Elerond

Or unless you're an actual nerd and therefore know about cloudflare. Sorry to disappoint, but your friend isn't a techie, he's just some guy who thinks he knows stuff just because he can reinstall windows by pressing "next" all the time. I have to defend my mate. He certainly is a techie. I care not for your cloudflare. I've seen him trying to do washing. I would say that web server techies should know Cloudflare is far from best of cloud based DDoS protection services and company would do much better to choose for example Incapsula that fares much better on reviews especially when you include WAF (web application firewall). When you also regard fact that Incapsula is cheaper than Cloudflare thus I would say that it is quite easy choice which service to recommend. And it should be remembered that even these could based DDoS protections have their limit and they can't in most cases protect web page against massive DDoS attack and even leave your service unprotected if such attack occurs to ensure that their other customers aren't effected. http://ddos-protection-services-review.toptenreviews.com/incapsula-enterprise-review.html http://zeroscience.mk/files/wafreport2013.pdf http://phoboslab.org/log/2013/02/how-much-traffic-is-too-much-traffic-for-cloudflare

Bioware EA claims that DA:O is spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, which is quite generally accepted to be true claim. As everything that I know about PoE points that game will be much closer to Baldur's Gate (and other IE games) mechanically, thematically, atmospherically and aesthetically than what DA:O is, so in my opinion claims that PoE isn't spiritual successor for IE games are bit extravagant, as they are mostly aimed towards some game mechanic changes that people feel to be inferior to mechanics in IE games, even though impact what these changes have towards gameplay is quite minor as they focus mainly to balancing different roleplay choices and trying to removing some loop holes that IE games have in their mechanics. IMO.

XB1 and PS4 don't use PC architecture only but customized components that are use same binary code than PC. There is lots of ways how you can design engine code to be easily portable, but even best multiplatform engines can't offer straight forward porting between platforms and if you need to port engine itself amount of work needed multiples. For example porting games from Windows to Linux and Mac OS is not straightforward process even though they actually have same hardware as Windows machine. And this is result of different API in every platform, which usually cause performance problems, rendering problems, crashing, memory allocation problems etc.. But that said, porting games to new consoles is not any ultimate task that companies can't do, but it still big enough that it can be financial risk, which may cause publishers not to port games to new consoles that have been developed only older generation in mind.

I think that boreal dwarfs got their name from boreal climate which is other name for subarctic climate which in here Earth can only be found from northern hemisphere, as in southern hemisphere ocean and ocean currents change climate in those latitudes that there is no southern hemisphere areas with such climate, which is also probably reason why there is no southern version for boreal climate. And as name for boreal dwarfs is to give players picture what kind of climate they are from, it could be counter productive to use conlang word in English version of their race's name (If I remember correctly there is conlang words [in some case several] for every species that occur in PoE). IMO.

PS4 uses different application programming interfaces than PC, and it's memory architecture, call hierarchy, etc. are different. Which means that you can't do straightforward ports from PC to PS4. Xbox One's API's are more similar with PC, but even for it you can't actually do straightforward ports. And you need always optimize your ports and adapt your user interface to work with systems input methods. But porting games from PC to current console generation is in most cases easier than what porting PC games for previous generation was, thanks for more mature SDKs than what XO and PS3 had in their launch and main computing power is moved from CPU to GPU, like in gaming PCs. But porting always need work, especially when you need to port your engine to new system(s).

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/38375-dark-side-exile-with-mira/

That morning star spike is called holy water sprinklers or sprinckyls, it was used by English army in 16th century, made by specialist smiths. Wikipedia says that it name comes from its resemblance to the aspergillum used in the Catholic Mass. Quote from wikipedia

But, why would you restrict that spell to just the villain? Players can cast Finger of Death, so why can't they cast "Destroy Universe"? Or, to make it more applicable (since the goal of combat isn't really to eliminate all matter in the universe), let's go with "kill all (insert creature type here)" as a spell. Would that be okay, as long as there was a possible way to affect its chances of succeeding, and why would it be restricted, if it were restricted (to "just the villain," for example)? Also, that's not a counter, because the spell isn't targeting any other universe. That's like saying D&D has a passive counter to your whole party dying: rolling new characters! 8D! One of funniest spells in ADOM was magic scroll that you can use to kill one species in the world when it was combined with modded scroll that can turn all species to one species

$60 ~ 44€ (0.7399 euros per dollar), so game is bit cheaper in Euro area, although usually prices in steam uses 1:1 conversation rate between dollar and euro, which is usually explained by higher VAT in Euro countries [although highest VAT in Euro area is 25%, and average is 20% and there is also VAT free zones, and euro is usually nearer to 0.7€ per $1 than 0.75€ per $1]. Although it seems that in NA console and PC versions have same price where in Euro area PC version is 20€ cheaper than console versions, so it seems that Ubisoft has for some reason raised price for PC version in NA, which seem somewhat odd move.

In my opinion ME3 was weaker in its RPG parts than ME1 (ME2 was trilogy's weakest one in this sector), which was not great. That said, I think also that all three games where terrific as games, but their RPG mechanics were more a flavor than anything else.

Alphas and Betas are for testing tech, game mechanics, game balance, etc. and even more so in kickstarter projects than typical publishing models. So they aren't actually meant to impress people and therefore they lack lot of polish that will be done after everything else is working satisfactorily. Which is reason why in typical publishing models most games don't do alpha and beta releases for public and when they do they are usually in last states of beta testing when they are testing server capacity requirements, looking final game balance issues and maybe getting some publicity for the game. Star Citizen looks to me particularly difficult project as they have gotten so much money that in all probably many people except that even their tech tests are made with quality that people except from finished games, which I think is reason why they pushed their release date back, so that they can polish their art work and put features in that such tech test wouldn't normally have.

You could also look production of Broken Age from another perspective Like for example going over kickstarter budget: One could argue that it was not failure but deliberate choice. Usually in software development there is lot of features that need to be cut out from final product because there aren't enough resources to do, test and polish them. So there probably was time when Tim and co gathered together to look what designed features they would need to cut out so that their resources would suffice and in that meeting/s they decided to add resources in the project instead of cutting features, which is not necessary failure in any sense when you have those extra resources to put in the project. Although putting more resources in project always rise risks if project actually fails (meaning that it don't produce enough money to replace resources put in it) . So going over project's original budget, if you can afford it, should not be looked as failure until you see returns that project produces, as then you see if extra risk was worth of it or not. I don't see that splicing game in two parts is not failure to finish the game, but instead way to serve backers product, at least part of product, bit faster than what they could do if they finish product wholly before delivering it for the backers. And splicing the game can also helps them lower risk at least somewhat from where higher budget raised it. And first half of the game also work as advertisement for the product until it is finalized.

Hi Josh / Brandon, I take it the accuracy bonus with the Finishing blow attack is inline with your main stats as per below? I'm guessing DEX is going to be a stat we want to pump up to take advantage of the accuracy bonus with this attack. Also, Reckless Assault seems to take it's benefit from DEX and MIG with it's bonus to Accuracy and damage? What do the other stats below do? Like INT, PER and RES? INT adds duration of status effects that rogue inflicts like hobbled from crippling strike, which are needed for sneak attack to work. PER makes rogue's attack penetrate armors better and stop enemies to uses their abilities. RES will prevent enemies from interrupting rogues using their abilities, like escape and coordinated positioning. Finishing blow and reckless assault both seems to me be abilities that gives rogue ability boost other attributes than DEX and MIG as they both give benefits on accuracy and damage, which means that rogue is less depended on having high DEX and MIG than classes without such bonuses.

Animal companion gives ranger ability to do both ranged and melee harassing at same time, which makes ranger quite unique class. I'm not suggesting the animal companion makes the ranger bland and generic, just that the role of the animal itself should be played by a party member (such as a fighter or rogue) in a party based game. Why not apply most of those bonuses the ranger and animal get from each other to the whole party instead? Are you guys seeing my kickstarter badge? My profile shows it, but I'm not seeing it when I post. That in my opinion would make ranger more supporting character than damage dealer, as s/he would buff other characters attacks instead of his/her own. And in party based game I see additional party member to be more of an advantage than hindrance, as it gives you more flexibility on how you position your characters and what enemies you engage first.

Animal companion gives ranger ability to do both ranged and melee harassing at same time, which makes ranger quite unique class.

Excellent update. The Leaders of the Band next, because I am curios to see how chanters will work.

That is almost as useful as Christmas tree made from detonation cord http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8CBXHzLssc

Oh I mean what I said, but it is wholly about my personal philosophical views and it has points that I wrote only using "methinks" fact checking, which is reason why I put that note in the end so people know that it isn't meant to be a trolling post, but my personal philosophical pondering. And as I don't see myself as superior philosopher, I used word idiotic to describe it, so that it wouldn't sound as pompous as it did without said word

Ideal male and female forms depends on culture where question is asked. Often most important factors that impose those ideals are roles that said culture sees to be most ideal roles for males and females. And as idealistic roles in our culture changes and fragments it also make people criticize mediums that are monotonic with their idealization and even more so when medium uses idealization that make other gender look like passive objects, when cultures (at least Western cultures) have started to more and more despise people that don't take care of themselves, which causes more and more people despise passive characters that can't do anything else than look pretty in some standards. There is whole industry that specializes on marketing who constantly research different groups of people idealize and how they react when they saw those ideals realized. And how make products look like they are part of peoples ideals. But as ideals change from group to group, marketing works usually best when it is targeted only one specific group especially when we speak small segment products like what video games were in 90s. And when product type's imago is created around to idea that it is only one group of people, that idea can become as self feeding monster, as culture around said product type and therefore marketing for said product type focus only that one group of people, even after the fact that products from said type of products are used at least in some extend by people from all the groups. And when culture sees product type so that it is only for one specific group of people, then product makers that do produce said products in said product type often also make their products work for that one group of people, even though they don't do market research to see who they should aim their product. Objectification always coincides with idealization, as most often your aim is to make people want things that you objectify and to do so you need to make your objects to be ideal objects that people want to own. But in games you most often also want idealized subjects that people want to be. And then there is that grey area where you subjects are also made objects of desire, which blurs roles of subjects and objects to one big mess, where people don't know do they want to be the subject or own the object or bit both. As all matters of cultural view there is no final arbiter, but only ever changing consensus of people that changes from group to group and place to place. Which means that everyone has their own idea what is ideal and how it should be accomplished. And like every social issue, people try change other people point of view using different tactics from friendly debate to scare tactics that make people with different view become silent and doing so excluding (or at least try to exclude) them from general consensus. One could always argue that if you exclude or try to exclude people you are doing something that is morally wrong, but one could also always argue that things that are good for you are morally right. And as there is no absolutes when it comes things like morally wrong or right, which means that one can always argue that things are morally right or morally wrong. Although general consensus about morality in society usually is the thing that people refer when they speak about morality of things, but as general consensus of people is always changing and evolving it also means that one never can say absolutes that are morally right or wrong. But at the end society decides if things that one does are morally right or morally wrong, but other (and future) societies can give different answer to subject. When people who aren't target of product like said product it is usually seen as positive thing by product maker, but it can also bring subcultures around product which product maker don't like and it can cause general consensus of people see product in different light than it is marketed and therefore can change future of product. NOTE: This is long idiotic philosophical pondering that should not be considered to be anyway serious and you should question its factuality. It was written only to entertain myself.

In objective based xp system level designers when they design levels they also design objectives that grant xp for that level. (At least this is usually case) So if level designer puts Ogre camp in level s/he also puts some objectives considering that ogre camp, which for example could be get rid of the ogre camp, kill or otherwise dispose ogre leader save or kill (and blame ogres) prisoners in ogre camp. Objectives aren't quest by themselves, but quest usually consist on or more objectives that player must complete before quest is completed, but objectives themselves don't need to be and often aren't part of quest. So objectives in levels don't need to be given player as quest so that player can complete them, but instead of that player can tumble on them as player would tumble on them in game which uses kill xp. Especially as encounters aren't generated by using procedural methods, but instead made by designer by hand. And probably not only player get xp from this encounters, but this encounters probably have also cause and effect reactivity with game world, which usually much simpler to implement when you already have system that keeps track on what player has done and what actions s/he has used, which game needs when it uses objective based xp. So one could say that quests are story lines in the game which have objectives in them that take said story line forward when player fulfill them, but objectives themselves don't need and often aren't part, at least directly, such story line, but are instead of things that reward player when s/he does something in the game which designer of the game has decided to be worth of a xp reward. An example scenario: Player explores world and tumbles on bridge, which is guarded by trolls who demand that player pays them before s/he can cross the bridge. Crossing said bridge is not part of any quest and it's absolute optional for finishing the game. So player can decide that s/he don't want to pay and go some where else, or s/he can kill the trolls, when s/he unconsciously fulfill an objective laid by level designer which give her/him specific amount of xp points, but if player decides to go explore level more s/he can find that there is dam in that river which previously mentioned bridge crosses and that s/he has option to destroy it, which also fulfill an objective laid by level designer and if player decided to broke the dam and then goes back to the bridge player finds out that bridge and troll guarding it are gone, but player can use ruins of said bridge to cross the river. Addition to immediate effects on level both killing trolls and destroying the dam have also long run effects, killing trolls will make player hero in human village down the river and villain in troll settlement cross the bridge, destroying the dam will also cause horrendous damage for human village down the river and cause it to demise at the end and furthermore troll settlement cross the bridge see player as villain. (of course there could be other options to fulfill the objective, which have their own long run effects, like, making a raft, persuading trolls, etc.). So at the end objective xp system don't prohibit exploration and random killings any more than what per kill based xp system do.

Like Angry Birds and Clash of Clans

At least BG1 has respawning enemies in several places. And in BG2 there was spawning enemies in several places when you rested.

Random encounters can be simple and rewarding: For example of rewarding random encounter: Your party comes across with merchant caravan which is under attack from bandits, monsters, enraged animals. In this encounter you have two major choices; First one is that you can sneak past the fight, which gives you encounter passing experience, which for example could be 600 xp points. But this also means that some nearby village is supply blocked and prices there rise for example 20% higher what they would normally be. Second one is that you can help merchant caravan vanquish their attackers, which will give you encounter passing experience (600 xp) and additionally you reputation will rise within that faction which caravan belongs and caravan will sell you supplies, for example, 20% cheaper than normally. So sneaking past the fight maybe easier and safer choice but helping caravan is at the end probably much more rewarding option to choose. And of course there could be option number three where you help attackers or kill caravan after you have dealt with the attackers, which will give you much better loot, but you will become as bandit/outlaw within that faction where caravan belongs. Second possibly rewarding encounter could be ambush, where your party is attacked from multiple fronts. In this encounter there is two obvious choices: First option of course is to fight until all the attackers are dead, which rewards you with encounter xp (for example 1000 xp points), loot from dead bodies (which worth for example is 200-500 coins) and you reputation in nearby city/town/village will rise as use removed some bandits/monsters that have plagued them. Second option is to flee, which will reward you encounter xp (1000 xp), but if attackers belong in some faction in game you will get reputation within that faction that you are coward, which will probably cause you problems in future when you deal with that faction again and possibly near by city/town/village will hear that you aren't very heroic band of adventures and will think less about you. Then there can of course be other options like that you can cause landfall (or broke a bridge or something like that) when you retreat, which will deal with attackers and you get encounter xp, but it will cause blockade on the road which will hinder nearby settlements and lower your reputation in them. Then there could be encounter where you will come cross with bandit toll on road, where you of course have options to pay (possible to persuade), fight, sneak past. Pay (persuade) option is probably easiest, but also gives you smallest reward and is probably bad for your reputation, sneak option is not necessary any easier than fight option, but it is safer and as it don't deal with bandit menace it also probably means hindrance for surrounding area. Where fight option deals with bandits and rises your reputation within law biding settlements and factions in the area and you of course get loot. And if you do some of these more and add some random factors in these encounters you can easily have rewarding random encounters in the game that aren't probably too taxing to make. IMO.

The fact is there is no xp for kills. We all know this and it can't be disputed. If we're taking the IE games as an example, and going by my view of Risk vs Reward for a random encounter, if the reward isn't worthwhile to engage in combat, then the best option is to not engage in combat at all. Because there is no xp reward for killing, you're going to waste valuable spells and health on a purely random encounter. Then overcoming the obstacle through other means (if possible) seems the best option. Also, we know there are limited rest spots in the game. So why waste spells and valuable health on killing for no xp for kills in a random encounter with so little reward in loot? If that means fleeing to the edge of the screen like in the IE games, then that would be one of the best options, especially if the rewards are some random loot that can be picked up anywhere in the game. If overcoming the encounter by other means instead of killing the enemy nets you xp, then a non combat method is preferable. Seriously, why waste valuable spells and health in a purely random encounter when a rest spot might be miles away? Unless there's some really cool loot, then it's not worth it. Again, Risk vs Reward. I don't see the risk in engaging in combat if I can run away in random encounters like you could do in the IE games. And if overcoming the random encounter nets you xp though non-violent means, then running away seems the best option. In my example I compared IE like XP gain mechanism to PoE's XP gain mechanism in imaginary random encounter scenario. You assume in your run away example that there is possibility to run away from random encounters, and why would you risk losing valuable health and spells for couple points of xp (as Baldur's gate 2 as example most of random encounter's gave you only marginal amount of XP and loot was most of the time only reason why one bothered with them). In my random encounter scenario, you can't avoid that counter as only way to get away from the counter is to pass the blockade in some means provided you and you get xp reward when you do so, even if you choose combat option .