MReed

It is important to note that one of the design goals of this system is to ensure that (as long as you spend all of your points) it is impossible to make a gimped (in combat) character. That is, if you randomly distribute the points to stats, and randomly select a class, as long as you play to your strengths then you will have a character that is just as strong as if you had spent hours analyzing the interplay of bonuses and penalties. Now whether or not this is a good thing is another question altogether, but that's the explicit design goal. Keeping this design goal in mind, it would be counterproductive for the developers to provide suggestions as to how to allocate stat points based on the player's class.

Why would it benefit? Because in your opinion (as a player, not as the developer), single player is better than multiplayer? I'm not Grand_Commander13, but yeah, I agree that "single player is better than multiplayer". It seems like Obsidian agrees with me, at least in the context of this type of game as well.

<sigh> From a developer's point of view there no difference between "PvP multiplayer" and "CoOp multiplayer". They both require the same network interfaces be built, the same synchronization problems to be dealt with and so forth. Multiplayer is multiplayer. The 30% increase in program man hours, plus bringing in a new QA team, plus bringing on new headcount all applies regardless of what "type" of multiplayer your are looking for. I will not watch everyone on this thread decide that this developer clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, and adding multiplayer can be done in two weekends during a developer's spare time -- you may begin now.

This sounds unnecessarily complex -- standard UI conventions for this sort of game is for the numbers "1-N" (N=6 in this game) to select characters, and "=" to select all characters. Function keys are mapped to actions for individual characters, corresponding to the order in which icons are shown above the character portraits.

Character's don't say anything because all the party member's in the backer beta are "hired henchmen", created in the Adventurer's Hall. Therefore, they have no dialog. The Ogre can indeed knock characters flat, stun them, and knock them back. The more complex animations that you are talking would clearly be out of scope for this game.

For myself, I agree that this really isn't much of a beta -- more of a demo -- given the limited scope. While I understand that there are a fair number of backers who don't want to spoil the experience of playing the game in its full glory, I don't see any reason that they can't release two products: 1) The version that they are already planning on releasing 2) The game in its entirety (or excluding all but, say, the last 10%) The amount of extra work on the part of the developers to maintain the two version would be nearly nil, as they have to maintain a "full version" beta for internal testing. It seems to me that this would make everyone happy, right?

I think this would be a good thing to add -- just to be clear, without adding any markers that don't also appear on the main map. It was always mildly annoying to have to flip between the area map and the main screen when trying to verify that "Yes, this is the right building to enter to complete / start / find a merchant / whatever." I spent a good deal of time "enter an area, flip to the map, click on the map to zoom to the correct area, click on the (hoped for) entrance to start walking, flip back to the map while movement occurred" -- with a mini-map, I probably would have just used the mini-map instead.

Probably, but this is a distinction that makes very little difference. The backer portal is closing August 22nd, at which point "...First, we will be ending the crowdfunding period for Eternity. This means that as of August 22nd, you will only be able to preorder the game and will be unable to back the game at reduced prices...". I assume that would exclude being able to participate in the beta (although you may be able to purchase Stream Early Access, if that is offered).

NWN_babaYaga: Please let a game (any game) which was released on both the PC and the console where the UI wasn't clearly superior on one or the other platforms (99.9% of the time, the UI will be superior on the console -- but there are a few exceptions, such as DA:O, where the game was ported very late in its development cycle). The fact that one can use a console controller on a PC (and, technically speaking, a mouse and keyboard on a console) isn't a valid reason for a PC games interface to be inferior when the primary input controller for the platform is used instead. Assuming that you cannot, then add in the fact that the console interface is generally (> 90%) favored over the PC interface -- due, in large part, to the simple fact that there is much, much more money to be made in that space, but also the fact that a controller based interface can be used on a PC, but a K&M interface is always awful on consoles -- then it makes quite a bit of sense for PC gamers to want certain titles to be PC exclusive. This does not mean: * Console games are intrinsically bad or inferior in some way to PC games. They are just different. * PC/Console games cannot be good on the PC. Such games start with an intrinsic disadventage in comparison to PC only games, but can be good, even superior, games. Of course, they would have been better (on the PC) if the UI had not been compromised to support consoles... * Gamers who prefer to play games on consoles are in some way inferior to gamers that play games exclusively on the PC In short, advocating for this game to be a PC exclusive title both now and post-release (due to the hoped for PoE 2 game) has nothing to do with the question "Which is better, PC games or console games."

For myself, I certainly agree that Obsidian has the right to port this game to consoles after release, using the funds raised by selling the game on the PC to do so, both legally and morally. In fact, I can argue that they should do so -- it would maximize the profit making potential of the game. But... If they choose to do so, I would be far less interested in a PoE 2, and would almost certainly not back a Kickstarter for such a project, or any future Kickstarter that Obsidian might create. My goal in backing this game was to create a game optimized exclusively for the use of mouse and keyboard, with the understanding that Obsidian agreed to accept lower revenues demanded by such a design in return for not having to repay their backers (restoring some, but not all, of the lost profit potential from not porting to the console). If it turns out that Obsidian wants to have their cake (get up-front funding that they don't need to pay back) and eat it to (maximize revenues by releasing on consoles), then why would I continue to support them?

Well, I'm pretty certain that the Bioware haters only hate anything made by Bioware recently (KOTR, for example, is generally not brought up in these discussions). But yeah, there are a high proportion of folks on this forum that are very dissatisfied with the direction that Bioware has taken in the past 5-7 years -- this shouldn't be a shock, as I suspect that half the reason that this Kickstarter was so successful was backlash against Bioware (and, more specifically, DA2).

To complete the point being made: the Witcher 1 UI was pretty good. The Witcher 2 UI was not (at least, not if you used a keyboard and mouse). The difference between the two is that the Witcher 1 was ported after the fact,at which point $$$ dictated that the Witcher 2 would be a console game first, and a PC game as an after thought. For some odd reason, I don't want that to happen with this (hoped for) series of games, and the easiest way to ensure this is to advocate against a console version ever being made, even after the initial release.

I'm assuming that there is a typo here -- the last sentence should read "...unless you want to be secretly be evil but achieve nothing but good, they don't give a lot of choices most of the time." This is certainly my problem with the support for evil options in the vast majority of RPGs, at least. "Sneaky evil" comes up quite commonly in these discussions, with Emperor Palpatine quite often being cited as an example of this arch-type. There is an enormous difference between these two characters (start very long winded example): 1) Wanders into the village one day and the mayor tells him that bandits have been raiding the village for the past 6 months, but the local guard has been unable to resolve the problem. The PC follows the clues, identifies the bandits lair, and kills all the hostiles (recovering, much to the villager's delight, some of the goods that had been previously stolen from the village). The local lord takes note of the PC's actions and retains him to assist with identifying and apprehending a local thieves guild, which the player does. Next, the local (good) church asks for the player's assistance with eliminating a nest of ghouls, followed by assisting the a prominent merchant by finding several new markets for her goods. All of this activity brings the player to attention of the King, who recruits the PC to rescue his daughter from a dragon -- which, of course, the PC does. After this, the PC is named "Defender of the Realm", and successfully leads the defense of the kingdom against a barbarian horde. Along the way the princess falls in love with the PC, they get married, and the current King and Queen step aside so that the PC can assume the throne. 2) Convinces a local group of bandits to attack the village, providing training, intelligence, and markets for the stolen goods. After about 6 months of this, the PC wanders into the village and is asked to take care of the bandit problem -- which he does, by killing his erstwhile allies. The local lord takes note of the PC's actions and retains him with identifying and apprehending a local thieves guild. The player convinces the thieves guild to "lay low" for a couple of months, and kills off a couple of innocent bystanders and reports that the problems is resolved. Next, the player arranges for some ghouls to successfully sneak into the city, waits a couple of months, and receives a request from the local (good) church to take care of a nest of ghouls, which he does. Finally, the player kills a prominent merchant's most highly profitable customer's, creating a surplus of inventory at the merchant which he takes advantage of by encourging the merchant to sell his goods to a number of new customer's, whose honesty the player vouches for. All of this activity brings the player to the attention of the King, and he makes sure he is highly visible in the royal court -- however, it is clear that the PC needs to do something truly spectacular to advance further. The PC follows some rumors and finds a dragon, and manages to negotiate a deal: if the dragon captures the princess and holds her alive until the player "rescues" her, the PC will ensure that the dragon is well compensated for her time. This plan goes off without a hitch, and player even manages to slip the princess a slow acting love potion during the rescue attempt. For his actions in defense of the realm, the player is named "Defender of the Kingdom". The player then convinces the king to retain the services of an number of bards to "talk up" the wealth and prosperity of the kingdom (as part of a campaign to attract new commerce, of course) and makes sure these storeis reach the ears of a nearby barbarian kingdom. When the barbarian kingdom attacks, the player ensures that his greatest rivals take the blunt of the attack, before coming in and "saving the day" at the last minute. With the PC's marriage to the princess, and the king and queen suffering from ill health, the PC ascends to the throne. #1 is good -- arguing that the player is secretly evil is (in my opinion) very, very disingenuous. #2 is a good example of a "sneaky evil" character. Note that the difference is that this player is mitigating the consequences of evil that he has already done. Note that in scenario #2, if it wasn't for the player's actions, the village never would have been raided, the ghouls never would have made it into the city, the princess would never have been kidnapped, and the kingdom would never have been attacked by the barbarians. Note that I'm not arguing that characters of type #2 should be supported in PoE -- in fact, they only way such a character could be supported is if a game was designed from the ground up to support such a game, and it is pretty clear that PoE isn't that game. I think a game along these lines would be quite interesting, and would certainly support a Kickstarter to that end, though.

The possibility of creating persistent worlds is zero. There is no multiplayer support in this game at all. As I'm sure you'll feel obliged to make numerious posts indicating how totally unreasonable it is that a game would be designed and built in 2014 that doesn't include co-op multiplayer support, because it is so easy to include, and that there is absolutely no reason (or even a remote possibility) that including a co-op multiplayer component would have any effect at all on the single player game, please register you complaint in the existing thread: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61308-online-multiplayer-mode/ To explicitly answer the OP: Obsidian will provide technical documentation (& perhaps, some internally developed tools / plug-ins) to simplify the process by which developers (who happen to be fans of this game) could build tools that others could use to mod the game. Obsidian has pretty clearly indicated that they do no plan to provide an integrated mod toolkit either at the release or post-release.

I suspect (and hope) that you are going to be disappointed, artyom -- if it were possible to play the game as you envision (set AI behaviors for companions, and only micromanage one PC) and still be highly successful in combat, then... Well, that means that you would very likely be successful in combat if you provided no inputs at all during combat. After all, at worst not providing any inputs would result in one (of 6) members of your party doing nothing at all, which is highly likely to result in a victory. That isn't to say such a game might not be highly enjoyable, but as a programming game, rather than a conventional RPG. In fact, I spent some time back in the days trying to engineer scripts in Infinity Engine games that could, in fact, automatically win most combats, with little success. That's more a function of the very inelegant scripting language used in these games than anything else, though.

I think the confusion stems from an earlier discussion of the disengagement mechanics in this game. Some people (myself... ) believe that the disengagement mechanics will end up creating the same effect as a taunting mechanic. Many others disagreed, on the other hand. Known information about disengagement can be found here: http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Melee_Engagement In my opinion, the net effect of this mechanic will be very similar to that created by a "taunt" effect is certain conditions are met: 1) The AI is incapable of managing disengagement talents effectively. This may be because they simply aren't available to the monster's "class", or that the uses are limited enough that the player can exploit the AI to "burn" the usages without successfully attacking the AI's desired target. 2) The bonuses granted on the free disengagement attack are high enough that a hit is nearly assured (say, 85% chance of a hit), at least when fighting against level appropriate foes. 3) The AI always moves directly towards its desired target (only deviating from this path to avoid obstacles, and then only to the minimum amount required), and this path will (outside of scripted "ambush" scenarios) result in the monster's moving adjacent to "tanks" before reaching the preferred targets. #1 seems to me to be highly likely to me to be true, given the limitations of AI in past games (although this is where the bulk of the debate occurred) #2 also seems highly likely to met, given the bonuses to accuracy attacked to the disengagement attack, and the high frequency of hits associated with the combat mechanics (see http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Attack_Resolution). Finally, #3 seems to be a given, barring major innovations in the opponents AI (taking indirect paths to avoid tanks) and the player choosing a reasonable formation (tanks up front, squishes in the back) for combat.

FYI: DA:I will not appear on Stream (ever, in all likelihood). As I understand it, Stream requires games that offer DLC to offer it for sale via Stream itself (in addition to whatever other channels that they might use) -- which, of course, allows Stream to take a cut when it is purchased that way. EA has refused to do so, so unless / untill an "Ultimate" (bundled with all possible DLC) version is created, no EA game will appear in Stream. Directly on topic, I've been intermittently following the coverage of DA:I, but for the same reason that people can't look away from a train wreck in progress. I watched the 2012 Simcity hype in much the same way, and we all know how that turned out...

This is pretty much irrelevant, I think, for this game: In combat this is irrelevant unless you can save and restore in mid-combat. due to the players inability to exactly repeat a series of actions (movement especially) to ensure that the same set of enemy / friendly actions occur. If it were turn-based, on the other hand, this would be a legitimate concern. Out of combat it is irrelevant because the player can defeat the protection by "popping" another random number off of the stack by performing some repeatable action that requires a random number before attempting the critical action. Using a stamina recovery effect would be the most likely candidate (if it heals "2d4 Stamina" then it pops a random number off of the stack), but bashing a container, activating an aura (if the effects are variable), and many other things would also be candidates. No issue if the developers implement this, though -- it is trivially easy to do, and it doesn't hurt anything.

Some people on this site have a weird obsession with GoG. I'm all for DRM free, and I can understand why they like it, but these people fail to notice that many of the games on GoG are also DRM free on Steam as well. I just ran both Half Life and Divinity: Original Sin without steam running at all. It's not like I use Gog all that much anyhow even though I have a few games there; they doesn't support my main operating system at the moment. I use Steam more or less exclusively, but I'll point out that even games that don't require Stream to be loaded to play still require Stream to be running to install. With GOG you can take the downloaded file, burn it to a DVD(s), then reinstall it in the future even if GOG goes away altogether, which you can't do with a Stream title (Zipping up the application directory is very unlikely to work, as necessary changes to the registry and other dependencies wouldn't be included). Not a big deal for me, but I can see why some people would be attracted to GOG on this basis.

Put another way: Even with a godmode cheat, you can't solo NWN2 -- you are required to take along companions at certain points. This won't happen in PoE -- if you use a cheat code to make your character invulnerable to damage, you'll be able to solo the game. Then the discussion digressed into "Should Obsidian allow 'tactics' (such as kiting) that may make solo play more feasible, from a combat point of view?"

There was a big sanfu on several issues with regards to the D:OS keys: 1) Originally, Larian planned on voiding all of the current stream keys, giving users the option to request either stream keys or GOG keys for the final release. At the last minute, they decided to leave the stream keys active, only voiding them when a user choose to request a GOG key. It turns out that voiding the stream keys wasn't as easy as expected... 2) GOG decided (more or less on their own) to delay the release D:OS until their matchmaking service was ready, so there were no GOG keys to issue. 3) Larian did a very, very bad job at understanding the situation they were in and communicating the with the backers. In short, it was a massive mess. Hopefilly, Obsidian has watched and learned from the experience and there won't be problems like this for the PoE release...

And honestly, the new poster did point out that he was aware of how old the thread was when he posted. There is benefit in keeping all the discussion in one place (and we really don't need yet another multiplayer thread).

Based on past experiences, there is a general belief that when multiplayer is added to an otherwise single player game, the situation isn't "We have X resources, and will divert Y amount to implementing multiplayer" but "We have X resources, and will provide Y additional resources if multiplayer is implemented." -- the extra resources are only available if multiplayer is implemented. Of course, this assumes the traditional publisher model, assumes that Y resources is actually sufficient to implement multiplayer, and assumes that game elements that are shared between multiplayer and single player modes wouldn't be (negatively) impacted by multiplayer. But hey, what's a few assumptions between friends, right?

Not a developer, just my opinion: 1) QA -- QA, coming at the end of the project, is inevitably ends up being underfunded. There isn't any good way to avoid this, because /overfunding/ QA is a disaster itself. If this /does/ happen somehow, then the inevitable result is that add more features (quests / encounters in this case), which you then don't have the funds / time to QA properly... 2) Additional "flavor" dialog options -- once you get a large group of people playing the game, you'll inevitably get feedback along the lines "My character wouldn't say /that/, he would say /this/ instead". The new dialog option is functionally identical to the existing ones (so minimal QA time is required) but needs funding to be translated into the various languages that Obidian has supported. 3) Loot balancing -- iterating through different combinations of loot associated with different paths through the game is very tedious and time consuming, so additional funding can be used to improve balance. Think of questions in the form "if you do quests A, B, and D, but don't do C, is the encounter at the end of quest G harder than it should be?" If there is /lots/ of extra funding, then adding a minor quest (no new artwork) or two would likely still be in scope. That would take lots of extra funding, though, because of the problem that I pointed out in #1.

Because a bad video card / drivers combinations can produce all kinds of weird artifacts when hardware mouse support is enabled. Roughly in order of "How much of a pain it is": * The mouse cursor may not appear at all. * The mouse cursor may appear, but visual artifacts occur when the mouse is moved (which may or may not have any relationship to where the mouse actually is) * The mouse cursor may appear, but not change when it should (in response to what lies under the mouse, for example). * The mouse cursor appears, and changes image correctly, but the "hotspot" (the spot where the application reports the mouse is) and the visual representation of the mouse don't align -- the application and the user disagree on what is being clicked on. Since the performance gains of using a hardware mouse are pretty small, it makes sense from the developer's point of view to disable hardware mouse support by default just to avoid the potential of problems. Of course, all of the above were issues 5-7 years ago -- I suspect that issues like this are one in a million at this point.