Lephys

It's not a strawman. It's just an observation. The relevance lies in that little quoted segment of Vizera that prefaced my post. I don't know if you read that or not, but he suggested that Might just represents different things for different classes. So, firstly, I pointed out that that actually isn't true in PoE; it represents BOTH things for all classes, as a Wizard's Might DOES affect his physical attack damage, and that the difference between a Wizard's base physical damage and a Fighter's has nothing to do with the function of the Might attribute. Then, I pointed out (in the little section you so kindly called out as appearing scarecrowish) that, for what it's worth, the idea of an attribute system that measures something like physical strength in one class, but doesn't even measure it at all in another class is a bit silly. Does that help? If you're still unclear, just say the word, and I'll gladly help clarify in any way I can.

How 'come no one's ever three-saken, or five-saken? 6_u I jest. Title request relay protocols: INITIATED! *eye glow*

@Nonek: The lore tie-in is a pretty good idea. Still, I'd say, if that were the case, then XP rewards for consecutive kills on the same foe (type, not the exact same individual) should progressively diminish. Basically, by the time you've killed your 10th Goblin, you shouldn't be gaining significant amounts of XP from a Goblin. Thus, it's not as if the game was all "THERE'S NEVER any point in overcoming the combat challenge that is GOBLIN!", BUT, it doesn't just say "Hey, if there happen to be a thousand Goblins around, you can just hunt them all down and gain a whole level or two, JUST from doing that, even if there was no other reason to kill most of them anyway!" Plus, with the lore aspect, that's still a whole extra reward from continuing to face down goblins, even when you didn't have to. *shrug*

Except it doesn't. It means both things for all classes. Your Wizard with a sword gets the same proportionate increase to his sword-thwacking damage as he does to his fire-tossing damage. The fact that his class abilities are all designed mainly to produce more base magical damage, rather than physical attack damage, has nothing to do with the effects of stats. Also, just in principle, it's rather preposterous to think that a Wizard has only magic power (and not even any measurable physical strength, whatsoever). Imagine if Dexterity did the same thing; a Wizard ONLY has the skill with which he shapes his spells, and lacks any and all physical coordination whatsoever. Is he horrible at performing dexterous tasks? Nope. Nor is he good. He's just completely devoid of it. When you do that, it's not like that stat just means something different for that class. It's like that class is always getting forcibly assigned some default measurement for that aspect (physical strength, in the case of Might).

This is such an awful perspective. That's like saying "Oh, if you're a physical fighter with a sword, and you can deal good damage, OR you're a Wizard with spells and you can still deal good damage, then the distinction is pointless." One doesn't have to be flat-out bad. They should both be conditionally bad, and conditionally good, depending on the circumstances. Same with attributes and their effects.

All you have to do is be wicked. Then there's no rest for you.

Then his post, like yours, would've been... excerptional. 6_u

That's... actually a pretty good idea, . Not entirely necessary, but it would be pretty useful at times. Of course, if some foe was currently undetectable to the characters, you'd have to make sure that particular foe wasn't selectable via this method. Otherwise, it would defeat the point of stealth. Of course, I dunno if there's any kind of active stealth-while-performing-actions in the game (like invisibility spells, etc? *shrug*)

Man, if only we got XP for combat, instead of loot, everything would be fixed! Because, what do you need XP for? Obviously anything but combat. BRILLIANT! 8D

Exactly. That, and people seem to keep thinking in terms of "There's just a world full of normal people, and SUDDENLY, A WILD GODLIKE APPEARS!". Like they've never seen one in their lives. You can't think in terms of what's weird to us humans, in reality, because we don't and haven't lived amongst that specific weirdness for generations and generations. What you think of the godlike's looks is not nearly the same thing as what any given citizen of Eora thinks of their looks. It's no different from the sight of Elves, or Orlans, or Aumaua, etc.

No, it's just like they didn't try hard enough not to create blatantly underpowered classes. Also, in PnP D&D, there pretty much wasn't any such thing as a class designed for not-role-playing, so why should a cRPG based upon a PnP game suddenly differentiate between classes that are specifically for roleplaying (somehow making it okay that they consistently suck throughout a playthrough, compared to all the other classes) and ones that are for not-sucking? What mandates that these two things be mutually exclusive? Why can't I roleplay not-being-underpowered? that's the character I'm going for. I don't wanna be the best. I just don't want to be measurably horrible.

The thing about encumbrance is: It's perfectly reasonable for you to find more than you can carry at some point in the game (even if not extremely regularly), but for that stuff you found to all be well worth your characters' while, and for going back and getting it to be an actual intelligent decision rather than just some irrational compulsion to hoard. So, however you look at it, preventing the player from going back to get something is silly (as a default... there are clearly times when that would be impossible, and/or the thing would degrade or be collected by others). And allowing the player to pick up all the stuff, but punishing them for it, is just silly. "HaHA! We're not gonna stop you from taking this perfectly useful thing we, ourselves, put into the game here, but we're gonna make sure you move EXCRUTIATINGLY slowly, now! 8D!". It's always just a matter of time. A second trip because of a hard limit. Slow movement taking longer because of encumbrance, etc. That's what they're trying to remove. The game gives you people who need money and such, and drops them into a world in which resources are fairly limited (there's pretty much always SOMEone who'd gladly take most things you can think of, within reason). Then, it gives you useful resources, and says "Have fun trying to make use of all of that, though, even though there's really nothing stopping you except extra time and effort." So, no, the whole "there's no reason to worry about getting all the stuff" argument doesn't really fly. Sure there is. Not everything, all-together. But, all the things each have some individual reason to exist in the world and be useful, unless they're just trash loot (which shouldn't even be in the game, really). Thing is, in any of the previous systems, you can usually just go back and get it. So, the only meaningful decision you have to make is "what do I want accessible right now?" If you drop some stuff on the ground, or stick it in a hollow in a log, or a chest in a house or something, you just don't get to access it for the time being. So, it seems perfectly reasonable to just abstractly skip the whole "we physically march our people back from town to that spot in the woods to collect those things" step, but retain the "You still don't get access to everything all at once" consequence. In that regard, I'm not sure the infinite stash is really significant enough in its accessibility restrictions, as I think it's accessible any time you camp? *shrug*

Really?! Wow. I could've sworn item durability was removed. You still have to replenish your weapons and armor? Or, are you saying that illusionary equipment will be dropped by foes? Or both? *blink blink* o_o

My only question there is... is the straight-health damage supposed to translate back into Stamina damage, on top of that? I mean, I get that "when you take damage," the ratio is 1/4. But, it seems that, with the exception of this petrification, the only damage you take is understood to basically be Stamina damage, which "passes on" 1/4th of the damage to Health (I know, functionally, they just both receive damage at the same time...). Or, to look at it another way, if it's supposed to turn 1 Stamina damage into 4 Health damage and 16 Stamina damage, then Petrify is basically just a 4X damage multiplier. Which, is deadly and all... but, weird? It might just be a subjective feeling, but it seems like something that just made all damage go straight to your Health instead of Stamina would be a much more interesting mechanic than just "you still take damage in the exact same fashion, but it's multiplied by 4." I mean, if you're petrified, and you run out of Stamina, does your character fall over? o_O And it's not as if there's some kind of issue with not taking any Stamina damage during that time. I mean, if you get down to 10 Health, and you somehow come out of Petrification (I don't know if it's possible to recover from it, but, for example's sake, say you do) with full Stamina, it's not like you got some huge advantage from the lack of Stamina loss there. *Shrug*

If it was the $140 "Retail Collector's Edition" on the backer portal, that actually is one tier shy of Wasteland 2 Key eligibility, I believe. My roommate thought the same thing. The day they announced the W2 keys were available, he signed into the portal, and was ready to contact support to say "Hey, it's not working for me!". Then, he thought to double-check that tier on the Kickstarter page, and found that it actually does not include the Wasteland 2 key.

If you can have "non-overpowered", and "overpowered," as distinct from one another, why do you really need "underpowered" to exist? What level of crappy do we need to put into a game just to allow "best" to still be the best? I guess we should have some restaurants where they just intentionally put shards of metal and glass in your food, discretely, so that you can enjoy discovering that level of potential meal effectiveness. The existing "meh"-to-"DELICIOUS" range just isn't good enough. Also, supporting the "play the game once" crowd and shunning the "play the game multiple times" crowd are not one in the same. So, I'm honestly unclear on why you'd like a game purely because it was SO against people who simply didn't feel like playing the game multiple times through just to get sufficient enjoyment out of it. That's a little weird.

For what it's worth, in the recently released Guardians of The Galaxy film... (MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD) ... There's clearly an emotional connection in the process of forming between Quill and Gamora, but they don't even so much as kiss throughout the entire film. That's pretty rare for a Hollywood film today. I realize a film and a game don't function exactly the same way (one is perfectly linear and static, and the other is not), but, that's just an example I wanted to point out towards how romance can exist without having to necessarily conclude any time soon, or even "on stage" at all, for that matter. Or, to put it another way, a developer's options are broader than "Either no romance is in the game, or there's romance in the game and binary dialogue options that lead to sex and marriage are it."

It's a quite feasible approach to the effects of Intellect, but, you've got to consider what all is actually being represented by stats in the game. If you go that deep with Intellect, you have to go that deep with the others, or it'll feel really lopsided. "18 Intellect? You get like 7 things! 18 Might? Only like 2 things, 8(..." That's my only concern with something like that. And you definitely wouldn't want just casters to get this additional effect from a stat, while no other class-types get any additional/unique effects from any stat.

@Longknife, It was a specific add-on. It was $8 (sideways "8" is the symbol for eternity). I don't think it was included in any base tier, and was purely an add-on.

That might also be something that Traits could handle. I know they're looking for input on what to do with Traits. Of course, that doesn't mean it couldn't use some additional pre-trait TLC. I don't want to make a Wizard that's as magnificent as a Fighter, but it would be nice to at least not completely suck at melee combat. I take it currently, about the only thing you can do is max out DEX?

Apologies, Gecos. I am the title-request liaison, and I had a rather busy weekend. You should have it pretty soon. I know Fionavar has been on vacation, recently, but he's still (admirably) been checking in on these title requests and fulfilling them. So, you should have it in no time,

@Sarex: How does it have nothing to do with the discussion? He contends that I'm wrong because it's just my opinion. So, that means we're wrong when we stop murderers, because we can't definitively say that murderous rampages are bad. Seems to be perfectly relevant. It seems to me like you don't comprehend the function of analogies. @Immortalis: How am I not talking about what you are? I responded directly to exact quotes of your post. If you don't explain, and you're right, then I'm just going to keep doing it, because I won't know any better. Please, inform me.

"I needed a fix, BAD! Turns out the bag was filled with powdered sugar! Drat!"

You did too Lephys... The difference being that I wasn't attempting to refute anything. He said I didn't label my statement as my opinion. I pointed out that, while true, that is moot.

To who doesn't matter. Randomly murdering people in real life isn't problematic at all, to serial killers. But, I think we can agree that it's still an issue, can we not? Josh explained exactly what he meant by that, and he's even corrected those fanboys tossing the term around on several occasions. Which, by the way, is an excellent illustration of how what people decide to do with the things he says has absolutely nothing to do with him or what he said. People act like he specifically tasked people with going around using the terminology, when it was just him answering a question at some point in time. He didn't go call a press conference to convert everyone to using that term. He was just talking about things he saw as inadvertent design side-effects that we've seen for a long time now, but no one really loves them. It's not the game's job to make sure certain things can occur, because they make absolutely no sense. I don't mean "They're not realistic." I mean, even from a game design or gameplaystandpoint, there are certain thinks a game's design results in that aren't intended in any way, shape, or fashion. Ideally, you don't have those. That's just simple design efficiency fundamentals. When you write a program, you want it to accomplish your goal, and nothing more, if you can help it. The more extraneous stuff it does, the more chances you run into unintended consequences. That's not it at all. I'm saying that the whole idea behind these games has nothing to do with making sure that there are just living things around to be killed for rewards, 24/7. If you want to be able to do that, and couldn't even care less about the roleplay potential of your character, that's fantastic. But it is not a "role-playing" game's job to make you happy, in that instance. What's a huge exaggeration is to take that point, and spin it into "Oh, so we should just remove killing, and it shouldn't ever get you anything?". No, combat is part of the game. That doesn't mean that combat, in isolation, just because things are alive that could be dead, is something the design needs to account for.