting enemies caught between, temporarily stealing spells from enemy grimoires, etc. Is it enough? Clearly not for everyone, but this was honestly what we were able to do -- not because we decided to short-change spellcasters, but because even with 5 out of 11 classes (the casters) receiving about 3/4 of all abilities, we could only do so many special case scripts for them. I would like to believe that more diverse spells were intentioned, but I remain skeptical to that assertion. I agree in that you have been clear about your design choices. You have concerns over class overlap, so utility spells like Clairvoyance, Find Traps, Knock, Wizard Eye, Far Sight, Invisibility, etc.--all gone. I'm having difficulty finding the quote, but there was an interview where you discussed this. There was a specific example about dissolving a lock with magic, rather than picking it. You've also expressed concerns over summons invalidating party members, so summons have been effectively removed for all but one class of which can only summon once battle has begun and only after certain lengthy conditions have been met. Then there is your preference against "hard-counters", which means everything with a permanent effect is gone. This is not merely death spells, but also negates Feeblemind, Contagion, Curses, Polymorph Other, etc. Such removals are also extended to defensive spells which extend any sort of absolute protection from any one source--brief or otherwise. On the vein of defenses, you're also against parties taking advantage of having scouted by protecting themselves before battle (pre-buffing). Then there is the whole issue of damage potential. Examples abound beyond this, but my point is illustrated. You may not have any sort of explicit resentment of the class, but the same results are achieved by your preferences. Arguably, claiming that someone hates apples is a dubious claim. However, if such a person did not like the taste, texture, or color of apples--but insisted that apples (as we know them) would be better if their taste, texture, and color were far removed from what apples have been known as.....a case can be built beyond that person's claims. This game's magic system has turned out to be distinctly not-IE inspired in the fundamental ways that matter. Burning Hands is not what distinguished spell casting in the IE games. It was spells like Mislead, and Limited Wish among many others. I funded in large because I thought Obsidian would understand that significance. I would love to be less critical, but the problem is that your reasons for these departures are clear. Even if your budget had been doubled, your design preferences suggest that the system would merely be a larger incarnation of what it presently is. Unfortunately, what it is--does not resemble what any IE games offered either in spirit or function. That is where the resentment comes from.

The gMinion and particularly the eSeries AI scripts are excellent. They are among the mods I consider standard.

Refuted See this. Or the most important part: We were promised a game that would blend the best of all of the IE games. The spell casting in those games were essential to their experience. Even if we incorrectly dismiss the most prominent and heralded of the IE games for whatever reason, PoE's spell casting still does not satisfy. Any spell casting class had full access to a myriad of options and were not relegated to the modern inferiority that PoE was sold as a refutation of. This non-IE inspired MMO spell casting alternative PoE has is inferior in spirit, concept, and delivery. That one of the essentials of the IE experience has been deliberately discarded is all the more galling.

First off, thank you for visiting my thread. I'm glad that you have been reading it, regardless of what has become of it. I'm surprised that you're giving most every spell a uniform casting time. With the weapon system design you have, wouldn't it be more more consistent to have spells with graduated casting times? In that way, casting duration and recovery would be proportionate to the power/level of a spell. I didn't expect that suggestion to be well received, but it felt more consistent with the lore of the grimiore. I like the other options it opens up, but I imagine this treads too much on Cipher stylization to be considered. Emphasis mine. This is something that I just plainly do not understand. Especially before the skill system was changed, every class could do nearly everything anyway. Stealth, detect secrets/traps, disable traps, craft, overcome athletic/lore/survival challenges, succeed any dialogue check, wear any armor, use any weapon, etc. Every class already has/had the ability to do everything, more or less. How does restricting spell lists prevent any of that? This is probably the most severe complaint about the wizard class. The spell selection does not feel diverse or interesting. Fracturing spell selection across three classes may press them into a very specific roles, but it has worked against this class. Balance issues exacerbate it, but the poor spell selection is truly part of the problem. I think this could be critically alleviated by merging the Chanter invocations, Cipher abilities, and wizard spells into one pool. The classes would still be unmistakable differentiated by their resource mechanics. Balance will do much for this class, but it is inevitably secondary to the point above. The other thing is that wizard class is severely hindered by their friendly fire. Even if damage and durations were to be "ideally" balanced, the wizard class would still be a very impinged by their inability to freely target. Contrast to the druid who has roughly 13:14 Foe Only:Friend & Foe areas of effect. The friendly-fire aspect is all the more punitive with PoE's combat that quickly become a scrum, and where engagement severely inhibits arranging your forces in such a way to where the wizard spell will do more good than harm. Emphasis mine. Is that response surprising? The magic/spell selection in the IE games was a massive part of what made them what they were and are. Aside from the narrative and general glorious adventure, it's perhaps the most iconic part of the greatest success among the IE games, Baldur's Gate 2. Where gaming really changed after it was the word you use frequently within this quote: "balance". That word is the poison which has largely afflicted cRPGs since 2002 second only to the epithet: "streamlined". Both the individual spell design and the ability to access them all made the IE games have a spell system greater than the sum of their parts because it allowed the player input to utilize them beyond intended or imagined use. This is a major legacy of the IE games. The spell casting in PoE does not appear so much balanced between classes as it does fragmented. This is a stark contrast, and gives the wizard class in particular an unsatisfying and contrived feeling. Is it not worth considering that perhaps the class limitations through spell selection are simply not desirable means or ends?

Not true. At least for D&D 3rd edition, spell DCs could be much better than 50% failure. Right now in PoE, that's pretty much the base rate of failure for the wizard class. For the 2nd edition IE games, I truthfully cannot approximate it in general. It varies wildly. Weapon/armor speed/recovery times are very essential to determining how long durations should be. Spells with duration function over time, so what can be accomplished over that time is fundamental to getting it balanced. This is all the more nuanced in that attacking faster is not necessarily better once DT & DR have been involved in the equation. Couple those influences with having to keep at a distance to avoid friendly fire (time lost in movement), and then engagement barriers to jumping right in to seize any opportunity, and well...durations that PoE are using are just too short. I'm not arguing for 42 seconds for all spells. Even in the rebalanced figures I made, spells were assigned a duration range like damage, then linearlly scaled with the spells level. A level 1 spell had a base duration of 8-16 seconds with 4 seconds being added for every level. So a level 3 spell would have a base duration range of 16-32 seconds. With graze, DT & DR, recovery times, engagement, and friendly fire considerations--those values are much more reasonable. I encourage you to check out that excel file. It was meticulous.

Right, but compare those values to this table. Anyone wearing armor, or not dual-wielding for that matter is going to have a hard time making more than 2 or 3 attacks. If it's a graze (base 45% chance against a roughly equivalent opponent), then they may not even have time to make a single attack! With grazes, DT, and DR, you're not even well assured that those few precious attacks will even amount to anything. The lack of friendly-fire mitigation also means that you're likely going to have to keep your own characters at a distance, then move them in closer once this effect is applied. That movement time shaves off duration that could immediately be capitalized on in the IE games. This is also one area where engagement is a major factor, in that effects the amount of time you can take advantage of any effects you apply. That was a mouthful. As you can see this game is extraordinarily nuanced, and making paper comparisons about potential ApM vs Duration are limited in their usefulness. In general, the durations are far too short, for effects that are often not very distinctive or useful. It's just one more part of the "Great Wizard Menace" this game seeks to exorcise.

Neither does giving them four million dollars evidently. Perhaps the "Do not eviscerate the most prominent and beloved class of the IE games as well as their underlying magic system" was a stretch goal that we didn't quite pony up enough money for. Given that the kickstarter was presented as a rejection of the last >10 years of cRPG design, you'd think that clause would not be necessary. Caveat emptor! While I created this thread in an earnest attempt to be constructive, the descent into cynical commiseration was too strong. I've given Obsidian the benefit of the doubt, and even credit before it was earned. It was only until the beta that I turned sour. Patches show improvement and help me oscillate back to hopeful trepidation, but I no longer feel that the gloves should be kept on. The clock is ticking. Ultimately, it's Obsidian's reputation on the line. If their own choir won't sing their chorus--the broader and more skeptical gaming community will be nothing but venom.

To be fair, they do have Confusion Bewildering Spectacle. The effect lasts a whole 10 seconds, so....go nuts. The same applies to Fear Ryngrim's Repulsive Visage, though none of the spells with the "Terrified" status effect appear to be working presently. What has caused the wizard to lose their flexibility are the total absence of all the Illusion spells, summons, contingencies, sequencers, wish spells, useful defensive spells, etc. There is also the aspect in that different status effects explicitly did different things in the IE games, whereas in PoE they are degrees of the same effect. This is being discussed at length in my other thread here.

That's a very droll and sycophantic statement. The arguments arising on these forums relate to major deviations from essential IE fundamentals. The wizard class is one of the most egregious examples. Many more abound. The shelled-out MMO class design is a violation of both the explicit promise and implicit goals of PoE. PoE was about forsaking the tripe that has become of the modern cRPG since 2002(ish), and recovering what was lost. Delivering poor interpretation of 4th Edition D&D is not what they claimed to be offering during the kickstarter drive. This is what the contentions are born from.

You are patently incorrect in your statement. Outside of the restricted narrative and areas, what you are seeing in the beta is the sum of PoE's systems. The exception would be towards the talent selection, as they were deliberately waiting to implement those. What's offensive is how many of the implementations are explicitly to Josh Sawyer's personal preferences, rather than to the expectations they sold this game on.

I'm not a fan of the Wild "Bad Fur Day" Orlan, but otherwise I don't have much to complain about with the models since they improved the hair selections. Then again, I'm not really particular about that sort of thing.

"Best we can hope for", indeed. I can't find the quote, but there is a recent one from Mr. Sawyer talking about how much fun everyone had with the latest Obsidian play through. I haven't coded or scripted for the greater part of a decade. Getting my modding abilities back up to speed is going to be rough work.

You could have spared me the undeserved pretense and pompous tone. You should also learn not to speak for others in making normative statements on what "we" desire. For that matter, I never claimed that rights are derived from some form of metaphysical creator as you insinuate. Check your premises before taking the time to refute someone in a condescending manner, particularly when your statement amounts to nihilist sophistry. Humans are a social species. All social species possess culture in some form or another. Some species exhibit conventions closer to human concepts and are better understood, like the social relationships among primates and elephants. Others are more foreign and difficult to understand, like the nuances of termite or bee culture. Rights are derived from that culture--how it is organized and what ends that culture pursues. Alpha wolves eat first, elephant matriarchs lead the migration patterns, dominant apes are more supportive of apes that groom them more often, etc. All social species posses culture. Culture determines social interaction. Rights are a term used to define aspects of that social interaction. Perhaps you should do some growing up.

Wow. Where to begin? What possible motive could Russia have for shooting down a civilian airline? To manically laugh as they strangle kittens and invite The West to finally get WWIII started? First of all you have quite readily shown your colours by making no distinction between the Separatists and Russia. Secondly, you obviously haven't heard of a little something called "Hanlon's Razor" to suggest that *anyone* would have knowingly shot down a civilian airliner out of pure malevolence. Very nice. I like you omitting all of the other circumstance written in my response. Let's reinsert it.

You mean like that phantom invasion force of tanks? More memetic jamming from Russia. The BBC has multiple confirmatory stories supporting the presence of Russian forces in Ukraine. As does Stratfor.com. I trust those two sources a significant degree more than an article by someone calling themselves "Tyler Durden" on your one random website. Zerohedge is the premiere website on the planet for economic news, and news that matters in general. You would do well to read it. You'll find the word is very different fro what you are spoon fed. If not, enjoy your BBC Koolaide instead. Who even cares if Russia is supporting anyone in Ukraine? NATO is all over Ukraine installing puppets and giving money and weapons to self-declared Neo-nazis. Do you think the USA would sit idly by if Russia were instigating revolutions in Mexico and implanting figureheads hostile to the USA? Get a grip.

You mean like that phantom invasion force of tanks?

Wow. Where to begin? What possible motive could Russia have for shooting down a civilian airline? To manically laugh as they strangle kittens and invite The West to finally get WWIII started? Why was the flight diverted over a warzone? Why were two Ukrainian jets "escorting" that plane? Why haven't the air-traffic control recordings been released? Why was there never any massive rocket plume seen by anyone, even when the falling wreckage was? Why hasn't the USA released its incontrovertible proof they supposedly have? Why was the airline's fuselage riddled with cannon fire matching the openly Neo-Nazi Ukrainian jet fighter's armaments? After all, it's not like the USA has ever staged a false-flag to incite war have they? How many should I even bother listing? You must not "remember the Maine". What should we have called this event? Gulf of Tonkinsky? Grow up.