No I am reading the entire source code and by searching for the word intellect and then the floats/methods/objects/structs that it is connected to/related to I can assure you that nowhere in any of the classes that govern any of the attack or damage data is intellect related to anything regarding reducing the severity of hits/crits or whatever. 

 

That you think you can /guarantee/ you know all the related variables in reverse-engineered compile-code is bad enough. But you're just not going to throw out a statement like that after quoting the code in the stat-screen overview.

God damn right I do because I've spent hours and hours over multiple days reading what they do. What specifically do you want me to prove, I'll quite happily ask a developer to confirm it for me since you're incapable of accepting anything I say.

Edited September 29, 201411 yr by Sensuki

Real programming languages make me sad. Declaring every single variable every time.. MATLAB is much better.

MATLAB is a horrible programming language...   I kind of loathe it actually.  Numpy and Scipy for me >

 

But all the gotos in that code freaks me right out.   All I can say is "who does case 5 work for?'

 

I wonder if it's and enum and the compiler killed the name for the goto point.

 

 

Real programming languages make me sad. Declaring every single variable every time.. MATLAB is much better.

MATLAB is a horrible programming language... I kind of loathe it actually. Numpy and Scipy for me >

 

But all the gotos in that code freaks me right out. All I can say is "who does case 5 work for?'

 

I wonder if it's and enum and the compiler killed the name for the goto point.

For most programming, yes. xD

For math and engineering though - it is wonderful. You won't hear me speaking badly of the program that kept me from evaluating 36 integrals and derivatives by hand last night. ;P

Matt, if you are at all into python, then try out either the ipython notebook or spyder.

 

But admittedly Python is not best suited for high performance analysis. That would be C/Frotran. But for most engineering problem you will never reach that threshold.

Nipsen, you're welcome to disagree with anyone about anything - that's your right. But Sensuki knows what he's talking about. And Intellect doesn't do anything except raise Deflection, AoE, and Will. Plus help with Intellect checks. That's all. There no hidden mechanics with extra damage reduction or some such.

Nipsen, you're welcome to disagree with anyone about anything - that's your right. But Sensuki knows what he's talking about. And Intellect doesn't do anything except raise Deflection, AoE, and Will. Plus help with Intellect checks. That's all. There no hidden mechanics with extra damage reduction or some such.

You mean Intellect only does what it advertises?

 

 

 

Real programming languages make me sad. Declaring every single variable every time.. MATLAB is much better.

MATLAB is a horrible programming language... I kind of loathe it actually. Numpy and Scipy for me >

 

But all the gotos in that code freaks me right out. All I can say is "who does case 5 work for?'

 

I wonder if it's and enum and the compiler killed the name for the goto point.

For most programming, yes. xD

For math and engineering though - it is wonderful. You won't hear me speaking badly of the program that kept me from evaluating 36 integrals and derivatives by hand last night. ;P

 

 

Numerical or Symbolic integration?  you'd be the first person I'd met praising matlab's symbolic's capabilities, usually you'd go to maple or mathematica for that.    Yes,  I know lots of mathematicians and engineers who like matlab, and I've used it a fair bit and It's really powerful for scripting up and evaluating short problems.   Once you get a system with over a couple m files,  it quickly becomes unreadable and the scope rules are horrendous and the Object oriented part is just tagged on...    Numpy and Scipy ( and sympy for that matter, if you need to do symbolic stuff)  give you all the goodness of python and close to the mathematical scripting power of matlab,  and it's easier to rewrite slow code in Fortran and C++ if you need to.  

 

However,  no need to descend into a holy war, there's enough of that on these boards, unless you want to argue emacs of vim.  I agree that matlab is a powerful tool,  just not my preferred one  Oh , and are you using matlab to do homework ?? (shame shame )

 

edit:  I should add,  the UI and Matlab debugger is nicely put together.   It's hard to get something similar for numpy/scipy unless you use something like sage.

Edited September 29, 201411 yr by tdphys

God damn right I do because I've spent hours and hours over multiple days reading what they do. What specifically do you want me to prove, I'll quite happily ask a developer to confirm it for me since you're incapable of accepting anything I say.

By all means. Maybe have him or her lecture you on the difference between one branch of reverse-engineered compile code, and one conditional high-level statement as well?

 

Nipsen, you're welcome to disagree with anyone about anything - that's your right. But Sensuki knows what he's talking about. And Intellect doesn't do anything except raise Deflection, AoE, and Will. Plus help with Intellect checks. That's all. There no hidden mechanics with extra damage reduction or some such.

How could you possibly know? I'm not saying there is such a thing in the game, at least not after the patch. I just said that my understanding was that an int and perception based fighter had some aspects that you guys not just don't care about, but would rather not see in the game at all. And therefore want removed, and have any trace of interesting role-playing surgically cut out. It's ridiculous.

 

As far as the programming goes - I am a programmer on paper, at least. I also have some ...experience with reverse-engineering code, although I don't have that on paper. And I'm simply stating that you don't know if the variable that is set in the character stats-screen corresponds to the same compile-time variable elsewhere. I'm not saying it's impossible. But I'm saying you can't know that. It's also ridiculous to create variables for reference elsewhere in the game in a class very obviously built to represent the class data. Very likely there is another lookup somewhere.

 

It might also be logical to choose a method with a pre-generated set of rolls generated at run-time. For example to modify the final combat roll by another variable. Many random generators use this method to save run-time. It's practically "how you do it", to avoid locking up or having to seed a long table at some unfortunate time later.

 

Meaning that it is very likely that the variable in Sensuki's quote there isn't the actual variable used to modify combat rolls.

 

So when I'm saying that you cannot know with certainty that there is nothing else affecting the system, and I explain why that is in detail -- and explain that your simplified view of how the system should work is annoying as heck, because you more or directly insist, on my and everyone's behalf, that any interesting detail is "complicated" and is going to make the game unpopular, as well as the stat system impenetrable, and at least stupid and borken -- and you counter that with: "blablaaa. I don't believe you! I'm the expert!". Then do you really expect me to respect your opinion afterwards?

 

Seriously, where does this boundless confidence to take your own narrow statement as absolute truth come from?

 

Another thing - it's rude as **** to speak on other people's behalf, did you know that? At the very least when you're presenting some changes like you have - you're going to say: This is mine, this is my own opinion, this is what I'm basing my opinion on, this is what I'm assuming is true.

 

But somehow you don't have to obey rules like that, because your opinion is more important than whatever drivel the rest of us can come up with, I guess. Frankly, I do notice that none of you complained when I criticized random people for making unsound assumptions and then establishing their own view as truth set in stone that cannot be argued with. Then it was fine.

 

And now that it's your turn, and your assumptions are on the line - then there are different rules, and I'm a tool for criticising you. You're not even registering it as a possibility that there are other perspectives out there.

 

You should consider how that works out. And anyone who listens to what you say should also consider that before trusting your opinions again.

 

 

I just said that my understanding was that an int and perception based fighter had some aspects that you guys not just don't care about, but would rather not see in the game at all. And therefore want removed, and have any trace of interesting role-playing surgically cut out. It's ridiculous.

 

You're still retarded if you think we want to remove anything you want from the game. You're just talking out of your arse with the programming stuff there, that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at all. The game uses the Unity.random.roll class for random rolls and specifies the ranges, and that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here anyway.

 

We have been told how it works by the developers, I have read everything they have said, and the code confirms the mechanics (in most cases). If you're too lazy to read what they say or search for their quotes then that's on you.

 

And you're the one with the holier than thou attitude buddy. No one else has this problem except you.

Just ignore the guy.

 

How could you possibly know? I'm not saying there is such a thing in the game, at least not after the patch. I just said that my understanding was that an int and perception based fighter had some aspects that you guys not just don't care about, but would rather not see in the game at all. And therefore want removed, and have any trace of interesting role-playing surgically cut out. It's ridiculous.

 

 

 

Perhaps it would speed things up if you explained why you think this is true. It's not remotely clear what you're even talking about.

And you're the one with the holier than thou attitude buddy. No one else has this problem except you.

... You have already demonstrated that you're at best pulling forum-quotes out of context, and using them to "prove" that Obsidian wants to make the opposite of what they've advertised (and made).

 

Meanwhile, you and Matt are riding on Obsidian's skirt-tails, using their "interpreted intention" to buff your own "fixes". And nearly claiming credit for coming up with your "own system", that as opposed to Obsidian's "actually makes sense". And thus saving Obsidian's "broken" system in the process, by small, small, almost unnoticeable changes that bless their work and allows it to work well.

 

In spite of clearly neither of you being able to come up with anything remotely as imaginative on your own. In fact, your complaints about the system demonstrate that you don't see the point with it. And you use that alone as the reason why it should be changed.

 

And then you have the gall to pass off your fixes as what "everyone wants" as well, implying that you're singlehandedly saving Obsidian's game from disaster. And everyone who disagrees are, quote, "delusional".

 

But I'm "holier than thou"? 

 

 

How could you possibly know? I'm not saying there is such a thing in the game, at least not after the patch. I just said that my understanding was that an int and perception based fighter had some aspects that you guys not just don't care about, but would rather not see in the game at all. And therefore want removed, and have any trace of interesting role-playing surgically cut out. It's ridiculous.

 

Perhaps it would speed things up if you explained why you think this is true. It's not remotely clear what you're even talking about.

 

..Ok. I'm going to take the same fighter example that I've explained about 50 times now.

 

A guy with a blade. He has intuitive skill with it. He is above average light on the feet. And he is perceptive, aware of his surroundings, etc. He is not very strong, however, and not very resilient.

 

In D&D, this character would be a fighter with negative stats. He could perhaps go for finesse - and avoid negative bonuses to the attack rolls, in return for lower damage potential. But the character is dead weight. 

 

But in PoE, that character (like a number of other completely different characters) can be a superman in certain situations. At the very least they make sense to have in a group.

 

So that fighter has above average intellect, affecting perhaps the damage potential for the critical strikes, in the same way that abilities and talents are extended. And priests and mages enlarge and specialize their spells. So that "intellect" means simply ability to think fast and do complex things. Be it key-locks and mechanical devices, understanding the ways you should handle a sword most effectively, or if it's being able to create complex soul magic.

 

He also has high perception. In this case meaning that he's not just incredibly skilled at striking with the blade, but also is aware of the surroundings. Priests and mages could have their perception specialized to mean for example being able to see people at long distances, and to identify weaknesses that can be targeted by spells. For example. There's overlap here, but that makes narrative sense.

 

In the same way, the fighter relies on being accurate. If he is not strong, then at least he can hit, and potentially hit a critical point. So the dexterity stat reflects his innate or trained ability to be make controlled movement and generally be very nimble. Other characters can justify dexterity by meaning the character is primarily more difficult to hit, for example. You could imagine a witch having incredibly high movement and "deflection" bonuses, and that she nearly can't be hit - but that if she is hit, she's cleaved in two like a twig, etc.

 

So when just looking at the combat, these stats actually make sense. This is what was there until the last update.

 

But not only that. When the dialogue turns up, it also fits here. That light fighter is a thoughtful rogue, perhaps. Or he's a warrior of the kind you read about in Snorre, who also writes poetry in the downtime between the battles. Maybe he's a cynical ronin. Maybe it's an elven blade specialist. Etc. And because of the intellect score and the perception score, the dialogue fits with that. In the same way, the fighter specialisation doesn't stand in the way for being tagged as the nimble and extremely fast athletic person who can use that ability in the cardboard-scenes, etc. And also, because they're fighters and probably will have moderate might stats, they'll be able to see the intimidate paths and perhaps use that as part of the role-playing when playing the game. There are a lot of synergies here.

 

So not only does that system make sense in combat, it also makes sense in dialogue and role-playing.

 

And my point is that if you switch these stat-abilities around without much thought - then you lose that synergy between combat and dialogue. The system becomes more mechanically perfect, perhaps, but at the cost of "narrative consistency". 

 

That's my problem with the proposed changes. And that's my problem with the changes Obsidian made in the last backer beta version.

 

And the fact that you can essentially just pump Perception and dexterity, and instantly have a dangerous front-line fighter of any class, of any make-up, with practically any weapon. That also demonstrates the mechanical failure of the proposed changes.

 

That's how simple this is.

 

But I didn't write 50 pages to explain that one simple thing, so clearly I don't know what I'm talking about. Also, I can't program as well, now. Listen to the ones who know everything. They are trustworthy and know all, because they claim so. It all makes perfect circular sense. Because reasons.

Nipsen, maybe I'm crazy but your example fighter makes just as much sense to me in the old stats system as it does in the new stat system.

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like your complaint is that a Dex/Per/Int fighter went from a situational/secondary build to a generalist/primary build. And you don't like this because it's narratively inconsistent. Is that a fair approximation? I'm really trying to understand what your problem is with the attributes. Please help me.

It's really funny how this turned from a Might vs Perception thread into a primarily Intellect thread. I just typed up a whole bunch of crap on my opinions re: Might vs Perception (which is that the two are balanced) in the Grazes "How did you break 301?" thread lol. I guess I'll just quote myself if it gets back to Might vs Perception.

Edited September 30, 201411 yr by Matt516

Nipsen, every single "you can't prove that!" you're tossing at Sensuki must inherently apply to the significance of your own claims/concerns, as well.

 

Heck, Intelligence could secretly increase the damage of enemies all around you, for all we know (some Obsidian employee could slap in a little bit of equation somewhere and snicker about it all day long, even if it's not advertised).

 

However, how you can feel like all your sentiments expressed in this thread are some how more justified or warranted than Sensuki's hard-work-based evidence of the system... I cannot fathom that.

 

It's not about whose opinion is better, or even what we can know for a fact, or only be 99.9% sure of. It's about reciprocity. If Sensuki posting the freaking math from source code, and explaining everything with hard examples and references, is insufficient for his points to be valid, then how valid are your points?

 

That, and, at this point, are you even wondering anything, or have you simply decided that:

 

A) You already know everything, or

B) No one can actually know anything for certain about this system

 

???

 

Because both of those lead to "all posting in here is pointless."

 

If you'd take a breather, I think you'd realize that no one in here WANTS anyone else to not-enjoy the game. But, if you have concerns, you say "I don't know this will happen, but I'm concerned about this." Then, we all, as forumites, collaborate on that concern with our collective knowledge, and hopefully we all come out with a better understanding of it. If someone presents something that you're STILL concerned with, then you further present your concern.

 

What is the point of antagonizing someone who's gone about as far out of their way as possible to present as much concrete evidence and fact as they can in answer to your questions/concerns? What is that accomplishing?

 

No one's telling you to just shut up and love the game. Just... golden rule, man. Put yourself in Sensuki's shoes. Take a breath. And discuss things.

So.

Resolve.

 

Pretty cool stat.

Why am I lowering it to 3 so I can get max CON INT DEX PER/MIG?

So.

Resolve.

 

Pretty cool stat.

Why am I lowering it to 3 so I can get max CON INT DEX PER/MIG?

You're trying to create a smack-addled hooker.

Edited September 30, 201411 yr by KaineParker

Just don't get hit and don't use Duration-based abilities and you're golden!

 

EDIT: It would be really freaking funny if a PC with 3 Resolve couldn't ever stand up to anyone in conversations. Like the 1 INT (or whatever) character in Fallout, except just spineless instead of stupid.

 

Charname: "Let those puppies go!"

Bandit: "Whatcha gonna do about it?"

Charname: [Resolve < 4] "Umm... nothing.... nevermind......"

Edited September 30, 201411 yr by Matt516

 

So.

Resolve.

 

Pretty cool stat.

Why am I lowering it to 3 so I can get max CON INT DEX PER/MIG?

You're trying to create a smack-addled hooker.

 

Anita the Orlan Barbarian is a gentle and delicate flower. Just because she gets high on Beetle intestines doesnt make her an addict. She has it perfectly under control.

 

 

Just don't get hit and don't use Duration-based abilities and you're golden!

I like my characters living a Fast life. Some might even call it Furious.

Edited September 30, 201411 yr by Fiebras

If you have terrible Resolve, you'll be awful at completing puzzles and riddles a second time.

 

6_u

 

 

In all seriousness, though, I wonder if splitting effects has been considered. Wasteland2 did that (maybe a little TOO much?). What I mean is, what if each point of Dex gave you +1 accuracy (purely for example), AND each point of Perception gave you +1 Accuracy?

 

The first response that comes to mind is "DEAR GOD! IMAGINE IF YOU MAXED THEM BOTH! YOU'D BE TOO OP!" But, if you max them both, then how many points can you possibly spend on much else? I mean, if you went to 18 in both, you'd have pretty nasty crit chances, generally. But then, if you wanted 18 Might, you'd have to take pretty strong penalties to Con, Int, and Res. But, you could have things like Resolve modifying deflection, AND Perception modifying deflection.

 

Of course, the rest of the system would be tweaked so that it's not just suddenly double-the-benefits time. But, if you wanted THE absolute maximum Accuracy, you'd have to be Perceptive AND Dexterous. If you wanted the maximum Deflection, you'd have to be very Resolved AND Perceptive. *shrug*. You wouldn't have to split every single factor up. Just some that seem too weighted when stuck onto one single attribute or another.

 

Another thing (really just a "this could be neat, but isn't necessarily neat or useful" idea) -- what about modifier thresholds for increased effects? What I mean is, the stats now give penalties (- modifiers) below 10, and bonuses (+ modifiers) above. Well, what if 11 in... Might, for example, gives you +3% damage. Then 12 does, too. But 13 gives you +4% damage? etc. And, on the negative side, taking 4 in Perception would give you like -10 Accuracy, total, instead of just -6. Basically, the farther from average you went (positive OR negative), the more potent your bonus/detriment would be.

Not a bad idea, but I don't see them implementing it. Josh has mentioned wanting to keep the number of things affecting any individual parameter to a minimum.

I understand that thought process, too. I mean, it's just plain efficient. BUT, once you've got a modifier, it's really not that hard to have any number of things affect it. In the end, the result remains "your base Whatever is X, and your Whatever modifier is + Y." So that idea stays very simple.

 

Plus, two stats affecting the same modifier would be hardly any different, mechanically, than just one doing so. The only thing that would really affect would be your choices at character creation. After that, all the other stuff that already affects those modifiers would come into play. Doesn't really matter, after character creation, if 73 things produced your stat-based Accuracy bonus, or just one stat. Your bonus is what it is, and you go from there.

Nipsen, maybe I'm crazy but your example fighter makes just as much sense to me in the old stats system as it does in the new stat system.

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like your complaint is that a Dex/Per/Int fighter went from a situational/secondary build to a generalist/primary build. And you don't like this because it's narratively inconsistent. Is that a fair approximation? I'm really trying to understand what your problem is with the attributes. Please help me.

...

 

You had to spread points across several different stats to get that build "optimal" in the last build. In the next build you can dump several stats and get the same or a better mechanical build in combat.

 

So is that a problem? Is that an improvement over the last build? Can't you just choose the right role-playing stats and pick some mechanical stats as well? Or perhaps just don't bother caring about stats and role-playing anyway, since they are "two separate systems". Might as well make the build strong and max-min'ed and pretend it's a different character. Because when the alternative to a d&d system is there - who could /possibly/ want that? I mean, it's practically sacrilege to propose something that goes beyond "you have dex so you're the rogue", right?

 

"My concern" is that we keep demanding changes to the significance of certain stats for no reason other than that we have somehow convinced ourselves it's impossible to keep what's already there. And when I'm asking you to justify how the changes make sense, changes that certain people around here have made a very strong appeal for --- you are countering that with demanding that I should explain to you why the changes should /not/ be made. Because you have decided that "everyone agrees" that the system is broken.

 

Does that make sense to you? That apparently I have to justify it whenever your random proposals at breaking a functioning system should not be adopted? It does not make sense to me.

 

But since I'm the "only one around here" who could possibly think Obsidian might on some off chance know what they're doing, and have thrown money at Obsidian for making another game. Then I guess the sole responsibility for explaining why you should not break the existing system to pieces is mine.

 

(PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IS SARCASM, AND THAT I THINK YOU ARE ALL STUPID.)

 

So back to the fighter. Imagine it's a cowboy instead, then, who gets by with hunting and generally being clever. It's an archetype like the other fighter builds, except this one is exclusively American. Or maybe it's a Soux or something who can run really fast and is skilled with a bow and different other weapons. But he's unfortunately not as clever as the cowboy, but compensates with might and savage anger.

 

Is it all more familiar now? So that less brainpower is needed to picture the characters? Good!

 

In the first system, the Soux might be represented like this: focus on dex, perception, intelligence. We could choose between maxing out these stats, or going for increasing resolve to make sure the abilities don't get interrupted, or adding might to reflect pure strength.

 

...I don't know about charisma for fighters. Fighters don't seem to have charisma in PoE... I'm sorry that my explanation doesn't encompass all of creation and all variables in the world, by the way.

 

Anyway. And depending on your way of role-playing that Soux later, you would also choose whether he or she (it could be Pocahontas with huge breasts, which is also a historical character!) is strong and resilient, but perhaps not extremely bright (high res/low int). Or they could be extremely skilled at specifically fighting and dodging (dex high), or extremely skilled at mechanical tasks (int high). And it would still have some impact on how that character behaves in combat. 

 

And then when you run into the dialogue, that character is actually represented with those strengths and weaknesses. Because there is a link between the abilities the stats give you, and the way you have shaped your character.

 

My concern is that we are losing that thanks to idiots mangling the original system that - in spite of some weaknesses - actually made sense.

 

And yes, I think Lephys' suggestion to split the significant stats is a good idea. It is an infinitely better idea than anything else I've seen so far. But I am not sure I see why you would have to change it in the first place.

 

And I do think that when you propose radical changes to the system like that, you would have to come up with something better than "I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE I'VE DECIDED NOT TO!".

 

Is that a fair deal?

 

 

 

Nipsen, every single "you can't prove that!" you're tossing at Sensuki must inherently apply to the significance of your own claims/concerns, as well.

Look. There was one claim I had a problem with. And it has to do with how you cannot know that a reverse engineered compile code represents all conditionals in the actual code. This is fact.

 

Claiming you know everything there is to know from that compile time code is similar to claiming that you can solve a rubiks cube with one single red cube-piece. 

 

It is not possible.

 

You can assume from the red cube-piece that we are dealing with a rubiks cube. If you knew what a rubiks cube piece looked like on beforehand. And we can pick up other pieces to make sure we know if it's a 4x4 or 3x3 grid. And then since we know how a rubiks cube works and how it looks, we can deduce our way towards figuring out how the red square fits on the rubiks cube. And then ultimately solve the cube from that one piece.

 

But you can't say, from one red square, that you know everything about the rubiks cube, and even solve it. That's not how it works.

 

And I brought that up, because someone posted a piece of code as "proof", and didn't want to explain what they thought it said. It's the same as saying: "Shut up, I posted source code!", and then expecting people to accept that. It's the same as the "I posted developer WISDOM, so shut up!" - that also is prevalent in these threads.

 

Neither is good enough as an argument. And frankly, I would never have brought this up if it didn't turn out that Obsidian is clearly listening to this crap and assuming that everyone on the kick-starter thinks the same way. Not because they're swayed by the glorious rhetorical argument, but because they respect the fact that their die hard fans wants attention.

 

And I think that this combination is ruining the game.

 

Heck, Intelligence could secretly increase the damage of enemies all around you, for all we know (some Obsidian employee could slap in a little bit of equation somewhere and snicker about it all day long, even if it's not advertised).

That's not the point. We know already that Int affects Area of effect and healing spread. It affects (affected?) duration of spells. It affects the duration of specific talents and fighting abilities. And therefore has a synergy with might in the sense that might is raw power, and intellect is about cleverness and talent.

 

And I simply said that it didn't seem completely far fetched to me that Int should affect the severity of the critical hits as well. I don't know if it did, but it would make sense to me, along with Int affecting how long a knockdown lasts for example. It would also definitely make more sense than that perception and might -> win. Because that's what you're getting now. Instead of having to balance at least three stats and drop two important ones, you're suddenly able to get a massively superior build with two. 

 

I'm also definitely concerned that when these nerf-builds take over, there's going to be another even stronger push than before to make the game easier to play. Because: the instant someone who is not familiar with the mechanics of the proposed changes tries to make a character, they'll get mauled, even on easy. And their character sheet doesn't really suggest that they should be an extremely weak build. "Sure, my character isn't very perceptive, but he's strong and dextrous - why doesn't he hit anything, and make no damage?".

 

However, how you can feel like all your sentiments expressed in this thread are some how more justified or warranted than Sensuki's hard-work-based evidence of the system... I cannot fathom that.

 

It's not about whose opinion is better, or even what we can know for a fact, or only be 99.9% sure of. It's about reciprocity. If Sensuki posting the freaking math from source code, and explaining everything with hard examples and references, is insufficient for his points to be valid, then how valid are your points?

And I'm telling you he just posted the code that displays or collects the stats in the stat-sheet. If it's from the character creation, you'd reference that with .this references for each object you have, and then where that reference is stored will be lost in the disassembled code.

 

"It's all Unity" as an explanation for how it hangs together is about as clever as saying: "It's all water" and declaring physics a thing of the past. (<-Ancient Greece reference, biotch!).

 

Look. I just said that every one of you can read what that source code says directly in the game's stat-screen. So how superior to anything is it if you post that code? And we go back to the fact that: you don't know that this line of code represents the actual combat rolls (or, it clearly doesn't). And we don't know how the combat rolls are actually done in game logic.

 

Which is connected to the fact that, like others also pointed out, that Matt's "mathematical proof" of how the proposed changes are mathematically balanced - may very well be utterly and completely wrong. It could make sense in their "interpretation of facts". But it doesn't reflect the actual system -- unless of course it is made more simple so that Matt's system works.

 

You do see how this hangs together with my "concern" that some were assuming left and right things that clearly is untrue, yes?

 

If you'd take a breather, I think you'd realize that no one in here WANTS anyone else to not-enjoy the game. But, if you have concerns, you say "I don't know this will happen, but I'm concerned about this." Then, we all, as forumites, collaborate on that concern with our collective knowledge, and hopefully we all come out with a better understanding of it. If someone presents something that you're STILL concerned with, then you further present your concern.

 

What is the point of antagonizing someone who's gone about as far out of their way as possible to present as much concrete evidence and fact as they can in answer to your questions/concerns? What is that accomplishing?

I realize that no one here wants to sabotage the game.

 

But I also know that some.. four people of you? have declared as a foregone conclusion that the stat-system is broken. And that it their task, as clearly more skilled than the developers who made the system, to "save" Obsidian from bombing at release.

 

And I don't think you or anyone else should be allowed to simply say that without explaining why.

 

You could go the route Matt and Sensuki did - by simply denying that any alternative viewpoint than theirs could possibly exist. And so that they don't have to prove their own alternative, which is the only possible one.

 

You could go the route of misrepresenting facts and claiming that your solution - which is the opposite of what the system actually intends - is the "real" solution that was chosen from the beginning.

 

You could do either of those and "escape" the need to actually justify your own alternatives.

 

But in either case, I'd think you're a fraud and a liar. Or optionally just a very stupid and arrogant person.

So what do you want me to say when Obsidian seems to respond to this ****? I did not pay to Obsidians kickstarter to get some "special" superfan to rewrite and ruin their approach to integrating attributes into game-world narrative logic. I paid into the pot to get Obsidian to make it. I'm assuming that this is what the vast majority of people who are not posting here also did.

 

And I'm also assuming that 99% of the people who sponsored the kickstarter are unaware of the fact that a significant portion of the game is apparently being scrapped because some superfans have decided it's too complex for human minds to understand.

 

Meanwhile, I can't possibly be asked to go around "proving" that every time someone comes up with a suggestion - that it is NOT sound. You do understand the logic of that? That people who make up a huge rework of the system, should "perhaps" be asked to justify it or perhaps not write off concerns such as "your system effectively undermines all possible role-playing of any kind". 

 

Or is that just too far fetched?

 

No one's telling you to just shut up and love the game. Just... golden rule, man. Put yourself in Sensuki's shoes. Take a breath. And discuss things.

No. Not a chance! I've learned from Sensuki and Matt now. And I've learned that unless you obey my every whim, accept all my proposals and assumptions, including my foregone conclusions - and do exactly like I say, then you are delusional and the game is broken.

 

So now I want satisfaction! The developers will have to respond to me! I'm the keeper of the ultimate troooth. Also, I want cake! And a harem!

You had to spread points across several different stats to get that build "optimal" in the last build

No you didn't. It was a non choice for every character. Pump Might, Intellect, Dexterity and maybe Con and dump Per and Res. Everyone was doing it.

 

(PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IS SARCASM, AND THAT I THINK YOU ARE ALL STUPID.)

See what I mean about holier than thou attitude. You think you're better than everyone else here. I might be arrogant myself, but holy cow man, you eclipse me in that regard.

 

Look. There was one claim I had a problem with. And it has to do with how you cannot know that a reverse engineered compile code represents all conditionals in the actual code. This is fact.

The code is .NET assembly Managed C#. The only code that does not decompile properly is some of the Unity related stuff because the decompiler cannot understand it. I can recompile the code using an intermediate language and I have done so and already made a few mods. So have others.

 

Also why don't you use a practical example instead of an abstract analogy?

 

Every example I give is a practical example, you always use an ice cream analogy or dance about architecture or something. You just make stuff up.

 

Look. I just said that every one of you can read what that source code says directly in the game's stat-screen.

Because the code that governs what is shown in the stats screen is different from the code that does the actual computing of the values. Some of it is done via XML scripttables and I can edit those script tables and make the stat screen say whatever I want it to and show nothing to do with the values of the attributes in the game.

 

In my attributes mod I changed the values under the hood, but the character creation screen AND the character sheet were still showing the old system attribute values and percentages. I had to actually modify the code of the character sheet and character creation classes to get them to show my new values, they aren't connected.

 

declared as a foregone conclusion that the stat-system is broken

Only you think it was foregone and the developers had came to the same conclusions internally. They didn't even use anything from our paper. Only you think it was otherwise. It was my idea and I was one of the people who wrote it but I will not take any credit for the new attribute system, it has nothing unique to our paper in it.

 

But in either case, I'd think you're a fraud and a liar. Or optionally just a very stupid and arrogant person.

Sounds like you're in a bit of denial here bud. You're the one with the lack of evidence and the false statements.

 

I even offered to mod the old stat system back in for you, but you won't accept that hahah, that's how screwed up you are. The new system is not what I want, so I made my own mod. They are not going to change it to what we suggested for some (IMO) bad reasons, and I accept that so I made a mod. They were going to change it anyway. You have the opportunity to have what you want, but you won't accept it because you think I'm a super fan and you think you're better than me.

 

If that's the case, well I guess you can just suck on my superfan wang, because I don't think the situation is going to change.

Edited September 30, 201411 yr by Sensuki