Namutree

Maybe whether or not you can stop the fight would be based on CHA or whatever the CHA is called in poe.

I found Bg2 pretty easy on my first time playing, but I did import a very powerful character from Bg1.

Does anyone know if any of npc characters will fight each other? I thought it was kinda cool how in Bg1/Bg2 the npc's would argue and even try kill one another if poorly matched.

Nothing wrong with backing something you're excited about. I'll probably be backing it soon myself. I wanted to get a good idea of what the game would be like before I gave Obsidian my hard-earned cash. With that said, welcome to the community.

I don't see why a safe and a few guards is too much to ask for. I hope Obsidian fixes the silliness of the old IE shop system. It's never been a really big deal, but it sure is annoying.

I think maybe you have issues...

Lunar Silver Star Story Complete had story based dialog progression. For example, as you got further in the game some NPC's would have new things to say based on game events. I went back to a lot of older cities to see the new dialog. I don't see why Obsidian couldn't do the same.

Freakin love majesty. By the way; I have a risk game for ps2 that has the Majesty announcer. It was an awesome surprise. As for the OP, no mmo for PoE.

Racism as we understand was as much as thing in medieval period as it is now. Romani people, Jewish people, Sami people, Arabs (plus north African people), Native Americans, red haired people, for example were along people that suffered mostly during middle ages in Europe or areas that Europe pursued to control. They were discriminated against, they suffered violence that was aimed towards them just because of 'race' they belonged and sometimes they were even executed because of it. Don't argue with Cranky Kong. He'll just hit you with his stick while rambling about Killer Instinct.

This is the most full of crap thing I have read all day. ROLE playing game man, ROLE. There are tons of people who play RPG's for the story, in fact I would be willing to bet there is markedly more of them than you and your munchkin ilk who would be better off in Diablo whether you want to play it or not. Meanwhile as I said before if there is not enough content to prepare you to reasonably beat the main story without it being a bend over and take it/pray to get lucky scenario then the Dev's failed at game design 101. Optional content is not optional if you have to do it or beating the game is near impossible, and 30% harder is a freaking lot harder. What you and Stun don't seem to "get" is that scaling is less for people who play crit path only as it is easy to design under the concept that all required content will be played and all optional skipped. Scaling is for you people who want to twink everything so you can get to the last boss and he isn't a total joke and a let down. Is 30% harder is a lot harder? Maybe, but nothing a good player couldn't handle. Josh already said the standard game will be as tough as BG2. Even if the boss were 60% harder it would be beatable for a skilled player. I also don't know why people who only play for the story are playing on hard. If they want to ignore the mechanics and only role-play; fine. No skin off my back. They can put it on normal or easy depending on their ability and ignore all the exploration and quests without worry. So why can't I have a mode where extra content like exploration and quests are actually rewarded. Also, Diablo is not the only RPG where leveling actually matters; in almost all rpgs leveling matters, and the ones where it doesn't are crap. If you are worried about the final boss being a total joke on hard mode; Obsidian should balance the battle around a fully prepared party, and not scale it down. Problem solved. ----------------------------------------------------- That's certainly the lesser of two evils.

Namutree, on 09 Jun 2014 - 2:06 PM, said: If you look only for leveling and becoming stronger go play Diablo. This is RPG not H&S. Not all game s are for everyone. Not doing optional content does not mean that the player do not enjoy gameplay If you look only for leveling and becoming stronger go play Diablo. This is RPG not H&S. Not all game s are for everyone. Not doing optional content does not mean that the player do not enjoy gameplay For me Level scaling is about adjusting the opponents level, encounter scaling is changing the type, equipment or number of opponents in encounter etc. And one question to the "I want to become stronger as I gain levels" crowd. Why in Witcher 2 when the player was vulnerable at the beginning but could slice through opponents later on was a flaw? Apparently getting stronger during the story as Geralt got more levels apparently was an issue and needed to be fixed to provide more challenge later on? I'd rather not play Diablo. I prefer a more tactical approach to combat and I like a good amount of choice in my class/race selection. Not to mention I don't really enjoy the story of the Diablo series. You're right when you say that not doing optional content does not mean you do not enjoy the gameplay. I rarely do everything in the games I play, but when you want to nullify the rewards for optional content via scaling; you're contradicting the core of the mechanics.

Yes, there are. In fact there are lots of them especially in RPG's. Go figure but some people play RPG's for the story not the BS power fantasy Mony Haul nonsense. If they don't find the optional content to be worth the time investment and it feels like a slog they very much will only do the main story. Also there are people who are simply "checkboxers" whose only goal is to simply beat the game. They are probably just going to run through it as fast as possible and purposefully avoid side content. Lastly no, they are people and gamers too and deserve to be considered in design decisions and shouldn't be left with an unwinnable game just because they don't want to pound away on "supposedly" optional content. Also while we are at it, people.... look up the meaning of the word optional. If you don't want the game to be completable by people who don't do optional content than that content clearly was not optional at all. No giving the choice between doing sidequests in area A or B does not mean they are optional, you still had to do one or the other no matter what. Also learn more definitions. Encounter Scaling and Level Scaling are not the same thing. This thread is about Encounter Scaling, not the thing you guys keep bitching about. I agree that the final battle should be able to be beaten doing only the crit-path. I just think it should be harder by a reasonable margin. If I had to guess... I'd say 30% harder. Also, while its true that encounter scaling and level scaling aren't the same; they have a similar effect. I get higher level, but make no progress. As for gamers who only play for story; play an interactive story game like Heavy Rain instead. This is not a visual novel game; it's an rpg. Rpgs are about doing quests and leveling up to become stronger. If you choose to ignore this feature you should be punished. Not all games are for everyone. I haven't gotten a proper rpg in a long time, and I don't want the mechanics to be downplayed so some one who doesn't like the gameplay can ignore most of it without consequence.

Oh, it was in keeping with the theme, all right. No debate there. I question, however, whether manually routing around through containers of crap was a good game mechanic, since it is based not on skill, tactics or any form of strategy but rather just on repetitive mundane actions. Naturally, in the mmo age, the plaudits piled up. I would say it was a good game mechanic considering the theme of the gameplay. They wanted the player to feel desperate and convey a sense of struggle to be overcome with work. This appeals to mans desire to feel competent, in a survivor man kind of way. If having ammo didn't require tedious work; the player would feel too powerful, like they didn't earn their resources.

Did you play the game on hard mode your first time? Keep in mind we are talking about PoE on hard when we discuss the endgame battle. I would be VERY upset if the final battle were easy for a high-level/well-equipped party on HARD mode. Which is why I said that the boss should be made to challenge even a level 12 party by default, and be even harder for a lower level team.

I've thought a bit more about this issue, and I have to say: Encounter scaling is a bad idea. IMO the core idea of a rpg is to create an illusion of power. That's why you start off weak; to make you feel stronger when you become strong, and why they use numbers to represent your power. If the final battle does not get easier for a higher level team, then the game has contradictory mechanics. Even if it's not done to an extreme; it still doesn't really contribute to anything if the boss was balanced around a level 12 party to begin with. I'm not saying that a team should have to be level 12 to win, but it ought to be a lot more difficult. Otherwise, the optional content won't contribute much to the theme of the mechanics, and will feel much less rewarding.

That post seems very negative. =(

It's not really the solution to "my" problem. It's the solution to the one you want to keep pointing out because you apparently frown upon people who don't want to do enough stuff in a playthrough to reach the level cap. It's been brought up oodles of times already, but "optional" content is called that for a reason. Besides, that's easier said than done. Again, 6 characters gaining even ONE additional level can make a HUGE difference in the tools at the player's disposal, depending on exactly what that level entails (spell frequency changes -- at-will instead of per-encounter, or per-encounter instead of per-rest, etc. -- talents, etc.). If the encounter in question is STILL that tough, even for that party with all that additional stuff, then telling someone "You can be a level or two below that, if you want. These quests and such are totally optional..." is a bit of a technicality. "It's not impossible to beat that encounter without doing more stuff, if you're lucky." Also, for the record, I'm not saying it's the game's obligation to make things easy on everyone. You seem to keep focusing on that whole "scale it down for the little guy" factor, but I'm more looking at scaling it up for the "big" (higher-leveled) guy approach. Again, where appropriate. There are more criteria than "Is it an encounter? Are you a higher level? SCALE! 8D!" I'm worried that if I do extra content I'll be denied my reward of being more powerful. (Power being a relative term.) If you're playing on hard mode then the boss should be ready for a level 12 team by default.

That would be perfect.

I was actually just saying on another another threat, this should actually be the other way around: It's the cruel and selfish that should have it easier, not those who try to do right by everyone. The context I brought this up was as an alternative mechanism for level-scaling: Instead of the game adjusting to the player's level to allow those who skipped a lot of content to be able to finish the main quest, it should instead make the player choose between doing things the easy way or doing them the right way. Betray an ally to avoid a difficult battle, torture an innocent child to death to complete a magical ritual that will grand you untold powers, abandon the villagers you were supposed to protect to divert enemies off your path -- it's easy to come up with ways that sensibly reward the player for choosing evil, and I myself would dearly like to see them implemented, if for no other reason then because it then makes choosing good all the more meaningful. On the issue of the law-vs-chaos, I tend to see the problem of having to choose between Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil (capitalised here indicate I'm using the normal D&D definitions) that of the chosen setting. Most cRPGs take place in civilizations where laws are by and large intended to uphold peace and justice, so it immediately follows that abiding them will tilt the player toward good, while breaching them will push them toward evil. I'm hoping that in PoE we will see more moral ambiguity in this regard -- it's an original setting, after all, so nothing's stopping Obsidian from having the player navigate inherently evil laws. All of the examples I gave above could potentially result in shift toward Lawful, rather than Chaotic: Perhaps you are sworn to out any member of the faction your companion belong to the authorities, and in sheltering them you break both your vow and the law of the land; The child could be a legally purchased slave you are legally at liberty to what you want with, and the ritual itself a contract with a Lawful Evil deity; The villagers might be the target of an ethnic cleansing undertaken by the realm, and betraying them viewed as an honourable thing to do -- like outing a criminal. Finally, you noted how it's disturbing how in many RPGs the kind-hearted hero will finish the game with a kill-count in the triple digits, and I agree. Killing in self-defence or to protect others is one things, but often the games reward (or at least don't punish) you for killing someone deemed a "bad guy", which is a very black-and-white and dissatisfying way to look at things. I hope PoE will at least to some degree acknowledge that people aren't inherently good or evil, but instead provides us with the option of trying to figure out why the bad guys do what they do, and maybe even help them. The hero should be someone who has to struggle to provide everyone's story with a good ending, including the bad guys'. The villain, meanwhile, is the villain not necessarily because their goals are sinister -- the most compelling villains are always those who themselves believe they're on the side of good -- but because they don't care who gets hurt in the process of reaching those goals. I totally agree that heroes are the ones who should be having a harder time than villains.

Prime is right - if optional content is needed to go further, than its not longer optional. YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT AT THE SAME TIME. I disagree. If there were three cookies; raisin, chocolate, or oatmeal. If beating the game required I eat only 1 cookie; I could say, "Chocolate cookie is optional." And still be right.

I was fine with Athkatla and how it didn't cover the entire city. It was Nashkel and it's roughly 20 (Half were guards) npcs that made me upset. Nashkel and Beregost were WAY too small/empty. I could have sworn the bandits outnumbered the general populace.

300 NPCs is a lot of resources. For two cities, which PoE has, that would be 600. So either you get a lot of copy paste, or you don't get your peeps. I personally think Torment was a good number of people. Never played torment enough to know how many that is. Also, as long as they had an effiective way to create npc's; I don't think 600 is unreasonable.

You COULD just make only a minor portion of it needed. Since there would be a lot to choose from no particular task/quest would be considered "critical", but instead optional. Not that I'm saying Obsidian should do that. Then what are you saying? It seems you want to be politically correct and say something without saying anything. Im only saying that some optional content could be needed to complete the critical path, but still be considered optional.

I find that a lot of crpgs don't have enough people in their cities. I hope that in PoE the cities actually have a reasonable number of people per city. I think at least 300 npc's per city is reasonable. Does anyone know if PoE will satisfy my need for big cities?

QFT!! High body count games have always bothered me for that reason - don't get me wrong, I have nothing against killing my enemies, but do I have to kill quite so many of them? Surely some of them will try to flee, or simply be wounded. The problem I have with this is similar to the problem I have with most CRPG aspects...believability. When taking on criminal gangs and the like, you can pretty much expect to have to brutally murder a bunch of 5-6 people in every room. If there are 10 rooms in the building...that's 50-60 people whom you've just murdered! So, that many people die in one day, and this has no impact whatsoever on the population of the city? In a huge scale battle, then sure, I can understand having that many deaths, but if this is happening in street skirmishes with that kind of regularity, surely there's going to be a population crisis before long. I kinda agree, but the issue for me isn't the amount of people I'm killing. It's how few people there seem to be in the cities/towns. Heck, in BG1 there were like 20 people in Neshkel, and a lot were guards. I'd hardly call 20 people a town. More like a tiny village.