Namutree

I like this build a lot! The number of trash enemies has been reduced to a more acceptable level. I know Sensuki misses the "fun" beetle fight, but I'm glad the number of foes has been reduced. The game seems more responsive and the highlighting of characters was very useful in combat. The attributes are better and overall I am really liking this new build. Good job guys!

Placebo effect.

For the OP: Hopefully the animations will be good at release. They probably will be passable by the end. Ragdoll physics were not in the IE games and thus not desirable. This game is meant to be nostalgic. Not to mention ragdoll physics tend to glitch. I can tell you like DS3 & Titan Quest, but poe is meant to be like an IE game. Play them to get an idea of what Obsidian is going for.

I agree. IWD1/IWD2 were okay, and PS:T was... interesting, but as far as I'm concerned BG2 remains the best isometric game by a lot.

I just beat Kirby's Dream Land 1 & 2. Moving on to 3. Having a great time. After I beat 3 I might just start up my old Kirby Super Star also known as 'Kirby's Fun Pack' in Europe. Today has been a good day!

This thread seems to have gotten out of hand.

Actually none of these reasons make the trash necessary. And it is dishonest to say that the trash mobs were restricted to the opening area. I am replaying IWD2 right now so I will come up with a good list later if that is necessary. But I feel I am unable to get my point through: These mobs add nothing to the game. The feel of the attack can be managed without such things. Just play Blackguards. See for yourself. I never said they were necessary; I was merely responding to your question as to why they are there. The mobs do add something to the game; just because there are better ways than trash mobs to accomplish the goals of Obsidian doesn't mean the trash mobs didn't add anything. I'm sure there are better ways of training noobs. Oh well though; the mobs were used as a tutorial and did their job.

In IWD2 you could easily affort not to fight the goblins and you wouldn't even lose out on xp since you could just rest in a higher level area and kill like 1 of the monsters. There; all the xp the goblins give and more has been gained. Then why put the goblins there at all? Also, it is not completely true. You had to kill the goblins to level up in the first place, or rely on lucky rolls. degenerative gameplay. no? This is why the goblins are there: A) Make the city seem like it's under attack. B) Provide simple enemies for newcomers to the IE games to learn how the game works. C) To make the game a tiny bit more challenging. The goblins don't provide much xp; you'll level up from the quest xp though after the siege of the town is over. EDIT: Spelling errors!

1 in 50.

In IWD2 you could easily affort not to fight the goblins and you wouldn't even lose out on xp since you could just rest in a higher level area and kill like 1 of the monsters. There; all the xp the goblins give and more has been gained.

It doesn't just look better; if the enemies also move 25% slower it will really help fix combat.

It very much is poor design. There are a few solutions for this issue, pick any 2 of them and the situation will be fixed: 1) Make it so resting at the Inn is cheaper. Making the minimum cost of 30 cp to 10 would help a little. 2) Some of the trash mobs need to be a bit weaker. The lions & Beetles come to mind. If they're weaker than you'll take less damage and make more profit from killing them. 3) Combat xp is a solution. 2x the level of the enemy would be fine. Too low to break the game, but would make the player at least feel better about the situation.Not to mention the level cap prevents the player from abusing it too much. 4) Increase the value of loot the enemies drop.

That movement speed seems about right. If every one moved 25% slower I think the game would be much better.

I didn't even know those golems respawned.

They can be blurred together, but to use 'objective-xp' which is a bit vague instead of 'quest-xp' which isn't vague at all has caused some confusion among fans. I'm not sure who the first person to use the term 'objective-xp' when they were trying to convey 'quest-xp' was thinking, but they certainly confused me and others.

Oh glad we agree. So why is it GrindXP if the xp you gain from enemies is completely optional to complete the game or progress further? You don't need to grind anything. Thanks for continuing to prove Combat XP isn't as bad as you want it to be. I've grinded quests in Shadowrun for the Sega Genesis plenty of times. Caladian's notion that combat-xp = grind-xp is total nonsense. Especially when you consider that BG1 has a level cap that's easy to reach.

They definitely should slightly boost the offensive power of the animals with powers by a little bit, and give more stat focused animals like the bear a very weak power. I think improving the offensive effectiveness of the animals would improve the Ranger to being a competent class; without making the animal a tank. Also; to make the Ranger more interesting OE should add the hunter talent I suggested at the beginning of the thread. Do all that and the Ranger will become a much cooler class.

I like it.

Call it whatever you want, but combat isn't the same as grinding. Quests are just as capable of being grinding as combat is. Also, I haven't seen anyone who's stated that the lack of combat-xp is the one thing that makes something a spiritual successor.

As long as OE puts discovery-xp that ISN'T tied to quests I'll be happy.

Indeed it is! And should be. I am not complaining about the hardness of hard... its appropriately hard now. I have not tried normal or easy mode yet, so have no comparison there. Since we were talking about the Ranger/Animal combo, my complaint, if you will, is that Animal dies way too quickly and then I auto lose the Ranger. And I dont like either part of that. I have been using all the standard equipment that the chars start with, so you bring up some interesting points. I may have to experiment with different weapon combos. And I may have to experiment with different tactics, but not commiting the Animal to melee makes him essentially useless, unless I can teach him to shoot magic from his rump! To me Animal should either be a damage absorber (thru high HP or high armor or some such)... or... a high threat coupled with high evade char so he keeps the enemy occupied but does not take much if any damage. I am not sure I care if Animal deals a lot of damage and maybe thats how the combo is prevented from being overly powerful - if thats a concern. You bring up some interesting options to ponder though, and I may need to do so further testing using different weapons and different tactics. But it is, and will remain, difficult to build complex tactical manuevers though when the damn beetles run 100mph and teleport and somehow alert their buddies who are way off screen. Oh well - back to work. This. Right now the Ranger is hopelessly weak & desperately needs a buff. Cool way to improve them is: Give the animals that don't have any powers like the bear a minor power while giving animals that have a power slightly better stats. Easy way to improve them is: Give the Ranger +1 Hp/Stamina per level. That'll make the class at least a little viable. Something like this will be needed if the design goal of "no weak classes" will be reached.

In regards to point B - It would make sense that avoiding combat would make you worse at combat...right? It also make you worse in sneaking... Currently. If you read the rest of my post (yeah I know they tend to be long...) I said that it would be better to get better in stealthing by USING stealthing. Sure it would require tweaking the system a bit (how much I wouldnt really know - could be a LOT or a LITTLE), but I think it would be better for it. My personal opinion, yours can vary. This ain't no Elder Scrolls!

Here you make false assumption that things that aren't necessary to complete game don't influence on its balance and what is the optimal way to play and especially how many people play the game, which are things that designer worry over. Since you don't even need combat xp in particular the lack of lock/trap xp only moves you to xp in general. Quest xp as much as combat xp. That is why it's meaningless. The game also doesn't give you xp for pausing the game. Does that tip the scales toward combat xp? No; it just makes it so you need another source of xp in general. Whether it be combat xp or quest xp is meaningless. So, as I have already said. BG1 had balanced xp. Kill the quest givers? There are consequences for that far exceed the tiny bit of xp you'll receive. Sneak past foes? You'll be making some parts easier; some parts harder. Any way of opening chests or avoiding traps is balanced.

If you don't like it; don't read it. Gromnir is awesome and that's a fact. Don't ever change, Gromnir.

A) Not really as you have virtually unlimited pool of money and you can buy reputation from temples and reputation really matters for those that play good characters and maybe in some extent for those that play neutral characters. B) It may be safer but it don't help when there is encounter that you can't avoid and you are under powered because you sneaked past previous encounters. C) I give you that I have played too much versions with BG2's engine. But absence of such source of non-combat xp only works to tip the xp scales towards combat xp. A) The amount of xp most quest givers would give you is like ten or twenty. The amount of reputation you'll lose can be as high as 7. I'll gladly keep the 3,000 or so gold it costs to keep my reputation at a reasonable level over the 20 xp that quest giver gave me. B) The game can be beaten even with a level 1 character, and quest xp alone will easily get you to level 5 with a full party. By sneaking past the enemies you are making some parts easier & some parts harder; sounds balanced to me. C) A meaningless point since I have already established that combat xp isn't needed in the game. The system is balanced in BG1, and you have yet to voice any solid evidence to the contrary.