Merin

First, if you haven't read this, do so - http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%20basics?ref=nav Then go read this PE update - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/311594 Finally, if you still think you haven't gotten your answers, go to this specific place and see if you didn't miss it from the first link - http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/backer%20questions#HowWillProjCreaGetMyInfoToDeliRewa

Most other Kickstarters that I followed, when there was offers of "exclusive this for backers" (not even "exclusive content for higher tiers, even) there was a general uproar about everyone actually wanting all content available to everyone who gets the game. Now this isn't exactly "exclusive to some backers" as anyone can buy the product later ... but I seriously doubt people are going to pull their backing because the project has been so well funded that everyone who'd donated enough to get the game also gets the expansion. And those twelve people who are that selfish? Obsidian will be just as huge a success without them.

I hope the tongue-in-cheek part of my post comes across exactly as intended... as mocking attacks on RPGCodex. humor is hard enough - humor in a forum post, forget about it

Yeah, and on this note - if I could actually meet some honest-to-goodness good guys and dyed-in-the-wool bad guys. Shades of grey, I know, is the new black or some such... but there's a point where going anti-cliche becomes cliche.

codexians For the love of Douglas Adams... YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!! If my experiences with codexians on this forum is any indication of what that term is meant to entail - I (fake) demand an apology! really, though, i have no problem with cool downs, don't love 'em, don't hate 'em... never posted on RPGCodex, barely even knew of the site until i started posting here and apparently upset some members from there... Seriously, though - it got added because one of the devs asked those of us making threads about it to continue clamoring for it if we wanted it, said dev giving the Adventurer's Hall example. Clearly enough people clamored - it got added as a stretch goal.

What is wrong with you people? Because you didn't read the above.

.... what? repeating - "Yes, the $250 tier has a bunch of other stuff - so it's price isn't the issue. It's the fact that, to get the expansion, you have to dish out $110 more or give up the physical tier." What are you on about? In the $140 tier you get the digital fun pack, the digital strategy guide, the digital soundtrack, a pdf of the novella, the in-game items and, oh yeah, a digital copy of the game in addition to your physical items (like the map, t-shirt, collector's edition.) Repeat after me - Digital-only reward tiers have no physical items, but physical item inclusion tiers also have digital items. Okay? You got it this time? So, understanding that, try this part of what I said again before - "The main item of contention - the expansion - is added to the digital tier by adding $50. The physical tier should also be able to get the expansion for a $50 increase - it's not costing them anymore for the digital expansion for the physical or digital tiers." Understand? It costs no more to add the digital expansion to ANY tier, regardless of what else is in that tier. Keep saying that. Being a broken record doesn't make it anymore right. If you think saying that disproves what I've been saying, then you don't understand what I've been saying.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Digital to Digital tier upgrades and physical copy to physical copy upgrades have different costs associated to them. Not really. I'm looking at three things - 1. Reward tier placement. I contend that placing those rewards at the $165 amount was not the best decision, all things considered (the tier right below it, $140, being physical, and the $165 being digital, exactly.) You add reward tiers to entice people to pay a bit more - $110 to $165 has a tier between it, and the difference between digital and physical causes some dissonance anyway with trying to gauge how much you are going to donate... 2. Seemingly inconsistent distance between physical and digital tiers. At first glance there seems an inequality between getting the expansion and Wasteland 2 for digital at $50 more, but needing to spend (so it looks) an extra $110. Yes, the $250 tier has a bunch of other stuff - so it's price isn't the issue. It's the fact that, to get the expansion, you have to dish out $110 more or give up the physical tier. 3. Adding a tier for only digital buyers for new goodies that the physical item buyers would want as well is going to cause some friction with the people who want the boxed copy but also want those other items. Look at the "physical tiers" - there are digital items in them. The "digital only" tiers are for the people who don't want to pay extra for the physical items (don't care about the props) and/or don't want to pay the shipping for their game copy. Adding a digital item to the digital only tier, specifically game copies or expansions, without giving a similar addition to the physical tier with a similar raise is not good planning. It is absolutely not apples (digital) and oranges (physical.) The main item of contention - the expansion - is added to the digital tier by adding $50. The physical tier should also be able to get the expansion for a $50 increase - it's not costing them anymore for the digital expansion for the physical or digital tiers. It is apples (digital expansion) and apples (digital expansion.)

Pretty much. I don't think they have even hinted at having the option to start the game with your own party, so it's not IWD really. It's like Bard's Tale or such games, without being able to create your party at the start that is, and not starting in the Adventurer's Guild and... okay, bad example. I'm betting there is a narrative beginning, where you are either alone for part of it or start with (or quickly join up with) tutorial character(s), who may or may not be long-term companion(s). Putting the hall later saves weird story oddness like starting BG2 in multi-player and leaving the NPC's in their cages as your party is already full.

If nothing else, it's at the wrong tier entirely. Putting it right above the $140 is bad. It is an easy jump from $140 to $165, but those two tiers are completely separate animals. It goes from $110 to $165 to give you the expansion for the digital only tier. Fair enough price increase - we are donating, after all, not buying. But for the physical copy people? You have to either give up your physical copies or jump from $140 to $250. It's bad tier management. There should be an, oh, $195-$200 tier to add the expansion to the $140 tier. Same jump, roughly, as the digital tier. AND THEN those in the $200 tier will eye the $250 tier and think "well, maybe." Look, I've been very praising of their campaign to this point, defended it against many naysayers (all but got chased off of RPGWatch), but I think this was a misstep. (and this is ignoring the Wasteland 2 bonus, which is just icing or sprinkles on top - it's a nice add-on, not an issue of contention here.)

I don't know... the more I think about it, the more I think that including the expansion pack as a reward for the digital tier but at the same time saying that the KS campaign isn't funding the expansion.... is extremely problematic. They have created something of a Gordian knot here. It was probably a big mistake.

The six Origins of Dragon Age: Origins were very well done. The companions were interesting. The music was great. The twists on some tropes I found to be well handled. It played out in mostly the standard BioWare plot-line (pre-story, intro to what group you are now part of, hub, several places to explore in any order to gather stuff important to plot, hub, final location) but that's neither good nor bad IMO. For the most part the writing was spot on. And it felt like you had significant control over meaningful choices at key points in the story. Character creation was a bit sparse for me, yet there were way too many abilities (especially for mages at higher levels) so the game mechanics around that desperately needed an overhaul. Far too many iron daggers and the like. The crafting system was mostly meh. Deep Roads was too long. Too much reliance on loot and potions overall, but that's a D&D problem for most cRPGs (and table top games if the DM isn't careful.) I think DA:O was, on balance, a great game. And PE could do far worse than look at some of how stuff was done here.

And the ignore list grows.... (not the people I'm responding to down here) I guess killing is not as wrong as stealing, then? Apples. Oranges. On two levels. I'm not going to get into the "which criminal act is worst" discussion as it's a non-sequitor. The real apples / oranges I will briefly address is - my point was "I don't play this, but I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the game for people who do like doing this" which has nothing to do with "playing this way is WRONG, and you should feel bad" which I didn't say. When trolled as being a "button mashing dudebro" I responded as to why I don't like rogues. I was trolled, I shouldn't have responded, it was wrong of me, and I learned my lesson. In any case - I'm not telling you that you are bad for liking rogues, if that is why you are reacting. Please return the favor and not judge me for liking to play Paladins, cool? Different strokes, different tastes, yada yada. Cool? The stealing mechanics in most cRPGs are boring anyway. But I have said in other threads about this that I just ignore traps in most cRPGs. You can usually run through them and heal later (who cares if you got hurt and healed - I pretend it never happened) or spot them and go around them. It's a trope of fantasy games I never used as a DM, never cared about as a player, and do my best to just ignore in cRPGs (traps.) Yeah, I've played one rogue once. Dragon Age: Origins. And loved it - for story/RP reasons. Combat wise, she was basically a light-armored dual-wielding fighter who could disarm traps and pick locks. I never bothered with positioning for backstabs (in real time games I'm just not a fan of flanking and such, unless it's a Total War game and then I'm all about calvary flanks!)

an rpg without rogues...? >confirmed as a button mashing DudeBro. Today I've been subjected to quite a bit of people who don't know me at all making wild assumptions about what I know, like, etc. And it's growing quite tiresome. I dislike rogues for several reasons: 1 - I don't like stealing. Even pretend stealing. Even inside of a fantasy game. Don't enjoy it. Don't play GTA style games because of it. I don't like being the bad guy, and rogue (or, it's original name from earlier D&D, Thief) just isn't the kind of person I want to pretend to be. 2 - I don't like stealth in games. With the rare exceptions of Alpha Protocol and Arkham Asylum, stealth usually equals slow moving boredom to me. As I already find travel my characters across maps in real time tedious, slowing their movement even more due to stealth mechanics in most games bore the heck out of me. 3 - Back-stabbing, assassins, "anti-heroes".... everything the rogue represents (save, perhaps, the swashbuckler and the bard... which I'd argue share similarities with a thief but aren't the same thing) is anathema to me. Yes, I like playing the good guy, helping people, saving the day. Favorite class is Paladin. It has nothing to do with "button mashing" - I dislike rogues before there were buttons to mash, really (does the Pong controller count?)

*sigh* Here we go again with the ad hominem attacks.... I did. Cleric and priest are used fairly interchangeably in fantasy RPGs. I said cleric - the official title, so far, is priest. You say tomato... I have read every update as they were released. Just correcting that there for you... youre powers of observation and deduction leave quite a bit to be desired since you came to quite an erroneous conclusion. Of course, ad hominem attacks aren't often based on truths, but there it is. And your knowledge sure shows gaping holes when your reasoning reads as thus - The irony of your statement. Remarkable.

There is a major benefit to planning an expansion before the main game is finished, and even knowing that it will happen while you are working on the main game. You can leave plot hooks. Hints. Doorways and NPCs that lead into the expansion once the expansion is installed. I think this is awesome news, and I think they are doing it just right. This isn't "deadline isn't being reached - cut that content and we'll finish it later to sell as DLC" or, worse, "let's see what content we can plan that will add-into the main game, but be separate enough that we can sell it separately on day one for extra money".... ... this is "we've gathered enough funds, think our main game is funded quite well, and now as the extra funds roll in we'll add the enticement of an expansion!" It's more game, just giving them a longer window to give us that extra content. We get the main game sooner because the newer content is released later. Win-win!

Expansions pre-paid that are released months after main game is release != Day One DLC Not. Even. Close.

There are no clerics in PE, it have priests. Also, rangers aren't cultural at all, it's a real job turned into a fantasy class, pretty much every country on the planet have rangers in their park/protected forest. Finally, I know games where the monk class is of the medieval Europe type and it's called a monk. Not everything needs to be based on D&D interpretation you know. Right, so the idea that paladins can just be subclasses of priests is even more silly if you say that priests aren't clerics.... Monks of medieval Europe were ascetics, gardeners, scribes and scholars. Not martial artists. Any game that includes them with unarmed combat is NOT using European monks. Finally... there are also models of vehicles called "rangers"... but the "ranger" of fantasy is not the Walker, Texas Ranger nor the Airborne Ranger variety ... they are the Strider / Aragorn variety from Tolkien. Weak argument is weak.

Re: necromancers... if they started adding mage schools (since we're clearly stuck in a D&D mindset here) but don't include paladins and bards... blech.

Good update. As this one misses me on several angles I'm hard-pressed to cheer it on too much... but I think Brian Fargo is being really generous here, and Obsidian pledging to Kick It Forward is very heartening. Already have copies of W2 coming, but I guess I get one more.... .... bah, spoke too soon. I don't want the digital only tier. Guess I'll be buying the expansion the old-fashioned way.

I could really do without the 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 goals... and I could do without elves and rogues as well. But, you know, I can accept that the entire game isn't designed precisely towards my own personal interests, tastes and idiosyncrasies.

Adventurer Hall is more important to me than pretty much all the rest of the stretch goals combined. Pretty much. I personally am growing a bit sad at the number of threads started about "I don't like this OPTIONAL feature being added to the game, don't include it, give ME more of what I want." There are things in this game (quite a few) that I won't use and won't care about... but I'm not about to go and tell the devs to not include stuff that will make other people have fun just because it's outside of my interest. I'm waiting for a Mac user to create a thread about there shouldn't be PC support.

For some of us it's a major selling point. You would have to be a fan of the Icewind Dale games to appreciate it though. BIG selling point for me. Uhm, there is a monk.

Paladin and Bard classes would be nice, but I actually don't want them to add any more classes or companions at this point. If they are doing a 2.7, though, Paladin and Bard. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment of a $3 million goal. I disagree about posting a $4 million goal, though - we aren't likely to reach it at this point. It's POSSIBLE, but unlikely. There's no point in putting up unreachable goals, it kind of leaves a minor downer at the end of the campaign. I think, best for the PE campaign, a $3 million goal period. And I still think that should be an expansion. If there MUST be a 2.7 - then Paladin and Bard.

Yep, I agree. The Bard and Paladin are culturally oriented classes, much like the Ninja and Samurai. Unique classes that are particular to this world could roughly incorporate the premise of the Bard and Paladin, but with their own unique interpretation and capabilities. They already have rangers, barbarians and monks, clerics even - these are all "culturally oriented" - clerics are medieval Europe, for example.... and monks are Asian (these are not occidental monks in fantasy.) Silly argument is silly.