illathid

I like this system. It's better than the NWN1/KOTOR system where you had false swings and hits that didn't match what was actually happening in the combat.

You can skip the narrative, you can't skip the combat. So yeah... Sure you can, you do it the same way (i.e. by not playing the game). Even if you refuse to read a single line of text in the game, by completeing any step of a quest you are engaging with the game's narrative. Hyperbole aside, it's fine that you prefer sandbox style game play. However, sandbox gameplay is ubiqitous in modern RPG design, strong narrative gameplay is not. As such I see no reason for PoE to cater to sandbox crowd, when they can get their fix so many other places.

*Hissss* Simulationist! Kill it with fire!

Combat and narrative are not mutually exclusive, so what you're saying is nonsensical. As I explained above, on the sandbox/narrative scale PoE is much closer to the narrative end than the sandbox end. However, both narrative and sandbox games can be combat heavy or combat light. As you say, PoE will likely be combat heavy.

Not sure what you are getting at here. Well unless they're refusing to pick up quests, they're still engaging in the narrative (even if they don't read everything). And obviously there's a sliding scale between narrative and sandbox games. BG2 is more narrative and BG1 is more sandbox, and skyrim is more sandbox than them both.

That analogy doesn't work on any level. Also quest=/=game. You can ask any of the IE games veterans on this forum. Ok, I'll ask myself then. Self, do quests=game? Yes, quests=game when the game is primarily narrative rather than sandbox in nature.

Apparently...

By refusing to do quests you are effectively not playing the game. You shouldn't get character progression for keeping the game paused and you shouldn't get character progression for not doing quests.

As I've said before, the BB has hints that there could be a reason for the lack of population.

Who the **** are you to decide who gets to play the game and how? Also what are we suppose to say to people for whom kill xp disincentives them from doing quests in a non lethal way? I'm a person with a brain, that's why. The people who want to play the game that way are the reason the industry keeps making ****ty sandbox games like Skyrim. If you don't want engage in the narrative of narrative based game that's fine, just don't expect t be rewarded for it.

If no kill XP disincentives people from wandering not picking up quests then I'd mission f'ing accomplished. If people don't want to engage the content of the game, there's no reason to reward them with a balanced level progression. Seriously, they're a blight on the community.

Well so that no one has to sully themselves by going to RPG Codex: I'm very happy about the change to damage calculation. I'll be interested to see how the changed miss/graze/hit/crit ranges end up working out. Not sure about the change to the crit multiplier though...

Well PoE isn't really a medieval setting, it's a renaissance setting. So I don't see the problem.

IIRC they're making all the language files easy to mod if fans want to put out a fan transaltion mod. So there's hope for you yet!

Just a thought, could there be a plot reason for the relative emptiness of the city spaces? In the BB there's mention of some stuff that could lead to depopulation.

Because the community makes unofficial patches that pretty much everyone used and we forget about it. I'm talking about on release. Read some reviews from the major sources, for Bethesda they almost always mention bugs but give the a pass. They don't do so with Obsidian. Compare this review of skyrim with this review of the stick of truth. Kotaku has all the journalistic integrity of a fruit fly, you can't expect them to not chew Skyrim up like pigs at the trough. The way "major sources" voice their criticism, positive or negative, has nothing to do with the game's actual qualities, as much as it's corruption bias. It doesn't benefit Kotaku to be critical of Bethesda and Skyrim, so they're not. Obsidian, however, is an easy target and easy to criticize without Kotaku being reprimanded in one way or another (i.e. internal pressure or external incentives). Well yeah. That's what I'm saying. Bethesda objectively should have a worse reputation for bugs than Obsidian, but they don't. If it was just Kotaku/RPS/PCGamer, it wouldn't be a big deal, but the community as a whole adopts these stances.

Ok, you want Might to negate DT. Why not have might give penetration then instead? Same outcome, but keeps the damage calculation from being overly complicated for no reason. I'm not seeing how having modifiers before DT makes crits any worse or better for low armored folks.

Game mechanics should serve a purpose, and I can't for the life of me figure out what purpose a pre DT damage modifer would serve. The effects of such a modifier are: 1) reduce the the benefit of oponents DT 2) make damage calculation more complex 3) be thematic (?) 1) is already achieved with penetration/pass through or whatever it's called in game, making this benefit redundant. For 2) this is objectively a bad thing. And 3) could potentially justify the redundancy of 1) or the problems with 2); but you just keep saying it is thematic, not explaining how it's thematic. In my opinion at least.

Because the community makes unofficial patches that pretty much everyone used and we forget about it. I'm talking about on release. Read some reviews from the major sources, for Bethesda they almost always mention bugs but give the a pass. They don't do so with Obsidian. Compare this review of skyrim with this review of the stick of truth.

Yeah, and I still have no idea why. I think you may perhaps be someone who worships at the altar of simulationism, which as I've said many times before needs to be killed with fire (simulationism that, you're fine ). And you run into the same calculation problems if you have pre and post DT modifiers. I see absolutely no beenfit from doing it that way at all.

I don't think this is a good idea. I don't think any damage modifiers should be multiplied together. If you have a 50% damage modifier and and 25% damage modifier with multiplication you have an effective damage bonus of 87.5% not 75% as you'd expect. Plus by putting some modifiers before DT and some after you've effectively made 2 different types of damage modifiers. All this does is make damage calculation more complicated and inpenterable to your average player. I'd be fine with either of the following: [Damage*(mod1+mod2+mod3+mod4)] - DT = Total Damage (Damage - DT)*(mod1+mod2+mod3+mod4) = Total Damage

Wasn't Boo a miniature giant space hamster, not a giant miniature space hamster. While you're right the two cancel each other out, they are still two distinct concepts. Also, is it really a giant miniature space piglet? So there's (at least theoretically) all sorts of miniature space piglets running around somewhere?

Really? I thought people just assumed he was a fighter from the concept art but they said his actual class was rogue, and they made it talking point on the flexibility they wanted to have in classes. Granted, I wasn't following that closely during the kickstarter, so I could very well be wrong.

Will be interesting to play around with new builds with this system. For my main paladin, I'd probably want focus on Intelligence and might, and maybe a little to perception or resolve (resolve being the more thematic choice in my opinion).

Since when has Edér been a fighter? Just saw in the stream his class is fighter, but I thought he was supposed to be a rogue originally?