Lephys

The objective arguments weren't "therefore it's better." They're just "it does this, and that's a reason to choose to do it that way, instead." I think there's quite a difference. People just seem to have issues with taking objective analysis for what it is, then simply keeping their own subjective preferences. As if "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE" reason to do anything. This isn't Highlander.

I always hate playing as Human when they're simply the non-exotic choice, but then LOVE playing as Human when they're made even the least bit interesting.

I know what you mean, . At times, it seems about like this: "Wait, this game has GUNS in it?! IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AS CALL OF DUTY!"

When you get to the Race dial, you've got to crank it up to Elven to be hardcore. (A stretch, I know...)

Never knew the official name for those bits of headgear, . Schweeet! I think Tricornes are my favorite. Now I want my character to wear a dodecahedricorne, just to be different. (I'm well aware that probably doesn't make any sense).

True. Qistina just seems to want a "gist of the whole game in a nutshell" description, and I'm not certain it's safe to say "the game" is going to basically be about investigation. That's all. I have no doubt investigation, in some form or fashion, will take place in the game.

Sure it does. I believe it's called a miss. The only thing that's nonsense is your need to toss in "preferred" into the mix, then argue against what I said having nothing to do with preferring anything at all, but rather, judging it as objectively good or not-good. Let me know when you feel like taking up the practice of actually staying on the same page as someone else for five whole seconds, and I'll gladly do this dance with you (or hopefully an actually productive one) again. Cheers.

You don't seem to comprehend the difference between its being the effect of a spell (what the spell does, and not what it indirectly happens to cause) and it simply being "an effect." Why can't you just once stop leaping bridges and actually inspect what's between one end and the other? Citing a qualm with absolute death as the inherent effect of a spell in no way leaves "obviously death, itself, is a problem" as the only remaining option as a point to adhere to. I have absolutely no idea why you just said that, or what it even has to do with anything at all. The quote was depicting your mindset, which you are now mocking? o_o Nope. They're just doing the same thing that other stuff already does, but in a shortcutted form. You can already kill things in one hit, under the right circumstances, with plenty of abilities. What's the point in saying "your challenge here, in combat, is to work with the limited tools that you've got in order to kill your opponents," then just give you a tool marked "Death"? Not much of a point. It's no different from the Dialogue skills. "Oh, you have really awesome Speech? Then you magically just win dialogues." Would you argue that that's better than still actually having to say the right thing in the right situation, regardless of how many options are opened up by stat/various checks in dialogue? Nope. Saying that something's specifically cited alternative is 0% good means you hate that specifically cited alternative. Has nothing to do with liking anything else at all. You could hate everything, really. It's possible. At least you find your arbitrary strawfolk amusing, though. You seem to "LOL" every time they're around.

Next session, every time he tries to do something, just tell him "Nope, this whole encounter is immune to Rogues." I bet you'll find him caring about balance. Sounds like a tough group, though, heh. Props for running that show.

I think it's "deal with some manner of story in an amazing, fantasy world roughly modeled after 16th/17th century history with a party of up to 6 characters at a time, and also there's a stronghold, and lots of souls"-themed. Dunno about an investigation. I would assume there will be investigation, but I'm not sure the entire main plot is investigation-based. There will most likely be a lot of unknown stuff that your characters are trying to know. Maybe that works for ya?

Sweeet! I had my best guesses narrowed down to that eyepatch thing, some or all of the torso garb/mantle, or the hat I finally noticed was folded between his hand and hip. I internally put my "money" on the hat. I was so, purely chancically correct! And that makes me feel accomplished. (Really, all I did was learn what it was). I started to google it, but all the results were coming up with "uterus" in them. I got worried and bailed, haha. I decided that maybe Karranthain had made a typo or something.

I'll see your "YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY" and raise you one *confetti-splosions*. 8P

I died, as a beginning Wizard, to that guy that attacks you in the barracks (or the building beside the barracks?) in Candlekeep. This was on BG:EE (I say that because I'm not sure of all the specific differences) My character missed with his quarterstaff attack about 13 times in a row, and the foe easily dispatched my 4HP in that time. I don't really count that as difficulty, as much as just lameness.

If I may be an uneducated noob... what exactly is a bicorne?

They're a chance roll, and an absolute effect (there's nothing more to be done to a target once the spell succeeds, even if it's the first thing you've done to that target). Obviously they aren't if you don't cast them. Where does your line of reasoning stop? "Obviously, they require effort on the part of the developer. If not for them, then you couldn't even control a character who could cast them in the first place." I'm talking about using them. Fun or no fun, they are objectively binary. We've been over this. All that complex, "tactical" effort to get the death spell to work is just a substitute for any other combat effort required to kill something. If you spend 45 seconds getting the threshold of success for the spell boosted in your favor, then cast it and kill the thing, you could've just damaged it that whole time, until this last damaging hit killed it. So, I don't see how that's functionally any different from any other type of fun. What if, instead of a bunch of prepwork, then a death spell, you simply could stack armor debuffs on the foe, until it had -500 armor, and your 20-damage attack now did 520 damage, which was more than its HP, and it died in one blow? Don't worry. That'd be a super intelligent and awesome design, because it still required effort, and was just so much more fun than actually having to put forth effort in a normal fashion to damage the thing to death. /sarcasm ^imagine that Nope, just a question. Croikey, man. Learn what things are. How can I insist that a false argument is your argument by asking you if that's what your argument is? And, you know what? I like a little of both in my games, too. That doesn't mean just anywhere'll do. "Sometimes, I just want an enemy to suffer a fatal heart attack upon entering a battle, because it was a very old creature with bad health, randomly." No, I don't want that. I want a little chance to work with what I'm actively doing. That's the difference. So no, I'm not blind. If I was, then the sheer number of words I type would be pretty amazing, don'tcha think? It's in the part where say his argument is that 0% luck and 100% non-luck is good, and that effects due to luck should never happen. Unless, of course, you're suggesting he puts 0 value in luck, but also likes it a lot. "Oh, he doesn't hate it. He just thinks it should be buried somewhere and never see the light of day, is all." /sarcasmquote (not an actual quoting of you, for the record, since I apparently have to specify that). Also, note the lack of quotation marks on the part about you saying Josh hates luck. The argument here isn't that you literally typed the word "hate". I'm simply pointing out an idea. Sheesh. Dislikes, doesn't like, thinks it sucks... take your pick of synonymous words, if you think "hate" is slightly inaccurate. The idea is the same. If you can't comprehend that someone could potentially use the word "hates" to simply suggest "the opposite of likes," then I feel for you.

And death spells that actually require influence/effort on the part of the player are somehow zero fun, while the merest roll of the dice and hopes and wishes for the number they stop on to result in death are somehow the only form of fun that can be had? See, you're acting as though by changing something, fun, in general, is fleeing, and nothing is replacing it. There aren't any Bards in PoE. But there are Chanters. So, if they've hacked Bards off the class roster, and we've lost the fun that Bards were, then we're getting Chanters. So, I don't understand where we're being wronged. And, again, you accuse him of straight-up hating luck. A la: Which is an outright strawman. What he said was, death spells (for example) are based solely on luck/randomness. In other words (as I've pointed out numerous times before), the sheer extent of the randomness, and how it pushes any influence from player decision out of the way. Thus, he's not trying to slay luck, just balance the scales a bit. Never did he say "luck shouldn't even be a factor, and it should be 100% player skill." You know he didn't say that. You're just so focused on representing him as someone who makes baseless, impractical claims in order to justify your own emotional dislike of his decisions and ideas that you're too busy to actually confront what he really did say. Luck is fun, but that doesn't mean there's no moderation to be had, or that luck doesn't have its place. Obviously if you played a game in which you just clicked a "Continue" button, and things just randomly occurred, all without your effort and interaction, that wouldn't be much of a game. And yet, if you played a game where all you did was click "Hit that guy for 15 damage" and there was never a chance of anything happening but the action and result you had chosen, that ALSO would be pretty terrible. Thus, the idea of "maybe we should use them both to compliment each other" was born. Anywho, almost everything like this you've ever gotten worked up about has been specifically about extents and degrees, and yet you pretend those don't even exist and it's just about having one thing or the other. If you've got qualms about something, at least accurately represent the idea with which you disagree. Croikey...

I'm fairly certain he didn't, but I could be wrong. If you can locate a quote, I'm all "ears." I distinctly recall him talking about his qualms with missing in the previous games, back when he was talking about pulling full misses from attack resolution. Then, of course, it was decided that missing would be included after all, albeit in a more minimized and influenceable capacity. His design decisions speak a lot louder than vague misinterpretations of his words ever could. He had a problem with the degree to which chance affected attack resolution. Having adjusted that degree (and allowed player choice a greater hand in the mix), he is content. And so are many others with that system.

When did he say that?

Haha. So it is. I actually stopped reading that quote just before those last two sentences, mentally noting "ahh, yes, I remember this quote." But I didn't remember that it was there he made mention of summoning items. <----- Is blond. 8P Okay okay, so the "like one time" thing was an exaggeration. The point is, he hasn't called summoning "degenerate." He simply pointed out that it often becomes the blatantly best option. The "de facto tactic," as he put it. Which is true. So, I dunno why you'd pretend he hasn't specifically and objectively pointed out his qualms with existing summoning implementations, then just vaguely cite that he's said "degenerate" a bunch of times, and pretend that must be the ambiguous reason he's got for probably just getting rid of summoning all-together. Yes, because he's just replacing them with a void, and simply wants to remove fun things from the game, because they are fun to people. Orrr, the whole point could be that fun can still be had, AND the mechanic can function without its flaw/oversight. So where do you draw the line, then? What justifies an amendment to a mechanic? Is anything less than the entire game being made out of "ice cream" just the wrongful removal of fun? Is the little kid still going to be having fun when he's got diabetes? Isn't it objectively productive to say "Hey, buddy... how 'bout we limit the amount of ice cream you can eat, and you eat some healthful, nutritious stuff, too, and then you can continue eating ice cream for the rest of your life, instead of having to stop when you're 20?" You admit -- via metaphor, granted -- that Josh is "right," yet still act like his decisions are baseless or preposterous. Which is it? It's in, it would seem, but we don't know if it's in the form of spells or not, which is specifically what you noted the absence of (in the spell lists).

I seem to recall vague mention of summons possibly being item-based? "Figurines" or something? I dunno if they'll be strictly item-based, or also part of casters' repertoire, or what. More info on summons would, indeed, be pleasing.

Having to change your tactics IS good. Having to change your tactics to "cheer on the sideline" isn't so much. There's plenty of room in-between "I can't do anything" and "I'm always super-useful because I have an ability for every situation! 8D!" A good example of the problem with a given class dropping below the threshold of usefulness is the situation in which both your PC AND a companion in your party share a class. If you come upon undead and neither character can really do anything, then you've suddenly come upon a situation in which you're effectively fighting with a 4-man party instead of a 6-man party. On the opposite side of the coin, you don't want the "bonus effectiveness" of a class in a specific situation to result in "Undead? I've got TWO Priests, so this otherwise-45-second-fight is over in TWO SECONDS! 8D!" It's the same principle, just applied in either direction. All things in moderation. . It becomes a bit difficult to balance encounters, in general, if it's easily possible for 2 or more (if you go with the Adventurer's Hall) of your party members to either be uber effective or all-but-useless, depending on the encounter. It's just plain prudent to regulate that to a decent range between a minimum "I can still help tackle these guys in some fashion, as a direct result of the things that my class does, even though I'm less effective than I'd be in other situations with other factors" and a maximum "I'm actually really useful in this particular situation, but this fight is still a challenge."

Back, back... back it up, like this! *fat beat*

Then you're completely ignoring the several clarifications I've made as to the contrary, or you think I'm just lying when I say that's not the "entire line of reasoning." I understand that "the good guys" in the past have ended up doing stupid stuff. I'm well aware that it's possible for people with good intentions to still screw stuff up. You seem to be ignoring the distinction between possibility and probability, which I've also clarified multiple times at this point. I have not, nor will I, say that it's somehow paranoid or dumb to think that a "good guy," quality development team could possibly do something "bad" with their project, inadvertently or otherwise. However, Team Eternity has given us very specific statements of intent regarding this project, on several occasions. Not just "Yeah, don't worry, we'll only make pleasant choices!". But, things like, well, most pertinently: "Don't worry. This partnership with Paradox does not constitute ANY amount of creative control on their part." That doesn't mean "Don't worry guys... they totally have the legal right to just tell us what to do with our game, but we won't listen to them! I guarantee it!". It means "they're not even privy to our design/development decisions and schematics." So, yes, unless you believe them to be lying, I can't see how you can think it's probable that Paradox is somehow going to just jump in and change the game, or really influence the creative design of the game in any shape or fashion. It's also rude to insist that people are writing you off after they've spent about 1,000 words explicitly pointing out the falsehood of that assumption. I'm simply pointing out the facts. I believe what I believe because of the facts. This isn't about my belief being pitted against yours. This is about yours being exaggerated because of the human nature of worry/doubt regarding the unknown. If you went to a casino, and played roulette, and told me "I'm probably going to hit 00 on my first go," I would tell you the same thing. "No, it is a fact that you probably aren't. You could, though. Would you then say I'm writing off your belief? No. I'm simply pointing out that your belief isn't based on a very solid foundation, and pointing out a more solid foundation. You can still go on believing whatever you want. I'm not judging your belief. I'm simply observing the fact that it isn't really accurately supported by the facts. Unless Paradox is fulfilling the precedented publisher role of funding the game's development, there is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, for them to have or desire any say-so in the game's design and creation. Again, I get being curious about the unrevealed details of the partnership, but I hardly think "No, Obsidian is solely in charge of this project's development, and that hasn't changed with this partnership with Paradox" somehow leaves us in the dark as to those particular details. It's not like we're just having to guess about all the important stuff here. So, again, either you believe them, or you don't. Obviously they could be lying. But, that doesn't change that fact that you either believe them or you don't. You can't do neither. You can stay a decision, but you can't make a decision that is neither trust nor distrust. No one's telling you to ignore worrisome possibilities, but there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to arbitrarily sew seeds of malcontent and distrust just because other humans, in the past, have screwed up development projects, completely unrelated to this particular team or this particular partnership. Even if they WERE lying to us and/or screwing up the project, worrying about it and assuming it's so, without any evidence at all, isn't doing anybody any good. So, unless you can actually do something about it, I don't see the point in worrying, either way. We're all just going to have to wait and see, in the end.

Ahh, the hilarity. Josh uses the word "degenerate" like one time, after other people have already brought it up in a topic, only to come in and clarify his views on it. Now, everything that's not in the game gets pegged as being absent because it was "degenerate," even though no dev even said that at all. I also find it interesting that most things that simply aren't in the game are seen as having been removed, or, as Stun put it above, "scrapped," even though they simply just weren't in the game in the first place. Call of duty didn't scrap all mechanics that aren't present in a shooter. It just has its own mechanics that aren't other games' mechanics. Haha. See, you just can't do that, AND have as much significance on heat-of-the-moment buffs, aka "danger zone" buffs (buffs and debuffs, etc. while in the fray of combat), at the same time. If you can put 17 effects on your characters, and they'll last to the end of combat, why would you ever NOT do that? You wouldn't. And that's fine. That's one way of doing it, certainly (of designing the game, that is). Excluding pre-buffing is another way. As I've said before, it's like turn-based versus real-time combat. You can't do both at the same time. And if a game decides to go real-time, it's not because turn-based is inherently worse or something. Or vice versa. I appreciate the clarification there. I've seen all of the original, and have only seen about the first 5-or-so episodes of Brotherhood, so I couldn't say from first-hand experience exactly what the differences were.

^ True. But come on... it's their first game. 8P