Yonjuro

Nice post. Also, (speaking as another software person), the seeming multitude of bugs could really be a few nasty bugs (some piece of code stepping on some memory that it shouldn't, race conditions in threads etc.). A single problem can show a very large number of symptoms if it is the right (err, wrong) kind of problem.

Can you elaborate here? I never actually got lockpicks for my character until the third one, when I was able to use the grappling hook. I only found lockpicks after crossing the broken bridge. Ironically, I was able to pick the lock in the door leading to the soul cage, but decided to try the grappling hook instead of going through the door. Ironically, having finally found lockpicks, by the time I got around to the other locked entrance to the soul cage, I had the proper key to unlock the doors. The point of the above ramble is just so you understand why I'm asking for clarity: do you mean lockpicks are bugged and will sometimes work (and is there a message to indicate you have to use them), or that lockpicking in general is buggy and that lockpicks never work? Hope that's clear. Sure - I've had these 4 things happen when I clicked on one of the doors in that dungeon in different games: 1. Absolutely nothing. 2. The door opened. 3,4. The door remained closed but I got a message about needing higher mechanics skill or more lockpicks. I think number 1 was just a case of my game state having gotten corrupted somehow and the correct behaviors are 2, 3 and 4. The door should open or you should get a message about your mechanics skill or number of lockpicks. In fact, when nothing happened, I think I tried wandering around for a few seconds and clicking again (and again and again about 10 times) and door eventually opened - so, yeah, if the door doesn't open and you don't see a message in the log, then it's a bug.

Not at all. Here's a made up one attribute system for fighters. You get a knob that trades offense with defense. You can have a dynamic range that makes it essentially do nothing. If the default is good then there are no bad builds, true. You can also give it a dynamic range where all the way to the left means hits almost everything but gets hit by almost everything (rogue++) or all the way to right means hits almost nothing but gets hit by almost nothing (tank++). Both of those extremes and everything in between can be good builds especially in a party based system. It requires that you play the more extreme characters according to their abilities.

This isn't a useful comment. Why do you think it's a bad idea? (1) Do you want people to inadvertently build a bad character? (2) Do you think that it isn't possible? (3) Do you think it necessarily means that the attributes can't have a large enough dynamic range? (4) Some other reason? As it is, you're adding noise to the discussion. Most of the discussion revolves around something like point 3 (which remains to be seen). Point 1 is ridiculous. Point 2 is clearly not true. Maybe you have an actual 4th point that would add to the discussion. Do you or not?

This is a bug. I couldn't get the option with my first two characters no matter what I tried. On my third character though, it worked. Not sure yet about lockpicks. That's also a bug. When it works, either the door will open or you get a log message telling you why it didn't. When it doesn't work, nothing happens.

I was expecting it to be more like that (and (I think) I still I want it to). For beta testing, having the dynamic range of stats be adjustable might be a faster way to converge on the right answer. We might end up with something like a consensus opinion of the best dynamic range and, if we don't, it might imply that the final game needs a (heavily documented, complete with warning messages) knob for that. At worst, it will give the beta testers more insight into the game design which seems like good thing. For the beta, it doesn't need a polished UI or anything - an editable config file would probably be fine.

I don't believe I've done that. Wait a minute...does this mean you're NOT the messiah of RPG mechanics???!? Crap. The search continues.

I think the staff of the Magi is a bad example to demonstrate how brilliant BG2 itemization were, since it was just ridiculously op. You could go as often invisible as you like, which basically made you invincible against everything that couldn't see through invisibility. Perhaps it would have been a cool weapon for TOB endgame, but for SoA it definately needed nerfing. Fair enough and, in games where I've used it, I tended to get it pretty late in SoA so I have mostly used it in ToB. The point of the post wasn't that these were the two best examples of weapons in BG2, it was that these are examples of items that enable new tactics as per the post I was responding to (maybe OP tactics, as you point out). I will repeat the question in my previous post: if you don't like those examples, what kind of items would you like to see in PoE to open up new strategic possibilities?

A good analogy would be magic the gathering. That might be a great analogy, but I don't really know anything about Magic the Gathering so it doesn't help me. Wouldn't the Staff of the Magi be in that category? I mean due to the instant invisibility - that opens up new tactical possibilities. As a staff, it hits as a plus one weapon (but with a plus 5 enchantment - so it hits everything, just not very hard). Also Carsomyr to some extent (because if you weren't a Paladin you could take grandmastery in two handed swords, so Carsomyr denerfs the Paladin class in terms of it's use as a sword). The dispel on hit gives you a new way to deal with Mages. That's not hugely overpowered. BG 1 and 2 both had arrows that did that. These items make it more viable to have a party without a Mage - that opens up new party configurations. Or, if you still don't like those, make a up a weapon for PoE. What will give you new strategic possibilities?

Gonna devote this to it's own post because it breaches the ceiling of sanity and rises to the stratosphere of crazy-speak. None of the items you listed trivialize combat in BG2 in the slightest. Lets go down your list. The Staff of the Magi - usable only by the one class designed to suck monkeyballs in melee. -And- it specifically endowed with properties that will only be useful against other spell casters. Thus if you send your mage ahead to whack away at a vampire or a golem, or a fire giant, or a dragon, or a mind flayer, or a beholder, the ensuing battle will hardly be "trivial"...except maybe for the enemy. Mages should be casting spells instead. The caveat to this is that Thieves get UAI very late in the game and thus they can also use the Staff of the Magi. Of course, the game won't let you backstab with it, so its invisibility property is useless. And anyone dumb enough to equip their thief that late in the game with a 2-handed weapon that 1) a mage should be using, and 2) can't be used for backstabbing, Is an Idiot and his opinions on triviality are rendered irrelevant because of that alone. But mostly, the Staff of the Magi is really nice to have, and it's one of the 4 or 5 most powerful weapons in SoA. But it doesn't make anything trivial. Cloak of Mirroring--just like the Staff of the Magi in that it is designed to ONLY be effective against enemy spell casters. it will not help you against a dragon. It will not help you against golems or vampires, or mindflayers, or shadowfiends, or anyone who tries to take your head off in melee. And even against spell casters, it won't protect you against the nastier stuff. The claim that it trivializes combat is most definitely NOT true. Even if we assume that BG2 isn't a party based game and only 1 person in your party can wear the cloak of mirroring. Staff of the Ram -- not sure why this is even here. You only get it in Throne of Bhaal...when it is far too late to be discussing trivial combat (as if your sorcerer's 6 copies of Summon Planetar, and your thief's 15 spike traps are somehow overshadowed by a LOUSY quarterstaff that can knock people back 10% of the time) But lets talk some more about that knock-back ability. Why do you find it powerful? It's the opposite of powerful. it's annoying and it HINDERS combat effectiveness. Celestial Fury -already talked about this. But if you wish to gimp your character by taking points in katana just so you can reap its limited benefits (I'll take the Flail of the Ages over it any day), your loss. It's not even a powergamer's weapon. and it most certainly doesn't make ANYTHING trivial. You can argue that these weapons are imbalanced, and I won't totally disagree, but...you didn't. You had to get carried away with the BG2 bashing and take it 20 notches further to claim that they rendered combat trivial. which is false. Reasonable people can disagree about these items but the real takeaway point from this debate is this: Whether you think these items from BG2 are so amazing that they made the game extra fun to play or you think that these items are so amazing that they ruined the balance of the game (and you felt dirty for using them every single time you played because why. oh. why. couldn't you have a modicum of self control? WHYYYYY?!??) - we can all agree that these items were amazing. We're arguing about them a decade and a half later. If PoE doesn't have items that people remember and argue about a decade and a half later we can reconvene and agree that the items were too bland. I hope that doesn't happen and so here we are discussing how to prevent it in this very thread. Carry on.

I see a lot of posts where people use the word 'balance' and I don't think that word means what they think it means. For the purposes of discussion, let's break this into two: 1. Balanced builds for a single class. (Discussed below.) 2. Balance between classes. (Saved for later.) Onward then: Balanced builds for a single class: I don't see this as a choice between: stats should do nothing because 'balance' and ZOMG stats do something therefore there is exactly one optimal build and you'll never guess what it is. According to me, the stats should make a huge difference; therefore, you should need to play the character differently (different tactics, choose different abilities etc.) for different stat distributions. Otherwise, what's the point? That adds significant replay value. I like the idea that there should be no non-viable builds but that doesn't mean that you don't need to use your brain and read the descriptions of things to figure out the best way to play a given build. In fact, that's the whole point. No non-viable builds isn't the same thing as idiot proof. Summary: I don't like the idea that there should be exactly one build for each class and I don't think itt's necessary for balance.

One way to make all builds equally viable is to make all of them functionally the same. Another way is to make them very different but equally good. I think the latter is more interesting. If you chose to, say, dump Might and Intellect on your wizard on character creation, I think that should be profoundly different than if you maximized those and dumped Perception and Resolve or if you balanced all of the stats equally. Let's take those three builds: Low Might,Intellect: Doesn't do a lot of damage, small AoE, short durations, but thanks to higher Per. and Res. interrupts everyone and is interrupted by no one. Low Perception, Resolve: Kind of the opposite - tons of damage, but doesn't always get that spell off or prevent the other guy from doing whatever he is trying to do. Balanced: Jack of all trades master of none. All three are viable. You need to understand the strengths of your character and choose the right spells (good for roleplay and replay value). It's not idiot proof, but that can be mitigated by having good spell descriptions. (and ability descriptions for other classes). If you don't like being an unreliable nuker, then option 2 wasn't a good choice for you, but you aren't prevented from finishing the game (by a choice you made at character creation). So, I would rather take the stats to 11 (for those who don't get the cultural reference, make them more extreme) but approximately equally useful. (Maybe that's not possible given the current state of the game). Edit:typo.

Maybe, but do you feel that the items in the game are especially interesting now? Is the prospect of adding (non-unique) enchantments to the items exciting right now? (I'm guessing not since you just told me not to worry about metagaming because the best Might enchantment you can make to armor doesn't really make much difference.) "Balance" can't end up meaning that all options are colorless and uninteresting or the game will be colorless and uninteresting.

A fair point, but the current system doesn't prevent metagaming. It's actually worse. Once you realize that the Ogre blood lets you (up to) Might+3 enchant your armor you can a make a beeline to murder the Ogre. The quest has at least three endings that I know of and the one that lets you enchant you armor is that one involves killing him. If you know that the PoE equivalent of Keldorn needs +3 might to be useful, well, it sucks to be the Ogre. Actually +3 might does not have big effect...you are free to let Ogre live. It called balanced rewards for different quest paths. You're right, but I have a feeling that we'll see the stats 'turned up' in the final game - we'll see. If not, doesn't that mean that the enchantment system will not be very interesting? Are the devs sitting in a smoke filled room saying: "Hah, I anticipated your metagaming proclivities and have headed them off in advance by making all options completely pointless - checkmate!" I don't think so.

A fair point, but the current system doesn't prevent metagaming. It's actually worse. Once you realize that the Ogre blood lets you (up to) Might+3 enchant your armor you can a make a beeline to murder the Ogre. The quest has at least three endings that I know of and the one that lets you enchant you armor is that one involves killing him. If you know that the PoE equivalent of Keldorn needs +3 might to be useful, well, it sucks to be the Ogre.

Thanks for starting this topic. A few random thoughts: - The one item that I remember from the beta is the stag helm because it looks interesting - but - I think you can enchant BB Fighter's helmet to give the same benefits if you want? Flexibility is nice, but it does make things kind of bland. - I used the enchantment mechanic to make a Hide Armor of Might + 1. The good part is that the enchanted armor is the result of an adventure you had. I guess the bad part is that it has more of a scavenger hunt vibe than a reward for an adventure because you need to find three items (and notice that you found them - which you currently do by clicking on every stinking recipe, that part needs some more UI in any case). - Also regarding the aforementioned hide armor - in BG1 finding the stat tomes was a giant deal - in PoE you can enchant an item to increase any stat you want once you stumble upon all of the items and have enough money. It's nice to be able to increase stats - but, yeah it does seem a bit bland. You get enough blood from the Ogre to enchant two items. We don't know yet how many Ogres there are in the game. - In the stormwall gorge dungeon - if you kill the vithrak, you can enchant the spear that you find (if you aren't soling the game -you need two companions to activate the urn) - but, whatever, you can enchant it anyway once you have some spare coin and the right items. Finally, my questions to you, the reader (should you wish to answer them) to keep this great discussion going: 1. Does the enchantment system doom very item to blandness? (The 'every item is a beautiful unique snowflake' problem.) 2. If so, what would fix it? More interesting items - that is, items that have attributes not available in the enchantment system (which can be enchanted more with the existing system)? Nerf the enchantment mechanic so unique items are more powerful? Other? 3. Is three items plus money the way to go for enchantments? Would it be better to find a unique item that could be used to enchant whatever you want (the stone of celestial fury, the mushroom of ages, the discarded sixpack ring of Carsomyrness)? 4. What else would make items more interesting?

Description: On the character sheet, "Total Enemies Defeated" by the party is larger than the sum of "Enemies Defeated" by each party member. The difference gets larger as the game progresses and the number listed as the total is clearly too high. How to reproduce: 1. Start a new game. 2. Murder the group by the bridge 3. Add up the "Enemies Defeated" for each party member on the character sheet ( = 4). 4. Compare to the "Total Enemies Defeated" on the character sheet ( > 4). 5. Commit additional murders as desired and watch the "Total Enemies Defeated" get much larger than the sum of "Enemies Defeated" .

Somebody posted a bug in the beta bugs forum about DT being reset to zero. (I think it was) after reloading on a map, the DT for encounters on that map would be wrong.

If Gromnir is going to make the effort to stay in character, the least you could do is to read it with Gromnir Il Khan's voice. Really now, is that too much to ask?

Its strange, I clicked on the blue highlighted object and got the description as I mentioned above (wonderful artwork btw) but all I got was the description itself and no options to do anything. ( Might be a bug then. Is the grappling hook still in your inventory? yes, in fact I have two. Perhaps I should load an earlier save game or even leave the Ruins and return? I have had the same problem. Sometimes I can use the hook other times I can't. Also, sometimes doors open, sometimes they don't. I think I had better luck going in through the wilderness entrance instead of through the tower. At least, there are fewer things to go wrong that way.

(Well, isn't that already the case with objective XP system? Side quests give you XP making you more powerful. But,) let's not turn this into a discussion of kill XP (or event XP) vs. objective XP. We have plenty of threads to argue about that. The question here is whether it's worthwhile to retrofit the game with a second XP system. And, the answer is: sure, great idea for a mod - bad idea for Obsidian to add it to the list of things they need to do before the release.

Keep the same xp, reduce side quest xp. I would still be a minimal difference in xp, as monsters still give much smaller rewards then quest xp (if we are following the IE formula). On the scoend point, going from "easy" to "path of the damned", the wolf encounter would give you something like a factor of 3 or 4 more kill XP. The kill xp numbers would have to be really small from that not to make a difference (as it is now - can't get smaller than zero). I'll get to the first point later. Ok I understand now, but I don't think that would be very complex to figure out, just work. Bring down quest xp by the amount of kill xp available. This would best be done in the side quest for exploration kills and in the main quest for the unavoidable creature encounters (if you are only doing the main quest). Sure, all of these things can be figured out (with significant play testing). To the point of reducing side quest XP and distributing the XP over the kills - I agree that it doesn't break the main quest if you do it that way but the main quest isn't the whole game - things can get really out whack (too hard or too easy) because the encounters aren't necessairy designed around the full number of available things to kill. You still have the issue that hard mode is easier (for most of the game) unless you get less XP per kill on hard mode (meaning that you don't need one XP table, you need four of them).

No. You are not done. Really. You're not. When you play test this solution you are going find that the game is much easier on "hard" mode than it is on "easy" mode (except for the fights that assume your party will be at the level cap). Obsidian can't release a game that's as broken as that would be. Don't take my for anything. Have look at the wilderness area on the easiest mode and the hardest mode and count the creatures (and note the level of the creatures). Calculate the difference in XP. You will see the problem. (That's only one of the problems.) It's not the plan that's complicated. It actually is complicated to retrofit the game with kill XP (assuming the goal is to keep the level of challenge similar to what it is now).

I don't remember which thread, but one the devs said that that part of the dungeon was to supposed to be inaccessible for the beta (not just that room, but the whole level).

It's hard to sort out what is due to a new system vs. a buggy beta release. It might be worth trying to hire a second fighter as a work around. I found the combat to work much better that way.