archangel979

wat Only plate armors, and both had meaninglessly low thresholds considering the type of characters that usually wore them. It's absurd to suggest that AD&D armor was more complex than PoE's system. Yes, start BGEE put heavy armor on one guy and no armor on another, they guy without armor will move a bit faster. Or maybe the bad pathfinding made me think so :D Maybe someone can confirm I wasn't daydreaming. As for Strenght... Viconia anyone? In my BG2 game I made a Cleric/Mage and didn't put enough Strength and cannot use better shields. In BG, BG2 and the EEs armor does not affect movement speed. Encumbrance does, so if that armor causes a character to become encumbered, than sure, their movement will slow down. Otherwise the armor system in BG really is nothing more than AC value, weight and class restrictions. I just tried it. Characters don't all move same speed in same conditions but it is not based on armor, probably some pathfinding thing that I mistook to be caused by armor.

Problems are: #1 Short adventuring days due to fast losing of Health #2 Lack of a physical strength attribute that is bothering lots of people. My suggested solutions are: #1 Remove Health bonus from Constitution and just give classes varying Health gain per level depending on their typical combat role #2 Remove loss of Health due to loss of Stamina. Health is lost only once Stamina goes down to 0. Characters don't drop down once their Stamina is at 0 but once their Health is at 0. #3 Instead of classes having different loss of Stamina/Health ratio give them more/less Health per level #4 Since Constitution now only gives more Stamina per level its other bonus will be connected with Physical Strength. It will determine Melee weapon Accuracy while Perception or Dexterity affects ranged weapon accuracy only. (Might stays unchanged, I would only rename it into something more fitting) Explanations: In real life the strongest men are more often than not big and burly (if we go by the strongest men competitions or Ultimate Fighting or Boxing) so it would be a fitting place to put some kind of physical strength together with constitution. Short adventuring day does not have a fix in current system. Whatever ratio is set, the day will be either too long or too short. Defensive tactics and tanking will always be a problem as one or two characters will always be receiving most damage and stamina replenish spells just cause these characters to receive more damage to Health and make their adventuring day short. When I read people talk how it is more economical to let the guy fall down when his Stamina goes instead of healing Stamina, the huge alarm turned on in my head. It is good that PoE is trying to limit resting but that should be based more on party being out of daily resources than having one of two party members out of the whole group having low Health. With my changes using good defensive tactics and healing Stamina has a real purpose while taking Health damage is still dangerous due to character not going down once his Stamina is gone (and not being targeted anymore as a result). Party will still need to rest to replenish lost Health but with good tactics they can control better when that will be. Additional thoughts Only problem with this change is Monk. Maybe have him be a class that has an ability where Constitution give a bonus to his Health and not his Stamina so during combat he will often lose his Stamina and then be able to power abilities due to losing Health as well. Also it could be done that once characters lose half Health they get penalties to combat stats while some special abilities (from Monk) or spells can only be used is such a situation. Yes, this is based on the Vitality/Health optional system from D&D rules but where in D&D is it bad due to extra math and bookeeping needed to play with it, for a cRPG it is perfect and still accomplishes what they wanted with current system (easy replenishing health pool and another pool you cannot heal that forces you to rest).

wat Only plate armors, and both had meaninglessly low thresholds considering the type of characters that usually wore them. It's absurd to suggest that AD&D armor was more complex than PoE's system. Yes, start BGEE put heavy armor on one guy and no armor on another, they guy without armor will move a bit faster. Or maybe the bad pathfinding made me think so :D Maybe someone can confirm I wasn't daydreaming. As for Strenght... Viconia anyone? In my BG2 game I made a Cleric/Mage and didn't put enough Strength and cannot use better shields.

They should add a 3rd thing that each attribute affects to make the this core system more interesting and give physical strength to Constitution. In real life the strongest men are more often than not big and burly (if we go by the strongest men competitions or Ultimate Fighting or Boxing) so it would be a fitting place to put it. Or leave things as they are, remove bonus Health from Constitution and base it on class only and give physical strength to Constitution instead

The problem with armor is that it is two dimensional. Actually that is the problem with most game systems in PoE and that is a shame. What do I mean? Armor gives one bonus and one penalty and has nothing else around it. Lets compare to IE games and AD&D (which was even worse than later editions): Armor in IE had armor class (which was different for each damage type), it effected move speed and it was limited by both Strength of character and his class. Than magical armor would not stack with magical rings. There was even this super rare occurrence of lightning during storm hitting metal armored characters. On rare occasions Encumbrance also created a problem with some heavier armors that didn't take that much Strength to use. You could not cast arcane spells in armor even if you had the right class to use it. That is many different factors connected with armor. Weapons were even more interesting. Then in PoE you have DT and speed penalty (and Sensuki claims different armors have hidden DT values vs other types of damage). Attributes affect 2 things and nothing else.

My guess people didn't really understand what they were voting for. Now they do.

You do understand that by putting people into ignore lists they can keep giving their input and suggestion to developers and you cannot see it to protest and say otherwise? You are essentially shooting yourself into your foot.

Absolutely. The criteria I picked were the most important ones. NWN2 is still one of my absolute favourites, and it was more or less a 3D action game. I played it like IE games and it was very far from action game.

Small chance they will. If it stays as it is, I hope they rename it to Power or something more fitting. Bigger problem is that it is useful for all classes unlike some other attributes or that it does not matter much how much point you put into it.

The bigger problem is people reporting doing 10 - 20 minute battles due to enemies with too high DT. Characters without armor can be fixed with robes like in IE games (after all, wizards, monk, sorcerers and some others also didn't wear armor). Also, since there are no weapon proficiencies, each armor must be weak to at least one type of weapon and players need to be able to change weapons mid combat to better combat that armor type. Penalty of changing weapons will be some recovery time while in IE you could not hit ****.

Ouch. Well at the time, it probably made sense. People though armors would work like in IE games, not this Leather armor = Plate armor crap. I'm not sure why you think it "=". Plate armor has higher DT than leather armor, but makes you slower. It's a fairly reasonable tradeoff even if you're a simulationist. (But generally speaking I'd recommend staying far away from this game if you can't deal with "gamism".) Did you read the Kotaku article? The design goal is to have Leather and Plate equally viable to every character with each of them giving different trade off. Which is bull. Plate is and was a superior armor for a reason. I don't have a problem in making Leather more useful than in IE games, newer versions of D&D also did it, but nobody ever made it their goal to make them equally viable because they are not and never will be and it breaks immersion amongst other things.

You mean percentages? That was something I mentioned earlier in the thread. Warcraft 3 used percentage based armor because of this issue I believe (but they used integer based damage). No, I mean fractions as in floating point numbers. DT 1.0, DT 1.5, DT 2.3, etc. There you go, smaller numbers for HP and damage and everything. They don't need this, just give armors DT value much lower for at least one type of common damage and communicate this to players.

Ouch. Well at the time, it probably made sense. People though armors would work like in IE games, not this Leather armor = Plate armor crap.

This is actually already a thing, the values are just not shown in the UI. Plate armor has -50% DT vs Shock damage for instance. Chain does basically nothing against Crush damage. However, the 2H weapons of these types - the Estoc and the Morningstar most notably, outshine any other weapons of their damage type due to the DT system at the moment. Maces and Stilettos are also very good because of their -DT property, which is hugely valuable. Better than any other special property any other weapon has. So what is the problem then? Can't they just tweak the numbers? Also, the reasoning about Leather armor needing to be as good as Plate armor is fail from the start. Plate armor was just better in real life. End of story. But there was a serious penalty. It cost more than a common person would earn his whole life. You also needed to upkeep it, carry it (have a squire and pay his wages) and so on. If you wore one but were not of right social status, you would be accused of stealing it and killed. These things can be simulated in cRPG easily. Armors can break and have durability. Repairing one costs a decent amount of money. A very small chance can break it immediately until repaired for lots of money again. Maybe even have a way to lose it permanently and needing to buy new one. Leather armor on the other hand costs little and less to repair or replace. Have money be an issue in the game so players need to choose in a realistic manner what to use. Then there is no need to make gamist and bad reasons to make leather armor as useful as plate.

I don't think so. I actually don't mind the higher amount of micromanagement, but some people - such as the majority of the RPGCodex think it's horrible and that the system would be way better if it was turn-based because it seems you pause very often. What I'm not enjoying is that there seems to be little flexibility in how combat plays out. There's one optimal way and the rest are not as good. The IE games wasn't really like that at all. You could cheese stuff, sure but if you played normally there were a variety of different playstyles you could use for party setups. And that is solved by giving armors different DT based on type of weapon used against it. Like IE game did it. Historically Plate armor was really good vs slashing weapons, less useful vs bludgeon and high penetration piercing weapons like arrows and bolts destroyed it. Chain was good vs slashing and somewhat vs bludgeon but was almost useless vs any kind of Piercing weapons. They just need to make armors less good vs different kind of weapons.

I would also like them to cut all numbers by half. There is no need to have MMO level numbers, I hate that ****.

You're substituting combat xp which people argue can be abused with other systems that can be abused? The Cyclopedia? Lure one beetle and kill it with a party of 6. Then lure another beetle and kill it. etc. The same with other enemies. Lure one enemy, kill it. Lure the same enemy on its own and kill it. That page is now complete and you're rewarded with xp by luring one enemy out at a time. And with awarding Crafting with xp, that can be abused as well. The way I see it, the more you go from the current system in PoE and introduce other suggestions like the Cyclopedia or crafting while ignoring the xp systems that were in the IE games like combat xp, the more players will find ways to abuse that system. And Obsidian probably knows this. I think designing systems so they cannot be exploited by a few but hurt the bigger groups of people as a result is same mistake that was done by massive DRM inclusion into everything before Steam became dominant. It resulted by pirated games working better with no DRM on same computer. That design only hurt regular customers. This design will only hurt average players. The game should not be designed for niche groups that like to exploit, but for the other 95% that play normal as they will experience all the same restriction that were put into the game for that 5%. When someone tries to overbalance or overthink things I always bring up Starcraft 1. That game has serious exploits and problems in code. And those ended up as best parts of the game that made it the esport legend it was. It was also designed that each side had crazy overpowered abilities that were not close to balanced but since all of them had some it was OK. Players were thrown into this world and left to their own devices to learn how to use them and counter what the other side had. That is best design and that is how IE games also had it.

See now this is an Idea. This thread was about ideas not yelling at each other. We can do that in all the other xp threads. How is that different or easier to implement than combat xp. I mean if you make it a marginal xp gain, might as well not have it, and if you make it substantial, then there might as wel be combat xp. At least that's how I understand it, but I'm half asleep so. edit: Might as well have rare or "elite" enemies give xp or something. But this is pointless, you either have combat xp or you don't, no point in half arsed solutions. It isn't. I didn't highlight it because of that. This thread was, assuming combat xp would never happen, to be about ideas that Obsidian might bend on and get in. So if we had any common ground between the Hard core Quest XP's and Combat XP's to meet in the middle with Objective xp ideas. I think there is some. This man understands my purpose

That sounds like lots of unfun work. Maybe people that want to do that to themselves in a single player game should be allowed to it?For the 99% of players that will not be doing this the change will improve the game. We will kite IE way by making the target just run around without ever attacking while the rest of party attacks the enemy chasing.

As I said before, it doesn't matter if they are technically right, it won't do them any good, they rode the "hype train", when/if it crashes they are going to go with it. They simply didn't do enough to clear the waters and that is squarely on them. Simple fact is they had a slam dunk on their hands, all they had to do was make a copy of the IE games with a new story/setting and improve some minor things that bugged people and maybe add some more features if they had the time. They instead chose to "fix" core systems of the IE game and remove some altogether. They took a gamble and if it doesn't pay off it's sadly all on them. 100% agree. I am currently very, very, VERY unhappy with the "fix core systems of IE game" approach so far. I have waited 15 years to play another IE game. Something wrong with Enhanced Editions? I have certainly had loads of fun playing those after not playing any IE games for 10 years.

Well poison in IE was also really tough. Yea it did 1 or 3 damage per round but it lasted a long time and everyone had less HP and that damage could also kill you. But in IE, they had to hit you and misses were more common, you had to fail a save then (which you have a decent chance of succeeding) and you could stop it by easily accessible Slow Poison or Health potions or Antidote Potions. Or you could endure it through regular healing or healing potions. And there was not stamina/health system to screw you when combined with poison.

You don't need a video capture card, just any program that records your desktop. There are 100 of them out there.

Yea, this is not needed. They just need to add Sensuki suggestions and little icons on portraits that show us what that character is doing currently just like IE games had.

You were in pause in that video more than I was in BG2EE with my 6 man lvl 11 party vs 6 higher level Thayans. I cannot say I liked it that much. The game might as well be turn based

Then go stream :D I streamed BG1 on 360p on half your upload a few years back.