GreyFox

1) That's a strawman argument, I didn't once imply the need for 'a community full of yes men', I said that positivity was as worthy of mention as negativity - especially with all the changes going on so that they don't take the good out, and so that they enhance what is good about particular classes 2) There have not been many 180s on main mechanics. The largest change will be of that in attributes, which will get tweaked thanks to Sensuki and Matt's paper - which didn't have any mention of the words 'bull****', 'awful' or 'stupid' from what I remember. An example of good critique and an entirely worthwhile assessment. 3) I said myself that most comments would be negative, its the emotional/aggressive tone of some commenters that ruin worthwhile ideas with hyperbole + unnecessary confrontation. It's like wading through a normal forum, and I think that we can all agree that we're no normal forum. #Elitism #PillarsOfElitism Pretty much your entire post count so far is a strawman.... You've driveled quite a bit on stuff I never implied or said. hah And it's not Sensuki's job to hold your hand on the things he likes it's out there for the non lazy to read. Once again your entire assessment is invalid/incorrect as most people see that hes been constructive, positive and also negative...nothing to see here folks.

Did you really see much positivity in the 'review' video? I don't see much, it was centred around bugs and game mechanics that needed changing, rather than those that he didn't want removed/he couldn't see improving - I'm sure there was some positivity somewhere, but not much. That's not anything against Sensuki particularly, but more of an issue with general vocalisations so far. I still have very little idea of which mechanics forum participants particularly like, because criticism is much more likely to fuel a comment than praise - but I'm sure if they get changed we will hear about them, like the pirate gun for instance, which I think was actually Sensuki. (Not picking on him, promise) Paragraph 2 was an addition to the conversation, not a response to you, and was relevant to the positivity being spoken in support of Josh Sawyer + the game he leads. This thread + video by Sensuki has been pretty productive in showing support for the development team, which is often swamped by people's polls on how major mechanics need complete 180s. Not seeing a problem here... Not much good would come from a community full of yes men who just love every mechanic simply because niche game is niche and I for one won't just accept it nor be happy with it just because it's a throw back to the "good ole days". It very much needs to live up to what it claims to be. And thank god for some of the changes and mechanics that got a 180...more hopefully will follow...including individual stealth as an example. Personally I love the feedback from the Devs but make no mistake they are totally fine with this type of feedback as opposed to backlash after the fact and the realization they put in mechanics everyone hates. The devs may totally love something but if no one wants it or will use it there isn't much sense in keeping it around which is where some of these discussions go and then more often there is a sort of compromise. This is the part of the game development process where they need as much feedback as possible and most of that is going to be what sucks or doesn't work or look right...it's not that surprising really...and certainly is par for the course for something like this.

Nah, negativity without positivity is only a critique if there is literally nothing positive in what you're critiquing - which is not the case here. The acknowledgment of the good ideas is AS important to maintain the direction of a game as the highlighting of the bad ideas - you don't have to be a 'stuck up person' to agree with that. Sensuki did the right thing by showing both sides to his opinion on the lead designer (Josh) and on the state of the game, because being behind the curtain at Obsidian and making something comparatively pretty niche deserves credit from those fans of the Infinity Engine games. Other developers have cash grabbed and moved onto more popular forms of game, and some of those on Kickstarter have managed their games notably poorly, and yes, Obsidian are a company and Josh is doing what he's employed to do, but they are doing it how I wish more would. Bravo. Huh? He wasn't...he's constantly been constructive as well as providing both negative and positive sides to various parts of the game. Not really sure what your response was about especially paragraph two since no one said anything about that.

Oh **** I just noticed they finally added my backer pledge badge and kick starter thing....lol had that as a ticket for like 2 months.

You haven't been coming off as harsh or mean spirited or anything what sissies were saying that? Should have told them to put their big boy/girl pants on and learn to deal with opposing opinions. It's pretty easy to tell when you are messing around and or having some fun with it like when you say "that's bull**** wtf is that"...in those cases you aren't literally giving them the business it's that you see the humor in it as well and non stuck up people understand what you're doing....

One thing I don't like about the game visually is that when you do a move command it still shows yellow circles around where they are going instead of green or blue in color blind mode. I think it should be the same color as the selection circle. Also everything else in the game is washed out, low color, and more realistic looking.....except spell icons....these spell/ability icons look like something from a sci fi game compared to the rest of the visuals. This games low color/more realistic approach should have icons similar to the above image which is the BG style. These IWD type of icons don't fit the design and the icons should reflect the wooden imagery or similar to the rest of the game world.

If it doesn't get changed for the real version of the game I'll use a mod or change it myself so GJ Sensuki. There needs to be at least 16 slots AFAIC

It's not surprising there are more and more threads on this...unless the game ships with a sticker that says NO COMBAT XP....then people are going to be looking for it and then complaining about it when they find out there isn't any. Perfectly reasonable and natural TBH.

Feelz. Your idea makes perfect mechanical/balance sense, but it makes the spells feel wrong. Spells like fireballs are "supposed" to be blind invocations of elemental energy. It doesn't make sense for them to be able to discriminate between friends and foes, at the edges or otherwise. Priests calling down divine punishment on their foes are different of course -- they're "supposed" to discriminate. I've no doubt I'd get used to it, but it would feel jarring. I disagree. What are you basing what fireballs are "supposed" to be like off of? Wouldn't be D&D would it? (selective pro D&D ideas v. convenient "this isn't D&D" retorts!) Once again this could be a situation where soul power/manipulation comes into play and it isn't unrealistic to think that you COULD control the AOE size of your spells. As far as distinguishing between friend or foe the best case I'd have for that is the fireball blast arcing upwards/vertically at the edges instead of how BG has it splash outwards horizontally.(this would be imaginative and not literal in the graphics). You could also view it as dissipating at the edges where you can see a friend...or have the spell go partially incorporeal or whatever equivalent. Could be default or via talent. In general I agree that it would be weird for AOEs to miss friendlies but I think Josh's idea/stance comes from everyone complaining about the speed of enemies and getting off AOEs proper(whether this should be considered legit feedback is up to *whoever*) However, I really like the idea of variable sized AOEs up to a maximum of your Int bonus and I like the idea of mage types that have exceptional control over their magic.

@Matt I agree with almost all of that but I am curious as to why you think action speed should be a stat? Is it because the current recovery system is too long or slow? and you think this would assist? Would you still want action speed on a stat if recovery times on armor weren't so harsh? I completely agree that adding deflection on a stat is almost mandatory!

When compared to any other attribute, it will be underpowered. However, because it helps your character do literally everything faster (and therefore better), it ends up balanced IMO. If IAS was added to DEX, it would be the very definition of a "jack-of-all-trades, master of none" attribute. We went into this a bit in our paper, but you might have missed it. And the attack speed bonus can always be increased if it is too weak. Na I understand the paper but some classes don't do a wide variety of things for this to help them out in....and some classes do a whole lot of ****. Good job BTW guys I'm not trying to complain or anything but I am worried about the Dex stat the rest seems like it's going in the right direction. Also If I understand what Josh was saying: "1) Interrupt chance should be primarily attack/weapon-based with Accuracy (or rather, attack resolution) being the modifying factor. This doesn't entirely align with your conclusions, but it essentially decouples Interrupt from an Attribute independent of what's affecting Accuracy." This means something I asked for a while ago has come to pass and that is taking interrupt OFF of stats....yea maybe have a stat to help you resist an interrupt but it was never(imo) a good idea to have an interrupt stat.

Actually no. The risk is faaaaar more likely that it will be OP than UP. Generally, in CRPGs, any attribute that increases the number of actions one can take (i.e. action speed), unless carefully balanced, is a no-brainier to pump. If you read the paper it shows that it IS underpowered....I'm not really debating it...

Dex only affecting speed seems underpowered to me. Dex looks like a stat that will be underpowered or overpowered....before it was basically a must have now it's meh(imo at least) and if you add deflection possibly too good again.

OE will likely increase the rate at which we get talents. I'd bet... oh... 100$ on it. Yea..but like Josh was saying this is supposed to be the IWD/BG type of game so it isn't and probably shouldn't be realistic to have a complete character fully fleshed out in this game. I feel if we get talents too often it will become bloated towards the end and inevitably the talents in PE2 will be less interesting/useful(or flat out over the top). 9 or 10 feats from levels 1-20 should work IMO and then whatever they decide to do above 20 if it goes beyond that. Yeah I'd expect they end up going with 1 or 2 talents at lvl 1, then 1 every 2 levels from there. That should be enough especially when we add in the class abilities and such.

OE will likely increase the rate at which we get talents. I'd bet... oh... 100$ on it. Yea..but like Josh was saying this is supposed to be the IWD/BG type of game so it isn't and probably shouldn't be realistic to have a complete character fully fleshed out in this game. I feel if we get talents too often it will become bloated towards the end and inevitably the talents in PE2 will be less interesting/useful(or flat out over the top). 9 or 10 feats from levels 1-20 should work IMO and then whatever they decide to do above 20 if it goes beyond that.

I think that's because spells don't scale in PoE. So, you wind up with a bunch of versions of the same spell, just slightly more powerful then the last. How's that working out so far? I didn't like that idea when I first heard it so I was curious if you reach a point where your level 1/2 spells become pretty useless? Seems natural to me that spells would increase in potency(up to a max) as you level up.

Once again...most people are going to notice and cringe a bit at the lack of combat Xp....not hard to foresee.

I did this in IWD2 as well. I just equipped all my melee characters with 2 weapons or a 2H weapon and just went to town because defense didn't seem to matter. It was just a race to see who could beat stick who the fastest as no one could really be missed. Seems the issue is somewhat different this time but the need to grab the biggest stick is there.

Something I found funny about D&D stats is... If you had a 3 con (-2hp for 2E) roll a Mage roll a 1 for your hp out of d4.... Just a funny concept I suppose.

Yea I was going to put in my other post that maybe someone has data or analysis backing up the current system or debunking it...maybe I just need to see it differently?(or maybe Monte Carlo is right *shrug*)

At the same time how you respond to "dump" stats is entirely up to you as well... No one forced Matt to go 18/18/18/3/3/3 he chose to....and in regards to people who like to "role play" I doubt those people would indeed go with any 3's as their stats regardless of if the game allowed you to or not. You are right, and in fact most of the time I don't do that (I'm talking about my metagamed-to-hell MP party here) for precisely those RP reasons you were talking about. My point is that the fact that there does exist a "best" statline for a fighter and that I have to force myself not to roll it due to RP concerns is, in and of itself, a failure in design. Fighters (in 2e) use those 3 stats and don't need the others. Mages need 18 INT and don't benefit from any CON beyond a certain number (12, I think?). My point is that the 2e ruleset (the ruleset of the IE games) has some serious design issues, and the attribute design is one of them. There is very little actual choice involved from a mechanical standpoint. It's just "bad", "better", "best" where statlines are concerned for the most part. Sure, this doesn't break the game - but the game would be better if there was choice beyond "do I want the best stats for my fighter or do I want to not have the best stats for my fighter because RP reasons?". PoE's stat system attempts to solve this, which I'm 100% on board with even if I think there are problems with the current implementation. The concept of an attribute system in which I can set my attributes (i.e. the type of character) independently of my class, and then that class plays differently, but not any less viably, is a fascinating concept, and one that I personally have never seen in any RPG. Well yea I'm not defending 2E by any means.... a lot of the restrictions were pretty stupid especially the race/class/level ones. There are more recent PnP examples where int can be useful for a fighter even in combat and of course out of it as well.(as well as other stats). And where mage types don't need x intelligence for x level of spell...so that's been dealt with for a long time now. As far as your last point...it will be less viable....and should be....right? You can make a fighter with a 3 con in 2e and he is going to suck at soaking up hits You can make a fighter in PE with a 3 con and he is going to suck at soaking up hits If this isn't the case then why are we using attributes if the class is the determinate? (which, incidentally is totally contrary to what you're saying as whole since we're talking rolling stats FIRST and coming up with a concept) Say I want to make a sickly/low con fighter, he should be as viable a tank as one who isn't? Color me confused (in response to your "but not any less viable") The game's self proclaimed purpose of the fighter is to "front line" ergo tank damage....so if you dump con and pump w/e else with the idea that he is/should be as viable a tank as someone who pumped con.....whelp... I guess I don't get how dropping what is clearly core to a class in lieu of secondary stats should mean they are equally as viable....maybe different....but certainly its not going to be equal...nor should it be IMO. And keep in mind this game is what set the class expectations with the whole "mob ruler" "damage dealer" "front liner" etc etc And the stats clearly explain which portion of those they affect...damage, duration, accuracy, extra health..... The IE games never said a fighter was a front liner and you could very well have one using a bow or whatever other combination of ranged/melee weapons/shields. That's just using the fighter as an example but you could apply it to the others as well.

Cool thanks. I may end up using a hatchet in the off hand....

At the same time how you respond to "dump" stats is entirely up to you as well... No one forced Matt to go 18/18/18/3/3/3 he chose to....and in regards to people who like to "role play" I doubt those people would indeed go with any 3's as their stats regardless of if the game allowed you to or not. Some people seem to want this or that for role playing purposes but then admit to doing other things that are clearly not inline with role playing. I've never had a character below a 9 in any stat in the IE games even if a higher stat wouldn't benefit that character. Now we have a game where it WOULD benefit that character even if not in combat....so..... The stats look largely superficial to me anyway atm.

Are hatchets considered fast or normal speed?

Eight slots is too small I think a lot of us agree there....at minimum I'd be fine with big increase in slots per character but with no encumbrance why is it per character? The way they are doing it now it should be a shared inventory with tons of free space.