Lephys

It's because you're a vampire. OR you have porcelain skin that burns very, very easily. u_u

Yeah, my apologies. I wasn't aware of that. Even then, my point was mainly only reinforcing the importance of them early on. Sure, a Health bonus is much more useful to a Wizard (because even 2 more guaranteed health per level on one of the lowest-health classes in existence is just a greater relative bonus), even in the long run. But, yeah, later on, when you have 30 Health. 2 more Health isn't as big of a deal as it was when you had 4 Health.

I didn't know you can have up to 8 adventurers in your... attache? I don't know what you would call it... I didn't realize they were in addition to all the companions. I never really thought about the maximum number of people you could have, though. That's cool that you can hire adventurers, then leave them at your stronghold to fight off stuff and handle things while you're away.

The adventurers sound really good for the "treating this as a challenge"-type playthroughs. The more you're trying to experience all the writing and narrative aspects of the game (whether that be your first playthrough or not), the more you're going to want to go with the pre-created companions. Even if you don't like ALL of them, and leave most of them at the stronghold and/or don't even hire them (although, it'd have to be a pretty horrible first impression for you to not-even-hire-them from the get-go. How else will you get to know them and ecide you hate them if you don't hire them and travel with them for a bit?).

I can't play any of the Dragon Age games on Nightmare (never really tried the first one, I don't think.) It just becomes "multiply all enemy damage/health by X," and it's ridiculous. Sure, if you do everything just right, it's not bad, but I hate a game that offers you a plethora of character customization, then says "only these few are effective enough to beat a challenge as tough as this difficulty level, though." In DA 2, most enemies became immune to 50% of spell damage types from my Mage. So, basically half my spells did nothing to them. *shrug*. Strangely, I completed all the Mass Effect games on Insanity, and only had trouble with a few encounters throughout.

That's kind of the point, though. Left-and-right, you see people talking about how great it is to have emergent gameplay, so I don't see why we sweep it under the rug for something as fundamental as countering. One could say that the very nature of a "tactical" combat system is the whole idea of countering. That being said, I definitely don't think that anything even remotely "hard" should be removed as a counter. But, generally, the fewer options you have to handle a given thing, the less interesting "countering" that thing is. And, in the interest of, well... interestingness, it doesn't have to be as simple as just 50% effectiveness instead of 100%. Even if it were, you say "just cast twice as many spells," but it isn't that simple. You can only cast so many spells in a given amount of time. D&D rules already handle the changing of a spell's level ("cast at level X instead of level X"), so if something kept reducing level 5 spells down to level 1 spells, you'd have to cast 5 of them just to get it even close to ONE spell of the same magnitude as the original. Now, that might lead you to think "well, then what's the point? It might as well be a full immunity, since it's pointless to cast such piddly spells." But, that's not necessarily true, precisely because the system isn't that simple. You could have a spell that was going to stun a target for 15 seconds, for example. Maybe it only stuns them for 3 seconds, but the fact that it stuns them still interrupts the target's casting for long enough for you to do something else about it. That's the heart of what countering should be all about, really. Not "do I have an ability that's designed specifically to 'counter' another one?", but instead "what can I effectively do about what the enemy's doing?" I think there's definitely room for "hard counters," but they have to be intelligently designed. Just as a quick example, a shield that absorbs the next two spells cast on that target would be a "hard counter" to incoming spells. But it's more of a tactical/timing thing, than a "Haha, you have no way of getting through this unless you undo this effect! MUAHAHAHA!". You could just hit them with two wimpy spells, or maybe you have a character with a weapon that procs a spell effect when they attack, and you decide it's prudent to take the time to get that character to land two attacks on them because you don't want to waste your spells, etc. Or maybe you just have your casters resort to physical weapons for the time being? And maybe that shield only lasts 20 seconds, instead of just being "check mate... waiting on your move" in terms of harming that target with spells. Stuff like that. Not that everything has to be super generic in terms of immunity, but there are very clever factors to use for immunities to make things quite powerful, without making them a permanent lock blanketing a bunch of combat factors with only one (or just a couple) key(s) to open it. As with the example above, I feel like any immunity or powerful spell like that should require/provide for just as much cleverness in its use as the cleverness allowed towards countering it. Ideally.

My evil friend actually just got me to re-install Diablo III.

^ Yeah, but, the lack of statistical data for a game like this over the last 15 years doesn't provide much info either way. Or, to put it another way, the fact that the market has favored all the types of games that have been in abundance doesn't really say much about the level of interest in the types of games that have not. So, with such little info, I'm not sure how we can decide that a million is "a lot for this type of game." As compared to all the other epic cRPGs made by Obsidian over the last 15 years that didn't sell a million? Nintendo can not-make a Zelda game for 10 years, then make another one, and people will buy the crap out of it. Or look at Starcraft II. No one was like "aww man, there haven't been many big strategy games in a while, so we don't like them anymore." Obviously we could be surprised either way, but I feel like ignoring the fact that this is an Obsidian game, and a type of game that hasn't seen much likeness at all in the past decade-or-two, is going to leave people surprised at the number of sales, whatever that number ends up being.

They mentioned in the update and thread regarding that poll that there would always be a distinct delay between US shipments and international shipments. This was option #2 in the update about the poll: Now, I don't know the details, but it sounds like there are two things at play, here. 1) For reasons unknown (but probably actual reasons, since I don't see Obsidian being merely lazy/spiteful people who hate anyone but U.S. dwellers), getting everything together for a given person's reward and shipping it all the way to them internationally seems to take possibly 1-2 weeks longer than the exact same shipment within the U.S. 2) Finalizing the game disc for other language versions takes longer. So, it seems as though international folk will still be getting their physical goods minus the game disc, itself, several weeks earlier than the game disc. But, overall, anything shipped outside the U.S. will be slower to arrive than the same thing shipped inside the U.S. I get that that's crappy, but maybe we should learn the reasons before we imply Obsidian's efforts are lacking. Maybe it's a Paradox/publishing thing? Maybe all the stuff's slightly different for various regions of the world? I dunno. I'd like to know, but I currently do not.

Well, that must mean we sound like a skipping CD player when we still can't tell you enough how much we appreciate it. I've pulled many an all-nighter in art classes in college, and that didn't even involve code, or the public, or business transactions, etc. So, I just don't think there's enough thanks in existence to say "seriously, thank you for not getting to go home when you were supposed to, and for suffering through all the negative to achieve the positive with this project." 8D Also, I'm too much of a slowpoke to actually find a bug before it's already been reported 73 times, but everyone else has been pretty great.

If I could blanket you in confetti right now, I would. Don't worry. I'd vaccuum it up. That's the best part about hypothetical confetti, though, ^_^

Can we get confirmation that this is basically just ranged/group looting, and not insta/auto-looting? Methinks Tamerlane has the right of it, and most people seem to be protesting awfully hard against auto looting. Area looting sounds like what was in Wasteland 2. You still have to manually take what you want and leave what you don't, from each corpse, but you can loot them all within a certain radius at the same time, without having to jog to-and-fro to each corpse. The only problem with that I can fathom is if you somehow murder something across an unpassable chasm, and the loot area still lets you loot it from a distance.

Yeah, it honestly seems like 5%'s a bit low. Maybe it should be like 20% per missing party member. Even then, if you solo it, you're only getting TWICE the XP you'd normally get. So, if 6 people got 200 a piece, and you solo it, you'll get 400 for that same thing. That's still not anywhere close to the 1200 total that was awarded to the 6 people. Anything under 20 or 25% seems so negligible that it's hardly worth even having a bonus, to be honest.

Group-whatnow? Did you mean "hug"?

A shame you have to take the bar mere days after Obsidian raises it. 6_u (Seriously, though... good luck! 8D)

I kind of like the "this is obviously a unique item of some significance" design. Instead of the "HEY! QUEST ITEM HERE!" design that prevents you from ever dropping the item or getting rid of it. Heck maybe it's even worth money or something, or just of some value to someone. Maybe you find some old gilded clock, and you can pawn it off or something. But, maybe it's got some initials on it or something, so you know it's probably not just some random clock/treasure. If you're curious, you can hang onto it (especially with an infinite stash). If not, you can sell it, etc. I'd prefer for there not to just be entire "quests" that consist of "Hey, if you find that item, give it to me. Or don't, and fail the quest."

They thought they fixed some other things, too. Like Interrupt. Ended up not being the case, though. I have yet to see them, throughout the entire course of this development cycle, fail to at least address some problems with something as broad as an entire class. It's kinda like planning a cookout. Will they make enough hotdogs and hamburgers for everyone? Maybe not. But I don't see them showing up with no food. Sure, there's cause for people to be less optimistic. Even to be devoid of optimism. However, there's just as much cause to be optimistic as there is to be pessimistic. Which is my point. Not that people should be optimistic. But that assuming the Ranger won't be any different at all from almost-two months ago (v435) until the final version of the game, is equally as pointless as assuming the Ranger will be perfect come release. I believe in probability. The probability is that some amount of improvement will occur. And, luckily, we're getting another Beta build today, so we can actually see before release. Either way, I would never encourage anyone not to at least peek at their preferred class come release, lest they avoid something they don't ultimately end up even hating. *shrug*. Obviously people can do as they please. That's just my advice. Someone can ignore it, if they like, without it being dumb advice.

... Beware the Ides of March...! ... ... +11! o_O

I've waited too long to long too much for two, too-long weights.

True, but, strictly speaking of D&D rules, there's a big difference between having a Wizard with 4 HP who gains 1d4 per level, and a Wizard with 7 or 8 HP who gains 1d4+3 or 4 per level. Especially when that Wizard still has 18 Intelligence, and an awesome AC bonus from DEX, etc. It wasn't a win button, but it could often feel like you just pulled a slider from Normal to Easy.

It's not an exact distribution in PoE. If you go solo, for example, instead of getting 1200xp for that instead of 200 like you would've gotten with 6 people, you'll get something like 500xp. I think it's an extra 10% for every "missing" party member. So, with 5 people, everyone gets 10% more. With 4 people, everyone gets 20% more, etc. I'm not sure on the exact number (the 10%), and I'm not sure that won't change a little before release, even if I AM right. On the teammate speccing, you're supposed to have full control over all your companion characters' level-up allocations. They will not stay at level 1, but I'm not sure exactly what all will allow them to level up while not in your immediate part. I know they'll sort of hang out at your stronghold, and they can do things there that let them get XP over time while you're out adventuring. That might be the only thing. But, I think you're supposed to be able to decide all their point allocations from level 1, even if they join you at level 3 or 4 or something.

Well-said, Kjaamor. You made me realize what my not-very-well-stated point was when I talked about speedrunners. And that is that doing all the stuff does not necessarily mean taking your time. I can do only 80% of the stuff, and still play much longer than someone who does all the stuff. As you said, how you play matters just as much as how much content you try to play through.

I know you guys are ultra busy right now, but maybe once the game releases, you could put together some sort of Modding "Getting Started" Guide? You know, just all the info, together, that isn't classified. Not necessarily individual step-by-step instructions a la "Then, click on 'Tools'..., then...". But, just a handy guide for stuff like this ("this" being "So you wanna make an environment, eh?"). I mean, I've already seen you guys answer a lot of questions. It would just be really awesome, if possible, to get a consolidated guide/wiki on modding infos.

Sure! You can make a male Chanter, named Sandal. Then, just have him say nothing but " 'Chantment!". Sold?

Still can't believe people did/do this. If I rolled all 10's or something, I'd usually reroll. But, honestly, if I rolled all 17's, I'd reroll. When we played PnP sessions, we had a rule that you could only have so many stat values above a certain number (usually 14 or so). So, if you had 3 numbers, for example, above 15, you had to reroll anything else that turned up 15 or higher. I mean, to each his own, but... rerolling until you get pretty much maxed out stats kind of defeats the purpose of a rolling system, which is to randomize your stats, because if you just got to pick them all, you could just pick all 18s. The people who invented D&D weren't counting on people just trying to get a gambling thrill off their character creation. "Just keep rolling for that jackpot!"