Shevek

I hate that these soulbound weapons only bind to certain classes. All weapons should bind to and have effects for all classes.

I wouldnt play without a wizard.

This isnt a MMO. You can build a fighter in a variety of ways and wont have to worry about not finding a group if he cant solo tank a dragon or hit 2k dps.

Well, after a user's third suggestion, I just ignore the rest. I also ignore anything that has zero to do with gameplay. Okay, but you're not a developer so why should we care? Why should anyone care about anything? I suppose it could be because I made the thread asking for feedback because I was curious and wanted to get a handle on what people's top 3 suggestions would be. I mean, what kind of person just jumps into a thread and starts posting without even reading or giving a darn about the original post or the reason for the thread's existence? I guess you.

Its an economy of ideas. If you have to pick three things, you pick three things that really matter to you and you, hopefully, have concrete details to support your salient points. If you have no limit, you start listing every little thing you would change to make the perfect crpg that only exists in your brain. This also legitimizes the data to a degree since all respondents have a ceiling and cant monopolize the input by listing 30 things to some other dudes 1 or 2. Also, by limiting folks to 3, its much easier to use established means of qualitative research to yield quasi quantitative data . The data set is manageable and you can start sorting data rough categories. This means you can see what aspects of the game folks feel needs to change and what, if any, is the consensus around how to do so. Of course, this isnt perfect. People veer from the format and ignore directions. But I just ignore crap that is actually more about world building, narrative design, level design, etc (like ninjas and airships) or people that list 30 things when only 3 were asked for. The problem is when a captain obvious or someone who isn't that bright has 3 ideas which are still added to your list, and someone who is a budding game design genius has 5 great ideas but is pressured to only say 3 of them, even though the 2 he left out are leagues ahead of the other person's 3 subpar ideas. It doesn't matter how professional your quasi quantitative data appears when the means to forge it diminishes the usefulness of the end result. You sound like you care more about stroking your epeen by collating data instead of making Pillars 2 a much better game. The game isnt made for just game design geniuses though and I doubt that the sample that OE wants is a bunch of arm chair game designers who look at titles with an entirely critical eye. Also, who is to judge the sub par idea from the great one? Most research on sampling suggests that the public as a whole tends to be pretty darn good at estimating value, recognizing issues, etc. Also, it generally stands to reason that if a massive plurality of individuals take issue with a specific gameplay system, then it should be looked at. So, that data alone would be of value to OE. The specific suggestions will be allover the map but any commonalities in what people as a whole want could be of value as well.

Its an economy of ideas. If you have to pick three things, you pick three things that really matter to you and you, hopefully, have concrete details to support your salient points. If you have no limit, you start listing every little thing you would change to make the perfect crpg that only exists in your brain. This also legitimizes the data to a degree since all respondents have a ceiling and cant monopolize the input by listing 30 things to some other dudes 1 or 2. Also, by limiting folks to 3, its much easier to use established means of qualitative research to yield quasi quantitative data . The data set is manageable and you can start sorting data rough categories. This means you can see what aspects of the game folks feel needs to change and what, if any, is the consensus around how to do so. Of course, this isnt perfect. People veer from the format and ignore directions. But I just ignore crap that is actually more about world building, narrative design, level design, etc (like ninjas and airships) or people that list 30 things when only 3 were asked for.

I ignored everything after 3

Well, after a user's third suggestion, I just ignore the rest. I also ignore anything that has zero to do with gameplay.

Essentially, make the pet optional to the ranger or remove it is basically a bit of feedback/suggestion having to do with a singular aspect of the gameplay - the ranger's pet. But, hey, you want to leave one suggestion, thats fine by me.

You just made what amounts to a single gameplay suggestion. Care to reformat and add 2 more?

Its not about commenting on my suggestions. Its about giving me YOUR suggestions about anything gameplay related. Your top 3.

I am trying to see if I can collect and categorize gameplay feedback/suggests for PoE2 to compile. Chances are this will probably be ignored but I will have a bit of time off in coming weeks - so I am taking this as a bit of a side project. So, basically, give 3 specific suggestions to further improve PoE gameplay for PoE2. Suggestions beyond the first 3 will be ignored as will anything that is not gameplay related. I will collect feedback over the next week or so and then start to compile it. Heres mine: 1. PoE2 should do more with its injury mechanic. Theres untapped potential there. Instead of just having major injuries resulting from failed athletics checks, minor injuries could accrue from being knocked out, hitting certain traps, allowing certain effects/poisons to go uncured, getting critted by certain powerful/named creatures, etc. This could both incentivize better play and add a further drain on rest resources. 2. Something to disincentivize just trekking back to buy more camping supplies when you run out. This could be carrot (xp or stat bonus accruing over x number of fights that resets on rest, etc) and/or stick (partial respawns when you leave an area, etc). 3. More interesting spell mechanics for Wizards. This could mean metamagic or spell sequencers/contingencies/etc. This could also mean something to promote Grimoire switching. Perhaps different Grimoires could give bonuses to different kinds of spells - thereby incentivizing the maintaining of different spellbooks.

The unarmed talent does not work for shapeshift. It is utterly useless.

They are the answer to folks who might have been upset that they backed off their original intent (in the early part of the KS) of having some form of m/c. It is a weak answer.

Why would you sat that? (T_T) They're not meant to be ultimate moves, they're more for adding variety to builds.They suck compared to any multiclassing I have seen in any rpg system ever.