EmilAmundsen

You're gonna have to be more specific on how they're contradicting me. Well, they read that everything you write in your post is complete bollocks. With the exeption of your claim that someone on youtube did a cartwheel in some armor, but that point was really neither here nor there. But no you're wrong, I didn't even have to be more specific. You made a boast of superior knowledge, and I asked for evidence. You don't deliver you're just a phony who conveys his own fantasies to seem important, getting hooked up on something entirely beside the point in the first place. Now you just look self-important.

Actually, this isn't what happened at all. Armor did not get heavier. People wore MORE armor because armorsmithing techniques improved, which allowed people to wear more metal without being more encumbered. A full suit of fitted plate armor was (is) surprisingly light. A cursory google search will show you people performing cartwheels and jumping jacks in it. Weapons, too, did not get heavier. Weapons which were designed to counter armor actually tended to be smaller. Daggers turned into spikes, swords turned into maces or hammers. Pikes evolved to counter cavalry, NOT to defeat armor. Finally, guns did not penetrate armor. That is, guns did not penetrate a breastplate. Guns certainly did not lead to the fall of plate armor (at least, not in the way you might expect). It's important to realize that articulated plate armor was developed at the same time guns were becoming popular. One didn't succeed the other, they were contemporaries. Guns stuck and armor didn't for the simple reason that armor is expensive and guns are cheap. It's much more cost effective to buy 100 guns than to buy a single suit of armor. Finally, people continued to wear armor (cuirasses) up until the 1900s. Frankly my jabber about armor-history is just hear-say, as my interest in the subject is somewhat low. Being contradicted so completely however made me curious. Maybe I've been subscribing to lies? However, these two wikis about the arquebus and plate mail contradicts you in turn.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour Can I assume you have a more credible source of evidence?

I feel the complete opposite way. As much as I like the game I hate the damage type and DR systems. All it does is force me to gauge the enemy's DRs and switch to the weapon that does the highest DPS to it, which is just a chore. If weapons just had a few niches (probably high-interrupt [two-weapon], high defense [shield], high damage [two-handed]) and otherwise were just aesthetic choices I'd be much, much happier. The other matter is how incredibly annoying flat DR is. I've tinkered with some RPG systems of my own in the past and found that, just like the video game Gothic demonstrates, that a system of flat DR is incredibly difficult to balance well. You touched on PoE's big problem earlier in your post: heavy armor is too common, which means the high damage-per-hit weapons are the clear choices (long live the Estoc/Poleaxe combo!). Of course if heavy armor was too rare then dual-wielding would be the obvious choice, but that wouldn't be so bad since the toughest fights tend to have more DR so who would kit themselves out based on how to handle the easy fights? Armor should just be a simple increase to deflection. It's much simpler and doesn't bias the game towards one weapon type or another. I do agree that flat DR is incredebly difficult to balance. In fact in real life they didn't manage to balance it at all. They raced towards heavier armor and weapons, leaving lighter ones in the past..until they found the weapon that penetrates all armor they could conceivably wear. After that they stopped wearing armor, as it was almost pointless or even worse than not wearing it. This gives the unbalance in PoE an extra immersive dimension. I don't care about the "balance" or weapons in the game because that concept is moot in a 'single-player. I don't like character creation traps, but I really detest the idea of killing the well-functioning single-player mechanics just because some people can't cope with their pre-conceptions being broken. I can't believe I have to keep saying this, but that is not how balance works. You want a balanced game, believe me you do, because an unbalanced game is a broken game that will, at best, quickly grow stale. Go turn on the cheat console and do a run where you start at level 12 with 24s in all of your stats and you'll see what I mean. There is a difference between balanced and everything being the same or even on the same level. Sir, this thread starts with a complaint that one weapon is better than the others, and that it unbalances the game with the 5 extra points of damage it does against monsters who doesen't have extra protection against piercing attacks. I think it's safe to say you're missing the mark by a fair bit there.

I feel the complete opposite way. As much as I like the game I hate the damage type and DR systems. All it does is force me to gauge the enemy's DRs and switch to the weapon that does the highest DPS to it, which is just a chore. If weapons just had a few niches (probably high-interrupt [two-weapon], high defense [shield], high damage [two-handed]) and otherwise were just aesthetic choices I'd be much, much happier. The other matter is how incredibly annoying flat DR is. I've tinkered with some RPG systems of my own in the past and found that, just like the video game Gothic demonstrates, that a system of flat DR is incredibly difficult to balance well. You touched on PoE's big problem earlier in your post: heavy armor is too common, which means the high damage-per-hit weapons are the clear choices (long live the Estoc/Poleaxe combo!). Of course if heavy armor was too rare then dual-wielding would be the obvious choice, but that wouldn't be so bad since the toughest fights tend to have more DR so who would kit themselves out based on how to handle the easy fights? Armor should just be a simple increase to deflection. It's much simpler and doesn't bias the game towards one weapon type or another. I do agree that flat DR is incredebly difficult to balance. In fact in real life they didn't manage to balance it at all. They raced towards heavier armor and weapons, leaving lighter ones in the past..until they found the weapon that penetrates all armor they could conceivably wear. After that they stopped wearing armor, as it was almost pointless or even worse than not wearing it. This gives the unbalance in PoE an extra immersive dimension. I don't care about the "balance" of weapons in the game because that concept is moot in a 'single-player. I don't like character creation traps, but I really detest the idea of killing the well-functioning single-player mechanics just because some people can't cope with their pre-conceptions being broken.

The problem with this is that most enemies are going to have at least 5 DR, thereby benefiting fully from the Estoc's ability. You get no more benefit from using the Estoc against someone in Plate than you do from using it against someone in Leather. Which is silly. I'd prefer it if it was more along the lines of "penetrates 50% of DR or 5 DR, whichever is less". That way it's actually an anti-armor weapon and not an anti-everything-that-isn't-naked weapon. Your first point is valid for a discussion about monster design, not weapon design. When I first started playing PoE I was a bit confounded to find that every monster had monsterous armor, thereby making every light weapon rather silly. It stands to reason that it should be silly to attack a dragon with toothpicks. We were perhaps expecting DnD, and in PoE stark naked bipedal bats carry more effective armor than a DnD dragon. It does serve to make monsters monsterous, but it also validates the point that character builds based on toothpicks will fare bad in this monster-killing game. Maybe the character-build screen should tell the player that they included small weapons due popular demand, but that they are not designed to act effectivly against monsters in this game. That would atleast be lightyears better than give in to the ppl who can't adjust, and simply must be a dagger-wielding giant-slayer. Your second point is a discussion about weapon-mechanics in general. I personally think that train has left trans-central, but I also think the current mechanics for DR penetration is just fine. Making mechanics just to accomodate ppl who insist on using navel-lint as a weapon is anathema to me. It seems strange that they even offer the player the choise of building around small weapons in this game, and they should atleast warn about it (or maybe they don't realize how bad they are?), but the combat mechanics themselves far surpass for example DnD.

The Estoc is best because it is a weapon designed for maximum armor-penetration in a fiction where every monster is clad like in 40th millenia power-armour. I wish they would unbalance the weapons more. No weapons should be best for every situation, but DR-penetrating weapons should certainly be best against DR. Pre-patch the Arbalest is better at armour penetration than the firearms, which was a shame.

I've been using the AI behaviour to my advantage to solo the game. This together with the weapon-switch exploit are the two most powerful strategies I've found in the game so far. However, where the weapon-switch exploit is very obviously a glitch because it so blatantly breaks the rules the developers define for PoE gameplay, the AI-behaviour is less so. The game harbor may talents aimed exactly at exploiting AI behaviour. The paladin Zelous Charge is an example. At the same time the devs don't define the AI behaviour outside the bounds of PoE gameplay like with the weapon-switch exploit. I'm thinking that a pre-conseption of how an rpg should be played is what would lead someone to think of the current AI behaviour as a bug. My experience with the AI behaviour is this. The AI come in two modes. Some, maybe the majority of opponents, operate in a localized mode where they return home when they "tire of chasing you". Some however, operate in roaming mode, where they will follow you to the end of the world, and where the only thing that can halt them is if they inadvertently attack wildlife that gets between them and yourself. Sometimes you meet a band of mixed opponents, where some return home and some follow you forever. Other times, like with the bounty on "The Dweller", the opponents and his whole darned band hunt you tirelessly. So, my take on it is this. The AI behaviour is an abstract way of simulating geurilla warfare or small unorganized engagements, that can not be satisfyingly be represented directly on the computer medium but rather through game mechanics. When an assassin assail a band from the darkness of night, it's very logical that said opponents would behave irrational and not always in concert. The abstraction is not a perfect mirror image or reality to be sure, but I kind of think it's a lot better than what we get in most RPGs. From a mechanics standpoint, I think it is a good way to expand combat gameplay beyond stand and hack. With chosing from easy to hard difficulty you can stand and fight with maybe every opponent in the game, but you can also choose to level up your game-play, doing path of the danmed or reducing the number of party-members and still be able to consistently survivable, with hit-and-run strategies. In my mind there is one bug tho, not in the AI behaviour but rather a problem because of AI behaviour. It's that when someone engage someone who is moving, they get a free desengagement attack instead of the opponent just stopping for the engagement like he should. Instead he stops after the disengagement and re-engage. The AI will use it on you, but once you become aware of it you can use it on every opponent that has a lozalized behaviour to ensure that you get as many attacks on him as he does on you no matter how slow your weapon or how fast his is. It's not a bad bug, but unlike what is described in OP it is an actual bug.

Bump

I got this offer for a special hireling with an outrageous cost and very poor contribution stats. It made me wonder, can hirelings unlock special events or something? Do they contribute anything beyond prestige, security and participating in attacks on the stronghold? Anything to justify -2 prestige, +2 security for 100cp per day?

k, thanks

v1.0.2.0508 -steam I don't know that I'm using cloud for anything in regard to this game. Assumed it updated with a patch or a hotfix.

I noticed my game updated earlier today, and I'm looking around for a changelog since release version. I can't seem to find it. Is it available anywhere? Would it be appropriate to pin a changelog-thread in this forum, in which the log is continiously updated with info on each game-update?

Yes, they are working on it. Developer reply on page 3.

This alien bug killed my character. Here's a bump for hoping Mr. Brennecke finds a retroactive solution to ressurect my fallen hero.

Depends on what you call power. Rogue can out-dps cipher easily. Wizard can out-dps anything easily. Wizard spells deal more damage at spell-lv1 than cipher does at spell-lv6. The only speciality I've found with my cipher is that he can cast his low-power spells continiously, so he looks very good on statistics. He's superb against trash-mobs, but feel weak in harder fights in my experience. Edit: this from playing on "hard".

I haven't checked my combat-logs, but the distant advantage trait does show up in active effects on my character sheet. If it doesen't show up under both the "abilities" and "active" headings on your character sheet it could be you're a victim of the double-click-to-replace-gear-permakills-your-passives-bug.

We don't know. Hopefully, it's not entirely consistent, varying by type of opponent (dumb zombies v. smart tacticians?), possible random factors, etc. The point of the game (i.e., the fun) isn't to abuse tics in the AI programming, it's to react appropriately using the tools available as simulated opponents (yes, AI-driven) create emergent situations. If the characters can't read the minds of their opponents, why should the player be able to? Oh, so -that- is the point of the game.. Never mind my question then, I'm gonna retire and completely re-evaluate my outlook on gaming and life in general. Thank you for saving me, Sir.

Yes, I know the rules of engagement in PoE. There was a green line between my fighter and the Skuldr in question, which means he was engaged. The Skuldr also stopped when he was re-engaged, before starting to move again. You seem to be under the impression that I'm complaining about this ai-behavior. You'd be wrong. What I'm asking for is the specifics of the ai aggro-mechanics. That is, how does the ai decide who to attack? Period.

I didn't really check the combat log for the free attack, but the point is that a good tank won't also be a good damage-dealer. Even naked monsters like the Skuldr have metal-armor DR or better, making only the attacks from the heaviest weapons relevant at all. If this game was multiplayer tanking would be ignored because the free-attacks from engagements don't cause meaningful damage. Tanking only work at all because the AI is programmed to adhere to engagements..most of the time. But when it doesen't, every non-tank gets killed in short order. I'm considering trying out semi-tanks with two-handers, and having all non-tanks 20 resolve and perception to make them survivable. But I'd rather find out how aggro works, so I can avoid this behavior in the first place. Do you know how aggro works in detail? My fighter is continuing to attack the enemy and I see the green engagement-line between them. The enemy doesen't ignore the engagement all the time, but it seems to happen under fairly consistent conditions. The incident I'm referring to here is the Skuldr-King and his 3 accompanying Skuldr in the sun-god temple-ruins at the start of the game (on hard difficulty). I'm spelunking with a 2nd level fighter (not Eder) and a 3rd lv Cipher. I approach the king with the figther, planning to spam soul-shock once he is surrounded. I break from the plan and choose to mental bind them instead (because even tho all targeted the fighter, some of the Skuldr refused to surround him) The mental-bind hits 3 of them, but the last one, whom is engaged with the fighter now aggro on the Cipher and proceed to ignore the fighter through two engage-locks. I do regularly use choke-points, and I tried that for this encounter aswell. It turns out a 3rd lv Cipher and a 2nd level fighter doesen't do enough damage to take down the king even when I get to engange the Skuldr one at a time, but that's another matter entirely. That would actually be pretty awesome. It'd create a reason to build balanced characters, as opposed to the aggressively min-max'ed defenders and damagers that the system presently favors. (I haven't observed this behavior, but my play-time has been sadly limited thus far.) What's a balanced build to you Enoch?

I'm experiencing a similar problem where I have a Fighter engange-locking enemies who proceed to ignore him and just run straight for my caster (10m behind him). My fighter can even run after the enemy and reaquire the engagement-lock, whereupon the ai will again break the it and charge my Cipher in the back. It's not even using an ability to do so, it just ignore the engagement with the fighter. This have me wondering how the aggro-mechanics work in this game. Does anyone here know any specifics? Is the AI able to detect that my fighter has a one-handed weapon and therefore can be safely ignored since they aren't able to penetrate armor in any meaningful manner?

Reach weapons are great for attacking without getting locked in engangement for melee-dps. But I wonder, what happens if you try to tank with a reach weapon? Will closing in on a fighter with a pike provoke disgagement-attacks if the enemy does not have reach themselves?

That is one stellar reply, Sensuki! Thanks a bundle! Do you have the frame-speed of all the weapons perchance?

If you inspect the weapon in your inventory (by right-clicking) you can see the speed of the weapon. Armors give a percentage reduction in recovery speed, so different weapons/actions will have differing amounts of recovery - based on armor types. Do I need to activate some setting to see weapon speed, because in my game it only say Speed: Average..? And while on the topic of weapon-inspection, what is the interrupt-value a representation of? And, would you say the armors percentage reuction prolongs the time between action (cooldown), the action itself or both? And is it a percentage of the actual time of said action/cooldown or is it the percentage of an obscure number used to derive the time it takes to complete an action or the cooldown?

What are they, and where can I find them in-game? Further, how does infact armor action-delay interact with weapon-speed? It's rather hard to gauge, but so far it seems to me that a piece of cloth with no delay-penalty gives a longer action-delay on a war-bow than on a hunter-bow.

Nevermind