Sensuki

Why? If you grew up with Steam, you wouldn't have experienced things when they were different.

So basically people asked the same questions that everyone else asks Chris in every panel/interview and/or he answered those questions with the same things he always says every panel/interview.

It depends whether or not the backer beta areas have received paint overs or not. I think that they most likely will have, and they will probably have geometry issues ironed out the environment art issues during their alpha phase. Shadow artifacting is obviously a bug which you would report. Unity has a multi-threaded and single-threaded renderer. The multi-threaded renderer currently has a bug in it that causes audio stuttering. I reported this on the forums (as I have experienced this problem in Expeditions: Conquistador and Shadowrun Returns) and I think they've gone with a single-threaded renderer. Roby Atadero stated on the forums that the game does use multiple threads. Extra threading is used for the Fog Map. Unity has a built in log (output_log.txt) which I hope they will expose. I used it in Shadowrun Returns to report some bugs, but it's not exposed in Expeditions: Conquistador or Wasteland 2. Hopefully all the stuff you addressed will be included in the Beta Details page. inXile were pretty good with WL2 about how they wanted stuff reported on their CentreCode website. I wouldn't be surprised if Obsidian also use CentreCode for their bug reporting ... although perhaps they have an in-game or proprietary system for it.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg278q.htm :wowey:

I'm 99.9% sure familiars have been dropped as a feature.

If I had to guess I'd say something to do with space, but I'd welcome something more niche.

Potatoland also needs the $ more than the USA.

RTS style controls please. When I have multiple selected characters I want to handle each character's actions seperately, no ****ing group controls other than what's available in the current UI box.

I'm going to guess Bryy that you're younger than I am with a comment like that. Back in the good old days, you have a game, you install it, and you can play it. No DRM, online activation or internet connection required. A steam purchase is not the purchase of a game, it is the purchase of a license to play a game. This license can be revoked. Steam I'll grant is convenient, particularly for games that do not require steamworks, but GoG is working on a similar solution. And between the two I'm gonna pick the one that is actual ownership of the game, rather than a license.

A certain Windows Loader by a fellow named Daz, might be a good place to start. I would recommend getting a second hand card instead, there's absolutely ZERO point buying an R7 260X when you could get a HD7950 or HD7970 for less money and it's better.

freeballin'

It does because the way that the PE UI is designed is that every function of the game must have a coinciding UI button - that's just how they're doing it. We don't even know if the game has a swap weapon button like you would find in ARPGs, as in the IE games both sets of weapons were represented on the UI, and you had to click them to change, in IWD2 they could be assigned different hotkeys (one for each set). The game also supports more than one weapon set (through the use of talents). I have a feeling that the design is probably more along the lines of what the IE games did in this regard instead of the ARPG way. But I'm not sure. With their current design philosophy having a swap weapon and everyone swap weapon BUTTON and function just seems like a waste of UI space, and a waste of programming resources. Tabbing through units is also most likely something they have not included as I do not think many of the PE devs are that well versed in RTS or MOBA games/controls.

I am actually not sure because I never bothered with it. It took GOG a while to release the game (longer than the steam version) because they had to actually do some work on their own end getting the Multiplayer to work for the GOG version. I think they said there should be an option in your Larian Vault account, but I am not sure if it has been added or not.

I don't think so really. In the IE games - of which I am currently replaying. There is only one instance where I swap a ranged character's weapon - when they are engaged in melee combat by an enemy. My warrior classes are always equipped with melee weapons so they can enter the fray as fast as possible to get to the correct enemies. in BG2 and Throne of Bhaal, ranged weapons don't do much damage per hit compared to melee weapons and getting those characters into position (sometimes they can get a hit off on an enemy mage or lich BEFORE their contingency/spell trigger protections even activate. In Pillars of Eternity, Josh has stated that ranged weapons will deal reduced damage in comparison to melee weapons to avoid the situations you had in IWD1 and BG1 where ranged weapons were in most encounters, way better than melee weapons, full stop. He has also said that using arbalests and firearms in the manner that we are discussing in this thread (fire a full party volley of ranged and swap to melee) is actually too powerful and thus the damage of arbalests and firearms will be reduced. If you intend to play this way all the time, then sure, you may be doing this every encounter. But across the vast majority of players and class combinations, I think that dedicated melee and dedicated ranged characters will be far more common than everyone doing a Darklands style opening volley. I'd prefer finer control of swapping my characters weapons. I'd prefer to be able to tab through selected characters and swap their weapons individually than the game swapping every selected character's weapon for me at the same time.

Chris is also the Creative Lead on a new unannounced project, see if you can get any info from him about that - genre, style of RPG, etc etc Could also ask a bit about their plans for PE's expansion

Pause actually makes it even less of an issue. Like I said, the number of times where you'd want to swap multiple unit's weapons over to their secondary slot at the same time will be very limited. End of story really.

Yep. What the **** is wrong with having to do repetitive actions? You have to do them in other games, particularly in FPS, RTS and MOBAs. I probably do somewhere around 100-160 APM in DotA 2 (which is average to slow apm), quickly spamming tab and W a few times is absolutely not out of place for me. For such a limited use case, it's not worth dedicating a UI button for. The UI's already been mostly finalized as well. There won't be a button for it, or a large demand.

There is only ONE instance where it would be useful, and that is at the start of an encounter IF a lot of your characters happen to be equipped with ranged weapons in one slot and melee in the other, and after firing a volley of ranged you swap them over to melee. This mentality also assumes that combat will not be differentiated enough (individual encounters with enemies that have different strengths/weaknesses/resistances and positioning AND encounters over the course of the game). Ranged weapons (other than implements) all do piercing damage. It's the melee weapons that have the damage type and propery variety, therefore it's going to be likely that the majority of weapon swapping that you do may be before an encounter due to in-game or meta-gamed prescience or during an encounter. It may even be detrimental to not have certain characters (such as Fighters and Barbarians) to not have their melee weapons equipped immediately upon engagement, because the time it takes for them to fire a ranged weapon then swap to melee and engage in melee could mean that they were not able to gain the positional advantage that they should have if they had been melee ready at the start of the encounter. Long story short: I expect combat to have way more varied circumstances than a rinse and repeat ranged volley followed by melee combat. Individual micro management of units is something that Josh Sawyer wants players to do more often in combat for Pillars of Eternity, where they may not have in some of the IE games (particularly BG1 and IWD1).

If they do early access it will be the early access price plus the cost of a beta key (likely $60).

Terrible idea. A tab-through key would be nice though. For instance if you marquee select a bunch of characters in an RTS or MOBA and press TAB it cycles through each of the selected units. Let's say the weapon swap key is W, you could just tab W, tab W, tab W, tab, W

Yeah I orginally posted $40-45 but after D:OS performance at $40, that's probably the number to go with.

I'm gonna guess forty dorra

Can you ask him about his exact involvement in the writing for PE. Most Narrative updates speak of Eric Fenstermaker and Carrie Patel but barely ever about Chris. We know he's writing two companions but it would be nice to know if he worked on any NPC / plot dialogues or item descriptions during the Vertical slice phase or for the full game.

It's possible that's what happens in PE.

Pointless Argument #4069 here we come. Your original statement was that the main reason for this simplified system is to not be confusing for people who don't read the rules. I disagree that it is the primary goal of the system, but I do not deny that it is a factor in the design. My apologies though, no dump stats is not _the_ main goal of the system, but it is one of them. The most important one I think is that every attribute is useful for every class. I created an Attribute theory thread summarizing Sawyer's goals for the system. Your statement about there not being a need to have a unified damage stat is fair, but so is the inverse, and you could say the same about many of the other systems where simplification/unification has occurred (the attack resolution system for instance). The PE attribute system falls in line with Josh Sawyer's design philosophy and the other systems of the game. On top of Josh's penchant for this particular type of streamlining, you also have the fact that he has multiple roles on the Project and many other systems and parts of the game to work on, which works into the statement I made in my above post where I said limiting the number of inputs into attributes makes it easier to balance (and thus requiring less design time). To top that off, when the very first details about the attribute system were announced (in the RPGCodex Interview in 2013) I was one of the first people to complain about the use of streamlined damage and accuracy (on here and on the Codex). Over time though, I've come to accept it. Actually I think it is. The attribute system is one system that feeds into the combat mechanics and it is definitely the one that differs the most (along with the inclusion of DT). But even still, there are six attributes and they're similarly named to the D&D attributes. The rest of the combat systems - Attack Resolution, Action speed & recovery time and whatnot are VERY IE-like. The attack resolution system now includes all spells like 4th edition and is more forgiving than all of them (with the inclusion of grazes) but it is IE-like. The action speed system is also pretty much exactly the same as the Infinity Engine system, it just uses different time divisons rather than x actions/6s. Yeah but caster classes probably have a lot more spells that take a longer amount of time to cast. There's three time divisions for abilities and spells - instant, short and long. I think the short one is somewhere around 2-3 seconds and the long one is more like 4-6. If one of those spells is interrupted you have to start it again, whereas it's probably not as big of a deal to frontline characters.