Elerond

Facebook likes are for to make Project Eternity wider know and so get more people to become interested about it and so get more money to make game better to all of us. Better rewards on higher tiers is also method to get more money for the project. And on higher tiers cost of rewards to Obsidian is relatively much lower, which is reason why they want people to go pledge on higher tiers. And when people pledge on higher tier it mean more money to make game better to us all. And planing to start making expansion pack for the game immediately after the game is realeased is common bussiness practice as company don't usually give time for its employees to roll their thumbs. And usually companies plan to make this expansion pack from that money what they get from the game. And this is also what obsidian mean to do. And putting expansion pack as extra to higher tiers only reflect that they want make best possible game and cutting from their future income to do so. So I would say that obsidian hasn't gone too far in their updates.

Most combat oriented roques you can find from mmos, where player don't have any kind of save option. So plainly adding unlimited saving/loading to game will give us most non-combat roques. That argument... kinda doesn't work. Yes I know. But also argument that roques are combat oriented class because save scumming doesn't work, which was point what I tried to bring up in my post.

Most combat oriented roques you can find from mmos, where player don't have any kind of save option. So plainly adding unlimited saving/loading to game will give us most non-combat roques.

I would probably put my real name, but I don't see anything wrong if one uses his or her nickname.

If one fights agaisnt armored opponet without any weapons, one should of course not hit opponents most armored places, as they are made to endure hits from weapons, but aim those places which aren't so armored. And triping armoured opponet is always good tactic as what heavier opponents armour more s/he is hindered by it when trying to stand up. And for example chain mail is good agaisnt penetraiting or slashing weapons, but it's protective capacity is not so great against blunt weapons, where you could easily count hits from iron fist. And what comes for the weapons, of course monk should be able to use them (as one could in BG2 and D&D), but maybe monks weapon skills should not be so much weaker than his unarmed combat skills. Vargr is right one his/her point that unarmed fighter is heavily disadvantaged against multiple armed opponets, although so is single armed fighter.

If I undestand correctly in classic seven continents division Israel is in Asia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Continents_vide_couleurs.png But in plate tectonics division Israel is mostly on African plate http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Plates_tect2_en.svg

The game is still being fleshed out, if we voice our discontent loudly enough the monk class just might not be made at all. They already announced monk class in their update, so it is very unlikely that they don't bring one in final product.

I there is save point, then I want play game with my Xbox. My opinion is that in normal mode game should not have any limitations for saiving and loading. Ironman and hardcore modes are different thing all together, because in those player gives for him/herself knowingly limitations to challenge him/herself. And in PE you can toggle such modes on so that you can't toggle them off without starting new game, so I don't really see any point why there should be such limitations in normal mode also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzpZmWf7LHI I don't know about bending iron bars, but breaking them is possible. I don''t know was that bar in video hardened, which could explain why it breaks down.

My opinion is that rest spamming itself is not the real problem, but the thing that drives people to rest spam.

How about a metal coin as a backer reward for $140 or $250 and upper tiers And for example a coin which came in TES IV: Oblivion 's collector edition box.

In D&D resurrection causes also permanent level drop or - 2 to CON, if charcters is on level 1. And of course it uses diamonds worth a total of at least 10,000 gp as material component. These features are usually left out from computer games where player can freely use save and load functions, because players usually load instead accepting such punishment.

My guess is that we will go over 400 members.

Firkaag can be tricky if you give him even changes, but because BG2's bad AI design you can kill him very easily if you want and with right build you don't even need to cheat

Yes I have. But for me there was not even one fight that needed more than 5 reloads. So in my books it is ok in this segment.

Kicktraq projection give somewhat good picture where PE will end. With flat, near median, daily pledges it will go over 2.6 million and with usual end surge it can go over 3 million.

I don't have definite answer for that. But if you need reload 25 times to get past an encounter then there is in my opinion a design flaw, because I don't think that most of the gameplay time should consist same fight over and over again, especially in rpgs where combat should not be the main point of the game. But of course there should be risk of dying to force player to plan his or her actions in combat and even considere non-combat options. I think that balance is the key, but I don't have enough game design skill to say how to achieve that balance.

Magic system in Baldur's Gates had other flaws than rest spamming (which really was more a symptom, than cause). Low level wizards often could not perform their planned role and were often pushed as background ournament slinger. And on medium levels they usually could take care of the encounters by themselves but usually they had enough spells for one to three encounters, where big part of players used rest spamming as answer. And in some encounters wrong spell selection forced player to load and change his or her spell and try again (and this is not strategic or tactical thing as most cases player didn't have any advance warning of what they spells they will need in upcoming encounter). And there is also other flaws in that system, so I am all for to try fix these flaws but still have best parts of that system. If cooldowns is one of the mechanics which they think gives them ability to do so, then I am okey to see what they can come up to and not shoot them down, because one of the many mechanics what they have plan to use is cooldowns. When they have more than only faded outline about their system, I can give my judgement that will it or will it not work better than D&D's system in IE games. Now I can only say that they right with their statement that magic (and combat system overall in IE games was flawed) and they should be careful to not transfer those flaws on their new system. And their design goals, keep good things from IE games, fix flaws and bring something new on the table, strike for me to be just right kind of attitude, but maybe that is just me not understanding perfectness of the old system.

In my opinion it's bad design if difficulty level is measured by how many times player need to reload. Old games did often go with that design as it was easiest way for the designers as you only needed to plan one way to win encounter. Of course in some games this design works, like in King Quest which made try and die an art form. But in my opinion in roleplaying games one should balance game so that it can be played in with ironman -like option without absolute perfect knowledge about the game.

You should remember that their systems changes or maybe better term would be become more precise every day as they are still in planning place where they try to find right mechanics that allow such magic system which fulfil their overall goal to make combat system which need as much strategic planning for resources and tactical usage of those resources as sytem in IE games, but don't have same flaws. And Josh has stated that he don't believe that their sytem will be fully composed even in end of the kickstarter campaing. So you can expect sytem become more precise in following week and mechanics to change. And of course one should also remember that magic system is only one part of the combat system and therefore as other classes also change from that how they worked in D&D, they must also keep them in mind when they balance their magic system.

That is like suggesting to a politician that he should only suggest things that has no cons. But we don't live in a perfect world. People who can't see, or admit to, both sides of an idea literally scares me. Your example is somewhat misleading. Because my point was that in game design you know what is the goal which you want to achive with your sytem. This gives you to opportunity try design your sytem to use such mechanics that allow it to achive that goal without cons considering your goal, but in case where that is not possible you should accept this compromise only in end of the designing phase and choose those mechanics which offers need for least compromise. But if you start your designing with attidude that it's ok to have a flawed system because world is not perfect, then you will most likely create a flawed system.

I think you missunderstood. That's what they will try to avoid. I want them to be more forthcoming in this matter i.e. "ok we're going to use this despite this and that con because we still think it's better than this and that alternative". Some self-criticism with the proposed system is what I'm looking for instead of just criticizing other systems. Turning a blind eye to that is not really helping the discussion imo. It's like they've already made up their minds. I don't see any point in that. If you know that there is con in your system you should look ways to get rid of that con instead to admit defeat and leave it to be, especially so early in development. In my opinion they should do just what they are doing, so to look what didn't work so well in past, look ways to fix that, look problems what fix can bring with it and ways to avoid those problems.

If they'll use cooldowns in ANY form they are certain to bring some cons with them. I don't think they have acknowledged any of those cons with the system they are aiming for. Or have they? Yes they have. For example Josh stated that he don't want rest spamming change to waiting around for cooldowns counters to go zero.

unless the battles are designed so that you need different tactics for different encounters. The keys then are to design spells so there aren't "best" spells and to design encounters so they aren't all the same. I'm not saying I want that design, but it can theoretically be done without removing tactics or challenge. Even with explicitly designed encounters, to cover up such a horrible bland system, it would be boring. Period. Seriously think about it. Imagine in BG you have access to EVERY SPELL (appropriate to your level) at EVERY encounter. There is no meaningful tactics. There is no Challenge. Is boring. And there is NO sense of tension. It's just YAWN, next battle. Have you played game with sorcerer, because that class fullifies your description quite well, but with that exception that it's not boring or unchallengin and it don't kill tension from the game.

Yes fixing rest spamming problem would be great but not at the cost of introducing COOLDOWNS! IMO they seem to have been pretty locked on using cooldowns from the beginning. I have yet to hear them say ANYTHING bad about them. Most mechanics have cons but if you're partial you won't mention them. Mechanics have their cons. Josh has stated some of cons what cooldown mechanic can have and said that he want to avoid them. But in their updates they have focused on to explain how and why they want to change old system. Maybe they should have added to their explanation how they avoid or try avoid known issues with their mechanics, so that people wouldn't dispute their ideas so much, but then they also could loose some of the input what they want to get with their updates.