Malekith

Dirty thief...

Fallout 3 was shiit, and New Vegas was an exquisite sculpture using turd as it's raw material. It's only so much you can do with a TES style game

Prime sorry but i will never ever buy this animeish explanation. And Conan the barbarian as example of believability is not exatly the best one. While the description of a wizard as a sad nerd that somehow his nerdines made him master of the World is more believable... Yeah,right Translate with a studious of a science that require hundreds of hour of study and specific training that do not leave much time for physical practice than that yes is correct. And what about the sad nerd stuff? Guys even in books author try to avoid mary sue character like the plague, do you think there is a reason or not? I read many fantasy books, and in most of them magic power has nothing to do with inteligence. It all depends on the lore, and PoE lore makes sense internaly just fine.

As i said in a previous post, i believe my main 3 concerns (itemization, combat feel, and abilities creep due to all classes having abilities making combat a clusterfuack) will be addressed. Itemization's presentation worries me a little more because it's a question of additional resources for art (though i don't think pensil drawings would be prohibitly expensive), and while i wouldn't have a problem with the game delayed in order for Kaz to have all the time in the world to do everything by himself, i can understand if Obsidian wouldn't like something like this

Pretty please Josh, OE! You cannot say no to this über-cute cat. It's impossible with its deploring beady eyes. Don't draw attention to my manipulating masterplan. I know Josh has/likes cats, so i chose the picture accordingly.

Prime sorry but i will never ever buy this animeish explanation. And Conan the barbarian as example of believability is not exatly the best one. While the description of a wizard as a sad nerd that somehow his nerdines made him master of the World is more believable... Yeah,right

This isn't true. If you look at the enchantment list, you will see that many of the things you mentioned are in the list (e.g. Wounding, Stunning, Draining are all in the weapon list -- only "slow" from your list isn't) and more. Though there aren't currently recipes for them, there are also Spellbind effects for weapons and armor (allow you to cast specific spells while the item is equipped) and Spell Holding for shields (go off when the holder is hit with a Crit). While the core list of effects are likely to remain accessible via the enchantment system, many of the Spellbind and Spell Holding effects are more likely to remain unique properties. We also have to build up to a BG2 level of power. PoE is not in the same "power band" as BG2. It's more comparable to somewhere between BG and IWD. Happy to know that. But that was my initial impression (the game cannot load and crashes constandy so i wait for a patch before i play more), and i have seen the same complain in other sites as well. It may be that people's excpectations are wrong as they compaire it with BG2 instead of BG1 as they should, but i doubt it's only that. The only thing i can imagine is the presentation problem i mentioned in the OP. Pensil scethes and a better,more solid UI window for examining the items, plus better weapon icons would go a long way to fix the problem. I know Kaz has too much on his plate as it is, but art is as essential in a game like this. Personaly i would be happy if the game was delayed 3-4 months or gone Early Access for the sole reason of art enchacment, but if the release date is set in stone, outsourcing or bringing an additional artist in PoE could be a possible solution. Pretty please

So? I can show you a 2010 interview with Mike Laidlaw where he swears that Dragon Age 2 will be a deep and compelling epic. If you dont believe in the developers than why did you spend money on it? Because Avellone, Ziets, Festenmaker. I believe the story,writing,setting will carry the game, no matter what system they use. But i believe the game will be good despite it's system and gameplay and not because of it. Something like PS:T. But i will be thrilled if Sawyer proves me wrong. If he doesn't, and since i disagree with many of his design decisions at a very fundamental level, i will back the next Obs. kickstarter only if they promise a completely diferent system and Sawyer isn't part of the game. Else i'll be happy to buy it when it comes out and i see the reviews and you tube videos. See this is where a lot of the disagreement comes in. Sure I backed the game because of the writing and the writers. They're great and Obsidian rightly has the reputation it has. However, the thing that has made me most consistently excited about the game since the end of the kickstarter has been Josh's design decisions and philosophy. To really see his system design in action, F:NV is the place to go. To apply this to the topic at hand, I felt that the guns and weapons of F:NV, which were to a rather large extent designed by Josh, were very varied and versatile and really felt unique. Many types of guns and a rather large variation within each gun type. Worked great, and I hope we'll be seeing something like it in PoE. See, since i didn't like New Vegas all that much, and IWD2 was my least favorite IE game as far as combat goes, i'm not a huge fan of Sawyer. And his core design beliefs raises alarms for me. Ironicaly, i don't have as much problem with his attribute or balanced approach like most people here, and i believe that a fun combat could be achieved even with Sawyer's restrictions. Boring itemization, micromanagment nightmare, and not a solid IE/RTS style of combat feedback instead of the NWN2 abortion are the things that would outright kill this product for me, and i think Sawyer wants to fix all that so i'm not overly conserned. I excpect to find the combat "good for what it is", and mostly ignore it. But even if the combat is fun, i would have way more fun with not unified mechanics (working on a per case way instead of Sawyer's universal applicability) hard counters galore, and balance that is a priority only as long as it doesn't infringe on things that make the game interesting (narrative, setting, itemization, interesting magic that isn't damage/buff/debuff all take priority. So the absence of Sawyer as a Project Lead would improve the next game for me. I believe he is a good system designer on low level (if the broad core system direction isn't dictated by him), and has good creative ideas, but his core philoshophy isn't something i find particularly appealing. And i believe it was a mistake to have him as Lead system designer in a IE successor, as his core design philoshophy is diametricaly opposed to AD&D,which was the core of the IE games. His ideas would work like a charm in a turn based, classless game (which he would design if he was making his dream game), but shoehorned in a RTwP IE game doesn't work so good.( the excess micromanagement i mentioned above, the unified mechanics etc.)

So? I can show you a 2010 interview with Mike Laidlaw where he swears that Dragon Age 2 will be a deep and compelling epic. If you dont believe in the developers than why did you spend money on it? Because Avellone, Ziets, Festenmaker. I believe the story,writing,setting will carry the game, no matter what system they use. But i believe the game will be good despite it's system and gameplay and not because of it. Something like PS:T. But i will be thrilled if Sawyer proves me wrong. If he doesn't, and since i disagree with many of his design decisions at a very fundamental level, i will back the next Obs. kickstarter only if they promise a completely diferent system and Sawyer isn't part of the game. Else i'll be happy to buy it when it comes out and i see the reviews and you tube videos.

Is this true? If so, major derp. Bigger derp is to rely on someone's admittedly unclear hearsay. If anyone bothered to take 5 seconds to do a search you'll see that Josh never said anything like that. He simply said that unique items are enchantable like anything else. -"You can add enchantments to unique items that you find." -"Additionally, our crafting/enchantment system does allow you to modify weapons -- even unique ones. So if you have a specific group of bonuses you'd really like to have, you will probably be able to make that happen." You completely miss the point. What we discuss is that the "Unigue" items, to unique in something other than name they need to have enchatmends and abilities beyond the scope of the crafting system, that the player can't add to other items.

That sounds more like a balance issue than a systemic problem. +1 attack/round on a +2 sword seems rather overpowered for AD&D. This thread also seems to conflate two unrelated issues, one being bland presentation of items, the other being item bonuses not being particularly interesting or engaging. The latter of which is hard to really judge accurately based on a limited content beta. "Interesting" stuff tends to be more error prone as well, so it might have been omitted for now for the sake of the Greater Stability. Not unrelated. Both issues are relevant to making the itemization feel bad, and both should be corrected. I never said they are the same issue, but both are problematic. And if Obsidian knows about it and it is only a beta issue, then great. But the beta is for them to gather feedback, so we are giving them feedback. Afterr all, during the kickstarter pitch they mentioned items spesifically, with written histories and all that, which means they know the importance of interesting itemization to the IE feel. If it's something that they already have corrected, no harm done.

They said that backer Weapons won't all be in the game the same time. They made some of them part of semi random tables. So, a chest is scripted to have a moderate enchatment hammer, but the weapon would be chosen among 3 different hammers of similar moderate strenght. It's a clever way to avoid item creep, and while i agree it won't be as spare with loot as BG1 was(and i'm not sure i want it to be so spare), it's possible to be like BG2. Becoming another IWD2 or god forbid NWN2(which i don't remember a single item as memorable) would be a shame.

So you're against the idea, then? Funny think is it won't be a bad built. It would suck at dealing damage and holding the line, but to have this two stats so low will mean that you will have other stats too high. Those points must have gone somewhere after all. And if every attribute is usefull, it means that your 3 might 3 constitution character would be supreme in something, like stunlock enemies or giving a crippling effect with his every attack and then avoid being hit in turn.

For me they felt empty and boring. Hiking around without reason and fighting random mobs feels like a TES part inside my IE game. And i dislike TES direction as a whole. IE games arent continuous worlds. Their maps are an abstraction, and the areas you visit are the points of interest having a reason to be there, bypassing the filler material. It stands to reason that the points of interest should be interesting damn it.

Actually, no. I agree that the placement of wildlife is a little much, but i wouldn't want the crap that was BG1 wilderness areas. Worse part of any IE game by far. There is a reason Bioware change it for the sequel, and no other game tried this style apart from the first Geneforge. BG2 content density was perfect. As for artificial level design, IWDs were similar and i liked them just fine. But larger maps wouldn't hurt, although it's too much work to redo them to be worth the trouble.

I was actually waiting for you to bring it up, but you took your sweet time, so well...

Tried the beta for the first time. I won't talk about attributes etc. since it's at present a matter of Number tweaking, and due to bugs i can't judge the feel of combat. My number one worry from the beta was that the items feel bland. I know it's still beta, but truth be told Sawyer's priorities and crafting system made me worried from the start, and beta did nothing to calm my fears. Doesn't help that i also found IWD-IWD2 items somewhat bland and forgettable as well. In my opinion BG2 had the best itemization of all IE games(and all RPGs ), and i would hope PoE comes closer to that. My issues so far can be put in two categories Presentation:Item icons are currently bad, and even if placeholders, the art direction matters. IWD2 items also felt bland, because Unique, named items' icons didn't feel distinct enough from mundane/low enchatment ones, and there were too many of them. SoA struck a good balance with items, where every weapon type had 1-2 good options, and the icons felt distinct. Also there weren't too many unique items to make them feel common. The way the items are presented in right click also matters. Pensil drawings go a long way with that, and combined with BG more solid window as opposed to PoE pop-up, the items just felt better MechanicalSo far the only enchatments we have seen is simple numerical values, and percentages, which feels boring. It feels more like Diablo 3 than an IE game. BG2 had weapons that had more varied effects, from (bleeding,stun,life stealing,slow) on hit, to passive buffs and protections(mind shield,negative plane Protection, haste etc.)while equiped, to active abilities and spells. Made items more interesting, and more difficult to compaire with each other. Which is more powerful, Celestial Fury, Blackrazor, or Vorpal Blade? Crom Fayer, Flail of ages, Staff of the Magi or Carsomyr? On top of that, crafting make me even more worried on that front. Will there be unique abilities and enchatments on artifact items, or every single enchatment will be recreateable with crafting? If the latter, it will contribut to the feeling of blandness, and i fear it will make having more "out there" effects impossible. Every effect will be more or less formulaic. Itemization IE games is unsurpassed until today, and a big part of their appeal. And SoA did it best of all. Pls Obsidian, don't **** this up. To be honest i consider this a more important issue than how character attributes will be in the end.

No, i could have a mage with 18 int, 3 might, and only use crowd control (Web, charm) abilities that would last for so much time that the rest of the party could kill them. It would be the most usefull party member, without doing a single point of damage. Or a fighter/rogue whatever who stunlocks, delivers crippling effects left and right, disrupts, all of it without doing much damage.Still an extremely usefull character

I think I'm seeing a pattern here. I get the feeling that some of you really don't like that it's actually impossible, or very difficult, to gimp your character at chargen by picking the 'wrong' attributes. And, conversely, that it's impossible, or very difficult, to make your character objectively much more powerful by picking the 'right' ones. Is this in the ballpark? If so, then yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be changed as it goes against Josh's prime directive of "no trash choices." And yes, that is always going to make minmaxers unhappy. Nope. The complainers (both here and in the Codex) want the attributes to have a big effect with the way of distribution changing the character in a big way. For an example, 3 might would incure severe penalties on damage, not just a smaller bonus. And 18 might would double your damage, not 30% increace. 3 int would mean that your fireball would be an almost single target spell. It's not about good or bad builds, it's about diferent builds. The "min-maxed" builds would be terrific in some departments, but completely attrocious in others, so you would need to adjust your playstyle. The safer all around good option would be to distribute all your points evenly. If you wanted to tweak your character to a spesific built, you would be forced to play on that builds strenghts, or you would be obliterated. Dumping any attribute would have severe penalties, and maxing any attribute would have massive benefits. And if all attributes are useful, the number of viable builds (that play completely differently) will be huge, as will be the replayability The way it is now, the diference is so minimal that Helm's trolling has a core of truth

:gets popcorn;

The same way one can argue that most people find Might to be "counter intuitive" and implies physical strength not magical?

Funny, as the PoE lore and the way the system works has more in common with anime than D&D (not that i have a problem with that) PoE system is basicaly Naruto with "soul power" instead of chakra. Comes as a requirement with the philosophy that mundanes like fighters and rogues must be equaly strong with mages You are wrong. In naruto you have the taijutsu (only need stamina, no chakra -- just pure combat skill), others (ninjutsu, genjutsu,...) are all based on chakra. So in reality they are all wizards. . And in PoE normal people that do not have strong souls do not become adventurers. All PoE classes are "supernaturals" one way or the other.

Yes you're missing something. The base melee accuracy. Very Low for wizards, Very High for fighters. Your muscle wizard would be whiffing and grazing while your fighter would be hitting and critting. But grazing means that I didn't hit correctly. That's a different mechanic. I know that fighters are better at fighting than wizards, I never said that wasn't the case. @Malekith: Yeah, I keep bringin up Dragonball as a comparison myself. Because physical and spiritual strength are strongly connected in these types of shows (and also in martial arts in general). But if that is the case then the game needs to put that into its world and narrative somewhere. And I have a feeling many people wouldn't like this oriental focus. The game has put it into it's narrative just fine, and truth be told i find it a refreshing change as worldbuilding goes. Many people won't like it, but the same people would prefer magic to be truly magical and leave mundane classes in the dust. Since the latter is opposed to Sawyer's philosophy, these people will have problems with Sawyer's design in a higher level.

Well, technically, yes, but they don't have to ADMIT it! I thought you were a big proponent of balanced classes

Funny, as the PoE lore and the way the system works has more in common with anime than D&D (not that i have a problem with that) PoE system is basicaly Naruto with "soul power" instead of chakra. Comes as a requirement with the philosophy that mundanes like fighters and rogues must be equaly strong with mages