I was going for mock anger rather than outright pissiness, but I guess that really *was* the vino talking.  Anyhow,

 

Might is helpful for the "tanking-class" with self heals (Paladin, Barbarian and Fighters). It increase those abilities healing output.

That's what I meant by tertiary was the fact that might governs 'healing.'  I just got ahead of myself while I was typing and didn't really go into that.  I called it tertiary, but I suppose that's not even fair, since self heals are pretty significant in PoE.  With that in mind, Might is a hell of a lot more important for 'tanking' than in 2nd edition or 3.x DnD.

 

However, I read something Monte posted in another thread, and I *do* agree that I don't like rigid 'roles' for classes.  I don't always like the rock/paper/scissors paradigm.  I mean, sure, having fighters be the frontliners who basically stand toe to toe.  I don't mind that, but I do hate reducing their roles to 'meat shield.'  I hate the whole 'glass cannon' idea behind wizards.  ...But I think PoE actually does a lot to *prevent* that rigid stereotype.

Hmm, it's simple really...

 

Sex > Race > Sub Race > Culture > Class > Stats > Abilities > Voice > Name..done.

 

There is a problem with that order, Culture affects starting gear based on Class, so it needs to come after Class.

Maybe I played the wrong are as my experience was very different.

 

Started a new game as both a ranger and a druid, switched from my ranger to my druid save games (both new games for this build) and could not select my druid by his portrait only by clicking on his body, also he had the white bubble next to his portrait normally a ranger pet.

 

Thought I would try the lion/druid area out rather than go through the quests again.  For some reason my entire party received a movement buff, no icon to tell me where it was from and continued after I rested, so I was zooming around the area, fun but I don't think intended.

 

I entered the spider dungeon cleared it only to get to the webbed tunnel, cleared the web with my fighter and 2 of my party members fell during the battle with the spiderlings that ambush you. After the fight had finished my 2 fallen party members would not get back on there feet even though they had half health left so were not fully dead.

 

On top of those major bugs every time I tried to use the priests innate healing ability not a spell I would have to click the button around 5-10 times to select it, it goes dark green and begins to cast, this happened with other abilities too, such as the druids bear form.

After 38 hours I FINNLY BEAT the beta lol its not broken anymore i can tell when this game is done itl be one of the best RPG's of 2014 OR 2015 :/  not shure when.

I'd say it's a combination of the hit system, DT and Crit Multiplier being applied before DT, which exacerbates the problems with hit mechanic.

The fact that grazes and critical hit are not just flat % make the whole thing a bit bonkers to me and if you can't hit/crit hit reliably, you're useless overall as DPS while if you can hit/crit reliably, it makes you crazy powerful.

 

Since Fighters have high base ACC and a talent to convert grazes into hits, and Rogues also have high base ACC and a talent convert hits into crits, you can see how things go when comparing with other classes who not only don't have these talents, but overall lower ACC anyway.

 

And the more you level up the worse it gets, fighter and rogue becoming incredible killing machines, while others barely able to land any hit on anything, constantly grazing.

 

Personally I'd put critical hit as a flat % removed from ACC vs DEF calculations (ie: if you roll 90% or above on the d100, you crit) but still affected by some talents (ie the Rogue talent would make it so 80% rolls or above would crit or something). That would make the system more stable overall in my opinion.

After that, I'd put crit multipliers applied on the damage left over once you factored in the DT and remove DR completely as a mechanic. That would result in lower critical hits overall on heavy armored targets, and still decent crits on low armor targets. Other damage multipliers would still be applied before though of course (such as Might, Savage Attack talent, etc).

As for graze, I'd get rid of it completely and instead put a critical miss chance (ie: if you roll 5% or below, or something), which could do like double your recovery time or something.

 

For ACC vs DEF calculation, you'd then go 1d100+ACC vs 1d100+DEF and if attacker roll overcomes defender roll, then you score a normal hit and go on to calculate damage. Of course that would result in a lot more misses, but I don't mind personally, that just means you can block/evade properly. Endurance can then be lowered to prevent inflation, making hits matter.

Of course some people don't like damage spike and would rather constantly get hit or hitting. Personally I don't mind and this allows for weak but very defensive characters (focusing on defenses and not getting hit at all but it hurts when hit) and pure damage soak like barbarians (ignoring defenses but got so much Endurance blot they can safely ignore hits for a time). With the current mechanics, my fighters are incredibly durable because nobody can do anything but graze on them, and barbarians get two shotted.

 

Never gonna happen, but there you go

 

Edit:

As a note, I'd also replace the linear dice rolls with curve rolls. As in, something like 5d20 instead of 1d100. Linear rolls just exacerbate randomness instead of character development, while I find curve rolls push everything to a more stable medium range, making character development more of a factor overall.

THIS

I think the stealth mechanics may be a little OP.

 

First picture shows me the limit where I can travel before the guards 'notice' something. The red line is the limit.

Second picture is when I cross that imaginary line, the colour in the Fighter's circle starts to change colour to yellow below his foot.

Third picture shows I can face hug the guard without him noticing and then run back to my party before the characters circle changes completely to yellow and he was completely unaware.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hopefully the spoiler isn't showing in this, like it is in my preview, but I'm not in the beta and I noticed an odd greenish opaque circle under the feet of the player that make me think of them as miniature's on a map. I think the color is off putting to me, what and why are they there? On the other hand, if they were trying to implement miniature's like a tabletop experience, I'd prefer maybe a silver color or gold. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on in the image.

The green filled circle is when you're in stealth mode. When you're out of stealth mode, they go back to round circles like in the IE games. When you're in stealth mode, and an enemy 'notices' something, the circle changes colour, starting from the bottom below your feet and fills up counter-clockwise until it's completely full and the enemy attacks you.

The green filled circle is when you're in stealth mode. When you're out of stealth mode, they go back to round circles like in the IE games. When you're in stealth mode, and an enemy 'notices' something, the circle changes colour, starting from the bottom below your feet and fills up counter-clockwise until it's completely full and the enemy attacks you.

 

Also note that they specifically said this is placeholder art - just an FYI before people go complaining about how ugly/bad/unfinished it looks (which it does, but they already know that). Sounds like they finished the system up mechanically, threw some quick art on there, and pushed it out to us. Expect that to look much better within a few patches or so.

Edited September 29, 201411 yr by Matt516

Outside of art problems and some need to balance out how it all works stats wise this new stealth system is actually quite nice.

I do like to face hug the guards, wave my arms in front of them and then turn around and high tail it out of there. And the guard are totally oblivious.

 

I know, I know. It was just implemented and needs fixing. Also, the colour needs to be different as the yellow and green tend to blend in together.

Edited September 29, 201411 yr by Hiro Protagonist II

It's just like Skyrim! 

 

EDIT: Yeeahh, they should probably rework some of the variables so the disc fills much faster the closer you are to the enemy. That'd solve the oddness a bit.

Edited September 29, 201411 yr by Matt516

I've been catching up with the threads for days now and I'm perpetually behind, so sorry for responding to this before reading on, but this "reply to quoted text"button has been on for days now, so I guess its past time to resolve it.

 

Which translated to:

"you're all nothing but children and cannot decide for yourselves nor assume responsibilities for yours actions, so we'll take everything away from you and you'll do exactly what we say"

 

A concept in game design I find quite insulting, but ah well, sometimes you got to just suck it up right?

If humans were rational creatures, perhaps. But its been long established that certain degenerative behaviour occurs when you award combat experience to the point of players sabotaging their own engagement with the experience. It's easy when you feel challenged to want to obtain the best possible advantage before moving on. Combat experience would make large amounts of players forgo their normal impulses for how they would resolve an encounter in order to grind that larger advantage.

 

Now, in many cases it is impossible to cut degenerative behaviour out entirely, but forgoing combat experience is an effective fix, aimed to help players retain control over how they prefer to play the game.

 

If combat is not rewarding enough in of itself, adding incentives like xp is not going to improve your enjoyment of it.

If however combat is a rewarding experience in of itself, experience points should not matter and you can resolve the encounter to your satisfaction through combat.

 

So my argument is that the removal of combat experience is actually giving you the choice to do what you want, rather than taking it away from you because the designers want you to play a certain way, which would indeed be insulting and bad game design.

Edited October 10, 201411 yr by JFSOCC

Or combat is more rewarding if it is fun AND you gain XP from it.

I agree with JF.  XP doesn't make you free to do something you want to do, especially if you already want to do it.  XP tells you that the design team prefers you to behave in a certain way.  It's just like the tax code, which penalizes people for certain actions and rewards people for other actions for the express purpose of incentivizing citizens.  Why should the designers incentivize people to go out of their way to engage in combat?

 

People like to say, "the game is combat centric and therefore it's foolish not to give rewards for each incident of combat."  ...But, the fact that combat is a strong component of the game is already rewarded.  If you must engage in combat somewhere along the line to complete certain quests, you are rewarded when you complete the quest.  Since quest experience is doled out at various stages, such as entering the ogre cave, then you are rewarded for getting past the spiders in front of the cave no matter how you do, and for most folks, maybe even all folks depending on how they approach it, combat will be a necessity.  Upon entering the cave, combat has rewarded you with XP.  It just doesn't reward you with XP for each incident of fighting.  I'm sure most people will purchase weapons, rest, and talk to NPCs along the way.  They won't be rewarded for XP for those activities.  Even more than combat, folks will be forced to walk from place to place and over the same ground repeatedly.  They don't expect to get an XP reward for walking back and forth to the inn, various shops, and other areas of interest.  ...And no one suggests that the player is not free to walk from place to place because the PC doesn't receive an XP reward for doing so.

Or combat is more rewarding if it is fun AND you gain XP from it.

Well, then it's even MORE rewarding if it is fun AND you gain XP from it AND you gain stat points from it AND you gain new abilities from it AND you gain gold from it.

 

Where do we draw the line on that train of thought, I wonder?

 

People like to say, "the game is combat centric and therefore it's foolish not to give rewards for each incident of combat."  ...But, the fact that combat is a strong component of the game is already rewarded.  If you must engage in combat somewhere along the line to complete certain quests, you are rewarded when you complete the quest.  Since quest experience is doled out at various stages, such as entering the ogre cave, then you are rewarded for getting past the spiders in front of the cave no matter how you do, and for most folks, maybe even all folks depending on how they approach it, combat will be a necessity.  Upon entering the cave, combat has rewarded you with XP.  It just doesn't reward you with XP for each incident of fighting.

Indeed. Look at first-person shooters. You fight like 800 guys, THEN find a new weapon or an upgrade. Hell, you don't even get any loot from kills in those games. You get ammo replenished. That's about it. And yet, you don't see people saying "HEY! There's NO point in me fighting through all these dudes, 'cause I'm not getting extraneously rewarded for doing so!"

 

Mario doesn't get any XP for jumping on goombas. Yet, you can still jump on goombas. You even have to use up combat resources (stars, fireflowers, mushrooms, etc.) in order to take down many of them.

Edited October 10, 201411 yr by Lephys

 

Or combat is more rewarding if it is fun AND you gain XP from it.

Well, then it's even MORE rewarding if it is fun AND you gain XP from it AND you gain stat points from it AND you gain new abilities from it AND you gain gold from it.

 

Where do we draw the line on that train of thought, I wonder?

 

We draw it where it is a problem to balance or outside the design scope. If each combat would give you something cool like some traits based on enemy you killed that would be very cool but it needs to be balanced and part of design.

 

XP is easily balanced as they have been using combat Xp for a long time now and they also know players like it.

 

 

Or combat is more rewarding if it is fun AND you gain XP from it.

Well, then it's even MORE rewarding if it is fun AND you gain XP from it AND you gain stat points from it AND you gain new abilities from it AND you gain gold from it.Where do we draw the line on that train of thought, I wonder?

We draw it where it is a problem to balance or outside the design scope. If each combat would give you something cool like some traits based on enemy you killed that would be very cool but it needs to be balanced and part of design.XP is easily balanced as they have been using combat Xp for a long time now and they also know players like it.

Not every player likes it. Some of us hate it.

And I am the 2% that hates Skyrim. Does not matter, the developer needs to decide which group it wants to cater to.

And they have.

And they have.

Have they? Why are they adding bestiary and trap xp into the game than?

And I am the 2% that hates Skyrim. Does not matter, the developer needs to decide which group it wants to cater to.

I don't understand this dichotomy. You think Skyrim fans are the type of gamers who are by definition fond of objective XP?

 

And I am the 2% that hates Skyrim. Does not matter, the developer needs to decide which group it wants to cater to.

I don't understand this dichotomy. You think Skyrim fans are the type of gamers who are by definition fond of objective XP?

 

 

Skyrim has fans? Who knew?

 

And I am the 2% that hates Skyrim. Does not matter, the developer needs to decide which group it wants to cater to.

I don't understand this dichotomy. You think Skyrim fans are the type of gamers who are by definition fond of objective XP?

 

No, I am claiming that just like Skyrim haters are a really loud minority (including me), so are anti combat xp supporters.

 

And they have.

Have they? Why are they adding bestiary and trap xp into the game than?

 

 

Because they have reconsidered their previous decision after receiving feedback from some of the beta testers, which has lead them to think how they could cater those people without compromising their own goals and how to do it without spending too much time on it.

 

But they made their decision to use only objective based xp nearly two years ago. But now they have decided that they want also cater people that weren't happy with that decision by dividing some of the xp in different pools and make those pools reward  be rewards for more specified type of objectives that somewhat resemble systemic xp rewards like kill xp and skill xp. And they also have plans to make xp gain more constant but with smaller increments.

 

But it is life to make decision and then have to change those decision because of factors that you didn't take account in first place or you thought to have heavier/lesser impact than they ended to have. It is sad reality that there is no final decision to be made before you don't anymore have ability to influence those decision that you previously made.

So you are saying they figured out they made a mistake and now they are making pathetic concessions instead of fixing it or staying true to their original vision?

 

Going middle of the road is bull****. Either bring back kill xp or don't have half way solutions like bestiary xp