Lephys

One would think something such as donations would have their place. But, they could only get you so far (I don't see where someone's going to like you more and more and more just because you keep putting 100 dollars into the jar -- if that were the case, then people would simply begin worshipping that one rich guy who drops a check for 1 million into the temple donation box). Also, what with group/faction reputation AND some form of individual reputation, it would also be interesting to see people who are suspicious/resentful of ostentatious actions. "Okay, you gave away a bunch of money... I still haven't seen you actually do anything that proves you care about any of this. There are sick people around here dying. Money's great, but they need medicine, which is in a shortage. No amount of money's going to make a bunch more medicine magically appear." etc.

@Infiltrator: I was just clarifying the function of Deathblows (despite the word "death" in their name). I fully endorse the sheer ability to generate enough damage in a Deathblow, at the beginning of combat, to "one-shot" a given enemy, under the proper circumstances.

Why are you so stuck on the coffee thing, Gromnir? Did I miss the part where I presented a thesis statement of "Becoming undead is like drinking coffee," then presented an entire paper revolving around that idea? It was a simple example. Today, with ridiculously more means of communication than in ye old fantasy kingdom, almost anyone can read about almost ANY scientific findings, instantly, and still people doubt them. And yet, in ye old kingdom, somehow everyone's going to be privy to extremely precise information, all the time, and know definitively that Nobleman Barcloft definitely affiliated with that animancer in the town square who's handing out flyers and waving at everyone, and that he subsequently devolved into an undead, over the course of the next several years, and somehow, everyone in the entire land has a dossier on that, complete with facts directly from the medical examiner, etc.? I don't get it. People in real, actual history believed people to be witches, even though none of them were really magical witches, AND people still continued to practice what they believed to be witchcraft. I'm not getting how the majority of the populous being suspicious/afraid of the general idea of something (like animancy) somehow = no one will ever, ever do it. Is humanity a hivemind? Conspiracy theorists. That's another group I just thought of that would possibly try it. "That's just what they WANT you to think. All the top nobles live forever, they just give the ones they don't like the bad formula."

@Chilloutman: Here's the problem... Science is simply the study of the things that we know to exist to better understand them. IF magic existed, in reality, it wouldn't be separate from science. Magic is just a fictional expansion of real-world science. That's why there are animancers in the game, and they have to actually research stuff. Even though they're "magically" infusing souls into objects. They have to study metals, and figure out formulae, etc. It's all just workings and information. Just because we can't, in the real world, manipulate souls, doesn't mean that if we could, there'd no longer be a need to study anything and figure out specific applications of stuff. Getting a soul to power some big machine is just a fictional equivalent to figuring out how to stabilize a nuclear reactor. You're, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I dare say the basis for it seems rather arbitrary/suspect, like you've decided magic and science are somehow mortal enemies, before really considering everything. If you don't like guns in a fantasy world, then you don't like guns in a fantasy world, but when every one of your exemplary expressions of dislike for said guns includes modern firearms that have nothing to do with the level of technology present in the world of PoE, I dare say the reason doesn't really support the conclusion. Do you have a problem with cannons on castle walls? Because the guns in PoE are basically just tiny cannons. Do you have a problem with the merest existence of explosive powder? How about anything at all in the entire world that isn't magical? Looms? Wouldn't everyone just magically weave all the clothes? See? It doesn't hold up. You act as though magic would just instantly solve all the world's problems, perfectly, and would always be superior to anything non-magic, yet you arbitrarily are fine with all non-magic means of doing anything besides manufacturing ballistic weaponry. That, for some reason, causes the problem. I'm afraid I simply don't comprehend that line of reasoning.

These update visuals look simply... specu-tacu-lar!

I know. . Sorry, the smirking-with-shades emoticon is my "I'm not being serious here" indicator, FYI. Obviously it was after Jason Statham got through with it. He catalyzes all types of Earth-matter into damage.

Speaking of the "walking encyclopedias" thing, I think it's great when any given person usually only knows some of the info about something. Thus, if someone's like "Yeah, I grew up during that war, I can tell you about it," you can opt to learn what they know, from their perspective, and not just some full encyclopedia entry, as if just the fact that they lived during the time means that they know all the exact info about it as if they've researched it their whole lives. Plus, anything they don't know about it, if you wanted to find it out, you could come upon someone else who has info regarding the same topic/event, and ask them about it. Accompanied by some sort of "*You tell them what you've already learned of this topic*". Then, that person could say "Ahh... well, first of all, I was one of those knights, and that's not why we left," etc. Instead of: A) Any given person who knows about a topic giving you ALL human knowledge about that particular topic, or... B) People with varying-but-overlapping sets of information simply delivering all of it to you every time you ask about something.

He said it doesn't behave any differently than any other status, and that if there are 2 or more qualifying statuses on the target, Deathblows (if you've got access to them) are a go. Thus, I'd imagine it's entirely possible to get get two statuses on that target when the Rogue strikes for the first time, be it from traps, the first ability/spell other party members cast/use at the beginning of combat, etc. I mean, one of them is "Flanked," which probably only requires that someone else be engaging your target when you attack (presumably from the rear 180+ degree arc). Etc. Basically, seems like there's nothings stopping the Rogue's first attack, in a given combat encounter, to be a Deathblow. Also, I don't think it functionally 1-shots something, despite its name. I think it's just a further boost (than a mere Sneak Attack) to damage. It could kill something in one hit, but it doesn't necessarily.

I dunno... it doesn't have to require combat. Maybe if you go at night, instead of during the day, to the jabberwocky nest, you can simply collect some scales that it's shed in the area. Maybe you have to mask your scent to do so, because your scent will wake it up? Maybe you have to figure out how to even get TO the nest, etc. Just because games make such things a loot drop doesn't mean there can't be more to it. I think that'd be an improvement, from both allowing the player an actual non-combat means of achieving a goal that doesn't directly involve the death of something (jabberwocky SPLEEN would be another story, ), AND making the process more interesting than just "you kill things, and they drop stuff." Same with plants. Maybe they only grow in some precarious place. Maybe you have to get through some spiffy scripted interactions to actually get the plant you want, instead of simply running around enough, manually, in a game environment, then left-clicking on the plant when you finally get near it. Possibility often trumps precedent. I definitely agree that collection stuff should be more than just collection.

@Osvir: I understand, but... I guess I'm just confused, since they said that, exactly, and then you basically said "wouldn't it be easier to just announce that you're moving them to Wednesday?". It probably would, which is probably why they're discussing that. That seems reasonable. "Hey guys, we've had reason to hold off on the update until Wednesday on two occasions in a row, now. Is this due to recurring factors, or was it just a two-time thing?" I'm just not sure if suggesting they should address what they're already addressing is going to achieve anything. *shrug* I'm not trying to be an arse about it or anything. I'm just answering literally. I dunno if you didn't notice that talk of that was included in the first post, perhaps.

A) I don't think anyone's trying to suggest that there would be any "sudden" appearance of undead, nor would undead as created by nobles trying to live forever be necessarily "common," nor would hordes of undead be attributed solely to this one specific scenario. B) Look at all the stuff that's banned nowadays, and yet people still do it. Not to mention, every day, the news has some new thing that "causes cancer." Oh no, don't drink coffee! Oh no, don't eat such-and-such! The vast majority of people just go on about their lives. The fact is that it wouldn't be preposterous for some noble to hear out some animancer and decide he wants to try and live forever. Hell, some people might even just hear the honest truth "Well, you'll have to feed on people, but other than that..." Be it slave trade, or what-have-you, someone's going to already be sociopathic enough to already be toying with human lives. Having to eat them to stay alive supposedly forever? That wouldn't be much worse of a step. And, just because a lot of people are afraid of something doesn't mean everyone automatically knows all about it, fact-for-fact. In that type of era, if the government's banned something like animancy, most people are just going to think "It's evil!" and whatnot. It's not like they're going to know for a fact the science of it all. And it's human nature to doubt things. IF a noble were to volunteer for such a process, most likely no one else would even know he was doing so, much less exactly what he was doing. Even if everyone knew exactly what was going on with the animancy process, and that noble started going crazy and just eating people without retaining enough of his own sanity to actually cover it up (not to mention decaying and whatnot while he's doing it), then eah, people might all go "AHHH! ANIMANCY! SOMEONE TRIED TO BE IMMORTAL!". But, that still doesn't change the fact that it already happened. That choice was up to the noble. As we've already talked about, maybe someone was REALLY convincing, or maybe that person was desperate, and believed they could control the hunger and supply themselves with fresh meat. Who knows. But, I really don't understand how no one would ever do such a thing. Everyone knows the consequences of heroine use, etc., and yet look at all the people who value getting high more than they value not suffering those consequences. I know it doesn't turn people into undead, but people do some pretty crazy stuff when they're on drugs, not even knowing what they're doing. So, it's not too dissimilar. Hell, look at all the recent "bath salts" snippets, of people eating other people's faces. That's EXTREMELY similar to the fictional effects of animancy, and yet, people in real life still do bath salts, etc. I just think you underestimate humanity.

One other curious thing this has me thinking of: Are the gods actually gods? Or simply labeled that by the lesser-being mortals? Maybe the gods have souls, too, but different/greater/what-have-you ones? Maybe they are part of the same cycle, but their souls are slower? Maybe they're just entities who have mastered the manipulation of their own souls? Who knows. If so much research and interest is placed in the utilization of the souls of "humans" (mortals) in various applications, imagine what one could do with the soul of a "god."

Hahaha... "What I'm saying is COMPLETELY different from what you're saying. Obviously, you're the one who's missing the point... you know, the one stemming from something you said, to which I'm responding?" You're too much, Stun. I personally would rather enjoy reading someone's perfect example of an adaptive scouting system, as I believe such a system would make everything it touches, whether it be quests or combat, so much better. But, of course, leave it to YOU to find the ONE example where it wouldn't work at all: Sending assassins against a high profile Land owner HERO. LOL Wow... Way to slice off the introduction to the actual example and use it out-of-context. There is a reason I typed the stuff following that sentence, you know. What am I saying? It's evident that you don't know. A) The process of sending the assassins after you was in literally no way the point of the example. Someone can't intelligently decide who would be best for an assassin job, then just never actually send the assassins after you. Why would it matter how hand-picked they were if they didn't confront you? That's what assassins do. They get sent after people, and then they go after those people. It's called context. Look it up. B) Just because someone's a prominent land-owner doesn't mean they have a GPS tracking beacon on them. NOR does it mean that they're located at their own personal stronghold at all times, forever. NOR does it mean that it's probably the best idea, if you're an assassin, to go after them in the most fortified/staffed, high-security location you possibly can. Thus, your argument remains not only irrelevant (as my example has nothing to do with the process of location, which was simply understood to be something assassins do in order to actually kill their targets), but also utterly nonsensical. You had your shot. It's not hard to be reasonable, yet you defend a simple misunderstanding to your last breath as if I've urinated upon your family's grave by pointing out that you've misunderstood me. Have fun being you. *waves*

I've got a name I default to if I need to, but I always try to think up a spiffy, unique name each time I make a new character in a new game. I kind of just pretend languages don't exist, and yet I'm a human who can make phonetic sounds, and try to come up with something that phonetically is pleasant/fitting for that character, then spell it. I also try my best to repeat it a bunch (and imagine it being said in a lot of different situations a name would), see if anyone would come up with a nickname for it, etc. Yeah, I definitely spend too much time on that, sometimes. I used to not default to anything, so now I don't spend QUITE as much time.

If that's the character's "name," does everyone just call that character "Devil"? "Welcome to the Devil estate! I come from a long line of Devils! I'm Devil Jr. Esq. IX!"

I think because it's not actually a scheduled thing, officially, until they decide it will be, which Brandon mentioned in this thread as being under consideration, currently. There are two possibilities: Either they'll just continue to sometimes push one back from Tuesday, as needed, or they'll move the scheduled time for all of them to Wednesday. Right now, they're still scheduled on Tuesday. Just because 2 in a row have been pushed back doesn't mean they all will be, yet.

... What the hell are you even talking about now? Who said anything about location? Why would the makeup of assassins need to change in order to LOCATE you? "Wait, does he fight with his fists a lot? Okay, whoa... I'm gonna hafta use some OTHER means why which to locate him! o_o" If you're a Wizard, with a party of all Wizards, you still reside at the same stronghold as if you're a Fighter with a party of all Fighters. Can you spot the difference, there? That's right! What would be best suited to take you and your party down! 8D! So, for the 73rd time, when it's actually feasible for someone to have information about your party makeup and general strengths and weaknesses, it seems like it'd be prudent for that person to, I dunno... actually utilize that information. Crazy, I know. Ya got me. Now, if you would be so kind as to respond with some further counter-argument that revolves around some factor I didn't even argue (like the difficulties of locating your character/party), that would be splendid. I do so love all this time we waste together, ^_^

Haha. Exactly. "Sir DudeMan is renowned throughout the land for slaying countless baddies and saving many a kingdom! But, I have absolutely no idea if he's magical, or mainly uses ranged weaponry, or wears plate everywhere, or what he even looks like, etc. All I know is that he exists and accomplishes feats."

So it's a horribly flawed idea, but also you would do it? Good stuff. "What if we tried to sneak into the castle?" "THAT WILL NEVER EVER WORK AND IS A STUPID IDEA! Here's how I'd do it, though..." I don't know if you can fathom what I'm getting at, but, finding out how it could work is kind of the goal of discussing ideas on this forum. Not criticizing the sheer idea over all the ways in which it couldn't work. If you wanna point ways in which not to do it, that's awesome. That's actually constructive. Pointing out how "the idea's bad because I can think of things more specific than the idea itself that don't work, and attribute those to perceieved flaws in the idea" is not cutting it. It's like someone says "Hey, we should make a grocery run for the party!", and saying "NO, MY COUSIN'S ALLERGIC TO CHILI! THAT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA!". Great. 'Cause we were gonna buy groceries at random, without actually deciding what groceries to buy. That makes having food at the party a bad idea.

^ Nowhere in any of that did you explain how/why people automatically all know that animancy leads to undead. I mean, the animancers know, but is it posted on Facebook or something? Similarly, you've noted how preposterous it would be for some noble who needs to feed on some manflesh (or womanflesh -- fampyr's don't discriminate u_u) to kill someone without anyone knowing. Without anyone knowing they died? Sure, that's pretty unlikely. Without anyone knowing they were killed? I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure plenty of nobles had plenty of people killed in real life, and no one was any the wiser. I'm not understanding why the obfuscation of specific information is somehow impossible in your perceived world. If something occurs, apparently everyone knows exactly how, when, and why it happened.

It's going to have a lot of toggles. But they were placed there for a reason. They didn't just go "COULD this technically be a toggle? Yes? Okay. IT'S IN!" Also, I don't think "what if someone just doesn't like this inherent part of our game at all? I guess they should be allowed to skip it" is a valid basis they used for any of their toggles. You're pointing out how you feel about this, Gnostic, and I'm simply doing the same.

If I had to guess, he hates them because they can be interpreted 7 different ways and always end up offending rather than just meaning what they mean. Like that one. If you literally can't stand the fact that there are words to read in front of you on the screen -- if that bothers you, in and of itself, then you really probably should not play this game. Yet, people interpret it as "OMG, so if reading isn't like, our all-time favorite thing, you're telling us not to play this game? What a snob!" No. Literally, if you do not like reading, as opposed to disliking reading -- not 17 paragraphs every second, just, the act of reading things to discern stuff -- then you're probably not going to enjoy a game that uses text to drive a huge narrative throughout.

Translation: I've been bringing up things you don't feel are important at all, then arguing against them. I'll take it. His rock-paper-scissors example is a simplification, and you know that, because you're not an idiot. If you mention a more nuanced and complicated system, then point out how that one specific system has some flaw, then pretend that means any possible iteration of that type of system is therefore folly, then yeah, prepare for some resistance on that front. The problem with your style of argument is that you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge the merest possibility of an idea like this. You won't be content until it's either shut down completely, or proven in an actual, full prototype form that you can't find any flaws with that it not only works but SHOULD DEFINITELY be implemented into PoE at all costs. The argument warps into some big stupid "yes or no" thing, instead of just a friggin' discussion about someone's idea. It's amazing how you can focus so much energy into all these little ways in which it could be horribly problematic, and yet you can't seem to put any of that into simply correcting the idea on how you think it could work. I.e. "No, that would cause problems... maybe if you did it like this, it could work." But, people keep telling you "that situation you pointed is useful in evaluating how NOT TO do this, but what about THIS?", and presents one. And all you can do is "lol" about it and say "Oh, great, so you've found like, a handful of situations in which it would work." As if that wasn't their idea in the first place, and it NEEDED to work in all the situations you pointed out. Quite frankly, I don't understand it.

@delushin, I think a lot of people definitely end up wasting their money. But then... really, only you can decide whether or not it's a waste of your money. If you just like supporting that game's development, and maybe think it'd be cool to check out the alpha/beta build, and toss around some feedback about it, then it's not really a waste of money. If you expect to simply "play the game early" (as many people do), then yeah, it pretty much ends up being a waste of money. Although, I still say it isn't totally a waste, because they still use that money towards the game, whether you feel like you got anything out of it or not. But, yeah, I realize that it's all very ambiguous, and there's risk involved. Some Early Access games have been in alpha build for a year +. Some of them just shut down completely.

I'm confused by this. Is the sheer existence of machines, and essentially hand-held cannons, somehow supposed to nullify the vastness of nature? "Someone's invented the cotton gin... ALL THE TREES AND WILDLIFE ARE GONE NOW!" I'm not going to tell you to like guns in fantasy settings, but, beyond that, you're claiming that they somehow objectively clash with both fantasy in general, AND nature/druids?