Lephys

They're obviously working some kind of angle, here. 6_u

^ It shouldn't when it's finished. They're kind of still working on everything under the hood, right now. I'm confident that once they get numbers and specifics more situated, they'll go ahead with fleshing out all the user-friendly UI intuitiveness, and a full, comprehensive tutorial on the finalized system. It's really not that complex at the moment. It's just hard to tell how complex it is or isn't, unless you've been following it this whole time.

If they happen to wait 'til April 1st, I'll get a pretty awesome birthday gift, ^_^

Are they really that out of whack right now, Sensuki? It seems to me like the majority of the imbalance rests on the fulcrum of little, easily tweaked things like the Rogue's stacking multiplier, etc. Not to say that there's not still room for actual core class balance, those little tweaks aside, but they don't seem to really be that far from one another, inherently. Besides, the type of balance we're after here isn't really class-vs-class balance, per se. It's more class-vs-some-mean. The mean is "I'm effectively doing stuff in combat, and when I level up and/or gain points and talents, that feels significant." So, even if one class one-shotted everything in the game, that would make all the other classes imbalanced with that class, but it wouldn't mean that you "sucked," relative to the mean of actually being effective and progressing through the game, if you chose any other class. That OP class would obviously need to be reigned in, but that would be a pretty minor thing, considering (make him do less damage, etc.). If one class doesn't even have anything numbers-tweakable to bring it into check (or up to par), and another class has nothing but easily tweakable things, then that would be a much larger concern to me. Like "All the Priest does is heal!" That would be bad, because to fix that, you couldn't just make his healing do more damage. You'd have to create all new abilities and such to get him to be able to do more than just heal, and/or completely change existing abilities, etc. Tweaking is expected in a beta, for many an iteration. Inherent design failure is not.

@ctn2003, You may not have meant for it to come across that way, but it's just kind of rude to imply that the dev team doesn't care about their own game is all (or cares more about releasing it as fast as possible than about doing it right, etc.). It's our job to point out our concerns with the current state of the game and its design, and provide useful feedback about the beta build, etc. Not to suggest that they just don't even know how much they can do in a given amount of time, or how much they even have left to do, etc. That's the main reason people respond with "hostility" (even though some of it is actual hostility and is uncalled for -- I'm not denying that.) There are plenty of positive ways to voice concern without implying that the dev team is neglectful or incompetent. It also doesn't mean that pointing that out means "I love the devs more than anything ever, and they can do no wrong!" It's just common respect. Anywho, we are all glad that they didn't feel the need to hold themselves to a deadline that was becoming increasingly taxing to meet. It's good for them AND the game.

You aren't making any sense, and I think this thread's had more than enough of my attempts to make sense of you. Feel free to PM me if you have any actual interest in the both of us ever being on the same page with anything. Peace out.

I think it would be kinda neat (for realsies here) if a game project that was crowdfunded did well enough to actually offer some kind of "dividends" to the backers. You could have two options: 1) Take your investment interest/profit in money form. OR 2) Take your interest/profit in the form of a credit toward any future game they make. It would have to be a one-time thing, though. Not "I helped you make a game while sort of simultaneously paying for it, so now I get $20 a month forever." Heh. Annnnnywho. Also, I HAVE to say it (in reference to the thread subject)... It's always possible they make EVIL profit with this game. 6_u

Ohhhh Miranda... I wanted to like her.

The only avoidance occurring here is from your facts avoiding all relevance. I never asked for proof of the DA:I release. Your use of "things like" emphasizes the fact that you just assumed I was loosely asking for proof of whatever specific thing you deemed appropriate. Stop slandering people by falsely accusing them of being lying weaselly trolls. All I ever said was: 1) There's no proof that DA:I-release concern was the reason to ever move the release date for PoE. I can't prove it wasn't, but neither can you OR the OP prove it was. My point, if you can't fathom it, being that "PoE got pushed back because DA:I" isn't a definite, accurate truth. At the very least, there's more to it than that. 2) The very fact that they pushed the release date back for any reason at all, really, goes against the idea that their goal is to rush the game to release. Your crazed obsession with the when and where of some particular announcement of the initial push back from summer 2014 to winter 2014 has nothing to do with the fact that nothing forced the company to not simply release the game in June. Thus, for whatever reason, spending more time on the game was obviously a higher priority to them than the game releasing earlier. 3) "The beta is actually an alpha" is completely baseless, and is sheer opinion. Those are the three things the thread author claimed in his first post. I commented on them. I don't understand why you can't process that, and why you feel the need to make up stuff like "Lephys totally called the OP a troll!", or "you're denying these OTHER facts that I'm deciding you're arguing but really aren't what you said at all." People toss the term "strawman" around all the time, often incorrectly, but you're currently employing a field of scarecrows. I'm not paying attention to another word you say in this thread until you actually produce proof of any of these preposterous impostor arguments. Quote me on calling the OP a troll, arguing that the release date was never summer, ever making a point that required the Matt Chat for support, or denying that Obsidian was concerned about releasing PoE too close to DA:I. Good day, sir. *hat tip*

It does appear to give the characters approximately the wisdom of a clock. 8P

I think that's the right idea, Hormalakh. But, I don't think they'd necessarily need a third, separate resource (opportunity time), as they already have "cast"time. All you'd have to do is give bow attacks, for example, a very short cast time. Really, I guess melee attacks would have one, too, but it would be even shorter. But, yeah, nocking an arrow and aiming should take some amount of time, unless you're Legolas, I guess. That's where talents like Quick Shot, etc. could come into play -- you COULD fire instantly sometimes, but not constantly. So, you get a tactical advantage, to be used in limited quantity when deeded most useful, but you don't get to just magi-kite everything around effortlessly.

@Hiro, so you've NEVER criticized any design that the developers have produced? Because that would be preposterous? Under what conditions is it okay to say "hey, I think this could use a tweak."? Actually-on-topic: I think you're on to something. What if you started the multiplier lower, but left it at 2-or-more afflictions? Then for every subsequent affliction, the multiplier could increase. That way, IF you wanna put 7 afflictions on a single foe (whatever the cost of that would be in any given combat situation), your Rogue will annihilate that enemy. I mean, obviously you'd still want to keep it in check. No x7 or anything.

If you saw a box on a shelf labeled "beta," and you had no idea what was in that box, would you buy it? No. I don't understand what's deluded about expecting people act on their own lack of information about something. Isn't that what we teach kids and stuff? "Hey, if you don't know what it's in that random cup, don't assume it's tasty beverage." You can't not know that you don't know something. So, it's really inaccurate not to simply say "I had no idea what that was, but accepted that risk/gamble when I decided to pay money for that thing." Rather than "OMG! I was tricked, because I was allowed to assume things!" Not trying to be mean. We're all human, and we all assume things from time to time. But, the proper response is to admit the folly of assumption, not blame someone else for the negative outcome of that assumption.

Unless you use TRESS FX! I joke (not that it might not be true), because I know very little about that, except that they advertised the crap out of it with Lara's hair in the recent Tomb Raider reboot. 8P

I've become a maneuver! Checking that off my bucket list, *check* I don't even know what we're supposed to be weaseling out of, haha. But, now I just imagine it's a very wiggly dance move. Everybody... DO THE LEPHYS! *wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle, ENTER A HOLLOW LOG* ^_^ Whoa whoa whoa! He's trolling AND he's a troll?! *removes shades* O_O Is he... trollishly trolling while he's a troll?

Does it look so good that it... hertz? 6_u

Does that mean we're gonna get paid back?! *_* (Just kidding, )

^ That's one thing I've gotta give Mass Effect 2 credit for. (MINOR SPOILER ALERT) When you get to the "Oh crap, the Collectors kidnapped the ship's crew!" point, how long you take to get them back actually matters. I don't know how many stages of difference there are, but I know if you take too long, they're all dead. If you're a bit faster, only SOME of them are dead, etc. Granted, it wasn't simply measured by a ticking clock. It was measured by whatever you did before going to tackle the Collectors, with each side mission/"task" you dealt with representing the passage of some chunk of time. Could've been done better, overall, but I'm glad it wasn't just "oh no, we'd better not hurry and just take our time, because nothing at all's going to happen! 8D"

Mukoze, no worries about your English. I can't say anything in any other language well enough for anyone to understand more than a handful of words or idea, so... don't feel bad, heh. And don't take the replies here the wrong way. It's partially people sort of entertaining themselves with forums. Because, while you are very, very creative, and you have EXCELLENT brainstorming skills, it's kind of an overwhelming amount of ideas that would have to be heavily processed to actually fit into PoE. That, and it's far too late to incorporate anything that isn't just a tweak to an existing system into this particular game. That being said, I would seriously love to see a game you work on some day. I say totally go for it and try to process and refine your ideas into a workable game, if you can. Maybe seek out some others to help you with it. Just because a lot of that can't go into PoE, doesn't mean it's useless or bad. It's good stuff. You remind me of Osvir,

I really wish we had something at character creation that more closely resembled Traits from Fallout, or Backgrounds from Arcanum. I realize that we don't know all the exact instances that will be affected by your cultural and background choice in PoE, BUT they don't really change much from the point of character creation. Cultural selection grants stat bonuses, and that's about it. It'd be kind of nice if they affected starting skill ratings, or allowed you to select Level-1 talents (if those are put in, which I hope they are) from an exclusive group of Culture-only talents, etc.

What blows my mind is how many people arbitrarily assume that the developers approach beta as "Yep, everything's perfect, just incomplete. Finish coloring in the shapes, guys!" As if, when they get feedback (which is the entire purpose of a beta), they're all aghast. "WHAT?! There are problems and things that need to change?! DEAR HEAVENS!!! *panic*" Because, they NEVER could've suspected that they might have to delay their release a bit further, until people said "Hey, this might need some tweaking." *eye roll*

Why not 1/3 of a class instead of 6? Clearly, more is worse, and fewer is better. That or you, alone, get to decide what's an appropriate number and what isn't. Because. *thumbs up* This thread needed starting so badly. Thanks for enriching my forum experience! 8D

I think your quote function might have a glitch. You seem to be repeating what I'm saying, but it's putting my name in place of yours. Back on-topic: Explain to me how this... ... isn't a claim that they seem to really want to rush the game out the door, followed immediately by the fact that they voluntarily delayed the game until December. AND how there's any evidence, whatsoever, presented regarding the beta being not-actually a beta, and only being released to make time for the December (already delayed so that he game wasn't released as early as possible) release. AND how the claim that the beta is actually a hastily-released alpha isn't dependent upon the notion that they're rushing the game, which, again, is somehow supported by the fact that that they had the option of releasing the game earlier, or later, and they chose later. (This is before they just recently chose even later, mind you). That's an actual quote up there, btw. Not what I'm claiming he said. No discrepancy. His actual words. If you can't explain that, this meeting is adjourned.

... I'm going to explain this, even though you're going to ignore it: At some point in time, that's NOT how the Rogue was, because there wasn't a Rogue design. Then, one day, an Obsidian person came up with the Rogue, based on some notion of what the Rogue class should be. The reason that's what they came up with for what it should be can't be "because that's what the current design is," because there was no current design. That would be a paradox. Something can't be how it is until it's made that way, so it can't be made that way with the reason being "because it's that way." I'm not changing the meaning of anything. Stop insisting that things have extraordinarily specific meanings that suit you, and not different meanings like they actually have. DPS literally means "damage per second." So, if a class's role is restricted to merely DPS, then all that class does is what other classes do (all classes deal damage per second), only to a greater extent than the other classes. You could just give the Rogue a base attack damage and attack speed that was twice everyone else's, and the class would meet its goal. And that wouldn't be particularly interesting at all. So, I just feel that the class could be spruced up a bit. I realize that the current PoE Rogue is not just that, and is more interesting than that. However, I don't think the interestingness of the class owes much at all to the "When you have conditions on you, my DPS increases" mechanic that makes the Rogue a Rogue, and not just some other class who happens to do a lot of damage per second. That, and "heavy hitter" only means that the Rogue is designed to be capable of hitting very hard. That doesn't say anything about an ability to constantly dole out the most damage for every given second of combat. Nor does it say that the core mechanic of the Rogue must be constrained to bonus damage. You're right. It doesn't mean that. And I don't follow your point here. You're acting as though it's absurd to be "against the devs." Like it's a binary thing. When the devs make a change to their own design (like shuffling character stat effects around), does that mean they are against their own design? When is it not wrong to simply evaluate/constructively criticize a given design iteration? Did they, or did they not, ask for our feedback on all things beta build? Is that not the very purpose of the beta? I don't understand why that's LOL-worthy. I really, really worry about you... I'm not even kidding. Your behavior is worrisome.

Well, not that this means the Priest can in no way be poorly balanced or never needs any tweaking, but "inferior" is a relative term. The Priest could do less damage than all the other classes, and still be doing adequate damage. Combat effectiveness depends on much more than sheer damage. That being said, I agree that no class should be restricted to "you don't really do much damage at all." I don't know from any empirical evidence that that's the case with the Priest. But, if it is, it shouldn't be. Doesn't mean he (the Priest) can't be "inferior" to every single other class (in damage output, alone), and still be just fine.