1) I'm fine with a mana system as my fav games are J-RPGS. So casting time and mana management is second nature. And you can't put quotes around something you're misquoting, since it's not a direct wrote anymore. And I did say minus bugs and quirks. The system in place is good as is. Once balanced a skill that once was uber powerful may be toned down. As Larian stated it's not balanced.
2) If a developer makes the rules and you think they are too lax why not implement your own? That's what I'm suggesting. If they say you can use your most powerful skill once every 5 seconds will that mean people will? Some will, some won't. Their choice and it's condoned by game design. Now if the intent is once every 5 minutes and it's usable every 5 seconds then it's broken. But to say that the rules set by the developer are wrong and should be your rules is wrong.
3) Who are you to say a choice is moronic though? If game design says I can use this skill as long as I have the AP, mana, what have you, and I use it every time who's to say I'm wrong? Not the developer as they allow it. Now if the game says you do this and then bad things will happen and you still do that's your choice. All due to game design. But your idea of what is good game design and mine or the next person or the developers will differ. As I have stated we all play by the developers rule.
And claiming that Ultima is one of the best RPGs is your opinion. I may not agree with you but I'm not claiming you're wrong and should go elsewhere.
In any debate you need to listen to the other side and offer points as to why it should be your way. I've offered a compromise for the suggestion of longer cool down if it isn't implemented. Could there possibly be a better system to implement instead of reagents?
1) That's what you wrote: "I pledged for this game same as you and I like the way it plays currently (minus a few bugs and quirks). So why should I have to play a game changed from what it originally was?".
Honestly, I can't see any sensible difference with my "quote", aside from the tone. Anyway, you didn't know how the game would have played when you backed it (neither did I) and you can't take the actual state of the alpha as the "original vision", simply because it is not.
2) What you are suggesting is far from a solution. It's a childish: "invent your how rules if you really want! I want to play my game as I like". I backed this game because I trust Larian's ability to make good games. I don't wanna do the work in their place.
3) I'm just a player. You are just a player. Everyone here is just a player. Larians will make their choices no matter what, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a game about choices and consequences, even if you don't like it. You can do all the stupid things you want in Original Sin, but you will pay the consequences.
PS: even if you don't like Ultima VII D:OS remains a game utterly inspired by Ultima VII. Not because I'm saying it, but because Swen stated it multiple times.
"Picture a modern version of
a world not unlike that of Ultima VII, explored either alone or with a friend, that sees you engage adversaries
in tactical turn-based combat reminiscent of the great turn-based RPGs of the past. A world that is filled to the brim with
choice and consequence situations, reactive NPCs, and a considerable amount of surprises. A world that captures the feeling of playing pen and paper RPGs with our friends. Then add the new stuff..." - Vision statement for Divinity: Original Sin.
This is the game both you and I backed.
