What we can say is that a nerf to a base 2APR would be utterly ineffective.
I mean, you're wrong, I'm not sure what else to say. Non-stacking Weapons Of Action means anyone could get the benefit of equipping one, and if you find another you would use it with another character.
*Which is precisely how the original game was designed.*
So, my solution would make the game work just as the original did. Whereas right now it works differently. Can you really not see that?
The only ones wrong here are you & billy - but even billy seems to be coming to his senses...
Right now, anyone that can equip one can benefit from it. There are more WoA than there are characters.
No, OIWD was designed without actual dual-wielding; not that WoA would not stack: there is a difference. Also, do not forget that just like with the original BG, the original IWD devs stated that they would have liked to have proper TWF, but that it was prevented by an engine limitation. An Engine limitation that has since been removed.
We get that for whatever deranged reason you seem to think TWFing WoA is somehow this crazy overpowered game destroying crime, but the fact of the matter is that even if your 'fix' changed WoA to work EXACTLY like they used to (it does not; merely makes them similar), it would NOT fix the problem you actually have.
Yes, your 'solution' is perhaps closer to how the original WoA actually played, but the game would still not work just as the original did. As has been shown, nerfing WoA would only impact non-Warriors while NOT affecting TWFing Warriors at all. You clearly fail to understand the rather straight forward definition of 'solution'.
Disagreeing with you is not "really not seeing that" - it is seeing that you long ago missed the forest for the trees: a solution that solves nothing and creates more problems is as ridiculous as this thread.
Still amazed this thread exists let alone is still active, IWD was never balanced, so why care that its less balanced now? It's a pointless thread, regardless of what you may think, if you care cool, won't change anything.
I don't really see why they need to nerf a weapon which you get so late in the game. I'm glad that if someone wants to make a character who dual wields overpowered long swords of action they can; it's not like they can cheese through the entire game like that.
What we can say is that a nerf to a base 2APR would be utterly ineffective.
I mean, you're wrong, I'm not sure what else to say. Non-stacking Weapons Of Action means anyone could get the benefit of equipping one, and if you find another you would use it with another character.
*Which is precisely how the original game was designed.*
So, my solution would make the game work just as the original did. Whereas right now it works differently. Can you really not see that?
yeah, now a bard can have 5 apr where previously it was unimaginable. a blade under tenser's for example completely obliterates now.
you can now outfit a broad array of characters in the party to have max or near-max apr where previously only a ranger could have it, and perhaps one additional warrior with grandmastery. (edit: or the unlikely case of having two rangers)
I don't really see why they need to nerf a weapon which you get so late in the game. I'm glad that if someone wants to make a character who dual wields overpowered long swords of action they can; it's not like they can cheese through the entire game like that.
that's a fair point that has been raised in this thread but i have been refuting it with the argument that new players who don't even know that HoW was an expansion (that was habitually played after the base campaign with relatively high-level characters) will simply go to lonelywood at level 9 seeing it as just a sidequest. even old players often arranged their progress this way as it is a perfectly rational and legitimate thing to do
severed hand > how (pre final part) > totl > how (final part) > *the rest of the game* (more than 50% of the whole game!)
severed hand > how (pre final part) > totl > how (final part) > *the rest of the game* (more than 50% of the whole game!)
Oh, I see. I generally don't start playing HoW in the middle of the main game, so I didn't realize that you could go back to the main game after beating HoW. Then again, if you are good enough to beat both TotLM and HoW with a party that only just got past the Severed Hand, I don't see why you'd have trouble with the rest of the main game, regardless of whether or not you dual wield overpowered long swords.
@OlvynChuru ^that's totally true and frankly it's a problem
earlier, totl was a serious challenge when done this way and upon returning to the main iwd quest the game still remained at least moderately challenging (someone even told me that if you killed icasaracht previously, belhifet battle becomes tougher, but i don't remember how it originally was in order to confirm this)
now it's not so, neither the expansion content nor the main quest are sufficiently difficult on core, at least for me.
i am talking mainly from my perspective here, not trying to generalize too broadly, but some conclusions about the new game balance can be made i think.
my friend, i'm free to express my opinion, it's a free forum, a free country, a free world. i'm "not determined to nerf the game for everybody" as i'm not in a position to do anything to the game, it's firmly in the devs' hands.
my friend, i'm free to express my opinion, it's a free forum, a free country, a free world. i'm "not determined to nerf the game for everybody" as i'm not in a position to do anything to the game, it's firmly in the devs' hands.
and we are free to ignore you and generally call you a idiot, now if only people would do more of the first part..
Yes, your 'solution' is perhaps closer to how the original WoA actually played,
Thank you for finally agreeing. That's all I've ever claimed.
Your comprehension is as bad as your memory; misquoting us in an attempt to make yourself look better is as deceptive as your lie that you have not claimed anything else.
Yes, your 'solution' is perhaps closer to how the original WoA actually played,
Thank you for finally agreeing. That's all I've ever claimed.
Your comprehension is as bad as your memory; misquoting us in an attempt to make yourself look better is as deceptive as your lie that you have not claimed anything else.
Comments
Right now, anyone that can equip one can benefit from it. There are more WoA than there are characters.
No, OIWD was designed without actual dual-wielding; not that WoA would not stack: there is a difference. Also, do not forget that just like with the original BG, the original IWD devs stated that they would have liked to have proper TWF, but that it was prevented by an engine limitation. An Engine limitation that has since been removed.
We get that for whatever deranged reason you seem to think TWFing WoA is somehow this crazy overpowered game destroying crime, but the fact of the matter is that even if your 'fix' changed WoA to work EXACTLY like they used to (it does not; merely makes them similar), it would NOT fix the problem you actually have.
Yes, your 'solution' is perhaps closer to how the original WoA actually played, but the game would still not work just as the original did. As has been shown, nerfing WoA would only impact non-Warriors while NOT affecting TWFing Warriors at all. You clearly fail to understand the rather straight forward definition of 'solution'.
Disagreeing with you is not "really not seeing that" - it is seeing that you long ago missed the forest for the trees: a solution that solves nothing and creates more problems is as ridiculous as this thread.
a blade under tenser's for example completely obliterates now.
you can now outfit a broad array of characters in the party to have max or near-max apr where previously only a ranger could have it, and perhaps one additional warrior with grandmastery. (edit: or the unlikely case of having two rangers) that's a fair point that has been raised in this thread but i have been refuting it with the argument that new players who don't even know that HoW was an expansion (that was habitually played after the base campaign with relatively high-level characters) will simply go to lonelywood at level 9 seeing it as just a sidequest.
even old players often arranged their progress this way as it is a perfectly rational and legitimate thing to do
severed hand > how (pre final part) > totl > how (final part) > *the rest of the game* (more than 50% of the whole game!)
^that's totally true and frankly it's a problem
earlier, totl was a serious challenge when done this way and upon returning to the main iwd quest the game still remained at least moderately challenging (someone even told me that if you killed icasaracht previously, belhifet battle becomes tougher, but i don't remember how it originally was in order to confirm this)
now it's not so, neither the expansion content nor the main quest are sufficiently difficult on core, at least for me.
i am talking mainly from my perspective here, not trying to generalize too broadly, but some conclusions about the new game balance can be made i think.
Fortunately there is no need for us to call them that; they prove it every time they post.