Rubarack

I've completed the daily, restarted to get it to register but I still can't pick up rewards.

Honestly this is kind of stumping me. Is it supposed to pick up something from the microphone?

Thanks for clearing this up. So to confirm you no longer get gold for replaying missions in story mode with different parties? That's a bit f a shame but good to know.

Outside of buying it how do you get gold these days? From what I can see you only get gold from the dailies, the store and 1 or 2 from each location but it was always a bit obscure. Can you still get gold from completing quests in story mode and is there any rhyme or reason to when you get quest gold?

Fourthed. I logged in this morning with 40 mins to go, logged back in an hour later and had 23 hours 40 mins to go and my gold hadn't increased.

Isn't this a known bug? Because if you attempt to use a card such as cure, then cancel the effect the card ends up in Limbo and is effectively banished.

I actually thought the current system was a bug, because it made no sense for it not to work this way. I bought a couple of characters to replay the scenario with and it makes little sense they don't get any gold for doing so. As it stands playing normally does not grant gold but grinding does. Surely this is the opposite of the intended effect of this change? Edit. It should surely at least be the case that if the characters CAN'T play the mission on legendary they should get gold as normal for playing on normal/hard?

I've just got the game, and after the culture shock the store gives am really enjoying it. I'm still a bit hazy on all the rules though. For example when a character increases in level does the game get more difficult to compensate or is that all tied up in the scenarios? Is there a separate system in quest mode? And does this reasonably account for characters of differing levels?

The main disadvantage is that you don't get the gold all at once, but I imagine the discount is that the game remains top of mind. That said it doesn't help Obsidian that it's a pain in the ass to collect so it really should happen automatically when you log in. There's no benefit to making you go to the store and collect it (unless they're hoping you forget or can't be bothered which is kind of crummy behaviour)

It really should have been delayed by those ten days if that was possible. Of course they probably didn't know ahead of time that it was 10 days short of being reasonably complete, and they may not have been in a position to delay it even that long. That still makes it a weird candidate for early access though, at launch it was early access at best, and by a strict interpretation not even that. 10 days later it was fit for release.

I see where you're coming from, but this sounds like mod territory to me. If you don't want to change your class or race you can probably retweak your character using cheats, so long as you don't care about avhievements.

3) Definitely 3. There are loads of ways to have level scaling work subtly in the background so it doesn't undermine the experience of levelling up, but means the challenge is always between strict bands. I suppose you could also do xp scaling, where sidequests have a rolling debuff to experience gained based in how many you do. This is a variant of 2) but using smoke and mirrors to hide the effect. Do some sidequests and you're a level up on where you would be without, and on par with expectations. Do them all and you're 1 level up, the latter side-quests giving almost no xp. But if you're a completionist you'll do them anyway. A trick I'm fond of in Encounters when people insist on xp is the xp for doing sidequests being enough to get players 5% short of the next level (unless I get the feeling players want to trivialise the content). That way there's a subtle frustration at not quite hitting that level but players arestill gaining xp (and players who miss the odd session are still on par power wise)

Yeah it was a dumbass moment of mine when I selected GoG from that menu. They're fine when it comes to old games that are already patched up but they just can't get post launch patches out to save their lives.

First of all just because other games were buggy it doesn't make it OK for this one to release broken. I am not talking about small annoyances nobody minds. I am talking about such core functionality like: EQUIPPING ITEMS, SAVE / LOAD. RPG's are not special. Think about GTA 5. It worked on release didn't it ? Yet it was far more complex. But that's a side issue. If you knew nothing about game development or programming this still should not even be your problem. You see a product on a shop shelf. You expect it to work. And please also note that it has nothing to do with my opinion of the actual experience which I like! It has everything to do with offensive release policy. There's certainly an element where your expectations need to be tempered by realism, RPGs are always slightly broken at launch and if you have a problem with that you have a problem with the genre not with Pillars specifically. GTA is more of an exception than a rule for games of this scope. If you're believe that games in general should be better polished then that's a reasonable argument (though the realities of software development mean that asking for bug free software is like asking for all the beans in a can to be exactly the same size and shape, without using gm) but that's a question that really should be raised on a general forum. Specifically though Pillars of Eternity has problems beyond normal bugs. The save system is wholly broken. The inventory system is wholly broken. Without these systems the combat in the game just doesn't function. Maybe Obsidian overstretched themselves and just didn't have the budget to finish the game, releasing a broken product and fixing it later is better than not releasing. They should have learned from their previous mistakes though, and this puts their previous excuses over buggy releases in a bad light. But they'll only learn from this one if they're called out on it. As for my lesson, don't get Obsidian games till the GotY. When they're publishe they're bad, but when they self-fund they're even worse.

The problem I was having is the backer email has a screenshot of the "link pledge" button which was removed at launch. It also describes the page you are going to as the backer portal but it's only the obsidian main page. As a result finding where the link pledge button is hidden was unexpectedly difficult. On other games I backed I got a message "The games out, here's how you get it". Here it was "Here's how you get the game if you've already done step Y, if not here's a link to an older post on step Y." That would have been fine, but that post was out of date, the method to linking your pledge had changed.

In the steps to redeem the kickstarter pledge (literally everywhere it's mentioned) there's a link to the backer portal and a picture of an area you are meant to click on to redeem your pledge. This link now just goes back to the store page, so it's impossible to redeem a pledge.

I had a similar idea myself, but discounted it because it doesn't resolve the principal issue. Since you repair (or sharpen) items in town their effectiveness decreases at the same time the difficulty curve increases. You will always be weakest at the toughest point of any quest. Either you maintain 100% sharpness (or 100% durability) at all times or you may as well never have it. Resource management can mitigate this a bit (I can use fewer resources in those easy first fights) but it's going to be busywork or redundant. Psychologically this makes things easier to accept but it's just papering over the cracks.

The Craft, look closely near the top of the image and there's a subtle clue... I'm not a fan of this system as it stands, I don't like crafting because it feels like busywork that takes me out of the core experience and I don't like item degradation because it feels like busywork that takes me out of the core experience. I'm sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place here. In addition item degradation lends itself to degenerate gameplay where you never end up using that +10 sword of awesomeness because it's more cost efficient to use that rusty dagger. It sort of feels like "We've developed this crafting system we're happy with. Now I'm going to beat you with this stick, if you use it I will beat you less often and less vigorously. How's that for a deal!"

Honestly they both kind of failed in this department, BG used the awful D&D rules set which was unbelievably clunky and a very poor fit for a computer game, Dragon Age was horribly unbalanced with degenerate tactics being pretty much essential. Even though you could win all the battles pretty easily without AoE it would take hours to kill the hundreds and hundreds of enemies it threw at you one at a time. Project Eternity sounds extremely promising and Obsidian are definitely on the right track as far as I'm concerned. It just remains to be seen if they can pull it off.

In a recent interview with GI.biz Sid Meier said the following "I really enjoy the luxury of changing my design and evolving over time. I'd be a little concerned with Kickstarter if I committed to X, Y and Z and I found out down the road that Z didn't work very well, I kind of promised to do this." We've all heard a lot about cut features and ideas that just didn't make it to the final game, and Obsidian have a long track record of their reach exceeding their grasp with titles. Personally I'm fine with this, as long as Project Eternity is good and is in the style promised by the Kickstarter (no turning into a first person shooter!) What do other people think? Do you see the Kickstarter pitch as a promise or as a general goal?

As a side note I love quest timers, and I'm a little sad I appear to be the only person in the world who does. My favourite RPG structure would be an open world with a ton of quest timers with new quests appearing and old quests disappearing all the time. Do I attempt to rescue the farmers daughter from ogres or claim the lost treasure of XXXX. What if I will definitely miss out on that treasure if I delay but I might still be able to save the farmers daughter afterwards? As far as realistic ideals go though I was a big fan of BG2s structure. Chapter 2 was amazing and while some of the other chapters felt a bit dry I wouldn't want to even out the curve at all. If I get 20-30 quests at once then that's a real choice, if I get 3-4 it feels like I have to do those 3-4. If I can't be overloaded with quests constantly I'd rather be overwhelmed once and then left to a linear crawl afterwards than anything else.

That's weird, I've heard a few developers rail against the vertical slice, most notably Ron Gilbert on his Grumpy Gamer blog. It certainly resonated with me as being a clumsy and inefficient concept when applied to a game. I'm curious to hear the counterargument, I suppose it can get everyone on the same page while exposing issues early on but it still strikes me as a weird idea. http://grumpygamer.com/6843121

I like it, hopefully there'll be a one button way to convert the stash into money from any shop in the game. For me adventuring is about exploring, fighting enemies and negotiating with adversaries. Worrying whether it's worth taking out the studded leather and picking up a short sword and a hammer to sell later is a chore I'd be happy to see abstracted away entirely.

I think that's fair, though I would quickly disregard realism if it were getting in the way of reinforcing the mechanics in an interesting way. I think you could limit people stocking up on food if you limited the food packs storage capacity to, say 7 days worth. If a player tried to buy more, or multiple packs there could be a quick explanation saying there'd be little point, the food would spoil before they got a chance to eat it. As long as you prevented players returning to and from town ad infinitum you'd have a pretty effective limitation on resting.

No, but the question needs to be on the correct framework. In this case it's exactly as you say unlimited resting destroys the limits placed on certain abilities. But the simplest "realistic" solution is no good, by limiting rests to every 16 hours or so players can just wait past them. It's poor design to make the most boring solution the most effective one. A better solution is to have preset resting points, that way the intended limits are retained and there is no way to work around them by playing in a boring fashion. Alternatively have a time limit associated with every quest or even some simple mechanic such as food that limits the amount of times a party can rest between each safe area.