anfoglia

I encountered the same problem with some additional Xaurip-like creatures later in the game (output log below). Updating my drivers does not seem to have solved the issue. output_log.txt

Description: Upon killing a Xaurip High Priest, the game freezes and ultimately crashes to desktop. I have experienced this bug outside Poko Kahara and with the Lord Admiral Imp's party in Queen's Berth. I don't think other types of Xaurips trigger the crash. As an experiment, I killed only the leftmost Xaurip champion (or maybe it was a skirmisher) outside Poko Kahara but left the rest of the pod alone. The game did not crash. Steps to Reproduce the Issue: (1) Find one of these two Xaurip parties; (2) Kill the high priests. EDIT: WELP, it might be more complicated than that. After reproducing the crash five or six times at Poko Kahara and Queen's Berth, I just went to grab a screenshot and made it through just fine. Save: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvixvsusfv3kz2p/Kaja%20%28ca338bfb-5bb6-4b17-af4b-00f43d7480d4%29%20quicksave.zip?dl=0 Apologies if this has already been identified. I ran a search and did not see a thread, but it wouldn't be the first time I'd missed an earlier thread. output_log.txt output_log.txt DxDiag.txt

Fighter works well because you get extra survivability and accuracy (and more, if you go devoted). Paladin also has complementary abilities.

I finished a run of Beta 4 last night. My general thoughts: + Combat Speed Slider: the interface is fiddly, but this is a god-send. The slowest setting makes the action much more legible for me. It's almost like playing a semi-turn based game like Grandia or something. I imagine the faster settings are just as much a relief for people who hate waiting for things to happen. + Graphics/performance: this is a beautiful-looking game. I can't wait to see more of the world. + Single-class buffs: the extra ability point makes a world of difference. In other builds, multiclassing was more appealing, even when it wasn't strictly stronger, because you had so many more (and more interesting) choices. Now single-class feels properly good and strong, and multiclassing feels like an alternative you might pursue for an off-the-beaten path character concept. + Wizards: they're really good, imo. + Penetration: I think this is in a better place now. It's still quite clear when you've got the wrong damage type and need to switch things up, but the values are now friendly enough that it no longer feels like stacking PEN is the name of the game. - Ship combat: it's not fun. I am confused as to what kinds of tactics you can employ other than "get in range and hope you hit them harder than they hit you." I didn't try boarding on this playthrough, but I have to imagine it would be difficult to close all the way without taking critical damage. The FTL influence on the "report to" function doesn't translate all that well. In FTL, the whole point was that all these things were happening at once, and you had to respond under pressure and with good timing (whether for sequencing attacks or opening/closing airlocks). Here, you can only ever do one thing at a time. You can't send some people to board while others work the cannons. It's not even clear to me that, in sequence, you can both apply significant damage and get in position to board, so everything sort of sticks around trading volleys. If there are tactics to this minigame that I'm missing, they need to be clearer. If it's as limited as it appears, then I have to say I prefer the straightforward rock-paper-scissors of Suikoden 1's war minigame: at least those were fast. - Missing UI info: for example, it would be helpful to see what a weapon's damage type/properties are from the proficiency screen, as those are significant factors in choosing proficiency. I'll also join in the requests for an option to pin enemy info windows during combat.

It depends what the ability progression looks like at higher levels. For the levels we see in the beta, this seems workable to me. The abilities you get at level 7/8 aren't that much more powerful, and the actives are still limited by your power source or spell allotment and the fact that many of them have lower-level pre-reqs. It might not take many tweaks to ensure that a character who takes, say, the full 2 abilities at Power Level 3 is not strictly worse than a character who holds off and doubles up on the "better" abilities at power level 4. But in the end it's probably easier to continue tuning when certain abilities become available to make sure that each class has interesting choices at each level.

+1 I'm on classic. The titan itself is not an issue. He spends the entire fight blinded and exposed and stripped of armor and deflection. But then four blights spawn and wipe my party within seconds. On my second try, I did maneuver my characters away from the blights, but not nearly far enough, it seems. Guess I'll have to try this kiting plan.

I am interested in the idea of characters building up empower during combat, with Resolve affecting the rate of growth. If you start at zero, then you limit the potential for alpha strike problems and get off per-rest, which is a bit of an awkward fit for a game that has broadly embraced a per encounter design.

Well, I have to admit I hadn't considered those downsides to resolve reducing hostile durations. I'm persuaded that, at the very least, it's not something worth trying to implement in the month leading up to launch. I've needed to remind myself that even though POE1 Resolve was a dump stat for many characters, that just wasn't a big problem for the game. Not only was POE still fun, but I think if you polled the community about the game as a whole, buffing resolve would not have been a top five request. Which is not to say I wouldn't be excited about a Resolve solution. But a simple reversion would not be dispiriting or anything.

One suggestion someone made on another site was to have Resolve decrease the duration of afflictions. I like it because it's simple, on-theme, and attractive to all classes. I don't know whether it would run into any of the same issues that made the concentration-related change unworkable. Nor did I follow previous Resolve discussions closely enough to know whether this idea was already raised and problems were identified. Another idea I had was for Resolve to mitigate the effects of injuries, but I'm skeptical that would help the stat if (as seems likely) the game ends up in a place where everyone is resting as soon as they pick up an injury anyway. I'm also wary of tying Resolve to a mechanic (injuries) that should probably be overhauled at some point in Deadfire's life. I suppose Resolve could lower the damage of disengagement attacks. This would make the stat more attractive for fighters who need to move about and change the battle lines. A squishy character may want more resolve in lieu of the abilities meant to escape engagement. Idk.

I don't know how to evaluate the ship encounters until I know how they fit into the broader sailing system. The updates Josh has discussed (removing the full sail/half sail distinction, tweaking jibe, adding options to flee or "close to board") all seem like positive steps. But supposing you actually want to try trading volleys, it doesn't seem like the framework supports fun, tactical battles. It needs another dimension or two. Maybe that comes in when you can actually select cannons and crew members. Idk. I can see a bit of the FTL influence in how you order crew members to report to different stations, but I can't say it feels all that fun yet. FTL had a fair amount more going on in a given battle (targeting different areas, boarding as a part of the general combat flow rather than the end of the encounter, repairing, managing airlocks, et al.).* *I understand FTL's influence was on the report function, but I think it's worth looking at the fact that FTL had a simpler supply system than Deadfire. It's not clear from the Beta what Deadfire is getting out of water, food, medicine, and repair rather than a consolidated "supplies" category and then separate, more tailored mechanics for healing crew members and repairing the ship.

The appeal is that it has some of the better party-based combat this side of Divinity: Original Sin. But then I generally prefer TB to RTwP.

I wonder about this. The penetration and proficiency mechanics both seem designed with the idea that players would comfortably switch between weapons, but if it turns out many players don't like pausing to check penetration for each party member and each enemy and/or don't like switching from a preferred weapon, then those mechanics become something of a dead weight. Going back to the change from DR to pen, I believe Josh said that POE players found DR mushy or unclear about what damage types were appropriate. But what if they just didn't like reviewing the numbers? Penetration may be a little clearer (less so now that different scaling thresholds have been introduced), but it doesn't change the basic task for the player. EDIT: To be clear, I have no idea if a significant number of players feel that way. It just crossed my mind because I was separately curious about Josh's comment that players still seem reluctant to use non-proficient weapons, even with a system designed to make proficiency both common and low-value. (although the more likely explanation there is that everyone except devoted starts the beta with a ton of proficiency points, so why wouldn't players fill their weapon slots with proficient weapons?)

Temple of Elemental Evil wants a word.

Best + Improved reactivity: even in this relatively small area of the game, there are a wide range of dialogue options based on race, origin, class, and skills. This is tremendously encouraging. + AI scripting: I admit that this was not a priority for me during the crowdfunding campaign, but it's a very cool feature, and I've enjoyed my experiments with it. I can't wait for someone to send me improvements on my garbage scripts. + Subclasses: these are fun, and I appreciate Obsidian giving multiple options for every class. Worst - Rules communication: Taking a step back, the team deserves credit for how much information it does communicate in a clear and visually attractive fashion. But the biggest thing nagging me through my beta playthroughs (from the character creation menu on through ship encounters) is missing information about what certain choices will do. For example, and we've had a few threads on this, the proficiency screen doesn't allow you to see any of the weapons' parameters (speed, base damage, damage type, etc.). The level-up screen isn't clear about which abilities will stack. Naval combat has this whole "advantage" mechanic without explaining how it works. - Penetration: changes since the beta's release have brought this to a more comfortable place, where I at least can do something other than stack penetration. But I don't think the system is either clearer or more fun than the one it replaced. - Spell selection: I actually don't mind the longer casting times (particularly if you all are going to be refunding canceled spells), but right now wizards aren't much fun for me because their spell selection feels constrained. I'm also not wild about the new grimoire mechanic, which adds clutter and busywork to the wizard's life for a pretty limited return. I think I'd prefer a system where a wizard could still copy spells, but either her power level or the grimoire itself influenced the total "weight" of spells she could keep in her grimoire at once, with higher-tier spells costing more than lower-tier ones. - Weapon proficiency: I don't really understand what this system is accomplishing. The modals are either boring or bad, so the only time I feel good about getting a new proficiency is when I've got a separate ability (like the fighter's) that gives bonuses with proficient weapons. It's just not a choice that feels interesting on the merits or as a statement of character identity. EDIT: It looks like Josh just discussed some of the system's goals on tumblr: https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/ One goal, according to Josh, was to allow players to associate skill with a particular weapon type with their character(s). I don't think this is working all that well at the moment. Most characters get so many proficient weapons, with so little effect, that it doesn't feel to me like, "yeah, this cipher's trained with a flail and can do better than most with a flail." Increasing the rate of proficiency gain (from 1/4 levels to 1/3 levels) is only going to make this problem worse. A second goal was to "move most/all of the weapon-based talent modals to proficiencies, with the focus on the modals being situational rather than "turn on and leave on." I'm afraid the first part is more a description of what the system does than an explanation of why the designers would want to do it. A third goal was to avoid discouraging players from using non-proficient weapons. This is naturally in tension with goal number one. Obsidian has attempted to resolve the tension by making proficiency bonuses situational, but right now the system seems to be in a place where the bonuses aren't interesting enough for to feel like a meaningful character choice but the mere existence of the proficiency mechanic is still driving people to stick with proficient weapons. Question: if you're going to be handing out tons of weapon proficiencies, then why is it so important that players not feel discouraged from using non-proficient weapons? - Dialogue icons: Sorry to be annoying on this point (last time I'll bring it up, promise!), but I don't like the tiny icons replacing bracketed text (e.g., [rational] or [benevolent]) to indicate a particular reputation, skill, or background is associated with a dialogue option. Several of the icons are not obvious. Is a dove diplomacy or benevolence? Is a human head insight or intelligence? The tooltips resolve any initial confusion, and I guess over time players will just learn the icons. But is the extra text space that valuable? Otherwise Multiclassing is pretty fun at the moment, even if I prefer a more class-less direction. I'm neutral so far on the Might change.

Again. I simply beg to differ. And has nothing to do with my point. A Minsc or Dorn is a much easier, straight forward build in BG. It isn't impossible in PoE, but it is a more complex issue. Joe It isn't complex at all, you pump 3 stats and ignore the rest in either case. You are literally complaining about having options here as opposed to your knowledge you acquired in D&D. No it is not that simple because of how PoE has balanced out the dynamics of the stats, never mind you can't _just_ pump all three stats enough to get to a Dorn or Minsc character. First you have to Min/Max the stats, which is dicey if you aren't already familiar with how to counter balance for the mins. Then you have to select the right talents and skills and know the right gear to get at which points in the game, to build the right synergy. I am not complaining about options. I can't tell if you are just being deliberately obtuse or not. The point is the options and inherent complexities of PoE don't make certain builds as clear cut as they are in BG/D&D. To Wormerine's point, this is a deliberate move on Obsidian's part, the flattening of stats' dynamics, so it is difficult to build a bad character. But this also has the adverse effect on the ease to create characters like Minsc or Edwin. Why do you think building a Minsc archetype is significantly easier in BG? I mean, in BG you still need to know which stats you can afford to drop, which weapons you'll want, and how to spend your proficiency points. Is it just that certain stats are clearly useless for the build (assuming you've read the manual or have the background in D&D) whereas in POE the stats that don't go directly to hitting hard or taking punches still have some attraction? POE does have in-game attribute descriptions to tell you that, for example, intelligence will not make your fighter hit harder or take more punches... Hey, I won't deny it takes a certain zen acceptance to appreciate probability. Personally I think it adds variety and requires resourceful, on the fly thinking. I am not a big fan of predetermined outcomes. I would never make a good Lutheran. Joe Do you mean Calvinist? (I mean, my understanding is that Lutherans do believe in a kind of predestination, but the Calvinists are famous for it). Anyway, I tend to dislike probability-based checks in computer games, but I can understanding wanting to import the sense of dynamism and improvisation from the tabletop world.