Hormalakh

wow. low blow. people can have reservations without being a backer. in case you are worried about my backer status, i am a backer. it doesn't lessen the concern however that micamo raised - to this day, i still will play ps:t and Bg1/2 over IWD. I even tried playing IWD again, but it just bores me. The exploration of bg1/2 were much more interesting to me as was the broken combat. a game without a story and just "tactical combat" is not what IE was really about, it was more a culmination of several things. as for @hassat hunter, dialogue is important, but again not the only thing. these games have multiple mechanics and gameplay elements that make them interesting. dialogue is again, one important aspect, but not the whole.

As for balance: while that isn't the topic of this thread, I'd like to address that as well. In single-player games, I am in favor of balance, to the extent that it is achievable more for a lore reason than much else. For me, it's difficult to reconcile stories with extremely powerful characters who have not, by the time I'm involved in the game, taken complete control of the system in the story. Take mages for example. In many games, extremely powerful mages with extremely interesting spells continue to live out lives that are mediocre in contrast to their awesome might. How does that make sense? Why isn't every single person cowering and paying obedience to them? Not all of them are evil, but even the evil ones seem to be unable to use their power when it matters. They should be the council of nuclear powers because of their ability for raw destruction. Yet, time and time again, these magicians live fairly insignificant lives. I'm not talking about the big names. I'm talking about even a mediocre mage has so much power that most people really don't stand a chance against them. Dimensional doors and magic missles and fireballs are extremely destructive. That's why the cowled wizards made sense and why I enjoyed that. It helped "balance" the powers in the system. And ultimately, the ones in power were the mages - as they should rightly be. But then again, why isn't the whole story just filled with wizards (because everyone else should be extinct by then) when there are so many of them? Either they should go the LoTR way (few mages, very powerful) or go in the opposite direction. With balanced classes, this concern goes away. Every ying has a yang, and nobody is exponentially more powerful than another. There is a balance to the system within the story, and for up-and-coming individuals, it's more difficult to take control of whole nations with unimaginable power. Yes, the magic might not be as "exciting" or "interesting" but most people are similar. Everyone's got a chance for democracy.

For people like me who have been following the mechanical implementation of the game from the beginning, here's a response. While, in general, there are a lot of issues that Obsidian does identify and articulates well enough - many players agree that these are mechanics that need changing - the point of disagreement among many is HOW these concerns should be addressed. The issue isn't the old mechanic, it's with the new mechanic. Obsidian isn't the only developer who's id'd these issues in previous games: other developers like Bethesda and Bioware have also id'd these issues and have taken different routes to "solving" them. The point here is how do you answer the difficulties of mechanics and make the game enjoyable for players? A lot of us are scared that simplification or "new-age design" (as opposed to old-school design) becomes the answer, which leads down the path of "push A for awesome." Sometimes, when discussing mechanics with Josh Sawyer, many players on this forum and others, have learned that Josh's analysis is correct, but argue that his conclusions are not. If you've been following the discussion with critics of mechanical design, they also have very good ideas and things to say. Sometimes these good ideas have been voiced well enough that Obsidian has chosen to reconsider their design. Design isn't easy: if it was, we'd have the perfect game ages ago.

i bet you the expansion includes more wilderness locations and 3 more companions and then it'll also include other stuff they wanted to add but didn't have the time to.

you aren't being forced to take that talent. the talent option is there for precisely that reason that you just mentioned (2 wiz, one wild lore, one magic lore). ultimately, having enough skills to help diversify your classes would be nice, but PoE is having less, because as Josh said, it's tougher to get heavy use of all of them. which brings us back to square one. so either they expand the skills with equitable uses in combat (so that skills don't feel useless), which would be expensive, or keep them small with heavy use. so, you've got me stumped. I guess something is better than nothing, and that would be infinitron's recommendation: make some of the dialogue options contingent on more than one condition (i.e. Lore is 70 AND class is cipher), though again, these are scripted events, and not really interesting to the overall gameplay. i dunno. you got me

we aren't adding skills! if a ranger takes survival, it's the same survival that a druid takes. but their effects are different based on the class, initially. with talents, the skill can take on further mechanics. Here's another example: Lore Let's say there are three types of lore: culture and language, magic, animancy. under the current system, if a mage increases his lore skill, all the 3 types increase. there is no differentiation. same with chanter. same with cipher. with the new system, if a mage increases his lore skill, it initially increases the magic subtype more than animancy more than the culture and language. cipher most with animancy, then magic, then culture and language. chanter most with culture and language, then animancy, then magic. it's the same skill all around, but the implementation for each class is different. if a mage goes for the "well-read" talent, his lore then will continue to increase evenly across the three lore subtypes. if a chanter takes the "spiritual jounrey" talent, it would be the same deal: lore will continue to increase evenly across the subtypes. Cipher would have the "well-read" talent too.

when the number of total skills in the pool are not that many, a majority of the skills can be taken up by the whole party. Who cares who takes stealth, mechanics, survival, etc? if you want to be efficient you'll just use the classes with the bonuses in those skills to bump it. There's no real reason to consider different classes going for different skill sets because ultimately they all do the same thing. and the main topic of this thread is that the game is too combat focused to the detriment of choices outside of combat.

adding class abilities would require more work - which is why i didn't make that recommendation. i'm recommending that what is already in the game (skills) become more granular and divided appropriately among the classes, even though they fall under the larger umbrealla of a certain skill. As it currently stands, each skill already has multiple mechanics. As an example, survival "determine how long the effects of consumable foods, drinks (including potions), and drugs last.[5] In Conversations and scripted Interactions Surivival provides options that involve wilderness, hunting etc." Each of these are under the umbrella of survival, but they are different implemented mechanics. All I'm saying is that the effects be more granularized by class, so that these bonuses affect different classes differently. i'm not asking for more work. I'm saying take what you already have: skills, with it's multiple areas of use (the survival skill as an example) and then break it up appropriately for different classes. then have talents that allow you to dilute back in the other sub-skill mechanics. Dialogue is not the only thing that you do outside of combat. If it is, then what happened to the third of the holy trinity, exploring? Or crafting? etc etc. Stop thinking so narrowly. If they want to make class abilities that work outside of the skill mechanics already implemented, they can do so. But that's a whole other level of work. Dividing skills into sub-skills is the most cost-effective way of doing this. as i said before, this is likely too late into the development cycle, it will cause sawyer too much of a headache, or too expensive. but as it currently stands, what makes classes different is only important when it comes to combat. otherwise the differences are superficial at best (with the bonuses in each skill).

i believe that you're categorizing in a differnt way than i would. ultimately, if class abilities are only usable in combat, then that only fits in one of the three categories of the "holy trinity" as Monte Carlo put it. The current division is between combat-focused abilities and non-combat-focused abilities, whatever their names are. Non-combat skills have uses outside of combat and can offer interesting gamplay outside of combat. Distinguishing classes in categories outside of those that are primarily combat, would be more fun to play, I believe. Lore, mechanics, survival, etc do not all have direct combat applications. Class abilities may (or may not, I'm not sure). also all IE games were not the same. IWD2 did have skills and was based on D&D3, as this game also heavily borrows from all editions (including 4th).

i do realize that all the classes have the option to choose each skill, so dividing which "benefit" between them is fairly difficult. this is another difficulty that can be remedied by randomization and balance. Basically, define what each skill will do mechanically, then figure out the value of each mechanic. split those skills which offer multiple mechanics for each class, and each class gets a portion of those mechanics. Since we aren't going for a "Realistic" perspective, any arbitrary division would work. Adjust as needed. Then apply talents to dilute the mechanics back into the general skill as described above.

i fear it might be. Ultimately, skills should be another way to distinguish the classes. The older D&D systems did this by making certain classes (rogues/thieves) skills-experts while other classes didn't have skills. With PoE's new "everyone must be good in combat," classes offer less diversity. Right now, this diversity is in how they deal with tactics (heavy hitter, mob rulers, line-holders, etc) but only in combat. That's great, but most of the game shouldn't just be combat. There should be other ways for the classes to distinguish themselves outside of combat, because then classes really don't mean anything outside of that. Yes, they've got the "bonus to skills" but that's not as distinctive as what they're doing for combat. We don't even have a whole list of skills, so this is tough to propose, but they should diversify further: I propose that the same skills do different things outside of combat. Inside combat, yes they can all utilize their skills for effectiveness. But outside, a ranger's survival should not be the same as the druid's survival. Perhaps one helps with reducing monster spawning, while another allows players to lengthen the effect of consumables. Lore the same way: mages deal with magical lore, where as chanters, for example, deal with the lore of history etc. This distinguishes skills further and makes the game more interesting as well as choosing classes to join your party more interesting. I doubt sawyer will do this however, because it's "too expensive" and will cause him too much of a headache to balance. Although I think that it might be a little tough at first to balance, it is possible. You don't change how it balances in combat, but when it comes to outside of combat, the bonuses offered should vary between classes. I would also argue that not all the different skills need to be distinguished. For example, 4 classes already have stealth. It is tough for me to come up with four ways for stealth to differ in the classes that makes mechanical sense and is interesting enough to matter. With certain skills, that's fine. But I would argue that diversifying as much as possible, would be better. Talents can then serve to "dilute" a certain skill so that the skill would blend for each class at higher levels, while still being distinct. For example, a ranger's survival allows him to maximize consumables. But the talent "food and shelter" would allow him to also take 70% of his current survival skill for reducing monster spawning chance. Whereas, a druid's survival maximizes reducing monster spawning chance while the talent "fruits of the forest" allows him to maximize 80% of survival for consumable effects/duration.

bremerkamp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

anyone know why? fired? laid off? better position elsewhere?

i hope high heels are in! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350 http://features.kodoom.com/en/iran-culture/high-heels-gift-of-iranian-soldiers-to-the-world/v/4969/

Has anyone on this thread seen the movie "Her"? I'd really like to get all your opinions on it from both sides. Pro-mancers and Anti-mancers. Necro-mancers can also respond if they wish, filthy degenerates.

oh man! Thanks - I miss that show! This thread continues to deliver the jokes. Also, now I want a companion named "Romance." He's got multiple personality disorder, spends his time adventuring but not really getting the main point of adventuring (he stops to smell the flowers instead of fighting the dragon about to chomp him up) or suddenly going crazy humping every thing in sight (trees, sheep, people, houses, mechant carts, whatever). Then occasionally, he'll make a funny and all is well.

you should call it "Pillars of Eternity, a Josh Sawyer joint" just to be clear that you aren't talking about Path of Exile or the novel, Pillars of Eternity by Barrington J. Bayley (which I would call "The Originial Pillars or Eternity.") http://www.amazon.com/The-Pillars-Eternity-Barrington-Bayley/dp/0879977175

I thought there was already sharing going on between T;TON and PoE? Aren't they sharing resources? Now just because the barrels and chests in PoE don't look the same as they do in T:TON, that's not a problem - the bigger challenges are the technical challenges that Obsidian has already solved. The artists at InXile have to eat too.

I would have picked soap in a microwave instead. It expands more http://youtu.be/avYAaA90pVA?t=3m6s

Ultimately, you know you gotta go the route of Blizzard and come up with something akin to "battle.net" so that players can just download straight from you guys. Just....don't become greedy like them - none of this always online bull$#%#

double post

"The problem with you non-animancers is that you think you know everything when it comes to explaining the bigger picture to you. Do you not think that we animancers have thought about holding the body together when the spirit is linked to it? There are more mysteries to the human body than your puny minds can comprehend and even greater mysteries to the soul that even we can comprehend. While your questions are intriguing to one such as yourself, they are not new questions for those of us who have spent our entire lifetimes practicing these arts. We have been thinking about these questions and finding their answers. Your questions remain those: merely questions. We, however, strive against those who wish to harm us and destroy our work -your so-called 'do-gooders'- to answer those very questions you pose. Yet, with every solution, new problems arise and we anticipate them and endeavor to solve them. The short answer is 'We do what we can with the tools we have available.' The creation of an immortal being is not a simple incantation to 'spark' their longevity. As with anything complex, what lies before you is the culmination of many years of study and research, multitudes of failures, and the application of a series of what you call 'spells' as well as a bit of ingenuity of those that came before us. What looks like patchwork animancy to you, is in reality the creation of a sculpture using mud with many hands- as we adjust one aspect of it, another aspect shifts out of place. To explain the decades of research and study to one such as you would take longer than I care to spend explaining the nitty-gritty of what we have wrought. Suffice it to say that we 'link their souls to their bodies' and leave it at that. Anything more will probably be more than you can understand and I am not one to sit here and waste my breath."

fantastic update. as a min-maxer, i've always liked the companions that were mysterious but kept feeding you a little bit of content until you knew that you would hit it big with a story if you kept them in your party and invested time into them. i also like companions with distinct personalities - not cliches. for example, the strong but lovable buffoon has been done to death and minsc was the epitome of this. one character that i would like to have in my party is Varsuvius from Order of the Stick: she's badass, she's got her own set of morals, she's capable of failing, but at the end of the day, her personality is a little eccentric. I imagine most "adventurers" are eccentric types since they so easily leave everything behind and travel the world.

ITT : :bow: :bow: :bow: Me: