Utukka

Not to my knowledge. Have I stated that? Anyway, I think you might be getting stuck on details and missing the actual point in the process. The real problem is the linearity of the stat progression, this leads almost inevitably to stat dumping and mindless min-maxing. In order to avoid that with linear stat progression you'd have to go for extreme penalties and bonuses, and that would be a nightmare to balance. And Baldurs gate etc wasn't like this? It was basically a no brainer that you wanted the highest int possible if you were a mage or you might've metagamed things, such as dumping charisma to 3 because you only needed 1 character capable of conversation OR you just picked up the ring that made your charisma 18. If I was a fighter in BG, I wanted the highest str/con/dex possible, didn't care about int wis or charisma.

Ok, so I checked the wiki and a few other spots but haven't found an answer. Was wondering if someone knew or if a dev could give me an idea. 1) When does it first become available? If you want to save spoilers...do you have an estimate on how long it might take to get? 2) Would I potentially have enough $$$$ to hire up to a party of 6 right away? <--Dev question? Why do I care? Well let me explain! In Baldurs Gate 2, one of my favorite things to do was what was called a "Random No-Reload Challenge". Essentially, I would create a party of 5 right away that was decided entirely upon a random generator. I wouldn't pick anything. The name, the gender, the race, the class, the stats, everything was random. It was AWESOME. My most memorable playthroughs came about via this and it made me have to problem solve in ways I never would've done otherwise. I lost so many whacky characters trying to go through the hardest difficulty level with a random assortment of a party but it created for the most fun gameplay experience in my opinion. You would also get 1 NPC that was also decided by a roll of the dice. I'm just curious/hoping that this style of play can come on-line quickly within the game.

Ya, I was just playing a bit of devils advocate since I can technically see the argument if there is a "work around" such as Tensers/polymorph etc within the game world to make up for such disadvantages. I also work at a Pharmacy....hence I see a ton of old people at various stages of life. Even young people who are incapable of certain functions...but I'll stop there. I'm more than ok with the idea of what I originally discussed, that 3 is the representation of base requirements to be capable of adventuring.

There are always, by virtue of the medium (i.e., not PnP), going to be limits on what type of character you can roleplay because they have to write dialogue and responses for us. I have no problem with a general lower limit being set on all our attributes. Just imagine that if they're below that minimum then the character is incapable of sufficiently functioning independently for this story or some such. But what about my old geezer who uses Tensers transformation/Polymorph to return to his glory days? Well the lack of Tenser's Transformation might be a bigger problem :D True. But who knows what hope the future might bring for the old geezers of the world!

There are always, by virtue of the medium (i.e., not PnP), going to be limits on what type of character you can roleplay because they have to write dialogue and responses for us. I have no problem with a general lower limit being set on all our attributes. Just imagine that if they're below that minimum then the character is incapable of sufficiently functioning independently for this story or some such. But what about my old geezer who uses Tensers transformation/Polymorph to return to his glory days?

Perhaps this is more of them just not giving you a contextual point to view from. You're viewing the stats as they were in BG/DnD. For example, 3 str in BG meant you were a wuss. 3 Int meant you were stupid. Perhaps in PoE, 3 just means that you are the bottom of the barrel that is able to function. In other words, that "3" means you are just strong enough to swing that sword. The +10% is mostly just arbitrary...they could easily just make that a 0 and say 3 might is the base necessary requirement to be a "capable" adventurer. This does imply however that you can't make a "idiot" a "weakling(in the sense that you are too feeble to even open the refridgerator door), or a "social reject". This doesn't mean the system is broken or horrible....if it means anything...it means that it sucks that I can't role play a complete idiot. I *should* be able to roleplay any type of character I please.

This entire argument is kinda silly. I personally wish there was less in game limitations on what you could make statistically....being all 18's or however high you can go in my opinion doesn't mean you are a god...you are just a lucky sob. In real life....I see plenty of variations between people...some people are lucky, they are incredibly intelligent, charismatic, talented, and physically gifted...others have none of the above. They are dumb, ugly, socially awkward, nearly talentless and much more. Life isn't fair. I always found it funny in games such as Baldurs Gate that there was essentially a choice to be made....be mediocre at everything...or excel in 1 area/ok at another and suck at the other. Without "cheating"....it wasn't possible to play a "gifted" individual. I suppose you could meta game and use items to make up for pitiful stats(such as the ring that gave 18 charisma). For example...in BG...to be a "top fighter", you would basically be a dumbass or a social reject or a mixture of the 2...you might have 18/00 str 18 con 16-18 dex and then int/wis/charisma would dive bomb. I guess my point is...I wish the system was more flexible. If I want to play a "perfect" person...I should be able to...if I want to play a moron...I should be able to...if I want to play an average person...I should be able to...that's the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME. How could this be achieved? Basically allow 2 options at character creation: Random rolls(can modify) and free range. Allows players to power game if they want and allows players to be more...average? Options are king in an RPG. It's not my problem if someone feels the compulsion to power game.

I do agree with you. The problem if you want to call it that comes down to some players perception of it. I've posted this in other forums for ARPGs such as D3. I think a lot of players get caught up in a "Viable" vs "Efficiency" dilemma. Group 1 views it as such... Viable = Can complete all content Efficiency = Doing the content the fastest/most optimal This group tends to be ok with varied time/effort put into achieving said goal....not to say they would be ok with option A taking an hour longer than option B....but they can live with "less than optimal" play as long as it can finish the task within a "reasonable" time frame. Group 2 Viable = Efficiency If option A isn't as efficient as option B...then option A isn't viable and hence the game is imbalanced. I guess my point behind this is this seems to be where the real argument is hiding within and depending on which group you fall into...makes the attribute system look quite different. Power gaming can be fun but appears to be a sickness for some people. Whether you use PoE's system or a more D&D-like system, power gamers will still do their thing, so we can safely ignore them. In terms of game design, the problem of balance can be approached, I think, from two axes. The first axis concerns equality vs. equivalence. Some view balance as being something where everything is equal, i.e. no class does more dps than another, no build does more dps than the other, and the differences only affect non-mechanical or story aspects. Others view balance as equivalence: while one class might do more dps, another will provide more utility, and while some particular build might be weak in some areas, they will be strong in others. Most RPGs tend towards equivalence due to the number of different kinds of abilities that cannot directly be compared against each other. PoE is no different. In fact, since it is a story-based singleplayer-only RPG, it could do with even more divergence here. I think the devs focus too much on combat balance as opposed to overall balance. For example, providing some optional abilities for Fighters that can counter spellcasters is good, but making it so a group of generic Fighters can take on a balanced party is bad. In a group of only Fighters, some should be required to specialize in dealing with spellcasters, some with ranged attackers, etc. in order for that group to even be able to scratch a balanced party. And making those different possible builds equivalent in utility and power is good, but making them equally good overall is bad. The second axis is about symmetry vs asymmetry. In every RPG, there's a needed amount of asymmetry required as you introduce classes. Another source of asymmetry is usually the character stats. This is not the case in PoE though, where every stat affects every class in the same way. Personnally, I think having more asymmetry is better. But that doesn't mean you need to make stats only affect certainly classes or types of abilities. The only problem I have with the character stats in PoE is that they affect all classes in the same way. If stats affected classes in different ways, I think it would make for better build variations. For example, maybe intelligence gives AOE to all clases, but for Wizards it also gives more spells and for Fighters it gives a bonus to attacks of opportunity or even simply a small overall bonus to all combat rolls (a more intelligent fighter is overall better than a dumber one). And maybe some stats give no direct advantage to certain classes. For example, Might is utterly useless for a Wizard as far as his Wizard abilities are concerned, but a strong wizard can fight better in close quarters and can carry more **** (so you might want to introduce actual significant weight for multiple grimoires, scrolls, potions, and maybe even spellcasting materials). Wizards that can unleash godlike spells while naked are all well and good, but there's no reason while it needs to be that way. So maybe Might/Dexterity changes how armor influence spell failure. So a beefy, highly dextrous Wizards might be able to cast spell relatively well from inside full plate armor. This way you could use touch-based spell more safely, or you could use defensive spells to tank up and let your Rogues backstab everyone, etc. Agreed that they should be ignored. I feel that some games put too much emphasis on these types of players, Diablo 3 particularly but I also realize they have a plethora of other issues that magnify the problem. I feel that they have already done a few things to "combat" power gamers/"degenerate" gameplay, ie the experience system(in its current beta form). No need to go further on that/hopefully that doesn't derail the topic. I like the idea of having the current statistical implementation along with the idea of having "class varied" changes, such as you suggested with Wizards gaining more spells(BG/DnD etc). A mesh of the 2 systems is always something that I dreamed of....I've always been a person who loved the planning of it all. I think that would also go a long way for giving more weight to adding to particular attributes, right now, a lot of people don't particularly care about resolve/perception/int because they view them as the "conversation" stats. I do realize that when the real game releases...this perception(pun intended) could change due to the potentials that they could unlock...same goes with the difference between the "combat" stats might/dex/con. Either way...anything that adds more diversity is a plus in my book.

I do agree with you. The problem if you want to call it that comes down to some players perception of it. I've posted this in other forums for ARPGs such as D3. I think a lot of players get caught up in a "Viable" vs "Efficiency" dilemma. Group 1 views it as such... Viable = Can complete all content Efficiency = Doing the content the fastest/most optimal This group tends to be ok with varied time/effort put into achieving said goal....not to say they would be ok with option A taking an hour longer than option B....but they can live with "less than optimal" play as long as it can finish the task within a "reasonable" time frame. Group 2 Viable = Efficiency If option A isn't as efficient as option B...then option A isn't viable and hence the game is imbalanced. I guess my point behind this is this seems to be where the real argument is hiding within and depending on which group you fall into...makes the attribute system look quite different. Power gaming can be fun but appears to be a sickness for some people.

Personally I'd rather them not limit the ability to "hire"/create characters/mercs because of a few people that I'll never play with would "ruin" it by creating something that I consider to be dumb and out of place. That's the great thing about single player + being an adult, I can pick who I play with and how it's played. I can easily create my own sets of characters that make sense within their world and I don't need them to enforce such behavior. Now I wouldn't mind certain things being added in...such as a player created Paladin not tolerating being in a murdering/lieing/thieving party...but they in my opinion, don't need to limit player freedom too drastically. Small things that make sense/are easy to implement wouldn't be bad. For example, I've ran through Baldurs Gate countless times. I played out all sorts of varied party compositions. My favorite experience with BG2 was what was called a "Random No-Reload Challenge". You basically had a party of 6 that was 100% random, name, race, class, stats, everything. You literally picked NOTHING. It was an extremely fun experience taking such a varied combination and running it no-reload on the hardest difficulty level. Lots of characters died to say the least. I'll be extremely disappointed if I'm not able to do this. Even more disappointed if it takes me a long time in game to be able to do this. As for character portraits...there's plenty of players that will draw/create their own. I imagine some players have already started creating theirs. There's plenty of websites that you will be able to go to to get player created portraits that will match certain combinations that the developers "neglected". -Most traits are being withheld, lots more to come! -I believe they said that Paladins will gain special abilities throughout the game based upon their order and their decisions in game. I just don't think it's currently part of the beta -Stats - I'm in wait and see mode. I think resolve/int etc will mean a lot more in the final game when there's more scenarios available. The beta is mostly limited in this, full of bugs, and is more of a teaser of what's to come. Maybe I'm just too optimistic. -I like the health/stamina. I get it's not explained in game currently...but I'm being optimistic that it will be explained when the real game is released. Being that your party starts at level 5 and is technically in a position that is beyond the tutorial phase of the game. -I wouldn't mind seeing race have a bit more of an impact. Again..here's some more optimism....for example, the god likes do start with 1 passive unique abilty...keep in mind that the real game could easily expand upon this. Regions also impact starting gear if I remember correctly. Could expand more as game goes on/levels increase. They could also potentially tie trait bonuses in as well to regions when the system is implemented. -I think the combat is confusing because from a lot of the videos I watch...people are so zoomed out, everything is tiny on screen. The models in BG2 seem "fatter"/take up more space combined with BG combat was slower paced so you had more time to tell what was going on. I also think this will be less of a problem when people understand what's happening around them, It's unreal how many people I've seen on twitch/youtube that are just getting slaughtered.

I'm gonna bust out some optimism. Perhaps some of these stats will be more important in other sections of the game when it's fully fleshed out, compared to now where much of it is gutted/buggy. Obviously...none of us know what might be unlocked in the future thanks to perception/resolve/intellect. Constitution could easily become more important for "back liners" when there's more ambushes/tactical monsters introduced. Just seeing the beetles tunnel through the ground, the escape abilities on rogue, and more have my mind turning about what we may see in the future. Imagine when enemies start "teleporting" into the back lines or any # of other scenarios. By all means tho..continue to discuss the current scenario but perhaps keep in mind for what may be in the future before going full on doom and gloom. 1 last food for thought...I think a lot of players tend to look at stats as "dump" stats because they tend to not "accept death"...they have their 1 "conversation" character, 1 "trap/lock pick" character, and the rest can ignore it because they will simply reload from their save point if a character is fully killed. This is not the case for those of us who play no-reload. We need to be able to have others step up when our diplomat or thief is sent to the grave.

It might make it extremely hard...but I'd prefer to be able to turn them off as well. They just ruin the atmosphere for me.

While I understand the intention of trying not to introduce systems that actively encourage abuse, to be honest I don't think Objective XP naturally creates the least amount of degenerate game play. As Stun, Helm and others have pointed out, poorly executed Objective XP will unnaturally encourage players away from combat in the same way that poorly executed Kill Xp encourages sociopathy. The obvious hope is that whatever way XP is implemented that the game is still fun and rewarding, which seems a bit of a toss up still. It certainly could unnaturally encourage players away from combat but I do think that far less players would be affected by this. This is certainly opinion but I feel that most players are going to play this game for combat and atleast on the first playthrough(s)...they will roll with the combat first. Players skipping combat due to "feeling unrewarded" in my opinion is more of a power gamer mentality or someone who has already played through the game or perhaps bought a guide for their first playthrough. I'd be suprised if a larger group of brand new players ran past the beetles because they knew they weren't going to get kill xp. This can certainly be applied to stealth/diplomacy players(which again is why we are getting objective based to begin with) but I feel that there would be more players who couldn't control themselves and would kill everything for the XP.

Well..I understand the sentiment here but at the same time...people also flip **** for a "deadline" being pushed back. Damned either way if you ask me. I understand the nature of meeting deadlines....but I do view video games as having a bit more wiggle room in this regard (especially when you are talking alpha/beta releases). This isn't like my work(pharmacy) where I'm delivering a "finished product".

Something I posted in another thread on this topic.... I understand the arguments to each side, killing vs objective. I think what it really comes down to is that objective based leads to the least amount of "degenerate" game play. What do I mean by this? If you give kill xp on everything...then 99% of players turn into killers. Much harder to balance the other ways of play with this not to mention you have to program in a way to keep people from doing "diplomacy" first and then going back and killing to get the kill xp. If you do objective based...they figure they can satisfy killers with 1) additional loot and 2) the fun of killing stuff -There will be a much smaller % of players that will just run by/avoid fights despite having wanted to kill the group. Of course..I've always advocated self control but it seems that most players can't help themselves from power gaming hence developer intervention.

Yah just found a food that removes fatigue... hopefully you can't just eat your way out of it. Also kind of sucks that only PC skills go to convos. Like you're saying it's pushing you towards lore simply because that's what the convo's require the most. Not for any other reason. I can deal with the food much more than I can live with having to push my PC towards lore just to keep up in convos.

Perhaps it's just not implemented in the beta...I don't think they'd miss such a glaring issue in the final release but who knows.

^ I'll go ahead and add a tidbit as well. I understand the arguments to each side, killing vs objective. I think what it really comes down to is that objective based leads to the least amount of "degenerate" game play. What do I mean by this? If you give kill xp on everything...then 99% of players turn into killers. Much harder to balance the other ways of play with this not to mention you have to program in a way to keep people from doing "diplomacy" first and then going back and killing to get the kill xp. If you do objective based...they figure they can satisfy killers with 1) additional loot and 2) the fun of killing stuff -There will be a much smaller % of players that will just run by/avoid fights despite having wanted to kill the group. Of course..I've always advocated self control but it seems that most players can't help themselves from power gaming hence developer intervention.

Unfortunately...you can't realistically predict what all players will do within your game world and when you have players opting out of the more expensive options in the game, they are going to be stuck holding the bag(trunks of gold). The best thing they can do is give a handful of "expensive" options that you can't realistically afford to do all of them. Even still, I'm sure some people will still find a way to be "disappointed", being it they "can't do it all" or they still neglect the options to dump off the gold and are swimming in it. A few examples... 1) Rare/Powerful expensive items - Could be from hidden merchants 2) Quests where you are able to use Bribery to get your desired result. 3) Stronghold 4) Donate to religions/charities The possibilities are endless.

I understand the concern but as others have stated...even in the video where he beat the ogre, he didn't seem to be putting in much effort towards optimal play. As I'm sure you are aware...anytime combat is prolonged, the outcome is going to be worse. Very complex issue that is even more convoluted because of the lack of details that we have towards general abilities/traits etc available and lack of knowledge on which abilities(and how often) will be available on a per encounter basis. That all aside....it would obviously be very annoying if you had to rest after the majority of fights(for any reason)...I imagine they will do a better job than that. The fact that they have per encounter abilities already tells me they realize the issues that arose in games such as Baldurs Gate and are working on a elegant solution to it.

Nice, Adam had a much smoother journey this time. Still quite a bit he could've done it seemed to improve upon as well. Game looks great so far, definetly getting that Baldurs Gate feel...from the dialogue to the combat to the difficulty level...love it.

Some of you seem to be looking at this like you're from the Diablo 3 dev team. (1 extreme or the other) There's a million ways they can work in XP, "objective" or "kill" based. In the example of a "Ambushing" party...perhaps combat is the only option in that instance and so winning the fight(killing them), grants you XP in this instance. They could also possibly allow you to run away or talk your way out of it...it's all in their hands and they are certainly not tied in how they can implement this. Main point = They can do a mixture of Objective AND kill based XP depending on the story/nature of whatever event. For example.... 1)Roaming ogres in wilderness - Perhaps they aren't a talkative bunch and the area is too wide open to really merit giving points for hiding in a bush so in this case, they give XP for killing them. They of course, could also have these ogres guarding a bridge and sneaking past them then could give XP while dialogue is given the finger again. 2) There could be a # of traps placed out in a wilderness area, perhaps these are worth XP for disarming. Dialogue and combat in this case are given the finger. Now there could be a further story to this later on, but it doesn't necessarily have to be some major event to get your XP/reward. There doesn't have to be 100% balance across the board, they can give multiple different scenarios across the board that require different resolutions while still leaving the majority of major quests/xp to be objective based. If the game is 100% stealth, combat, or dialogue every single time...then it's probably not very realistic in my opinion and will diminish part of the immersion in my opinion.

Well, I think many of you are forgetting a very important aspect that PE brings to the table. Souls! Perhaps in a sequel at the end, your character is killed and his soul is returned to the cycle. Perhaps his/her soul loses power in being recycled or transformed in some manner but is brought back in some other period/time/form. The options are really endless here....Perhaps you have already lived many lives throughout time....who knows!

By that logic, your attacks should just naturally hit 100% of the time and deal infinite damage. You could always optionally choose your own accuracy when you attacked, and choose to deal finite damage, you know... whenever you just happened to feel like "roleplaying" a more realistic venture. Also, dialogues should just go however you want them to. There should just be a "make them give me 1000 gold" option. I mean, you could always choose to not-click on that one. In fact, the game could just auto-pilot you through itself. You could always toggle manual control, if you wanted to. Otherwise, who is the game to tell you that you must travel to the next city to actually GET to the next city, or that that city even has anything to do with playing the game? Pssh. Silly game, u_u. It's not like combat, itself, is a competition between you and the enemies that can be easily adjusted using difficulty options whilst still remaining a competition. 8P Obviously that logic doesn't make sense to be applied everywhere but in a way, correct me if I'm wrong, but many of the IE games did make just about everything you listed possible besides going on autopilot. Between the slider bar for difficulty, the save/reload possibilities, and the console commands....just about anything was possible. My preference is to play on the hardest difficulty, no reloads etc for the majority of times but it doesn't hurt on certain features to provide options that can appease all levels of play when feasible.

Diablo 2 did increase quite a bit but consider this....you went from level 1 to 99 and is quite different than BG or IWD. What you think of Diablo 3 and that ridiculousness? As for power level...I would love for it to be similar to BG/BG2. Absolutely loved that series. Loved D1/D2 also but again, bit different in my mind.