Quiconque

This is mostly incorrect. Level did affect some things directly in Exile, like spell damage, but it did not affect damage or hit rate for weapon attacks. At all. I don't remember off the top of my head if Strength improved damage for missile attacks, or if Dexterity did, but I don't think it was both of them. Dex did improve hit rate for everything, but quite conservatively -- the increase maxes out at +20% from natural Dex -- and the bulk of hit rate increases come from your skill with a specific weapon type. The real value of early Strength was in how many extra HP it gave you. Exile's game balance, unfortunately, was pretty unkind to archers in general. Missiles simply aren't very good compared to either melee or spells in Exile.

I don't think "the best most cost-effective traits" is an accurate statement. Most of the base stat traits are good, at least for certain character types, but there are a number of traits that are better than basically any of the base stat traits.

See: the original version of Avernum 4, in which Chitrachs suddenly looked exactly like Clawbugs, in stark contrast to their appearance in all previous games.

I'm sure you're even more amused, Triumph, to realize that in 1997, when we dropped our pants on the floor, it revealed an easter egg.

I mean, we went 2 years without pants in the very beginning? But I think we've had pants since 1997...

No, you're not the only one. I understand why the switch to top-down was made. In general I even prefer top-down. I just think this is a really unfortunate incarnation of top-down. It looks so much like Realmz: high-res images shrunk to fit the available space, placed on top of tiles where the art or the finishing doesn't quite match up. It feels like a collage. Less immersive. But I guess we'll see. It's hard to know what the actual experience will be like just from screenshots.

I really disagree on Swordmage. There is not a delay in getting multiple good armors (Runed Plate isn't even the best one, there are plenty with bonuses on top of it) with no hit chance penalty -- this is Avernum 1; practically everything is accessible right away, you have a kazillion friendly towns to explore and loot and do quests from before you have to set foot into a single dungeon. Also, for that reason, it's important to note that Randomizer linked you to tips for Avernum 2, not Avernum 1. In A2, most areas aren't accessible until well into the game. So take that into account when reading that advice. And remember that there WERE mechanics that changed between A1 and A2, some item bonuses that were toned down, etc. Similarly, the summon traits are a lot more valuable in Avernum 2 because of Simulacrum, which is phenomenal. Summoning isn't even remotely as good in Avernum 1.

Negotiator isn't necessary but it WILL speed up the acquisition of spells and skills from trainers, which is not a bad thing. Until you've bought everything you need, which will be quite late in the game, that's honestly a lot more impact than +3% to summon level will ever have.

A duo does not need Negotiator. Good question though. Might still accelerate skill/spell purchases enough to be useful. You are 100%, no questions asked, going to want maxed defensive skills (Hardiness, Resistance, and Parry) on both characters, which helps you get to Adrenaline Rush quickly (also critical, obviously). I'm torn on including melee at all, versus just having two casters. It could be done either way. I'd probably go with two casters, personally. Two Adrenaline Rush casters tossing out 10 SP lightning cones can deal with a lot in this game. And casters can potentially be a tad tankier than melee, since good melee damage requires giving up a shield. I would be careful about putting points into lore skills manually. Plan ahead, since you stop getting most skill points from level ups after you hit level 30. I'd just use 2 Sage Lore traits + trainable Arcane Lore for spells -- beyond 10 isn't needed and can't even be used till what is essentially the postgame. Assuming +2 from trainers on everything, I'd imagine something on the PCs like 8/8 Melee 10/10 Hardiness 10/10 Parry 10/10 Resistance 14/6 Mage Spells (to Cloak of the Arcane / Lightning Spray, with trainer) 4/12 Priest Spells (to Call Storm / Ward of Elements) 7/6 Spellcraft 0/1 Tool Use 1 Sage Lore 2 Nimble Fingers 2 Parry Mastery 5 Improved Intelligence 3 Health traits 5 Improved Endurance 5 slots left for some mix of Negotiator, Elemental Focus, Luck traits

Jeff has said that it was a very deliberate choice to make both sides unpalatable in G3, while not allowing a compromise option. The problem is rather that it succeeded too well in doing that. It would have been one thing if each side had a Khyryk who was *actually* on their side, however much in the minority they might be there, instead of the one positively received character in the whole game being allowed to do what the player isn't and just refuse to pick a side.

Your character building strategy honestly sounds reasonably solid. You might not be fussy about the details but your setup is pretty classic. I wonder if your laissez-faire approach happened to go in less classic directions, in other games? That seems like the most obvious explanation. I'm also not sure which other SW games you mean -- there are a lot, and they vary in what makes them challenging -- but I guess one thing that does potentially make A6 (and A4 and A5) easier is that the character traits are extremely powerful if set up properly. There's no equivalent to those in Geneforge, Avadon, or the Remakes of A1-A3.

"Clicking" on things with a tiny touchscreen is tricky. It's a lot easier if you're just clicking on squares rather than an isometric figure. Think about the issues that even PC versions of Geneforge had, from time to time, where you thought you were clicking to move somewhere, but instead you clicked on yourself and passed your turn...

Strategy Central was first started for G3 as a central hub for technical discussion. I can state this for a fact because I was the one who did it, and I did it right in the middle of that massive defs file unpacking about broken vlish 😛 Now shoo. Go build a wiki, and no supper until you do!

That's true. The original did have an extremely different skill/experience system, which is fondly remembered by many.

Repeating myself because this point is important: the idea of a wiki is not the issue.

The "hostility" has nothing to do with the idea of a wiki. That's why I said wikis are potentially great. That's also why I said I hope you succeed with the wiki. The "hostility" has everything to do with your attitude. Your very first post is -- in your words -- "making a case" as to why other people should change what they are doing. You made a "proposal" for what "we" should do in bold print. You also asked us to promote your project. It's a little presumptuous. Throw in your complaints, and I think it's not hard to see why you did not get embraced. Look: a wiki, as an additional resource, isn't a bad idea at all. But as I said, the proof is in the pudding. So far, you haven't actually done anything to make the wiki a reality, but you've made two long posts arguing, in one way or another, with what's already on the forums. That does not bode well. I suggest you put your effort into making the wiki rather than trying to persuade people here that a currently-imaginary wiki will be awesome. Seriously, go make it now. The game's not out but you can begin putting the structure together. You clearly have some ideas about what you'd like to see in it, and you are probably the target audience for a wiki, so why not get started? Once you have something to show, you can then talk up the wiki instead of dumping on what we've done in the past.

If you make a wiki, and there is useful information in it, it will definitely get linked in Strategy Central! That said, Imma be honest here, it's a little off-putting to show up out of nowhere and proclaim "Hey, I don't like the way you've been organizing information over here for literally the last 15 years, you should do it my way instead, and also I want you to advertise this for me." Wikis are potentially great. But as you note, there is more effort involved -- particularly if you want the advantages you list in point #1 to actually exist. A lot of effort has to go into organizing and updating the wiki that isn't necessary here. Randomizer collates truly massive amounts of in-game information in incredibly useful lists. And then they sit in a single thread. Ctrl-F takes the place of a whole extra level of organization, splitting up pages and organizing links to them. If you want to take that on, go for it, but the fact that this data gets gathered in the first place is clearly more important. Just dumping it in a couple threads here makes it easy to just focus on getting the data. A similar thing could be said when one of us goes on a mechanics spelunking expedition. Strategy Central is well organized, and google search of the forums is available if the place to find a particular piece of information isn't obvious. (And if you're looking for information that doesn't exist, well, it's not magically going to exist just because there's a wiki.) Aaaand wikis do come with disadvantages. If they end up half-done, it can actually be much harder to locate needed information on them than it is via a super simple format like Strategy Central. I'm sure you've seen game wikis in that state, just like I have. So, let me make a suggestion. Instead of complaining about the way we've been doing things for, again, literally the last 15 years... consider proposing your wiki as a project you want to try and would love help with. That way, you wouldn't pre-emptively put off the very people whose work your wiki will clearly be relying on. Second point: your bold text indicates that you are (wisely) aware that the wiki needs people to work on it especially at the beginning, for it to take off. But don't put the cart before the horse. An empty wiki is not going to get advertised in the Strategy Central that you find so inadequate, just because it "could" take off. You want us to promote your project before it exists. The reality is, wikis have been attempted before and haven't taken off. I genuinely hope you succeed. But for me at least, the proof is in the pudding. Strategy Central doesn't "advertise", it organizes and attempts to make it easy to find information. Make the pudding first.

Why not lock it down to just one class? Most abilities in D&D are locked down that way. Wizards can't use cleric spells, etc.

Excellent! Good to have solid confirmation that nothing affects the chance of a successfully activated debuff node succeeding. I mean, it's too bad that's the case, but it's nice to know for sure.

IIRC, that line actually affects duration, not chance of success. (Specifically, it affects the output quantity, which is duration for status nodes and amount for damage/healing nodes.) It sounds like it should affect chance of success, but it doesn't. I would not use "buffing to 1000" as a test for anything, since that is FAR beyond the values the game is set up to deal with, and there are lots of opportunities for things to go awry there, ranging from simple caps to variable overflow to breaking lookup tables. Also, do not assume that all Shadow/Sorc abilities are keyed to Dex/Int -- they aren't. Dex is used for all PC-based ranged physical attacks. Int is used for all PC-based magical attacks. Dex or Int is used, based on class, for all scarab-based ranged/magical attacks. For status abilities, the stat varies. It's usually what you'd expect for the class or type of attack, but not always. There is at least one example in Av3 of a status ability that keys off of Strength, for example. (And it doesn't make any sense and isn't predictable.) Nobody analyzed it that closely in earlier games so I wouldn't assume stats for status abilities.

I don't think anyone in this thread was talking about any Dark Castle, actually 😛

Very straightforward. Two major endings, depending solely on which side you supported. Empowering Gladwell makes a difference but it's still one of those two major endings.

All in all it's pretty minimal variance. See Triumph's link for full details.

In recent years, maybe, but I don't think "minor tweaks" accurately describes the evolution between 1994 and 2004, which saw three radically different engines and combat models, as well as two unique scenario creation engines, that were not much like anything else by SW (or by anyone else).

"Another intriguing industry is the augmented and virtual reality space" faceplantation