Lephys

I am not at all eager to prove you wrong. What are even the odds that literally the entirety of what you said is wrong? That's not very likely at all. I'm merely eager to constructively supplement the discussion, via analysis/evaluation. I think you misunderstood some of what I said, and took it as my misunderstanding of your post. I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting "Strength" be the only stat. That wasn't an apparent problem with your example/suggestion/post. But there are 2 things: 1) Even if HALF of magical power and physical power are represented by the same stat, and the other half of each is represented by 2 different skills, you still have to, for no apparent reason, gain physical potency just to gain magical potency whenever you gain "resolve." Hence, my question about "Why wouldn't you just boost the crap out of Resolve?" 2) How does a physical strength skill factor into the big picture? If, in a typical game, you have Strength (the physical power stat), then weapon skill, then your total, effective damage with a given weapon/attack, then where does Athletics factor in? Now you've got a skill that's affecting another skill, both of which are affected by a stat. If part of Strength (and magical "Strength") is affected by a skill, why isn't part of Agility affected by a skill? Or part of Willpower (mental fortitude, etc.)? Charisma? Surely the more you practice speaking and such, the more effectively charismatic you can be? Just like a politician. I'm not just saying "Oh my crap, your proposal is terrible. How could you think it isn't?!". I'm merely trying to be constructive, here. Sure, it makes sense in certain ways, but we have to look at the bigger picture. Also, those questions are actually just questions, not "Haha, don't even answer because I'm using these questions to say YOU'RE WRONG! MUAHAHAHA!" bits of text. I'm not out to get anyone. If you can answer those questions, then awesome. I just can't, so instead of providing an answer I don't have, I'm merely asking about what seems to still be an issue. Stats represent inherent properties of our characters. It's abstract, but the game needs quantified math for the code to process it. If one stat fuels two dichotomous properties of our characters, then how do we represent them individually? If we don't, then why not, and what are the consequences of that? I still don't believe "Strength," the stat, is going to be THE power-determining stat for both physical AND non-physical potency. But, since we don't really know either way, there's certainly no harm in discussing the hypothetical truth of such a speculation.

There is something rather nice about descriptives and textual nuance. It's kinda like the difference between a book and a movie. Even if both are great, regarding the same story, you just don't get as much connection with what's going on inside the characters. Or, think of it this way: In a book/text, you get very intuitive knowledge of the SOURCE of events and actions. You read how the character feels, and you understand exactly how they'd make a face, or perform a gesture based on that. You play out the results in your brain's visual imagination. In a film/3D graphics/audio, though, you only get the results, and work backwards from there. You see someone shake with anger, and lash out at someone else. You maybe hear them shout hysterically. But you don't get to see or hear what exactly drove that particular response. You don't know exactly WHY they're angry, or precisely what caused their self-restraint to break. Not as accurately as with descriptive text. Obviously, there are pros and cons to both. There are times when it's extremely difficult to textually describe more precise actions and sounds, and there are times when hardly anything is visibly or audibly occurring, but all manner of thoughts and inner turmoil are occuring that provide insight for when something visual or audible DOES occur. I don't think a game needs to be restricted to just one or the other. But, when they're both used, the trick is to focus on the appropriate thing at the appropriate time. If the source is clear, then detail the visual/audible event/action. If the actions are obvious, then it's more valuable to have the source described in great detail.

What Kgambit said. I'm assuming the player character is not the only person in the world capable of occupying/doing anything whatsoever with a stronghold. Also, again, the stronghold is kind of like a little town. Or, at least... it's IN one. Whichever it is. Even if the keep proper goes unoccupied, I'm sure people will still live in the surrounding area. How else could there be a house available for your player that's part of the stronghold, but is just a house? And they talked about merchants and all that. Just because someone's not controlling the ramparts and commanding the keep doesn't mean people won't already live and function there. If you decide to take over/manage the stronghold, you're probably not just starting a fresh game of Warcraft, with like bring-your-own-peons style buildup from 0 populous to an army. I mean, someone else could easily assume responsibility for the stronghold, and simply allow you into the township area freely. But, even if no one actually owns the place, that doesn't mean no one's going to live there or use it.

The abstract application of XP to the improvement of both fighting AND talking, simultaneously, isn't being called into question. Yet, that this XP that improves all things is wrong to not fountain up out of entities that have just been killed IS. I think that's the point of the "... and THIS does make sense?" posts in response to the "this doesn't make sense!" If the system made perfect sense as-was, then the only thing that would improve from enemy deaths would be your character's ability to mentally process death and the taking of lives. That, and maybe your Knowledge: Anatomy skill.

Wait... so is the "obvious," perchance, supposed to be that DPS, DPS-mitigation, the ability to restore hitpoints, and the ability to alter factors (buff) are the only things comprising the entirety of our combat-based RPGs tactical system? You can't choose, for example, WHEN to heal, or HOW to heal, or have things affect how effective that heal was under the circumstances, etc. So that, if a priest can summon holy light to care-bear stare people back into better health, a Rogue cannot possibly have any healing capability, whatsoever, beyond also holily care-bear staring people back to health from a distance? We couldn't, for example, possibly allow that Rogue to, say, inject someone with a concoction to keep them going in an adrenaline-like fashion, or use soul power to clamp an artery and stop the bleeding, or have some single attack that "steals" some life essence from a foe, via dagger, then passes that life essence on to another party member? Would a Rogue and a Priest then be ludicrously identical in nature, rendering the class system completely moot? "Oh snap... that Rogue, under very specific circumstances, and in a very particular way, just provided some Stamina to that Warrior who was in trouble. Now I don't even know why I have a priest firing healing beams left and right all day." Because, in tactical combat, there's simply healing, or no healing. That's where the "tactics" comes in. You know, "Hmmm... I was thinking of healing, but then I'm considering the only other option -- not-healing -- also... such a tricky, tactical decision." I'm not even advocating Rogue-healing as something that needs to be in the game. I'm just making a point. Second point: It's not about everyone being able to do everything. It's about everyone being able to contribute to the taking down of a foe. Why should you ever have a class who JUST heals, for example? Or, even if he can technically fight, sucks so badly at it that he might as well not even be able to? Or, why say "You there, Wizard... I know you can kill things, but you can ONLY do it from range, and only with lots of AOE. If you were to strike something at melee range, EVEN WITH SOME CRAZY SPELL, you would obviously be exactly like the Warrior, u_u..."? Are there not more factors at play in "tactical" combat than "How many damages can you produce in a given amount of time? Okay, you're the guy who produces lots of damages, then. How many healings can you produce? Okay, you're the guy who produces healings then. No, no THIS other guy has high defense. You can't possibly have any kind of decent defense. That 'role' is already taken, u_u.", etc.? No one's suggesting making a Priest who abandons what makes him a Priest and just starts fighting exactly like some other class. I just don't think a Warrior or Wizard gets to patent feasible damage output, or attack range, or any entire given factor. That's kind of the point of a factor range.

There can be pre-requisites for abilities without simply toggling the door that leads to advancement itself. Maybe you need more than 15 Power to get some new explosive variant of a spell, as a Wizard. Or, if you have 15 Accuracy (example stat names), you STILL get a new spell, but you only meet the prerequisite for the "this hits 5 targets with 5 projectiles and has a high chance to crit" spell of the same type, instead of the uber-power-burst spell. In other words, if you put X points into SOME attribute, then you're simply going to close the door on specifically certain-attribute-based prerequisites. But, nothing says that any given attribute must be THE prerequisite for class advancement, itself (think INT in DnD, for Wizards). Without multi-classing, why do you need to make sure a Wizard has a certain amount of some specific stat for him to advance as a Wizard? A Warrior with a rating of 1 million in that stat is never, ever going to gain ANY Wizard abilities. Nothing says they can't make a system in which, even if you roll a character with all 1's for stat values, he won't still gain abilities every time he's supposed to and progress to the end of his class. He'll just have horrible sheer damage potential for all the abilties, as well as accuracy, defense/resistance, social skills, physical capability, etc. In other words, the stats only AFFECT your abilities. They don't have to ENABLE them (although they'll surely enable some, like I said, but it'll be more of above-and-beyond things, like talents, and ability variants/specializations, etc.). Both a grasshopper AND a human can jump. Yet, if a child human has a Strength of 4, what do you think a grasshopper's Strength would be on the same scale? A Wizard with Power 1 and Speed 18 will toss really weak spells really, really quickly (or even fire rapid-fire bursts of pathetically weak spells). And, sure, if you make a Warrior with 1 Strength, maybe he'll be restricted to lighter weapons. Doesn't mean he'll be unable to use weapons. Obviously, there could be minimums above "1," specifically. The point is that you don't have to use the entire scale as prerequisites for advancement. "Oh, you've got 10 Strength instead of 18? Well, you're only going to get 55% of the stuff a Warrior can get, then, u_u..."

I'm honestly not trying to be nitpicky here, for what it's worth. But, just in case it matters to anyone, I believe it was said that you'll still go to/use the stronghold even if you don't "do the stronghold management," but you won't necessarily own and neglect it, I don't think. In other words, I don't think you're forced to take responsibility for the stronghold, and have your only "opt out" option be "I'll just neglect everyone after taking direct responsibility for the well-being of this place." It seems relevant, since the reputation system would either have to factor that in (so your "no stronghold" option would really be "have everyone hate you for not-taking care of your stronghold that you can never not-own"), or very arbitrarily leave it out. You may HAVE to own the house there... I'm not sure. But, I think the stronghold will simply be your party's sort of safehouse/base-of-operations, whether you own the whole thing or not. Almost like a home city. You live in and are a member of a community in your home city/town/whathaveyou, but that doesn't mean you own/rule the entire community. So, I think maybe the only think you can't choose to do is to be un-welcome there. Who knows... maybe you CAN choose that somehow? *shrug*

Fair enough, but, unless Kickstarter shuts down and wipes all its servers and backups, Paypal does the same, and team Obsidian flees the country, never to be heard from again, I suspect everyone's orders are stored and accounted for SOMEwhere, currently. I don't think it takes a user-friendly backer portal/manager site to generate the capacity to retain the integrity of payment/order information. I'm not saying you shouldn't want confirmation. Just trying to assuage the worry, is all, until they actually update people with confirmations and such.

Holy carp... the "no kill XP" displeasure again? Look, what's the point of combat in a game WITHOUT a leveling system? There, that's the purpose of combat without XP-just-because-you-battled-a-thing. We've played lots of games in which fighting things was the main way you got XP (whether there was any other reason to fight them or not), and we've grown used to that, and it's pleasant, in a way, to just know how you can get some more XP, and combat is pretty fun, so it's nice to know you can gain XP by doing something fun. This means neither: A) That XP was the only reason, ever, for combatting anything ever in any game in existence. Nor... B) That no combatting of things in P:E will ever net you XP. The emptying of health bars simply won't guarantee you XP every time it occurs. Doesn't mean it won't give you XP any time ever. It's not like if you love combat, and you just fight through the whole game, you're going to be level 1 at the end, with 0 XP, and everyone else who fights as little as possible is going to be level 1,000. They didn't swap out the repetitive task that always earns you XP; killing for, say, gardening. "Every time you grow a tree, you get 1,000 XP 8D!" No, now, there's just a more specific set of criteria for getting XP. It COULD involve talking, or killing, or dancing, or climbing, or sneaking, or subduing-but-not-killing, or concocting, or whittling, or phase transducing... Yes, in real life, "combat" gets you XP. But why does tossing a molotov-like grenade that burns-to-death 53 enemies net you MORE experience than throwing one accurately that burns-to-death 1 enemy? Did you really gain 53-times more molotov-tossing experience because of how many enemies were congregated together in one spot? Does the death of something really earn you XP, or do your actions and decisions earn you XP? Hell, really, the longer you go WITHOUT something dying, the more XP you'd get. If I let a goblin attack me 100 times before I kill it, instead of 5, don't you think I'd get a lot more swordsmanship practice in? Ohhhhh, okay. So, if you want to vote for a "we gain XP by doing, regardless of whether or not anything dies" system, them go for it. But don't tell me that not gaining XP for something's life depleting is somehow heresy, and that combat serves no purpose if the passing of a soul doesn't somehow transfer vast amounts of life experience into your character. "Dude... I just poisoned the main city well... I'M GONNA BE LIKE LEVEL A MILLION by the end of the day! 8D!"

Not at all. There's a difference between simply expecting communication and info (as to whatever's going on at the moment), and expecting a whole pledge-management site to be complete by now. The completion of the site by this point in time is not owed. That's the only thing I think is such an unnecessary and unfounded sentiment in this thread. Not the "You know, we really haven't heard much on this in a while, and we probably should have heard something by now." Imagine it like a parcel you're waiting on: If it's been 5 days, and you haven't received ityet, and no one says anything to you, and another 5 days pass, still nothing... Say the truck got hit by a tornado, and your package was damaged, and they're contacting the shipper to get you a new one shipped out. Well, the problem isn't that the package should have arrived already. It shouldn't. A package on a truck that's stricken by a tornado shouldn't in any way magically arrive anyway. But, someone should've informed you as to the reason why it didn't arrive, and/or that it will be late, etc. Or, if it hasn't left the warehouse yet, they should inform you of that.

@ J. Trudel: The problem being brought up here is with "strength" and "magical strength" being the same thing. So, in your example, unless Athletics affects Magical power, it's not really the same thing. Granted, there's still the issue of "Why don't I just boost the crap out of my resolve and Neurological efficiency?" Because, that's never bad under any circumstances. But, that can be handled, I'm sure. The main problem I was trying to address, from having "Strength" as the potency-of-any-kind stat, and that's it, is that there would then be something missing from the system. There would be an arbitrary disconnect between two inherent, non-skill things. That kind of even pops up with "resolve" in your example. If resolve affects Strength and Magical strength, why doesn't it also affect Fortitude, and Willpower, and Charisma, etc? Even if you just have an individual Strength stat for physical power, you can work in the abstract notion of resolve's intangible effects on that, without having a separate stat that affects multiple things at once on every character. You can have a small, 110lb, lithe character with a high Strength. This would mean that they have a very high "resolve"/other intangible contributions to their resulting Strength. Your ability to do things as a direct result of the physical operation of your muscles is a separate thing from your ability to do things not-as-a-direct-result-of-the-physical-operation-of-your-muscles. If this weren't the case, then you could animance yourself into a giant Voltron robot, and the magical potency of your soul would suddenly be boosted, based on the physical strength of your giant Voltron Robot's hydraulic 7-foot-wide arms. I'm all for Strength and Magic working in tandem, at times. I think you should be able to magically cast a weaker spell that simply forms a little dagger-like ice spike out of the moisture in the air (just magical manipulation of physical matter, really), then throw that little ice dagger with your physical strength as a factor. That would be awesome. Instant reason for Strength to matter for magical folk. You put your magical study focus into manipulating your environment into physical tools that can be used by you, physically, rather than magical hurling purely magical energies at your opponents all day with not a care in the world for your physical strength. That would be a cool option for a sort of sub-group of possible Wizard Spells. But it doesn't make any sense for your physical strength to somehow allow you to non-physically fashion humidity into frozen daggers, since that doesn't involve the application of physical force in any way.

You're right. However, there's still value to be had in individually representing two different capabilities (namely, the capability to physically manipulate objects and physics with our biological muscles, and the ability to meta-physically/magically manipulate both realistic physics and any additional fictional/magical "physics"/energies). The principle here is exactly the same as "I shouldn't automatically be super smart and learned just because I'm capable of manipulating magical energy." Why can't you have a dumb Wizard who simply develops his magical aptitude differently than a smart Wizard? And a dumb Warrior who fights differently than a smart one? Why does smartness need to be married to the sheer ability to wield energy, and strength be married to the sheer ability to functionally utilize weapons (beyond the minimum strength for being able to lift/swing them)? It shouldn't, really. While I don't know exactly how they're logistically structuring things (and would love to know), I have a feeling, based on what they've said thus far about it, that this is the idea they're going for. They want stats to accurately depict a facet of your character, and not arbitrarily be married to some other facet.

If this is in direct response to "I want my Wizard to be distinct by doing things in a super Wizardish fashion," then I fear you severely underestimate the available tools to make that happen. I didn't say I want my Wizard to LOOK like he does things differently. But, you don't have to do not-damage, or damage in a non-AOE manner to do things differently. That's what's silly about this whole "NO, YOU'RE THE DPS CLASS" bologna. There's a HUGE difference between "my priest will never be as effective as my Rogue/Warrior at taking down baddies" and "Oh no, a baddy! My priest better flee and hope someone comes along for him to heal/buff to take down this baddy, because priests don't take down baddies AT ALL!." You can have all classes perform the same task, and still do so with varying efficiency. But, beyond that, they'll have unique factors at play for each of them. A priest's main task can still be supporter/stamina healer without that "main" meaning "99.9% of what you're even able to do is just support and heal stamina." I'm not suggesting that you're suggesting such an extreme. I'm merely emphasizing my own point that we don't need to be scared of Priests possessing offensive capabilities. I just think some people need to think farther outside the box when it comes to this, instead of thinking "but if the priest is ABLE to do damage, then how is he different from a Warrior?". You can even go so far as to base a priest's offensive effectiveness (which is STILL never going to top a Fighter's, but can still contribute to the taking down of baddies) on his support/healing. Maybe he heals/buffs his allies, and this builds his favor up to the point of wielding a direct boon from his god, which could be some spectacular heal/buff for the whole party, OR a smiting beam of godly power on his enemies. There's no reason for the people coding his class to condemn any and all ability designs that have anything to do with feasibly effective combat damage in any capacity. When it comes down to it, with the prevalence of combat in a game such as this, no matter what class you are, everybody fights. Even though they all do it in different ways, and they're not all Warriors, they all fight. Just because a pawn isn't a queen doesn't mean it can't take down pieces.

He never said anything about boss cred, or power hierarchy. Even in the real world, where everyone's roughly the same "power," if someone's got some nefarious plot going on, you typically have to go through a lot of "seem to be running things" people to get to the bottom of things, which is strange-phrasingly enough where the top person is. Even if the "top person" isn't the one with the highest rank/position. It's not always that simple. But it always is a chain of connections/players/evidence until you finally figure out the source of the chain reaction that leads to the results.

One problem still remains: Physical strength is tied to Warriorness, and mental strength is tied to Wizardness, even though they govern things beyond just combat damage and melee weapon/spell prowess. In other words, you still can't make a physically bulky, naturally strong/muscley Wizard who's much more apt at magic than at swordplay, but who can carry a body around easily, even when he's out of spell-juice for the day. Or, a Warrior who's relatively small and lithe and "weak" (again, relatively), only half the sheer size and raw might of the Wizard, but who's much more apt with melee weaponry and fighting techniques than at any kind of mental magic, despite having very strong mental capacities. Because Warrior translates your "Power" into physical strength (or both physical and mental strength... even worse), and Wizard translates it into mental (or, again... both...). There's a problem/something lacking in both combat mechanics AND non-combat mechanics. That would actually be pretty awesome. If I could make a character who was abandoned as a child, and who grew up on his own, never learning to read or write, surviving on raw magical ability alone. It wouldn't be as refined as "learned" Wizard's abilities, but it would be no less potent and applicable to an array of situations and needs. In the Wheel of Time series of books (by Robert Jordan), all the Aes Sedai (basically magic users) pretty much train in the same city, with their collected libraries and knowledge and prowess, and they all train the same way. There's variation amongst their abilities, but it's all checked off this catalogued list of things they've discovered and accumulated over the ages. They basically start thinking that they know almost as much as anyone can possibly know about the One Power, and then people who've sort of developed their abilities the hard way without any "proper" training come along and start figuring out these new techniques and methods of using it. The Aes Sedai are all taken aback by this, because the ways in which these techniques were discovered lay outside their "proper training" catalogued list of possibilities.

I appreciate the responses. I wasn't trying to be difficult or purely criticize or anything. I just wasn't super clear on exactly what was being referred to with the phrase "rock-paper-scissors." I think it tends to come up sometimes when people just think that one element being strong against another element (for example) is lame or cliche or too simplistic or something, and that may have led to my confusion. But, yes, I'm not saying that's what Gromnir meant by it, and I understand what's being said in not those few times when it sort of gets used to little effect, and it makes a great deal of sense now. And yes, I think Josh commented on that very thing quite recently. He said something along the lines of "If you've got 10 different damage types, it's a lot better for us to remove 3 or 4 of them as viable options against a particular defense than to say 'only this ONE out of ten will work against this defense!'". Which, as you guys have said, is very good news in this regard. It's fine to have certain things be good against certain other things, and certain things be bad against certain other things. But, you definitely want to keep the system rich enough to allow for lots of interesting possibilities and combinations, rather than having so few factors to begin with that knocking a couple down results in a Highlander-like damage system of "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!". Obviously, if it were actually Highlander, it would be Lightning... @Tamerlane: I LOVE the paired positive/negative effect notion! Along those same lines, I also like splitting the effects of an attack, in general. The example I've made before is a fireball; it both burns with fire/heat AND explodes with force. Some things might be resistant/immune to heat, but the force of the explosion could still produce a positive benefit, while others might be resistant/immune to the kinetic force but highly susceptible to fire. Between those two notions, alone, that makes for EXTREMELY interesting situations. You've got multiple potential effects from a given attack or ability, which can be individually blocked, weakened, not-blocked, or strengthened. THEN, you've got potential additional concocted effects, on both the positive and negative sides. Negative being like your lightning-vs-robot example. Even if lighting does extra damage against a human wearing lots of metal, it only produces the turbo-charging effect on the robot, so it's a distinct negative (for the player character) result. Or, with something like a fireball, you could hit an ice golem for raw enhanced damage, OR a wood golem/treant-type enemy for not only increased raw damage, but also an additional Ignite effect that causes fire damage over time. So many possibilities...

There's fundamentally no difference between a 3D snapshot that's touched up by an artist into a finalized portrait and any other drawn-by-an-artist portrait. That's simply a portrait artist starting with a basis instead of a blank page when creating a portrait. Unless they're going to touch up and finalize a portrait for every possible combination of final products from the character creation system, it's not really the 3D snapshotting I was referring to (the NWN 2 kind, where your portrait is literally just a zoomed-in still shot of your character model after character creation). I don't mind at all if they use models as a basis for hand-drawn portraits (whether or not that hand is using a paintbrush or a mouse/tablet).

Kind of like how finite Health was implemented as a "disincentive" to partake in combat? Or how they put in this cool skill check system, then included the "disincentive" of the ability to fail a skill check? What disincentives will they think of next? Limited ammo?

For Health. For Stamina (functionally the same thing as "health" in almost every other RPG ever) there is healing. I'm assuming you mean on-the-fly resurrection... from a 0-Health state (which again is not a 0-Stamina state). As, I'm fairly sure there's some manner of resurrection, period, in the game, even if it requires going back to town/stronghold or something. Then there was mention of a certain game mode possibly meaning the permanent death of your characters if they reach 0-Health. Either way, I think "no resurrection" at all is a bit inaccurate. Except for every single use of the world map. Also, I'm not sure where they announced that all rest points will be at the edge of the map only, let alone that you'll have to visit them 5 times per level of a dungeon/area. I'm interested in the source for that. Which is problematic, because if we didn't need to heal or rest or regain abilities, we wouldn't walk ANYwhere, and camp sites (rest areas) will never, ever be in our path. They'll always be leagues away. In fact, I think for every step you take towards one, they move a step away from you, just to taunt you. Except when killing leads to XP. Except each other.

Yours is much more appropriate than mine... because when someone on the internet tells you "soon," you have to go out of your way to wait for them at a specific location, just as if someone had said "wait here for me, I'll be right back" and never returned. Astoundingly accurate. I'm glad you actually took the time to specifically point out how accurate it was, or I may not have noticed. Lack of info is frustrating but doesn't mean site is late or that non-specific promises were a lie. I'm glad you like to take the time to completely rephrase all of that rather than simply saying "I agree." And... wait a minute, you thought I thought someone was screaming for blood and/or polishing an uzi, and that it was a major inconvenience? I don't know what made you think that. Also, you're clearly locked into some sort of disagreement with me and/or simply aren't fond of the manner in which I present my 2 cents on the matter. So, this is getting us nowhere, and simply cluttering up the thread. Feel free to pm me if you'd care to debate further.

If I tell you that I'm going to, at some point in the future meet up with you, and you have absolutely no idea when that will be, then why would you just stand there actively waiting on me to arrive, then get mad at me when you wasted your own time foregoing other things just to wait on my arrival? What you're debating is rather unclear, at this point. All I've said is that there's no logical justification for suggesting that Obsidian is somehow going against their promise by not having the fulfillment site up by now when they never guaranteed to have it up by now. People are quite literally suggesting "it shouldn't take this long." Could they probably update their current estimation of its status, and provide us with whatever they do currently know? Yes. I never said otherwise. Did they suggest that they'd have more info "soon," a few months ago, and now we still don't have more info? Yes. Neither of those means that it's wrong or somehow problematic for the fulfillment site to not yet be completed. Though it might've been some minor degree of wrong for them to have mis-estimated the relative timeframe of additional info, and/or to simply slack in providing us with that info. The info part I agree with, and simply don't personally fault them too highly for it. The completion of the fulfillment site bit is completely irrational, as we have no reason that suggests it should be farther along than however far along it is at the moment. This will be true until they go back in time and guarantee some timeframe on its completion that ends today or earlier.

So it's being used to represent the lack of complexity? 'Cause, I mean... you can have Rock-Paper-Scissors-Tornado-Lava-Pigeon-LawnChair-TonboGiri, and you're STILL going to go down the list and have a particular thing either be good or bad against another thing. Either specific thing are good against fire, or NOTHING is good against fire. You can't have both. And, like I said, the only alternative is that any given thing is RANDOMLY effective against any other given thing. It just seemed to me like people are suggesting that the idea of identifying something as strong against A and weak against B, then selecting B in lieu of A in order to take advantage of its weakness, is somehow flawed. But, as long as you have plenty of factors at play (like... how available is B versus A? How easy is it to deliver B instead of A? How many combatants are on the field that ARE weaker to A than they are to B, and is it worth the cost/time of swapping/preparing B just for that one target's weakness? etc.), everything's fine. So, yeah... I just wanted to emphasize the fact that identifiable weaknesses and strengths aren't the bad guy or anything. Of course, there should be a LOT more involved with decision-making than just damage-type effectiveness.

People can feel as entitled as they'd like to have those promises with unspecified timeframes fulfilled all they want. I suppose they're simply emphasizing, in this thread, their feelings of that entitlement, and not in any way assuming something they don't actually know by suggesting that the unspecified amount of time should've already elapsed by now? I suppose if Obsidian were throwing a party, but they didn't know when it was going to be, yet, then we're entitled to invitations, RIGHT NOW, that allow us to RSVP.

Step 1) Don't know details of situation... Step 2) ... Step 3) Entitlement to demands. Seems legit...

*facepalm*... Whatever you say. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go design a system in which you can simultaneously damage a foe AND not-damage that foe with the same attack, because magic.