curryinahurry

Have you tried Wall of Fire? With spells now critting, wizards can kick some serious tail. They need more crowd control...but a lot of the problem with the class is the fact that a lot of their AoE is useless because of the current enemy AI (everything running/combat becoming a scrum). I think the class will be fine by release...just not quadratic like some people want.

They just changed the attribute system, for the better in my opinion, and that sort of adjustment is bound to have a major ripple effect throughout the game leading to some serious re-balancing, tweaks to classes, talents, spells, etc. We saw how much it changed the 301 beta (of course some encounters were nerfed), and that is just a small piece of the overall game. Personally, I don't think much more in the way of machanics needs changing at this point. Most of the issues moving forward, after accounting for changes necessitated by the attribute system change, should be in adjusting class balance, encounter speed, and improving feedback. A delay is disappointing...I am definitely not a fan of this news, but I also think that from the recent changes they just implemented, a month or two is not wildly out of order.

While there are ways to tone down the Rogue's DPS abilities, like no effects on Grazes and nerfing Sneak Attack, it doesn't solve the core problem behind the class, which is that it is horribly one dimensional. IE (and in the NWN games) rogues were pretty crap without multi/dual classing. The fact that multi/dual was available made them pretty fun. That option not being available in POE, it would have been nice to allow for a more crowd control rogue build; a trickster of sorts. The thing is, in 278, I was having some fun with the rogue with crippling strike, blinding, and escape, but since 301 has been released and the damage effects have been 'fixed', it would be stupid to not take advantage of the class' ability to deal damage. It would be interesting if Obsidian offered certain talents that allowed the rogue to do more crowd control type attacks (stuns, entangling, traps,etc.) at the cost of some of its DPS abilities, but I doubt they will go in that direction.

Yeah, I was on the old UI threads...? I've been against this type of UI since the beginning and was one of the first posters to put up a BG2 style alternative. This is as much an, 'i told you so' moment towards Obsidian and the posters on this board who thought the horizontal UI would be just peachy. I stated once before (I forget which thread) that I deal with User Experience in a lot of my projects, so evaluating these types of issues is eazy peazy for me. I usually know where user systems are going to fall apart, and in this type of game, it's in complexity and feedback. I posted as much in one of the UI debates this over a year ago.

Yeah, being able to move the UI would be great, but they really should have thought this out before implementing the whole horizontal UI...the combat feedback mess is a direct result of not having design flexibility with the horizontal layout.

Are you sure this is AI and not a bug? I've had this problem with spells/range to melee attack commands...basically, I pick a spell, or an abilitiy with my rogue like Crippling Strike, click on target and the party member in question goes running into the fray to engage in melee. I thought is was a bug of some sort, if it's AI; what a pointless addition.

@ Fiebras The various icons will take up about the same amount of room regardless of orientation...now, if you want a decent size combat log, and open up various actionicons, you'll wind up with losing about 1/3 of the screen along the bottom. These kinds of games are ill suited for a purely minimalist approach; there is simply too much information that has to be displayed. All I'm trying to do is get the clutter to be less like clutter and more systemic in its visual presentation. As to your second point about removing the action icons above enemies...why? Assymetrical is fine in this circumstance, and in fact, would make identification of enemy units that much simpler at a glance. BTW, if you collapse the pretty much useless action HUD, you would get something like this: In which you could keep the combat log to a comfortable dimension under the portraits. Also, please note, this isn't an aesthetics proposal...I'm purely looking at this from a functionality POV

Indeed. The thing is that it allows for such a more comfortable user experience. I don't want to hijack this thread, but Indira's OP is really, in a way, the result of having to provide ad-hoc solutions driven by the fact that the horizontal UI can't accommodate the proper feedback necessary for a game this complicated. Meh

Combat feedback, action bar, recovery timer, combat; its all a bloody mess right now. I agree with the sentiments Indira expressed in the OP, but all of these issues are related to the ad-hoc approach to organizing the play screen. The root cause? The insistence on having all the main elements run along the bottom. I know that I am beating a dead horse with this suggestion, and that there is absolutely no chance of these changes being made, but if Obsidian would reconsider the UI orientation, a lot of the problems we are dealing with could be solved while maintaining an orderly, easy to track UI. [/url]">http:// By having the UI elements Left Justified, we can keep the UI compact, without any odd gaps, Show the recovery timer next to each portrait (active highlighted), scroll out spells/ abilities that are easily identified with selected character, highlight characters that haven't been issued new commands (glowing action icon), and have a left side combat log, that has more room to expand. All of this seems worlds more clear and efficient than what we have now. I'm not going to post any more suggestions about UI, but this really seems like the simplest way to solve a lot of problems with one fairly simple adjustment

@ Sensuki Haha...Yeah, I'm playing on normal even though I plan to play through the actual game on Hard. Maybe this is an issue with alternate modes. Anyway, in 278, I made it through the Dyrford Crossing maps, - the Shambling Mounds without resting. I leveled up after the Ogre in that run, which reset everything, and finished with the Spider queen, Wurms, and Sevis, but honestly, probably didn't need it as my health was pretty good across the party and I had been pretty stingy with spell use. The main difference 301 made was that I tore through all of the encounters (MY BB fighter was down to about 320 Health after the Ogre). I think that also had something to do with the fact that I was a level higher (I think they increased the XP awards this release). I might try Hard after a few more releases

I don't have this bug in my game...so it isn't universal. It might be the result of a corrupted save or some other issue in your game...but I checked multiple saves and the endurance/health values are accurate in all of them.

Just tested it...it's definitely not an issue in my game. the 1:5 change in damage seems to be a good re-balance for fighters, and no one else takes that much damage at the moment because AI is basically non-existent. I think defensive values have been nerfed for enemies and have gone up for our party as there is now an attribute for it...that's a big deal. Also, the game is more polished and people are starting to get comfortable with the mechanics, even the whiners. Certain attack conditions, like flanking for rogues or wizard spells scoring criticals, seem to have been adjusted or been properly implemented. All these little changes begin to add up

I think the latest update dropped Deflection values...I pretty much steamrolled through Dyford Crossing, ogre cave, spider queen, and Sevis (Dragon Egg) without anyone but BB fighter taking more than a little damage. Rogue and DPS fighter build are wildly overpowered. Add in a Cipher using Whispers of Treason, and the game is pretty easy right now. It will be interesting to see what happens with a lot of these builds when the AI starts targeting the squishier members of our parties.

Well, it certainly allows for a bit more flexibility. The problem then is that Weapon Spec. isn't being applied properly, or possibly something else because my melee + is 10 points higher than ranged. Both of these are weapons within the 'soldier' specialization group.

@ Sensuki Have they adjusted range base accuracy for fighters? They no longer show the accuracy range/melee split in 301 and When I look at the combat logs, my range accuracy with fighter using arquebus is definitely higher than it was before, but still different from melee bonus...its a bit confusing tbh

^ They had talked about having either or requirements in the past; Might 15 or level 8 as an example. Not sure if they just aren't implemented at the moment or scrapped.

I like the general concept but the wording is awkward...not sure what feats should be called, and how they should be presented...But I almost think it should be similar to skills. Actually, way back during the Kickstarter, Obsidian said there would a combat/non-combat division of skills. So why don't they just have all of these perks/feats/ traits whatever they need to be called, treated like combat skills....set it up like the IE weapon proficiencies where every other level you can invest a point in something, and put caps on them by class.

I think that however it's done, what the class is going to require is the same talent/feat accumulation as 3.xE...that is a talent/feat every other level. That seems like a pretty fair trade-off to me...more customization for a class that requires a bit less management. BTW, I might try your newly discovered word with some of my local Chinese consultants just to see if it makes their heads explode trying to pronounce it

^ I was not necessarily thinking that a 'style' would be chosen at character creation, more that it be a mid-level talent once the player has had a chance to explore the system. That isn't critical. What I'd like to see come out of such 'syles' are certain advanced offensive, active use feats for each one (called shot, 2h/reach AoE, shield bash, whirlwind attack, etc.) that makes the class have additional strategies in combat. I also think the fighter should have 1 offensive modal like power attack that should be exclusive of defender. My BB party had 2 fighters...and its a pretty powerful set-up. The one thing that would make it really fun to play is if my PC fighter had some more offensive moves/modes that could play off BB Fighter;s vanilla tanking.

These threads are getting as comical

Yeah...you seem to not be getting my point. All of these claims you make are conditional to you...not to me or potentially the 100,000+ other backers of this game. You talk about risk-reward like its separate from questing and that it's some type of absolute value...its not. Encounters are an obstacle to overcome on the way to completing a quest. How you choose to deal with the obstacles is up to you. If you think that the risk of combat trumps the reward of loot you might get...then that is your analysis of the situation. I may have a very different analysis since I figure that camping supplies are easily found/purchased, I know how to manage combat efficiently, consider combat enjoyable, and I would rather engage in the combat than sneak around the encounter because my party might be poorly optimized in that respect. And with regards to your second point...if all XP was combat related...well you would simply have a different style of game, one that rewarded combat. The results would be much more sand-boxy with quests as a fun thing to do for anybody who wanted to take them on. Its likely that a lot less effort would be put into quests in such a game. that is how design works. The system works just fine the way it is...it just seems to irk you because it doesn't prioritize one type of game play. I'm not going to continue this argument. I understand your position, but I think you're looking for a reason to play the game a certain way that just isn't there...its your choice and your analysis. the game will reward however you choose, if you are fairly smart about how you go about making your choice...that is good design @ namutree poor encounter design isn't really an argument. Believe me...I only play fighters, I know exactly what they can and can't do in all of the IE games. And, this game is closer to IWD in terms of levels and difficulty. And by the time you reach Spellhold...you absolutely need magical gear. We have seen some fairly tough battles in the beta...but that has more to with the developers beefing up certain encounters/critters as they stated they wanted us to try to use our full complement of resources ). It isn't necessarily a fair indication of the final game.

Or you might do it because its fun...that tends to be my reasoning. They might introduce other incentives in the final game that are not Xp related, like crafting for pelts, beetle shells, what have you. But finally, the game is allowing you to make the choice of whether to fight against non-quest mobs; to handle these encounters as you think is best. For you that means avoiding these encounters so that you can horde supplies or otherwise play more 'optimally' for your playstyle. For me...I just kill any critters that are in my way. If they are not in my way (like the Wurms), I don't go out of my way unless there might some chance of monetary gain. Different playstyles...that is what the whole XP system is about...still not seeing a problem. Using these boards as any indication of how the gaming community or even the majority of Backers will receive the XP system is a bad idea. There are, between Kickstarter, Paypal, and Slacker Backers, likely over 100,000 people who have already forked over money. Most of the complaining we have heard on these boards is from about 20 or 30 individuals. Hardly an overwhelming number.

@ frapillo80 Its not. There are some issues with Damage Thresholds and Deflection values that seem to be buggy...but the core mechanics are pretty fun. But these things really depend on how close to the IE games (particularly IWD and the BG's) you want the combat to feel like. It's more complicated combat and magic is less powerful (at least in the beta) so fun seems to be from the player's POV and expectations BTW playing through BG2, for even the second time, makes the game significantly easier. Also the reference to one situation or location isn't an argument for the class being effective without magic gear. Try fighting a Dragon or a summoned Balor or walking into Bodhi's Nest. These are all situational, as is your example, but taking the game as a whole, Fighters are pretty feeble without magic gear in BG2 With regards to your stealth post: If you would rather sneak by the pride of lions than fight them, that is pretty much on you. If you've set up your party to be stealth capable, and the system allows you to stealth past the lions, it seems to me that is exactly the point behind the XP reward strategy...reward the outcome of the quest regardless of methods used to solve it. I'm not really clear on what your frustration is in this regard

@ frapillo80 If you're referring to my post, I nowhere stated that 'combat was a mess because of poor gear'. I posited that people might find combat frustrating because, aside from buggines and balance issues, our lack of magical equipment leaves us relatively underpowered leaving less room for error. I made it from the beetles all the way through the Ogre Cave and Spider Queen on normal without resting...it requires a bit of patience and planning but its not nearly the nightmare I've read other people posting about on these forums. Also, A high level warrior without magic items in BG2 would have and AC of what, -1, -2? How long would the fighter last without rings, cloaks, majic armor, potions. etc. Those items are all gear...not just swords. Actually, in 2e, without gear, a stock fighter was pretty much useless at high levels without magic items in a high magic setting like the Forgotten realms.

^ TBH, I think most of the people who hate the combat (and are being very vocal about it) are the ones who played the IE games a bajillion times and were expecting to step right into the same type of combat, or have understood that this wasn't going to be a clone of the IE games and have been bitterly disappointed since before the beta was released and now have the right moment to air their complaints. Combat in this game is going to be tough and fairly tactical all the way through. There are a lot of options and a new stamina/health system, and both of those take some time to get through. I tend to be a very cautious player, and between that and knowing a good deal about the mechanics going into the beta, I haven't found any of the combats (that weren't bugged) to be overwhelmingly difficult. That said, some of the combat is a bit tedious because of poor balancing/ underpowered equipment, and the whole Damage Threshold mechanic needs a seroious overhaul/ revision. But the core mechanic are logical and allow for some potentially very interesting game play once the AI and polish has been taken up a few notches.