Matt516

Missing the point. To some people, unlimited resting and per day abilities could be really important. What I'm trying to get across is that you're not the arbiter of what is or isn't "essential" to the IE game experience. I'm not saying you can't believe that the game shouldn't have grazes - just that attacking people who like that system as "not real fans" is ludicrous.

Again, assuming you mean Deflection?

Yup, there needs to be a tag for combat or for abilities.

Except that it's terrible for Barbarians, Fighters and Monks. Which is failing the stated design goals. It doesn't though, because the stated design goals we're about attributes, not components of attributes. Perception is still useful to those classes, so it's fine. Besides, Range really isn't useful for the classes that can use it anyway.

So your specific vision of what makes a worthy IE game successor is what defines "real" fandom? I'm just trying to clarify if that's actually what you're saying, because that's what it sounds like. What if I say you're not a real fan for being ok with limited resting and per encounter abilities? Would that mean neither of us is a real fan? Or would it mean that accusing people of not being "real fans" of the IE games because they disagree with you is just a stupid thing to do?

Don't personally think bonus vs crits would work in this system - a +5 Deflection would do about the same thing though. Either way, unenchanted helmets shouldn't be worthless. That's just silly.

It's really very simple. I made a high Might / Con two-handed paladin and barbarian. Both were crap in combat. I made a high dex fighter with crap strength who was great in combat. The stat value imbalance seems out of kilter. That's a completely subjective experience though. For all anyone on this forum knows, you could just not know how to play a high Might/Con character in this game. I'm not saying that's what's going on, just that highly nonspecific anecdotal evidence doesn't serve as a compelling argument for stats being out of balance.

I'm sorry, but no. NO. Just because someone doesn't like the exact same things about the IE games as you do or is interested in seeing a few new things tried does not make them not a "real fan" of the IE games. There are people in the world who love those games in a slightly different (or even *gasp* very different!) way than you do. Recognize that.

With the setup you described (same class, same weapon, same attributes(ish) except more Might for your PC), BB Rogue should do less damage. The problem is, testing a few times against Medreth isn't a good way of determining, simply because of the random variance in damage rolls. Did you by chance look at the rolls and see what each character rolled? My hunch is that BB Rogue just got more lucky crits. Either that or she's bugged. But the numbers don't lie.

Might doesn't make you more survivable!! STR didn't make you more survivable in IE games either! Better thac0 let you do more damage, not survive longer. I'm completely at a loss as to what your complaint is here...

Make a Fighter with high CON / INT / and maybe Resolve (optional) ....and that's what pisses me off. It's horsesh*t that a high intelligence fighter is a better tank that a high might one. It's just perverse for the sake of it. http://imgur.com/m5T4JYK

Potato potato.

Using MMO as a pejorative isn't really useful. Some features of MMOs are good and some are bad. If you don't like the more normalized damage, criticize it on those terms, not by calling it "MMOish" and expecting that to settle the argument. Also realize that it really is a matter of personal preference. Some people prefer more random combat, some people prefer less. Myself personally, I like a balance. I found the BG combat system far too RNG for my liking. Any system in which a battle can have an entirely different outcome purely based on RNG is flawed IMO. I shouldn't be playing my fights by reloading until the dice roll in my favor (which is what BG demanded in many cases). That said, I do like a bit of RNG and lucky crits are fun. Hence why I like the current system. But this is all personal preference - as is yours. We can talk all day about why we have our preferences, but it's important to recognize that there's not necessarily a "best" way to do it.

It's a good feature, but I've heard it said that the game should be balanced for normal speed, with slow and fast speeds not at all necessary to see what's going on. And I agree.

Agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the example.. EVERYTHING kills you in XCOM.

Yup, it's Hormalakh's - I was just bumping him for visibility.

Also, just wanted to bump this. OE designers, PLEASE look at this. This is the kind of transparency and sleekness your inventory screen needs.

Simple, put class after attributes. If preserving the symmetry is that important. Culture affects starting gear as well, but that's really not all that important and I'd personally be fine with selecting culture before class and taking starting gear I don't want (since I'll be changing it out ASAP anyway). Makes more thematic sense as well IMO. Figure out where you come from before you figure out what you do. Of course, most of this is subjective so don't take me to be saying my opinions on this are the only ones. I do think it's pretty well agreed on that one way or the other, culture needs to be before attributes somehow.

That's entirely YMMV though. I don't find it superfluous or redundant, I personally like that there's a middle ground between hitting and missing. Like I said, maybe they'll want to make grazes less prevalent, but I like them in principle.

(pretend I quoted Karkarov) Perception isn't overpowered because Range boni are pretty much worthless. Resolve is a stat for anyone who wants their abilities to last longer, not just casters. Interrupt hasn't been removed, it just isn't affected by attributes anymore (though concentration still is). Dexterity isn't better at any one thing (doing damage, improving spells, etc) than any of the other attributes, but it helps you do EVERYTHING faster. Don't underestimate that. It also gives the exact same effective damage boost as Might does to auto attacks against an unarmored character, so there's that. Intelligence is a must-have for tanks. OK, got no problem with that personally but YMMV.

People need to stop comparing the damage of BB Rogue and BB Fighter and concluding that one factor (class, attributes, etc) is causing the damage to be different. Look at the abilities and look at the math. All other things equal, Rogues ARE better at dealing damage than Fighters. But all other things are not equal with BB Rogue and BB Fighter. Drawing grand conclusions about the classes from the performance of the BB characters is silly. Just look at the numbers.

I like graze. The people who hate it hate it for contradictory reasons - half of them think it makes health go down too fast and the other half thinks it turns things into a slow slow battle of attrition. So replacing grazes with hits will make the first half mad and replacing them with misses will make the second half mad. There's also this bizarre complaint that they're cluttering up the combat log. There's nothing about the graze system that contributes to that. An entry is made every time an attack happens - grazes have nothing to do with it. All in all, I don't see the case for changing it. It's a cool system that tries to bring some level of vermisulitude (sp?) to the combat. It also makes combat a bit more predictable than the "miss miss miss HIT miss miss" of the IE games, while still keeping the excitement of critting (I dare you not to be excited when you crit for 30 after grazing and hitting for 0.6 and 10). Sure, the combat feedback needs to be improved a bit, with crits having a more exciting animation and maybe grazes having a less exciting one. I can also see the case for tweaking the base percentages to allow for less grazes by default - though they'd have to be careful in how they do it if they want to please both the "grazes make combat take too long" AND the "grazes make health go down too fast" crowds. I've rambled on long enough, but I hope I've made at least a few coherent points as to why removing graze wouldn't be a good idea.

Don't think adjustable model size is really a priority - the dwarven heads are too big though, I agree.

The idea of attributes that do not change is a very very IE game (and Fallout) thing. That's why a lot of people prefer it. It's a mindset, carried over from that ruleset, that attributes represent inherent characteristics of a being and therefore do not change significantly. Hence why there is an "average" value for attributes in the game world. Most newer RPGs, on the other hand, tend to view attributes as more of a general level of a character's learned or practiced ability. Hence why they tend to increase by ~5 pts with every level. Neither system is inherently better, though (in my opinion) the first one is much more suited for a game like PoE. A hybrid system could certainly work as well (like something akin to 3e D&D as implemented in NWN), but if they're going for the "infinity engine" feel the first system is certainly the way to go.

Agreed. Mouseover on any of those values should show how the values are calculated.