Fearabbit

If you only focus on my posts it's just five or six of them. I don't know which claims are being made in total. I've asked for examples and there were two articles about friends' games that were neither reviews nor glowing praises. The rest of the claims were mainly that - claims without backup or conspiracy theories, all without proof (or proof to the contrary). It's as simple as that. @Orogun, thanks! I hang around in the PoE section mostly. And yeah, I gave my opinion about the rest of your post - my main point being that it's definitely not a scandal if people are friends in the industry. (Reading the Kotaku comments also tells me that they do not censor dissenting opinions - they just delete the really bad, hurtful stuff.) @Meshugger: Lol no that's not how it goes. I asked for examples where the gaming press was being corrupt or not giving the necessary information. Almost nothing came back except for two articles about which Amentep and I had a brief discussion, and a post by Orogun concerning some competition - which was definitely a false information, as he himself explained later. (He still thinks it's relevant - I don't, because it kind of lacks the scandalous nature of "Depression Quest won even though Papers Please should have won" if there wasn't actually a competition going on.) I came to the conclusion that people are being overly dramatic. Prove me wrong.

I'm not focused on Quinn. I'm talking about corrupt gaming press. And how it's not corrupt because there's actually no corruption and all examples are false or not very important. You're the one who brought up Zoe Quinn, Orogun. But yeah, I mean that's where it all started and where a huge amount of the conspiracy still takes place, apparently. What baffles me more is why you bothered to ask such a thing in the first place. Mysteries. Update: Also I can highly recommend BruceVC's posts. And I didn't even sleep with him maybe.

@Meshugger: "Not at all" it is then, thank you very much. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy because it's quite out in the open. But I wish people would do their sleuthing on that side of the fence for once and see what they find. Okay seriously. I don't want to tell you "it's all misogyny" or whatever. Maybe it's just nothing but a hate mob that has taken on a life of its own. But it needs to stop. It's quite obvious that it's actually about nothing and that there is no actual scandal. (BTW I do believe her ex-boyfriend and I would say that she sounds like a huuuuuge ****. Just to put things into perspective. I just also think he shouldn't have posted that stuff about their private life and it's not relevant.)

Okay I checked it and this is not true. Again. Made up facts. God dammit people, you shouldn't look for conspiracy theories regarding Zoe Quinn, you should look at who's feeding you these lies and why the heck they are doing it. @Meshugger: Nice, I've always wanted a visual representation of the ramblings of a madman. No seriously that thing doesn't really get your point across. Who what now and why should I care?

@Orogun: Source? Hadn't heard about a contest where Papers, Please lost against Depression Quest because of connections. (And I'm doubtful because both games are quite popular, actually.) Dying, not dead. You're in your final throes.

This is how I feel about it as well. I actually do not think that you have to disclose friendships unless you're actually reviewing a game though. But then again I think that people take this way too seriously. I'm not actually paying Kotaku anything for their services, so calling for journalistic standards feels weird from the start. If you want to demand something, pay for it. And yet they actually care about integrity (of course, since it's good for business) and the worst we could find are two articles about games made by friends, both of which were written more in a "well this is interesting, take a look" way and weren't actual endorsements (also one game was a free browser game). I think they're doing quite good. *shrugs* As for the whole "gamers" thing - come on. We all know that lots of people think in terms of "true gamer vs. Candy Crush player". There is an elitist subculture that is actively trying to claim the title "gamer" for themselves. The articles where they say that "gamers are dying" and so on are clearly directed at this subculture. Either you're* part of that group, then you can be offended if you want (but nobody would care and you'd actually be proving the point), or you're just being offended over semantics, which is silly. But I didn't read the discussion here so I'm not up to date what the problem is. *) General "you", not directed at you, Amentep.

I think it's a bit far-fetched to say that they could have added these updates years later. In fact, they often update their articles minutes/hours after publishing them. Also it's not like the articles praised the games in any way. They're not reviews, they just inform you that these games exist and feature a strange idea or silly premise. I don't see the scandal here. @kirottu: That article was written months before they even had the affair. Again... all the facts are entirely made up and there really is no scandal.

Could you be more specific? Because I haven't heard of any articles where someone who has slept with a developer gave that person a good review or anything of the kind. That's what I found so fascinating about this "scandal" - the facts were entirely made up.

Because there are more than just me? @Vizera, sorry for misunderstanding then. I thought it was directed at me.

Agreed. It needs tweaking, but allows many different builds. That's a good thing that I'd like to preserve. Or you could accept that people do not find this system very intuitive and would like a more "simulationist" approach where they feel like the derived attributes really fit to the attribute that governs them. Because I'll have no trouble accepting the current attribute system if the game releases with it this winter. But until then I can try and make suggestions that I'd prefer, and I don't think comments like yours add anything of value. Which is why I asked people like you repeatedly to just ignore this thread - it's not like it's doing you any harm. You're saying that I'm "confusing might with strength", which simply means that you didn't understand my point or even care to read it. In the end, you're not respecting my opinion, while I respect yours (as can be seen in nearly all my posts in this and other threads). And that's a problem. We can't have a constructive discussion based on that, and that's why I don't want one here. BTW personally I think that the current system would work just as well if Might was called Strength. "Screw it. Magic has a physical component to it, and being strong helps with that, and people who don't like it have to deal with it." I could easily live with that. Still wouldn't be my ideal distribution of derived attributes, but at least it'd be committed to attributes that describe your character intuitively, not in abstract ideas.

Great post, PrimeJunta! Reflects the impression I got from watching others play the beta pretty well. I'd complain a bit more about the character generation UI, personally - I think that having to select stat-changing character traits after selecting the attributes is confusing, and I've seen at least one YouTube video where a guy actually was very confused by it. (Like - he can't figure it out, even while he changes his Culture from Aedyr to Vailian and sees the numbers change. So that guy might not actually be the best example, but still.) Also the default value for attributes should be 9 or 10, like you said - with the effect of lowering the number described as a malus, not as a bonus that's slightly smaller. Concerning races and their differences: I didn't see lots of modifiers that decreased attributes, but I think there's something about them that makes them define a race much better - if you get a "-2" to something, it hurts. If you have to play a Fighter with MIG 16 instead of 18, just because you wanted to play an Orlan, that's something you notice.

Tokyo Paris Milan Chicago? That came out of nowhere! Very entertaining post, thank you.

Yeah but I'd rather not give up hope that some people might be willing to stick to the topic at hand. And together, if we try really hard, we can keep the people who go off-topic at bay! Who's with me??? That is certainly not true. No seriously that's not true, and it's kind of strange that you think it is. I never say that the majority of people wants to see this changed. I say it's pretty unpopular with a considerable number of people and Obsidian might want to think about changing it, and I offered some ideas, and then I left the rest to Obsidian. I know this because I remember wording it very carefully specifically because I wanted to avoid yet another big discussion. Oh and also because it's still there. "Many players don't like it", "it can be changed so that everyone's happy"... argumentum ad populum, haha. Nope.

I think the underlying narrative should be linear for the main storyline. What you do should still have consequences, but not in the way that you get to a good, bad or mediocre ending. Maybe you need an army for the final fight, but everyone hates you because you burnt down some towns and are a horrible monster, so you have to ask a powerful underground cult of animancers to provide you with an army of the undead. The underlying narrative is the same - get army, kill the antagonist - but the story still feels drastically different. It becomes your personal story in a very satisfying way (because burning all those innocents was so, so satisfying). Basically I'm a huge fan of "cosmetic changes" like this one. They're easier to implement than drastically changing storylines, and they are just as great. Maybe even greater, because this way you don't have to write three or more different storylines and outcomes at the same time. You can focus on one storyline and how it subtly changes. Also, when you have multiple vastly different endings, which one will be canon? Which one will feel like the "right one" to the player? Sometimes I think a single ending that has strong writing is much more preferable to this madness of having dozens of different endings. BTW this kind of poll is always like asking "Do you want one piece of cake, half the cake or the full cake?" Of course "nonlinear with 1000 branching storylines that are all exciting and well-written" is going to win this.

You use a roll to simulate a possible result when the result itself is not obvious or guaranteed. In a purely storytelling enviroment, the storyteller would determine if you hit or miss a target. Systems like D&D use rolls to simulate that. But your abilities/spell do work fine by themselves. If the target has some kind of defense (AC, saving throws,...), then it'd be a check. If your accuracy is better than the defense, you will problaby get a better hit. If it's worse, you are more likely to just graze. But in any case, you don't need to "roll" to see if you can actually use your accuracy (or maybe get none at all or maybe you get a boost). But Wild Magic is being lucky that you actually can use your ability as is (or maybe a benefitial wild surge) and then check if the target has some kind of defense to it. Sorry, I had forgotten how much Osvir's proposal focused on detrimental effects of a failure. I was thinking about fizzling. People seem to not like it, yet it seems to me that mechanically it is the same (or could be implemented in the same way) as Accuracy. With Accuracy, a spell can either hit, graze or miss. With Fizzle it is technically the same. (P.S. Not sure what you want to tell me with the first part about rolls and storytellers. Like... I know what rolls are, thank you. )

So... I'm the only one that loves fizzle mechanics? Seriously, I think they're fun. They make magic seem less controllable, in a "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" kind of way, which is really cool. But anyway: We do have accuracy right now. Isn't that mechanically the same thing as what Osvir is proposing?

You cannot dispute that some people do not like the current system. It is literally impossible to argue about this, because it is a simple fact. There is no question of validity. The only part where an argument can be brought up is the point where I imply that Might is unpopular enough to warrant a change of the system. Again, not something that you have any say on, and neither do I. We know that the forum is split, there really is no point in having a discussion about it. (By the way I'm beginning to repeat myself here, you should really read my posts better and try to understand their content.) The part that really annoys me however, is that I clearly state multiple times that the point of this thread is not whether or not Might actually is a flawed attribute. No matter what you think the title means (which it doesn't), the rest of all my posts is clear enough, and yet you think you're on-topic if you discuss it anyway. The idea behind this thread is: "Let's say that Might is not a good idea, because it sure as hell looks like many people don't like it. Here's what I would do to make everybody happy." And you answer to that, "No Might is good". Don't you see how off-topic that is?! If you want to say "No Might is good", go to the other huuuuge thread where people say nothing else but "Might is horrible" and "No Might is good", you'll be at exactly the right spot there.

But a ranged cipher could also use his abilities, right? Because I was thinking about making a cipher with a focus on crossbows and firearms. And how about ranged rogues? Is that a possibility? I mean it would make more sense than a ranged fighter anyhow, since a fighter is supposed to be the tank in the front.

I don't have anything against physically strong wizards, though I don't agree with the reasons in the first post. It's not because they're just generally better than others. I have a fantasy world of my own that I'm in the middle of creating, and I've thought about magic for that quite a bit. I think it makes perfect sense that any "adventurer" in an RPG isn't exactly fragile, and I also think it makes perfect sense that casting spells is actually physically exhausting and demanding. It does not, however, make much sense to me that high intellect should be mandatory for a wizard. Why? Because I view spellcasting as a skill much like carpentry, tailoring or painting. It's always a two-step process: design something in your mind first, then make it real. The masters of their trade always excel at both steps. They have the intellect, the creativity to envision something new, something they know will work and look beautiful. And they have the talent, the finesse to turn it into an actual piece of art. However, pretty much anyone can be a carpenter, tailor or painter. It doesn't take the first step. You don't need creativity and intellect. All you need is training and talent, as long as someone else has already done the first step for you. If you're standing in front of a beautiful landscape and you paint it, there's almost no creativity involved. If you take a Rembrandt and simply make a copy, you need talent, but no creativity either. The mental work required has already been done. And this is how magic works in lots of fantasy settings. There's a famous wizard who developed a certain spell and wrote about it. The other wizards can simply look at what he did and copy it. All that they need is basic magical talent, which comes down to willpower, self-control... whatever abstract connection there is between the physical body and the magic they want to cast. There's a popular notion that wizards are like scientists and should therefore be intelligent. I vehemently disagree. There's magical reasearch done by magic scientists who most likely are wizards. But normal wizards will take the research done by others and put it to use. For adventuring wizards, the scientist comparison falls completely apart. My ideal system would therefore focus on the exhaustion that comes from channeling magic into a controlled spell, the willpower needed to make it do as you desire and the physical strength needed to contain the spell and aim it somewhere. Strength would actually play an important role, and a "muscle wizard" would be a wizard who has no trouble controlling his spells, but is very limited in the damage and duration of his spells. I guess that a system like this would be better accepted by many, since it takes the physical nature of Strength and uses it on the spell in a physical way - containing, controlling it. The power and the intensity of the spell, however, come from the more mental attributes.

In that case, the title is misleading. Because the first part is explicitly about whether there is a problem. Besides, arguing whether the problem actually exists comes naturally from discussing possible solutions for it. You might as well ask for water to not be wet. No. The title says that I will make the case for changing the attributes. That's all it says, I don't know where you get the "whether there is a problem" thing from. And also, no, you don't need to find out whether the problem actually exists. For me, it exists, no doubt about it. And I'm offering a constructive solution for it. Why do you need to have a discussion about how I and many other backers feel? I already know that there are two different views here, and that one side likes the current system. You do not need to tell me that again and again! There's nothing to be gained from it. If you want to be a useful addition to this discussion, then you can think about constructive solutions to the problem that some people are currently unhappy with the system. ("I don't care, they're stupid and wrong" is not a constructive solution.) If you just want to keep repeating "no everything is fine as it is", which adds nothing to the discussion, then just please don't. I can't really do anything to stop you otherwise, but like I said, it's not helpful in this thread and there are other threads where the main "discussion" is all about whether the current system is good or bad. @constantine. Still off-topic. This is not the "let's all make attribute systems" thread. There is actually a topic here that has less to do with the system itself.

:/ Really think you didn't have to be so spiteful here. There are good reasons and there are bad reasons for being against a stat that governs physical and mental damage. There are also simply different points of view concerning the role attributes play as a mathematical abstraction of a character. I mean I guess this wasn't directed at me and more at the people who aren't even interested in having a discussion about this, but... yeah, I have a problem with a stat that does physical and mental damage. Because reasons. Reasons that I listed and carefully explained. Reasons that you're allowed to disagree with. I agree about wizards and how stupid wizards should be an option, at the same time I think it's a bit of a stretch when you look at the description. They're described as well-educated and of high mental discipline. So a stupid wizard with low discipline will be kind of an oddity. It should be possible; it should maybe not be one of the preferred wizard builds. I don't know.

This is not the freaking topic here, stop derailing the thread. Seriously, is it not enough that I had to say it three times already?! If you want to fight over this then go into one of the many other threads where you can bash your heads in. And I'll join you because I'm definitely not above that. But this thread is for constructive solutions based on the premise that there's a problem. Not for arguing whether or not there's a problem.

It has something to do with being better at melee than another caster who put his points into Intellect instead, though. And this is kind of strange and can be a problem because even wizards are sometimes forced into melee. They've run out of spells or whatever the case may be. So there are two wizards, one does high damage, the other has high AoE. The one that does high damage will also handle himself quite well in melee. There's kind of an explanation for this in that Might is not actually your strength, but a more abstract concept that involves the power of your soul. But this explanation isn't sitting too well with lots of players, and many would prefer a system where physical and mental stats are more clearly divided while also being useful to all classes (which is the design goal of PoE and I have no intention to change that). As for a muscle wizard - I don't have anything against the concept as long as it means that you're actually something like a battle mage, who throws spells from a distance or buffs himself and then switches to sword and shield when the enemy gets closer, for example. Right now the system kind of implies that you're doing magic with your muscles however, similar to (my favorite example) a Kamehameha from Dragonball. Not saying the latter is completely ridiculous and bad or anything. I'm just saying it's not well-liked by many people and it's the idea they get from this attribute system at the moment.

I just realized that I'm an idiot regarding the Healing thing. I thought the description meant that it's about the Healing received, not about the Healing delivered, as Osvir put it. Gotta admit in that case it doesn't make sense to leave it in Strength, and that also means that my current system has a flaw there because Healing should be in Resolve then, leaving Strength very useless for pure casters. @Osvir, I laughed out loud at "just wanting to participate in the conversation". As for putting Healing in CON... well CON is already pretty useful, so that would make it kind of overpowered. And of course actually it's better if Healing is governed by an attribute of the caster, not one by the one who gets the healing. And if Healing is based on percentages of total health, having high health would actually already mean that high CON chars benefit more from it, but I don't know how it works.

I don't really get this. If magical damage cannot use Might, neither magical healing. Nothing agaisnt proposing variations to the system that may improve them/the_game. But that point doesn't make much sense, that's all. First of all, your proposal is awesome. :D And yeah in a Star Wars universe this would actually make a lot of sense, but then I'd be annoyed that Chewie and other non-Jedi melee fighters don't do any damage. They'd need a Strength attribute. (Also Midichlorian Count would be a dump stat for them.) This comes back to the thing that I believe a "Soul Power" attribute is useful and cool in a setting like this, but should still be separate from physical damage. As for Healing: It depends whether the Healing is supposed to be soul-based or physical. Physical healing belongs in a physical attribute, soul-based healing in a soul-based attribute - but if it's a soul-based attribute, then that attribute shouldn't include physical damage, like Might currently does. Simple as that. My assumption was that Healing can also be physical healing and in this case, it would be alright to leave it in Strength.