Hassat Hunter

Yeah. I got about 10 million too, GTN on my ship. Don't got those fancy armors though, more into pet collecting Maybe will spend it before going pref though since it all goes in escrow anyway. We'll see. Didn't get the 500cc so contacted support, droid response to call. Forwarded the exact same mail again, and second time I did get a person who helped me and got the 500cc. So support isn't bad... as long as you get a person instead of those auto-replies. Sadly, most seem to get auto-replies. Taken a liking to Seeker hunting, even if the loot is usually crap. Hopefully can play the 2 lvl 55 ops soon too. As for the report, still 0 views on Youtube. Guess a waste of time reporting the cheater, converting it, uploading it to Youtube, sending tickets to BioWare, and for what... naught. That probably wont happen again...

Well, BG2 had a "tax", the fee you had to pay to use magic in Athklatla (probably misspelled, I never got it right). It also added right in with the plot, and the critical cutscene of Imoen being taken away. Something like that would have far more my preference. Not just a money sink, abstract and away from the game, but one that actually fleshes out the gameworld, adds into the plotline and doesn't appear "alien" to the gameworld just to add a sink.

So many games from Steam, but only got time for The Old Republic and the Real-Life game (which generally sucks)... :/

So looking for 2 prison architect (1 for myself, 1 for a friend). Got some spares. Seeing the awesome prices you can get (above post) might aswell see what goodies you get from the badge instead

Nothing I want yet. And yeah, as usual, don't buy anything that's "merely 50% off", wait for it to be a daily deal or flash deal or community deal or whatever. Also, not surprisingly, Steam works like crap ATM. Voted for Dishonoured btw. Now that sounds interesting. The badge stuff sounds really useless, but now I read you can get money for it for other games? Sign me up, take all the cards you want. XD

This is a more reasonable objection than many I've read. Thank you. The funny thing being here it's pretty much said by *everyone* but always countered with "You're just narrow-minded." Oh I totally agree here, it was something I wanted to implent in my own mods/games too. A weapon that can grow with you, you can upgrade with you. I definitely agree it's something that would be awesome, and would very well fit a magic weapon in PE you get nearing the end. The downside of it of course being, if they advertise it as such, they have to ACTUALLY IMPLENT IT. Which can be a hard task. Or they just pull a Peter Molyneux ("Sure, I promised it, but it's the old MMORPG system you all despise. Live with it, and buy my next game!"), but I doubt that would make anyone any happier. I agree with Lephys on item degredation? Very strongly even. What happened? Because in the other thread, it seemed more that we couldn't see eye-to-eye on anything...

I didn't really, no, but since you are seemingly asking for one, let me answer that request The difference here being that while rest spamming indeed was never encouraged, the way this system worked it was very indeed encouraged to repair often or risk a penalty. Not once a day not to be fatigued by resting, but way more often, and a gold cost. Also resting had more mechanical reasons behind it, like being tied in to spells being restored, time elapsing and an effect after traveling than being a mere 'money sink.' If there were better reasons given by the development team to include it, sure, but there weren't. So then I am not going to assume they *had* such better reasons but just chose not to give them to us like some of you assume was apparently the case. You can improve upon it all you want, but if the underlying reason for EXISTING never changed, indeed, what's the point? WAAAAAaaaaaay to miss the point. Not that I'm suprised mind you. So, since methaphors are too hard, let me try it this way. "Sometimes you add something. You spend a lot of time in it. You fine-craft it, improve upon it. But in the end, it doesn't add anything. Or it simply doesn't work. Thus, it gets taken out instead." This happens frequently in game development. Or any development. And it's actually a good thing. Rather than keeping non-working things around just because time is spend on them, just because they were in to test but found not working, that only makes games worse. I've had plenty of times working on mods that I spend a lot of time on something. But in the end, it never made the final product. Why? Cause it didn't work for the game, or it would just make it worse, or served no purpose at all. Clinging very hard to things that simply don't work is not fitting for a professional game developer. In this case, the OE-team seen that this moneysink wasn't the proper way to deal with "the problem" (too much money), and instead devised to either list it as non-issue (which it pretty much is) or devise other ways to spend your money on. The time they could spend modifyind durability might now go to adding things to the stronghold. Adding items to shops to buy. Adding bribing options to NPC dialogue with custom responses and different endings due to that. Do you really want they rather not do that and spend all that dev-time refining this moneysink? Yup. But in this case, it really only had one purpose. They said so themselves. So while "things" may have this addition OE made didn't have more, it had one purpose. A bad purpose. Swim around that all you want, but that's the only reason they made it anyway. They officially confirmed that even. So trying to make a point or sound like it's not is a wasted effort. Good show telling me "you dismiss this based on past game experiences. That's bad. Feel bad about yourself" and then here go 'in games there are only always 1 or 2 potions. PE wont change that'... make up your mind. And don't go calling me off on using past experiences if you yourself are incapable of seeing past that. Maybe then you realise, well, perhaps in PE there will be more different useful potions. Think about it. There are indeed many choices how to spend your gold. But of all those listed, only one penaltilised you for not doing it. Going for the inn? No, then no penalty. Going for the new sword/potion? No, then no penalty. Going for repair? No? Then penalty for you. See the difference? Woohoo, again, not my viewpoint. The viewpoint of your own 'followers' who think durability really can add to the dungeons danger and needing to require additional weaponry onboard. I would never suggest such a severe penalty. But one point they do have right, if it wants to have a very practical impace on gameplay then merely 'deposit gold here' it DOES need to decay *that* fast. If it doesn't, no practical impact. If it does, practical impact but in that same manor the impact is so great, it will turn off a lot of people since it requires constant repair and/or replacement. You simply can't have an EFFECTIVE impact on gameplay as some believers think it will add to the game without making weapons as fragile as porcelain. If they are as resistant as you want the system to be, it simply will have naught impact on the gameplay. Just... taking money. Does that add something? I say no. And thus I see no reason to devote manpower to it. Work on something that affects gameplay. If you need a moneysink, adds something that actually affects gameplay. And if you still read all of the above as "I hate durability and that's why it must not exist in the game. And my only argumentation is I hate it" then sorry, but I am done talking to you. Also I do find the argument funny about the crafting skill. It makes no sense crafting elite weapon not having crafting skill, but if your crafting skill is 10 it suddenly makes perfect sense? Even if that crafting skill is trained murdering 2000 orcs instead of actual crafting? Hilarious. Crafting still uses other skills, ingredients, recepices and who-knows-what-else. It's not suddenly that without a crafting skill present you can make the epic endgame item at the forge when you start the game as some people make it appear.

Well, got Makeb. The idea already existed to get a sub+makeb some while ago (since only 2 euro's more expensive, and alot of extra benefits compared to paying 20 for it seperate), so I put a lot of money in my escrow (since 2.1) but instead of using the escrow deductions I bought then (for 50k instead of 200k they go for now, wish now I stocked up more) I save them for potential future content and just use my millions now to buy as much as I can for cheaper subscriber rates (and of course ship GTN *hugs*). That idea became even better finding a box for half the regular month cost in a store, making it even less expensive than getting Makeb seperate. So in all good faith I bought. Only to learn, you can't really do that, the code in the box rejected since I already had a box-month before. Fearing that the Makeb-launch we planned amongst the 3 of us now got ruined since I needed to contact support, and they aren't used to being fast. To my surprise though, support resolved it quickly for me, giving me my 30 days (though I still lack the 500cc so I have to reply on that later if it's not added in the coming days) so the evening went along... and, we finished Makeb that same evening. This compared to another ticket I send support about a cheater with a youtube link, and days later I got "we investigate it", but the vid still shows 0 views. How do they know who the cheater is, and what he did if not watching the vid? :/ Anyways, opinions on Makeb; Cutscenes and plot where kind of cool. The environment looked good though. A bit too many groups of foes, but as stealth classers we just run past most of them. Going to be more annoying for my Vanguard or Sith Maurader I think, but we'll see later. Now on the quest for first lvl 55 and the staged weekly.

Money sink shouldn't even be secondary either in SINGLEPLAYER Roleplaying games. The good developer-question would be "Well, what can we offer the player for it's money?" and then work from there to offer the player good incentives to spend it's money on those various things. A very bad developer-question would be "Well, people got money. How do we MAKE them spend it?" (notice the complete different feel of the question). And then you get to 'goldsinks'. Which aren't made to be good incentives for player spendings. It's a just a small difference in how to develop your economy in the game, but the result does influence the player alot. A game which is designed to give the player ample *choices* to spend their money on stuff would be a lot more fun to play than a game where the player is *FORCED* to spend their cash on various sinks. I most certainly hope the OE-team is of the 'good kind' where they actually think well on economy and various ways to spend cash in meaningful and interesting ways that they don't have to resort to the goldsink just cause goldsink. I got worried here for a moment, but Sawyer already resolved that for me. So, currently, I have no reason to assume (yet anyway) to assume they try to make the economy the bad way (with forcing expenses on you rather than incentitives on what you can spend your cash on).

Playing SR3 after SR2 (yes, it's perfectly playable). So far, dissapointed. Had to turn of HDR since blur (and apparently you can't turn it off seperately... yay... NOT). And without the city looks gritty, weird and just plain ugly. But... blur. Yeah, I take ugly over blur for my HDR. Aaaanyway, so far having far less of a fun time than SR2 at that current point spending time. Missions are less, variations are less (besides the Seriously Ethical game, miss Fuzz though), the city build seems less fun. Eh, maybe I need some getting used to it, but so far I rate SR2 far higher.

I'm gonna read ThrashMan's post later (and reply on it), for now; Pretty much everyone who, so far, had been pro-durability was talking about how it would add to the game by making dungeons more exciting by the risk of your gear breaking. The system wasn't like that (fortunately) and I was just questioning of those who thought like that REALLY wanted a risk of breakage every single dungeon they enter. Which seems to be no. Hence, the proposed way it would work good wasn't such a good example after all. It wouldn't work like how they imagined and try to explain it, it wouldn't add such things to a dungeon. From the sound of it, it would just add that you visited towns often and then click repair and then moved on. That's it. No depth, no emersive gameplay, nothing is really added to the game. And balancing it to work as they mentioned and hoped for, to have a major influence on the game, well, I was wondering if they would see in that would be bad for a 50H+ game. So what are we left with. A system that works per dungeon, but as such makes your weapons break extremely fast, all the time throughout the entire game, or one that has barely any risk of breakage, but requires to visit blacksmiths from time to time just to click repair instead of craft. Would either system add to the game? It doesn't seem to be so. And thus, it got scrapped. As for "dual-spec" I meant having to actually swap around weapons means you can't just go putting points in one weapon/spell type like most modern RPG's allow, but should for best effect think about leveling more than 1. In games like DA:O nothings immune to fire, can just reduce damage, so why would you branch out instead of just maxxing out fire. And if something's resistance to fire, just use more of your overpowered fire? Hopefully here, that would be a bad idea. And if you make an exclusive fire mage, he's useless fighting firey things. And if you make your fighter an excelent swordsmaster, you can get into big problems tackling the highly armored Dark Knight with your inexperience in using proper crushing weaponry. EDIT: (sure, it's a teambased game, but having party members being completely useless for a fight or even more fights can harm your progression and make combat way less efficient than if your party member is fully capable to add to the fight, albeit not as much as a specialsed teammember)

That's one of the best parts of a RPG. The consequences of your actions SHOULD be mutually exclusive. What point does making a choice have if in order to get all content it doesn't change anything. Than it can be just as well an adventure game. Choices should have consequences. Not be ignored to feed all the same content, or be conviently turned around if it no longer suits the story.

So, where you supposed to quote me then? Since all I basically said is Steam isn't so draconic, but it's still DRM. Which is kinda what you're saying too, so making me confused why you want to convert me on it, since I already agree...

About DA2, as TrashMan already pointed out the changes that were made in development were actually not endorsed by the community. Bioware stated during marketing that they were trying to draw in different crowds. The end product is what it is. But do not make the mistake of assuming that DA:O fans had anything to do with it. Are you guys on purpose not reading it right? That's the entire POINT Cultist made. The DA:O fans spoke out against it, BioWare stood their ground (like you guys want Obsidian to do). And DA2 was the result. Incase that wasn't clear... which it wasn't, based on the replies...

What it boils down to is... "What does it add to the game?" or "Is this the best solution to the problem." Unlike apparently common belief that all we said is "We hate durability. Remove it. Dur." it's the argumentation of what little it would add gameplaywise, and if the problem it was aimed to fix wasn't less bad that the fix, the 'medicine being worse than the cure' issue. That the argumentation of the team wasn't really convincing and just boiled down to 'we added it in to be a goldsink.' That this addition wouldn't add interesting gameplay. Or increased depth (even if a lot of people are screaming "You hate depth. This is the reason we get shallow games today!"). That it was only put up for all the wrong reasons. If you fail to realise that, I'm sorry, but that's the underlying dillema at stake here. There's a big difference between making combat more strategical and interesting and difficult, filled with different builds and weapons and spells and abilties and enemies and the non-combat gameplay. You just said all kinds of combat stuff should be taken out since one out-of-combat 'punishment' got removed. Apples and oranges. Remember old adventures? When you could die if taking improper actions? Where if you missed an item you got stuck hours later unable to get them. And modern day adventures kinda find it bad when you do that? Doesn't mean the puzzles can go easier on you, or the game isn't made to challenge the player. They just taken out the frustration of finding out that you have to re-do 20 hours because the game's just build like that. So there's that difference between being difficult and punishing. The one trying to push you forward (this game is a challenge, let's give it my all to beat this fight) and the others is making you stop playing (So I needed the sword, now locked away forever in a firey pit of lava to continue the game and have to restart, screw that). The difference between challenging (pfew, I survived that fight) and annoying/punishing (oh dammit, now I have to do a quick-time event or do that fight all over again)

Now even YOU agree item degredation is 'tedious'. If the hardest of hardest pro-guy even admits it. Well, I think the discussion is over? (Oh how I wish). Also, it's quite funny the 'improvement' would be to make it ultra-rare. If it's ultra-rare, what's the point of having it at all. It's not far from ultra-rare to not at all. Yet ultra-rare is super-good and 'not at all' is the domain of retarded morons (your words). I'd be the last person to advocate BioWare's "fixing" methods (Inventory in ME1 doesn't work quite well, nuke it!) but if they are coming here saying they want other players to go into your world and kill your quest-givers I certainly wont go "wait a second, let's improve upon that" but the full out "that's the worst idea ever. Screw that!" Yes, the amounts of fun to be had if each and every dungeon in the game you broke 2 weapons. I see some pro's talking going in a dungeon and risking breakage and what it would add. But then imagine... it's a 50 HOUR (or more) game. It has dozens and dozens of dungeons and areas. You tell me seriously you want to have your weapon risk breaking each and every time? It may sound good on paper for you for one dungeon, but then it suddenly turns out there are 100 dungeons. Are you still thinking it fun if your weapons break in each one of them? There's also a saying; "Beware of what you ask for" Which can rear it's ugly head if you don't look too far along the path. For when their bow broke or when enemies came into melee range. Guess which of the 2 is still in the game, still probably making it a good idea for ranged heroes to carry backup, or keep enemies away from their melee range. So, this is already in, without durability. Let's move on... This will most definitely also be in PE. Albeit in real knights might not have a weapon for zombies and another for skeleton the light, medium, heavy, slashing, piercing, crushing mechanics of PE make it a good idea for warriors to dual-spec to more than one type of offensive weaponry. As such, they will probably carry alternatives for other armor types, even if in group base so others could take that role. And again, without durability, this "realism" is in the game. We're on a roll here... While I agree knocking out someone's weapon and having it then be on the ground would be a cool action or something to take into account (hey, you gave a good idea for the devs!), I fail to see why this would not be possible without durability. Because, well, it's perfectly able to. The joys of battling Dragons in BG. Fight took long. Now imagine in that single battle you need to switch your weapon 3 times due to breakage. Nope, not so much fun anymore is it. And what would it add to the fight. I... I don't know... Exept if, like some want, you backup will fail miserable too. And it still forces you to repair someday unless you want to switch weapons all the damn time. So you get presented with the option; Massive item swapping or repair. The first is not really viable, so there's only one "option" remaining. When there's only one option to me there is no option. It's forced. Let's say you fight Kangaxx. And your +4 weapon breaks. Can you merely use your +3 backup? Nope, forced to go back. Now say you are fighting trolls. So fire weapon. And it breaks and the other is regular. Option? In the end you will end up with a backup of EACH type. Which clutters enormally. And I assume your solution would be to 'just not make enemies immune, so you can use all weapons albeit with a penalty'. And to me, THAT kind of major strategical loss is unforgivable. It's giving a solution to an issue which doesn't exist just to keep durability in, which is on itself a poor solution. A branching line of errors ready to be piled up on each other. And yes, so far do I think. So far are developers forced to think. The bigger picture. Your solution which you think is good and realism-improving clashing with another system, leading to an incrux of annoyance and forced 'options' on the player. And that, as OE also has seen, would be bad. There are others preaching pro-durability. I would suggest reading posts the similar minded, and you would realise exactly who that was aimed for. It's not all about you here. I could say the same about you. But I'm not being mean and disgrading to others like you, so I don't. We did, the devs agreed, it's out. It's now up to you guys to give us all the increased benefits it could give us if you want to see it back. Keeping in mind we're not really the ones you should convince, the Project: Eternity team is the one you do.

How does the saying go; You can model a turd all you want, it remains a turd. Instead of indeed, point out ways to fix the solution to be 'better', I took the approach of instead looking at ways to FIX THE PROBLEM. It's a very daunting concept to be sure. Durability was only in to fix economy issues. So in order to resolve those other solutions where presented. It's a much more effective solution than tweaking a solution for a problem that's proven to be problematic to be less so. *sigh* Okay, since this is so hard... let me hear if you can tell the difference here; * Repair (money), not repair (penalty). * Rest (stuff happens), don't rest (stuff moves on, but hey, guess what, no penalty. Well until you wait too long and get fatigued that is) * Potion? Which do you want? Healing, armor, attack, fire, resistance? And guess what again, not penalitised for not doing it. There's a big difference between a binary choice where A and B are both valuable options, and you have to make decisions. But with repair the binary choice is basically A is good, B is bad. That's... not much of a choice. Replacing your weapon with the very next one you find doesn't sosund strategic to me. Besides, if it's like BG you already cary plenty of weapons to combat various opponents. Is it REALLY a good idea to triplify that amount? You're such a good argumentist. Those who have different opions are retards, light in their head, stupid. Yup, way to sway people to your view, by being an ass. :/

Yes, I am sure DRM is specifically designed with THAT in mind, and not making it harder to copy the game...

Oh yeah, that. That was kinda stupid too yeah. Fortunately that was more a 'run-of-the-moment' stupidity (as in, wtf? then it's gone) rather than have a huge lead-up to dissapointment BH's Tatooine turns out to be.

Example... GOOD RPG-development; "Sir, we have a faminine in our crops. We need 200 gold!" Options; 1) Give gold 2) Give gold, demand part of harvest in return 3) Loan gold 4) Fire farmer, hire new ones 5) Take over the weakened lands 6) Simply ignore demand Etc. etc. etc. (Choice) BAD RPG development; "Sir. Keep upkeep is 10 gold per day. You haven't visited for 5 days. That means you need to pay 50 gold to use any keep-features" (Simply gold cost, the player's only choices are simply pay or not pay. And overall not paying is not an option...) See the difference?

"Durability is great" "I rather had it 95% less likely to occur than the plan" But hey if our arguments are so 'retarded' why don't you come up with good counter-arguments. Since I seen lacking few. That you need 3 weapons for 1 dungeon to cope with breaking is not a good argument. That for you (and you alone) it illustrates weariness of your character does not make a good mechanic. Also the fatigue penalty (I hope it returns) is already there for that. That it's good in a infinite gold economy is not a good argument, since PE is *not* that. Give me good arguments first, then you can complain about ours.

I have a level 50 Sith Maurader yes. Which I regret, since the gameplay of the Sith Warrior is about as fun as stabbing yourself. It's also been a while, so could you remind me (in spoiler tags probably)...? This mostly. If it's a decision forced, don't spend all this time just making yourself love to kill him. And wanting to finally pull that trigger. It's like Malgus suddenly joins you when you loose Bastila. It's the only MMORPG I play (and can stand). Guess why? Well, okay, maybe Star Wars helps too XD Well, I was more talking about the outfit .

Doesn't change the face STEAM *is* DRM. No matter the convenience, no matter the system weight.

They clearly stated the working of the mechanic in the update. So yes, I and everyone was pretty well aware of the implentation of the mechanic they had in mind. And yes, it matches up the implentation of TOR. Hence the comparisson. The only thing you prove is your disability to read, if we're going out to calling names here... :/ It's crafting sucked though. Also looting became a chore since it was pretty much always crafting ingredients instead of something nicer. Yes. It can. But this durability system has by itself nothing to do with being crafting, only indeed being a goldsink (as others said, you need those in SP-games?) and an annoyance. My imagination is fine. A repair 'goldsink' doesn't add depth, doesn't add choice, doesn't add anything for hardcore gamers. Repair isn't a choice. It's a simple 'click here to desposit gold'. It's not making a choice what to do with your gold, it's just... there taking gold. A GOOD strategic game I expect PE to be would give you choices for your gold. That nice item, that upgrade, the bribe, healing, training? You would have a limited amount of gold and have to make choices where to spend it. A BAD strategic game, which I hope PE wont be will shower you in gold, and in order to cope with that has to make up arbitrary rules to get your gold away from you, like repair, taxes or loan for your party. Since it's an upkeep, not a choice, it doesn't add anything for the gamer. And yes, that is something I rather don't see. Sorry that my imagination doesn't think adding a goldsink to the game 'just 'cause' is a good development... Sorry I rather like gold giving the gamer choices, something to think about than a button that drains gold.

So, playing Bounty Hunter, just finished the Tatooine storyline for my character. And I have to say, that was the dumbest bull**** I ever seen in a (BioWare) game. Whoever thought that was a good storyplotpoint, should be fired. EDIT: Also, based on a recent mail, they seem to steal Mira's look soon for TOR. I hope Obs gets paid a bit for their art being used on the CC-market.