Lephys

Heh. He does have quite a significant contribution of useful text on here.

Yes, but if it wasn't on Steam (like the Sims 4, for example), then you could have the internet, but still not be able to download the game on Steam. You seemed to be suggesting that it's obvious that, if it's on the internet, it's on Steam. Which is not the case. If that's not what you were trying to convey, then my apologies...

What about a re-lyriced version of that song whose name I don't know... "Stop! Party, what's that sou-ound? It's a Bîaŵac, head un-der-grou-ound!"

What if, along the lines of favored-enemy-esque talents, you had talents that let you passively boost your character's effectiveness versus armor types? You could make a Ranger that ignores more DT versus Heavy armor, or ignores DR (whichever). Or you could focus on Light Armor, etc. That could be interesting. *shrug*

I second that I'm not really sure how having "game paused" in the log is helpful. Should we also put "game resumed" in there? Then, every single time you pause the game, you're adding two lines to the combat log. To what end? Do we have time-stamp info as to exactly when the game was paused? If not, then all you can learn is when it was paused relative to what else happened. "Okay, that fireball hasn't hit us yet." But, even then, that's not intuitive all the time. It just seems like an awfully mild benefit, at an awfully steep (lots of extra lines scrolling) cost.

Most cavalry archers don't use it on foot, against another humanoid running full-speed at them, somehow without ever actually reaching them and getting to attack (or better yet, against things like friggin' bears). I'm pretty sure that's where the "kiting is problematic!" idea comes from. It's not that the very act of kiting, itself, is bad or cheap or lame. It's just that, it really shouldn't be very effective unless you're a group of cavalry archers on a battlefield (or some similar situation). If you could kite enemies for like 2 hits at a time in a game like PoE, I wouldn't be all "OH NOES! KILL IT!". It's not that you can do it that's the problem. It's that it works, and keeps on working, for way too long, and against enemies it shouldn't in situations it shouldn't simply by alternating movement and attack commands. It's the extent. It's the same reason anything gets called OP. Factors are out of whack. If you could toggle between AoE attacks and single-target attacks with a given Fighter, for example, but they both did the same damage, the AoE would be problematic. Not because it's AoE. But because of the specific factor values, and the extent to which it is effective, relative to all other tactics (based on cost, etc.). Anywho, as far as kiting goes in PoE, I think someone brought up the possibility of simply having ranged attacks always require a "draw-and-aim" phase, that lasts a second or so. Thus, IF you could slow a foe down to make up for that stopping time, and/or increase your own movement speed, etc, then you could kite stuff to death with ease. In which case, you would've earned that ease by spending limited combat resources, etc, and by setting up that situation yourself. Not passively moving away and attacking at the beginning of every "round," and just automatically staying out of range of everything, because game code. I'm fairly certain that's what 90% of people mean when they grumble about kiting, or talk about it being a problem. An excellent suggestion. I think something similar could be achieved with a passive mechanic, but it definitely would still need tweaking. 30 seconds is way too long, methinks. The purpose of a cooldown to whatever mechanic (be it active OR passive) is simply to make sure you can't instantly-re-engage, and/or nullify your target's opportunity to get away. I think something like 5 seconds, give or take, is plenty, really. If you can't break engagement and get somewhere else you need to be within 5 seconds, I think you picked a bad time to break engagement. Also, along the lines of more passive possibilities, you could pick talents and such that allow for a range of passive free-disengagement chances (mini-stuns, etc.). Again, just things that would allow you to get away from your opponent. Just for example, if you could have a 10% chance to on hits (or just crits, even), then you could passively break engagement with some frequency. That's not including any limited engagement "escape" type abilities you might have, or active, full-on Knockdown and the like. So, it'd be a trade-off. Do you use something like Knockdown to get past this enemy right now, or do you wait until you get an opportunity to passively disengage with a mini-daze/stun?

I don't understand why they're such a huge problem for some people. They don't look any worse than the 2D (models) of olden times. I mean, I don't think they look "bad" at all. I realize, though, that on a technical scale of 1-10, they are not the most gorgeous models ever created. Also, the PoE ones look a lot better than the Wasteland 2 ones, even. Ideally, they'd all be 100% as detailed as possible, but I realize why they aren't. And I don't think they look bad enough to impair my gameplay experience in any way. They're plenty detailed enough for me to imagine they're my characters and such. But, I don't see the point in going through the trouble of showing just some custom portraits, THEN still showing the character models, but from farther out. Might as well just leave the up-close view. Also, I think they're still improving them, for what it's worth. I know we got some much better-looking heads in a recent build.

I believe most of the numbers and such haven't been tuned yet (across all the classes). I know that's not the whole problem, but that involves casts per day/encounter, and how worthwhile having a given spell in your grimoire is over another spell, how effective one cast of any given spell is, etc. Methinks they're trying to make sure all the math is interacting as it should before they just go through and do a tuning pass on all that.

Not sure on those two. I think maybe defense and accuracy can, but I don't know about attributes (such as Dexterity). Seems a little strange for something to have less than no Dexterity. True enough. That would be nice if prone folks actually got bonuses to ranged defense. If Steam isn't your cup of tea, that's fine. However, I'm not sure why any game that doesn't inherently require an internet connection would require one via Steam. I play games on Steam a lot without an internet connection, and they work just fine. I think the very first time you launch a game on Steam, it usually needs an internet connection to finalize installation/verify the game validity or something (which... it's understandable if you don't want to have to do that. But then, if you didn't have an internet connection, how did you download the game in the first place to even be able to launch it? *shrug*). But, if your games on Steam are requiring an internet connection, and they're offline games, you should probably check the Steam forums or something to figure out what's going on. That's not normal.

No worries. I just wanted to make sure no one thought we were getting a hamster instead of a piglet, so they wouldn't find out on release day and get mildly disappointed.

I'm not sure internet=steam. You might need to conduct a proof on that.

Hey now... there are like 2 and 1/2 others. But I agree... let's not bash. And let's get back on-topic.

It is a very important critique, from which we should take "how do we make it not create so many problems?". What's not a good critique is "obviously, it just inherently creates infinite problems." Also, everything isn't just a binary switch. The "problems" it's trying to fix aren't really like "Oh noes! The game's 100% bad. But don't worry, we fixed it, so now it's 100% good!". They're just design goal issues. Or... unwanted side effects. I agree that the implementation of engagement introduced more unwanted side effects. But, the whole purpose of design is to try and get rid of all of them, ideally. So, while it's currently a bit heavy-handed, I think the sheer idea of representing melee engagement is a good one. Maybe it should be something more passive, like turn-speed, or actual movement acceleration from a stand-still, etc. And/or just something akin to flanking bonuses (like in DA:I, where "flanking" is just a passive condition -- you're either attacking someone who isn't facing you, or you aren't). The thing is, I don't think anyone's fabricating something that doesn't exist with the sheer concept of melee engagement. When people are attacking you and you aren't paying attention to them, they get an advantage, and it's not just because they employed a slow aura, or specifically utilized an ability to knock you down (that already knocks you down even if you ARE putting 100% of your focus on that person). Worse things happen when you dance around within melee range of someone but don't really apply any focus to that someone. And I think that, if it's possible to feasibly represent that in an effective fashion, however it's done, that's a valiant thing to try for. I don't think "Nah, let's just stay in the age of 'you get hit with fireballs and morning stars in your face, but you just keep on freely jogging and moving around and attacking whenever your next attack is up' forever!" is a very constructive attitude. If engagement isn't doing that (which it isn't "effectively," I don't think), then it either needs to do that, or it needs to be scrapped. But, there is no obvious option, here, until we see that it can't do (rather than just happenstancically isn't currently doing) that. Anywho, I'm just saying, there are people saying "Hey, guys, how can we improve engagement?", and there are other people acting like those people are insane. Like improving a system is some fictional thing or something. That's what I don't comprehend.

How many man-hours per sistent do you think they'll spend, and how many sistents do they have?

Well, they don't have high just-plain-ranged accuracy, but they basically have "high" accuracy via bonuses to individual spells. So, I dunno that it's across the board, but a lot of spells bestow "high" accuracy (not sure exactly how it compares to non-caster accuracy with various weapons and with various talents), but it's relatively higher than base with many spells. It also depends on the defense that the spell targets, I think. Or, it will, eventually. I don't think all those numbers have been tuned much, yet, until they get a solid baseline.

I'm not sure, but I thought we were getting a space piglet, not a hamster.

GTA V isn't new, though. It's just newly available on some platforms. Not that that means it won't affect sales in any way. But... *shrug*. It's not quite the same as a brand-spankin'-new game release.

Well, for what it's worth, I don't think free movement is kiting. I think free kiting is kiting. Using Hormalakh's example of bears, I shouldn't be able to flee from a bear whilst wielding a bow and consistently fire at it while staying out of its range. Just as an example. So, yeah, I've seen ridiculous kiting in many a game, but I don't think that means "make sure no one can ever outrun anything, under any circumstances, and/or effectively remain at range whilst slaying something." Also, I don't think engagement is the solution, but I think it's at least partially a solution, bearing in mind that by "engagement" I mean the concept, and not "everything that's happening in the current build, exactly." I'm with Hormalakh, though. The whole "you can't instantly flee in the opposite direction, 'cause you hafta actually turn around first" notion makes sense as an option for a cRPGs combat movement. But, that's basically just ensuring risk, as he said. Which is kind of the point. The problematic kiting is the "as long as you always just stop, shoot once, and then issue a move command again immediately after that, you're fine! 8D!". Whether it's that, or some increased likelihood of getting hit because you're turning your back on your foe to flee... it functionally amounts to the same thing. That being said, I still think some kind of passive disengagement option would be a tremendously beneficial addition to even the current build, as "all you can do is not-move and be fine, disable your opponent and move and be fine, or move and take an AoO" is a little rigid. I think it should be relatively easy (if you so choose... maybe just for certain builds, etc.) to get away from an engager, just not necessarily free and instantaneous. That's really how I see engagement's goal: It shouldn't be as easy as just moving past someone. And, as far as kiting goes, it shouldn't be as easy as standing around until they reach you, then fleeing just in time to not-get hit, every time.

So we can't save/load... just means we need to man up and test in a more hardcore, all-in-one-playthrough fashion. Wanna duplicate that bug that was 3 hours in? TIME FOR ANOTHER 3-HOURS OF PLAY! Seriously though... sorry it's being troublesome, and thank you for your diligence in the war on trouble.

I'm sure that'd probably be fine. I mean, you already donated extra money. I'll go ahead and request your forum title. Just make sure you get your pledge option sorted out if you want to make sure you're in the credits/anthing else affiliated with the OOoE that they decide to put into the game (there might be some faction in place or something? Dunno how minor of a reference it'll be. It's just rumor).

I find jumping to such conclusions pointless. This whole thing is an iterative process. They can't just go "Hey, don't worry, we'll make the UI later. Let's just test the game with absolutely no UI! 8D!". So, they make one. They don't sit around nurturing it into a responsible adult UI with a job and a steady retirement fund just yet. But it's there, at least. Then, as they go through, they make improvements to it. They don't exactly have a 50-million-dollar team to have people just 'round-the-clock UI-in' it up. Again, when they present something and say "Okay, we're TOTALLY done with this and it's the SHYTE!", and it's still got huge problems, that's when it'll make sense to go all "Obviously Obsidian are incompetent!". Saying it early just makes you seem like that kid from Wedding Crashers. "MAKE ME A BICYCLE, CLOWN!"

I do say it in jest, for a cRPG. Things like Wish work splendidly in a PnP campaign, because there's SO much that's under the control of the DM, to shape the campaign around that ability actually being narratively significant. Jesting aside (I only jest to hammer in points, btw... it's just my style, and I mean nothing personal by it), I do understand what you're saying, and I do understand how being powerful later quantitatively makes up for being squishy early on. However, I still feel that there's more to it than that. Spell frequency should be limited, but it's just one factor in overall class power. I personally do not care for the simplicity of that balance, as you could still have the Wizard be really powerful later on and weaker early on without solely relying on some kind of "let's punish you for how strong you'll be later and call it balance" idea. Again, in a PnP setting, how "weak" you are isn't as prevalent, as there's a lot more to the game than that. But, in a cRPG (especially this one with a smaller budget than is ideal, and few skills, etc.), your general class strength, in any given portion of the game, is very important. Basically, I just don't think it's a "duh" thing -- make Wizards wusses who later become demigods --. I just think it's an option amongst other more interesting (I feel) options to achieve a very similar goal.

I appreciate the response. My thinking on the "you can just mouse-over to see that" was that, either everything's going fine in combat (You see that everyone's hitting or critting most of the time, and are satisfied with those results), OR it isn't, in which case you're most likely going to pause to take a moment to figure out what's going wrong. In other words, the time when you'd need to see the math is also the time when you'd probably be evaluating your commands/tactics. I just can't see people, in a lot of situations, being able to glance at any amount of math other there (sometimes with multiple modifiers contributing to a final roll), figuring out exactly what all's causing "the problem," and re-issuing commands to remedy it, all real-time, in any kind of effective fashion. Especially while things are still scrolling. However, I also won't say that's impossible. That was just my immediate thinking on the matter. The math seems to be secondary in priority to the effects of the math, really, and the actions that are occurring. BUT, we could possibly put in a column just for the math. OR, maybe a toggle-button hotkey to press to see the math in-place of the typically-displayed stuff on that line. Or something along those lines (pun completely intended). Do you think that would help, perhaps? I don't really know if all that would fit in there, but I've seen several UI mockups that were very nice, in which the combat log had WAY more horizontal space than it could ever need, so maybe it would all fit. It depends. Just trying to get an opinion on the rough idea before worrying with a detailed plan for exactly how all this would go on there. Yeah, I don't know a ton about the art of color-application in UI functionality on a screen, but it seems like it's definitely at least potentially useful for locating distinctive entries. Well, I was thinking of very simple, easily-read icons designed specifically for the log. That seems the best route. That's also why I just stuck with general actions, like "attack" (weapon attack, that is... "standard" attack), or "spell/ability." It would be great if the specific spell/ability icon went there, etc., but that seems a lot less feasible to pull off at such a small size. That, and putting the name there would be great, but some of the spells (in particular) have reallllly long names. Or like... the Chanter abilities. So... *shrug*. Just brainstorming options at this point, heh. Also, what if indention were used to indicate sub-entries? Such as when a Wizard hurls a Fireball, and it hits 5 enemies. Instead of "Wizard hits Enemy A with Fireball for 10 fire damage" on every line, maybe it could just go: "Wizard (spell icon) hits Enemy A 10(fire) (spell icon) hits Enemy B 9(fire) (spell icon) grazes Enemy C 4(fire) (spell icon) crits Enemy D 17(fire)" I know that's not a huge change, and you still have the same number of lines (not sure there's a way to effectively shorten the line usage), but it at least differentiates between individual action lines and lines that are all pertaining to one action. Taking the example above, if you had someone else using a flaming sword, and they struck a foe with that at roughly the same time the Fireball hit, it's possible they'd get jumbled up in there somewhere. With this, you know, at a glance, that all the lines without an Actor are part of the same action as the first line above them with an actor's name. That, and/or maybe it would help to tag a line AOE or something.

Regarding the whole kiting thing. Kiting isn't bad, any more than stunning a foe is bad, or launching a fireball is bad. It's when kiting's stupidly reliable that it's bad. It's a matter of extents. When "how do I go through combat without getting hit, but whilst effectively killing my foes?" is answered with "Just kite, 8D!", that's when it's bad. Or, another way to look at is, if you can start at melee range from something and STILL kite it successfully (reliably, not just in certain situations in which you've actively opened up an opportunity to gain some distance), it's bad. Unless you're playing DOTA or something. Then it isn't. Most of the time, when people grumble about kiting, or bring it up as a problem, they're not talking about the sheer act of maintaining distance from a melee foe. They're talking about the full-health-to-dead strategy of killing everything effectively, with ease, by simply employing movement commands.

I apologize for contributing to the derailment of this thread. I was simply stumped by the seeming inaccuracies being brought up in order to bash DA:I, as I'm playing through the game right now and haven't had any of the problems that have been mentioned in this thread (I think I've done like... 3 actual fetch quests, maybe? etc.) It's kinda like if someone says "I don't like this food, 'cause there's way too much pepper in it," when there isn't any pepper in it. Maybe you don't like the food, and that's fine, but it isn't because there's too much pepper in it. Anywho. My bad. We can take the DA:I discussion to a different thread that probably already exists.