Matt516

Since Time is not a limited resource in the game, I don´t see how is not optimal, you may be ¨wasting time¨ but wasting a not limited resource do not change the value of a move. Thus it doesn´t change if the move is optimal or not.If your utility function includes real world concerns (like not taking 5 hours to do one battle) then yes, avoiding uneccesary pauses is optimal. Granted, I'm not suggesting that you would actually spend 5 hours micromanaging one battle - but the viewpoint you are seeming to represent would suggest that you would. There's a point at which the tradeoffs between playing more optimally and having fun become very unbalanced - and it would seem that for you, the line is very far off from that of even a typical "optimal gameplay" advocate such as myself. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you should probably realize it before trying to generalize your preferences for the entire community, as they seem to be somewhat of an outlier.

I'm pretty sure that at least some combat abilities are instant or close to it. I could be wrong though.

Basically though, all attributes are useful for all characters, dump stats don't really exist anymore, and the boni from the different attributes are distinct, serve their own purposes, and are appropriate from a role-playing perspective as well. At least, that's what we're aiming for. ;D

Can you summarize your changes in broad terms? What is governed by which attribute, and how do you perceive the role of each attribute for the character? That's what interests me most - I believe balancing is possible for most systems (though finding the balance certainly is difficult), but not all systems feel "right" to me, so I'm curious what you changed generally. Sensuki is looking over the final edit and recording the video as we speak - all will be revealed in about 8ish hours.

Sensuki and I are putting out a fairly lengthy paper sometime in the next few days that offers another solution (though one that we anticipate might be more likely to be adapted since it doesn't change Might) with plots and balancing ideas to back it up.

I think Gromnir's point about renaming classes is right on, actually - though I'd say the worst offender at the moment is "Fighter". Let's be honest. That's a really, really dumb name for a class. All the classes fight! In addition, it carries with it an expectation of being able to do crazy damage like the ie fighters, simply because it bears the same name when it is not really the same class. I propose that "Fighters" are now termed "Defenders" or something like that. Then the issue people have with an ostensibly tank class having a name that suggests otherwise is solved. Of course, some people just would rather that we have a class that is like the ie fighter (since there isn't one at present). That's also a valid concern, though not one that a name change would fix. EDIT: If you want an alternate name for the Rogue, I'd put forth "Skirmisher" as an idea. Then with the Defender and the Skirmisher, we would have two non magical classes, both focused on helping the party, but one tanking focused and one dps focused. As they pretty much are right now - these would just be names that better describe the classes and don't confuse people by having the same names as what are basically different classes from the ie games.

I think we should wait and see for the most part with this change. Giving different classes different Stamina/Health ratios is actually a suggestion that had been brought up in one of the Health discussion threads. As was giving different classes different numbers of allowed "knockouts" before they die. This new system, while not quite the same as those two, is very close to it. It also aims to address the "I have to rest because my fighter is out of health" issue, which was a HUGE bugbear for these forums (though I haven't seen it mentioned as a positive of the new system in this thread yet). I guess what I'm saying is: I think this could end up being much better than what we had before. Still not perfect, sure - but this change is in direct response to our feedback about the adventuring day, etc. And while it does add to differences between the classes (not really a problem imo), it also had the potential to fix a lot of the issues we've been complaining about.

Reposting what I said earlier about this, which is basiaclly: you should be able to scale your AoE semicontinuously from min to max by using the mouse wheel when you target. Problem solved.

When I first heard about this, I was a little apprehensive. Now thinking about it a little more, the idea is growing on me. Still not quite sure - but I've an open mind and I'm looking forward to seeing if it works.

To be fair, Gromnir, there's nothing wrong with including a few intentionally weaker but funny/role play-ey talents in with the pool. Bloody Mess (I think it was called) in FO1 was purely for flavor - no problem with that.

Making them NOT cost money would give a bigger advantage to people who don't use the OEI-written companions, since you could make a six-character party in the first town. You could also freely use them as fodder with no consequence. The adventurers aren't going to be outrageously expensive to hire, but we do want there to be some cost to them.Ah, the fodder bit makes sense. Now imagining an alternate PoE where people get free companions and send them in like rookies in X-COM. Probably a good call to give them some cost. xD That said, I'm kind of tempted to hire cheap lvl 1 companions as fodder now... Maybe for an evil playthrough. ;P

I think thats refering to the Orlan being able of getting the same stats and class as the Aumaua and human but not the racial traits. Well, the language of the sentence makes me think they actually meant size - I think they were confusing the Godlike ability to be any class template as a universal thing. (Gaming)Journalism at it's finest. It's stuff like that that really makes me worry... I mean, if they got something that basic that spectacularly wrong, how much did they really play the game (or know what they were doing) anyway? Could just be a silly mistake though.

OE will likely increase the rate at which we get talents. I'd bet... oh... 100$ on it. Yea..but like Josh was saying this is supposed to be the IWD/BG type of game so it isn't and probably shouldn't be realistic to have a complete character fully fleshed out in this game. I feel if we get talents too often it will become bloated towards the end and inevitably the talents in PE2 will be less interesting/useful(or flat out over the top). 9 or 10 feats from levels 1-20 should work IMO and then whatever they decide to do above 20 if it goes beyond that. Yeah I'd expect they end up going with 1 or 2 talents at lvl 1, then 1 every 2 levels from there.

Currently, stealth applies to the whole party. Rogues would get a lot more interesting if stealth was individual and could be used during a fight for better tactical positioning. Seconded. Isn't stealth kind of broken though at the moment? With the sizes of the circles depending on not only your own stealth rating but the ratings of your other party members as well. Is this by design, Josh? If so, what's the reason for it? (no combative tone intended, just curious)

I think thats refering to the Orlan being able of getting the same stats and class as the Aumaua and human but not the racial traits. Well, the language of the sentence makes me think they actually meant size - I think they were confusing the Godlike ability to be any class template as a universal thing.

OE will likely increase the rate at which we get talents. I'd bet... oh... 100$ on it.

I'm inclined to agree with Tartantyco - fun and balance aren't directly connected (I. E. neither mutually exclusive nor linearly dependent). Both groups have good points though. My own personal preferences are for games that are as fun and as balanced as possible. I do certainly think there is something to be said for balancing away the fun, but I don't think that that necessarily has to happen when trying to build a balanced game. It is true that balance is only really critically important for multiplayer games, but it is my personal preference for my single player games to be balanced as well. An elegantly designed game is beautiful because it is elegantly designed, which adds to the enjoyment IMO. Granted, unbalanced tactics CAN be fun in single player games, but that's more the exception rather than the rule. I like a good challenge, so generally when I find an easily exploitable mechanic in a single player game it tends to suck the fun out of it for me because I then have the choice between deliberately not trying my best to overcome the challenges and winning without any sort of challenge at all.

Well, I'm up here in Canuckland, so we'll just have to all meet up in Oz and test out the local brew. I'm sure Sensuki has a couch available. Or a floor. Ah yes.. "Canada"... I have heard of this place. Haha that'd be cool though. Do they have good beer in Australia? I've only been to England and Germany (excellent brews), as well as Quebec (when I was in 4th grade - no drinking there).

Also this: "If you want an Orlan with the build of a towering Aumaua, or a human-sized dwarf, you can." ..... Wat.

Though I have no particular preference for TB or RTwP, one of the few non-negotiable things OE promised in the KS was that PE would be RTwP. So I don't see a shift happening, or much point in clamoring for it. IMO we should be focusing on how to make RTwP work as well as it can instead.

I appreciate the support but I think you may have misunderstood my intent - I'm NOT in support of a de facto turn-based system for PoE. xD

If you get this out on Friday, then I know what I'll be doing on the weekend. And if it's as good as I anticipate it will be, I may have to fly to Australia and buy you guys some drinks. Haha well we certainly hope it'll be that good. It's certainly long at the moment - just have to make sure we're hitting all the points we want to hit and not saying anything incorrect. Also, I live in Texas, if that makes the aforementioned drink-buying any easier.

Combat is basically a bunch of waves that are all out of phase, and that change wavelengths frequently. The exact reason I've avoided trying to quantify the influence of Interrupt on dps, because it's hard and I get enough hard math in school. EDIT: Not that I'd personally like to see this changed. A single, unified round for all combatants (which I don't think the IE games actually had - someone with more knowledge than I should clarify here) would look really weird, and wouldn't work with RTwP. It's kind of confusing, but that's ok. That's the sacrifice you make when you build a Real-Time game. Unified round for all and your game is literally Turn-Based, even if the turns happen automatically (i.e. illusion of Real-Time).

At the same time how you respond to "dump" stats is entirely up to you as well... No one forced Matt to go 18/18/18/3/3/3 he chose to....and in regards to people who like to "role play" I doubt those people would indeed go with any 3's as their stats regardless of if the game allowed you to or not. You are right, and in fact most of the time I don't do that (I'm talking about my metagamed-to-hell MP party here) for precisely those RP reasons you were talking about. My point is that the fact that there does exist a "best" statline for a fighter and that I have to force myself not to roll it due to RP concerns is, in and of itself, a failure in design. Fighters (in 2e) use those 3 stats and don't need the others. Mages need 18 INT and don't benefit from any CON beyond a certain number (12, I think?). My point is that the 2e ruleset (the ruleset of the IE games) has some serious design issues, and the attribute design is one of them. There is very little actual choice involved from a mechanical standpoint. It's just "bad", "better", "best" where statlines are concerned for the most part. Sure, this doesn't break the game - but the game would be better if there was choice beyond "do I want the best stats for my fighter or do I want to not have the best stats for my fighter because RP reasons?". PoE's stat system attempts to solve this, which I'm 100% on board with even if I think there are problems with the current implementation. The concept of an attribute system in which I can set my attributes (i.e. the type of character) independently of my class, and then that class plays differently, but not any less viably, is a fascinating concept, and one that I personally have never seen in any RPG.

Glad to hear Monks aren't horrendously UP like they were in the IE games. xD Since you've played rather a lot with your unarmed Monk, maybe you can answer a question I have - a few of the Monk's abilities refer to melee weapons in the description. Can these be used when unarmed? I made a Monk briefly, but was pretty disappointed to see that (as it seemed to me, maybe I was wrong) my Monk wouldn't be able to use many of his abilities while unarmed.