Gromnir

you may change your tune when you find out that they did indeed listen, but is still rejecting combat/kill xp. HA! Good Fun!

Quest are the objectives, everything that needs to be done to fullfill quest is a stepping stone to solve the objective. You can define it in any way you want. it actually doesn't matter for the present poll, 'cause whether you use quest or the "objective" as described in the previous poll, it precludes combat/kill xp... which is what this poll is demanding. am glad we could clear that up, 'cause some folks get confused by insignificant nomenclature and semantic distinctions. HA! Good Fun!

others may disagree, but we feel that wasteland 2 has benefited a great deal from beta feedback. the original wasteland 2 discouraged us from purchasing. recent wasteland 2 has convinced Gromnir to purchase wasteland 2. inexile not only made money from the beta funds they generated (perhaps that is a bad thing) but they did improve the game, and much o' the improvement were due to player feedback. PoE beta does not strike us as a beta such as inexile's wasteland 2 beta. the PoE beta may be helpful for hunting bugs, but obsdian is seeming very committed to a 2014 release. our beta input, we suspect, is extreme limited. yeah, we will help iron out hardware configuration bugs. we will also be able to give feedback on strictly numerical boosting talents, but clearly this ain't a beta such as wasteland 2 had. with time remaining to bughunt and add talents and actual finish the game, we suspect that beta feedback is o' limited and focused interest to the developers. is not necessarily a bad thing to ignore community late in development and simple make best game possible-- try and please the community, which never agrees on anything anyway (only slight hyperbole) is a sisyphean endeavor and a waste o' remaining time. nevertheless, the PoE beta is, while not exactly fraudulent, is perhaps a bit misleading. am not believeing that the developers is all that concerned with most board feedback o' the beta. HA! Good Fun!

apostrophes in a name make it exotic? *shrug* at the same time, it were a bit o' a fad a few years ago to hire grad student or "expert" linguists to create Genuine game languages. bioware did such a couple times, no? genuine new languages has, for the most part, left Gromnir unimpressed. am recalling that frank herbert only ever used five words o' fictional fremen in his books. am knowing Tolkien fascination is kinda a nerd prerequisite, but the fact that he created complete original languages never impressed Gromnir all that much. yeah, Tolkien were attempting to create a whole English Mythology, so perhaps he thought a core language were necessary foundation, but frankly (no pun) we prefer Dune to Fellowship of the Ring... and we expect that if we is ever murdered, our killer will beat us to death with The Silmarillion as kinda a final cruel joke. ... where were we? oh, yeah, apostrophes makes names more exotic... everybody knows that elf or grilvac names need inexplicable apostrophes. HA! Good Fun! ps we made up "grilvac"... shoulda' made it gr'lvac?

It isn't like this thread is even indicative of any significant portion of backers or that it's responses mean anything. This is a shades of grey issue but the poll only allows for black and white. Even then it isn't like "combat XP" is even pulling a convincing win. Out of 320 votes at the time of this posting combat xp is only winning by 20 votes. That's a huge 3 whole percent, what a massive margin. and don't forget the previous poll with more respondents. we have seen some crazy-arsed attempts at distinguishing nomenclature, but previous poll, regardless o' wording, specifically rejected combat/kill xp as part o' "completion of objectives." more than 70% either were in favor o' objective or didn't care. less than 30% wanted a mechanic that woulda' envisioned kill/combat xp as described in this poll. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61543-are-you-for-or-against-gaining-experience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/ HA! Good Fun!

"Objective XP and Quest XP are two different terms" that have been used interchangeably by many, frequent and often, and is not gonna satisfy the current folks arguing against quest xp regardless. *groan* you are suggesting a fine, and in your words "subtle" distinction 'tween objective and quest xp. this is a semantics argument. you claim that the nomenclature difference from the previous poll, makes it different than the issue specifically being debated and polled. play innocent or ignorant if you wish 'bout the implication is that past poll and current is not analogous, but the OP poster from previous poll made clear via following quotes: "Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal." "Gameplay degeneration occurs when a player engages in gameplay not because they enjoy that gameplay but because the game's mechanics put the player at a disadvantage for not taking advantage of it. Rest spamming is one example. Wholesale slaughter/genocide is another. Quests that involve a peaceful option to resolve that get turned around after completion when the player murders the saved parties is a familiar expression of this sort of degeneration. If XP is linked to quests and objectives within quests, the player has much more freedom to resolve those quests in whatever way he or she wants, whether that means talking through it, fighting, sneaking around, or using some mixture of skills/scripted environment objects to reach the goal." however, if, in spite o' the above quotes you are still attempting to argue that polls is not truly analogous, then Gromnir makes obvious slippery slope argument when playing the semantics game. combat xp IS potential part o' quest and/or task or objective xp mechanics. however, combat xp and conversational xp is not subject o' specific discrimination in quest xp mechanics. if you really wanna go down path o' finding subtle differences where they does not actual exist, you is in for a serious slippery slope problem. the subtle difference you suggest is not so subtle. most folks in the current polls has been cautious to describe the alternative to combat xp as quest or quest/task xp, but even if they have not, is a distinction o' semantics only. "Don't we already have a thread or two dedicated to arguing XP?" seen after we posted... but we agree. am actual believing we have four or more such threads, which seems silly to us. HA! Good Fun!

Correction, that poll if for Objective XP, not Quest XP. Subtle but important difference. is not a meaningful difference. the current system is, for all intents and purposes, an objective xp mechanic. quibbles over nomenclature is silly, particularly when developers specific said that there would be no particular xp for "body count." in current build, folks got xp for simply entering the ogre cave. therefore, as can be seen, xp is not simple awarded for completion o' quest in even the current PoE builds. nevertheless, quibble over nomenclature is creating an issue that did not exist when the previous poll were formulated and is not meaningful now either. HA! Good Fun! edit: previous poll, not previous problem. Im not quibbling over nomenclature. In my borked game, I never received a single point of XP for any action. Other posters say they got XP for entering the ogre cave. So if that's how the system is going to work, incremental XP rewards doled out along the way vice one lump sum at the end of the "quest", then most people will be happy. Objective XP and Quest XP are completely different imo. we would be careful o' playing the slippery slope semantics game, 'cause it will become problematic for you. quest/task/objective xp does not discriminate against play-styles. at the time o' the previous poll, the developers had made clear that "body count" would not specific yield additional xp, but keep in mind that if a player does kill all enemies to accomplish a goal, then functionally they is getting xp for combat. at the same time, if a player uses stealth to avoid combat and then finds a diplomatic solution to the ogre problem, they is arguably getting xp for stealth and conversational abilities. argue semantics will not end well for you. furthermore, one need only watch the jorge and rose beta to see xp gain 'pon entering o' ogre cave. is admittedly a later build than the one you have access to, but you need simple watch the video to see objective/task xp being awarded... is not some kinda sneaky bit o' sleight o' hand that folks is trying to slip past gifted. you can see for yourself if you wish that PoE is awarding quest/task/objective/whatever, even if your build is complete bugged... such as is Gromnir's btw.. HA! Good Fun!

Correction, that poll if for Objective XP, not Quest XP. Subtle but important difference. is not a meaningful difference. the current system is, for all intents and purposes, an objective xp mechanic. quibbles over nomenclature is silly, particularly when developers specific said that there would be no particular xp for "body count." in current build, folks got xp for simply entering the ogre cave. therefore, as can be seen, xp is not simple awarded for completion o' quest in even the current PoE builds. nevertheless, quibble over nomenclature is creating an issue that did not exist when the previous poll were formulated and is not meaningful now either. HA! Good Fun! edit: previous poll, not previous problem.

New approaches are always going to met with some resistance. Rest assured Bradly & Josh that a sizable amount of your Beta Backers/Kickstarters are behind you with the XP system you have implemented for Pillars of Eternity. Don't let the incessant Trolls on that thread derail what you're trying to do with PoE. <3 a previous poll, with far more respondents, showed that 70% o' backers either preferred quest or didn't care. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61543-are-you-for-or-against-gaining-experience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/ the new polls are amusing, but far less dispositive or meaningful than one might suggest. HA! Good Fun!

Incorrect. Red Army forces operated alongside national communist parties (whom were quite popular as they were often the dominant resistance against the fascists) and were democratically elected either fully into power or as part of coalition governments. The Red Army itself, contrary to what many believed, evacuated the areas quite quickly and were basically entirely gone by the early 50's. ehm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia Some of you guys were not paying attention in history class (if you are not from Russia, otherwise I understand that they dont teach that there) some of the naivety regarding the ussr is understandable. most folks only learn through history classes. Gromnir were hardly any kinda expert, but at least we went to former soviet russia during late 80s and early 90s... saw empty shelves in stores and had folks offering us a car for sony walkman cassette player. if we had brought more condoms with us, and colda' figured a way to smuggle them out o' russia, we coulda' earned a small fortune in diamonds. also, we got to see first hand just how much the Poles loved the soviet back in the 80s. that being said, for many folks, this is history... is something that happened in the past that they only hear 'bout from teachers or books. get some wacky professor at a fringe university, or read a book written by some kook and perhaps you got a rationale for believing craziness. it once were that publishing a book included expense that only a company with significant capital could think to embrace. it is a good thing that any private citizen can publish dozens or hundreds o' books and sell 'em on amazon, but there is also far less fact checking o' published works compared to the past... there is also less meaning to being published as is no longer something only reserved to the elite academic. "publish or perish" were the oft repeated refrain o' folks trying to make a career in academia. no more. any nut with a theory can publish a book, and not every college history professor is teaching history. for folks who only know o' ussr through books and professors, their education may be sadly but understandably lacking. HA! Good Fun!

Sam has to get cut and clear waivers to be signed onto the practice squad. He had a good preseason, but he is still undersized and the Rams are pretty deep at DT. It would not be surprising for another team to pick him up though, but at the worst he'll be on the practice squad. David Fales made the Bears lineup as the 3rd string QB. That kid will be starting by next year, I guarantee it. david fales starting. starting? well, as it is the bears, chances are they will need to go two or three deep into their qb depth chart next year. heck, fales may get a start this year if the bears have a typical qb season. even so, am thinking you might be having expectations just a wee bit high for fales, though the fact that trestman is his coach clearly helps. HA! Good Fun!

having a point and/or a rationale is hardly a prerequisite to bemoan, deride and complain 'bout flaws (real or imagined) of game development. also, please note the links to threads and posters from rpgcodex. you do not go to or get fair and open-minded from rpgcodex. "polarized" would be the least offensive o' the multitude o' appropriate descriptors we would use to illuminate codexian eccentricities. *sigh* this will not be the most ridiculous PoE thread we see in the coming months. HA! Good Fun!

sadly, we guarantee it will get more insane. HA! Good Fun!

It doesn't ignore it. It applies to on-hit effects as well (sorry, I haven't listed all possible effects that can be applied to weapons). If they're going to design a weapon and give it the "paralyze on Hit" property I expect they'll balance the duration of this effect taking said weapon's attack speed into account. am not believing we are communicating. Gromnir's fault. left hand weapon stuns. right hand weapon wounds. 2 h weapon stuns. ... advantage to 2h weapon load out. even if 2h weapon is given a longer stun, the advantage is still likely favoring 2 effects. as stated by another poster above, some weapons may be wielded 1h or 2h. this further complicates. gonna give potential 2 stun/wound effects to 2h weapons, but only 1 to 1h weapons? that becomes more difficult with weapons that can be wielded both as 1h or 2h... in fact, many attributes become more difficult to deal with once a single weapon can be wielded in 2 different fashions. *shrug* again, if the issue o' 1h v. 2h were such a simple issue to deal with, then we expect the dual wield advantage wouldn't be so darn ubiquitous in crpgs. it is-- dual-wield, at higher levels almost invariably becomes a WIN unless 2h is given massive damage benefits. am not seeing an issue of concern without further information. HA! Good Fun!

"I expect attribute bonuses to be applied with 'one-handed vs two-handed' potential in mind." an assumption on your part which still ignores other bonuses such as stunning and wounding and whatnot. aside: keep in mind that we ain't saying that josh configured this mechanic to deal with the seeming ubiquitous crpg benefit of dual wiled. however, Gromnir is observing that we can conceive o' a rational reason for giving an advantage to 2h. as such, am not gonna jump to conclusions that the included graphic disproportionate favors 2h in practical game terms. HA! Good Fun!

I wasn't really advocating realism here, but I appreciate your observation. I'd rather he push realism for attributes (as an aspect of role playing) than in weapon vs weapon balance. am suspecting the damage from 2 attacks with the 2h will be greater than 2 attacks with 2 medium weapons. however, please realize this is a mechanic for a game with magical weapons. each equipable slot allows for additional magical buffing. a theoretical general accuracy improvement conferred by a weapon could conceivable stack with a 2-weapon load out. 2 weapons that each grant a stat buff. 2 weapons that... etc. regardless o' damages, dual wield has almost always become a better approach at high levels as magic weapons allowed stacking o' benefits. a mechanic that recognizes the inherent superiority o' 2 equipable slots in a game world with magic equipment sounds like a good idea. gonna need to see if 2h actual gets enough of an advantage to make it worth the obvious penalty o' having one less equipable slot. HA! Good Fun! Weapon buffs (such as +fire damage) scale with base weapon damage in PoE, Gromnir. I think it's sensible to design the system so that, for instance, a magical accuracy bonus applies to the weapon that is providing it and not on both weapons if dual-wielding. Separate values for accuracy: http://thebitpulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pe-ui-character-sheet.jpg So if that's the case (intuitive design) then your point is moot. extra damage is the least worrisome o' benefits. stat benefits, and secondary stat benefits as well as qualities such as stunning can be stacked or multiplied. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna need see actual implementation, but please note that your suggestion were not the way the ie games worked. even in games such as dragon age that attempted to balance 2h and dual-wielding more fairly ended up working in favor o' dual wield mostly 'cause o' the functional stacking o' magical equipment. many weapons in other games is capable o' being wielded one or 2h... such as spears. admittedly, am not recollecting if spears can be equipped 1h in PoE. nevertheless, such stuff is another possible balancing issue particularly where player crafting comes into play. the ability to stack and choose how to stack 2x the magic equipment is a significant advantage. *shrug* ours is simply guesswork, but we do recognize that frequent dual-wield ends up being advantageous 'cause o' load out benefits. an inherent 2h benefit to compensate does not strike us as unreasonable approach. HA! Good Fun!

am suspecting the damage from 2 attacks with the 2h will be greater than 2 attacks with 2 medium weapons. however, please realize this is a mechanic for a game with magical weapons. each equipable slot allows for additional magical buffing. a theoretical general accuracy improvement conferred by a weapon could conceivable stack with a 2-weapon load out. 2 weapons that each grant a stat buff. 2 weapons that... etc. regardless o' damages, dual wield has almost always become a better approach at high levels as magic weapons allowed stacking o' benefits. a mechanic that recognizes the inherent superiority o' 2 equipable slots in a game world with magic equipment sounds like a good idea. gonna need to see if 2h actual gets enough of an advantage to make it worth the obvious penalty o' having one less equipable slot. HA! Good Fun!

But Gromnir I want to ask you something, you have alluded in the past that Obama is weak because he hasn't used military intervention is several conflicts around the world, like Syria . Do you think how he is dealing with the Ukraine crisis makes him weak? Should he do something different? a bit of a misrepresentation. syria is actual a good example. the impact o' a limited but forceful US response 2-3 years ago would have resulted in 2014 syria and isis situation being very different. similarly, ignoring putin predation and excess for many years has made the ukranian situation what it is. sanctions today is gonna eventual be effective in hurting russia. well, guess what, sanctions woulda' been effective before today. ask us what could obama do different today is myopic. HA! Good Fun! Okay, so you agree the sanctions are the best strategy? no. nevertheless, it may be the only plausible strategy given the current mess and recogninzing the lack o' influence obama has. HA! Good Fun!

But Gromnir I want to ask you something, you have alluded in the past that Obama is weak because he hasn't used military intervention is several conflicts around the world, like Syria . Do you think how he is dealing with the Ukraine crisis makes him weak? Should he do something different? a bit of a misrepresentation. syria is actual a good example. the impact o' a limited but forceful US response 2-3 years ago would have resulted in 2014 syria and isis situation being very different. similarly, ignoring putin predation and excess for many years has made the ukranian situation what it is. sanctions today is gonna eventual be effective in hurting russia. well, guess what, sanctions woulda' been effective before today. ask us what could obama do different today is myopic. HA! Good Fun!

Nope. Grinding has become a moot issue after those interesting posts above. The remaining one is this: Should the game reward the player for combat? Wouldn't it be important to define what would be a valid "reward" for combat here as well? Because a reward could be in form of loot, it could be in the form of XP, it could be in the form of satisfaction over you're prowess with the combat system, but not all of those will be seen as rewarding by every group. good questions. oh, and the developers has access to tester behavior including considerable QA, so they can see if folks is finding combat rewarding based on their actual behavior. "Grinding has become a moot issue after those interesting posts above. " well, is nice that indira believes that to be the case, but we has already seen that mootness is not particular discouraging to indira or many others. like it or not, the developers continue to believe that balance, and an xp system they see as encouraging diversity o' play style, and simplicity is desirable/essential attributes in an xp mechanic. coming up with an alternative mechanic that includes the aforementioned elements in the time remaining... yadda yadda yadda. am thinking moot might not mean what indira is suggesting it means, otherwise we sees some inexplicable behavior. HA! Good Fun!

Its just not that kind of game; a bit unfair IMO to criticize the game for something it never tried to do, or even pretended to have (in the same way that its unfair to criticize BG for not having PST's story). from our pov, actual story elements o' iwd were stronger than BG. as noted elsewhere, not only were bg2 released after iwd, but iwd were designed as kinda a low risk, quick development that were s'posed to sate bg fans before bg2 release. actual, a major goal were to get iwd out the door and on shelves with some meaningful time previous to diablo 2, and that didn't happen. what iwd were being marketed as, and sold as, were a limited and far more "linear" dungeon crawl than bg. truth-to-tell, we found iwd to be superior to bg in virtual all respects, and we missed the... companionship (HA!) o' the bg1 premade and joinable party members not at all. iwd looked better. it sounded better. iwd had better combats and more compelling locales. yeah, some level design did become a bit tedious in places, but as 'tween bg and iwd, we have very little difficulty identifying the superior game: iwd. the fact that iwd were so impressive is all the more amazing given the extreme limited and handicapped development iwd faced, but as a purchaser, we ultimate don't care 'bout obstacles. iwd were not a better game than bg 'cause developers were frequent rookies working with a wonky engine o' bioware's design. iwd were not better 'cause it had an abbreviated development cycle. iwd were a better game than bg, period. iwd did more right than did bg, regardless o' obstacles. that being said, we note once more that an obvious and superior enhancement o' iwd would be to give it iwd2 mechanics. oh well, yet another great opportunity wasted. HA! Good Fun!

Am I the only one who wants to see the PoE forums taken on like this... "beware the fury of a patient man." yes, at the moment we got some promancers and codexians making the PoE forums a bit chaotic... well, and Gromnir is helping. but wait til release of PoE. wait and be rewarded with true insanity. HA! Good Fun!

our iwd party were almost invariably a 4-man group as it resulted in faster leveling: a paladin, specialist mage (elf or human), gnome thief-illusionist, and half-elf ranger-cleric... typical with the cadaverous or skeletal undead racial enemy. the only problem with this group is that it were a bit over-powered once the mages developed a meaningful spell repertoire. the ranger-cleric were a smidgen less effective at turning undead in dragon's eye than a vanilla cleric would be, but the addition o' druid spells and the dual-wielding dervish o' destruction melee efficacy more than made up for the early limitation. dual-classing could provide a more powerful group, but we never had the patience to babysit effectively under-powered party members til they hit the dual-class sweet spot. our 4-man iwd group (and frequent bg2 group) were allowing us access to pretty much all the potential content in the game, while giving us an extremely capable group. HA! Good Fun!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/russia-markets-idUSL5N0QY1H820140828 is additional bad news for russian economy. the ruble dropped another .5% v. the dollar on monday, and situation appears to only be getting worse with looming threat of increased european sanctions as russian troops move into the ukraine. the devaluing o' the ruble means that the cost o' buying foreign food will effectively increase, regardless o' where the russians find replacement sources o' basic foodstuffs. it is very difficult to explain the foreign food sanctions as they seem aimed at hurting russia. for humanitarian reasons, a number o' western nations have a policy against imposing sanctions on food and medical supplies, but the self imposed food sanctions by russia is, at best, a perplexing move from an economic perspective. HA! Good Fun!