nipsen

I suppose I think that's just another lazy narrative. It's perfectly possible to enjoy BG2 without glorifying the mechanics. It's a good attempt at making the adventure day work in a computer game, and it never tries to recreate the mechanics in a pen and paper setting. It shouldn't either, unless you wanted to create a very cumbersome game where very little happens. But all in all, BG2 is a fairly quick and dirty approach to convert d&d conventions to a video-game. Still, it works to tell a story and let people play with strategic party mechanics in a game. But it is a genre on it's own - Adventure Role-playing Games. It's like a d&d spinoff. I'm just saying that when PoE ended up copying BG2 mechanics, this isn't an attempt to recreate original d&d rules, and sticking as close as possible to some imagined role-playing game ideal "old time" players have. It's just copying the BG2 mechanics. With all the weaknesses that system has. For example, potion and healing spell inflation is a result of having more engagements each "adventuring day" compared to in a pnp setting. So copying potion inflation into PoE for the sake of it shouldn't make much sense. Then you're just copying a quick and easy way to use the d&d mechanics for the sake of it. And what makes that so annoying is that Obsidian actually presented a better alternative. Made by people who understand GMing. Which was then shot down by people who wanted a BG2 clone. Basically, we keep hearing that people imagine that BG2 is some sort of "traditional" design. But it's not - it's a very simplified ruleset based on d&d, designed to drive a narrative in a computer game. It's not actually created from scratch to get a computer game to make sense. That's what people forget - that the d&d license had requirements. And that this was the source of many of the not entirely grand solutions. That is an extremely good point, I think most people underestimate this factor... Then again - BG2 still is playable without making the actual gameplay bore you to tears. IWD2 as well stretches the ruleset a lot to allow the game to be paced in a certain way. Or the game is put together to drive a narrative, not to occupy you with repetitive stuff to do between the dialogue scripts. PoE sadly copies certain specifics of the mechanics in those games, instead of copying the idea that you create something for the purpose of making the game flow. So to say the expectations are higher is just generalising too much, for the sake of ending up with a simple explanation. For example, my expectations for the mechanics were extremely low, coming from BG2 - until I saw the first draft in the PoE beta. Where they had actually made some incredibly good suggestions on how to make a pen and paper game into a video-game. Much better ones than what they had in BG2.

Mm. You see, I always just run my mouth and imagine every thought I say is founded on evidence and is equal to fact for the simple reason that I'm saying it -- just like people expect around here! No, I have played the game. And what strikes me is that instead of using abilities and spells as a strategic breaker of some sort. To buff a particular stat, to stop an advance, or to debuff a particular defense for a high defense mob -- like we saw early in the beta -- I keep having to spam my abilities and spells, over and over again. Before resting after approximately the same number of battles. Whether I spend my spells and avoid damage, or if I save my spells and take more damage. It's about the same. Whereas in the first draft, that absolutely no one in the entire world liked (as we all know is fact and decided), you saved your spells and abilities for when you were in trouble, and couldn't realistically expect placement and normal defense to win. Which sometimes would be often, for example in the deep dungeon treks. But less common on the open maps. What I'm saying is that you cast the spell for a purpose, to get that one dangerous mob out of the way, etc. Instead of expending spells and abilities equally depending on number of mobs you're getting rid of. So now, just like in BG, and so on, when you run out of spells and potions, you're basically going to reload or rest. Otherwise, you're going to win easily. But you take damage anyway, and have no real chance of avoiding that. And there's only so many healing spells and potions to spend - and you will spend them or rest. There's no "reward" for being smart here, there's just micromanaging bs. It could just as well have been a button that you press to make something go "ping". And that removes the tension. The feeling of having to be careful and not overextend yourself, in case you're running into trouble is gone, and is replaced with: "when should I use my potions". "Should I buff five times, or just rest, like I have to anyway after this battle?". "Should I risk having to reload?". And it also makes the dialogue in the events something you spend the least time on, because they're not significant any more. The main challenge is not getting railed by some combination of instant uninterruptable abilities, or eventually getting your health points worn down. Since the mobs are going to hit you and cause direct health damage, even if you do the attack "perfectly". You know that on beforehand - so there's no strategy involved. You know you're going to survive pretty much any battle, but you also know on beforehand that you can't scrounge by through the dungeon without (god's help me) "prebuffing", and employing your now extremely often used combo of spells and abilities, that any half-decent mage would have made into a new spell to save time. It's the result of that design. When I'm not reading the story, which is good, I'm imagining that I'm being forced to watch a "let's play" of someone running through Baldur's Gate 2 with only daggers and healing spells allowed. And where I have to pause the video to read what the characters are saying. I'm glad you're all excited about it, but to me it's painfully tedious. And the point is that I don't have a choice if I want to play the game. If I want to get through the story here, I have to play this game in a way that a few very annoying people decided on behalf of the rest of us. You could still have played through the entire game with only Barbarian characters wearing only tutus for armor, while setting your own allowance for pocket copper money. And it would - for all we know - have been glorious. You could have posted youtube videos of it for the enjoyment of other tutu-wearing Barbarian fans, and it would have earned you money, even. It could have propelled you into pwedipidipian stardom. And then I could just have ignored all of it and just played the game in peace. But oh no, the game had to be normalized to utter knee-biting boredom for the rest of us as well. It had to be done, or else sales would suffer! And fans would be angry! Idiots.

That is a good point. But the reason for it is that initially, the battles would be short and have, say, two moves and one correction or response to an enemy move. You would find the enemy weakness and the battle would be over. If not, you would take damage. Any major fights would last longer, but the mobs underway would have a weakness, and you'd push through it quickly once you learned that weakness. It created a flow that made trekking fun and small encounters strategic, without being cumbersome. Unfortunately, people who Obsidian listens to insisted on behalf of every backer that they would rather want a more linear potion-chugging system that favored their specific chosen style of play. Things such as "true to the IE games, as promised by the Kickstarter slogan" was mentioned, over and over again. And that's what Obsidian ended up choosing. A linear system that makes battles boring, and of course also makes any area with narrative in between the combat become split up in a way that wasn't there originally. Because that, according to people, was what the Kickstarter folks wanted.

Are you seriously arguing that something that can be expected to eventually happen during gameplay - is actually a rare exception, if one person on this forum say they did not see it? And that if someone on the forum insists it is an exception, then that it is an exception is also "clearly and objectively true"? Did you really say that? What's with the hugely hyperbolic extremes? "EITHER VIRTUALLY EVERYONE HAS IT OR YOU'RE SAYING NOBODY HAS IT". Fact: there are serious bugs affecting at least some people, let's use as example, the Raedric's Hold bug. (I know this, because I have to read most of this forum and I've read many posts from affected people.) Fact: there are many people who are also saying the bug never affected them. (I know this, because, see above.) Fact: the bugs affect some people, and not others. Nobody knows exactly how many. Fact: to say "virtually every player is likely to encounter..." is clearly and objectively untrue, as I initially stated. I mean, I'm not saying anything profound here. It just sounds like you're frustrated with bugs you experience (rightfully so), but then go off claiming something about the nature of game development and insisting you know what Obsidian should have done, and then getting more offended by what you think I said. As I have said elsewhere, some bugs are there, and they do really suck for people who experience them, and there's every 'right' to complain about your experience and ask Obsidian to fix things ASAP. I don't see what is gained for you by making hyperbolic claims that aren't true and don't really pertain to your cause. I'm just saying that the way q&a didn't pick up on some of these bugs suggests that your "intended use" procedure is a bit, shall we say, focused? Narrow-minded? Exclusive? And when you insist that someone not introduced to the particular brand of bg2/d&d nerddom some of you seem to like a bit too much, is just playing the game wrong - then that also perhaps says something about how exclusive your point of view really is? In the same way, you still essentially told the guy to go away if he couldn't be bothered to say something positive. This perhaps would explain some of the reason for why people on this forum tend to be extremely focused with their feedback? And perhaps in some fairly significant ways cut the legs under your idea that the forum is full of all kinds of varied user-experiences from all kinds of users? Or, that you're saying that on the one hand, the guy is /obviously/ an anomaly, and should stop posting hyperbolic bs on the lovely site. Because the entire forum is full of non-anomalous users who /never/ see the problems in the game, ever. Do you see the small problem going on here? With the slight tension between the two ideas? Or do you want me to explain it again? I can use crayons and paper rolls if you want me to.

^still - that was the elegance of the original system, that you only really needed the 6 primary abilities to describe any feat. Endurance would be used for feats that needed sustained effort. Might would be used for displays of raw strength. Intellect for complex reasoning and ability to quickly categorize data. Perception for spotting unusual details. Dexterity for delicate and accurate movement. Resolve for resisting the influence of others, or holding on to your convictions in the face of any danger, etc. All of these would be displays of a type of strength, all situational, and all potentially as important as the other. Raw strength here meaning the ability to channel force, or as explained in the lore, channel the force of your soul power. How you would channel that force -- up to you. Meanwhile, there's a duality to each pair of stats that would be reflected in the derived abilities. Might and dexterity would create incredibly skillful strikes, for example (and be analogous to a d&d "strength" maxed character). And if you focused exclusively on those abilities, you would have these elegant synergies with the other unfavored abilities. Might and dexterity could go together to create a swordsman capable of placing very strong and accurate critical strikes. But it would go at the cost of situational awareness, endurance, resolve and intelligence (on the other hand, they would still strike really hard if they would hit). And so the uniqueness of it is that this was actually reflected in the game's mechanics as well, with the derived stats. For the sword saint in the example, he would have low interrupt chance, be easy to interrupt, and easy to hex. Lack of endurance would also mean lower resistance to wounds, perhaps critically. So you would have to have this character use heavy armor and shields perhaps, that would protect them but slow them down. Always, these intuitive synergies. But still, the character would strike really hard when they'd be protected and buffed and could approach the target to connect a hit. This character would also naturally use his strengths for the role-playing parts - he would impress with raw physical strength, and be able to stab a fly stuck to the wall with a dagger. But they would be somewhat clueless when it comes to processing data, having any situational awareness, and so on. Any amount of variations on that character with a third stat would also work. And you'd get out anything from a swordsman fresh out of a dojo, to a brutish pirate, and all the way to a foil-wielding nobleman. Of course, this would also open up for the option to create a supremely mighty wizard, capable of casting monstrously powerful spells. But at the cost of resistance, physical dexterity, resolve, perception, and so on. In the same way, with for example Perception and Dexterity, you would have a character able to interrupt any ability trigger, any target change, any status change. So that say a dimwitted but industrious priest would be able to use his contact spells (against deflection, bypassing armor) extremely well. For a short time, when calling upon his god. And thanks to high intellect, he would always be guaranteed high lower output on his divine spells. But he would not be able to withstand divine influence from other deities in a critical moment, or deal out any amount of damage physically, or ever maximize his spells. So again, you have this unique synergy with the role-playing aspect and the mechanics in the game. And all the pairs of combinations like that would be viable in the game. Because if you used the strengths of the character, you could always find a situation where they'd be useful - you just had to use your wit to place your characters well and use their abilities to your advantage. This system was pure genius, and transformed the usual "see who runs out of potions first", or "wait until we see who is the lucky dps-er in this situation", into a game of strategic placement and finding a way to actually using your abilities to your advantage in a party. The dojo trained swordsman would be invincible in a one on one fight, for example, and even moreso with the priest healing his wounds. But he would be helpless against an ambush, or if he was ever disabled (or crippled from a long fight). In other words, the massive success of that system was in how it would translate the simple high-level narrative explanations into relatively simple gameplay-mechanics, with the kind of accuracy that a game-master (like me) dreams of. The only sacrifice you would have to make to bask in the magnificence of this system was simply to allow that neither single stat alone represents supreme and unparalleled skill in a specific domain, as we are used to from D&D. Unfortunately, this system was deemed too complex to understand for mere mortal men, and we ended up with the current system instead. Enjoy. Praise and bless. Interesting, is this available to read somewhere? http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68526-how-to-fix-the-attribute-design-in-pillars-of-eternity/ ..As you can see from the title, this wasn't really a suggestion for a more holistic replacement of the other system, but a "critique" of the existing system at the time. The pdf link is presumably still dead. But highlights include, but are not limited to, how a damage distribution model that doesn't approach a 50% hit ratio, with an average damage output of 50% of the weapon stat, is a failed design. This argument is sustained in the following way: assume golden standard. Demonstrate how the current system does not meet said standard. Insist that the failure of original system is now "mathematically proven". Which then naturally would allow any amount of unargued and utterly unrelated suggestions to be adopted. Because anything would of course be better than a "failed system". We are not allowed to question the "golden standard" distribution, of course. Finally, dismiss anyone pointing out weaknesses with the approach here as making irrelevant objections. Since the circular argument above, and more comically the superior quality of all incidental and unargued suggestions, is now "mathematically proven". If you thought this was the silliest sophistry imaginable, you were, quote "insane". And we are apparently still so convinced of the argument made here that Matt actually brags about how Obsidian adopted some of the suggestions. Obsidian on their end keeps bragging about how responsive they are to the "community's needs". But as you all know, very few of us actually wrote 50-page letters to the devs, insisting that Obsidian should placate us personally, at the cost of the other 70.000 backers. In fact, it's assumed that because Obsidian does not receive 70.000 letters, they all agree with Matt and Sensuki. So now you know how the current stat system came into being. Eothas be praised.. and things.

Are you seriously arguing that something that can be expected to eventually happen during gameplay - is actually a rare exception, if one person on this forum say they did not see it? And that if someone on the forum insists it is an exception, then that it is an exception is also "clearly and objectively true"? Did you really say that? I don't know, Josh or Brandon, or whoever - I could put your staff through an emergency course in philosophy and ontology, for free, if you'd like. If that's not actually needed, maybe they need a crash-course in manners. Because then the entire purpose of that post was to say that anyone noticing an obvious problem with the game should be ignored. Basically, "if you don't kiss my a**, then f' off". Of course, that's how staff folks have dealt with everything so far, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Right. That's what I said as well. But the solution they've chosen is to remove certain variables from the attributes, make other player-controllable variables less significant. While making abilities, feats, spells, and so on comparatively more significant per cast, regardless of stats. And they're then going to balance those abilities to make them seem reasonable against player expectation. Which is a great plan if you want to engage a Q&A team for at least the entire duration of the contract, or, more likely, for as long as the game sells enough to justify paying them. Because obviously you're not going to actually see a situation where two different adventure parties are not going to be able to deal out and take different amounts of damage. And you get in a situation where not just the attribute system is cosmetic, but also where you will create strategies based on those expectations that simply won't work. And there'd be further tweaks, endlessly. What I'm saying is that if you mod this now, you will also have to go through and normalize all critters, all items and all spells, abilities and hamsters, as well as the class variable tables down to what they originally might have been, if you don't also want weird unaccounted for buffs and nerfs. Because half of the game now is put into specific implementations and tweaks for spells, feats, weapons and items. State of the art game-design in 2015, ladies and gentlemen. You don't need to moderate yourself, you know. It's only on the internet that you will ever see anyone insist it's common to hear: "You know what? I don't care about that wizard - I think we should talk more about variables now!" in a role-play gaming setting. And it's only on this forum that I've ever heard anyone create a philosophical justification for variable twerking. In the sense that people seem to genuinely argue that twiddling with variables is a transcendent act of Game. That if you twiddle enough, that in itself entails immersion. Which then in the last parting of the waves signifies nirvana, and perfect Gameplay. Elsewhere, narrative is everything, and bending the rules to make them narratively consistent makes up about 90% of the game. But not here. And, sadly, neither at Q&A at Obsidian HQ. But of course you're right. Designing an rpg around a cosmetic attribute system is an incredibly curious choice. And it's insulting to role-playing gamers who know what this means. And it's insulting to people who used to play the old IE games as well. (Well, with the exception of the five people on this forum who got all their wishes fulfilled, of course. And who insisted anyone disagreeing with them must have been, simply, insane. 70 thousand backers thank you, I'm sure).

Told you so.... Seriously, though. After the entire thing in the beta, got to admit that they've ended up at a good compromise with the current system. ..Even if the compromise was between something no one really wanted and couldn't have, and what Sawyer designed to actually fit with the game's setting on the other. So that they ended up with something that is closer to but still isn't d&d convention, and also doesn't quite fit with the game's setting. But you can still see the problem with how the current stats don't fit as intuitively with the setting as they should, when you're prompted for dex checks for accuracy and fiddly tasks (and the accuracy as a disciplined action mechanic doesn't exist as far as the stats are concerned, but govern deflection, and is found in the hidden class variables instead). Or perception for .. perceiving things more broadly in the scrolling parchment scenes, for example. And the stats in the character page say it means something else, and grant bonuses to yet more abilities that aren't easy to see where comes from. So it shouldn't exactly be unexpected that people don't intuitively understand what the stats mean. And that it does, still, require a learning curve that is almost like a leap of faith across floating rocks rather than a winding road up a mountain. (Maybe it's even more complex now than it was originally, because of the way the stats don't match narratively either, yes?) In the end you're better off not reading too much into what the variables say, and just go with the narratively pleasing explanations (that also the writing and the story is using, and the overall description generally runs with), and trust that Obsidian will balance the power of the spells and the abilities to seem reasonably in line with what you expect from that point of view. And for me at least, playing it on "normal" basically lets you do that. But people who wonder what in the world went on here should know that there was a better (frankly, uniquely well made) alternative in the game presented to us in the first public beta. That allowed for more diverse builds to exist in the game's mechanics. And that that system also had the same "problem" as the new one, in the sense that "might" simply means the characters ability to channel raw force, whether it be physical or mental power. But that this had to be kept because it is core to the game's lore. While the other stats had a very graceful link between narrative and gameplay, that the game doesn't have now. On the other hand, the game now "looks more" like a "conventional rpg" setting. Which is.. good? I mean, still think this was the silliest and least explainable thing a developer has done that I've seen in the last 15 years of gaming, given that they didn't actually have a publisher breathing down their neck, insisting they had to .. "make it look like d&d to sell!", or something like that.. Hence the thing about the pledge money in the link on top of the post. And sadly, I have very little difficulty seeing people will eventually talk about the attribute system in PoE as "different from D&D for the sake of being different from D&D". You can probably bet good money on that someone will cook up a story about how the PoE attribute system originally was just normal D&D, but was changed at the last minute because Obsidian "forgot" the Wizards of the Coast owned the D&D system, or something like that. And that it's happening at Gaf as we type right now. Even though the opposite was what happened. Also, note that because of how the game is very intricately tied to specific tweaks and ability buffs and so on now, you can't simply "mod" the stats to change other variables. It's just not doable without making the game unplayable, or allowing hilariously overpowered builds. So what you have now is the best and only offer they're going to have. Honestly looking forward to some kind of post-mortem for this game in a few years, if someone will actually come up with a full rationale for the initial moving around with the stats. If there really was a mechanical explanation for it, or if it came from "concerns from users". Or if nothing else, exactly how the process was - when they figured out that adding a bunch of stat-points made the characters too strong, and when they went back to the 3d6 type stats, and what that was supposed to answer, etc. So if you want my advice (though that would be a first), ignore the minutae with the stats, go with the narratively pleasing explanations when you pick things, and just enjoy the game for what it is.

Oh, sure. There's always the ever apparent assurance that people will respect that escalation of conflicts will lead to mutually assured destruction. And therefore are wise and calm, or at least will have enough Hobbsian rational self-interest, that they will show restraint when engaging in any conflict, armed or otherwise. In the same way, we obviously assume that by the same reasoning, people will always wish to resolve conflicts peacefully rather than engage in activities that inevitably lead to war. The problem is that this is dependent on the political existence of some half-mutable meaning of terms such as "peace", "war", "conflict" and, say, "peace resolution". And I would argue that this reasoning has been thoroughly falsified lately, simply because for example the US government, along with several others (including my own at various times), have successfully created and benefited from populistic argumentation that to some degree or other insist that we need to commit to war and armed conflict in order to have peace. The argument isn't that security comes from peace, and that any other state of affairs is a massively risky undertaking - no, the idea is that if we go to armed conflict, then we are /safer/ than before. In other words, now that we are engaged in what the US government itself calls a global, endless war on donuts, or even the very idea of donuts - we are increasingly safer as long as the war moves on, and so forth. One has in the same turn accepted, 400 million people in silence, the idea that law and civilian law is only applicable and appropriate when the world is safe and calm. Presumably then when there are no criminals or to quote various presidents, "evil", out there. In the meantime, while there are "wrongdoers" out there, Wild West style rule makes everyone safe in their homes, I suppose. Whatever the reasoning, whatever the justifications, the net result is that we have accepted the reasoning that military campaigns have to be fought in farawayistan in order to keep the world safer. To stop the world order from collapsing. Which we then happily grant our governments the power to, without any restrictions whatsoever. And it's worth noting that until recently, these wars were kept secret or at least out of the campaigns, and explained away as unfortunate mishaps due to commitments in the region of conflict for various benevolent political reasons and diplomacy, and jazz. Now there's a shift, for the fact that openly arguing for wars against donuts is in fact a politically sound way to get reelected. It's not just in the US either. We keep dismissing it as simply xenophobia and political populism arising from local prolems. But the fact remains that several political parties, notably for example in France, is looking towards a government led by a far-right candidate who among other things argues for global commitment in the grave and serious fight against twisted foreign pastries. Meanwhile, we really have nothing to say when Russia annexes Crimea. Because their reasoning and justification is as good as anyone else's. Simply because there is no real window for insisting that if you do not restrain yourself, there will be consequences. There are none. So as you can see, now there is already no inhibition against the idea of going to war in terms of political power, and no democratic force as a counterweight to it. Which, as I postulated, falsifies the mutually assured destruction doctrine in at least contemporary politics instantly. In other words, yes, I tend to believe that if a large scale conflict eventually arises from whatever reaction comes from our interference in the Middle-East, where the emerging major powers other than Russia and the US will be involved, then the point where things really go south will be when some arse of a populist from some sort of religious university where they teach Augustin as gospel while they saint Karl Rove as the second coming of Warrior Jesus riding on a dinosaur manage to convince other arseholes that "hey, what about going to peace, folks! Let's peace these f***ers out of their corporeal existence, so that the remaining spirits on earth may be soothed to calm, so we may yet achieve another 8-year period of survival against the evil out there!". And in the meantime, we regret to inform you that certain double-plus liberties may be taken away, and - as the privileged few in Westernia - one may simply enjoy liberty on a baseline. Which of course still is more libertarious than what those animal drones out there on the front in Farawayistan wishes to enforce upon us all! Pray to God and wish our troops his favor, which we of course know they will always have anyway. A bit too much, perhaps. But remember that it's no more than 70 years since rational real-political minds managed to ravage the entirety of Europe over a 5-year period. Where allied countries, where people went to schools and universities across the borders, worked in different countries, where there had always been an exchange of ideas - ended up in a situation where said arses managed to create a situation where war was inevitable. And, more to the point, that it was in many instances from a political view that was sound from a pure populistic viewpoint. In some cases I kind of think the fact that people lack engagement, while those who have are ignored, is a blessing, though. Because that at least affords state departments to temper idiots once in a while without anyone noticing. But trust me on this one - we get the governments we deserve, there's no way around that. And frankly I don't see an end to the kind of conflicts that we've seen sprouting up lately. It used to be that academics would simply note with concern that the number of peace-processes that were started very rarely would actually lead to a successful "peace", as in a stable democratically shaped cake with evenly sprinkled frosting in all colours (..I'm really hungry, if that wasn't obvious). But ultimately - what does "peace" look like? What we're talking about in 99% of the cases is to bring armed groups to the table, so they'll duke things out politically instead of with weapons. These are not trivial fights, for example in East-Timor, Indonesia, Northern Ireland, etc. And here "peace" is simply setting a focus on ugly contradictions that have been boiling under a lid while the conflict was brewing. So this is usually not a problem with "peace" as an idea. And yet, now we're seeing that significant political actors end up insisting that war is a good way to get ultimate peace. All Cake All Day for Total Slimness! Makes about as much sense. Nevertheless, that's what gets you elected nowadays. Right-wing arguments that would be beyond McCarthy during the cold war. It's the kind of reasoning that would make Nixon blush in perhaps both shame and anger at the same time. It's so radical that it doesn't even treat excess as an unusual contextual exception never to be followed again, it treats exceptions that dismiss and go far beyond any vague resemblance of a Hobbsian social contract - simply as a rule. In other words, we've democratized a movement that previously - as in historically - needed military abuse and real threat of incarceration to exist. Good bakery still exists, though, so f' it.

Oh, I know. This is near the moment when a US journalist asks a US politician to explain what ISIS actually is, and to suggest the difference between them and the groupings in Iraq with unpronounceable names that fit under labels like: "they support us, probably", "they support us a bit", "they might support us if we pay them", "they don't like us, or foreigners in general, but say things we like to hear". And perhaps get a list of which of these groups that have at some point received funding and supplies via war-appropriations not specifically approved by Congress. You know, just for fun, to see how many groups are defined as both ISIS, terror-groups black-listed for trade, as well as "allies". ...anyway. Pretty sure "coalition" forces have been airdropping supplies to every possible kurdish faction for a few years now. Including the ones that support and take part in violent overthrows of any recognisable police-authority in Kurdistan. Not that it's not better than random drone-strikes on populated areas near the Iranian border. Mighty show of restraint to stop running those, really. Such incredible situational awareness the US State Department offered here.. Honestly, world war 3 won't be fought over oil or resources, or land or anything like that. WW3 will happen because of bone-headed, obnoxious stupidity, for no good reason at all.

Mm.. actually, both April and Zoe seem to enter the dream-world while wearing simple underwear or super-tight clothes. And have been doing that since 1999. ...presumably because they, like Cage, have watched too many surrealistic French movies. Where wearing underwear rather than nothing at all in a dream could mean anything from modesty, to suppressed emotion and all the way to overtly playing a fake role, ..as well as just tv censorship standards. Not that any of you were interested in hearing that.

..sorry, for a while there I thought you were talking about the history of the United States. But that brand of "isolationism" is how the US has conducted foreign policy since Roosevelt, and arguably since before that. By proxy. The problem with suddenly finding that you're irrelevant arising from a situation where no willing or natural proxies can be found. Where even rebels in the mountains in Afghanistan can see no benefit from simply being given weapons or resources. When no trade-partners can be found for, say, founding a steel factory in Egypt, since it's political suicide to endorse union policies that arise out of such a deal. When there are no actors in the South-China sea area interested in involving a nation with neither will to demonstrate military clout, or that can create political legitimacy for the goals the various partners might set themselves, for example if that simply was maintaining a power-balance. I mean, you should probably understand that for a lot of "our people", there has been a need to involve the US for simply the reason that we do not want to imagine east-Asian relations where India, Pakistan and China can set the agendas from the positions they very obviously should have. Because the dynamic afterwards would be completely different. In the sense that when people in EU-countries officially talk about looking to China as trade-partners, what we're really saying is that the US is not afforded the proxies they need to conduct foreign policy in the way it has been done up till now. See, a good number of people are talking about the 1990s now as if they happened in a different age. That there have been so many changes since then that it's impossible to use the same baseline as before. It's not a coincidence for example when Australia and East-Timor becomes a model for involvement in problem-areas over going to the security council. With a version of the UN Charter that's disconnected from the actual forum, and the former super-powers, becomes a baseline for establishing how countries operate a security cooperation. Just some food for thought.

Well, we haven't tried, so maybe it'll work. I'll have none of that sanctimonious euro nay-saying here.

Stranger things have happened, though. Five guys took a break from admiring the Ayn Rand portraits on their desks, wrote a few papers, and sold a war based on the concept that it would pay for itself. While arguing that the president has unilateral power to do anything without political sanction by Congress (...which was a "theory" actually filed as a legal opinion in the justice department by a low-level functionary (Yoo), but which then was pulled up by the administration as a common opinion - which since has not been tested in court, since actually throwing it out on it's face after someone used it would mean direct impeachment by Supreme Court, something justices will not want to see. The political leverage to question this with solid legal opinion, if anyone cared about laws and kings and things of that sort, exists of course). And so therefore the Congress wouldn't have to be involved in the approval process when it came to money, or actually approving the war. And then they did it. I.e., the administrations have successfully transformed any controversial law or decision into a political approval rate question, by letting any administration literally interpret the meaning of any law. This power is then specifically to be given by simple majority vote during the presidential election. Where something around 25% of the people vote. After, presidents as well as a sizeable amount of actually learned people argue that the system has checks in place. People in the US tend to think that it's too complicated to grasp, or that it's too complicated to change. But it's not - you have an elite with autonomous power to start wars (a concern to people elsewhere), to collect taxes and spend them on ..very curious things (a concern to the US, you would believe, if for no other reason for self interest). And changing how this works is possible, and a lot of politicians want it to happen. Apart from how it typically means certain failure in the elections. And the thing is that a lot of the people I talk to are not unintelligent by any means. But rather than organising themselves, pushing some input at state and county level, and getting informed in some way - they go by narratives such as this: "Well, I'll gladly sacrifice my tax-money so that the world can have democracy". And it's genuinely altruistic. "I believe we as a people are a giving people". Genuine super-Christians or people who believe in giving people an opportunity to make the best of themselves. "I work 20 hours a day in a store, so that I some day can be a millionaire and give something back to this great nation". Great. Even the "ugly" xenophobia is tainted by this: "We think that we should give people the opportunity to better their lives, not build it for them. Let there be rose-gardens arising out of bloody chaos and war", etc. But name one single politician in Egypt, for example.. try to do it in your head.. usually people can't. Name a single of your own officials involved in current talks and negotiations in Egypt? Can't. Name a group of people in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen that are politically active? Can't. Any newspaper in the Middle-east with wide local circulation? *shrug* Any political organisation and a vague retelling of their political aims? Nope. Any western political parties perhaps? Angela Merkel belongs to..? James Cameron is head of the....? Name any half-current political controversy in any country other than the US? Name the last controversial law passed on the Capitol? ..nothing. And they feel that's completely all right. Because it's none of their business, apparently, outside being part of the grandest scheme of all, having humility in their hearts and for God, and gracing people's lives with the gift... of Democracy. Or something. I don't know. Just saying that normally the places I hear narratives similar to this outside the US - is in communist cadres with brainwashed folks who wear Mao's little red book as a personal talisman. "The revolution comes tomorrow, for certain this time". Who has to have some hobby outside his crappy day-job. It's like.. that one guy in a city with 50k people. And in the US it's the other way around. Let me tell you - it's scary as ****. I've talked to people in ghettos in Syria with a better grasp of how democracy works. A friend of mine used to travel in Africa. In the middle of the jungle, there's this guy sitting in a pool of mud, with a yellow straw growing out of it - it's his plot of land, apparently. And he's sitting there reading the London Financial Times. People want to know stuff. People have a brain and part of having one means wanting to use it. ....and yet.

Oh, trust me, this is nothing compared to the sanctimonious backtalking you get from your own folks in State. They think.. heck, they /know/, that you're idiots.

Mm. Common misconception that the Saudis or Israel, or the Jews.. or Aliens, are controlling the US foreign policy. The US foreign policy is actually controlled by dumb people with too much power who happen to believe in incredibly stupid ****. Such as going to war to fix your approval rating at home. Even if it invariably works, the more gore the better -- why would someone actually do that? How would you even contemplate it? But almost all admininstrations did that. Clinton did it (although he didn't have a hard-on about it on TV, so I guess it didn't work so well), Bush 1&2 did it, and Obama did it. It's practically decided on beforehand that it will happen at least once every 8 years, the only question is how much damage these **** are going to do in the process. But the military must be used every 4 years, and there will be a war every 8 or so. Bush is perhaps the one with the undisputed record streak of all presidents so far, though, winning with: 1 final destruction of the UN and all resolutions, making everything spiritually to the left of Michelle Bachmann clap their hands over their ears and scream. Any resolutions involving Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Iran, Turkey or Golan for that matter - who cares guys! It's just a bunch of claptrap. "Repatriation", and "peace process" who even uses words like that? Borders and police authority? East-Timor and Australia. Korea, remember that one? But none of it is going to win any elections, I'll tell you that much, so screw the UN dictator debate club! Also, what the f does "nuclear scientific research" and "commercial atomic power" mean? I don't know, so no one else needs to either! Only thing you need to know is that we have the f'ing bomb, you have resources we're going to pay you for, and we're going to kill you all if you don't suck my ****! And that's how we ended up at "Obama and 'the west' is now not very popular around the world". But.. it's actually you - the people who vote in the presidential elections based on someone's haircut, and don't know there have been 4 other actually important elections in your state. You guys enable these ****, and you're the direct cause of thousands of unnecessary deaths every 4 to 8 years. Who sits in the Whitehouse, which party they might have, what colour of their lapel-pin -- doesn't matter. Because state and the relevant departments are getting a blank check they are going to use every four years. You still have John Bolton in the UN, for example. He's just not opening his mouth on TV any more, so you don't notice how bad for your reputation around the planet people like he is. Same with the "ambassadors" you send to other countries. People get these jobs in two ways: 1. education and mind lent out at West Point. The guy has no original thoughts in his head, but will at least have some sort of latent, unused intelligence in there somewhere. Or 2. a gravy train as a reward for kissing ass and holding African babies. These guys think they're sent to tour the zoo, and see all people who are foreign as if they're at least a bit of a nuisance, but entertaining in small portions. They surround themselves with people who look and think like they do, and then put on a smile when they meet with dignitaries and local state department officials. One of these people actually submitted a building plan to Oslo county about building a fortress with an underground bunker outside of town to replace the embassy inside the capital. I do not kid you, this actually happened. In either case, we're talking about positions that collectively have been classified as either useless and a waste of time, or as a potential intelligence gathering operation. The very idea that there's supposed to be an exchange of ideas, or perhaps even of culture and thought - no. Doesn't happen. It's not involved in the process, 'cause 'Merica. And that's really all there is to it. Some day we'll just mason y'all into a huge dome that stretches from the east to the west coast. Because that's really what the US always wanted, I think. To be left alone in your own filth.

^Wizards are still kind of weak, in other words. See, the thing is that there hasn't been much polishing on the combat flow. They've updated the models a bit (which seems to have upset contrast with backgrounds to some extent, but that's a subjective thing of course), they've added a few arrows. But there was nothing done with the animation, how the animation interacts with the system underneath, with how events are queued up, if the visual feedback makes sense, and so on. All that was left alone, and likely was locked in September last year. Instead, lots and lots of game-mechanical features in the first ruleset.. the first ruleset we saw, anyway.. was cut out or normalized to inexistence in a fairly obvious attempt to make the presentation of the game less chaotic. In other words, they've attempted to simplify the presentation of the game by making the ruleset one-dimensional. So now the result is a one-dimensional ruleset with very little customisation (as opposed to the brilliant solution Josh had put in originally). And it still has a pretty wonky visual presentation. ...Success!

Haha. .. funny. You see - all of this yank was there from the beginning. Too quick feedback, too much stuttery animation, too little direct feedback, very little pause and action slow-down, etc. That was, like SOME OF US said initially, where the "bad feedback" came from, not any faults with the ruleset. But throughout this "beta", what's happened is that Obsidian - for whatever reason that has nothing to do with loudmouths at this forum, they assure us all - has systematically gone through and simplified all the mechanics on the ruleset level, toned down how significant the attributes are, removed attribute stats altogether, normalized all the character makeups, removed all kinds of build options, etc. - in order to attempt to fix people's "displeasure" with the yankiness in the game. "If only you remove engagement", "if only you remove interrupt", "if you only make all characters might-based", "if it's only identical to BG2 with pre-made characters", "if only ranged combat was superior to everything", "if only magic was stronger, no matter what", etc., then combat will flow perfectly and everyone will love it. It's been so obvious at every change throughout the beta that whoever is in charge truly believes that the development team is constantly one small incremental change away from suddenly solving all issues at once. So just so it's been said - everyone should read the feedback in the quoted text over there, and judge for yourselves how successful this 7 month public "beta" process has been. Seriously - whoever was in charge of this, whoever scuttled the release of the at the time biggest crowdfunded project, and reduced it to what is coming out now -- there will be questions asked later that Obsidian better have some incredibly good excuses for.

..since the entire middle-of-the-road compromise they chose - between jumping the gorge, and wandering around the valley - wasn't such a huge success as some thought it would be, that's probably not the most risky bet anyone has ever made, at least. But it's because the system just isn't very good, it's not because the backers have super-special preferences. Some of you certainly have super-special preferences, and those views have been incredibly overrepresented. But that the general "demography" has unbelievably curious tastes is a myth. And I don't think you're right about how this won't bother anyone but the backers. Thing is that the combat as it is is boring. The challenge isn't finding the right strategy - the challenge is finding the right procedure, and then just staying with it until you fall asleep. "I'll challenge you to repeat the same process to defeat the same enemy over and over again - while I'll punish you for deviating from the obviously ideal recipe with expensive penalties, more boring grind, and failure" - said no successful game-designer, ever.

Well, as long as there will still be three-four people around - of the kind that are more influential than the rest of us, mind you - valiantly declaring how all should agree the game is exactly the same as BG, as long as potions can be chugged in bulk, spells can be cast for pre-buffing, and mobs can be kited across the map, and spells can be cast at a distance to win battles before they turn into engagements. Then obviously that's not going to be a problem. Because these people know what Baldur's Gate really is all about. In fact, because these people are simply pouring out their opinions, untainted by argument or any sort of reasonable discussion, their opinions are pure. And therefore should be taken to be truth. Unlike any arguments that are bound by foul logic or godless consistency, or, considered with heretical perspective. Get rid of it all, agree with truth, and be at peace. This is how the universal law of things work in the multiverse, and it's how it always will be.

I didn't want BG3. I wanted to see what Obsidian would do without a publisher goblin hanging over their shoulders. Sadly, that didn't happen. Setting aside how you would measure "provably good" for now - of course I would. That's why I encouraged people to explain their opinions and the viewpoints as much as they could, ahead of the beta, so the feedback could actually be useful for Obsidian. ..here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66571-beta-testing-and-you/ So when we get a few extremely loud people literally arguing that "something" must change, because any change has to be made to appease the angry fans, no matter what the change is (and incidentally, here I have a huge list I'm going to present as a set of cure-all solutions that everyone wants, and at least ten people agree, so that's basically everyone, etc). Is that good feedback - for example if it, in spite of things, resulted in "provably good" changes? Just asking. I honestly thought that the suggestions that were discussed were so dumb that Obsidian never would seriously consider any of it. That they'd thank the community and laugh silently while writing the blog post. So I didn't say much at first. I thought it was a practical joke when the implementation changes were done, as they went even further with the simplification and restriction than even the most ridiculous suggestions. And then Obsidian folks defend it as being something internal testers have long considered, and that it fits with what the community wants, as well as with what Paradox thinks is favorable. Which sounds completely reasonable. Things are being done, and the community gets wishes implemented. Except that we're basically talking about keeping the obtuse UI as before, and simplifying the combat mechanics and attribute system until the entire game (hopefully outside the writing otherwise) is dull - as well as including the obstinate and repetitive buff and potion dance routine we all know so well from the other IE games. With apparently the net effect of pleasing exactly five people on the internet - who still hate the game anyway. Now, I'm not a professional PR manager, nor a professional AAA developer. But to me, this doesn't seem like the most brilliantly efficient way to spend resources, regardless of which of any available dimension you placed the measuring sticks in.

Then do you have alt accounts here as well?

So in other words - you agree that I was right, but insist I'm still wrong, because bleh. Well played! Also, separating attributes from affecting game-stats in mass /may have limited the build options/, perhaps, possibly, against all evidence -- but really not because stuff and I'm stupid! Well played again! Maybe they changed the names of the methods so it would be easier to tell the UI and the table generation apart? That possibly they haven't actually made any new UI methods late in the game? I complained about how you two forced the idea that: 1. No mortal could ever understand the attribute system, and it had to be simplified. 2. That since you didn't see the point with perception, resolve, intellect, and so on -- then no one else should either. Anyone who had a good explanation, including Josh, got trashed. In the end, you argued something like that maybe you weren't completely right - but because you were not completely right, the idea that the attribute system was too complicated, was still proven right in the end. After all, you guys are literally the only people who backed the project, and at least you are eminently representative with your thousand hours of BG and Call of Duty "under your belts". You trashed me across multiple forums - and then used your own post on a different forum as source as how "everyone hates this nipsen guy". Because that's obviously how someone with a good argument acts. The best part was how you argued here, in the beta-forums, that something should be changed - not because you had a good argument for it - but because if it wasn't changed, then there'd be bad press. End of discussion. You even complained that your "might only" builds got murdered by the spiders, and insisted that this was proof the game was broken. And you did this while presenting yourselves with Matt's credentials as a role-playing book writer and lecturer, and I guess your supreme gaming hardcore skills with Call of Duty competitions. Along with how "mathematics don't lie". And you did this while multiple people explained, with a lot of patience, that the basis for your math tables was wrong. That the answers you had were answers to questions no one, including you, had asked. You answered that by starting to report - and successfully got removed - posts that attacked you, for any reason. Many posters who had interesting things to say just left. In the end, you weren't - as I said at the time - even interested in actually getting the game changed. Instead, you were simply interested in abusing the indirect access Obsidian gave us. You only wanted attention. Until Obsidian naturally wouldn't talk with anyone afterwards. And the only thing Obsidian took from this still was that their hardcore crazy fans, the hardcore folks they allegedly rely on as customers, don't understand the system Josh presented. And that anything other than a pretty trailer will generate bad press. That's the only thing you and the dittoheads here managed to prove. We could have had a reasonable beta-test, with a good dialogue with the Obsidian devs, if a couple of you hadn't gone overboard. I literally suggested that ahead of the beta, that you should be aware of how you can shape how the dialogue with the devs happen. But unfortunately, most of you are pretty unpleasant and over the average egotistical twats with no self-control. So that's that. Obsidian screwed themselves over for ever listening to any of your yak. So that's the lesson for Obsidian next time. Closed and limited tests, and to not trust their fans to sit down the right way on a toilet.

@GordonHalfman: Oh, haha. If only people were this imaginative when making their characters, and when writing their feedback later. Anyway - Josh's walkthroughs of the attributes and how they were intended to work are still up on the site. Could you also chuck +AoE over to Intelligence, because consolidating both the prime caster stats into a single Score is absolutely daft. ..I suppose it would be useful to know if modding the stat-sheet code actually does change the math for the damage calculation, though.. But hey, details.

^Sounds a little bit like consistent logic. Woot. Still, don't see a reason why you shouldn't be able to throw away carcasses and bones you don't need. I mean, if it causes problems in the engine somehow to have loose references or something, then why not just have endless inventory and disappear things you don't need, or something.. But there's no in-game world reason why you should have to put every single item into a magical luggage chest.