Gromnir

traditional is three wishes, yes? will keep brief. 1) convert to a turn-based and classless system... which is actual two wishes. guess we suck at this. 2) implement a universal health/fatigue mechanic. every combat action depletes fatigue, including spell casting. get hurt in combat also increases fatigue. no more dumping constitution as fatigue becomes important for every character. 3) have villain be variable. imagine if early game decisions and responses could result in one of three villains becoming the UBG (ultimate bad guy) for your game. with a necessarily vague protagonist, is the npc stories which inevitably drive the game, and the ubg is a significant npc. option 1) a watchmen villain, but better. ozymandias still wants to be the hero, and the imagined alien blob threat sucked. make a real but remote threat-- frequent mention in game, but only as an aside. villain is a prophet and one o' the few folks who foresee the real threat on the horizon, so he becomes a villain hoping to create a hero who can unify various factions/nations. 2) heroic villain genuine trying to fix an unfixable problem through increasing terrible means. 3) rope-a-dope villain-- spend most o' game chasing a moral ambiguous villain and dismantling her infrastructure only to find out you has been actual making the Big Reveal possible. or whatever. make each villain visual distinct with unique motivations. developers spend too much effort on necessarily limited choice and consequences. am not 'gainst choice and consequences, but in a story-driven game there is gonna be limits... unless such choices is made at very start or very end o' the game. developers frequent make use o' conclusion of game choices to provide multiple endings. is easy to offer multiple endings 'cause is end o' game and need not follow the individual bifurcations. converse, we suggest make a pivotal and profound trifurcation immediate at start o' game. end up with some serious replayability, eh? we could come up with dozens, but three (ok, four,) is good enough for impossible stuff only relevant to an imaginary future game. HA! Good Fun! ps and our turn-based mini-game for naval combats notion https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91244-about-sea-explorationnaval-combat/?p=1876410 also impossible

it will be interesting to see how trump spins this. am expecting a couple boardies to defend the list no matter how alternate fact based it may be. kinda cheating the thread as it is actual a full week o' tweets, but... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/what-trump-got-wrong-on-twitter-this-week-supernumber4/ar-AAmzHtq?ocid=spartanntp HA! Good Fun! https://twitter.com/Kevinliptakcnn/status/828770708524244993/photo/1 Someone's one something with some items on this list. Well at least they thought Charleston got enough coverage, or wasn't terrorism, heh. anybody wanna type "san bernardino december 2015" into a search engine? perhaps trump 'couldn't find it as he misspelled the city in question. help him out, eh? HA! Good Fun! ps keep in mind spicer offered alternate facts and referenced lack of "adequate coverage" when in fact, trump's actual comment regarding press coverage were as follows: “It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. In many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that.”

it will be interesting to see how trump spins this. am expecting a couple boardies to defend the list no matter how alternate fact based it may be. kinda cheating the thread as it is actual a full week o' tweets, but... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/what-trump-got-wrong-on-twitter-this-week-supernumber4/ar-AAmzHtq?ocid=spartanntp HA! Good Fun!

alternative facts. you are getting into the spirit o' the thread with gusto. HA! Good Fun!

yes http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-pence-voter-fraud-20170205-story.html "Despite no credible evidence that any massive voter fraud occurred, especially on the scale Trump suggested, during the 2016 presidential race, the president has continued to push the theory, much to the chagrin of some of his aides and many congressional leaders." still in the news. HA! Good Fun!

might as well keep a list so we can reflect as the thread grows to proportions dwarfing the leviathan. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/bowling-green-massacre-kellyanne-conway-cosmo-234687 starts at the top. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-claims-media-is-covering-up-terror-attacks-citing-no-evidence/ar-AAmG36U?ocid=spartanntp. 'course conway did admit she had misspoken 'bout the bowling green massacre, but she used a link to a news story to explain, which kinda undercuts her whole claim that the news didn't cover the event. and 'course obama never did impose a ban on refugees from iran following the massacre, so... alternative facts. where were you when the massacre occurred? we will always remember bowling green, 2011. peace. HA! Good Fun!

am a bit confused by the repeated announced stretch goal missteps. we had assumed the stretch goals were contemplated well in advance o' the campaign. are we so ahead or behind anticipated funding schedule that obsidian is winging these things? come up with a bunch o' stretch goals in advance, and depending 'pon attainment o' funding milestones reached by date X or Y, the order o' the release o' stretch goals changes. largely automatic. this problem shouldn't be. no biggie. am simple not understanding how this happens... multiple times. HA! Good Fun!

being serious might be pointless in this kinda thread, but we will endeavour to do so. yes, chasing after a god-animated statue in an attempt to save your soul, and possibly the world, does sound silly when all context is removed. however, am gonna dare folks to provide us with a popular fantasy novel plot which defies the capacity to ridicule. lotr is too easy to mock, but try and come up with a fantasy plot which, reduced, is ironclad and invulnerable to derision. the protagonist, chased by shadows, must hunt down his mortality which were ripped from him as a misguided act o' love by a powerful but mad hag who is current trapped in a s'posed inescapable and inaccessible prison-- a prison created by the most enigmatic being in the multiverse. oh, and your mortality has become self-aware and antagonistic 'cause, y'know, each man is always his own true enemy. fantasy is, by definition, implausible. is one reason why plot has become less o' the focus o' fantasy in the last +50 years. character development is where most fantasy stories live and breathe, succeed or fail. *shrug* a short rage-post directed at plot o' any crpg is possible. am simple not seeing the point o' such a post. HA! Good Fun!

Your negative. Someone else's boon. That's how it works with opinions, doesn't it? Fallout already has resource management in the form of ammunition, radiation management, permanent injuries, that kind of stuff - with more recent ones even adding food and water (well water was technically a thing in F1 too, but it didn't work much and I think it got patched out). As for why I, personally, would not like to see similar mechanics in all other games - well, that would be kind of boring, won't it? To push my favorite mechanic into all games ever? So that I can play the same game over and over? Personally, I just want PoE II to work with some form of resource management again as that's what I enjoyed about vancian casting in the original - and it seems it will. So... All is good. Hopefully. poe had per encounter resource management, and a number o' other options limited to a specific class (cipher, monks, etc.) the presence o' multiple kinds o' resource management does not deter folks here from demanding vancian as well. and why should vancian be verboten simple 'cause already existing resource management? has been literal hundreds o' fantasy games which had ammo and food as well as spells. fantasy games have had ammo and food and spells with either vancian or per-encounter, so why deprive fallout or similar games o' something which people here clear see as a feature which adds so much tactical/strategic challenge? again, if vancian is so nifty, then why ain't it nifty elsewhere? why is only in these games we see this debate? is not ammo or food, so what is the reason? o' and the boon v. negative is what is particular perplexing. review the aluminumtrioxid posts that a few folks liked immediate. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91392-the-loss-of-vancian-casting/?p=1880775 what were complained 'bout as a potential evil in poe2 based 'pon assumed application o' per encounter for wizards and priests and druids, were an actual current problem in poe 1 precisely 'cause o' the current vancing casting model. is not subjective. is fact we current have high level casters able to unload the kinda bloated spell repertoire aluminum were concerned 'bout if per-encounter is implemented in poe2, and others agreed with the perceived problem. the vancian folks either don't see or can't see how the problem they see is inverted. is anything other than axiomatic that a party with vancian casters is a more difficult challenge for developers to create challenging encounters? the power gulf 'tween depleted and rested vancian casters is not in question. if such nonsense is a good thing, then make all vancian casters in the game subject to same variation. instead o' full powered opponent casters (who actual have unlimited spells in our experience) create encounters where rng determines if the opponent is powered-up or not, and to what degree. 01 p00p. guess that means you caught thaos before he had a chance to rest. all he has is 2 first level priest spells when you fight him in the final battle o' the game. but hey, that is what makes it teh rehl, no? no. is bad for npc, but good for player? regardless o' whether you favor vancian or per-encounter, am thinking we will find few opponents o' better encounter design for poe2. the presence o' vancian casters in the player's party makes it more difficult to design challenging encounters as the power o' a vancian caster is in large part dependent on the temporal proximity o' the caster to a most recent rest. is an unknown for the developers. such unknowns make developer job easier or more difficult? not subjective. and the attempt to fix vancian casters (twice by the way) with different alternatives o' per rest abilities to vancian casters is somehow viewed as a flaw o' per encounter? how does that make any sense whatsoever? this kinda stuff ain't subjective, and yet somehow it is. etc. nevertheless, we will admit that as insane as it sounds, it is possible folks does simple prefer the curious power curve o' vancian casters as they has suffered in every crpg to include 'em. perhaps folks does like being relative weak at low levels only to become op at upper levels. strikes us as a rather silly notion, but yeah, that one is pure subjective. you win? HA! Good Fun!

most o' the super bowl ads sucked this year, but gotta love s'more nina simone. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking any concerns 'bout sub-class is premature. am knowing we mentioned this already, but josh described sub-classes using "kit" language. unfortunate, and perfect reasonable, people thought o' bg2 kits. the thing is, am suspecting josh were thinking o' ad&d kits. difference? bg2 kits were largely munchkin bait-- foolish not to take a kit. kits from bg2, for the most part, were overpowered when compared to the base classes. many ad&d kits were as broken as bg2 kits, but such were hardly true in all or even most cases. most ad&d kits were offering some minor flavor change to a base class. black isle had an opportunity to add kits to an ie game: iwd2. initially iwd2 were gonna be ad&d 2e. the developers posted their kit suggestions on the old black isle/interplay boards. the black isle developer iwd2 kits were not like bg2 kits. iwd2 kits offered minor benefits and disadvantages. minor. one poe sub-class already described were a monk, yes? higher wound threshold disadvantage balanced by longer last drug consumables. the more realistic danger we foresee regarding subclasses is opposite o' what am observing in this thread and elsewhere. real danger is once folks see poe sub-classes, they is gonna be underwhelmed and angry. HA! Good Fun!

/me raises hand same. used malison quite frequent, though we actual rare used priestly doom. the thing is, am thinking this is a vocabulary issue more than anything. ad&d thac0 and saving throws and so many other d&d mechanics were extreme obtuse and unintuitive. however, it were, ultimately, transparent. in ad&d and the ie games, it were not hard to tell which weapon did most damage for your paladin with proficiencies in two-handed swords. get an opportunity to add 1 point o' strength or 1 point o' wisdom were not a difficult choice for your druid. as obtuse as were ad&d, it we transparent. once a person understood the bass ackwards rules, it were easy to predict outcomes. poe is obscure rather than obtuse. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/90670-3045-please-please-fix-traps-have-been-getting-2x-their-penalties-for-god-knows-how-long/?p=1867622 for a long time we knew something were wrong with traps, but we couldn't figure out the exact problem. needed somebody to do spreadsheet comparisons to figure out a problem which has been 'round since the initial trap nerf soon after release. have your poe barbarian need decide if an additional point o' might or intelligence would be better. is not easy. which is gonna result in more dps. is other benefits? perhaps speed is more important? how much difference does speed make, and how much speed is needed to make the difference worthwhile and how much dexterity does it take to noticeable impact speed? but heck, combat animations speed may actual screw up whatever analysis you used to calculate speed. dunno. not without some serious digging and analysis can you decide where best to spend 1 point o' anything, and you might still be wrong. etc. ad&d rules were nonsensical, unintuitive and obtuse. poe is far more rational and internal coherent than were ad&d or even 3e-5e d&d. however, poe is frequent obscure. is obscure to point where we get a trap problem go undiagnosed for years. am not wanting poe to be more simple as we like the complexity. even so, we would happily lose a measure o' poe obscurity. HA! Good Fun! ps ad&d had transparency issues as well. perhaps we understate. apologies.

has been suggested... frequent. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66382-your-poe-pros-and-cons-5-and-5/?p=1461922 have all character actions deplete fatigue and have fatigue at least partial linked to constitution. never seems to get much traction. HA! Good Fun! ps the vancian arguments is still all topsy-turvy. is so difficult to get anywhere when every negative is reimagined, inexplicable, as a boon. high-level bloat is a positive. huge difference 'tween relative combat effectiveness o' a spell depleted wizard v. one who has recent rested is just a kewl tactical/strategic (you folks ever come to a conclusion?) concern. obsidian tried to add per-encounter to fix vancian and somehow such is evidence o' why vancian is bestest. weak low-level v. op high level is sucky, but somehow good. dunno. regardless, is extreme difficult to get far with this debate as everything is all inverted and upside down from some folks. but again, we only see this debate with poe and a small handful o' fantasy crpgs with familiar wizards and priests. even the folks most dogged arguing for vancian don't suggest adding more vancian to mass effect or fallout or even recent fantasy crpgs. why not? btw, this kinda wacky debate is familiar. thac0. unbalanced level progression for classes. non-linear attribute score bonuses/penalties. etc.

part o' the problem we current have is the momentum we original had died when we got answers from obsidian. unlike the order naming, which went relative smooth, we can't simple argue 'mongst ourselves, come up with a dozen or so options, and then vote. needed ask questions. when considering purchasing the pirate crew option as a group, we had questions for obsidian. aarik presented our questions to the developers, and with surprising speed, we got answers. [aside: thanks again to obsidian for quick response.] unfortunate, the answers we got were not exact what folks hoped or expected-- back to square one? so, pirate crew, the original notion having considerable support, were dashed 'pon the rocks like a small dingy in a hurricane. what then? some folks wanted an island? well, no islands remain, but we got threads for such. tavern? those are gone too. there hasn't been a single concept the community has spontaneous rallied behind as happened with the pirate crew. left floundering a bit. need find some way to resurrect the pirate crew, or if this is gonna be a community thing, one needs find a way to rally folks behind a single viable option. when the pirate crew option were sunk it kinda took the wind out o' our sails, no. HA! Good Fun! ps some small apology for all the terrible puns.

it sounded as if input for the pirate ship & crew were a bit limited. something more involved, such as the possibility o' designing a multi-event adversary woulda' been nifty, but such a thing were increasing dubious. honest, design something like the giantslayer's from admeth's den would be kinda fun, but would needs be more than a one-off to be worth the investment... 'least from our pov. first have an initial encounter early in the game to establish raison d'être and personalities. midway we get a battle, possible broken up by a storm preventing a final resolution. add a final confrontation with multiple possible resolutions (but likely ending in battle) near late portion o' game. such a multi-event encounter with a serious tough and unique adventuring group/pirate crew would be unique and memorable. didn't sound likely. HA! Good Fun!

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91244-about-sea-explorationnaval-combat/?p=1876380 gonna be some redundancy. am still favoring the impossible turn-based maritime combat mini game idea. HA! Good Fun!

our board personality makes us less than ideal for team and/or consensus building efforts. am trying not to interfere too much. will help if needed or asked. HA! Good Fun!

april 22, 2017 am not a dyed-in-wool evironmentalist, but with the proposed march on washington o' american scientists objecting to trump's alternative facts, policies (stalinist policies?) regarding the release o' scientific findings, and his often comical (but potential dangerous) beliefs regarding a wide range o' issues such as climate change and vaccinations, am expecting this will be the first earth day we look forward to. previous earth days has been met with Gromnir indifference or perhaps a fleeting desire to punch a hippie in the face. HA! Good Fun!

fighter/barbarian = brute barbarian/monk = brawler from a josh post at sa. HA! Good Fun!

once again, am gonna request o' the moderators a single thread for all o' these wishlists. is already a half dozen, and they is becoming a bit repetitive. HA! Good Fun!

No a paladin is not a fight/priest in this POE Ye conceptually it doesn't seem like these types are different but in POE1 these classes were vastly different with different abilities and different strengths so ye there is a point to all these multiclasses because they all bring different things to the tables. This isnt d&d where paladin has access to priest spells. paladins are not priest in this game at all. They are not based on gods they dont have any spells or ability overlap. Even the heal the paladin gets is different than priest heals. Paladin is fighter with healing powers. perhaps a side issue, but the above is/were untrue. the paladin in poe were designed to be a low-maintenance and resilient support class. weren't actual meant to be equivalent o' a fighter with healing powers. flames of devotion were a late addition to the game and it were resulting in any number o' curious balance issues for the class. nevertheless, just 'cause the paladin o' poe shared a name with a class available in other games, the name were not indicative o' its intended role in poe. similar, a fighter weren't 'posed to be akin to fighters from dozen o' other crpgs. the poe fighter were 'posed to be a reliable damage dealing class, but were never envisioned to a particular noteworthy dps class. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66380-update-81-the-front-line-fighters-and-barbarians/?p=1460938 by the time poe had become 3.0, the fighter were far more similar to 2e d&d game incarnations than were the class at the start o' beta. the 3.0 fighter could laugh off trebuchet strikes and were also an impressive dps machine with a considerable number o' per-encounter combat abilities. the names o' poe classes were a mistake. familiar names resulted in expectations. to match player expectations, the classes were often altered in ways which did not necessarily improve the game. am gonna be curious to see what changes is made to the poe2 classes, 'cause, for example, the paladin were never intended to be a fighter who could heal. will obsidian attempt to turn back the clock to pre-beta poe roles and goals for classes? doing so would likely result in classes much easier to balance, but am doubtful the obsidians wanna once again try and battle the expectations o' the fanbase. HA! Good Fun!

were a mention o' a monk who benefits from consumables, yes? HA! Good Fun!

possibly, but at the very least you gotta recognize that the problem you identified for high-level gameplay is actual already an issue precise 'cause of vancian casting. yeah, we suspect there is gonna be all kinda problems with poe2 being balanced, but your immediate concern o' +30 spells being available to a high-level caster and robbing tactical consideration 'cause o' the bloat is actual more acute and real 'cause of vancian. the arguments 'gainst per-encounter keep coming at us all inverted and backwards. but yeah. there will be problems. am less concerned with per-encounter, but multi-class will clear be an issue, and there will be dozens o' other problems. no cure-all neither. regardless... *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

is a pretty big "if," no? and ciphers are current only bounded by their focus generation. a current poe cipher can cast infinite spells if the encounter lasts long enough. also, keep in mind you aren't actual using an actual encounter as an example. can you think o' any battle where you had the opportunity to cast spells 36 times? Well yeah, that is pretty much what I meant by "can't use most of my abilities to their full extent". Even 9 is way too many, in fact. I'm not against the new system, but to me, it feels like the current design is not particularly concerned about problems that will emerge in high-level gameplay. am not actual seeing the problem as you do. but am also not starting with the assumption we will see the same kinda spell advancement as poe 1. for all we know, you might have a total pool of 8 or 9 spells you might cast per encounter, regardless o' level. but am thinking you have backwards. the thing is, currently, following a rest, your wizard, priest and druid have their full range o' spells available to them. so in poe 1 is where we is certain a wizard can cast literal dozens of spells during a single high-level battle. the current mechanic is the one which is busted for high-level gameplay. a wizard, immediate following rest is a whole different order o' magnitude o' power than one following a couple encounters. you gotta see how that reality makes encounter design and challenge more difficult, yes? HA! Good Fun!

am not seeing an issue. obviously the rogue's total first level abilities and talents will need be balanced 'gainst other classes and with encounter difficulty in mind. is not gonna be much more difficult with scale than w/o. in fact, will be easier at low-levels than at higher levels precisely 'cause there will be fewer total available options which will need be balanced. HA! Good Fun!