Jump to content

CatatonicMan

Members
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

110 Excellent

About CatatonicMan

  • Rank
    Imaginary Friend of the Obsidian Order

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hobbs, NM, USA
  • Steam
    CatatonicGinger [xNMT]

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
  1. Fine by me. People can bury their head in the sand all they want as long as they don't force me to do the same.
  2. My opinion? Leave it in. There's no need to bend the knee to every offendatron that makes mountains out of molehills.
  3. Have you tried AutoHotkey? It can rebind mouse buttons 4 and 5. For example, to set 'M4' and 'M5' to 'a' and 'b', respectively, use this as the AutoHotkey script: XButton1::a XButton2::b
  4. The problem, I imagine, is that a "robust" skill system would end up entirely imbalanced with a lot of one-shot and/or worthless skills. This was a big problem with the D&D CRPGs that tried to be "universal", especially since there was often no indication as to what skills would actually be useful. Overall, a concise, well-supported skill system is a hell of a lot better than an expansive, sporadically-supported one (which could probably be condensed down to the previous one anyway). It makes a lot of sense to have many varying skills in a tabletop game where the player has a lot of agency, but, generally speaking, it's not been very practical for CRPGs.
  5. Working within limits is an unfortunate necessity with game design. Adding content to fill out a large skill lineup would take a lot of time and resources. Making all the skills equally useful would take even more time and resources. I'd rather have OE focus on doing a few things really well than to do a bunch of things rather poorly. Besides which, very few CRPGs are open/varied enough to really make use of an expansive skill system. Oddly, that's the kind of thing that I could see implemented in Bethesda's games, assuming they weren't entirely awful at that kind of thing.
  6. Should there be a skill system? Yes....but only if the skills will actually be used. There's no point including a skill that will have no meaningful impact on the game. How the skills should be gained is an entirely different question. Should they be bought with points? Packaged with feats/perks? Derived from stats? That is a better question.
  7. What I'm not understanding is....why traps and locks? Why is OE assigning arbitrary XP rewards to these activities and not, say, persuasion? Perception? Stealth? Hell, even kills? These arbitrary XP rewards are the exact thing they were supposedly trying to avoid when making their XP system, and now they want to throw them back in? What gives?
  8. I've never seen a pickpocket system that I actually liked. Most are just save scum to victory and/or quit when boredom strikes. Besides that, the risk of having the entire world trying to kill you was not worth the minor amount of pocket change you could get.
  9. A lot of that boils down to, "Mechanic X, which I don't like, is different than mechanic Y, which I do like." There's nothing wrong with that, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the game is being rushed. What will the game be like outside the beta? Better? Worse? Will it have waves of enemies spawn in battle? Will the maps be lazily and obviously recycled? Will the player have any real agency? Will the skills matter or are they window dressing? Will the game be rife with bugs? We don't know. The beta doesn't tell us enough about the game as a whole to make any reasonable speculations about development speed.
  10. The number of people who cared enough to vote but didn't care enough about the outcome is important, statistically speaking. While we're at it, so is the number of people who refused to take the poll at all (not that we can expect to get that number from a straw poll).
  11. I'm occasionally seeing the excessive health pools as well, but they're not consistent. I hate random bugs. Resting seems to normalize it, though.
  12. [Description of the issue] At least one beneficial spell - in particular, the first level Priest spell "Armor of Faith" - is using the plain "AoE" type. This AoE type prevents the spell from targeting friendly units in the outer circle even if the spell is beneficial. As such, it's easier to target enemy actors than friendly ones. See this thread for more information. [steps to Reproduce] Start a game. Select the BB_Priest. Start targeting the party using the first level spell "Armor of Faith". Note how the AoE type of the spell is "AoE". Attempt to target a friendly unit. Note how the spell will not affect the actor until it is within the inner circle. Attempt to target an enemy unit. Note how the enemy is targeted within the outer circle. [Expected Behaviour] Beneficial AoE effects should either: Affect only friendly units, or affect enemy units less than friendly units (use the larger radius for friendlies, and the smaller for enemies). [Other Remarks / Comments] I'm not sure if this is just the spell using the wrong type of AoE, or if it is supposed to affect enemy targets as well.
×
×
  • Create New...