Karranthain

I'm guessing that they'll take 2 years. BG II was under development almost that long, and they had the engine and the assets from the previous game. Then again, it was a really huge game; I think the process of content creation is easier now too. What does everyone think?

One of the topics that was touched upon in the weapon mechanics thread was the amount of weapon types. I thought it'd make for an interesting poll question. How many weapon types would you like to see in the game? And just how different should they be? 1. Small weapon selection, but each type offers a unique playstyle and has a different animation. E.g. Rapiers utilize quick thrusts, and emphasise mobility in combat. Against heavily armoured opponents, however, a greatsword would be a better choice. 2. A good amount of weapons, divided into subsets (weapons in a subset behave identically). E.g. All polearms would be handled the same (similar reach, damage, animation etc.). 3. Large variety of weapons, but with little difference between them. Self-explantory. Each solution has its merits, what's your preference?

Check this topic discussing flagellants : http://forums.obsidi...ost__p__1224451

If you'd have to pick one set of armour and one weapon type to be included in PE, what would be your choice? Post images and a small explanation why (use the following template for clarity). Armour Gothic Plate I've alwayed like the knight in plate with a greatsword archetype - and this type of plate armour I find particularly pleasing visually - especially the helmet design. Weapon Halberd A multipurpose killing tool - an interesting combination of an axe, a spear and a hook - all very useful.

Thanks for the link, some interesting designs to be found there :

That's easily the best part of the interview for me. I'd love to see Arcanum 2 on that engine (as unlikely as it is now).

And here's another interesting design : I'd definitely be great to see poleaxes in the game.

That could very well be the case, hence my first post. Possibly - or they're looking for an alternative, should they fail to secure further contracts from the publishers (they've mentioned several failed pitches in the interviews). After all, as we've mentioned, PE could very well end making a profit large enough to be comparable to what they've made off off New Vegas. And then there's that. And yeah, it's all purely speculative - what I meant by my original comment (that started this discussion) is that Obsidian would surely go independent if only they'd be confident that they could sustain the current size of the company. Will that be the case? It's way early to tell - we'll see just how big crowdsourcing will turn out to be. And just to be clear, I'm thinking distant future here (10+ years).

Ah ****, I forgot about the "no royalties contract" part. All the same, I'm sure Obsidian didn't pick a deal that could turn $45 million-ish(a good rough guess from Fallout 3 sales) into $10 million. They probably got a raw deal and a lot less than they should have, but I'm still sure plenty more than is reasonable to expect from an OPTIMISTIC projection for Eternity. As per Tigranes' post, I really doubt that they could've made $45 million profit - that could've been, at best, the whole sum, with development costs included.

Aye, so the fact that game made over $300 million shouldn't be even factored in.

Your guess is very bad. Game sales usually give 15% to the developer. That means our(very rough) estimate is a $45 million cut off of New Vegas's $300 million. Except that image tells us nothing about Obsidian's contract with Bethesda. And $300 million is an assumption too, I suppose (just checked, it's the Bethesda's estimate, so that part checks out). For one, we know it was a straight payment, no royalties (as confirmed by MCA). Sorry, but we're both guessing here.

Project Eternity is just a start and that's exactly what I meant by my post - we'll see how that model develops in the future; right now it's insufficient, but Kickstarter is still very much fresh - as we haven't even seen any of the big projects (Wasteland 2, Shadowrun, Double Fine etc.) released yet. I'm guessing here, but I'd suppose that 10-20 million of raw profit (assuming that's what it'll be) would be way more than they got for New Vegas, for an instance. It's only a conjecture, but I'm fairly sure about that.

I never said they would; keep in mind that, should PE be successful, they'll keep the lion's share of the profits, whereas they only get a small portion when a publisher tasks them to create a game (for an instance, Obsidian didn't receive any royalties from New Vegas, only a straight payment). On that note, who cares about triple A titles?

You can't keep a company the size of Obsidian running on projects the size of Eternity. Eternity is not New Vegas. It's not going to bring in $300 million. To "go independent , they'd have to fire a LOT of people. Hence the : "the second they'd be sure that they can sustain the company that way." This won't happen anytime soon; we'll see how PE fares and how big Kickstarter grows though. And by the way, Obsidian got only a very small portion out of these (alleged) $300 million.

To be honest, I think they would go independent the second they'd be sure that they can sustain the company that way. Understandably, Obsidian plays it safe now - they don't want to burn bridges just yet. They might need publishers in the future, hence the diplomatic remarks. As for PE : I'm sure they won't have to deal with the publishers. They will either self-fund it or launch another Kickstarter campaign.

And another halberd (along some nice plate armour) :

Sounds interesting, looking forward to knowing more about the characters.

And I'll add some rapier designs : Some rapiers are truly works of art.

No you tend to disagree on the idea that this game is a real combat simulator. Real combat doesn't involve fireballs, elves, dragons, swords that emit lightning, or magic armor. There are plenty of real combat simulators out there such as the Mount and Blade games. Uber realistic combat doesn't work well in a fantasy rpg, because nothing about the setting is uber realistic nor is hyper realism the point of the game or the combat. Over half of this threads suggestions are just needlessly complex and make the simple act of stabbing a dude with a sword considerably more complex than it needs to be for Project Eternity. I don't see how "fireballs, elves, dragons, swords that emit lightning, or magic armor" somehow render real world combat principles completely obsolete (for that matter, only the elves are confirmed at this point). A magical halberd is still a halberd. Not that the goal is to make the combat "uber realistic", as you've put it; the basic idea is that each and every weapon type should be unique. On that note, Temple of Elemental Evil features a very robust combat system and it's widely considered one of the best combat-focused cRPGs out there.

To anyone that's interested, here's a compilation of the posts pertaining to the weapon mechanics (wall of text critical damage imminent, so be warned), each topic is highlighted with red colour : In most cRPGs weapons are usually fairly similar to each other; most of the time the only difference is the amount of damage dealt. I think every weapon type (well, within reason of course) should offer a unique set of boni and (ideally) ought introduce a different playstyle. Here are a few ideas and suggestions (some may be obvious, most are pretty abstract, so be warned) : 1) Weapon reach : e.g. Pikes or Spears should allow your team members to attack from a greater distance, confering a serious advantage in some cases, but becoming a liability in close quarters. 2) Critical hit effects are different for each weapon type. E.g. : a) Greatswords would deal 200% more damage on critical hits and have a 5% chance to dismember the foe, resulting in an instant death. b) Rapiers would deal 100% more damage on critical hits and apply a bleeding effect. c) Hammers would deal 150% more more damage on critical hits and stun the target. 3) Smaller and generally obvious things : a) Different damage ranges (e.g. Greatsword 1d10x2, Longsword 1d6x3 - this would result in a vastly different performance. b) Armour Boni and penalties - (e.g. Swords are worse at piercing chainmail, but great against leather, Rapiers are useless against plate). c) Various speeds - self-explanatory. d) Weapon perks - (e.g. Greatswords are harder to parry, Pikes can impale, Pistols can jam). e) No weapon type should ever be considered "the best". They should all have their uses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First of all, one thing that's worth pointing out is that most games featuring those contraptions make the mistake of treating them like reskinned bows with different animations. I find such design majorly flawed; not because it's unrealistic (it obviously is), but mainly because it's a missed opportunity. I feel firearms should operate differently, simply because it opens up interesting gameplay options. With that said, here are some ideas (and again, some are largely obvious, but I'm including them as well to present a coherent solution) : 1) General thoughts : Firearms should deal devastating damage, particularly at close ranges; gunpowder based weapons' niche should be primarily armour penetration. They're also quite easy to use effectively, even with little training (unlike bows). Such power comes at a price, however. Effective range should be fairly low and there's always a risk of a misfire (more on that later). 2) Reload time : In order to further differentiate firearms from other projectile weapons, reloading times should be fairly long (that'd also balance the devastating damage dealt by those). Generally speaking, once a firearm is discharged in a combat encounter, it means it probably won't be used again in that particular clash. Unless, of course, the player elects to reload, which should be fairly time consuming (not prohibitively so, but long enough so that that decision wouldn't be made lightly). E.g. Pistols would be usually used as a close range weapon, to quickly dispatch a foe; misses would be costly, however. Unless the user is festooned with them. That, I think, would be in line with what Josh has said about firearms (i.e. "Their use is uncommon and for specific purposes"). 3) Misfires : While powerful, early firearms could also be dangerous. There should be a chance of weapon not firing at all, or even (in very rare cases) blowing up. Rain should render guns unusable. That'd not only reinforce their uniqueness, but it'd also serve as a balancing measure. On top of that, it'd bring wonderful tension into combat (Space Hulk anyone?). 4) Affecting morale : If there'd be morale checks in combat, firearms should definitely be considered frightening, particularly because they're supposedly uncommon in the game world. 5) Keeping in line with the unique critical hits effect idea : Firearms would deal 200% more damage on critical hits and ignore armour completely. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expanding on the idea, here's an example of a full weapon description (it's mainly abstract) : Claymore of Eír Glanfath Type : Greatsword. Training required : Yes. Damage type : Slashing and Crushing. Damage dealt : 10 + 2d10. Speed : Slow. Reach : Moderate. Critical Effect : 200% more damage on critical hits and a 5% chance to dismember the foe, resulting in an instant death. Armour Boni : +5 against cloth, leather and chain armour. Armour Mali : None. Perks : a) Harder to parry against. b) Tiring to use. Attack chains : a) Parry - Disarm. b) Pommel Strike - Eviscerate. Just an example of different weapon statistics that could be used in PE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the topic of Shields : IE games didn't have elaborate shield mechanics : they simply improved the Armour Class of the wearer. And that's usually the case in most games. A few ideas on how shields could be treated mechanically in PE (as usual, most of this will be pretty obvious) : 1) Shields as weapons Shield users should be able to use them offensively (e.g. bashing, pushing back) 2) Penalties Carrying a shield can be tiring and it also limits the wearer's maneuverability. Having penalties for using a shield would also encourage using only a 1-handed weapon, with the second hand free. It could end up being a genuine playstyle option. There could be some exception to that rule, like bucklers - the mali would be reduced, but so would be the boni (so it would probably end up as a sort of compromise). 3) Blocking And perhaps the most important part. I've mentioned that shields usually just raise the armour value, which is an abstract representation of blocking, but ultimately if feels very unsatisfying. Other solutions : a) There's a block rating (e.g. 25% chance to block any incoming attacks or any variations of that system) Personally, I reckon it's a bit "gamey". It also doesn't, obviously, involve any input from the player. b) Blocking stance. The player can assume a defensive stance and block incoming attacks (either on a timer, or just a certain amount of attack made against the player get blocked). This options offers some tactical possibilities, so it has that as a big advantage. Additionaly, shields could also be used to block incoming spells. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expanding on the ideas in the first post (http://forums.obsidi...s/?do=findComment&comment=1190501) : Personally, I'd rather have access to a smaller amount of weapon types, as long as each and every type offers a completely unique playstyle. A few notes : 1) Attack modes It has been mentioned more than a few times by several people - a halberd, for an instance should be a multi-purpose weapon, e.g. : 1) Used as a spear, dealing piercing damage. 2) Used as a axe, with crushing and slashing damage. 3) Used as a hook. Ideally, the player would be able to switch between those modes at will. 2) Unique animations A rapier is, obviously, handled very differently than a simple broadsword. The animations should emphasize quick precise thrusts etc. 3) Different uses And perhaps the most important part. Each type should vastly differ from the other; some would excel against plate users, others would be multifunctional, but fairly weak etc. 4) Closing thoughts These solutions would most definitely reduce the number of available weapon types, but in return we'd be offered a truly unique arsenal. Each piece of weaponry would serve a different purpose and feel different. In most cRPGs, the player picks their weapon based solely on its look, because they don't differ mechanically (at least not in a sufficient manner). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hope reach weapons will be in, I loved using them in Temple of Elemental Evil. That said, it was a turn-based game, so the question is how do you implement them in a RTwP setting? Here's a few ideas : 1) Altering stats Spear users would receive defensive boni (e.g. decreasing opponents to hit chance) - but only until first hit connects; afterwards, the defensive bonus would be removed and opponents would receive an offensive bonus. This would simulate warding off attackers with the spear. After they get close, it becomes a liability. This would make attacking them a risky move, but one that could pay off handsomely. 2) Attacks of opportunity Whenever an opponent gets within a certain range, reach weapon user gets an automatic free attack against them. It could be limited by an internal cooldown (which in turn, could be reduced with better training). Some perks (feats) could, for an instance, make all of those hits critical. That however, leaves us with a problem - how do we balance this? 3) Weapon swapping Whenever an opponent gets too close to the reach weapon user, it's no longer usable - and has to be swapped to a close combat weapon (perhaps done automatically, to reduce the tedium). In any case, reach weapons should behave very different from other types - i.e. not just have a bigger range, but all of the perks. On the other hand, their proper use should be rewarded. What are thoughts, ideas?

Yeah, halberds are usually woefully misrepresented, some ideas on how to implement them : http://forums.obsidi...40#entry1215667 And here's another example, very ornate :

Terminology notwithstanding, I really liked that fight sequence in Rob Roy; I think it was a fairly accurate representation, as far movies go. I think they've done a good job of showing the effects of fatigue. It really can be quite tiring But to not derail the topic further : I'm really hoping we'll see halberds in the game, it's a really interesting weapon. Make sure to check that link, the detail on that particular piece is quite outstanding

Uh...most of those nobles accompanied their armies to war, and actively fought. In some cases, the entirety of the army would be made up of nobles ranging from petty lords to dukes and kings, though for the most part it was "bands" which were made up of tiers of freemen (your "average person") raised from the lands of minor nobility, led by said nobility, and merged into larger groups under successively higher "ranks" of nobility. That is what the entire feudal system was based on... And a good point too Case in point - Battle of Agincourt.

From the previous topic : source : http://forums.obsidi...00#entry1201923 Certainly, most were plain designs - but the point of posting those examples was to prove that there's plenty of really appealing historical designs that could be emulated, you only need to look.

I can see how that would help against enemy pikes among pikemen formations and how it would hamper and possibly disrupt the winding movements on blade and the counter-attacks of an opponent in a one-on-one sword fight. If your opponent had such a blade, you couldn't wind or drive your own blade up or down on it upon contact for a counter attack without disrupting your technique and risking yourself. Then again, using such a blade would most likely require extra training as well. At any rate, it seems to be a pretty late development to have had any impact on the martial trends of the period. Same here, I've been wondering about that as well, now it makes sense. Would be great if you could make a character like this one, wielding a flamberge