archangel979

The point is not to make unbalanced games, but to put fun in front of balance. And if time comes where you cannot cannot fit both, balance is what needs to suffer. The article writer says that in his experience many people put balance as ultimate goal and lose godly amount of time on that while that should not be the main focus.

It would be more diverse if spells had different cast times and if weapon speed was not purely the result of weapon category (fast, one handed, two handed).

Bump for people from USA.

I always turn off AI in IE games and micromanage everything. No script is going to be good enough. I am also for turn based combat but it is too late now.

It is much bigger in BG2.

I am not sure how this relates to what I said, but I agree with you about slow leveling. I was told fast leveling from beta will not be in full game so I am not worried about this. As for individual awards, although some people find it fun I am not sure it is a good idea. Although that does not mean I don't want back xp rewards for rogue stuff that only rogue can do. I liked how in IE games wizard could knock locked stuff open, fighters could break, and clerics could find traps but only rogue would get XP for it.

My opinion is still same one I put in my topic: Kill XP gives immediate reward for fighting. Replace that with something else beside loot (which is assumed) and kill Xp will not be needed.

As far as I know, most people read the description on the side before deciding what to pick or put points into. So I personally expect the majority to have no issues at all with Might current existence going by its description. In fact, the only people I see complaining about Might are people who can't get over the fact that it's not just an clone of the D&D strength stat. It is an accepted fact in development industry that of the people who buy a game 1 in 10 ever visit the game's forum in their lifetime. Out of those 1 in 10 ever writes something on it. So, as you can see all of us represent 1% of player base (actually much less since the game is not released yet). So saying things like only the ones complaining about Might are complaining about Might is pure bull****. I am talking about the 99% of the average gamers that are going to buy the game with no previous knowledge of its mechanics, start it up and make their character by assuming the games keeps to industry standards. Because humans are creatures of habit and use previous experience foremost. You are going to see a lot of high Might Fighters and low Might Wizards in Week 1 and then people complaining on the forums about it.

Report that as a bug. OE is not getting proper feedback on the game if the setup is wrong.

We can go in circles like this. You didn't tear it down either. My comes from common sense, you come from fanboy blindness. The time I been here, you are just an opposite of Helm.

And proves that even game journalists don't understand new Might.

Considering people complained wizards do weak damage even with high Might, they probably do really weak damage in low might :D Anyways, my point still stands. Might is going to confuse most players.

I am not talking about me. I am talking about people who don't know the mechanics, who have not followed the design and who will start the game for first time, you know, the 99% of players. You, me and everyone on these forums are like 1% of playerbase once this game is released. These people will go to make a character, see might and ignore it with non fighters. Even if they read the effect they are not going to immediately figure out it gives bonus damage to everything. Later yes, but not immediately. Than they are going to find their spells do weak damage and call the game bad.

Yes it is. It gives you damage and healing - pretty intuitive if you ask me. Now you know you do more damage and your character heals better. The only thing unintuitive about it is that the bonus is percentile, so how much you get really determines on what you're using to deal damage and what heals you. No it is not. Check out the PCgamer article. He made a high might character thinking this makes a powerful fighter. And it does, but not for the reason fighters are powerful in 99% of other games with attributes. Obsidian went against the current on this one and it is going to confuse a whole lot of people. They might learn to live with it, but it is not a intuitive design.

Yes, but that is your opinion based on how much experience in RPG game design? And that is OK for that topic. This topic is based on a opinion of a guy that has more experience that 99% of people and more than Obsidian devs. They could learn something from this guy.

It does not matter how you rationalize it to yourselves. Just like Health/Stamina system, Might is not intuitive to new players. Nobody coming into this game is going to figure this out. People are going to making high Might fighters and low Might wizards 95% of the time.

Than Flawed design topic is also not for this subforum.

Are they? This quote: tells us they are as confused about PoE reinventing the wheel as the rest of us. Imagine when he find out Might means **** about being a powerful fighter but a powerful "soul".

You use keys to scroll the map? One hand playing FTW, this is a PC game :D

This topic is based on this article by this man. I recommend you check out both links before thinking to comment on content. Quotes below are just so you know what is the general topic. More specifically this: and this: Note: link in quote does not work on the site, but I put a correct link into this quote. Now, I must say I agree with this guy and all the great games I played were not balanced. As he says, balance is OK but at what point do you lose FUN over trying to BALANCE the game? At what point does time spent balancing the game is worth more over making it fun first? I am afraid PoE is going through this Balance>Fun design and will not achieve greatness as a result. Especially for a single player game even with no cooperative MP. When I do second (or third or whatever) playthrough I want to have a different experience, and that is mostly achieved by imbalance, not balance. If my Wizard/Sorcerer was of same power as my barbarian in BG2 I would have same experience not different. If my Rogue could fight in melee as well as my Fighter I would have same experience and not trying to find alternative solutions to problems which in turn give me a different play experience. Discuss. P.S. I want to thank RPGwatch for helping me run into this article.

When every battle is hard and special, nothing is special. BG1 was 90% fighting easy trash mob enemies and that running into specially placed encounters that were hard and special. It made those encounters memorable.

Ok tnx. That puts one of my fears to rest :D but that means BB content will be harder in full version due to lower level.

That's because it's pretty obviously intentional. They want you test all those levels. is it? Do you have a quote?

I have not seen anyone comment if they find leveling in beta too fast? In IE games at levels 5 and above with full party leveling slowed down noticeably. If we get from 5 to 8 in few hours the full game is going to be kind of short. If someone with access to beta agrees with this can you start a new thread about it? (I would if I had access to beta)

I been meaning to say this and this topic is perfect. Don't forget Obsidian said main quest combat will be easier than side quests. So if you force this side quest combat to be easier, main quest is going to be playable with one hand.