MReed

I guess I'm looking at this from the other side. Until they say they are removed, I am assuming we still have something along the lines of the spell slots we saw in the old IE games. I agree that this is the most likely scenario, based on the dev comments in the OP. This is definitely the part I'm more concerned with. I think the longer cooldown system is more likely what they are looking at. Yeap. Fundamentally, if a functionality similar to a "rest" button (that resets cooldowns in the field) is included then the system is a Vancian system, no matter what you call it. I consider this very unlikely based on the posts to date. If you don't, then I don't see a way to avoid the "wait for multiple real-time hours to reset cooldowns" issue, and I feel that's a serious gameplay defect.

Are you assuming that all spells are always available with cooldowns as the only limiting factor? Have they said they are getting rid of spell levels and limited spell slots? That's an entirely separate issue. I'm assuming that spell levels exist, although they may not be called that. In other words, there are certain abilities that you get early in the game ("Charm person") and other abilities that you get later ("Charm Monster") without losing the abilities that you received earlier. I'm assuming that spell slots, on the other hand, do not exist -- if you have an ability, the only restrictions on usage are cooldown / mana related. I deal with adding "spell slots" separately. Isn't that what the difficulty settings are for? I really don't like game mechanics that require you to handicap yourself to get the desired effect. The smart way to play the old games was to rest spam. It was simply more effective. First of all, some people simply refuse to play games on less than the default level. I don't understand those people myself, but apparently it is an ego thing. More importantly, though, a single encounter might be too difficult for the player, while most or all of the rest of the game is provides a challenge without waiting around / rest spamming. This may be because of using an unusual party, missing a key side quest / item, or any number of other factors. Again, this is really irrelevant to the point at hand -- any system with long cooldown timers is inevitably going to result in some players waiting out the cooldowns. Those players are not going to be happy. I really don't see any good reason to make these people unhappy at this point.

I may well reduce my pledge (not only because of this, but also due to the announcement that level scaling will be included). And I really don't think that I'm going to be alone if I do -- even the folks that are arguing "in favor" of cooldowns are taking the position that "Cooldown can play just like Vancian magic (but without some poorly defined drawback), so don't panic." If the primary argument in favor of feature X is that it plays more or less the same as feature Y, then something is seriously wrong with the gameplay design.

Why? What is the connection here? Some spells are inevitably better than others -- to take one obvious D&D example, "Charm monster" is better than "Charm person". As a result, the only reason to use "Charm person" when you have "Charm monster" available is because "Charm monster" is on cooldown. If the cooldown timers are short (allowing one spell to be cast multiple times per encounter), then the odds are very high that you will never end up in a situation where you need to use "Charm person". In a Vancian system, though, you might (and fact, probably would) not want to dedicate the higher level spell slot to a rarely needed spell like "Charm monster", but would be willing to commit the lower level spell slot to "Charm person". And yes, this only applies if the cooldown timers are short, and that was the context of this quote in the first place. The problem with rest spamming, even in a single player game, was that the encounters were balanced assuming you had to carefully use your spells but the mechanics didn't actually make you do that. Basically, you were significantly stronger than the game was designed for you to be. I do wonder how they would deal with people simply waiting around. The game should be balanced based on the assumption that you won't rest often. Player who rest more frequently will have an easier time than the baseline, obviously, and that's exactly what those players were looking for. In any case, my point is that people will do this if that's what they feel they need to do to defeat the next encounter -- or maybe they will just give up on the game altogether, figuring that a game that is designed so that they have to leave their computer running overnight (8 hour cooldown) just to survive the next encounter (because they "suck") isn't a game that they want to play.

I concur with the OP -- I don't like the direction that Obsidian is taking the gameplay mechanics, but they deserve props for admitting it while there is still time to revoke / reduce kickstarter pledges. They (and all other abilities, for that matter) reset when you clicked on the rest. In fact, just to be crystal clear, an ability that was shown in the game as being usable "once a day" would not reset if 24 game hours passed. The trigger for resetting these abilities was resting, not the passage of game time, much less real-time. It is clear that this isn't what they meant by cooldowns -- they are going for something like "ability X recovers after Y realtime minutes", and no, there weren't any effects that worked that way in BG / IWD / PS:T.

Cooldowns seem like a real mistake to me. If the cooldown timers are short (say, ~1-5 minutes) and reset automatically at the end of combat, then I don't see any way to avoid getting into a situation where there are very few spells (say, 20 total), out of which there are only 2-3 spells that are actually useful. If the cooldown times are long (> 5 minutes) and don't reset at the end of combat, then at least some portion of the players are going to end up standing around and doing nothing while waiting for the timers to reset. Even if you oppose rest-spamming (why you would in a single player game I'm not sure, but...) I think everyone will agree that this is very much the definition of "not fun". Increasing the cooldown timers to multiple realtime hours just further increases the "not fun" factor. A couple of different mixed modes have been suggested in this thread as well: 1) Where the player has slots that are filled with spells (similar to a Vancian system), but the slots reset based on a cooldown system. If there are a large number of highly specialized spells (the BG / IWD system) then this devolves into something very similar to the Vancian system -- you'll still need to go into combat / find clues as to what you need, reload (if necessary), then make sure that the right specialized spells are in the right slots. If there are only a relatively few, general spells (compared to the number of "slots" available) then it is equivalent to allowing a partial respec of your character, and would be used just about as frequently. 2) A system that punishes "waiting around" in some fashion (quests expiring, wandering monsters, or similar) and has long cooldowns. But... You could do the exact same thing with a Vancian system. There may be ways to make a cooldown system work like a Vancian system -- but in that case, why not just save time and use a Vancian system in the first place? I'd really, really like to see a dev post that indicates what they see as the strengths of a cooldown system rather than discussing the weakness of a Vancian system.

For the OP -- there was already a poll / thread on this subject. The results were firmly opposed to multiplayer (58% opposed, 41% for). See http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60065-merged-co-op-multiplayer-as-some-potential-future-stretchgoal/. Lock please...

Just wishing, but... I'd really hope that we don't have absurd level demographics, like in every single RPG ever made... "Level demographics" refers to the distribution of levels across the population in a game world. In D&D terms, 95% of the population is level 0, 4 % are level 1, 0.9% are level 2, and 0.1% are higher than level 2. This is how the real world works, after all -- exceptional individuals are, well, exceptional. To provide a concrete example, if a 10th level party gets a standard quest to "Save my little girl from bandits" the bandits should be level 3-4 maximum. In other words, if the party just goes in and slaughters everything in site (fairly standard for these sorts of side quests), then the combat should be an absolute joke. As this isn't very fun / challenging, developers will choose to make the bandits level 10 or so, which provides a good challenge to the party. If you don't look at it too hard, this works, but... Level 10 NPCs should be bandits that sneak around and steal children -- much more reasonable is that they would have conquered the town and likely established a new kingdom to boot. The downside of accurate level demographics is that the pool of potential side quests drops dramatically as level increases. There are a couple of ways to address this -- for example: * In the case above, the quest could be reworked into "Save my little girl from vampires" and the combat challenge problem is addressed, but... Now you have to explain why vampires would be interested in kidnapping this random little girl, and why they wouldn't drain her immediately to boot. This takes more time, more text / dialog, and so forth. * Clever quest design is another way to go -- the quest is "Rescue my little girl from the bandits", and the bandits are, indeed, levels 1-4, so the combat is a joke, but... If the player fights the bandits before rescuing the little girl, then the bandits kill her. Oops. Of course, now you have to design a way for the party to succeed in the quest, which is much more time consuming than the base "kill all the bandits and win" quest design. It comes down to "Which do you prefer -- 5 side quests that are carefully designed both to be fun and justifiable in the game world, or 30 side quests that are just as fun -- as long as you don't examine them to closely". Every game that I've ever played has always come down on the "more quests, suspend disbelief" side of that equation, and I'm not even certain that's the wrong decision. Still, I'd like to see one game try going the other way...

I thought this thread was dead -- apparently not. Just an FYI (from: http://www.rpgamer.com/games/eternity/eternityint.html) This is as clear of a statement as we are likely to see that multiplayer simply is not on the table (regardless of the amount of funding raised). Compare this comment with the comment on romances, which I'd put in the "not likely to happen, but still remotely under consideration".

The actual example in the OP is interesting, but I don't think it could be reasonably implemented in this type of RPG. First, if the party arrives at a location and everyone is friendly (green circles), but when they attempt to proceed there is an obvious dialog attempt followed by everyone turning hostile (red circles), then just about everyone is going to deduce "Ooops, I did something wrong, I need to reload". This rather defeats the purpose of creating any significant content for the "Didn't negotiate with the village" path. Secondly, this is highly likely to be a game that only supports travel between a small number (10-20) of locations via a "world map" system, with new areas most commonly being opened up via quest assignment. That's how BG (especially 2, but 1 was mostly like this), PS:T, and KOTR 2 (& IWD, if you include these titles as well). In such a model you can't simply "wander" into a village -- you were sent there, or at least somewhere in the vicinity, and likely have instructions on how to deal with the village (stay away, kill everyone, whatever). Finally... Assuming that this is indeed an isolated village, why should anyone in "civilization" care if you wiped them all out? How would they even know that you wiped them out -- even if there are survivors, presumably they don't have any contacts with "civilization" to know where to go, nor do they know they right language to complain to anyone (otherwise, you wouldn't have had a problem in the first place). It sounds like you feel that evil acts should have consequences simply because they are evil, and that's not something that I want to see in the game.

I'd like the developers to spoil everything in exhaustive detail. Of course, I quite often use walkthroughs as reviews of games that I'm considering purchasing, and I doubt many people do that either. My feeling is that Oblivion should create several forums: 1) A "Mechanics" forum: Discusses the mechanics of the game -- classes, races, weapons, spells, and the like. 2) A "World and Lore" forum: Discusses background, organizations, important places, and so forth. 3) A "Mild Spoilers Storyline and Plot" forum: Discusses the plot in generalities -- for example, the developers might post about "Strongholds" and the mechanics that they are using (which spoils the fact that there will be at least one stronghold), but not discuss the actual details (when you get it, are there several possible strongholds, etc.) 4) An "Everything Goes Spoilers Story and Plot" forum: Everything that doesn't fit into the other forums, including things like "You meet up with XYZ and he betrays you in the final act." Then everyone can choose the amount of spoilage that they want.

I absolutely agree with this statement -- and that's why I don't want multiplayer in PI! There are two major factors in my opposition to multiplayer in any shape or form: 1) If the game includes multiplayer, and it is successful, then publishers / other development houses will relearn the lesson "It is impossible to make a single player game that can stand on its own -- you must include multiplayer for a game to be successful." I'd prefer them not to relearn this lesson. 2) Assuming that there is a large audience of players who would purchase the game if it included multiplayer, but not otherwise, what do you think they will ask for in DLC / sequels? I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that this group might, just might want to add additional features for multi-player, starting with minimizing the important of companions and reducing the amount of reading / story in the game. After all, these features are clearly not multplayer friendly (you don't have any companions if you have a party full of other players, waiting for someone else to finish reading is boring). Assuming that this "multiplayer-only" group is large enough to make a difference in the financial success of the game, their voices (when combined with the current multiplayer crowd) might well dominate future feature discussion. You doubt that #2 will happen? I can dig up a thread on the BG:EE forums (which, I'll remind you, already has multiplayer) asking for changes to allow to parties to battle "head-to-head", a separate arena for combat, and other features along these lines. So, yes, there really is a risk of a slippery slope if multiplayer is included, and it is not unreasonable to oppose multiplayer on these grounds. Just for the record, the folks arguing against the inclusion of romance are making this exact same argument (substitute "romance" in place of "multiplayer"), and it is perfectly valid there as well. I'm pro-romance, but at this point I think the way to go is to exclude both romance and multiplayer from the game and see what happens.

Already being discussed, here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60149-1-pc-plus-companions-or-create-multiple-characters-plus-companions/page__st__40 (with a DEV post, no less).

I know there is already a thread on sub-forums, but I wanted a poll, so... I definitely feel that there should be a forum specifically so that Obsidian can spoil the game as completely as possible as soon as possible (including plot & story details). I'm also quite certain that there are a large number of people that wouldn't have any interest at all in reading those spoilers, so a separate forum seems the logical solution to me. Speaking for myself, spoilers don't bother me very much when playing a game, and it isn't uncommon for me to use a walk-through as a review of a game that I'm considering playing. On the subject of special forums exclusive to the kickstarter contributors, I have very mixed feelings: 1) On the one hand, it filters out people that only have a casual interest in the game -- especially since these people are unlikely to actually have the money to purchase it when it comes out, either, since the purchase price will be higher than the KS price. 2) On the other hand, there is a high probability it will lead to threads being posted twice (or more, if there are several "exclusive" forums), making it difficult for interested parties to follow the entire discussion. My opinion on this is a very soft "No, no special forums for KS contributors", but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise...

Full voice acting would, indeed, be critical to reach a wider, general audience. Ditching the isometric camera, minimizing / eliminating pause and play, simplifying the rule set, and releasing in consoles would also be good ways to reach a wider, general audience. Of course, if they did that, they wouldn't need a kickstarter in the first place, would they? So, no, in my opinion Oblivion does not want to reach a wider, general audience and (speaking for myself only) if they modify the game to achieve this goal I would withdraw my donation in a heartbeat.

I'm in the "no rolling, but a questionnaire sounds potentially interesting". If stats matter about as much as they do in D&D 2E, I think it is safe to allow a "roll the dice" option as well, though. The combat delta between "good stats" (that you can get through point-buy / questionnaire and "superb stats" (that you can only get through rolling for hours on end) is small enough that it largely disappears by the time you hit 3rd / 4th level. However, if stats are more important (basically means that you don't level up very quickly) then there should only be one system for balance reasons.

Agreed -- there should be some mechanism to highlight all (not deliberately hidden) hotspots in an area.

No, absolutely not. In fact, I'd prefer that there be no voice acting at all, under any circumstances, but I'm not going to get that. Voice acting dramatically increases the cost per line / word of dialog, dramatically reduces flexibility when it comes to offering dialog choices (once voice acting is done, the dialog is locked in stone), and the money spent on voice acting means that the game world is smaller (twice -- once to pay for the voice actors, and again because adding more content means more voice acting). While there are benefits to immersion, the costs are far to high.

This is absolutely true. Cite please -- I haven't seen anyone here, including romance supporters, indicate that a "game without romances isn't a RPG". In fact, I've seen several people (and I'm one of them) state "What I really want is complex and well developed relationships with companions, and romances is one way to achieve this."

Ehhhh... If this was going to be implemented, I'd only want it with two major caveats: 1) Bashing open a chest should destroy / ruin most of the contents inside, and 100% of anything fragile (basically anything other than weapons, armor, and gold) and 2) Bashing open a door should both damage the player doing the bashing and force that player (only) 15-20 feet into the space beyond the door. However, I really don't think this should be included at all -- mostly because it is highly useful for quest related reasons to have doors and chests that can only be unlocked if you find the right key. Once you've conceded that "plot-locked" items are required (and can't be bashed) then why not make all locked containers un-bashable? As a secondary factor, making non-plot-locked doors and chests bashable dramatically reduces the value of the thief class, and that's a class that is (generally speaking) looking desperately for something to do anyway, so...

I'm pretty certain that the modes of transportation in this game will be walking and... Walking some more. Jumping, climbing, or swimming only make sense if you are setting up an open world type game, which isn't this game. In a game with tightly woven quests (where 75% of your movement is dictated by "There is a quest to go here", and remainder is driven by "There is a store / inn here") the only reason to include jumping / climbing / swimming would be "The only way to get to finish a quest is to jump / climb / swim." Why design you quest that way (and therefore have to include additional animations, artwork, programming, and so forth) when you almost certainly could design your quest so that you could either walk to where you need to go, or there is a cutscene / "fade-to-black" transition where the alternate transportation mode would otherwise be required? Now, in an open-world game, it is important to allow the player to go wherever they want and then place interesting things there for them to find -- that's a large point of these games, after all. But it just isn't worth the extra work in this type of game.

My feeling are: Children shouldn't be in the game, except (perhaps) as specific props to be used in quests (e.g. "My child is stuck in a tree, please rescue him!"). Any advantage to immersion is far, far outweighed by the controversy that would be generated, and Obsidian is an established development house with relationships with various publishers. While this project may be theoretically "free of publisher meddling", going to far here might well hurt Obsidian's ability to gain business from publishers in the future. I just don't see an upside here. With that being said, if children are in the game, they should be killable just as any other NPC is. Additionally, while adding a "Childkiller" feat/perk/whatever to the PC that has absolutely no gameplay effect is fair, but actual negative (e.g. everyone in town is hostile to you) consequences should only occur if the murder is witnessed. Consequences are one thing, but there is no value in including an "option" that results in an effective game over.

Hate to say this, but this question has already been settled, I think: Josh Sawyer on the Player House stretch goal Source: Formspring <quote> To answer your question, we believe player houses serve a basic utilitarian purpose in RPGs. We like using them and would like to have them in PE. They require work to implement, but the $ of the goal is not meant to indicate $ spent on that feature [...] We have learned that a small interior with containers thrown in it (e.g. Novac hotel room, Pres. Suite [Tigranes: reference to Fallout: New Vegas]) is too minimal when it comes to auto-organization functionality. And again, KS is a fundraising platform, not a means of making a literal budget. [...] The problem inherent with this is that we're still very early in development. Designing systems takes time. I would rather be general and risk some frustration than be specific at this stage in the process. </quote> Source: Obsidian Forums <quote> In my mind, a player "house" is something like The Sink. A player stronghold would be something like Crossroad Keep, with much more in-depth strategic gameplay. </quote> This is pulled from the "Project Eternity: Known Information" thread. It is pretty obvious that "house" means, well, "house" -- a place to store things, maybe where companions hang out when they aren't in the party, but without any quests attached to it or plot significance. Sorry -- I'd like strongholds as well, but it doesn't look like its in the cards this time around.

Agreement at last, and they said it would never happen... I'll add my two cents: 1) If romances are added, they should include both negative and positive effects on the larger plot -- for example, accusations of favoritism on the part of the PC, some paths to resolving a quest are closed off, or similar. The "bang a character, get a bonus" in Bioware games is a definite "no-go" in my book. 2) Romances shouldn't be included if including them means that players who don't choose to pursue a romance are "punished" by losing out on large amounts of content. If the choices is between "friendship dialogs" that are open to all, or "romance dialogs but the character is otherwise dull / boring", then drop the romances altogether. More content that more people can enjoy == better overall game.

Sorry, I'll simplify: I support a text heavy game. Having a text heavy game will be expensive.