Jump to content

Betabackers: Are racial bonuses important?

Recommended Posts

I didn't want BG3. I wanted to see what Obsidian would do without a publisher goblin hanging over their shoulders. Sadly, that didn't happen.


Be honest with yourself: It's not like you would have felt happier if the changes introduced by the beta testers were provably GOOD, right? 

Setting aside how you would measure "provably good" for now - of course I would. That's why I encouraged people to explain their opinions and the viewpoints as much as they could, ahead of the beta, so the feedback could actually be useful for Obsidian. ..here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66571-beta-testing-and-you/


So when we get a few extremely loud people literally arguing that "something" must change, because any change has to be made to appease the angry fans, no matter what the change is (and incidentally, here I have a huge list I'm going to present as a set of cure-all solutions that everyone wants, and at least ten people agree, so that's basically everyone, etc). Is that good feedback - for example if it, in spite of things, resulted in "provably good" changes?


Just asking.


I honestly thought that the suggestions that were discussed were so dumb that Obsidian never would seriously consider any of it. That they'd thank the community and laugh silently while writing the blog post. So I didn't say much at first. I thought it was a practical joke when the implementation changes were done, as they went even further with the simplification and restriction than even the most ridiculous suggestions. And then Obsidian folks defend it as being something internal testers have long considered, and that it fits with what the community wants, as well as with what Paradox thinks is favorable.


Which sounds completely reasonable. Things are being done, and the community gets wishes implemented. Except that we're basically talking about keeping the obtuse UI as before, and simplifying the combat mechanics and attribute system until the entire game (hopefully outside the writing otherwise) is dull - as well as including the obstinate and repetitive buff and potion dance routine we all know so well from the other IE games.


With apparently the net effect of pleasing exactly five people on the internet - who still hate the game anyway. Now, I'm not a professional PR manager, nor a professional AAA developer. But to me, this doesn't seem like the most brilliantly efficient way to spend resources, regardless of which of any available dimension you placed the measuring sticks in.

  • Like 2

The injustice must end! Sign the petition and Free the Krug!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yes. It did affect interrupt%. Not Attack-of-Opportunity%. And that's not semantics, because they're two entirely different things. If you roll an attack, you made an attack of opportunity. Hell, you can even HIT with it, and still not successfully interrupt, and you still got an attack of opportunity (that hit and dealt damage). No stat ever governed your ability to generate an attack of opportunity.

So in other words - you agree that I was right, but insist I'm still wrong, because bleh. Well played! Also, separating attributes from affecting game-stats in mass /may have limited the build options/, perhaps, possibly, against all evidence -- but really not because stuff and I'm stupid! Well played again!


Not at all. I left my words there, too, for your convenience, so you won't even have to "go back" anywhere to re-read them. I agree that something was affected, but that it was not the thing you claim was affected (which wasn't affected by anything, other than "is someone trying to leave the Engagement Zone?").


And no. I never called you stupid. I merely observed the happenstancical incorrectness of what you thought to be true. Also, I have no idea what "separating attributes from affecting game-stats in mas" means, as it is a big ambiguous blob of claim. Also also, I'm not even arguing as to the possibility of changes to the game build affecting character-build options. It definitely affects them, both positively and negatively. And as Namutree pointed out (and you didn't even bother to comment on, what with being so busy abritrarily pretending I just typed some nonsense and tried to "outplay" you and attacking that instead with over-the-top sarcasm), there are a greater quantity of options for Fighter builds now than there were before whtever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-"The-Great-Change"-that-supposedly-shattered-the-world-of-PoE's-code.


If you'd actually pinpoint what it is you have problems with in the mechanics of the game, that might produce more constructive text for discussion. Instead, you're talking about general groups of bad things that happened, and acting like people who say otherwise are suggesting there's not a single, individual little thing about the current/"new" game build that isn't perfection.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...