fireundubh

Added IsPlayerAttributeScoreValue and IsPlayerSkillValue checks. Interestingly: [Attribute] Dexterity is used in conversations almost twice as much as its nearest contender. [skill] Athletics is used in conversations more than any other skill. [skill] Crafting isn't used in conversations at all!

Download JetBrains dotPeek (it's free) and open Assembly-CSharp.dll.

Updated the report with a multi-column breakdown for Eternity, White March I, White March II, and Total. I also have JSON files for each function and parameter that list the exact strings for every count. I don't know what to do with those yet. Example Snippet: IsPlayerSubrace-Fire_Godlike.json <snip> "07_cv_pillar_puzzle": [ [ { "type": "TalkNode", "display_type": "Bark", "text": "Flames kindle swiftly in the brazier, winding their way upwards." } ], [ { "type": "PlayerResponseNode", "display_type": "Conversation", "text": "[Touch your fiery hair to the brazier.]" } ], <snip>

Back in 2015, another player parsed the *.conversation files to count the unique dialogue options for various character creation choices. I was interested in an updated list for the base game and DLC, so I wrote a XML parser in Python to produce a similar report. I also covered options that add disposition points and options that check disposition points. FULL REPORT WITH DLC BREAKDOWN DispositionAddPoints Breakdown This breakdown reports the number of dialogue choices that add a Minor, Average, or Major amount of disposition points, as well as the total amount of points for each disposition-strength pair. Strengths: Minor = 1 point, Average = 3 points, Major = 7 points Ranks: Rank 1 = 1 point, Rank 2 = 25 points, Rank 3 = 50 points, Rank 4 = 75 points Notes: I wasn't sure whether to leave in the conversations in the "prototype_2" folder, so I erred on the side of caution and I left them in. I excluded the conversations in the "conversations" root and "conversations\test" folders. No options were filtered out, such as the Fire Godlike checks in The Ruins of Cilant Lîs. Keep that in mind! If I forgot anything, let me know! Race Notes: [Race] The single Human check also checks for Aumaua, Godlike, and Elf. [subrace] Island Aumaua have no checks in Eternity, White March I, or White March II. Culture Notes: The Nassitaq check also checks for TheWhiteThatWends. The same is not true of TheVailianRepublics, and since you can choose only OldVailia as a background, I guess Fyrga never says this to you:

Path of the Damned increases the encounter size but it also modifies enemy stats and ability pools. I just want the increased encounter size. How would I do that for non-Path difficulties?

I don't see this in the 2.0 patch notes.

So, what you're saying is that the way you play RPGs should be the way everyone plays RPGs? Hey, that's cool. I wish everyone would think like me, too.

Party Tactics?

I wouldn't hold up BG/BG2 item descriptions as the pinnacle of perfection. They're just text dumps with a graphic. In fact, I hate game UIs that don't tell you how an item is good for you and how an item is bad for you. I want the UI to hold my hand. I don't want to get out a calculator, a spreadsheet, and a rulebook to figure out whether I should equip an item. I should know immediately whether equipping an item would be an overall improvement or not. Recent Example:

Party Control Personally, I really don't like the current system where, when you choose to interact with an object, container, or NPC, the party member nearest to that object, container, or NPC is used for that interaction (e.g., looting, lockpicking, talking.) If my party is passing by a nearby barrel and I choose to interact with that barrel, I receive no feedback about whether I'm interacting with that barrel. My party stands still and the loot window just pops up. I want control over which of my party members interact with the game world—when I have the entire party selected—and I want to see them act out that interaction. I think this might be achievable with a simple "party leader" system. In that system, the first character I select is designated the party leader, and as the party leader, all other party members follow his/her lead. This would work like so: I would select the party leader and then select the rest of the party. Or, when I dragged a selection rectangle around the party, the first selected party member would be the party leader. When I choose to interact with a barrel, the party leader would interact with the barrel. The other party members would either follow the leader or stay put. There's probably a more intuitive way to do this but RTS controls seem to make sense here. Tactics One feature that I really liked about the Dragon Age series was the Tactics system, where you could customize the party's AI behaviors. A user mod, called Advanced Tactics, greatly expanded that system. Looking at this screenshot, it's fairly self-explanatory. I think a feature like this would give party management significant flexibility, especially with regard to player preferences. I'd use a smaller, better screenshot, but my ISP is dropping packets like crazy and the Internet is barely working for me.

Speaking of selection circles, when they're disabled, you should be provided with at least some feedback when you select a character or when you select the party. Currently, when selection circles are disabled, they're completely disabled. Selecting characters doesn't highlight them, temporarily show the selection circle and fade out, and there's no graphic effect on their portrait. With selection circles completely disabled and no selection feedback, I never know which characters I have selected.

Another problem is that when you switch from full screen to windowed mode, the game centers to the middle of both screens, so half of the game is on the left and half is on the right.

If you have your party selected and try to pick a lock, the character with the best chance at picking the lock should path to the lock and attempt to pick the lock. I also think that the party should have a party leader and there should be options for controlling the behavior of the party with respect to the party leader.

The first thing I do in every PC game is configure the controls, so the controls menu is often where my initial expectations are set. Here's a few ways that I think you can improve the controls menu: When you map a key to an action, the game should check whether that key has been mapped to another action. If the key has been mapped to another action, the player should be prompted for a decision: continue mapping that key and lose the existing mapping, keep both mappings (if you want to allow one key to perform multiple actions), or cancel. Reduce the total number of key mappings by combining actions where appropriate. Do you need separate mappings for "Stealth On" and "Stealth Off" when you already have "Toggle Stealth"? Is it necessary to have separate mappings for "Half Speed, "Double Speed," and "Normal Speed" when you could have "Cycle Speed"? Each action should have a tooltip so that a new player can determine whether to configure an action now or later. Organize groups of key mappings into clearly labeled sections. Currently, there's Game, Interface, and Screens, but these labels look like every other label. These are important labels and should be distinguished. Additional sections could be Party, Camera, and System. The two mapping columns should be labeled, too. I know that column one is Primary and column two is Alternate, but that knowledge is based on prior experience. You can't expect all players to have the same level of experience with software, PC games, etc. Can the entire Options window be expanded to reduce the amount of scrolling needed in the Controls menu? An alternative would be to add section tabs to the Controls menu and move each section into those tabs. The alternative would reduce the impression of complexity that a long, scrollable list of key mappings provides.

I don't see anything in the Products tab, but I see the Early Access Beta Key SKU listed under Pledges. edit: Apparently, I had to use my credit to redeem my pledges.

There are a ton of reviews listed in this Steam thread.

I want to say that the art now looks overly photorealistic to me, but maybe that's just because these environments are at a first-pass level. That said, looking at the screenshot with the trolls, I'm seeing a limitation to how the environments are created that I never noticed before. Because the grass is part of the environment texture, the trolls don't look like they're in the grass; they look like they're layered on top of the canvas. The effect reminds me of pieces on a game board.

"Upgrades are improvements to various parts of the castle, usually to add to the security or prestige of the place. Security affects how much taxes you collect as well as helps reduce the number of “bad” random events, while prestige increases the number of “good” random events as well as increasing tax collections, too." A high-security fortress is likely to be short on individual freedom. Why can't you be a bad ruler and an effective leader? "You can begin collecting taxes from your populace as soon as you gain the stronghold. The amount of taxes you collect increases with your prestige (because people know of you and like you), but the amount also increases with higher security, since some taxes are lost to banditry. You will want to keep both of those values high." What if you want to be more feared than prestigious? People should pay up because they don't want to cross you. "You can also employ hirelings to stay at your stronghold. These people will provide bonuses to your prestige and security, but they cost money to employ. Some will leave your castle if you stop paying them, but others will wait around to get paid again (but not provide any bonuses until they are)." See, this is where I think you should be able to employ unsavory types, like ruffians and corruptible guards, to increase your fear rating and help you extract money and information from the weak. "If you have cleared the dungeon and built a prison under your stronghold, then when you are fighting some of the named NPC’s in the game, you will be given an option to take them prisoner instead of killing them." What if you want to take prisoners and make their executions public spectacles? Or have them fight each other to the death while taking bets on the outcome? Or force them to work in the mines, fields, or wherever would be most humiliating? "Some visitors are wonderful and give good bonuses, and you will want them to stay as long as possible. [...] Others are not so great, and you will want to offer them one of your companions to act as an escort to their next location, or perhaps simply pay them to leave." Of course, if you could play a bad guy, this would be the opposite. The wonderful visitors would be the people who the decent folk want gone and the not-so-great visitors would be the hero sorts who want to change things for the better (i.e., cause trouble.) So, while I generally like the stronghold design, the theme sounds like you have to play a good guy if you want a useful stronghold.