nipsen

Ok. Then why the proposed stat changes? Are you finally admitting now that the entire idea was to create bonus stats to spread around to the previous dump-stats? To, as I said, make that maxed out might build character with no drawbacks?

So he's basically saying that they noticed your complaining, there was an internal deliberation. And they've decided to decouple interrupt from a stat, change accuracy to perception. And now everything works. Except my super DPS priest, who is transformed from an old gnome to a superman. And Obsidian will have to rewrite the entire dialogue setup unless they want to keep having super-perceptive damage dealers having exceptional insights to how people act. Brilliant. It's unbelievable. Obsidian have their own testers and developers, but hey -- why not just "do what the people want" instead. Because then everyone on the forums are happy, and that's all that matters. This is so disappointing in so many ways.

I obviously didn't say that I wanted it to be made harder. I said that I wanted people to have to make some sort of tradeoff. I specifically said that I didn't want to see a massively powerful build get free bonus stats and abilities. And yes, you're absolutely right. The changes will basically mean that Obsidian has to rebalance the entire game. And my worry is that you're going to be able to go through the game on auto if you choose the Might-per-con builds. Not just because the stats are changed, but because Obsidian will "find out" that "everyone" wants all the interesting encounters thrown out. No need to interrupt people, no need to understand the stat buffs, no need to use magic carefully. Because now you don't need to, and this is what "everyone wants". No you didn't. It was a non choice for every character. Pump Might, Intellect, Dexterity and maybe Con and dump Per and Res. Everyone was doing it. Well, this was discussed in another thread. You were getting squad-wipes from stat-ability attacks because you dropped con and res. And you didn't get interrupts because you dumped Perception. More than a few people wondered why so many of you were completely powerless against the spiders, because they weren't. People were wondering why your fighters didn't interrupt when theirs did. And you ignored it. I said why you shouldn't ignore it in a nice way, and you ignored it. And now you have decided that "everyone did it", because you ignored everything else but your own point of view. And no other point of view can exist, because "everyone does it this way". So apparently even if there was another option here, I suppose it doesn't matter -- because you find it so complicated it cannot be understood by human minds. And so the system is too difficult to understand and must be scrapped in the full game for a less interesting system. One that clearly makes even less sense. But now you're happy, so now the game isn't broken any more. And now it's what "people want". It's obnoxious, and you cannot argue with it. That problem is of your making, and it wouldn't have mattered to me if it wasn't for the fact that the devs clearly do make changes at least inspired by your input. The code is .NET assembly Managed C#. The only code that does not decompile properly is some of the Unity related stuff because the decompiler cannot understand it. I can recompile the code using an intermediate language and I have done so and already made a few mods. So have others. Also why don't you use a practical example instead of an abstract analogy? Every example I give is a practical example, you always use an ice cream analogy or dance about architecture or something. You just make stuff up. So when you find out yourself that the stats that are actually used in the game to calculate the combat stats come from a different place in the code -- like I said -- then I'm also wrong. And you posting the code from the stat-sheet still proves that I don't understand code and are full of ****. And my specific example was that if they create objects and run through them to seed tables, then they could reference that without using the "intellect" variable in your example later. This doesn't require 50 pages of explanation. But it is connected to and similar to for example your interpretation of "linear damage". The paper you put up has the starting point that 1% increase in a bonus will cause one percent increase of a chance in every combat situation. And you also seem to assume that 1% increase is equally valuable across the board. At least as far as I can tell. This isn't a good starting point - even if the product you end up with on paper has perfect internal consistency inside your weird set of assumptions - and I don't mind telling you that. Specially, when as pointed out up to a very high number of times now -- that what you're posting as "proof" of how the "system really works" may actually not reflect the combat rolls in an as consistent manner as you suggest. Then me pointing out that you may be assuming the wrong things is relevant.

Because that build would make sense in the game narratively. The character would be an incredible fighter, but could be knocked down by a feather. I've been going through this before, suggesting that the "dump stats" people were claiming resolve and perception was - actually were useful in combat after all. As well as explained the character well. In dialogue, the per/int heavy fighter would lose the might/intimidate options. They would make better observations and have broader dialogue options. It makes sense in the game-world, it makes sense in the combat rolls. And that makes role-playing better in my opinion. ..fast forward a few weeks. So perception is now more important in combat because it determines the combat roll. Resolve becomes a base stat with dodge defense. Ok, fine. Now, you can make a similar build as the dex-might build - and add a base bonus on deflection, and essentially save an entire maxed out stat for spreading out on other stats you might want, for whatever reason. And by default the fighters are suddenly extremely perceptive in dialogue. Every dps character must have super-heavy instincts (the orc fighter with the serial epiphanies on where the weak spots are -- it's an innate skill). And they have stats to spare - even though they're maxed out in the direction of the character - to add attribute points to, say, intelligence, dex or resolve. This makes sense - how, exactly. You guys have to explain that. Josh published an image of his ideas and calculations for changing the attributes right after S&M released their report. He clearly stated that he had more or less meant to change them in the same way, with one exception, really. That you still go on and on and on about this, well aware of this readily available fact, speaks volumes. Lay your frustrations to rest and cease with this monkey business, or else you will deserve that troll label that people are sticking on you now. Contribute constructively, and don't be so condescending. Oh, no! I'm a troll on a forum! Do you have the link to the post where Josh allegedly says he will change the attributes to the proposed changes, with one exception? That's a pretty specific order, and you will find that post - or you're a forum troll, Indira! Look. As I proved to you, the quotes people are throwing around don't say what people claim they do. And I do react in the way I do because these changes that have been made in the last backer beta undermine very specifically how perception was related to observation and .. perception.. in the dialogue system. And that this belonged to a character that had to compromise on something else - such as dexterity, or might, or constitution. At least one of each. But now I have a priest in the party who not just is extremely perceptive - but also is the main damage dealer, as well as the guy who interrupts with huge critical hits. If dex and perception weren't combined, that wouldn't happen. Neither would perception become so important in combat, nor would it break the dialogue setup seen so far in the beta. This isn't that complicated.

... You had to spread points across several different stats to get that build "optimal" in the last build. In the next build you can dump several stats and get the same or a better mechanical build in combat. So is that a problem? Is that an improvement over the last build? Can't you just choose the right role-playing stats and pick some mechanical stats as well? Or perhaps just don't bother caring about stats and role-playing anyway, since they are "two separate systems". Might as well make the build strong and max-min'ed and pretend it's a different character. Because when the alternative to a d&d system is there - who could /possibly/ want that? I mean, it's practically sacrilege to propose something that goes beyond "you have dex so you're the rogue", right? "My concern" is that we keep demanding changes to the significance of certain stats for no reason other than that we have somehow convinced ourselves it's impossible to keep what's already there. And when I'm asking you to justify how the changes make sense, changes that certain people around here have made a very strong appeal for --- you are countering that with demanding that I should explain to you why the changes should /not/ be made. Because you have decided that "everyone agrees" that the system is broken. Does that make sense to you? That apparently I have to justify it whenever your random proposals at breaking a functioning system should not be adopted? It does not make sense to me. But since I'm the "only one around here" who could possibly think Obsidian might on some off chance know what they're doing, and have thrown money at Obsidian for making another game. Then I guess the sole responsibility for explaining why you should not break the existing system to pieces is mine. (PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IS SARCASM, AND THAT I THINK YOU ARE ALL STUPID.) So back to the fighter. Imagine it's a cowboy instead, then, who gets by with hunting and generally being clever. It's an archetype like the other fighter builds, except this one is exclusively American. Or maybe it's a Soux or something who can run really fast and is skilled with a bow and different other weapons. But he's unfortunately not as clever as the cowboy, but compensates with might and savage anger. Is it all more familiar now? So that less brainpower is needed to picture the characters? Good! In the first system, the Soux might be represented like this: focus on dex, perception, intelligence. We could choose between maxing out these stats, or going for increasing resolve to make sure the abilities don't get interrupted, or adding might to reflect pure strength. ...I don't know about charisma for fighters. Fighters don't seem to have charisma in PoE... I'm sorry that my explanation doesn't encompass all of creation and all variables in the world, by the way. Anyway. And depending on your way of role-playing that Soux later, you would also choose whether he or she (it could be Pocahontas with huge breasts, which is also a historical character!) is strong and resilient, but perhaps not extremely bright (high res/low int). Or they could be extremely skilled at specifically fighting and dodging (dex high), or extremely skilled at mechanical tasks (int high). And it would still have some impact on how that character behaves in combat. And then when you run into the dialogue, that character is actually represented with those strengths and weaknesses. Because there is a link between the abilities the stats give you, and the way you have shaped your character. My concern is that we are losing that thanks to idiots mangling the original system that - in spite of some weaknesses - actually made sense. And yes, I think Lephys' suggestion to split the significant stats is a good idea. It is an infinitely better idea than anything else I've seen so far. But I am not sure I see why you would have to change it in the first place. And I do think that when you propose radical changes to the system like that, you would have to come up with something better than "I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE I'VE DECIDED NOT TO!". Is that a fair deal? Look. There was one claim I had a problem with. And it has to do with how you cannot know that a reverse engineered compile code represents all conditionals in the actual code. This is fact. Claiming you know everything there is to know from that compile time code is similar to claiming that you can solve a rubiks cube with one single red cube-piece. It is not possible. You can assume from the red cube-piece that we are dealing with a rubiks cube. If you knew what a rubiks cube piece looked like on beforehand. And we can pick up other pieces to make sure we know if it's a 4x4 or 3x3 grid. And then since we know how a rubiks cube works and how it looks, we can deduce our way towards figuring out how the red square fits on the rubiks cube. And then ultimately solve the cube from that one piece. But you can't say, from one red square, that you know everything about the rubiks cube, and even solve it. That's not how it works. And I brought that up, because someone posted a piece of code as "proof", and didn't want to explain what they thought it said. It's the same as saying: "Shut up, I posted source code!", and then expecting people to accept that. It's the same as the "I posted developer WISDOM, so shut up!" - that also is prevalent in these threads. Neither is good enough as an argument. And frankly, I would never have brought this up if it didn't turn out that Obsidian is clearly listening to this crap and assuming that everyone on the kick-starter thinks the same way. Not because they're swayed by the glorious rhetorical argument, but because they respect the fact that their die hard fans wants attention. And I think that this combination is ruining the game. That's not the point. We know already that Int affects Area of effect and healing spread. It affects (affected?) duration of spells. It affects the duration of specific talents and fighting abilities. And therefore has a synergy with might in the sense that might is raw power, and intellect is about cleverness and talent. And I simply said that it didn't seem completely far fetched to me that Int should affect the severity of the critical hits as well. I don't know if it did, but it would make sense to me, along with Int affecting how long a knockdown lasts for example. It would also definitely make more sense than that perception and might -> win. Because that's what you're getting now. Instead of having to balance at least three stats and drop two important ones, you're suddenly able to get a massively superior build with two. I'm also definitely concerned that when these nerf-builds take over, there's going to be another even stronger push than before to make the game easier to play. Because: the instant someone who is not familiar with the mechanics of the proposed changes tries to make a character, they'll get mauled, even on easy. And their character sheet doesn't really suggest that they should be an extremely weak build. "Sure, my character isn't very perceptive, but he's strong and dextrous - why doesn't he hit anything, and make no damage?". And I'm telling you he just posted the code that displays or collects the stats in the stat-sheet. If it's from the character creation, you'd reference that with .this references for each object you have, and then where that reference is stored will be lost in the disassembled code. "It's all Unity" as an explanation for how it hangs together is about as clever as saying: "It's all water" and declaring physics a thing of the past. (<-Ancient Greece reference, biotch!). Look. I just said that every one of you can read what that source code says directly in the game's stat-screen. So how superior to anything is it if you post that code? And we go back to the fact that: you don't know that this line of code represents the actual combat rolls (or, it clearly doesn't). And we don't know how the combat rolls are actually done in game logic. Which is connected to the fact that, like others also pointed out, that Matt's "mathematical proof" of how the proposed changes are mathematically balanced - may very well be utterly and completely wrong. It could make sense in their "interpretation of facts". But it doesn't reflect the actual system -- unless of course it is made more simple so that Matt's system works. You do see how this hangs together with my "concern" that some were assuming left and right things that clearly is untrue, yes? I realize that no one here wants to sabotage the game. But I also know that some.. four people of you? have declared as a foregone conclusion that the stat-system is broken. And that it their task, as clearly more skilled than the developers who made the system, to "save" Obsidian from bombing at release. And I don't think you or anyone else should be allowed to simply say that without explaining why. You could go the route Matt and Sensuki did - by simply denying that any alternative viewpoint than theirs could possibly exist. And so that they don't have to prove their own alternative, which is the only possible one. You could go the route of misrepresenting facts and claiming that your solution - which is the opposite of what the system actually intends - is the "real" solution that was chosen from the beginning. You could do either of those and "escape" the need to actually justify your own alternatives. But in either case, I'd think you're a fraud and a liar. Or optionally just a very stupid and arrogant person. So what do you want me to say when Obsidian seems to respond to this ****? I did not pay to Obsidians kickstarter to get some "special" superfan to rewrite and ruin their approach to integrating attributes into game-world narrative logic. I paid into the pot to get Obsidian to make it. I'm assuming that this is what the vast majority of people who are not posting here also did. And I'm also assuming that 99% of the people who sponsored the kickstarter are unaware of the fact that a significant portion of the game is apparently being scrapped because some superfans have decided it's too complex for human minds to understand. Meanwhile, I can't possibly be asked to go around "proving" that every time someone comes up with a suggestion - that it is NOT sound. You do understand the logic of that? That people who make up a huge rework of the system, should "perhaps" be asked to justify it or perhaps not write off concerns such as "your system effectively undermines all possible role-playing of any kind". Or is that just too far fetched? No. Not a chance! I've learned from Sensuki and Matt now. And I've learned that unless you obey my every whim, accept all my proposals and assumptions, including my foregone conclusions - and do exactly like I say, then you are delusional and the game is broken. So now I want satisfaction! The developers will have to respond to me! I'm the keeper of the ultimate troooth. Also, I want cake! And a harem!

... You have already demonstrated that you're at best pulling forum-quotes out of context, and using them to "prove" that Obsidian wants to make the opposite of what they've advertised (and made). Meanwhile, you and Matt are riding on Obsidian's skirt-tails, using their "interpreted intention" to buff your own "fixes". And nearly claiming credit for coming up with your "own system", that as opposed to Obsidian's "actually makes sense". And thus saving Obsidian's "broken" system in the process, by small, small, almost unnoticeable changes that bless their work and allows it to work well. In spite of clearly neither of you being able to come up with anything remotely as imaginative on your own. In fact, your complaints about the system demonstrate that you don't see the point with it. And you use that alone as the reason why it should be changed. And then you have the gall to pass off your fixes as what "everyone wants" as well, implying that you're singlehandedly saving Obsidian's game from disaster. And everyone who disagrees are, quote, "delusional". But I'm "holier than thou"? Perhaps it would speed things up if you explained why you think this is true. It's not remotely clear what you're even talking about. ..Ok. I'm going to take the same fighter example that I've explained about 50 times now. A guy with a blade. He has intuitive skill with it. He is above average light on the feet. And he is perceptive, aware of his surroundings, etc. He is not very strong, however, and not very resilient. In D&D, this character would be a fighter with negative stats. He could perhaps go for finesse - and avoid negative bonuses to the attack rolls, in return for lower damage potential. But the character is dead weight. But in PoE, that character (like a number of other completely different characters) can be a superman in certain situations. At the very least they make sense to have in a group. So that fighter has above average intellect, affecting perhaps the damage potential for the critical strikes, in the same way that abilities and talents are extended. And priests and mages enlarge and specialize their spells. So that "intellect" means simply ability to think fast and do complex things. Be it key-locks and mechanical devices, understanding the ways you should handle a sword most effectively, or if it's being able to create complex soul magic. He also has high perception. In this case meaning that he's not just incredibly skilled at striking with the blade, but also is aware of the surroundings. Priests and mages could have their perception specialized to mean for example being able to see people at long distances, and to identify weaknesses that can be targeted by spells. For example. There's overlap here, but that makes narrative sense. In the same way, the fighter relies on being accurate. If he is not strong, then at least he can hit, and potentially hit a critical point. So the dexterity stat reflects his innate or trained ability to be make controlled movement and generally be very nimble. Other characters can justify dexterity by meaning the character is primarily more difficult to hit, for example. You could imagine a witch having incredibly high movement and "deflection" bonuses, and that she nearly can't be hit - but that if she is hit, she's cleaved in two like a twig, etc. So when just looking at the combat, these stats actually make sense. This is what was there until the last update. But not only that. When the dialogue turns up, it also fits here. That light fighter is a thoughtful rogue, perhaps. Or he's a warrior of the kind you read about in Snorre, who also writes poetry in the downtime between the battles. Maybe he's a cynical ronin. Maybe it's an elven blade specialist. Etc. And because of the intellect score and the perception score, the dialogue fits with that. In the same way, the fighter specialisation doesn't stand in the way for being tagged as the nimble and extremely fast athletic person who can use that ability in the cardboard-scenes, etc. And also, because they're fighters and probably will have moderate might stats, they'll be able to see the intimidate paths and perhaps use that as part of the role-playing when playing the game. There are a lot of synergies here. So not only does that system make sense in combat, it also makes sense in dialogue and role-playing. And my point is that if you switch these stat-abilities around without much thought - then you lose that synergy between combat and dialogue. The system becomes more mechanically perfect, perhaps, but at the cost of "narrative consistency". That's my problem with the proposed changes. And that's my problem with the changes Obsidian made in the last backer beta version. And the fact that you can essentially just pump Perception and dexterity, and instantly have a dangerous front-line fighter of any class, of any make-up, with practically any weapon. That also demonstrates the mechanical failure of the proposed changes. That's how simple this is. But I didn't write 50 pages to explain that one simple thing, so clearly I don't know what I'm talking about. Also, I can't program as well, now. Listen to the ones who know everything. They are trustworthy and know all, because they claim so. It all makes perfect circular sense. Because reasons.

By all means. Maybe have him or her lecture you on the difference between one branch of reverse-engineered compile code, and one conditional high-level statement as well? How could you possibly know? I'm not saying there is such a thing in the game, at least not after the patch. I just said that my understanding was that an int and perception based fighter had some aspects that you guys not just don't care about, but would rather not see in the game at all. And therefore want removed, and have any trace of interesting role-playing surgically cut out. It's ridiculous. As far as the programming goes - I am a programmer on paper, at least. I also have some ...experience with reverse-engineering code, although I don't have that on paper. And I'm simply stating that you don't know if the variable that is set in the character stats-screen corresponds to the same compile-time variable elsewhere. I'm not saying it's impossible. But I'm saying you can't know that. It's also ridiculous to create variables for reference elsewhere in the game in a class very obviously built to represent the class data. Very likely there is another lookup somewhere. It might also be logical to choose a method with a pre-generated set of rolls generated at run-time. For example to modify the final combat roll by another variable. Many random generators use this method to save run-time. It's practically "how you do it", to avoid locking up or having to seed a long table at some unfortunate time later. Meaning that it is very likely that the variable in Sensuki's quote there isn't the actual variable used to modify combat rolls. So when I'm saying that you cannot know with certainty that there is nothing else affecting the system, and I explain why that is in detail -- and explain that your simplified view of how the system should work is annoying as heck, because you more or directly insist, on my and everyone's behalf, that any interesting detail is "complicated" and is going to make the game unpopular, as well as the stat system impenetrable, and at least stupid and borken -- and you counter that with: "blablaaa. I don't believe you! I'm the expert!". Then do you really expect me to respect your opinion afterwards? Seriously, where does this boundless confidence to take your own narrow statement as absolute truth come from? Another thing - it's rude as **** to speak on other people's behalf, did you know that? At the very least when you're presenting some changes like you have - you're going to say: This is mine, this is my own opinion, this is what I'm basing my opinion on, this is what I'm assuming is true. But somehow you don't have to obey rules like that, because your opinion is more important than whatever drivel the rest of us can come up with, I guess. Frankly, I do notice that none of you complained when I criticized random people for making unsound assumptions and then establishing their own view as truth set in stone that cannot be argued with. Then it was fine. And now that it's your turn, and your assumptions are on the line - then there are different rules, and I'm a tool for criticising you. You're not even registering it as a possibility that there are other perspectives out there. You should consider how that works out. And anyone who listens to what you say should also consider that before trusting your opinions again.

That you think you can /guarantee/ you know all the related variables in reverse-engineered compile-code is bad enough. But you're just not going to throw out a statement like that after quoting the code in the stat-screen overview.

Probably the Gt6 anniversary edition.. ..Or it was Valkyria Chronicles 2 and Gods Eater Burst on umd (had both downloaded earlier, but wanted to get them when VC2 finally came out in Europe... no chance of VC3, Gods Eater 2 or FF:Type-0, though, umd or otherwise... Unless someone makes a fan translation, like this again, at the risk of lawsuit and worse).

Btw, totalbiscuit about reviewing Shadows of Mordor on twitter: https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/516350999083368449 "The message we got was "we can give you prerelease code but only if you do this paid brand deal". We refused, naturally." Elsewhere on the net, "being offered" a deal like that is a sign that you're getting somewhere.. Different worlds.

Sensuki. Listen to me. This is the code for calculating the bonuses as they are shown in the stats-screen. This is information that you can see from the stats-sheet. It does not show the attack roll, nor does it show where they pull in any bonuses from class, or how - for example - the critical hit is calculated, and where possible wounds are picked from. So "your understanding" of the code is not just rudimentary. It comes from a reverse engineered piece of code, as that code is produced from their compiler. And you are going to have serious difficulty with finding the actual attack roll resolution from that code. Every potential loop is going to have it's own independently completing thread option. You might have difficulties identifying all the branches from the same area of the code as well. Meaning that even if you identify something in the code - which you haven't - that is actually used in the attack roll. We still can't really guarantee that it reflects the entire picture as that code was originally written. So your point of view in this case wouldn't be just wrong. No - you've convinced yourself that it is a "fundamental understanding", because you have one piece of code, and code is fundamental! Seriously - consider for one ****ing moment the idea that I'm not talking out of my arse Sensuki.

Well, I hope you can take the time to say that in some channel that Josh or someone else at Obsidian reads. Because the fact of it is that someone found out at Obsidian that the latest changes were needed. And these changes do break with what was put in there in the first couple of builds in the worst way possible - that they sacrifice explanations that make narrative sense for a more "mechanically balanced" system.

There were already a lot of enemies that obeyed the defense/speed and Damage Treshold/slow combination. The only ones that had both seems to be the cowled dwarf. And the point that was made was that if a character has high accuracy far above another character, then the damage isn't going to have just a percentage-wise boost, but pretty much consistently have their hits converted to critical hits. In the same way, a low dexterity build might end up hitting every time (thanks to to-hit-bonuses). But never beat the damage treshold, as well as have practically all hits converted to grazes. As well as have a very low probability of getting critical hits. That put together makes the scale for damage not linear in any way. The bonuses would of course be linear. But the output would be extremely skewed once you actually beat the defense, and start to score critical hits on for example more than half the rolls. Which again is completely different to d&d, and doesn't let the final damage output fit in a linear spreadsheet either. Not that any of this is in any way something we want in a game that runs on a computer, of course. Making the entire discussion moot, clearly. And besides, Josh's intention was a system that is utterly boring and predictable.

All Attributes will probably be used pretty equally in dialogue. Attribute design needs to be balanced in the dialogue system SEPARATELY to how it is balanced for combat. In other systems they are both taken into account, but not in Pillars of Eternity, they are separate systems. So.. no narrative consistency, then. That's your opinion about how it should work. Because... the other option just was so much worse? See, here's my problem with this - you don't get a system that is perfectly mathematical in all situations anyway. It's simply not possible to get that, never mind predict what the other encounters we haven't seen in the game actually looks like. And you know on beforehand that if you run into variants with variables you haven't predicted - which seems very likely - then the system is even less mathematically pleasing. So why would you want to change the system so it is definitely not narratively consistent - on the off chance that the entire game is as uniform as the backer beta scenario? See, the only thing you're accomplishing is to ruin a system that worked. And replacing it with another narratively displeasing one, that the developers still will have to tweak the encounters into in order to make them "balanced". You're creating extra work for Obsidian - or they're creating extra work for themselves - in order to remove a system that at least was narratively pleasing. That's what annoys me. Intellect was fine but Perception and Resolve were completely dumpable in combat. You might not have thought so but pretty much everyone else did, including the developers. They do something, but the bonus is not great on it's own and High Perception combined with Low Accuracy is a trap build. Your Interrupt is not useful if you are only missing and grazing. But that's wrong. And you would know that if you made an int-based fighter and tested it in combat. You would also know that a consistently hitting "base damage" character with high perception is extremely useful for interruption. My guess - although it doesn't matter now - was that interrupts also disregarded or reduced deflection. Making perception a very useful stat, and perhaps a build based on perception could have been necessary in a team. Meanwhile - we have somehow decided that perception was a dump stat, and that the entire system had to be thrown out. Our version is no different in this regard IMO, but I couldn't care less about roleplaying though, I'm more interested in the combat systems. So why do you want the system changed? Why does it not "make sense" without the changes? How does it improve the system when it is no longer narratively pleasing? Again - I don't care much for your perspective on this. But you could be honest and explain what it is you're actually trying to accomplish. No it's not. And yet, might is the only stat that should really not be dropped if you look at it mechanically with the new system, as well as with your suggestions. Matt ran the numbers as well and it's proven there. Why should I not interpret that as if this was your only intention with this?

His posts here, His posts on Something Awful, his posts on badgame.net, his Tumblr and Twitter, his interviews (including the RPGCodex Q&A 2013 where he first revealed what he wanted to do with the attribute system). And from what you've quoted and what you say, you're literally inventing his approval of changes from nothing. In addition to clearly misinterpreting what the guy actually said. What does that suggest? In PE BB v301 Attribute System Perception no longer helps with Interrupts. In the "Sensuki&Matt516 system" Perception still affects Interrupt, but it also affects Accuracy now too because Interrupt relies on the Accuracy score to be effective, therefore making an Interrupt based build a good build. So now my perceptive but bumbling priest is not only a super-fast striker, but he also makes incredible critical hits. Success? I guess I'll just have to up his might now, or else he'll be a hobbled priest! Intellect doesn't help with more severe criticals, it increases your Deflection thereby reducing the chance of being critted. In the old system, Intellect did not do anything to critical hits, it increased the base duration of abilities, which has nothing to do with attack damage. Not sure where you're getting at with that. My understanding was, like I said, that it affected other things as well. That it skewed the severity of the wounds that were inflicted. I wrote this already, and I'm taking that from the "frontline fighters" backer update. No. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, it's just something you are imagining. So what's the intention, then? You're arguing right over here for a system that ignores role-playing completely. And with that system, I'm left with having to choose between hitting the right dialogue stats I want, and actually building a character that has a fighting chance to survive. This is a direct result of the tweaks. There are no dialogue only stats. Then what is there in your opinion? Are you beginning from a starting point that makes all stats equally important for dialogue, and that they therefore then should be equally important mechanically, inside a very specific and narrow system in combat as well? So that in the end, you're happy with a completely disconnected system where perception has something to do with perception in dialogue, and that it has to do with learned skill and dexterity in combat? You know, the extremely perceptive Orc fighter, who somehow is able to supernaturally spot the critical points on the opponent right before the strike, in some sort of eternal serial epiphany streak? This isn't narratively pleasing, as I'm sure you will agree - but you don't care? Because you only have a might-maxed build anyway, or something like that?

"All hearken to the interpreted wisdom of the Pharaoh!". Then I guess the most probable thing is that the previous system - that worked surprisingly well - was an accident, and Obsidian simply screwed up and made it by mistake? Which now is made more properly broken again, as was their intention and normal mode? Sounds completely logical. And no, I'm not conflating "simulationism" with narrative. I am suggesting that the stat system is not, and was not ever intended to be "realistic". That there is no way to explain everything a person does in every detail with the system. Josh obviously knows that this is impossible. And the context that was explained in suggested that he favored a more narratively pleasing system that makes sense (thanks to useful shortcuts) in the game-world's context, over a system that aims to somehow reflect a "real person" and their every aspect. Or a system that is "simulationistic". So this means that not all possible actions by a player will at all times be reflected perfectly with the stat system. But that it does give the players a framework to explain how raising and lowering stats will impact their overall abilities. Such as that a charismatic and perceptive politician will be able to manipulate people more easily - and that when you shaped your character in the stat-sheet, that potential is actually reflected right there in high charisma and perception. This is narrative consistency. Same with the paladin that is a complete fanatic, and who relies on force to solve every problem. This again can be seen as a potential in the stat sheet, and it fits with how that person is in the game's world. But the system doesn't explain how a character will be able to learn certain common tasks, or how easily or with how much difficulty they are able to read spells, etc. That falls outside the system - so the system isn't "simulationistic". But it is "narratively consistent". And you know as well as I do - or at least you should - that the people who tend to argue for a "simulationistic" system tend to argue for a "1 to 1" system that simply makes no sense to normal people who have any imagination at all. They populate the bioware forums in massive herds. Meanwhile no one can really determine their actual number. Or even figure out how they propagate.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=9059 And that's where the "true intention" to make the stat-system utterly and completely uninteresting comes from? Unbelievable. You're really interpreting that into meaning you must - at every cost, including narrative consistency - make the stats equally "important" - for a given value of teapot - in combat. *sigh* Does Intellect Damage and Healing make narrative sense to you? Yes. And here's why. An intelligent priest should be able to focus their power better, and perhaps be able to cure specific diseases or poison with more skill. So, as I understand it, they would have a greater range for their healing spells, and a greater bonus so allies can beat their resistance checks. Against enemies, they would be able to conjure up large areas with modest bonuses. While might would make the treshold for minimum amount of healing higher. But the priest should be unable to do the soul-manipulation with any finesse. Damage would work in the same way. A wizard with high power and no discipline would unleash massive spells, but be unable to sustain the more artful ones. And I massively prefer this to the usual "more or less powerful, period" stats in D&D. For mechanical as well as narrative reasons. Why? If that's your opinion, then you can explain what you're basing it on. If not, you're just insulting me for no reason. Which isn't an argument. The point was that when you build a character based on the abilities you have - perception, might, dexterity, etc. And then when you play the game, that build actually fits into the narrative. In the way that a very nimble and perceptive archer can make incredibly damaging critical hits, and make them more often, also against fast targets and very quickly in interrupt situations. But he doesn't do as much damage as a character with very high might, can't handle a really big bow perhaps, and just will never beat the damage threshold for heavily armored targets. For example. Then that is a success for the system, since the stats not only make mechanical sense, but they also make narrative sense. And when it makes sense when the game responds to you as well. By letting a perceptive priest notice things intuitively, but be clueless in terms of putting two and two together logically. Or when a strong and intelligent fighter can get by with threats, and clever threats as well - but will miss certain obvious cues - both in combat and dialogue. Then that is also a success for the system. Since it is narratively consistent with how the characters are built. This is different from D&D, where I'm used to that a class generally has one stat used for "role-playing". Priest has wisdom. Wizard has intelligence. Fighter has strength. Paladin has charisma. And that the role-playing essentially exists outside of the system altogether. End of story. But that this previous PoE system had opportunities to expand on that somehow simply does not register on your scale. Not only that, but I don't understand "the real system" because I don't agree with the idea that anything outside mechanical consistency across the stats is impossible. Why is that? And given that this is how I think - why would you think it's reasonable for me to simply accept your and for example Matt's point of view on this? I don't have anybody's ear. I don't have exclusivity on feedback. And I will not stop doing anything that I am doing. You will just have to suffer my presence. Our system wasn't used. I made it into a mod. I do not care what they do for attributes now, as I can just make whatever I want into a mod. If you want the original system I can mod it back in for you and send you the link. Don't bother. You're already missing large parts of the class-specific bonuses and how they interact with the stats. So a mod that "looks right" isn't what I want. It's also beside the problem that somehow Obsidian has started to change their system to some absurd mathematical equation based on what their community wants to believe Josh intended, or whatever the hell is going on. (...)

Then by all means, monte - do tell us where you picked up that the system until the current build didn't make sense. Was it, perhaps, here on the forum?

Where are you getting this information from? Intellect in PE BB Attribute System v1 only affected Durations and AoE. It would have some effect on the magnitude of non-damaging hits where the effect duration scales with grazes and crits. However only at a flat percentile value of -50% (0.5% per attribute point) or +50% (+1.5% per attribute point). So it was there, but I'm clearly wrong about everything I said. And it had the effect I suggested, but I'm wrong about how that works as well. Got it. It seems to me he hasn't actually said much about how it works. The piece about accuracy, int and perception, is from the official news-thread about fighters and barbarians where Josh posted. And here's the kicker - where have you read that Josh's intention is to create a game-y system over one that makes narrative sense? Or a stat system that is 100% removed from dialogue and narrative as a principle? That is what your suggestion for improvement is. And the tendency to go that route certainly is there with the latest patch. But where does that come from? And how are you able to rationalize it..? So again, that perception helps with interrupts. And that intellect helps with more severe criticals, part of which is simply adding direct health damage it seems. Just as resolve helps any class resist interruption -- is not only not existent in your retelling of how the system works. You also want to specifically remove the importance of these in the stat-makeup at character creation, unless you specifically want a character to do only dialogue. Until the idea apparently is to maximize the combat relevance of "dialogue only stats", while removing the narrative consistency completely. Again. Why would you want that? What does it accomplish? Other than allowing max-min builds based on Might to function without severe penalties and draw-backs in terms of party wipes, I mean. So where did I make up anything? As you admit, INT and PER as well as RES are..were relevant in combat, and they were relevant before the patch as per design. It was relevant, even though YOUR and Matt's suggestion denies it is from the outset, or assumes it's not there. It was also narratively consistent with how the characters could be role-played, and allowed, like I specifically explained, for example the int and perception based fighter to exist. It would also allow the truly fanatical paladin who could ignore wounds and keep going with his blessing. He would be no superman, but have solid faith literally sustaining him (the character would again be easy to role-play into the dialogue system - he gains solid reputations, he is not swayed by arguments, he is favoring the consistent honesty approaches, etc). It would allow the clever ranger who is extremely fast and nimble, who almost consistently will have his or her abilities trap or pin the target, although they do little damage outside shapeshifts or buffs. It would allow the slow and fat rogue who rarely gets into position, but can still deal a ton of damage and pick locks. It would allow the dwarven fighter that rely on the class' hardiness but is actually relatively fast and quick for dwarves. Etc., etc. It's endless. And now it's just the same across everything, unless it's predefined in the class, with the added on ability modifiers that favor your and Matt's Might builds. So with your and matt's suggestion, just as with the curious changes to the current beta - the system changes. Into, by your own admission, a "game-y" system rather than a more narratively consistent one. You admit it, and you are now getting what you want. Although you put the reason for why this should be changed into a game-y system rather than the previous one that made sense (and came out of nowhere I guess) on Josh's design intention. So where, Sensuki, am /I/ making something up? And where did Josh ever signal the intention to make a stat and combat system that had no relation to the narrative? It's the opposite of what he's been saying from the beginning. It's also the opposite of what the first system was and so successfully accomplished that I hardly didn't believe my ears when some of you started complaining. And that's been my problem with your mangling here - you make this entire thing up out of whole cloth, put in something that seems familiar from the IE games, and convince yourself that it somehow fits with what was the "true intention". And you flail and cry at everyone who points that out. We make things up, we don't know what we're talking about, and we haven't made 50 hours of video or made a pdf with our explanations of how things should be. And Josh agrees with you, even though I have no idea where that comes from. But you're the one in the right, because you say so. Look, I don't know whose ear you're having at Obsidian, I don't care how you're gaining exclusivity on the feedback here. Just please stop doing it. Or maybe have yourself and Matt put on the credits for the game as "The people who mangled the stat system and convinced us that everyone wanted this and that it fit with the game as the kickstarter pledge said". That'd be perfectly fine as well. But I don't want that system. If you spelled out what you wanted instead of insisting you're intending and accomplishing the opposite of what you're actually doing for the sake of promoting it, I seriously doubt you would have many others want the system as well. But at least I don't want a system that is disconnected to role-playing the character. If you want that, you can write a mod and play the game that way yourself. Hell, just maximize the abilities and give you a million stat points and shut up about it, I don't care! And if you force the rest of us to play your system as well, I'll have you credited, one way or the other, for doing that after the game releases. And I'll have Obsidian raked over the fire for tossing out a well-working system because they put the loudest fans ahead of the design-intention they had. Because I won't have much entertainment value from the game, and that's how I'll get the return from my evidently wasted pledge money.

Intellect never increased the threat range. Well, my understanding was that the bonus from int skewed the scale for the severity of the wounds you inflicted. I.e., made the critical hits hurt more. That isn't reflected in the stats directly, and it's not dependent on derived bonuses from stats. And it won't show up until the damage compounds and stamina depletes. So if the intention to make that was implemented in the game, then Int would affect the severity of critical hits. Example: a more severe critical hit snaps endurance and speed, making the amount of stamina to be depleted before a knock-out would perhaps as much as halve. Dude, it's clear that you know less about the mechanics underneath than most other people do as you keep making false claims and chucking a tantrum over nothing. Clearly. And watch my video in the post above for the full explanation. We didn't say anything about adding Deflection to Intellect, that wasn't our idea and I agree it's dumb, but not in the way you think it is. Then how? Was dodge/deflection added as a non-class specific bonus - that you can skew an existing variable with a stat? Was it never in the game until now? Does it add value to a stat that had none before? If so, why? Is the actual benefit extremely small? We don't seem to know any of this - but that of course doesn't stop people from wishing for mechanically consistent stats that fit into an extremely specific style of play. Which you now seem to be getting from the devs. Who, for whatever reason, feel that this is now what people want - over a system easy to ROLEPLAY with, in a ROLEPLAYING GAME. Because that's just for dorks and nerds. The only thing more unintuitive is Intellect and Resolve really. Yes..? Someone can be extremely headstrong, and yet completely f'n thick in the head. Someone can be a magnificent genius, but has no discipline or control of any sort, and can be talked into doing anything, for any reason. And these concepts are unknown, because...? Didn't realize you were a manchild, but okay. Brilliant. I also have only one single mood, and always act in a 100% predictable pattern regardless of context, in case you hadn't deduced that on beforehand.

Oh, and here are all my thoughts laid out in a video:

Here's how it was supposed to work: "Yeah, the way we display the non-verbose final roll is always relative to the standard ranges: Miss on <=5, Graze on 6-50, Hit on 51-95, Crit on >=96. Defense is subtracted from Accuracy and then applied as a modifier to the roll itself. E.g. the attacker has 52 Accuracy and the defender has 30 Defense. The difference is 22. Three attacks happen in sequence. The actual rolls are 65, 43, and 84. Those are modified to 85 (Hit), 65 (Hit), and 106 (Crit). There are two exceptions to this: a natural roll of <=5 can never be better than a Graze and a natural roll of >=96 can never be worse than a Hit, no matter how much the table gets skewed." So says Josh. So since dex increases accuracy (with various modifiers), and Int increases threat range (with some limitations I think), it always was possible to create a fighter without MAX-MIN stats, who still do fairly high and consistent damage. Because of the accuracy bonus (and high attack roll bonuses), he would convert hits that would have been misses into grazes and hits. And there's be a generous amount of criticals as well. In difficult fights against quick high def targets, that fighter (with similar, but not identical strengths as the rogue) would likely be one of the main damage dealers. OMG the system is BORKERN!! because might can be dropped!!! Against heavy DT targets, however, things get more difficult. Because now all those grazes and hits never do any damage at all. Only the crits actually do any damage for the elf running around swatting the Orc with a sword. And a high might stat, or something that bypasses armor, becomes critical. And OMG!!! THE SYSTEM IS BROOOOKKKKEEBNNNN!!!!! Because now only Might works. Btw, now you suddenly you see the appeal of the barbarian as well, who can temp between the two roles at the cost of defense and other interrupt-based abilities the fighter is extremely well suited for. So that's just the attacks of the fighter builds, while ignoring the defenses for a while. Which is equally interesting. And that's how one class can encompass several completely different types of builds, that pass into the territory of the other classes, and vice versa. ----- The question is what exactly, if anything, was actually changed this time around. It is this: Perception became Accuracy, and defense bonuses became "deflection", governed by Intellect. Resistance became the governing stat for duration, rather than Int. And what has happened with the rest? Does perception still govern chance to cause interrupts? Does defense bonuses (that used to come from dex) still improve your chances to overcome your resistance checks for interrupts against you? We don't know, because now apparently defense comes from intelligence and perception, rather than dexterity and constitution. What have you accomplished then, you bastards? You have switched around existing values so that the intuitive synergies between might, dexterity, intelligence and perception makes more mattthemattical sense, if you know absolutely nothing about the mechanics underneath, and couldn't care less about roleplaying a character before POURING OVER THE ENTIRE STAT SHEET for hours. And in return, you can now make a kind of character who is for example extremely perceptive and intelligent, and choose a class that offsets the penalties form dumping all the other stats. You can make a dwarf fighter who is hardy and crafty. And because he's a good mechanic, he can also dodge bullets. I'll tell you what you've accomplished. You've managed to accomplish nothing whatsoever except making the system more unintuitive and more difficult to play into. And you've removed the probability that I'll ever really enjoy the fighting and the mechanics of the game again. It'll be the dialogue, and **** the rest. That's what you've accomplished. So thank you so ****ing much, **** ****ing superfans. That's the last I'll say about this. **** you. But it is. By definition, as per your subjective feeling? Or is it more of a group and a PR thing, where the system isn't working unless a majority of the entire group somehow seems to like it at the same time. Go to hell. Seriously, what the **** are you guys even doing around here? What do you want?

Still waiting for some The Archer stuff.. Question: is it still pornography when the users truly, and honestly, believe it represents reality? Isn't it then just a perversion, rather than a fantasy for private use, that they like acting out in public to spite other people? Since for whatever sick reason, it's been decided that it's bad manners to not coddle the militarists and smile, when they lay out their strategies and rationalisations for murdering another set of 100.000 identical and insignificant brown people?

Wouldn't exactly be the first time, in all of history, that a review magazine literally quotes the sales-rep. This kind of stuff also happens after the reviews have been turned in. They're "staff pieces" with "contributions". And the final product just had a sentence changed from "the combat is unimpressive but with small twists that... blabla", and into "if you squint your eyes, the combat is varied, interesting and graceful, just like the advertisement says". And you're not going to complain about your own review turning out like that. On the pain of lawsuit, loss of future commissions, and a bad rep generally, etc.

OMG! The stat system is BORKEN!!!11elevenses1!!!