Silent Winter

Then it's merely semantics. Those opposed to what we call 'DLC' are referring to trickles of content of the 'add a single class' / 'add a single companion' / 'piglet armour' variety. If the expansion pack is released as a large amount of content at a fair price, then all's good. Or are you referring to releasing the expansion pack piecemeal? In which case, no thanks.

^That's a good summary of where my brain's at right now. Ah, gotcha - makes sense now.

search for the save-game editor thread - you can add cp to your party with that and hire who you like (doesn't help with killing off the BB-chars and removing them from your team ... at least, I don't think it does - maybe give it a try?)

surely that depends on the talents? If the talents are merely '+2% to hit rolls' then yeah. At the other extreme they could combine 'uncanny dodge, counter-atttack and regeneration+10' into one talent and be a choice between that and 'combat expertise, whirlwind attack and war-cry' or something that's more OP. It depends on how many talents there are to choose between and how powerful/specalised those talents are. Even 3-4 talents can make a huge difference if the talents each make a real difference. Perhaps talents could be used to spec your fighter to be more 'fire-and-forget' vs 'high maintenance' e.g. 'Self reliant' - fighter hits and dodges last-targeted / nearest enemy until they drop (passive mode). vs. 'targetted shot' - tell the fighter to aim for vitals for the next blow with corresponding increase in damage v. chance to hit decrease (active ability). ^admittedly not the best examples but you get the idea

Question: I remember Josh stating in one of the updates (sorry, no quote) that although rogues and rangers have higher spike-damage, the fighters hit more consistently and so would deliver more damage over time. Does this bear out in the beta so far? (or is it still to buggy to tell?) I ask because seeing low-ish numbers from fighter hits might be discouraging and against the idea of 'fighter' unless you notice they're also hitting more often.

Some spells use AOE, some use duration and some use both. Comparing with might - that helps all spells that damage/heal (though I guess not other buffs). I was originally going to post that it's fairer to keep AOE and Duration together, works better in my head overall, but I can see an argument for deciding between the 2 - I guess I'd need more info on which classes use which AOE/Duration/Both skills and what the benefits of each point would be. Basically, it'd need playtesting. Maybe I'm misunderstaning you - Fireballs have no duration for example - or do you mean all builds will benefit in some way from duration? Don't always need the added AOE, true - but if everyone's clumped and you can use the fringe as ally-safe nuke-zone, you could cast fireballs freely. I wonder how this tallies with barbarian's 'carnage' AOE - do some AOEs originate with the 'caster' - so barbarian would need to run away behind enemy lines to benefit from the fringe (or are their AOEs party-friendly anyway?) Don't barbarians have duration on things like wild-sprint? What about their 'carnage' type AOEs? - I seem to recall there being a couple mentioned but I can't remember where. Or are these simply already long enough for their use (or just too limited in number to care compared with other stats?) Increased range is a good idea for increased AOE but there are practical limits based on fog-of-war - and being able to see through that and hit enemies on the other side of the map would be way OP (other side of screen OTOH, at a certain resolution anyway, would be ok) Edit: While we're discussing AOE and fringe - if there are cloudkill type spells that hang around - will the friendly-zone be marked visually in some way so you don't end up moving your fighter into the deadly zone?

I actually thought this was how it was going to work when I originally heard the idea of the stamina+health pools. Seeing the 2 go down at once in the BB gave me momentary confusion (only momentary though). The system is ok as is (allowing for incoming changes by the devs with 1:1 damage and different ratios) but I would find your suggestion a little more intuitive.

Just made it through the rest of the thread - good points by Josh - my general feeling is as Matt516 said in this post: Glad Obs are looking into in anyway - sounds like things are moving in the right direction.

Just got through reading it -> *applause* I, for one, would be more than happy with the proposed changes.

Then our understading of what is Tactical differs. As I see it is a clear tactical choice (not advantage) to heal by magic or rest. Rest takes time/resting supplies and heal saves time/resting supplies but uses emeralds. Sounds like tactics to me. Infinite resting was what was wrong in the first place in IE games. Funny you should mention resting equipment. That was actually my idea way before it was introduced. Not saying that they got an inspiration from there, but rather that this new idea is in the same spirit. Resource allocation. Yes, but 'saving time' isn't an issue when there are no timed quests. It's not a viable tactical choice to expend-xp/emeralds when there is no advantage but a clear disadvantage. (Hence my suggestion it's a 'false choice' - a choice in name only) It's also a 'tactical choice' to remove your armour and weapons and run into melee - just not overly viable (though at least with the armour gone there's a speed advantage). Making a tactical choice involves weighing advantages and disadvantages - camping supplies are cheaper than emeralds - if camping supplies weren't available in shops, it'd be a tactical choice, but they are (AFAIK). Xp is limited (quest-only xp so can't be farmed from those battles that make you need rest in the first place, otherwise I'd agree)

Ah, ok - I was mixing the 2 suggestions above. In that case I agree, yours is actually a good idea.

Sure. The answer is yes. Maybe if I put it simply - the idea doesn't work well because it's neither a tactical nor strategic advantage to expend XP or emeralds. In IE games, you could rest outside or rest at an inn - resting outside was free but came with the danger of random attacks (AFAIK, PoE won't have those so resting isn't a risk). Inns cost money but the amount is so small as to make it a no-brainer to use an inn when in a city. Deciding to rest or not in the field carries risk v. reward. PoE will have more costly inns and more costly camping supplies. To make your choice an actual choice, you'd need to give an advantage to each choice. Inns grant bonuses, camping supplies heal ... and losing XP heals...or emeralds ... both of which are more valuable than the camping supplies -> no brainer.

Because that's a fun game - seriously though, why would someone give up something as limited as XP for something unlimited like resting? That is what I am asking. Why take damage? Just allow us to spam them fireballs while in god mod. As some might say, HA! Great fun! There's a huge difference between a fun, challenging game and a convoluted, challenging game with no-brainer choices. You suggested using emeralds and XP to heal health - I'm questioning whether 90% of players would consider that a real choice. Do you have an answer?

Because that's a fun game - seriously though, why would someone give up something as limited as XP for something unlimited like resting?

sounds kind of convoluted - the stamina as stamina and health as health is fine - but there'd be too many different abilites reflecting different stamina drains for the other part. Plus it'd suck royally to be told you don't have enough stamina for ability-x when that ability is the choice you need to win and end the fight. For a more simulationist game, sure. Just not for this type of rpg.

why give up XP when you can rest for free? Why use emeralds when camping supplies would be cheaper? A better system would be as already proposed by devs - change the stamina/health ratios for classes and make damage 1:1 - longer adventuring day, easier to understand.

pretty much - a limitation of 'combat mode' engines - but giving the 'limited steps' limitation as Wombat suggested, would remove that as an option while keeping the invisi-power available to all rogues in the team.

^I prefer the 'limited movement or until attack' version - stops you invisi-walking all over the map but still allows you to wait for the opportune time to initiate combat for the rogue. Solves my concern about rogues behind enemy lines at least.

(bolding by me) - the point was originally about whether open world is always the better design choice, not whether it was possible with more money. Different games use different styles, open-world is one style but not the only one that makes for a great game. Full voice-acting is one style but not the only one that makes for a great game. These are subjective things, sure. Unlimited money doesn't make open-world and fully voice-acted an automatically superior game. It merely makes it possible to do those things. Having a tightly focussed narrative in a linear dungeon-crawler can be a great, fun game. Changing that to an open-world option-heavy environment, merely changes the game-type, it doesn't automatically make it superior. It all depends on what the game is trying to be.

Fights in cities can be made tactically harder by limiting your options (magic-police a la Athkatla / civilians around (AOEs are a no-no for 'good' parties) / guards who'll join in if an 'evil' party uses those AOEs / ?) I'd certainly like to think it's only the 'big' fights that get altered as 'full bore' (e.g. special enemy adventuring party - but we should meet those in wilderness too - or a bounty-hunter / kangaxx / other) - but there should also be regular 'mobs' to keep you guessing, some relatively easy, some especially hard. "What? a party of thieves? Watch how I beat them with one hand tied behind my-" *kapow* "...woah!" As for healing health, I like the bandaging idea but it's not such a big deal for me as long as there's some thought put in to a competent player not needing to rest-spam.

Solution? Change the world map - flip the village icon and call the in-game screens south at the top. Wonder if that water-wheel is a 2D-animation or a 3D object - would reversing the animation work?

I agree there should be a way to end combat state and then be able to transition areas - like getting far enough away. I was just going with what is, rather than what I'd like to be. - The proposed solution works for the current system. Changing system means a knock-on effect for Obs to consider. Still, guards at an entrance needn't move away - and once you leave combat state, your invisi-party is visible again and has to go back and fight those guards. Your 'using it to go through a dungeon' example brings up a good point - 'combat mode' should stop once you're out of sight of enemies (or far enough away) for this to not be overly expoitable. Good point but in D&D you could heal health - so your health (endurance) was the pool and your long-term health (heal-spells) were whatever you had the spells/potions for - in theory, a lot more than 6x.

AFAIK you can't currently transition areas while in combat mode - you'd need to end combat first, no? Otherwise, yes, that'd be a cheesy move. (though avoiding some encounters is fine).

Party stealth is for scouting / sneaking past an enemy - nothing has been 'dumbed down' as it hasn't changed - rogue invisi-like ability is a class-power used in combat (like grimoire slam or wild sprint). Also needn't be simulationist to make for better gameplay. Everyone is booted out of stealth at start of combat, rogues just get extra turn to 'hide' during combat. Party of ninjas? Sounds awesome - but won't unbalance the game as you'd still only have a party of rogues for the combat, no fighters/wizards/barbarians/chanters/etc, and it'd only be usable once per encounter/rest / whatever. That's what they're doing - tweaking those numbers to the best ratio of survivability to dieability for different classes. So a fighter might have 30:150 and a wizard might have 30:80 (or whatever the numbers based on playtests work out best)

Whole party stealth is fine for scouting, and if it makes things less buggy too, that's fine. My main concern with the rogue was being able to scout, sneak attack to start the battle - and then getting dogpiled by the enemy. Does the rogue's 'escape' ability help there? Or being able to stay hidden while the enemy confront your fighter and then join the batte with a flanking attack at the opportune moment. Individual stealth just seemed part of the rogue's archetype If it can be added through a (maybe limited per rest/encounter) skill/talent to work in such a way, that'd be great