SqueakyCat

It's a single player game. What possible difference should it make to anyone else how much or how little I choose to save my game?

Live long and prosper LadyCrimson.

Great interview. "Maybe I’d explore it after a “loving” relationship crashed and burned, and one or both was killed in the aftermath enough for them to see if it had really been worth it spending the last few years of their physical existence chained to each other in a dance of human misery and/or a plateau of soul-killing compromise." All I heard was the hollow echo of abandoned hope.

This is still under discussion. The following is a remark from Feargus on October 16th in the 'Comments' section of the Kickstarter page: "@Adric The XP for kills thing is still an ongoing discussion here. Our goal is to make this a game that is reminiscent of the IE games and in my mind that does mean XP for kills. We just need to balance with other systems." That wasn't from Feargus I don't think, it was from Darren. It was from Feargus. I checked before making the post. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/comments?page=148#comments This link won't be stable for long as more comments are added to the Kickstarter page, but it's good for the next few hours I would imagine. Feargus had inquired regarding the reason a pledger was unhappy and this was part of his response.

@nikolokolus This is still under discussion. The following is a remark from Feargus on October 16th in the 'Comments' section of the Kickstarter page: "@Adric The XP for kills thing is still an ongoing discussion here. Our goal is to make this a game that is reminiscent of the IE games and in my mind that does mean XP for kills. We just need to balance with other systems."

Hi SqueakyCat. Indeed, they did not disclose for how long the tiers will be up — they just said it would be a "very limited time". That's why I'm fretting about my ability to get the $140 tier, and I'm positively skeptic about my ability to later upgrade it to the $250 tier. Unfortunately, pledging $250 right away is something I just cannot afford; otherwise, I totally would. However, unless both Project: Eternity's website and its Kickstarter campaign webpage are mistaken (which they might, if the developers made an announcement that superseedes what I see written there), the $250 tier does include a collectors' boxed set signed by the devs. Yes, I imagined that (though thanks for confirming my suspicions; I still have a lot of catch-up reading to do about Project: Eternity). I figured it would have already been an add-on, if the devs had planned for it to be one. I guess that's one more reason for me to fret about getting the $250 tier. Sorry I wasn't clear. The Collector's Box is signed, but not the Collector's Book. My bad for not being clear. Hopefully, you'll be able to upgrade to the $250 tier before they shut it down.

@AndreaColombo They haven't said (that I know) how long Paypal will remain open - hopefully long enough for you to get the tier you'd like. Just so you know, the $250 tier does not include the signatures' of the developers. Sadly, that's the $500 tier. Also, Adam Brennecke confirmed (on October 14th) in the 'Comments' section of the Kickstarter page that the Collector's Book will not be available as an add-on.

Try a different browser maybe?

Ieo, I really liked your previous idea -- a compromise of sorts. That would be perfectly fine whilst also keeping the quest/goal experience -- best of both worlds. Too bad not everyone seemed to see it as the thread was moving so quickly.

Which is why I also hope they stick mostly to their own vision and not be too influenced by what goes on in the forums. Don't get me wrong, I can completely understand not being happy with something in a proposed game, but why not give them a chance instead of assuming the worst? I'm very used to the xp-per-kill type of system (or whatever) but I'm open to other options and directions. Sometimes things that initially sound unappealing to me because it's not what I'm used to ends up becoming my favorite new thing. eg, I love chocolate, but it doesn't mean I want to eat it all the time. Sorry for the delay - had errands. Thing is, I've played Bloodlines and other 'quest/goal' experience games and do not care for the system. They have said this is what they'd like to do (although a tiny opening was left). It's not that I'm not used to this type of system, I simply prefer the other. Personal preferences -- we all have them. I am, however, willing to see what they finally come up with as this isn't written in stone at this point.

This thread has 177 members currently viewing out of 64,623 pledging. Hardly an adequate sampling.

@Infinitron I find that fact you read so much into a civilized discussion disturbing. It's called a difference of opinion.

"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment." What they are proposing does not feel reminescent of the classics -- more of a modern iteration. To some that it what they are looking for -- for others (including myself) not so much.

Sorry, but you are missing the point, which Josh described a bit earlier (this thread is moving too fast). The point is to balance xp reward for players who don't necessarily want to slaughter everything in sight towards a quest goal in order to level. Traditionally, due to xp value per mobs, that also meant that those who did kill got significantly more xp than someone who used stealth or even dialogue options. Now, with the back-loaded xp upon quest completion, that means more options for completion (even more replayability, more RP possibility). The only outstanding issue is world exploration mobs, for which I suggested different tiered levels of xp per type as a compromise. "Epic" world monsters that one can kill for xp challenge, for example, would be quite rare compared to the others. To Josh, while I really like the back-loaded model for fairer xp spread based on questing, I do agree that there should be a compromise for some world non-quest monsters, assuming there are any. I didn't misunderstand, read every line in ths thread and the AMA. I simply disagree and would like to see a compromise, if possible.

Yes, what difference does it make? Why do you assume that's impossible? The objective system allows for more options than just killing to reach that goal. sigh... I'm not assuming anything. You are misinterpreting what I wrote. Yes, someone can kill anything that moves, but will never be overpowered with the quest-based experience. That's not my playstyle, but I know for others it is. My point is, how is that hurting anyone else's game in a single player experience?

I just don't get the point. It's a single player game. If someone wants to run around killing everything, become overpowered, and essentially ruin their game (from my perspective), what difference does it make? Who is it hurting if that's how they like to play? I prefer to explore everywhere and get experience as I make my way through the story and quests. To each his own. Why is this so terrible? Why do we need to be forced to only have one option? I dislike becoming overpowered too early on, but how is that hurting anyone else's gaming experience?

I can't help you to understand further. I would suggest reading the entire thread.

That understanding could only come from reading the entire thread and J. E. Sawyer's comments regarding how experience is accomulated -- quest/goal only. No experience for killing foes. Do you understand now?

Then don't give experience for a 'peasant's head'. For me, it takes the fun out of exploring and randomly encountering an interesting foe. I don't see why it can't be both - experience for objectives/goals and smaller experience for killing foes in the example I gave. Edit: I'm willing to compromise, but this doesn't seem like a compromise. This is completely eliminating XP for killing foes.

This was just said in the announcement thread by J. E. Sawyer: "Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal." Is that explicit enough for everyone? No XP for killing. I am very sad and need to re-evaluate.

Why would you spend time dealing with a non-threat while there are other targets still threatening you? Even in standard D&D with unconsciousness/dying rules, it's tactically a bad idea to spend time finishing off a target that's out of the fight instead of moving on to other enemies. Can you please comment regarding exactly how experience is accumulated? Is it only for quest/goal achievements? Will there be any XP for killing? Alot of people really want like an answer to this question.

This is the kind of assumption I don't get. They haven't said that there will be less sidequests, or that they don't like sidequests or exploration. They haven't said that they will not give you XP. The only information we do have is that the critical path will be slightly level-scaled, while sidequests will not be level-scaled, and that they are looking at XP given when you complete a quest or part of a quest. (Whether kill XP is given is not clarified.) In other words, everything points to a typical RPG world with plenty of sidequests with their own XP and gear rewards (e.g. the mega-dungeon). I think people quickly read through a small selection of sentences and then balloon it up into huge hopes or fears about the game, sometimes not in context of what the devs were talking about, or simply imagining a single sentence to imply an ocean when they mentioned a drop of water. Who was talking about the amount of sidequests? I was referring to what J.E. Sawyer said: "We plan to grant XP for exploration-based quests and objectives, so if there's something like the mega-dungeon that's focused on moving from level to level toward a goal, we will award portions of XP for achieving those goals. Most players will likely use combat to get to that point, but that doesn't need to be the only solution." My point was that I like to just wander about and hopefully encounter interesting foes not necessarily tied to a quest/objective. There seems little point to do that unless it is tied to a quest/objective. Since the question was directly asking about XP kills and that's the answer we got, I'm not 'reading' anything into what he said. If you interpret differently, fine. I'm sure you'll be happy with the game. For what it's worth, I did not 'quickly' read anything. I've been watching and reading these forums since the beginning and feel I'm fairly well informed.

This is less and less what I thought the game mechanics would entail. Quest/goal experience is a hugh let-down for me. No traditional healing -- I'm with Monte on this, so I guess I'm failing my intelligence check on that point. Completely takes the wind out of my sails. With less than 30 hours to go, I have a lot of re-evaluating to do with regard to enjoyment factor versus pledge level. I so much wanted this to be more in line with the older I.E. games.

It just doesn't feel like an I.E. game. There's little point, for me personally, to wander off the path and just explore unless it's tied to a quest or goal. I'd just be using up resources with no XP gain. While I'm thankful for the new information, it's looking less and less what I had imagined. I'm sure we all had imagined it in our own ways and, for some, these design choices are what they are looking for in the game. For me, not so much, and with less than 30 hours, I have to do some serious thinking about how much entertainment I believe I would get from the game versus the money pledged.

What the you talking about. How are you reading out of that, that xp-gaining options are limited? He says that NOWHERE. There's no definite anywhere in that sentence. Because the poster was explicitly asking about experience for kills and how it would feel 'pointless'. The answer is quite clear to me. If you read it differently, then that's your interpretation and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. You could ease off the caps -- it doesn't add anything to your message.