The main things that bug me so far

[Serdan]

Right, I get that I'm going to have the option, but I can ignore options with minimal effort. If I'm trying to play a weakling I'm not going to suddenly get up and throw people around out of choice. The choice element is what I've been asking about and no one has actually given me a helpful answer.

I decided to play it anyway and have yet to encounter anything that could negate my role-play choice.

 

Constraining one's own experience beyond what is enforced by the game seems to be a foreign concept to some people.

As far as I know, you won't have any problems with playing your physically weak, but "mighty" character.

[Lephys]

Because you overestimate what are attributes in this system, I think. One attribute is not enough. Might for example will just increase your damage. It can mean you are more muscular, or it can mean you are more agressive, or nastier, or....etc.

Nope. And I'm afraid you're missing the point. The one-and-only point. Might means you're more all the things that increase your damage. Might cannot measure one sub-aspect of strength without measuring the other. I've already pointed this out a dozen times. If you had two challenges before you:

 

1) A room in which your soul-power was suppressed, and you had to lift a big heavy thing to get through

2) A room in which you could only remove an obstacle using purely soul-energy (because no amount of physical/tangible power would affect the obstacle) to get through...

 

...then your Might score of 18 would have you succeed at both. The game, using only a single attribute called "Might" that covers both of those things, would be incapable of representing your being good at one but not the other. Do you understand? It's not that the game just doesn't tell you the difference. It doesn't even measure or distinguish the two, separate types of power in any way, shape, or fashion.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember you need Might to break this wall (but a hammer). The only time I remember I need Might  (I can be wrong) in a dialogue was for physical intimidation (and I can buy that a nasty energic wimp can be physically intimidating). For the rest, I remember we need skills like athletism or tools etc.)

The point wasn't that you needed a stat, and that you didn't have the option of using a tool. It was that, if you're going to break the wall down without a tool (which you have the option of trying, I'm pretty sure, and if you don't, you should, at least in SOME place in an entire game worth of scenarios), you have to be strong to do it. If it uses Athletics, then I get that as a purely gameplay "I want to represent all things evenly" decision, but it really should use Might. What's the point in measuring something called "Might" that determines your damage with a physical club that you can swing, but doesn't affect your ability to physically damage a structurally weak wall?

 

I have to say, I feel like it's you who is overestimating the attributes. You're thinking one measurement does 17 different hings, when it really only does 1 thing. That's just how character attributes work. No matter how abstract or perfectly simulationist it is, that's an attribute's only purpose. If it doesn't measure an aspect of your character, it's not doing its job. And if the demands of the rest of the game are inadequately met by that one, overly-simple measurement, then you should've broken it into more distinct measurements.

 

Look, other games that aren't at all ultra-simulating reality have something like "Attack" for physical attack. It could mean you're tiny but fierce, or a huge muscle-bound meathead. It's still vague, and it's not even trying to cover any and all kinds of force in the entire game world. When you set forth to make a fantasy world, and you decide "there will be magic, in addition to non-magical force -- a windmill turns because of the wind physically pushing on it, and not because of magical power", it's just silly to then measure anyone's prowess with both kinds. "This windmill is very powerful. It could crush a man's skull with ease. OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE A MIGHTY WIZARD!"

 

I mean, let's just give everyone a stat called "Awesomeness," and determine everything else from that. "Oh, well, I mean, you could be awesome for any number of reasons. Want to convince this person to give you all his money? Awesomness check! SUCCESS! Want to throw this goat over that mountain in the distance, from here? AWESOMENESS CHECK! Yep, you can do it, but only because you have high-enough Awesomeness, u_u... But, I mean, it isn't your physical strength or anything, but it just determined your ability to throw a goat over a distant mountain. And it isn't like it's your Charisma or speaking ability, but it DID determine your ability to charm that one guy into giving you all his money, when he started out not even liking you in the first place. But it doesn't actually measure either of those things, u_u... It's totally legit!"

[Lephys]

You even don't need to force your RP. Again, just try to play your mighty wizard in melee with a claymore, he will die early and accomplish nothing, as you used skills and abilities to make a good wizard, not a good warrior. At the end of the character creation, you realize then, that your mighty character is mentally strong, but obviously not  physically strong. That's design for effect. And that's why this stat system works pretty good.

But he IS physically strong! Make a D&D Fighter with 18 Strength and 1 Constitution, and see how well he does with a Claymore on the frontline. Does that mean D&D Strength doesn't actually mean strength?!

 

You can't keep using a double-standard. "Might doesn't mean physical strength because your Wizard would die really easily, even with his 18 Might. Athletics determines your ability to headbutt your way through a stone wall, not Might, u_u... but Athletics doesn't affect how much force you can generate when swinging a giant two-handed mace... unless you're attacking a wall! It makes perfect sense, dude!"

 

Also with the whole might thing - if you want to roleplay a character with high magic ability and low strength, why cant you? Just roleplay it, pretend, whatever. Sure, the game will still give you the OPTION to be the physically strong person, but if you don't choose those options, arent you effectively avoiding demonstrating those physical powers? Just because theoretically, according to some numbers on a screen, your character COULD lift that 100 lb rock, if you dont roleplay hiim to be able to do that (and chose to avoid such options due to his "weak" physical strength) wouldnt that be a much more effective way of depicting him as a "weak" character? Maybe I just don't understand the whole RP thing....

Yeah! I mean, what if the game didn't let you make a Fighter? Couldn't you just make a Wizard, then pretend he couldn't actually cast a bunch of spells, and simply refrain from ever using them? That would be the same thing as choosing "Fighter" at character creation, right? I dunno, I guess it's just some weird RP thing. *shrug*

[kickthezombie]

I think of might as combat prowess in general, a character doesn't have to be physically strong to be powerful in combat.

 

ex. you can have a mighty army, that doesn't mean the army has big muscles.

 

 

I do agree the economy needs work, right now it feels too easy to make gold and not enough to spend it on, I'm not sure the fault though is the stash system or just the overwhelming amount of "trash" loot.

 

You wait till you get the stronghold and start pimping it up. Apart from the pain in the butt guests who keep turning up and need either bribing or escorting there are the bandit raids which unles you sort them out personally will cost you a shed load of money in damages. All of which happens at the most inconvient times and cost me time. For myself I am finding cash not too easy to accrue because the running costs of the stonghold really sap it up.

 

But I enjoy that role play aspect of things and it is handy to have local facilities close to to your 'base'. That being said it is bit bloody cheeky that the merchant on site  charges me about 10% more for goods then somewhere like Gilded Vale does. I'd put his rent up but I just know he'd only end up charging me more. I shold charge him for protection from shoplifting but there never seems to be anyone else in the shop so

[Hatred]

 Oh a little note for all of the people complaining that there is one stat to increase your damage with a gun and a sword and a magic spell. You are complaining incorrectly. There is if you want to be realistic about it, one attribute which increases all of these things. It is called Skill. Sword fighters don't benefit that much from being stupidly strong. The worlds best fencers aren't bodybuilders. Bodybuilders arent actually good at anything. Strength beyond being fit and able to use the sword isnt that important in a sword fight. Speed and Skill are what make you good in a swordfight. You can go check this out for yourself if you are interested (go to a HEMA club and try and beat someone who has been training for years who you are physically stronger than in a sword fight... good luck).

 So please stop making stupid mewling noises about how might dictates damage in this game. Its an abstraction in a fantasy game which is MORE realistic than Int dictating magical damage and Str dictating Melee damage. BG had a stupid system for working out melee damage. Did i care ? no. I just learnt how the system worked and then played accordingly. All you simulationists who have next to no idea how the things being simulated work are .... heck I am going to stop before i get into trouble.

[Katarack21]

 

You even don't need to force your RP. Again, just try to play your mighty wizard in melee with a claymore, he will die early and accomplish nothing, as you used skills and abilities to make a good wizard, not a good warrior. At the end of the character creation, you realize then, that your mighty character is mentally strong, but obviously not  physically strong. That's design for effect. And that's why this stat system works pretty good.

But he IS physically strong! Make a D&D Fighter with 18 Strength and 1 Constitution, and see how well he does with a Claymore on the frontline.

He'll do GREAT with the claymore in D&D. He'll be **** for taking damage, but he will hit people with that claymore *ALL THE TIME*.

[Lephys]

Oh a little note for all of the people complaining that there is one stat to increase your damage with a gun and a sword and a magic spell. You are complaining incorrectly. There is if you want to be realistic about it, one attribute which increases all of these things. It is called Skill. Sword fighters don't benefit that much from being stupidly strong. The worlds best fencers aren't bodybuilders. Bodybuilders arent actually good at anything. Strength beyond being fit and able to use the sword isnt that important in a sword fight. Speed and Skill are what make you good in a swordfight. You can go check this out for yourself if you are interested (go to a HEMA club and try and beat someone who has been training for years who you are physically stronger than in a sword fight... good luck).

That's an excellent point, but slightly skewed, since strength and skill are not mutually exclusive. In other words, that's great when Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson tries to go up against a 120lb master swordsman, but what happens when a really strong swordsman goes up against a much-weaker swordsman?

 

That's why strength has its own role in the system, and skill has its own role. No one's arguing that strength should take skill's job.

 

 

He'll do GREAT with the claymore in D&D. He'll be **** for taking damage, but he will hit people with that claymore *ALL THE TIME*.

... Yeah, "all the time" that he isn't dead.

 

"How he'll do" with the claymore wasn't meant to literally be "how will he handle a claymore?", but, how will he fare, wading into a battle like that, all things considered. That was his whole point I was countering: that your 1-million-Might Wizard isn't strong because he won't last long in melee combat with just really high Might.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Lephys

[Hellraiser789]

 

Yeah! I mean, what if the game didn't let you make a Fighter? Couldn't you just make a Wizard, then pretend he couldn't actually cast a bunch of spells, and simply refrain from ever using them? That would be the same thing as choosing "Fighter" at character creation, right? I dunno, I guess it's just some weird RP thing. *shrug*

 

 

I apologize but I found my response to be much bigger than I intended so I put it in a spoiler tag so it doesnt have to take up a huge screen for everyone. Thanks in advance if you decide to bare with me and read it.

 

 

 

Well I mean if there's no alternative, then yes. Say you were playing a game without classes with the current attribute system. If you give your character high might and other stats that a classic "Fighter" would have, wouldnt you be roleplaying as a Fighter? Similarly, giving him stats a wizard would have would effectively make him a "Wzard" right? Then, if you would want to roleplay as physically weak, why can't you do that? If every physical-related task/choice/ability is only an option, and not forced upon you, whats stopping you from simply not choosing them so you can RP as a weak person?

 

I mean, I agree, they could've differentiated and split it up. But this is a world of magic and fantasy anyway. Why bother comparing might and strength at all? In real life, do you consider yourself might-y because you can lift a lot or because you can cast powerful spells? So don't associate the real world's terms with the fantasy world's terms - they are completely different worlds. Also, if D&D wasn't a thing and never existed, would this be an argument? Probably not, because you wouldn't be coming in with the notion that intelligence = magic damage and strength = physical damage. That wouldn't be a concept. You're using your experiences with another universe (Faerun) to influence your understanding of this universe (Eothas). They are separate, so stop using your experience that is relevant to another world in this one.

 

I agree that the terms are not intuitive - not by a long shot. I would have to read the definition of each stat to tell you what it does because its completely irrelevant to its realistic and logical terminology (the actual combat effects). But shouldn't that be the case with any world you're not familiar with? Fact is, you have no experience in Eothas and have no idea what "Might" means there. So when you look at the devs explanation:

 

Might represents a character's physical and spiritual strength, brute force as well as their ability to channel powerful magic. During interactions, it can be useful for intimidating displays and acts of brute force. In combat, it contributes to both Damage and Healing as well as the Fortitude defense

 

These are the only things you can conclude about "Might". In Eothas, might refers to your ability to channel magic as well as your actually physical strength. Call it soul-strength or call it soul-power/strength. You can replace it with any phrase you want - you could even call it Physical/Magical Strength! That would explain the stat's nature perfectly! Fact is, when you refer to "Might" that is what you are referring to. But obviously that would be a mouthful to refer to, so they just used "Might" instead. But if you want, I'm sure you could change all the stats to reflect what they actually are/do:

 

Might = Physical/Magical Strength

Constitution = Health/Endurance

Dexterity = Hand Eye Coordination/Balance/Grace

Perception = Senses/Detail-Noticing Skill

Resolve = Internal Drive/Determination/Fearlessness/Emotional Intensity

Intellect = Logic/Reasoning

 

So these are your new Attributes:

 

Physical/Magical Strength

Health/Endurance

Hand Eye Coordination/Balance/Grace

Senses/Detail-Noticing Skill

Internal Drive/Determination/Fearlessness/Emotional Intensity

Logic/Reasoning

 

I think we can all agree that would just be silly. However, seriously, what other word should they have used besides "Might" to describe magic ability and physical ability at the same time? I can't think of a word for it, personally. 

 

Of course you are in fact, correct. It does not let you differentiate physical strength from magical strength. So in order to do so, you have to roleplay and pretend. Does that suck? Yes. But if you didn't have your experience with D&D, you wouldn't have formed the concept in the first place. For all you know, your magical strength is relative to your physical strength - so the physically stronger you are, the more powerful your spells are. That could be how this world works. In that case, it would be impossible to have a physically weak/magically strong mage. It'd be like saying a professional weight-lifter could be physically weak. Could he be? Yes, but then he wouldn't be a professional weight-lifter, would he? So no. Maybe in this world, its not an option to be a physically "weak"/magically strong mage, and in order to play as one, you have to "pretend" or "roleplay" as one. You have to make that choice then to play as the character you want. 

 

Personally, I agree - they should have just made one more attribute and used that as the magical damage stat. But what would you call it? Have Strength refer to physical strength and Might refer to magical strength? Would've kept a lot of people from complaining and might have made it a bit more intuitive for some people I guess. But that's not what they decided and thats not the world they created - so what's intuitive for our world might not be intuitive for their world. Simple as that. It'd be like trying to simulate someone who has high hand-eye coordination but a poor sense of balance. You can't do that in this game - does that make it wrong? No, just different. 

 

Edited April 3, 2015 by Hellraiser789

[Gairnulf]

When Obsidian implement stealth at party-member level in the patch today, I'll list all the fanboys who used to "explain" to me stealth was very fine when it was enabled/disabled at party level.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Gairnulf

[PrimeJunta]

What, per-character stealth is in this patch already??? Where did you get that?

[Hellraiser789]

When Obsidian implement stealth at party-member level in the patch today, I'll list all the fanboys who used to "explain" to me stealth was very fine when it was enabled/disabled at party level.

 

 

....was there anybody who actually liked party-based stealth? Terrible idea - individual stealth just makes more sense for scouting or really anything stealth related. Period. (IMO). I think most people simply accepted it would be changed as soon as Obsidian got a chance to change it. I don't think anybody actually wants it or likes it. At least I can't see why they would....anybody got a counter-argument for why its good?

Edited April 3, 2015 by Hellraiser789

[Katarack21]

 

Oh a little note for all of the people complaining that there is one stat to increase your damage with a gun and a sword and a magic spell. You are complaining incorrectly. There is if you want to be realistic about it, one attribute which increases all of these things. It is called Skill. Sword fighters don't benefit that much from being stupidly strong. The worlds best fencers aren't bodybuilders. Bodybuilders arent actually good at anything. Strength beyond being fit and able to use the sword isnt that important in a sword fight. Speed and Skill are what make you good in a swordfight. You can go check this out for yourself if you are interested (go to a HEMA club and try and beat someone who has been training for years who you are physically stronger than in a sword fight... good luck).

That's an excellent point, but slightly skewed, since strength and skill are not mutually exclusive. In other words, that's great when Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson tries to go up against a 120lb master swordsman, but what happens when a really strong swordsman goes up against a much-weaker swordsman?

 

That's why strength has its own role in the system, and skill has its own role. No one's arguing that strength should take skill's job.

 

 

He'll do GREAT with the claymore in D&D. He'll be **** for taking damage, but he will hit people with that claymore *ALL THE TIME*.

... Yeah, "all the time" that he isn't dead.

 

"How he'll do" with the claymore wasn't meant to literally be "how will he handle a claymore?", but, how will he fare, wading into a battle like that, all things considered. That was his whole point I was countering: that your 1-million-Might Wizard isn't strong because he won't last long in melee combat with just really high Might.

 

Right, but my point is that even in D&D, strength isn't equal to combat effectiveness. Just because your character has a high strength, in D&D, doesn't automatically make him a front-line combatant; there is more flexibility, even in D&D, then that. This system in PoE takes that basic concept and adds a great deal of nuance to it.

[PrimeJunta]

....was there anybody who actually liked party-based stealth? Terrible idea - individual stealth just makes more sense for scouting or really anything stealth related. Period. (IMO). I think most people simply accepted it would be changed as soon as Obsidian got a chance to change it. I don't think anybody actually wants it or likes it. At least I can't see why they would....anybody got a counter-argument for why its good?

 

I think the counter-arguments are all technical. It's easier to track as a game state.

 

From a gameplay POV I don't think there is an argument, as per-character stealth becomes party stealth if you select all and stealth them.

[Nanakamado]

Some of this stuff I've mentioned before, and is my confirmed worries from before the release. Other is something that's made an impression on me while playing the full game.

• Economy - getting too rich too soon is a thing. I'm intentionally not using the Stash and this has allowed me to avoid picking up merely somewhere around 1000cp worth of loot. I'm being mostly thorough with looting, as much as my characters' inventories allow, and I refrain from stealing from those containers which are not marked by a red mouse pointer, yet it wouldn't make sense in a roleplay sense to steal from them. And still I've got a bit over 5000cp for 15hrs of playing (not taken the stronghold yet)
• Stash/Item weight/Encumbrance - needs added complexity to feel less like a vacuum-cleaner sim. The Stash is a mess functionality- and design-wise, among many exmaples - it's completely possible to accidentally send stuff you want to use into your stash while in the wilderness, and then be unable to get it out of the stash until you return to town. This is dumb as heck. Before someone comes and tries to be smart - no I can't turn stash accessible everywhere because 1) I play on Expert and 2) it defeats the purpose of restricting stash in the first place if you have to enable it because of technical reasons born out of a bad design decision.
• UI
  • markers on map, it's important guise
  • Make tab key highlight the destination markers when you've sent your characters to a location, in addition to displaying markers for selected party memebers
• Stealth on party member level
• Separated stealth and trap-detecting stance
• Crafting/enchanting - shouldn't be possible everywhere, at specific smiths and for a price would be nice
• Might cannot designate both mental and physical strength. It's too hurtful to the very roleplay aspect to have a good wizard whose side-talent is breaking iron bars with his bare hands.
• Stronghold - can't comment on this one yet, but from what I read about it, it will come up soon.

 

 

Economy  - just like it.

Stash - Best thing in cRPG since... EVER!

UI - I agree.

Crafting/enchanting - really like it.

Might - It's very interesting. At least  cRPG in which one can build "talking - inteligent" character who is not a ****.

Stronghold - It's quite OK but seems unfinished or just not complex enough.

[Gairnulf]

....was there anybody who actually liked party-based stealth? Terrible idea - individual stealth just makes more sense for scouting or really anything stealth related. Period. (IMO). I think most people simply accepted it would be changed as soon as Obsidian got a chance to change it. I don't think anybody actually wants it or likes it. At least I can't see why they would....anybody got a counter-argument for why its good?

Fanboys forego logic for the sake of singing praises to anything that's done in the game simply because it has been done that way in the game. This leaves the impression of them being less than extremely intelligent people. Being so single-minded, they don't even consult with what the devs have said. The game content is like the Coran to the Talibans for them.

 

If they had taken the trouble to check what Obsidian's plans were:

 

off topic... sorry! The party stealth stuff has nothing to do with anything you think it has to do with. We want to change it and our current plan is to get around to it for the patch/expansion. Any changes requires time to refactoring the system from the original design. We felt like it wasn't worth the time investment (time away from bug fixing) because it doesn't make how you play the stealth game that much different, and refactoring at this time would introduce many new bugs into the system. Does that make sense? Even if it takes a only a few days to do, that could mean 20-30+ bugs don't get fixed. 

 

-Adam

[Katarack21]

The only issue with might is that they didn't have the time and budget to script reactive dialogues for high-might characters like wizards in some way (perhaps keyed to high might, low con?) and that because of that people whine about strong mages.

[Gairnulf]

It's too absurd to waste any more words on.

[Hellraiser789]

 

....was there anybody who actually liked party-based stealth? Terrible idea - individual stealth just makes more sense for scouting or really anything stealth related. Period. (IMO). I think most people simply accepted it would be changed as soon as Obsidian got a chance to change it. I don't think anybody actually wants it or likes it. At least I can't see why they would....anybody got a counter-argument for why its good?

 

I think the counter-arguments are all technical. It's easier to track as a game state.

 

From a gameplay POV I don't think there is an argument, as per-character stealth becomes party stealth if you select all and stealth them.

 

 

Ah, that makes sense. Doesn't mean its better IMO, but its not like I don't understand time constraints and stuff. Obsidian can only do so much before release day right?

[crabe]

 

>> Lephys

 

Okay. So wouldn't it be mostly a problem of vocabulary/terms. If they named Might something like "fighting spirit" or "aggressiveness", would it work better  ?

 

 

 

 The game, using only a single attribute called "Might" that covers both of those things, would be incapable of representing your being good at one but not the other. Do you understand? It's not that the game just doesn't tell you the difference. It doesn't even measure or distinguish the two, separate types of power in any way, shape, or fashion.

 

Good point. But can't we say the same with Perception for example that does not differenciate the five senses ?

 

I understand your point but I still think it works well (apart the dialogue lines asking for Might, right, but I see that more like a bad use of the system than a flaw of the system itself). 

 

 

It's too absurd to waste any more words on.

 

 

This is a discussion about design, and it's interesting for people interested in design.

It's surely annoying for people more interested in self satisfying peremptory mannered  opinions.

Edited April 3, 2015 by crabe

[Hatred]

When Obsidian implement stealth at party-member level in the patch today, I'll list all the fanboys who used to "explain" to me stealth was very fine when it was enabled/disabled at party level.

 Yeah. You will also ignore every reasonable response to every stupid thing you say. Great work on that one kid.

 

Edit : Also solo stealth would break my immersion. Clearly people in the middle of a mortal struggle would notice someone 'sneaking' behind them. 

 

Edit 2: actually stealth breaks my immersion. You just cant sneak around in plain sight. It isn't possible. Especially if you are a group of six people in heavy armour with large weapons.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Hatred

[anameforobsidian]

It's too absurd to waste any more words on.

 

Harry Potter was never a mighty wizard nor did he ever try to fit that archetype.  He just had high dex and perception.

 

 

What about Gandalf slaying the **** out of some orcs with a sword?

[CaptainMace]

When Obsidian implement stealth at party-member level in the patch today, I'll list all the fanboys who used to "explain" to me stealth was very fine when it was enabled/disabled at party level.

 

[Katarack21]

 

When Obsidian implement stealth at party-member level in the patch today, I'll list all the fanboys who used to "explain" to me stealth was very fine when it was enabled/disabled at party level.

 Yeah. You will also ignore every reasonable response to every stupid thing you say. Great work on that one kid.

 

Edit : Also solo stealth would break my immersion. Clearly people in the middle of a mortal struggle would notice someone 'sneaking' behind them. 

 

Edit 2: actually stealth breaks my immersion. You just cant sneak around in plain sight. It isn't possible. Especially if you are a group of six people in heavy armour with large weapons.

 

And those weapons glow. Not small weapons that glow a little, either. My Barbarian is carrying around a greatsword as big as she is that glows like a small sun...and sneaking.

[Hatred]

 

 

When Obsidian implement stealth at party-member level in the patch today, I'll list all the fanboys who used to "explain" to me stealth was very fine when it was enabled/disabled at party level.

 Yeah. You will also ignore every reasonable response to every stupid thing you say. Great work on that one kid.

 

Edit : Also solo stealth would break my immersion. Clearly people in the middle of a mortal struggle would notice someone 'sneaking' behind them. 

 

Edit 2: actually stealth breaks my immersion. You just cant sneak around in plain sight. It isn't possible. Especially if you are a group of six people in heavy armour with large weapons.

 

And those weapons glow. Not small weapons that glow a little, either. My Barbarian is carrying around a greatsword as big as she is that glows like a small sun...and sneaking.

 

 Just to be clear I was taking this piss out of Gairnulf who is acting like he is king of the world of immersion. I don't care in the slightest about balance breaking immersion. At level 10 I feel like the balance of the game is broken for sure. Crying about immersion in this environment displays a kind of arrogance which is beyond belief. He cannot seem to grasp just how PERSONAL his ideas are. Which I am trying to help him with by pointing out a lot of ways in which immersion is a  joke in this game. Sorry if you already knew this. I genuinely am unsure and just trying to be clear.

[Xionanx]

Immersion in any CRPG is a joke.  Any time you assign a stat to ANYTHING the immersion is broken..  You want 100% immersion?  Buy a crossbow and go boar hunting IRL.

 

But even RL boar hunting is full of "Min/Maxers" who spend countless hours comparing bow draw weights, bolt weights, and head designs for maximum penetration and bleed damage...

 

IMO CRPGS should be about a fun enjoyable experience, and "hiding' information from players so they have to guess what does what does not equal enjoyment.

 

Also, outright mislabeling a mechanic is just bad form.. IE. stealth, which CLAIMS that the higher the skill the closer you have to be before you get spotted, but in reality all enemies have 360 degree detection at the exact same range regardless of your stealth score.. what stealth DOES do, is slows down how fast the eye fills up once you enter that range.   So its "detection speed" not range...and really, once you know that having 1 party member or all party members sneaking becomes meaningless..