Elerond

I made "beautiful" diagram to visualize how I see melee engagement system from this update, except that I added couple features (which you can find in with text circles) that in my opinion could be something to think to be added in system.

I like how melee characters take more important role in combat's tactical side. It looks that especially break through enemy lines will become more interesting than what it is in IE games. And engagement areas could give good way make spear, halberd or some other pole arm better choice than sword or hammer. And of course I hope that this means that I can make wizard like Gandalf who can say to demon that "You shall not pass" :D.

I have plan to support it, amount depend on what they will actually offer

Lan co-op could or could not work in game like PE, but I vote no as making working and playable multiplayer mode in the game is not so easy and small amount of work as some think and this game don't have publisher budget behind it, so in my opinion it is better that Obsidian focus only to do as good and as vast single player campaign as they could and do not waste part of their small budget to do inadequate multiplayer mode that they haven't even planed in first place doing. If they want to do multiplayer game or game with multiplayer mode they should start new project for that game, but it would be ill-advised to try add multiplayer mode in this game even so early in development as it would mean that they must calculate their whole budget and time frame again and hope that it is enough to implement everything what they have promised for the backers.

Keeping your game library in one place, play options, more established and collapse-proof business. Why would someone oppose having an option that takes no time to implement, that people would make use of, and actually saves dev time?I may be wrong... but... can't you add non-Steam installed games on your system to your Steam library at any time? You know, to simply keep them together and such? Sure, you don't get all the Steam features. But, still... *shrug* Yes you can and you even can instaall your games from GOG in your steam folder. And what comes toward steam services you don't get them to games that work with out steam anyway so there is little difference.

Gamersgate is excellent service but it is also western as it is Swedish and their downloaders have DRM in them, and therefore we can't replace GOG with it. So even gamersgate can't solve this problem to us.

If you take your digital copy in steam you will have DRM in your license as you can't install at first place your game without log-in steam and you can't move it to another computer without steam. So you can't have steam version of game without DRM as running steam version of the game without steam client running don't make game DRM free, it only means that game don't use any of steam's services.

So, is it possible or not? Is the "requires the Steam client running to launch" code an inseparable part of the pack of the Steamworks features, or can it come separately? Steamworks needs steam client running to work, as it is part of it. Game developer can make it's game work so that in offline mode it puts achievements and cloud saves in queue list which works so that next time you launch your game from that computer with steam client on, it tries to update all information to your steam account, but this don't always work, which causes you miss achievements and cloud server to missing some of your saves (if not all) . Auto-updates via steamworks will always need steam client to run in online mode. Of course game developer can make it's own auto-updater, but that will need additional development time from developer and their own patch servers.

Steam version of PE will need Steam at least for installation, where GOG version comes with service independent installer. So steam version will always have some sort digital rights management as you need confirm you rights to game before you can install it. And what comes to running Steam version of PE with out steam client running in background. That is possible if game don't need any services from the steam, but I am not sure if it's most brilliant idea not to use steams services like chat, achievements and mod loader (and steam's copy protection). But if game will not use any of this services, then it some what automatically comes such that it is possible to run it without steam client. Game's physical copies of course or at least probably will come with installer that is not locked in steam, even if they come with steam key.

From this video one can see most of the UI problems that Arcanum has, but when you get past them game gets more entertaining. In end of the video when Chris's characters gets a level, but he don't react in it anyway, it makes me want to yell hey you got a level .

I think that they have said that they probably will go with one size fit to all in armors, because problems that multiple different armor sizes causes in design.

I like these technical updates very much as they give me new perspective how I see things in video games. And is nice to hear that you try to things cost effectively, but still aiming to give quality product. Dwarf look like dwarf which is very good thing also. Race specific helmets (or no helmets at all for some races) sound nice addition. Orlans especially look like that they would need specially made helmets to get their ears to fit in.

I like idea that there is no straightforward alignments inside of the pantheon. Because it gives more room to make gods interesting and gives possibility where gods agenda from one perspective is good and from another perspective it's bad/evil. For example one god's agenda could be keeping rightful king in throne, as it's his divine right to rule, but this king is tyrant, which is why there is another god who wants him to be replaced by someone who s/he see fitting better on the throne, which is young girl who don't have any schooling what so ever as she was raised by family of farmers. Or some other not so clicheic scenario where there is no true answer to tell which of the options is good or bad/evil. I also like how orlan looks in the picture.

I don't see that single zombie is enemy which I would qualify a nasty enemy. But group of zombies could have several different kinds of weapons with them, so it would be wise to player to use several different armor types in his or her party. Or zombies could carry diseases, which would make normal armor useless against some of their special attacks, as those attacks goes against characters fortitude. If we take assumption that golem's creator has not equip them with slashing or piercing weapons, then we can make rock golems be nasty enemies making their armor such that all weapon types are bad against them or make them do so much damage that even characters in good armor type against it hits can't take many. And of course there could be enemies that deal only one damage type as they only wield one weapon, which would make them be in somewhat disadvantage against characters that wear armor which their weapon is bad against. And if remember correctly, inventory system which they have planned has very limited number places for items that you can uses outside of the safe zones, which could make it bad idea to keep there twelve change armors, for cases where you face opponents that deal only one type of damage. And eighteen good armors probably cost rather heavy price to one keep so many in his or her stack. If, if, if... It's not about ifs or about the zombie being a serial killer, it's about realistic situations and possibilities. It's about this system being super debilitating for the AI and a mere annoyance (at worst) for the player. Do you find a pack of wolves (alpha wolf included) attacking the player a realistic scenario? What will they do if their damage type (piercing) is completely useless against the party's armor? Will they pause the game, go to the dentist, have their teeth removed and replaced with blades or guns? All the player needs to do is find the nearest transition, change armor and come back. No, he doesn't even need to reload... And wolves and their teeth will be useless. That's if they happen to be spotted by the pack of wolves, if they're not.. the party doesn't even need to exit the area and can change armor on the spot, before engaging them. Wolves can't. You face a huge aumaua brute with a two-handed warmace.. And all of a sudden, 'coz he doesn't like your armor type, he unsheathes his lil' dagger and starts poking you with it... Or, a powerful assassin, and you've heard stories about him and his prowess with daggers, throws his daggers away at the beginning of the fight and starts hitting you with a flail? Really? What would this silliness look like? Is it worth it? And what about attacks of opportunity (against a headless AI chicken that chases your guy with light armor) that I mentioned earlier, how would you like to fix that? The -50% thing works in strategy games like Warcraft where units can't just switch their damage type. Deciding which units (and damage types) to produce is an important strategic element in such games. Here, they want it to be a tactical element, and it simply doesn't work for the AI. I don't see any problem if pack of wolves has problems against heavily armored party. And wolves do also slashing damage with their pawns. But over all in my mind planed system works with wolves somewhat as it should. So wolves fare better with light armored opponents. And for aumaua example. If for example two-handed war-mace does 10-20 damage against medium and heavy armor, but is bad against light armors and there fore does 5-10 and dagger does 1-4 damage against light and medium armors and 0-2 against heavy armors, then there is no reason to switch mace to dagger. And if assassin goes single combat with heavily armored enemy it would be somewhat stupid try win that fight with dagger. To think how make AI work I would need to know all variables, not only couple and trying guess all others, so I can't give any ideas toward imaginary headless chicken chase case. Making AI react intelligently to this system is not more complex than make AI uses their boost/defense/heal/ abilities or spell in intelligent manner.

Oh yes, this is indeed ingenious... having every enemy and their mother switch weapons (even if it's completely out of character) to overcome their "bad" damage type that they've been practicing with their entire lives. I'd expect a zombie to pull a hammer out of its ass if the axe doesn't do the job, correct? Rock golems should start hitting with karate chops to overcome their inherent proficiency for bludgeoning, no? I don't see that single zombie is enemy which I would qualify a nasty enemy. But group of zombies could have several different kinds of weapons with them, so it would be wise to player to use several different armor types in his or her party. Or zombies could carry diseases, which would make normal armor useless against some of their special attacks, as those attacks goes against characters fortitude. If we take assumption that golem's creator has not equip them with slashing or piercing weapons, then we can make rock golems be nasty enemies making their armor such that all weapon types are bad against them or make them do so much damage that even characters in good armor type against it hits can't take many. And of course there could be enemies that deal only one damage type as they only wield one weapon, which would make them be in somewhat disadvantage against characters that wear armor which their weapon is bad against. And if remember correctly, inventory system which they have planned has very limited number places for items that you can uses outside of the safe zones, which could make it bad idea to keep there twelve change armors, for cases where you face opponents that deal only one type of damage. And eighteen good armors probably cost rather heavy price to one keep so many in his or her stack.

When we come from system where party should wear as heavy armor as they can, which adds possibility that enemy can't hit you and, I would say that system where you need think which type armor you use against enemy and which weapon types you use against enemy is not degeneration, but step forward. And damage minus percentage and DT values will probably change when they start testing balancing the game. And if the create system where wrong weapon types give great disadvantage, you probably could expect that nasty enemies have multiple weapons or they have otherwise multiple means to hit you with different damage types. Which could mean that mixed armored parties would be best as you can change on fly whose on your party are taking hits.

.In ME2 Shepard dies at least once and there is possibility that he or she is dead in end of the story. But still there is ME3 with Shepard as main character . On serious tone game should come to game over when player character/s die if there is story, lore or game mechanical reason why game continues, for example PS where main character is nearly immortal or Fable 2 where game mechanics prevent PC to die or game world has resurrection in some form (like ME2 and Forgotten Realms games) Npcs are not player characters even if you hire them from adventurers hall. So their living or dying should have no bearing to if game ends or continues. At max they could resurrect player characters if there is such possibility in the game world. Changing non-player characters to player characters is not something that I myself don't see to fit very good in RPGs. As it make role playing very hard and it usually causes story to fall apart.

I think that in case that one class or race is superior to others, then that class or race will get nerf update.

I think that if all options are valid better it is for the game as it usually means more different play troughs. Of course some options could and should be better or worse for you chosen play style or goals that you want achieve in the game. So if there is no optimal character build or party composition, better player can usually play game so as s/he wants. Therefore Sawyer's opinions how game should be balanced sound very good for me.

Fair enough, and maybe seeing the approach in-game will convert me. I'm not sure if I understand the reputation approach though. It seems to me like a more convoluted application of The Witcher 2's dialogue abilities system *, and makes even less sense: why does a reputation as a diplomat help me solve situation diplomatically? If anything, I'd expect people to scrutinize me more. If you are known to be reasonable person who wants to find solutions that work for every one it often gives you some authority in negotions and people more easier start negotiations with you. Of course some people will see you as compromising person who will not drive their intrests or you are weak because of that or etc.. So as always certain reputation has it strong points and weaknesess. In my opinion it is more intriguing approach that you never can please every faction, but need too tradeoff depending on which type character you play, contrast to approach where you can win every one on your side by winning all conversation puzzles (via instant win options or other means).

lol, if there's little to gain, why have resting at all? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Are saying that game should not have any features that players can't abuse? In my opinion it's not any worse way to add feature game that gives player little benefit, but player is forced to use it sometimes than add feature that give so much benefits that players will abuse it, if it is not very restricted. In my opinion game should be balanced so that any of it's features don't take dominant role. As I see it, less player gains benefits from one feature more s/he tries other features to find "best way" to play game and so better features are balanced more players try different feature mixs to find that "best way" to play.

Which is good example how you can reduce of ammount of resting by modifying gameplay system so that benefits from resting are reduced. As you see they didn't go way of restricting resting there, but make it not so worthwhile thing to do. And it is the desgning philosophy that I would like their use in future too. I think you misunderstand. The point isn't to reduce the amount of resting. The point is to make the game flexible enough that you can restrict resting without making the game too punishing, because if you don't restrict it, people will abuse it no matter what. My point was that if you make gameplay such that there is little to gain from resting then there is no iniative to abuse it and therefore there is then no need to restrict it.

Which is good example how you can reduce of ammount of resting by modifying gameplay system so that benefits from resting are reduced. As you see they didn't go way of restricting resting there, but make it not so worthwhile thing to do. And it is the desgning philosophy that I would like their use in future too.

Im in favor of resting, just not having to hump back to some "safe spot" to rest. Thats unfun for the sake of replacing a mechanic that works fine. In prior IE games you could rest (almost) anywhere you wanted. I am fan of free resting also and I have impression that resting freedom in PE would be similar as in IE games and safe resting spots are only areas where there is no possibilty for random encounters. That would make no sense. Why make a convoluted dual health/stamina system if you can just rest anywhere? The game obviously won't let you rest anywhere. Why make game with rest restricted spells, if you can sleep anywhere? Location of resting should be resticted only if there is no other negative effects in resting, like possibility to launch a random encounter, time restricted quest etc.. Of course resting restriction don't mater if resting don't give major bonuses (like getting spells and abilities back to use, heal to full, etc.) So there is just one factor which we should watch to decide how resticted resting should be. At the end restrictions should be applied that game's balance gives fun but still challenching gameplay. Things like rest spamming, should be not removed via rest spamming, but removing mechanics or bonuses that encourage player to use such "cheats". In my opinion it don't make game better if mechanics and bonuses encourage to rest spam, but to rest player must make runs to rest places, this kind approach don't remove problem but causes players bore more.

Im in favor of resting, just not having to hump back to some "safe spot" to rest. Thats unfun for the sake of replacing a mechanic that works fine. In prior IE games you could rest (almost) anywhere you wanted. I am fan of free resting also and I have impression that resting freedom in PE would be similar as in IE games and safe resting spots are only areas where there is no possibilty for random encounters.