Lephys

So you can hardly wait to... engage in some testing? 6_u

For what it's worth, all spells don't target Deflection, whereas that's mainly what physical attacks target. So, in that they can all hit or miss, etc., yes, all spells are like ranged touch attacks. But I wouldn't say there's no difference between a sword or a bow or a spell.

Honestly, it might be fine for you to go ahead and "join," and just see if you can add 3 bucks or something when you get the chance. You might can contact support to ask if it would be possible to do that. But, the spirit of the Order of Eternity was really just to help rally some more funding, little by little, so your extra contribution is already in that same spirit.

I'm not sure if add-ons are still available or not (I think they are, to some degree). But, if they are, you can edit your pledge in the pledge manager, and add on the $8 (sideways eternity symbol) OOoE pledge amount. That's pretty much all there is to joining.

That's pretty strange. I've found at least 5 or 6 so far, and I'm only like 20% through the game. I've only fully explored 1 out of 8 major areas. *shrug*

... Out of curiosity, have you played it? I've found plenty of armor sets, and you can customize the everliving crap out of whatever you want, both cosmetically AND stat-wise. And I don't see much resemblance to World of Warcraft, shy of there being a world, with humanoid people in it, and terrain and stuff.

I'm sorry, but as someone who plays the mage in everything ever that even remotely has something resembling a mage (Mass Effect biotics... SPACE MAGES!), I don't accept the "don't worry, you'll be a demigod in a bit" as justification for any amount of magery being lame or sub-par. A) I don't even want to be a demigod. Or, if I am, I want to be a demigod in a God of War type setting, in which you're surrounded by things that are on-par with a demigod. B) That doesn't make up for crap early-level class gameplay for me. In a PnP campaign, there are 73,000 other things I can be doing than being effective in combat. In any cRPG I've ever played, there's not nearly enough non-combat usefulness to anything I can do to justify my being a complete wuss at combat. I'd rather manifest ethereal shurikens and toss them at my foes than do a whole lot of nothing-useful topped off with a single kill-8-people-at-once fireball, any day of the week. A guy manning a cannon is fearsome. And yet, if he HAD to, he could abandon the cannon and engage something in combat. He's not just "Oh well... I'm out of cannon balls. But it's okay, because the cannon's SO POWERFUL! 8D!" I want to see a Wizard who, once a year, gets to cast a spell that simply saves the world. The rest of the year, the mage is in a coma and must be toted around on a little wagon pulled behind a mule. BALANCE! 8D! Seriously, though, one of my favorite things about Mr. Magniloquent's proposal in this thread is that you get to pick whether or not you want 3 brutally powerful spells, or 30 more weapon-ammo-type spells. A mage shouldn't be limited to either setup. It's friggin magic. You shape it how you want, to do cool things that regular "mundane" means cannot. A spell doesn't have to be 73-times more potent than a sword to justify being magical. It can just do things that a sword cannot, even if it does the same "quantity" of damage/effects/what-have-you. A kick can knock a guy down. Maybe a magical spell that's exactly as powerful as a kick can simply do so from a range, and in whatever direction you please.

Methinks people overly associate open-world games with MMO's. What's the difference between doing a quest in BG1, and doing a quest in DA:I? It's not isometric, and there are fewer map transitions. Seriously. I'm not going to tell anyone to like DA:I, but at least dislike it accurately, please. Anywho, while I think DA:I is great, in its way, I feel that PoE is also going to be quite great in different ways.

As long as he eventually gets to level entire cities with ropes, it doesn't matter if all he gets to do for 4 levels is hide in a corner and occasionally trip some guys.

Oh, I've figured out why people don't want to play with it. I just can't figure out why problems = remove instead of problems = fix. No one's really said, yet. Just "'Cause... 'cause it's got problems! O_O" If you ignore Lephys, the word count on a page he posted on would probably be less than half. You guys aren't invited to my birthday party. Also, you cannot borrow my Ninja Turtles action figures anymore. u_u... Also, I'm pretty sure the act of ignoring involves not-addressing every post I make, Seari. Just sayin'... *shrug*

^ Yes, but logic is still logic. Either there are two types of energy in the world -- kinetic and magical -- or there is only one -- magical/soul/what-have-you. If there are two, and Might (for example) represents the power of your soul, be it to power physical OR magical abilities, then what's accounting for the other type of energy that people can utilize? So, no one's to say that physical strength/fitness/muscle fiber/etc. doesn't somehow work as a prerequisite for magic or otherwise non-mechanical energy/force production. But, you still either have two things, or you have only one. If you have only one, then no one can do anything without utilizing soul/magic power, in which case the lore should reflect that. Also, since muscles are already designed to function in a mechanical fashion, without magic, you can't really have regular old muscles in you world and say "Oh no... they contract in a mechanical fashion, but they ONLY produce soul energy, u_u..." It just doesn't make any sense, whether you're the world creator or not.

My physical copy of Wasteland 2 just now shipped. I await it with much longing. I AM glad I got to skip those 4 patches worth of issues, though, ^_^

As long as it features alternate middles, we're good. But alternate endings and beginnings are definitely nice.

Oh? I apologize. I'll try to make it funnier next time. However, I've yet to see an actual distinction between that exaggerated line of reasoning, and whatever's behind "ENGAGEMENT MUST BE BURNED!" Is there some certain number of easily-changeable problems with a given system that suddenly takes it from reparable to hopeless? Why are the UI and spell FX systems safe, while engagement isn't? Or the Ranger class, for that matter? The shared health pool and functionality of the animal companion has taken some fire for being troublesome. Change, or outright remove? And why?

I dunno... that's getting awfully close to encroaching on "what other people can do" territory. I mean, if there's a trip that, say, does additional damage. Well, that's basically backstab. Backtrip? This is a party-based game. Save everything-that-isn't-tripping for the other classes, alright? There's nothing else to consider when it comes to class design. Just one criterion, and done.

Rejoice! But... I have yet to joice. How, then, can I do it again? o_O

Yes. Let's have a 6-year-old-rope-tripper class, shall we? Because, occasionally he'll be able to contribute so well to the party that... who cares about all the times he can't do anything at all? 8D! You must have an awfully strange definition of "functional." I thought the purpose of party-based gameplay was to always function in a collaborative fashion. "Oh, I can't heal you, but I can keep some more damage at bay for you!" "Oh, I can't kill that guy in two fell swoops, but I can paralyze him so that you can get away!" Not "Oh, you guys go ahead... I've done my two things for this 24-hour period. Don't worry, though. I tripped the CRAP out of those guys! 8D! Oh, and, 3 years from now, I'll be so powerful I can just wipe out armies of bandits in a single flourish! But the world will constantly try to counter-counter-balance that with a bunch of 'lolz, that won't work here... it's useless!' immunities, which will then be countered with even more things that I can do. It's really okay. It all works out flawlessly, by design! 8D!"

Yeah, it's not like they just have 80% resources on Windows, and 20% working on Mac. They've just hit more snags with the Mac build. In a way, that means they're working even harder on the Mac build than on the Windows build.

Exactly. But if Might determines non-physical strength, then nothing is actually measuring physical strength. Meaning, you can have a 6-year-old boy with a really strong soul, and he'll do a lot of damage swinging a sword. So, it's not so much that "it doesn't matter if you're strong, or just magically potent, ^_^", but there's a physical aspect of characters going completely unmeasured or represented, really. What about people who have really weak souls, but are really physically strong? Do they exist in the world? Or does everyone do everything with soul power? They don't even actually use their muscles. They just telekinetically move their own limbs using soul energy? I really find the "all-in-one Might" stat troubling, conceptually. BUT, it really isn't that big of a deal, when it comes to the game. Functionally, it will work similarly, even if it doesn't make perfect sense. If you have higher Might, there will be things you can do (checks and whatnot) that you couldn't do if it was lower. And, it will affect your "power" in general. So we miss out on physically weak, soul-fully strong warriors, and physically weak but magically potent mages, etc. I can live with that. But, I still don't understand people acting like it makes sense. It really doesn't, if you think about it. It's a 10 piece puzzle, and it's missing a piece. No matter how you turn the existing pieces, there's a hole in the puzzle.

I just noticed in the other thread that Josh has said they'll be adding in "cooldowns" for re-engagement of the same target, along with some other changes. See... I repeat, until they say "Everything's PERFECT! WE LOVE the current system!", I'm going to consider anyone running around and shouting "The sky is falling!" to be an irrational human being. Okay, next up... The UI has some issues... so REMOVE IT! Spell FX... issues... REMOVE THEM! I want invisible spell FX. I just want everyone to wave their hands around, maybe shout some cool words, and then have to check the combat log to even see what happened. 'Cause that's way better than dealing with a system that just so happens to produce unwanted effects currently. u_u...

Actually, he can't, because he's not a Wizard. 8P It bugs me, too, though.

He's not complaining?! QUICK! HE MUST BE CLEANSED!!!

That "who do you trust more" question is silly. Sensuki has a boatload of very valid, significant points. He collects oodles of objective data on the game. Doesn't mean his conclusions on what to do about things are absolute and perfect. And THAT doesn't mean they're all flawed, either. Everything's made up of a bunch of stuff, some useful, some not. All the bickering in this thread -- not useful. The stuff interspersed throughout the bickering? Useful. The useful and useless can co-exist in the same response, even. Anwyho, this isn't even a "OMG let's make sure we convert everyone to exactly one favorite conclusion" thread, either. I really don't understand why everyone's butting heads so badly. I sincerely believe engagement can be done well. I don't think it will be done well, because I don't claim to know the future. I only know what can happen, and what cannot happen. And I don't believe that "rip it out of the game and stomp on it 'til it's dead[/i] is some obviously superior conclusion to be reached, especially based on the reasoning given. The fact of the matter is, engagement doesn't need to do half the things people are currently pointing out as problems in order to be engagement. So, I still haven't seen any solid reasoning on why fixing it will somehow be pointless or futile, as opposed to completely retooling the whole rest of the combat system in such a way that it perfectly makes up for "stickiness" or what-have-you. That's the only reason I don't, right at this moment, think "Hmmm, yeah, better remove it." We could remove it and rely on things that already exist in the game to achieve the same goal, but I think that would be more trouble than its worth, honestly. Fix it. It isn't great right now. Fix it. I'm not defending the current game build. I'm defending the concept of working with something to make it better before deciding you can't or it's not prudent. A) Expand the disengagement options. If the current disengagement abilities are free, maybe offer a way to disengage without getting hit, but still getting some other penalty instead (increased recovery time, increased incoming damage if you DO get hit for the next 3 seconds, etc.). B) Account for disengagement attacks. Play an animation for them. Give them a recovery time, etc. This isn't hard. C) Allow for movement, just not 100% free movement. Maybe you move more slowly, and/or must face your attacker, etc. Engagement need not immobilize you. That's not even the point. The point is that it is something you must deal with, because ignoring it comes with penalties. There are more things that can be done to it. Then, 90% of people's woes in here would suddenly vanish. The mechanic itself isn't anti-tactical. It's just too heavy-handed right now. I really think the focus of the effects of engagement and disengagement should focus on the target, and not on the attackers. It shouldn't be that everyone gets free extra things going on. It should be that you, the disengager, suffer something. As someone pointed out in another thread (I think... I don't even know which thread anymore), it would make a lot of sense, at the very least, if extra combatants were the only ones who got disengagement attacks when you disengaged, because you're so busy not-incurring one from the person with whom you were engaged. That sort of thing. Suddenly, it becomes a bit more tactical. But, I think it works even better with passive effects to the disengager. If you can freely disengage whenever you want, but you get -10 to Deflection for the next 5 seconds (for example), then it becomes a much more tactical decision. What's the likelihood of my getting hit a lot soon? Are there 4 other people swarming me? Then maybe I don't just jog away right now and take that penalty. Maybe I need to knock them down first to get away, etc. Or, maybe you get an accuracy penalty. Something to make defensive disengagement easier than offensive disengagement (retreating easier than blowing past opponents to further opponents). But, come on, people. Either changes, in concept, are prudent, or they aren't. Even if you don't think it's worth the effort. If you don't even want to fathom changes to the current implementation to fix it, then don't even address them. Addressing them like they're preposterous just because you don't think they'll happen, or you'd rather something else happen, is just plain folly.

I really think that things being lined up helps out a lot. If you keep having to skip around to find damage values, for example, it's harder to compare things than if they're all in a line. Also, so long as there's any kind of decimal damage being shown, it's a lot clearer when the decimal always lines up. So, what if we just had a standard sort-of-table setup? [Actor] [Action] [Target] Damage/result? Then, you could have the more verbose stuff be mouse-over, and/or whatever levels of verboseness you want wherever, via options. Then, I think the largest impact of color coding at that point would be, much like anything else in a game like this, to differentiate between the actions of enemies and the actions of friendlies. I'm also going to second the use of icons, as they can be moused-over as well to see the name, for whatever reason you need to see it. Anywho, you'd see something like this: BB Fighter *attack icon* Goblin (Graze) 10 Burn, Hobbled. BB Cleric *spell icon* BB Fighter (Crit) 30 Heal, Dispel. So, glancing at that, you know The Fighter attacked a Goblin, hit it for 10 Fire damage and applied Hobbled, and that the attack was a Graze. If you need to, you can look at the math, to figure out why it was a Graze, or how long Hobbled is going to last, etc. Then, you know that the Cleric critically healed the Fighter for 30 Stamina, and that at least one negative effect was dispelled. If you need to see what spell was cast by the Cleric, you can mouse-over the spell icon. If you need to see what effect was dispelled, you can mouse-over that. If you need to see specifically what weapon the Fighter attacked with, you can mouse-over the attack icon. But, at a glance, you know what has occurred. I think, really, glancing at the combat log should tell you as much as you'd expect to know without taking the time to pause and investigate further. The above layout can be tweaked a bit (there are different ways to differentiate healing versus damage, etc.), but I think it works quite nicely, and is an amalgamation of a lot of suggestions in here.

Sounds interesting, . Thanks for le info.