Yonjuro

It's just binary search with a first step to set the extremes. May not be the most efficient choice mathematically, but makes sense because it's fast enough and a manual process is needed here. Thus the method of choice should be easy to grasp and apply for humans. As opposed to an automated approach to an optimization problem. Yes, but it might be a series of steps. If you are looking for the optimal value and you have an upper an lower bound you can use binary search. To find the upper and lower bounds you can search exponentially, that is, try 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 etc. At some point you will have a value X that is the best so far and 2X which is worse than X. You can then do binary search between 0.5X and 2X to find the optimal value. The complexity (the number of doublings you need to try) is logarithmic in the size of the optimal value (even though you didn't know the optimal value to begin with) a.k.a very cool.

First off, congratulations! Next, your stability test sounds like a great test case. Finally: As a new parent you won't realize this but, discussion of bodily functions is only considered polite conversation when everybody in the room is a new parent.

Yes, and there's another problem with the empty space. On screens like .empty1 in your OP, you have buttons to select on the far left and the description of what you get by clicking them on the far right. With a large monitor, it is too easy to click the wrong button by slightly moving your mouse when you look over to the right. I submitted a bug report about this (so far, no response).

Lol. Since I didn't play the beta I cannot be 100% sure but I read enough about missing options that that is not likely. The game does not come close to complexity of NWN2, and IE games still are on whole another level. No need to lol. If you haven't played the beta, you're in for a pleasant surprise. If you go by the most critical comments, you're getting a very skewed idea about the game. Some people have been completely over the top with the negativity (and, frankly, just nastiness towards the devs). PoE still needs tuning and there are still bugs (like the exploit that Sensuki posted in this thread), and there will be more bugs found (I expect Sensuki alone to find at least four of five more showstoppers before launch, at the rate he's going) but the game isn't going to be a disaster -- for most people. If, for example, someone can't live with the XP system, they will go to their grave cursing Josh Sawyer with their dying breath. You should let them. Just enjoy the game. It will be good. If we're lucky, it will be great. (And someone will mod in combat XP so the people cursing Mr. Sawyer will be doing so in vain).

Fine. Use the wand of monster summoning. Drink lots of health potions during the fight. Use a team of stealthy characters for sneak attacks. Use oils of speed. Sure, summons are still an option in the IE games if you have a spellcaster and you can summon enough enough creatures with the wand that you don't need to fight at all. Using traps would be another option but tactics using movement are probably useful in that case to lure enemies to the traps. Using sneak attacks or oils of speed gets us back to tactics that use a lot of movement. Standing in one place and chugging health potions does not require movement (though it might not be the most interesting way to play). You don't need to fight anyone in the bandit camp, you just need to open the chest in Tazok's tent and loot the scrolls. You can do that entirely with stealth but I think we're starting to derail the thread here and that wasn't my intention when I asked a mostly rhetorical question about the value of movement in combat. Let's get back to tactics using movement vs. engagement. Currently engagement is broken. The question is whether it's worth fixing or would it be better to remove it. I tend to think that it would be better to remove it because movement already has a cost. I agree with you that there are different ways to overcome obstacles in the BB, but there is a certain sameness to the combat. Get a tanky character to hold enemies in place and use a bunch of abilities that amount to either 'do damage to enemies at a faster rate' or 'get enemies to do damage at a slower rate'; whoever gets ground down last wins. I think that a big part of the sameness is due to the limited movement options (and some of it is due to the available spells, but that's a different thread).

Sure, these are all options, but these games are beatable without any spellcasters, with an underleveled party, with a party that can't use shields at all and without any archers. That's part of the reason why they have replay value.

I don't put myself in the group of people who are pissed off about this. There are abilities to break engagement and, if there aren't enough of them, Sensuki has already made a mod to remove engagement (and I can live with the animation problems that it will cause,) so how pissed off should I really be? However, I typically use a lot of movement in the IE games. Especially for fights like the bandit camp in BG1 where there are groups of archers that will join in after you are in middle of the fight and a difficult melee character that you need to keep away from your back line (err, and you may only have a back line sometimes). In cases like that (and there are a lot of them), movement is not really optional, is it? How can you keep your party alive without it? I tend to play with no reloads (I will reload if I push the wrong button or something but I won't reload for failed saving throws or anything like that). I just find the games more fun that way.

This could be the reason - though building a character (other than a tank) without engagement breaking abilities seems like a trap choice. I think it has an opportunity cost without the engagement mechanic. Moving to a new target means not finishing off the current target. That is a significant cost because a half dead (or even a 99% dead) enemy continues to inflict damage so switching targets is never free even if you don't need to move to attack the new target. The engagement mechanic certainly makes it more expensive to switch (or to retreat). In any case, Sensuki's videos clearly show that engagement is currently very broken. Maybe it can be fixed with some targeting clauses (e.g. if enemy is attacking but not engaged, change targets upon becoming engaged to avoid the (multiple) disengagement attacks) or in some other way. I'm leaning towards removing it being the better choice. Does removing it break anything? It looks like the answer is no, in that it seems to remove exploits without introducing new ones and doesn't seem to adversely change game play with the targeting AI working the way that it does (of course, it may be that future improvements to targeting AI would change this).

I agree that the combat in the beta needs work (and, from what they have posted here and elsewhere, the developers agree). However, PoE is aimed at fans of the Infinity Engine games. Does that describe you? I'm asking because I wouldn't classify them as casual games at all. That said, I think you'll find that the combat gets a lot easier once you get used to it. I also found that it seemed much too fast at the beginning, due, in part to some issues with the UI, but it seems a lot more manageable now after I've gotten used to it. Oh I'm quite the fan of games that use that engine. In fact, the first time I played BG1, I was in awe as I felt someone had FINALLY made DnD on a computer well. It was quite an astounding experience, actually. That said, this game has potential, but it has some pretty rough edges. Having to 'game' the beta is disappointing to say the least. I suppose the designers are so wrapped up in the mechanics that they have forgotten their learned skills with the game. One other thing that might be worth knowing: I had no experience with DnD at all before playing BG. I didn't know anything about the stats, how attacks/defenses were resolved, saving throws, stats of different creatures/enemy types etc. It was all new to me. PoE is similarly new and I would say that it has a similar learning curve (which is very manageable). I agree that the beta is rough around the edges but my experience with BG tells me that PoE won't be a problem for you if you enjoyed BG1. I think, if anything, once they work the bugs out, the beginning of the game will be less difficult in PoE because the game is designed with a smoother power curve. Yup, (as usual,) the disagreement was the result of starting with different definitions. Ok, so, now that we know what we're talking about, I am a casual gamer by your definition too (maybe slightly less casual): I also play these games to get drawn into the game world and the story but am looking for something a little more challenging than a puzzle based adventure game because the challenge is part of the experience (if the game can't hurt you it seems less real? -- something like that anyway). My first BG1 game was played on 'Normal'. After that, I always played the IE games on 'Core' (one of the middle difficulties) once I got over the learning curve. These days I will use a harder setting because I know the games too well (meaning I have too much meta game knowledge) to get much out of playing them on easier difficulties. Anyway, based on the beta and the available information, my impression of PoE (for whatever one opinion is worth) is that, if you played the IE games, you will find that it has a similar learning curve and will be a little more forgiving at the start of the game than BG1 or IWD1 .

Exactly. I want to be able to loot the gear that the enemies were actually using. (I mean if they're going to go out dressed like that, they were asking for it. Amirite??)

I agree; see my response to him. (I was in an even worse condition than you were. BG was the first computer game I ever played and I was already old and without a lot of time on my hands.) My point was exactly the opposite; if someone liked the IE games, I put them in a category that I don't call 'casual gamer' (someone who will complete a game with a long story and a learning curve) and assume that they will do just fine with PoE (once OE gets the bugs worked out of it).

Actually, I was going to suggest exactly the opposite. When I hear 'casual gamer' I tend to think of games like Angry Birds or something like that. BG was more involved (both story and gameplay) and if you liked it, I assume you will like PoE. I think the time commitment and skill level will be similar.

I agree that the combat in the beta needs work (and, from what they have posted here and elsewhere, the developers agree). However, PoE is aimed at fans of the Infinity Engine games. Does that describe you? I'm asking because I wouldn't classify them as casual games at all. ... I disagree. Baldur's Gate was a very much a casual fantasy set game during its time. While maybe not the most intuitive game, I was able to play the game fairly easily with almost zero understanding of how the actual mechanics of the game worked. I think you might be remembering the last time you played Baldur's Gate and not the first time you played it. The first map outside of Candlekeep has 2 wolves (one of them randomly spawns as a dire wolf). Each of them can one or two hit kill your PC (depending on class and stats). The second map has two groups of archers that can also or or two hit kill your PC, an ogre that can do likewise plus a bunch of other enemies. The third map has a mage that casts horror and magic missile (two of his magic missiles will, you guessed it, kill your PC and if you got hit with his horror spell, you were in no position to stop him). This is only what you encounter if you follow the maps indicated in the story. If you wander off onto another map you get to spiders with web traps, flesh golems, ankhegs, basilisks etc. All of these things will kill your level 1 PC. Over time, we all learned tactics to stay out of trouble as a low level character and metagame knowledge of where the dangerous enemies were, but I wouldn't call it a casual game (until you know what you're doing).

I agree that the combat in the beta needs work (and, from what they have posted here and elsewhere, the developers agree). However, PoE is aimed at fans of the Infinity Engine games. Does that describe you? I'm asking because I wouldn't classify them as casual games at all. That said, I think you'll find that the combat gets a lot easier once you get used to it. I also found that it seemed much too fast at the beginning, due, in part to some issues with the UI, but it seems a lot more manageable now after I've gotten used to it.

This is a cool idea. The damage reduction when it moves means that it can be a powerful summon without being overpowered. It could be used like a trap or ambush either by casting it before combat or by having the wizard fade back and cast it similar to an IE thief setting a trap. Maybe there are other good ways to allow the caster to summon something powerful but with some limitation that wouldn't make it so powerful that it becomes the default tactic for every situation.

Nice idea for the illusory simulacra. I'll have a go: Uneven Ground - the ground is warped in an AOE (stones stick up out of the ground or something) - chance for enemy / ally to be tripped (effect like knockdown, leading to prone state) - save vs. DEX(?) IE like: - like Grease, it's a double-edged sword as it affects allies too but thrown ahead at a charging horde, it can thin the ranks to give you less to deal with at once. PoE like: It's not a win-button, it depends on the enemies' stats to be effective but chance of success will be such that it doesn't affect everyone in a group This could be useful when you draw more enemies than you expected like the beetle encounter in the BB where you attack towards the south, near the log bridge and the group to the east goes hostile too.

people mad they cant solo the game casting mirror image and sunfiring everything to oblivion. That may be true of some people. If you read my posts and some others, you will see that there are other reasons. That isn't anyone since that can't be done. Well no, it can't be done in the IE games, but, technically, it is possible that some people might still be mad that they can't do it in PoE either, I guess. Of course, I haven't seen anyone in this thread that has said anything like that now that you bring it up.

people mad they cant solo the game casting mirror image and sunfiring everything to oblivion. That may be true of some people. If you read my posts and some others, you will see that there are other reasons.

Some of CC spells will disable enemies for a short time. The effect is a little less dramatic than the IE games. Why would you waste a spell slot for that? You could just finish off the panicked enemies with ranged weapons. Sure, that could work, but then again you might be roleplaying a mage that doesn't like to exert himself or you might be soloing and want to be sure kill them all before the CC spell wears off and also have cannon fodder in case it does. Also in Vanilla BG1 what ranged weapon can the mage even use? Exactly. The choice is sling or throwing dagger for 1d4 damage (in the rare event that the mage actually hits something) and 1 attack per round. I assume the ranged weapon comment was for the case where you have a full party.

Some of CC spells will disable enemies for a short time. The effect is a little less dramatic than the IE games. Why would you waste a spell slot for that? You could just finish off the panicked enemies with ranged weapons. Sure, that could work, but then again you might be roleplaying a mage that doesn't like to exert himself or you might be soloing and want to be sure to kill them all before the CC spell wears off and also have cannon fodder in case it does.

Sorry no. All 15. There'll be a quiz. Oh, all right. Compared to IE Mages, PoE Wizards have fewer types of spells. They are mainly a ranged damage class with some crowd control spells and some buffs. If you don't compare them to IE mages, it's too strong of a statement to say that they suck. If you use the spells that they have they do, in fact, do a lot of damage and their CC spells can really help your party. However, we might want to compare them to IE Mages. The CC spells that they have are less potent. They don't have summoning spells (other classes have summons but not as strong or as flexible as IE mages/clerics). They don't have an invisibility spell etc. Overall, the spell system doesn't really combine in as many interesting ways as the IE system did. For example, in BG1, your mage might cast Horror or Confusion into a group of enemies. While they all run around like idiots, your mage casts Monster Summoning 1, and maybe you get a group of kobold archers who kill the enemy party with arrows while they run around like idiots. (The price you pay is that an enemy spell caster might do that to your party, but hey, those are the breaks.) In PoE, the wizard just doesn't have a spell combination that's quite as potent as that so they feel a bit like a archer who occasionally tosses a grenade or a tear gas bomb. They're still useful, but don't feel like a class that can own the battlefield like a well-played IE mage.

Good idea, Yonjuro. I'll start. (Yeah, I know I'm supposed to make a sock puppet account for this. I'm busy, alright?): Illusory Simulacra: Can be cast at any time. Produces one purely illusory copy of the caster per level of the caster. Each copy appears as an exact duplicate of the caster and can be ordered to move to any position and to attack any enemies. The images have no physical or magical attack and likewise they cannot be harmed by an attack. Casting time: TBD. Spell Duration: TBD. Level 1. ------ This spell is essentially mirror image with some extra benefits. The images can be used defensively by the caster but also to lead enemies away pre-battle or instead of a battle if they all fall for it. Whether they fall for it depends on perception (countered by the caster's resolve) and enemies with low intellect and higher resolve might be more likely to persist in following or attacking an illusory image. Enemies attacking images or blocking the illusory attacks of images become more vulnerable to attacks from party members. Enemies that stop attacking and defending the attacks of images because they understand that they are illusions become vulnerable to an AoO by the caster who looks identical. I think this spell is both IE-like in that there are a lot of interesting ways to use it, some of them quite strategic. It is also PoE-like in that: it isn't insta-kill with hard counters the images can't be used by themselves to win an encounter but require using tactics that compliment the spell it isn't a single tactic that will always work the same way for every enemy because it depends on the stats of the caster and the enemy If you've read this far, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to come up with one or more spells that are simultaneously IE-like, that is, they will make the magic system more interesting and PoE-like in that they aren't, say, turning an enemy to stone with no save (or preventing an enemy from turning you stone with no save - they don't get to do that either so that would be a pointless spell).

Total agreement here. Although you have to be fair in that if you play with the NPCs that TOB gives you, then you basically have to fall back to mages for most effects if you don't play any of the cool kits as your main character. You actually already said that part. I'm fine with mages having a wide variety of spells at their disposal, but I think they should neither be all exclusive nor equally good/better than all the stuff other classes can get. There should still be some unique benefit to choosing each class. Sure, I agree. Each class should have a compelling reason to play it from a gameplay perspective (as well as a roleplay perspective). Regarding ToB npcs: If you recruited Keldorn and Mazzy as your back line and any 3 of Jaheira, Minsc, Valygar, Korgan, Anomen and Sarevok as your front line and made your PC any martial class you wanted (bonus if the class can use Carsomyr but not required), Draconis wouldn't stand a chance. Yes, exactly. The point has been made. Everyone take a deep breath and if you have good ideas of spells you'd like to see in the expansion, post them.

Carrier-ravened.

Didn't see your post before, sorry. That's not the point I wanted to make. My friends quit because they felt treated unfairly by the game after losing after a couple of retries and their conclusion was that it is because the magic system is too strong. They prefer to roleplay martial characters, so they naturally wouldn't be very proficient with the mages, especially as the rest of the game was fairly doable without them. I did better than them and was able to complete ToB, but I'm sure I wouldn't be able to finish the ascension mod final boss fight without heavy abuse of mages. My personal opinion is that mages were too mandatory in ToB because they were so strong. I'm not saying my opinion is any more valuable than any other opinion but I'm saying that I don't think that the implementation of mages in the IE games are uniformly well received, which was the original point I responded to. Fair enough. You have two friends that paid for the game and didn't like it because they felt that spell casters were overpowered compared to the martial classes that they wanted to play. They had a point, magic was very powerful. There are certainly martial classes in ToB that are well suited to the Draconis fight (or any magic heavy fight). Inquisitors, especially, but any paladin kit (or rogue with UAI) equipped with Carsomyr (or Carsomyr's bastard (sword) brother) were very effective. Monks could essentially ignore magic and just beat spell casters to death by that point. Wizard slayers could also be useful against spell casters (but were a weak kit overall). Let's assume that your friends weren't playing one of those classes and they got to the Draconis fight in ToB and found their PC to be under powered. Yeah, that sucks. Inquisitors and Monks, were, if anything, too powerful against spellcasters, but that doesn't help you if rolled a PC of a different class, play all the way through the main game and then find that it doesn't work so well half way through the expansion. My answer to that is that each class should have some way to deal with each encounter in the game (but that doesn't mean it needs to be easy to do or to figure out - at least on the harder difficulty settings; we want a challenge, right?). That said, I think your friends could have beaten Draconis with any party if they really wanted. The game does give you a lot of tools for fighters to use against spell casters. ToB was seriously lacking in the story department, so they may have decided that it wasn't worth the effort. (Seriously. Stevie Wonder could have seen that coming yet my uber intelligent PC mage, with divine help, follows Melissan around like an idiot. WTF. )