Ninjamestari

Yeah, path of the damned should be the difficulty for only those masochistic few who actually like an unfair challenge. When you're creating a difficulty level of "Path of the Damned" that comes after "Very Hard", you better err on the side of making things too difficult rather than making things too easy.

We people are given minds and freedom of thought, and what do we do with them? We obsess over the weirdest forms of sexual degeneracy we can imagine. God have mercy.

I can respect that. I know in some games I prefer a much more grounded character. I think that usually the main drive behind playing a fighter is to be the most efficient user of that Ultimate Sword of Badassiness ^^ Playing a Fighter makes your equipment feel so much more special than playing a Paladin for example.

Hmmm.... My favorite classes in terms of the fantasy are Paladins and Ciphers, so my first character will likely be a Paladin/Cipher.

I really can't stop listening to this song. It sends really powerful BG2 vibes down my spine. I am now psyched for this game, and I only ask that someone in a position to do so will deliver a heartfelt kiss to all the brilliant musicians responsible for composing and performing this beautiful masterpiece, as it has made me very emotional. That's all.

I don't, but your antics are derailing the conversation. Kinda like the pigeon that ****s on the chessboard.

I don't have to, your only 'contribution' to this whole conversation have been your sad attempts at mocking me with your empty bravado. You've got some major chip on your shoulder there buddy. You've been quite hostile towards me ever since you lost your marbles in your unsuccessful attempt at trying to prove your manhood to me in another thread.

Wait... trick question... ummmm... the one who behaves arrogantly? I'm pretty sure that's correct. Well, it certainly fits you, you're the most smug and arrogant person I've encountered on these forums. Must have something to do with your insecurities.

They do, don't they, just like the pigeons. EDIT: and Plato's cave.

I'm kind of on your side on the vision topic, but man: You are an arrogant son of a bitch. Regarding your argumentation style you are the pigeon here. I even took back a like yesterday, because I didn't wan't to support that anymore. Who is the arrogant one, the man who knows and states what he knows, or the man who doesn't know but still demands his opinion to be treated with the same reverence as real knowledge? If you validate the ignorant and their positions, you're obscuring the truth. And the truth quite frankly doesn't give a **** whether people 'like' it or not, neither do I. If you cannot accept reality just because you don't like it, then you're not worth much anything. All thoughts and opinions are *not* valid, no matter how much people who don't know anything about anything want them to be. Thare's only one 'side' that matters, and that is the Truth, not 'my side' or 'their side'.

I'm curious. Sorry if you wrote it before, but what line of work are you in? I'm asking because in my line of work a pure vision is an impossibility to execute. There are way too many external factors, and random elements etc. for something like purity to ever function. Software. Games, like software, are essentially just math and logic, allowing for a rather clear vision. I'm talking about mechanics here of course, Obsidian has never had problems with their artistic vision.

Pigeons are funny creatures, and there's a whole flock of them here. The only thing you have to do in order to attract them is bring in a chessboard. they think they're good at the game. ^^ After you've attracted the initial flock, they'll bring in others who are too afraid to play but they love to watch and comment.

Well, if it doesn't sound like it to you, then perhaps you've got no idea what to listen for. Software development is indeed my field, and everything begins with a vision, without a vision you're just stumbling in the dark, but when you have a vision you know how things have to be. It's the same with all design, you can't create anything if you don't know what you're creating. The clearer you can see what you're doing, the better the results. Most companies aren't in a position where they can sacrifice a product for the sake of experiment, or waste valuable time pondering useless questions, decisions have to be made, and if you don't have vision you cannot make them. When it comes to artistic vision, the artist needs it more than anyone else, and the fact that they change stuff to the very end of their creative process is that they have MULTIPLE visions in their head simultaneously. It's actually quite maddening, you've got many visions you try to make dance together, that means some visions need to be sacrificed in favor of others, sometimes less interesting visions that work better in the context of the multitude of visions you're working with. That's the difference between an artist and a designer: a designer needs to have vision in order to succeed, an artist needs to be able to handle a whole chorus of them without going nuts in the process in order to succeed. Plenty of artists fail miserably at that latter part, that's why they they so often abuse the hell out of sex and drugs and alcohol.

I never really thought that having more muscles increase your capacity for healing magic made any sense.

Einstein said many things people take too literally. If you have one real pearl (1) and you find one more (+1), you know have two pearls (=2), unless you've thrown away the first one (-1). 1+1 = 2 works in reality 100% of the time, and every other aspect of mathematics is derived from that, so they too must work in reality 100% of the time. So what Einstein meant that the math of reality is often so elaborate and complicated due to the sheer number of variables, some of them are not obvious or even know at all, the application of math to reality is not always certain, depending on the context because you never have all the data. It's a good thing if you appreciate Einstein, but you really should put in more effort to actually understanding him, otherwise you're just paying lip service like most people do. Now *that* is a much more appropriate descriptor of you.

What I mean by the Might/Res is that there's no fundamental vision behind the stat-system at all, it's just slapped in. That's why they're so mutable, they're an accessory to Obsidian, and that's why they struggle with the whole gameplay representing the fantasy - thing, and that's why the actual gameplay doesn't really reinforce the immersion to the world, it's just a game and as such it doesn't really stand out. That's why they should fix that fundamental connection, and the only way to do that is to begin with the fundamental aspects that make a character in the gameplay sense: the stats, or the attributes, what they represent and why, both in terms of the fantasy and in terms of gameplay. Just like Strength as a concept has a fundamental reality to it, which makes it easy to deduce what high strength means; you know, it means you can carry heavier stuff, you hit harder and everything that requires physical strength is easier to you. What it *doesn't* mean is more gun-damage. That's why you need a vision to build things around in a fantasy setting, because unlike Strength which is easy to derive from our physical reality, magic and other metaphysical concepts aren't as easy, so you need to have a vision of what they are, a clear one, and how they tie in to the abilities, or attributes, of the character. If this vision isn't clear, then you see fundamental flip-flop-changes like the Might/STR situation, and stuff like Might as a stat in the first place; they were thinking the wrong way around, they were making a game and then try to make the fantasy fit instead of making a fantasy and let the vision of that fantasy dictate the direction of the game.

So again I try to explain vision to a blind man. Vision is not "having every decision thought out preemptively", that's nonsense, when you have vision the decisions just are obvious because you can *see* them. You don't have to think them out preemptively, just like you don't have to think out preemptively every step you take when you go to talk to someone, you can *see* where they are so you don't have to plan out the route with a map. The Might/STR+RES debate is a minor element, yes, but it is an indication of lack of vision; a well thought out system wouldn't have this sort of debate/experiment going on at all, the way the stats should work would be obvious. I mean, this stuff isn't difficult, you only have to see, and I really find it astonishing how difficult the concept of sight and vision is to some people. Wow, you really think you appear like that to people? Don't you think it's dangerous to bloat your ego like that? I mean, based on the way you conduct yourself you really don't have any of the qualities that give Dwayne Johnson the ability to act like that without actually appearing to be pretentious and just a little sad.

I take it that you've never seen true vision then, and I see that you *really* are clueless about vision if you think historical ideologies have anything to do with it. I know that explaining vision to the blind is futile, Plato's cave comes to mind, but a vision *is* sight, you do not need to experiment to know if the grass is green, because you can *see* if it is. It's true that there are plenty of people who *think* they have vision, like the 'horrific examples of history' you mentioned that have pretty much always been the blind leading the blind. That's the problem for blind people, everyone can say they have vision, but if you do not have vision yourself, there's no way for you to tell which of those claims is true and which one is false, that's why you need to experiment. That's the key to understanding vision, the more basic the things are you need to experiment with, the less you can pierce with your vision. In math for example, there are people who can just see the results a certain system will produce because they understand math, and then there are people who do not and therefore need to experiment and collect data to compensate their lack of vision. And in math, it's easier to test whether a vision is true or not. The same concept applies to game design, because games are essentially just logic and math: If you have vision then you can *see* what needs to be done and you do not have to experiment, if you don't have vision, you do have to experiment. What you're talking about is not experimenting even when you don't have vision, which is even worse than simply having no vision in the first place. So yay for experiments, they're a sign of no to low vision, but they're the right thing to do in such a situation. Although I suspect that Mr. Sawyer actually would have a good vision, based on what I've heard him say on his YouTube channel, he just doesn't trust in it enough to fully go through with it and that's why we get half-measures and compromises, or the others in the company don't trust his vision enough and he isn't strong enough to take charge. EDIT: so in concrete terms, the stats and how they work and what they represent are the very basis of gameplay that everything else is build upon, they are the variables you play with, and in an RPG you cannot get on a more fundamental level than that. If you need to experiment on that level then you really are completely and utterly lost.

My experience indicates the exact opposite is true: a vision is an ideal and the ideal doesn't always translate upon its first execution; trial and error, all whilst adapting and changing the approach, brings the product closer to the author's vision and original intention. If something is not working the way it is intended, trying out a new approach can be just the right way to solve the problem. I don't see how the Might/STR+RES discussion is a sign of lack of vision, merely an adaptation for the attributes system to work as closely to the desired goal as possible. Or perhaps your analysis of your experience is just completely wrong. In fact, your argument sounds like it's not backed up by experience at all, rather just worthless rationalization. If you don't see how the Might/STR+RES debacle is a sign of lack of vision, then you really don't even see what the hell is vision. If you have a strong vision, you don't *need* to adapt it, because everything else naturally adapts to *it*. If you ever see true vision manifest, you'll know what I'm talking about. EDIT: the teasing aside, you honestly don't seem to understand what vision is. Vision is sight, if you have vision you can *see* the answer, you don't have to experiment. Experimentation is precisely what you do when you don't have vision, because experimentation is a tool specifically aimed at *gaining* vision. What you're doing here is just "hmm, Vision is good, experimentation is also good, therefore vision is experimentation", and you're completely and utterly wrong.

A changing system is a sign of a lack of vision, so it all depends on how strong their vision for the classes are. I'm not in the beta, but judging from the Might/Str+Res discussion going on it seems that they've got no more vision than a blind-folded... blind thing. So expect them to screw up with something and change stuff early and often.

It's a lot easier to change their minds than it is to change your product, and only idiots like those who are currently running the whole AAA gaming industry down actually give a **** about what people think. Winners do their own thing and people love them for it, losers try everything to please people and people are disgusted by them. That's the way of the world.

Whether or not you 'have a say' doesn't depend on whether or not you've coughed up money, it depends on whether or not you have something worth saying.

Well there is such a thing as opportunity, people tend to take them when they're available, or regret not taking them afterwards.

Basically Paladins suck in PoE1. They're like fighters but less good due to them having so low deflection and accuracy. If you put a fighter and a paladin against one another, the fighter will win 100% of the time because he simply has better stats. For example, a fully boosted and upgraded Faith and Conviction will only make up for the incredibly low base-deflection for the class. Accuracy will never be on par with the Fighter, and neither will damage, and Fighter isn't even a particularly powerful class to begin with, Balthazar even ranking him in the lowest trash tier alongside the Paladin, which would make Paladin the absolute worst class in the game. No amount of empty "you can make viable Paladins" - rhetoric will change the fact that every single other class is far more useful and powerful in just about every single situation.

One would think that an experienced raider/mercenary would be aware of the amount of destruction a spellcaster can bring to the battle. Double that for assassins that have been hired specifically to track down and kill your party by the Big Bad.