Hassat Hunter

And here I thought my post was short, simple, to the point. But looking back with a few people completely misinterpretating it, I guess it wasn't after all. So let's go to the basic level... summons a la Baldur's Gate 1 (freestyle) was a problem, all could see that. So sollutions would be; * Keep it like that (bad). * My suggestion; Devise a rule-system governing summons that remains constant, consitent and logical. Apply this to both the party and any enemies. * Arbitrary limitations or exceptions. Like BioWare say simply "summon limit is 5. Why? Cause it's so." or how JE Sawyer recently mentioned INT AoE bonus being Friendly Fire free. Arbitrary restriction to work around gameplay flaws which have no logical sense, consistency, and are flat-out just a cheap fix. The less cheap fixes, the better IMO. As soon as a consistent system is in place, you can work around using that as base, and work around it, leading to coherence and proper balance. Or you can do the BG2 way, were they balanced summons by making weak spells get more summons, then strong spells just one. And notice the cheap fix actually completely counteracts with the spells design. 5 Monster I spells? Forget it. 5 Summon Diva's... sure, go ahead, rampage EVERYTHING. Bad design overall. Does we wish to repeat that or actually put some thought in it this time while we can? Like I said, I find it strange my post could be so misinterpretated, like above. It looks like all that got through was SIMPLE. Nothing about the parts that balance would be tied to the spells itself (say, how BG2 tried that with making Summon I spawn 4 beings and Summon Diva 1, but then... not messed up by the artifical summon limit?) Nothing about the one cast per summoner, and replacement spells would replace the summon if it was still present. None of that made it through, and I ask, why? Did I made my point so unclear that the system would allow summoners, casters, 1 summon spell cast at a time? That there would still be various spells to choose from? But if you cast a new one with the old still in effect (per caster, mind) the old would expire. No more would summon I cast 5 cheap summons as per it's own effect, then wreck itself on the arbitrary summon limit. If Summon I is balanced around 5 summons, so it is. But it wont disallow another caster to use another summon spell, maybe balanced around being with itself. And thus design and arbitrary limit wont clash since no-one put up such an arbitrary limit that wrecks potential gameplay designs in the first place. Acting before thinking and nullifying efforts with stupid restrictions (the limit) should be something avoided this time around. Well, way to press a stamp on me. I don't use summons, I just want to design them for others. Ever thought that, no, that's not the case. I love summoning. I also know there are some errors with it, that it takes thinking to add them properly. That I don't want to repeat the BG1 mistake of no limits, but also not BG2's mistake of a silly arbitrary limit. That summon spells could potentially be very powerful, limited by only itself and it's properties (like some sacrifice or long cooldown). That there would be many potential spells to choose from with it's cons and pro's, rather than having just the same one spammed all over (except maybe just the lowely spamspell summoners would have for cheap fights with low cooldown aside from the powerful ones). So, yes, I definitely like summons, and design them for ourselves, to benefit the people who love using them. It's a bit insulting to read above description aimed at me then. And even non-casters could have their summon, be it figurine or wand. A probably lesser power and lower cooldown or limitary supply way, but not none at all. We're still supposed to play as a team. I do believe a summoner should have more of a support role. This isn't an action-RPG or MMO as mentioned where it's just you, alone, as summoner. You have a whole group along with you. There's no NEED for the summoner to raise such a powerful army that nothing can stop him or her, there's the rest for the party for. If the summoner could raise a force as big as an entire party by itself, that just makes the summoner broken, in need of a fix. Therefore the summoner should probably have a bigger variety of summon spells, and larger power than others, but nothing that would replace a fellow teammate. Most of it would still be a supporter. There's no need to think of a summoner here or compare it to a summoner in a stand-alone game, when this is all group focused. While I am sure some people would love to solo, and would complain that it's a lot harder for the summoner, does it need to change. Should there not be a support class just cause a few individuals like to take the game on unintended. And cannot take into account a supporter would be akin to a 'hard mode', nope it needs to become more powerful. We don't all need to be mages with superdead spells, or fighters who crush heads. A lot of times the cleric, his healing spells, his buffs, his assistance, is far more important to the battlefield than the damage dealers. And I see the summoner like that... but also with some kick-ass beasties to plow away at enemies. Support. Just more combat-focused than a healer. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that... at all. Nor can I see how that would get boring or weak in a team-oriented RPG. STOP trying to act like this is a game where the summoner needs to fend for itself. He needs to cope with everything. This game is not MEANT to be solo'd. Start thinking of it's role in a team. And pardon me, but if your vision then is calling upon 10 super powerful entities, I think you... are wrong. And how exactly would that be incapable? You'd still be able to swap out beasties even. First summon a tank, then summon a damaging summon to finish it off. The only difference with another system would be the first tank summon wont remain around. It would require people to think, to play into the events going on, if they want the summoner role. Rather than just summon 5 beasties and let them do the whole battle. Tell me how this would make it impossible?

Just like in BioWare games... except they try to make it something deeper. And fail horrible to cringeworthy/superhilarious (cross out whatever of the 2 goes for you) effect...

Yeah, BG1's "hidden items" where just pixel-searching... the tab added by the expansion was very welcome. I personally would be more interested in things that require you to use your head, rather than pixelhunt. A stash that only appears once you read some hints (dialogue, book, note, anything) and then go search for it based on said information rather than move your mouse over all the screen or pressing one button (the second still being better than the first). More brains, less 'grind'

Supposed best to hope for would be http://www.logicartists.com/logicartists/news1.html then... should fill our needs hopefully

Why so complicated? Per summoner, 1 summon spell. Cast another? The original summon(s) dissapears. Since not all party members can summon, that keeps it in check. Why remember more summon spells for a wizard then (with the cooldown system in mind)? Well, If the summon does, cast another spell. No artificial hardcap, nothing difficult to explain to people, no statistics that have to be balanced with summons in mind. Just... the summons themselves need balance. Sound good to me...

The whole LotR discussion reminded me of Knights & Merchants. Lots of fun to play and build your kingdom, horrbile combat. Would usually just do the fun building part and leave the whole combat part aside, though sadly, that wouldn't expand the plot (and I don't think freeplay was there). We need more buildinggames like that... but without combat. Now all is Simcity or other modern citybuilders (meh) or Anno, which still has combat and nowhere near the interesting intercommunication between buildings...

It's not just this poll that reply is based on...

Do you have the KOTOR save editor? If so, can you check 000_Jedi_Found. Is it on 5?

KS couldn't fund AP2, not even taking into account having to pay to use the AP license or get the AP license from SEGA. I suppose a KS to acquire the IP could work, but then they still need a publisher to actually make AP2. And with the (unreasonable) bad press AP got, few if any would be willing.

So, toggable when selecting Expert mode (which is stated to be in, you can pick whatever you want to add to your game) but no longer togable ingame? Because if so, yeah, that's what I want (and most likely will be the situation PE will have) If so, I probably misread you too (thinking you should just be able to toggle it on and off ingame)...

Because adding a toggle for it COMPLETELY and UTTERLY destroys it's purpose. Which, I repeat, is to "prevent roleplayers any and all lure of altering their gameplay for XP"... Let's see how easy the lure is with a big *toggle* option... and then take note it become completely, and utterly pointless...

It sounds great on paper... and all the ideas are good (lvl 15-55?, changes per run? reduces gf waiting times?)... but the execution? As said, they just made a solo sequence and let 4 people loose in it. What? Hehe, Brontes (that would mean Dread Fortress, since I assume she was alone. If not, Dread Palace). I assume a lot of people die in the insta-death zap phase. It's a fun boss. Pain in DP though. Just recently got some good mods for a tank setting (72+) so tried it out a bit. Since I never done it before, obviously sucked horribly, going to give a few more tries this weekend and hopefully learn more. Playing DPS I don't have 20 buffs on myself, as tank all the time. Makes it hard to figure out which to look out for and act on, and as such, haven't gotten it down. DPS (78) works just fine though . Let's see what Dread Fortress HM brings this sunday (last time we tried we got stuck on the second boss, hope to get farther this time)...

Yeah, worried a bit there with the '6 months FORWARD' and a zillion likes... WHAT? Oh, "backwards"... it's all okay. But yeah, anyone with a brain (which pretty much all RPG-players have shown to posses, provided we do not include Skyrim or Borderlands to RPG's like Steam somehow does) could tell straight of the bat April 2014 wasn't going to be the release date with all those stretchgoals. So no surprises that when the backer portal screens came up it said Winter 2014 (which was quite a while before the actual backer portal itself too).

^^ My experience. And, well... gunships. Can't say Team Deathmatch intrigues me. Like arena's in ground PvP, they actually function more as a deterent. Also, new FP. Horrible. It's fun soloing... it's MADE for soloing. Yet decided to make a 4 man flashpoint out of it. And... that just doesn't work as I notice. Sadly, by the time it can become fun (since you can solo) it rewards are useless to it. Failure all around.

I'm not really surprised RPG's do better in Europe than America. Just looking at Germany already establishes that...

Then you might as well not add the option at all. EXPERT options should be toggles, yes, but once you activate them, they're ON. No just flipping the switch all the time. What's wrong with modern games, nothing's permanent anymore. In the past, you took a skill, you're stuck with it. DEAL WITH IT. Modern game? You want another? Sure, go ahead, here. Made a decision in the story? Here, at the end you can still change it... Pshaw...

The first (and only) time I did it was with someone who knew what's going on. I was at the controls, pressing buttons as commanded, so have no idea what the rest of the crew had to do. Would like to replay it to learn... but, in BW's wisdom, it's one of 3 H4's that's *not* repeatable... hence giving everyone a headache never being able to find a crew for it (not to mention being stuck after long annoying solo segments, albeit switched off with some damn fine puzzle sequences. Wouldn't mind re-doing those too... without the whole hunt for droids/seeds

Woohoo, less bug fixes. [/sarcasm] "Funny" also is despite my initial impression and enthusiasm for GSF I really don't play it anymore. *At all* Why? Gunships. They suck the fun straight out of the game. If I wanted to play find and kill the pesky sniper I would play counter-strike. I want damned Star Wars-themed shipfights. Alas, it's not meant to be, and now they introduce apparently more bad stuff into it. Way to ruin everything BioWare. Reminds me how 2.0 added Seeker Droids. A lot of fun, addicitve, and actually an alternative to doing dailies on lvl 55. Sites were crowded. What did BW do? They ruined it. They ruined it good. NO ONE does it anymore (all sites are barren, abandoned) because really, it sucks now. Did they ever un-suck it. Nope. They figured ruining it with a few patches was a good idea.

Sees: People don't understand alpha, beta or the relatively new "early release/early access" (previously known as; buying before any patches where out. Or an excuse so they can say "but it was just an early release" rather than "we released a buggy product"). Nothing new really. But believe you me if you really don't want to play real alpha's, and what people call "they released in alpha" would probably be very very *very* far away from the actual alpha.

I agree. A cover-based shooting is piss poor shooter. But what ones are you talking about which would be "good" though? Meet every single console game ported to PC where "E" is so many actions, that your when you try to pick up a kitty, you might strangle a little girl instead. Sadly no-one ever seemed to think of isolation those options on the PC where we have not a super-limited set of buttons, so you won't have to yell at your screen that you take someone captive when you want to enter a car (Saint's Row, I am looking at you...) Nah, it seemed so rough (as in almost untouched by Obz) that I decided to forgo it. Plus droids are not my thing, the HK factory part felt like a bit of a chore as it is.

Halleluja! Vengeance

Ehm... it's 40 euro? Seems odd it would be 60 dollar then...

You really have that backwards, but that's like, your opinion man. Wait, it IS ME3's fault ME2 had no plot, no correlation to ME1, and wasted it's premise of being a midquel by killing off it's entire crew you bonded in all the game at the end, not to mention desperately ended the Ceberus connection hard that it so painstainkly awkward and badly forced upon you? And didn't let you break off despite having 1000 lines of "I do not trust you, and I shall never work for Cerberus!" options? Do tell me more!

Or... how they had no plan whatsoever for their trilogy and start making up **** post-mortem... which wouldn't even mesh with the game several times, just 'cause. It's really not ME3's fault that ME2's plot and basis was such a pile of rubbish and completely designed stand-alone rather than a mid-parter to a sequel. I seriously doubt the crew could have just doubled the teammates with all the plot, cutscenes, dialogue and what-not just cause the ME2 crew thought the suicide mission was a good idea. May look good on paper, and it's easy to say "they should have just used xxx instead as crew" but I doubt most people would realise the work and cost involved.

Lol @ "The release dates!" Give me one game that isn't delayed. Does it suck? Is it crapridden with bugs? Do you *want* that for the game you financed?