GrinningReaper659

I was planning on contributing a few issues I've run into with the beta, but when I went to make my first topic I noticed that I was limited to uploading only 1mb max, my savegames alone are each larger than 1mb (and I was intending to attach a savegame with each issue/thread I created). I assume I'm missing something here; should I be compressing the savegames or uploading them elsewhere and linking to them? Or is this perhaps a limit imposed on those that haven't started topics before?

I appear to have been ninja'd as I believe the term goes, good post @Ahvz Well are you suggesting that at seven pages the arguments against the system weren't equally redundant? Again, I've got no clue as I wasn't involved, I'm just suggesting that you may be bias due to the side of that argument you happened to be on. I absolutely agree, though, that just telling people not to criticize in general is pointless.

You think you might be creating a hasty generalization here? It seems to me that those "white knights" could just as easily be defending the system that's already in place because they prefer it, not because they're white knights of hopeless fan boys or whatever else. Disliking a currently implemented system isn't the only acceptable position, it's equally important for those that do like the system to speak their mind because if they don't they they'll have no one to blame but themselves when the developers end up changing a system at the request of vocal critics, be they the majority or the minority. Only those who speak up can be heard. I wasn't on those forums you mentioned for FTL and SRR so for all I know they were just mindlessly defending the system that was currently in place regardless of their opinion of it, though I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would do that.

Traditionally yes. What's the point of releasing a beta and specifically asking for feedback though if they're not going to listen? I thought the point of backing the game was that however small, the people buying the game would have a voice as to how it was directed. We all specifically put in money into a game that we haven't played yet, but we hoped that it would be like our expectations. Our expectations are based on games that we've played that the developers literally said this game would be the spiritual successor to. I like some of the innovations they've tried to put in, specifically removing kiting as a reliable strategy feels much more realistic to me, but if people are insistent on a small change like xp for kills why should the developers draw a line in the sand? Well ultimately it's their call and it's up to them to draw a line in the sand based on their vision of a spiritual successor to the IE games as pitched in the Kickstarter. That's what we backed, their vision of it, so it ultimately is up to them. That doesn't mean, however, that they absolutely can't or won't make changes based on feedback if they are persuaded by that feedback. If you're under the impression that they should be considering adding kill XP in right now as opposed to you just using that as a potential example, then I have a few thoughts: Just because you want kill XP and you've seen that some others around here do as well doesn't mean that everyone does. There are plenty of backers that see not having kill XP as an advance and they prefer it, so why should the side arguing for kill XP be listened to more than those arguing against it? Saying that some of the backers want it isn't an argument to include it, as some of the backers clearly don't want it. If you can prove that most of the backers want kill XP then please do so and I'll gladly concede the point to you. It still wouldn't mean that the devs have to change it to appease you but I don't see why you expect the devs to change something based on the desires of some unknown percentage of backers (and despite the disagreement of the remainder of backers). My question to you is, where is your evidence that the side in support of per-kill XP is the side of the majority of backers? So, just to be clear: "Some backers want it" is not a valid argument as long as some backers don't want it. "It was in the IE games" is not a valid argument because I could use it to demand attributes that are as useless as some were in the IE games or countless other things from those games which many would agree can be and have been improved upon over the last decade and a half.

Same problem occurs on my laptop: AMD A10-5750M 2.5 GHz 12 GB RAM AMD Radeon HD 8650G + 8670M Dual Graphics Windows 8.1 (64-bit)

Southwest area of Dyrford Village, just below the bridge along the water, there's a hidden container with a grappling hook/rope and a consumable buff.

@Zansatsu What point are you making, how is suggesting that OE allow for kiting in their combat system the same as "the satisfaction, challenge, and work it takes to be able to achieve making a party strong enough to handle challenging combat in a way where it would seem we could brush them aside"? I don't think that you're actually disagreeing with me. I think making the strongest character you can within the confines of the game systems is great, and if that accomplishment results in brushing enemies aside with ease that's fine too. I just don't see the point of asking the developers to alter their vision of the default challenge level of the game by allowing for things that they don't allow such as kiting, levitating above enemies that can't reach you, etc.

The player has the "freedom" to make the most powerful character they can within the confines of the system. If the designers allow for levitating above your enemies and raining spells down upon them then so be it, but if they don't allow for it then I don't have any right to go, "hey OE, I have a right to fly over my enemies and hit them while they can't hit me because I want things to be easier!!!" The same applies for kiting. Saying that the player has the freedom to make the most powerful character they can on their preferred difficulty setting is fine, so long as we're talking about doing so within the confines of the system created by the designers. Demanding new systems be implemented because you want to be more overpowered than you are on some specific difficulty setting seems ridiculous to me.

I don't have a problem with designers making encounters challenging to the extent that they so desire, removing things such as kiting and grinding to a point of making encounters easier is completely acceptable. If people need to grind their level up and/or kite all enemies to proceed (or just enjoy being overleveled and stomping enemies), then it seems that they're playing on the wrong difficulty. Slide on down to easy and stomp all the enemies you like. Suggesting that developers shouldn't "take away" the ability to kite and grind to high levels is like saying they shouldn't take away the player's right to be overpowered and wipe out enemies with ease. If you want a god mode, I'm sure there will be a mod; if you want all encounters to be easier, slide the difficulty to easy and problem solved. A game doesn't start you out with god equipment that wipes out enemies with ease because it contradicts the intended level of challenge of the designers, saying that those that don't want the god gear can simply drop it doesn't change the fact that it severely affects the default level of challenge to have it in the inventory to begin with. Why can't those desiring to brush aside their enemies and simplify combat encounters simply play on a lower difficulty setting, isn't that the point of difficulty settings?

yep second floor, room next to the stairs (not across the hall)

Am I to understand that you played the beta and enjoyed the combat just fine until reading on the forum that you weren't receiving XP for each kill? Because, if so, that's absurd. Please tell me that you didn't get retroactively upset about not having received an instant gratification reward that you didn't even miss at the time. I'll just hope that you haven't played the beta and you just meant that you thought per-kill XP was hidden from view in gameplay videos you watched. "Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez." = "completing objectives in any way besides my favorite way is wrong and shouldn't be rewarded equally to my favorite way." Okay, if you say so.

I haven't seen anyone take issue with it, and to be honest it does look great so this is low priority, but it would be nice to be able to do a vertical/horizontal switch on the two UI elements besides the log and move them about the border of the screen. I believe that in Wasteland 2 something like this is possible, and I'm not sure how the UI resources are handled in PoE, but if it's relatively easy to allow these elements to be flipped vertically and relocated, I'd certainly like to try out some different arrangements. It might be nice to be able to move the characters vertically to the top-right, etc. Just a thought.

You do bring up a good point, which to me is the strength of objective XP over other forms. I don't see how kill XP is a good solution to the problem you're presenting, it seems to me that comprehensive objective-based XP is the best option here. Any major overhaul of the XP system may at this point be out of bounds, and I admit that I'd rather see it stay as it is now (once the bugs are worked out) then see combat XP needlessly thrown in, but it seems that the moderate and reasonable solution to all this is comprehensive objective XP. I know that you want to seep in the blood of your enemi -- err -- I mean seep in the culture and history, and good on you. After all, the xvarts shot first, I was merely defending myself. Objective-based XP affords everyone the opportunity to progress, whether they want to explore a wilderness area peacefully, by massacring all its inhabitants, or myriad possibilities in between. The exploration of a ruins could be an objective; heck some objectives could easily be centered on combat such as clearing a road or area of dangerous monsters while some could be more focused on tasks which must be accomplished diplomatically such as easing tensions between two populations of kith without resorting to slaughtering one side or the other.

There may be something useful to be found in a barrel somewhere in that shop if one were to search carefully enough.

Sarex, please don't take my words out of context, you originally quoted my response to someone, I did not make the statement in a vacuum and I never suggested that this poll was more or less representative than other polls, I was making a statement of the representative nature of any such poll with a similar number of participants. Apart from the fact that none of what you just said negates the correctness of my argument, my sentence that you quoted was a response to Helm's giant-font bold response attempting to negate someone's assertion that Helm's position was one of a vocal minority. Helm's response was incorrect, as I pointed out. Your defense of his response is equally incorrect. You can keep repeating justifications all you want, and I'll just keep repeating the facts which negate your argument and support mine. You said that one quarter is not a minority, I disagree, I'll leave it to third party observers to determine which of us is correct. Meh, I'm getting too worked up about this and things are getting a bit heated (sorry for my contribution to this); I need some sleep. Enjoy your poll, and feel free to believe that it's representative of PoE backers at large if you so desire (for all we know, it may be).

The problem is that those 138 are probably quarter of the people who are going to visit the forum and add any input in to how the game should proceed. So for us it's not a minority. This will be my last attempt to explain this, people can feel free to look up vocal minority if there's any remaining confusion. Even if you're exactly right and it's 1/4 of all the people that will visit the forum and give input, then it is still by definition a vocal minority. "So for us it's not a minority." Huh? 1/4 = minority because 25% < 50%. Not to mention the participant bias that drives those who are dissatisfied with the current system to comment/vote more than those who are satisfied. But that last point is superfluous, the support for one side of the argument on this poll represents a vocal minority, I'm shocked people are still arguing this point with me, please go look up the term. Let's take a look at the group that voted in this poll, are they: Minority of backers - absolutely Minority of backers with beta access - still yes Minority of people on the forum - check Minority of backers with beta access that are giving feedback on the forum - by your estimation yes and I tend to agree Clearly a minority, vocal because they're speaking out about an issue they're dissatisfied with. Vocal minority. This horse is dead, please can we move on from it.

I'd like to have this answered as well. Nice strawman you've constructed there, this is not what your opponents are arguing... everyone on here that opposes your view has already told you it's absurd. I certainly don't think that finding a little girl's dolly needs to be rewarded with XP, and I think that defeating a dragon often should be rewarded with XP, but what does it matter if my XP for killing that dragon comes in the form of having completed a quest or an objective that involved its demise; what is this obsession that the death of every monster needs to be directly and immediately rewarded with some instant gratification XP? Further, it doesn't matter to me if my XP for killing that dragon stems simply from the fact that I'm gaining XP throughout the game and that that dragon obstructed my progression. The necessity of being constantly rewarded with XP for each time your character decides to kill some creature just seems foolish to me. It's a desire to have your particular style of play favored above other styles of play, even though the game designers have decided that they'd like players who roleplaying stealthy or diplomatic characters to be rewarded similarly to those who play characters that slaughter their way through every challenge. Quest XP accomplishes this desire of the designers by rewarding players for finishing the quest, as opposed to rewarding them for individual acts of slaughter or stealth along the way. Either way, the character is progressing and it seems that you're essentially upset that the way some people want to play the game (kill everything) isn't going to be the favored and encouraged path to complete every quest or objective. I think that there is a strong case to be made for more objective-based XP (such as XP for clearing a wilderness area of dangerous beasts, XP for the handling of the scripted events, XP for exploring a ruin, etc.), but I don't see any merit in the arguments put forth here for per-kill XP.

Dude, do you not understand the poll? 90% of the voters want a different XP system than the one that is currently implemented in the game, which is quest only XP (the first option). Do you not understand what a vocal minority is? It probably looks something like the 130 or so people that decided to participate in the poll. To be fair we can only go on people who participate. Saying there is a silent majority but showing no .... Well evidence of it isn't fair. That's fine; I'm not making a claim about which side of the argument has the majority, one way or the other. However, the people who chose to participate in this poll epitomize the concept of a vocal minority, so Helm's comment made no sense.

I want to make this clear for all. The trash mobs are too strong compared to the special encounters. As I described earlier that the trash mobs were a greater challenge than the Ogre. That is just stupid. The biggest issue isn't that the game is too hard. It's that the difficulty curve is out of balance. Putting the game on easy will not solve this. As Doppelshwert said the rock-paper-scissors aspect of the game needs to be toned down. As well as a 10% hp reduction from the trash mobs. Okay, well then I guess I just disagree. I haven't yet fought the ogre, but the non "trash mobs" I fought (group of four at drake egg; lead cultist encounter) seemed to be appropriately more difficult than the "trash mobs," many of which on easy could be defeated with minimal ill effects with simply selecting all party members and left clicking on the enemies. Bigger enemies required tactics, trash mobs didn't. I suppose I wouldn't protest to a slightly (~10%) greater disparity in difficulty between these types of encounters, either by making the bosses 10% more difficult or the trash mobs 10% less.

Dude, do you not understand the poll? 90% of the voters want a different XP system than the one that is currently implemented in the game, which is quest only XP (the first option). Do you not understand what a vocal minority is? It probably looks something like the 130 or so people that decided to participate in the poll.

Some sort of organizational/sorting system for the stash is a must as everyone is essentially going to be collecting every scrap of loot into a giant stash which, without comprehensive organization, will be a horrendous mess.

I'm very pleased to find that attribute-related options aren't "win conversation" buttons and that when I told that gentleman how unlikely I thought it that a woman would lie with him, he angrily told me there wasn't a right way to take such a statement. Good stuff.

If you're not playing on easy, and normal is too difficult for you, I'd suggest giving easy a try... I found it to be a breeze on easy, I explained my experience in more detail on the "first impressions" thread. If easy mode is too difficult for a large group of people then I would definitely support adding another, easier option for those people, but if you haven't tried easy and are simply trying to get the "normal" setting to adhere to your desired level of difficulty, I don't see the point. The developers create the standard difficulty as a baseline for how much challenge they think most people should experience throughout their story, and the other difficulties allow players with a higher or lower challenge requirement to be accommodated. Combat seemed a bit hectic at first but this feeling was diminished as I played more. Some people have mentioned that the combat is mentally draining to them because their warriors have too many activated abilities that must be used frequently. I see some merit there, and would highly recommend adding plenty of passive bonus options throughout level progression for those that prefer not to micromanage their warriors.

I'm definitely in support of having some animal types not be automatically hostile (as in BG), such as the more intelligent creatures that may see the risk posed by attacking your party, but I would certainly have neutral groups of animals be the exception and not the rule. Also, druids (and potentially rangers as well) having some sort of passive effect on some animals that keeps them from being aggressive toward the party would be a cool mechanic, though there probably isn't time to incorporate something like that.

I haven't played around with a lot of classes in the beta yet, but it seems that a good fix for all issues of this sort would be to have plenty of choices in abilities - active or passive, so that as your fighter levels up you have the option to take moderate passive bonuses if you're the sort of player that doesn't enjoy micromanagement of warriors (I'm sure this describes quite a few players); and if you prefer the micromanagement you have the activated abilities available to you. Such a variety of passive vs. active choices as characters progress would allow a great level of customization to party builds that could potentially satisfy everyone's tastes. If creating many more active abilities were needed it would seem more tedious, but it seems to me that it would be somewhat simple to add some passive ability choices to the classes (this is coming from someone that doesn't actually know how much time/effort this would require, so feel free to tell me if I'm full of it).