Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Danathion

  1. Luckmann: Thanks for the direction.
  2. Why not just cheat? Modding PoE isn't the friendliest thing in the world, and it's much easier to use CheatEngine or the Console to achieve what you want. I don't know anything about the console and would prefer not to interfere with what I don't understand. I can just about handle dropping a file in a folder, if someone edits it for me (if its possible), which is why I made the request to someone who actually knows something about it. Again, thanks, in anticipation of that persons help.
  3. I have a small mod request, if it's possible...will someone who knows what, and how, to edit whichever file governs attribute points at character creation, please upload the file so that there are 20 attribute points to spend instead of 15. I keep restarting the game because I cant get over the feeling that my character just isn't very good (I'm one of those people who take the time to get a good roll when playing BG). Thanks in advance for the help!
  4. Could we have also Extra and Crazy options for those of us who want game to be bit more fun?Oh please, LoL! If it's not enough as it already is, you've got some serious issues.Why is it that people who want to hear profanity evey two words have serious issues, but people too delicate to hear even one word are totally fine? I mean, neither works in real life. You can choose not to play a game with profanity, but what do you do when you hear it from a sibling, friend, colleague? On the bus? Standing on a street corner? In the line at the bank? Profanity is a fact of life--because real life for adults is, get this, rated mature. It's because of the 'maturity' of 'real adult life' that I play video games - to escape, if only for a while. A fantasy world can be 'real' without confronting you with the realities of the world in which we live that, I hope, we all wish weren't the realities of the world in which we live.
  5. I'm in favour of a mod censoring strong language, for me never mind children, and commend the effort! Rather than invent new swear words, I'd suggest replacing the f's and s's with d's and h's respectively. For voiced lines, if clipping out the offensive word/phrase from the audio file is too difficult, not playing them at all would be okay with me.
  6. Kana Rua's portrait is my favourite so far - I like the atmosphere of the darker portraits. For that reason I agree with Tartantyco about Aloth's, but it *is* a work in progress - darkening the background and adding more shading to define the features will add depth. I really like the style and hope the character portraits will be more like these!
  7. This one I know was done by Enkida (you can find her work on devintart). It's included in one of her BG2 portrait packs. The character's name is Kiyone and the model is Bjork.
  8. Thanks for the help Zansatsu Edit: I should know who did the baldurdising, but it escapes me at the moment.
  9. I will be nicer than other posters.... Some of those are pretty solid, but it is off putting seeing a portrait based clearly on a famous actor that is just a touched up photo of them. Also while some of them are actually really good, an equal number are actually pretty bad. Still there are some solid ones to make use of there for sure. On behalf of the artist, thank you for tempering your criticism. Many of them are forum members' personal requests and others were commissioned for NPC mods, so they are the way they are because that's what was asked for. Art being really rather subjective, it's understandable that they're not to everyone's taste. I agree that personally I wouldn't use all of them. In fact, I prefer not to use custom portraits - I totally agree with the feelings expressed in the second post by pointfiveo. So, that I would even consider using any of them is significant (if only to me ), I do think those are outstanding.
  10. For those here who are not also over on the Baldur's Gate forum (don't imagine there will be many), you may be interested to have a look at Isandir's work. He has been creating portraits for the Enhanced Editions in a style faithful to BG. In my opinion, they are outstanding. http://isandir.com/
  11. Well, what I was going to say was that, if I were standing in the room with him in possession of a similarly loaded gun I know who I'd shoot twice That may be hyperbole though... Edit: I should say I agree about the portraits - BG's are, by far, superior!
  12. I suggested a name change along those lines: Having thought more about it I'd still suggest renaming but also getting rid of the 'Endurance/Health' relationship, so that: When 'Health' falls to 0 you are rendered unconscious and 'maimed' - causing penalties. Each time you fall unconscious you accumulate another 'serious wound' and associated penalty, which you can only get rid of by resting. The longer you put off resting the less effective your party will be, but it's up to you. Talents/Abilities/Spells have a cost (per encounter abilities are obviously less taxing than per rest ones), when you're physically/mentally fatigued - 'Endurance' falls to 0 - you have to rest to recuperate your 'Endurance'. That could be over one encounter or however many encounters, depending on how many abilities you choose to use. That way it doesn't have to always be your battered 'tank' that forces you to rest. Also, you can be tactical about how effective 'maimed' party members are and how often you use, even per encounter, abilities.
  13. As I understand, a fundamental design goal has been to not allow players to 'fail' - or even to 'perform poorly'. To achieve that, classes 'have been designed on rails'. We cannot think, as we did playing the IE games, that attribute choice is defining our character's success in a given class - the classes have already been built for success. All the player does using PoE's attribute 'modifiers', is tweak the classes efficiency - to improve performance in a desired role. Adding efficiency in an area, however, does not change the fact that what we started with would be successful. So even if trying to play against our attribute choices the issue is not one of success or failure, but how efficiently we succeed, because success is guaranteed. Admittedly, it took me a while to get my head around that - I expected to have the same level of control here as I do in BG, but I've come to terms with it. I'm now far more anxious to see how the skill and talent systems evolve, as they are where we will have control over customising our character 'build'. The stats, in PoE, are not important - it seems, to me, they were not designed to be. Attribute requirements for talents then, would be an undesirable contradiction.
  14. Hmm, yeah, that might be better with the current effective range of the attributes. I think the reason that Perception and Resolve seem under powered now is that the other stats all directly attack or defend against deflection. Resolve and Perception do too, but indirectly and not as much (or, at least, it is harder to quantify their effect w.r.t deflection). Perception could be made OP - use a fast weapon and make the stat sufficiently powerful and an opponent will never get an attack off. If that were the case, Resolve would be necessary too. It's a compromise, rather than removing them altogether, with the benefit of taking a further step away from the IE games to make that comparison less likely (people see 6 attributes and expect them to work the way the 6 attributes in BG do - they're just not designed to though). It would still allow for tweaking of the effective ranges as you suggested, if that's decided to be neccessary. Personally, I'm far more interested in the skills and talents etc for class customisation - I think that's where the fun in designing your character will be. According to the wiki, 'Deflection' is not influenced by the attributes - It seems that it's built into the class and adjusted by armour.
  15. Absolutely...there should be bonus (and possibly negatives) for culture and profession. Particularly for 'background' as, presently, that choice seems really only for the sake of rp - I understand that 'culture' has an impact on dialogue, is the same true of 'background'? In something I read recently (which I can't seem to find again now), Josh suggested that the talents system is going to be quite open to fill in the gaps between the classes (which I find exciting), allowing a mage to choose - not only from their talent pool but - from the 'warrior' and 'rogue' pools also. So a mage can be an 'arcane warrior', not just because his might has been tweaked but, because he will be able to choose 'warrior' talents. That's how build diversity will be achieved in PoE, (if I understood correctly what Josh was saying). At the risk of bringing up attributes again (and this may have already been said so, if so, just ignore it), I'd like to see race/culture and background give more substantial bonuses. It's reasonable to suppose that if you're background is 'merchant', for example, that you'll have better perception and perhaps intellect too. Like Fighter being able to cherry pick Ranger's bow based talents, for example? That does sound quite interesting. That's how I understood it. Very good - a concrete suggestion, but I will be surprised if the number of attributes changes. Admittedly, I don't know how difficult it would be but I made the suggestion in the thread: 'Might' and 'Constitution' govern 'Fortitude Defence' - combine and name the attribute: 'Fortitude' 'Dexterity' and 'Perception' govern 'Reflex Defence' - combine and name the attribute: 'Reflex' 'Intellect' and 'Resolve' govern 'Will Defence' - combine and name the attribute: 'Will' That combines the 3 'dump' stats with the 'must have' ones - it's not changing anything in terms of the defence system, other than some balancing that I assume it already needs. If it is possible (and I accept it may not be), to divorce magic damage from 'Might' and move it to 'Will' that would solve a lot of problems (for the people who have problems). Though magic damage being effected by an attribute called 'Fortitude' should hardly be anymore vexing than it is, that it's being governed by one called 'Might' - They're more or less the same thing.
  16. In something I read recently (which I can't seem to find again now), Josh suggested that the talents system is going to be quite open to fill in the gaps between the classes (which I find exciting), allowing a mage to choose - not only from their talent pool but - from the 'warrior' and 'rogue' pools also. So a mage can be an 'arcane warrior', not just because his might has been tweaked but, because he will be able to choose 'warrior' talents. That's how build diversity will be achieved in PoE, (if I understood correctly what Josh was saying). At the risk of bringing up attributes again (and this may have already been said so, if so, just ignore it), I'd like to see race/culture and background give more substantial bonuses. It's reasonable to suppose that if you're background is 'merchant', for example, that you'll have better perception and perhaps intellect too.
  17. Source? I think the design goal was more to have a wide variety of good builds that play differently rather than to protect players from themselves. Source: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64712-attribute-theory/page-2?do=findComment&comment=1398195 That goal has been achieved precisely by protecting 'players form themselves'. We do not build our character in PoE, we tweak the efficiency of the characters that have been built for us. Imagine you want to play BG and that character creation consists of importing one of my characters, which I have built to be successful as whatever class, and using a handful of tomes to tweak efficiency. You may be able to make, for instance, a fighter a little more accurate with a bow and slightly improve it's AC by increasing a point of dexterity - a slightly more efficient ranged fighter. You may be able to slightly increase health with an extra point of constitution - a slightly more durable 'tank'. However you use your handful of tomes and even if you use none of them, the fighter is going to be a good fighter - I made it that way. I don't have a problem with that, because: The problem is that people are looking at PoE's attribute system as though it does step 2 in AD&D, when that's not what it's designed to do. Reducing the number of attributes and renaming them so that the system does not look - even superficially - similar to the IE games (I think), would help.
  18. If you want to handicap yourself, don't spend the attribute points. That seems to be allowed so far. As I understand it, some smart people have done some maths and have proven that a base classes build, without attribute modifiers applied, is by no means handicapped. This is, in fact, by design. What you start with is already optimised for success and the attribute system, at present, does not have enough impact that neglecting an attribute would do significant harm - if any - to the success of the character. Indeed doubling the effect of all the attributes, will not change the fact that the base classes have been designed to prevent failure. The attributes only tweak efficiency - doubling them will allow for more efficiency, but it's not going to produce a monumental change because the attributes aren't designed to. But, I may have misunderstood. @Yonjuru as I said, which started all this - that is contrary to the design goal. The devs don't want it to be possible to have a character that is in anyway handicapped. I doubt suggesting that it should be possible will change their minds, when from the beginning they've said: 'no'.
  19. That's just a completely unreasonable argument. Anything will be limited by the definition of this argument, hence it completely negates itself, as no system can be created that isn't limiting by your definition. I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that. No, really, I think this is a reading comprehension and general language skills problem. That you cannot comprehend the argument does not invalidate it. Obviously, no system will allow all the choices some (not me personally), might wish it to. That's so obvious, it's really not worth stating. The issue is that this system does not allow choices that another system does (me, personally, I don't have a problem with that - it's the way the devs want it to be). The devs have said: 'no'. 'No you can't build a flawed character in PoE as you can in DnD'. 'No' means less choice - in comparison to systems, to which this system will be compared. For your reference : no nəʊ/ determiner: no not any. verb (used with object) to reject, refuse approval, or express disapproval of. It doesn't necessarily mean that. If, e.g., you can build a wizard with bad direct damage spells (but presumably extra good, say, AoE spells as a result) and then (on purpose) you play this character using direct damage spells, you have a handicapped character because your play style isn't optimal for your build. Enjoy. We're talking about a handicapped character, not a handicapped player - presumably he has good reasons for wanting his character to be the way he wants it to be and will play it to it's best advantage. The point is, that even without any attributes modifying your AoE spells your mage will still be successful. Perhaps not as efficient, but the base class build - over which the player has no control - does not allow you to fail. Enjoy.
  20. This is a discussion forum, not a posting-opinions-unchallanged forum. If you need to have a little cry because you're unable to support your opinions, go do that somewhere else. By design, no bad build = no handicapped build for the guy who wants it, (to find out why he wants it, you'll have to ask him). If someone says 'no' - by definition your options have been limited. Someone's already suggested that you have a problem comprehending the English language, perhaps you should spend some time elsewhere.
  21. More nonsense detected. Substantiate your claims. He already did. This forum has gone full retard. There are a couple people who, like attention seeking children, bleat out 'why' whenever anyone expresses an opinion. The thing is everyone is entitled to have, and express, an opinion - whether or not we believe it to be valid - and don't require to justify it to anyone.
  22. What I'm saying is that going to the very bottom should mean your character is handicapped in that area. No, it wouldn't. It would just mean that your character is handicapped in that particular area, but is more capable in other areas. Adjust your playstyle to match. The whole point of the "no bad builds" concept is that the other attributes can be useful too, which wasn't the case in the BG series. -- Sorry guys, unfortunately I'm leaving for work now and I can't continue this right now. I'm planning to start a new thread about diminishing returns and other related stuff later, because I've been having the same discussions in several places and frankly I think a lot of people just don't really understand the concept and its repercussions (not referring to you specifically). Let me just confirm that I'm understanding what you want properly - increasingly severe penalties as you lower attribute scores below some (presently undefined) average amount, and initially steep benefits from raising scores above average that eventually plateau? (now with not very good graph included!) Yes, I understand too, but it's fundamentally opposed to the devs' design goals. There should be no need for handicapping because there should be no dump stats. The problem, if it is a problem, is PoE's attribute system does not do what people expect an attribute system to do - it's not meant to have that level of impact on your class. Even having penalties would not make a vast difference because the classes are already optimally built to succeed in whatever role you might wish to play them - no 'bad builds'. Personally, no, I don't think it does add variety - by definition there are options denied to us. Again personally, the fun thing about BG is making an imperfect character and despite the imperfections - succeeding. The thing that makes people love the companions in BG is that, in some cases, your hero couldn't succeed without them - they make up for what your character lacks. If the attributes were combined and renamed as I've suggested it would solve a lot of problems, (even if I do say so myself, and yes, it's just my opinion).
  23. Dude, you're an idiot. No one here is saying attributes are flawless and perfect. We all have critiques and suggestions and little issues with them to some extent. The difference is we recognize this is week ****ing one of the ****ing beta. Plenty of time to MAKE those fixes. You wanna know why everyone makes fun of you? Because your attitude is basically on par to if Obsidian were going to compete in a marathon running race, and then before the race even starts, you're raging and ripping up your gambling tickets representing the money you bet on them solely because they're drinking water instead of Gatorade and therefore they're ****ing idiots of a grand calibur and there's no way in hell they can hope to accomplish anything but last place. Calm the **** down and provide reasonably presented constructive criticism and people would treat you better. The thing is, the beta has been released - obsidian are at least halfway through the race. If people are tearing up their betting slips, it's because it seems like obsidian have been running in the wrong direction. Let me be clear, that may only be their opinion but, they have as much right to voice it as anyone else does. Further, they don't need to justify it to you or anyone else. Nothing @Helm has said comes close to being as offensive as the attitude displayed in that post. ^^
  • Create New...