Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I'm not as sure as @fallenj is about the placeholder, in a recent interview Larian claimed that WotC gave them carte blanche and left them without an approval process:

https://wireframe.raspberrypi.org/

You know what really worries and concerns me most?

The comments we see in virtually all of their interviews that reference their play data collection and what it 'obviously' means.

For example - in that interview, the speaker from Larian talks about how they could look at the play data and see that few people were ever using buffing or debuffing spells like bless... and drawing the conclusion from that that people didn't like or want buffing spells and that they wanted spells with impact and damage instead. . . .

I agree strongly. Data is meaningless outside of context. The designeers have created a situation where buffing is discouraged and assumed that people don't buff because it's boring. I think the devs should try playing IWD a few times. "potion of strength, prayer spell, bless -- okay, time to take on the demon . . ." Or BG2 for that matter where spells like "breach" -- a debuff -- were critical parts of combat.

I like Larian but I don't like their attitude towards the DnD ruleset -- devs that had more confidence in and commitment to the ruleset would ask themselves "people aren't using buffs, how can we encourage them to do so" instead of concluding "bless is boring, that's why no one is using it"


Exactly!!