ogrezilla

is there a good solution to do that? You mentioned extra experience but that seems bad to me. The people who are avoiding reloading are likely doing so at least partly because they enjoy the challenge, so making us stronger for doing so is kind of against the point. I get what you're saying, I just don't know how to do it. Mmmh, you are right there... Maybe a lore book that only drop if you do it that way... so the game will need to know if you reloaded right before the fight or if you loaded in front of the cave? You can't just base it on number of reloads. Otherwise you're punishing players who aren't quite as good at combat just as much as people who "abuse" the save system. I mean, something like that is better than limited saves but I still just don't think its needed. The idea of a reward that doesn't change game balance makes sense in theory. It just seems hard to implement properly.

We just disagree then. I don't want most of my tactics to boil down to simply "where should I stand while I auto attack?" I want to actually be doing something.

Baldur's Gate I and II, Planescape: Torment. And even if you're considering that too combat oriented, there is still no way you can pinpoint the save system as the reason. What is an example of a rogue/thief done how you like? I'm actually curious. "At hte end of the day this amounts of "I think the game is better with X and without Y" and you saying "the game is better wihout X and with Y"." The problem with this isn't your opinion, its your analogy. You're saying "the game would be better without X and with Y." But I'm not saying "the game would simply be better with X and without Y." I'm saying "the game would be better with both X and Y." You still get your Y. I get my X. Sure, you have to live with a little temptation with my version. But at least you have the option to play how you want. In your version, I don't get that same option. We're not talking about some new age streamlining game mechanic here. This is something that was present in every game this is claiming to be inspired by. Like I said, this is a useless argument. The game will not limit saving beyond no saving in combat or in conversations. I am positive of that. So maybe I'm not "right" but I seem to agree with the designers of the game on this topic.

Have Gun Will Travel reads the card of a man. A knight without armor in a savage land. His fast gun for hire head's the calling wind. A soldier of fotune is the man called Paladin.

The save system in BL can actually be even more annoying in co-op, because the enemies become stronger/harder/more numerous and it can thus take you even longer to finish a questline/get through an area. Or like in Diablo2 where those WayPoints were few and far between. Games that have both single-player and multiplayer game modes would only have to put in a lot more "loading" points than they tend to, in order to alleviate the issue. If you're going to use that kind of system, give players more than one save/load spot per area/long quest. It's just silly, imo, when they don't. those games are designed a lot more around the action though, so in general repeating content is less of an issue. at least in my experience. I play Diablo or Borderlands to kill stuff. Everything else is tertiary. Killing stuff is something you do in a cRPG, but generally its not the sole purpose for playing the game. not saying you're wrong though. just why its not as big of a deal in those games. I agree it's not as much of an issue in those games....outside of the time issue. The time concept of having to replay areas if you can't finish a quest in the time you have available can be a big deal to some people, however. At least the first time through the game when you have no idea how long anything is going to take and can't reliably judge whether you have enough time to 'just do one quest' or not. ya I'd say they should design their "checkpoints" to be in 10 or 15 minute chunks.

is there a good solution to do that? You mentioned extra experience but that seems bad to me. The people who are avoiding reloading are likely doing so at least partly because they enjoy the challenge, so making us stronger for doing so is kind of against the point. I get what you're saying, I just don't know how to do it.

The save system in BL can actually be even more annoying in co-op, because the enemies become stronger/harder/more numerous and it can thus take you even longer to finish a questline/get through an area. Or like in Diablo2 where those WayPoints were few and far between. Games that have both single-player and multiplayer game modes would only have to put in a lot more "loading" points than they tend to, in order to alleviate the issue. If you're going to use that kind of system, give players more than one save/load spot per area/long quest. It's just silly, imo, when they don't. those games are designed a lot more around the action though, so in general repeating content is less of an issue. at least in my experience. I play Diablo or Borderlands to kill stuff. Everything else is tertiary. Killing stuff is something you do in a cRPG, but generally its not the sole purpose for playing the game. not saying you're wrong though. just why its not as big of a deal in those games.

I think borderlands was designed first and foremost to be played in online multiplayer mode. they didn't take the time to change the system for single player.

Huzzah!

2.8 Million: We will add X number of man hours of quality assurance to the testing phase.

As far as your first point goes, there are plenty of games with save points that allow you to "Save and Quit" regardless of where you are. I've seen the mechanic mostly in GBA and DS games. On the flip side, I've also seen plenty of games that allow you to "Save and Quit", yet when you reload the game, it places you back at the last/closest discovered save/check point, not where you actually were when you saved/quit. In those games, "save" just means saving your quest, inventory, and 'last checkpoint found' progress, not your actual location in the world. As long as Save/Exit = I'm back in exactly the same spot where I left the game, I'm fine with that. That's how it should be done when you exit a game anyway, imo. However, I still want multiple save slots because there are times when the power goes out or the game may crash or the savefile may otherwise get corrupted and I might lose all my progress. I don't need/want endless save slots, but at least 6-10. ya I don't think anyone has suggested ONLY save/exit. That would be on top of permanent saves at limited save points or times or whatever. Save/exit only is pretty much what Ironman mode is for right? I still don't like it though. I get the reasoning behind it. I just think it takes more away than it adds.

No, i am talking about someone who didn't plan ahead before arriving to the boss fight, and needing to reload just before the fight ten times until he dodge all the fireballs/save all the save-or-dies etc. And, again, it's not about 'caring what someone else does'. It's that i know myself, and i know that if i get to a boss fight not prepared enough, odds are i won't say "i'll come back later", i'll say "i'll try again and again until i do it". Which is destroying half the design of a non-linear game where one of the biggest thing is forcing the player to realize "welp, i can't do this right now, better come back later". I just don't see that as much of a problem. certainly not enough of a problem to force everyone who IS prepared for the fight to redo the content leading up to it if they get a few bad rolls or just screw something up and die through no fault of preparation. Again, you have the option of not taking advantage of the unlimited save function. That doesn't work the opposite direction with a limited save function.

it would be a problem if they designed the boss so you got perfect rolls more often since everyone can just reload until it happens. But they aren't going to do that. Just don't do it if you don't want to. Who cares what someone else does. I do think limited saving to outside of combat makes sense though. And that would avoid the problem you are describing. I think someone said the IE games did that. I honestly never tried so I don't know. I also get that you want to encourage intended behavior and not punish unintended behavior. That's definitely a better way of doing it. I just don't think its necessary.

Never my problem, but actually you usually can't. The games won't let you continue until you've spent it all. (alhtough you can splurge it all on charisma or something, but still) well that seems silly

That's for sure ... and should be taken into consideration. ya that was legitimate. I hadn't thought of that until right then.

oh I like the RTS influence question. I am really hoping for a warcraft 3 style minimap we can use for camera control and grouping hotkeys to select different combinations of the party.

You already know that what I say is true. It's just common sense. Game design don't exist in a vacuum = fact. If you want an example - Rogues. They are designed differently than what they are supposed to be, and if you think that complains from players who abused the system and thus found then "useless" didnt' factor into that, think again. And I will tell you one more thing. The existence of that feature may (or may not) bother me. Any objection you may have to that is irrelevant. IF it bothers me, then the game isn't to my liking and it automaticly lessns the game for me. Wether you think that it should or shouldn't bother me is irrelevant. At hte end of the day this amounts of "I think the game is better with X and without Y" and you saying "the game is better wihout X and with Y". ya, the rogue thing is a ridiculous leap in logic. there have been too many games where saving wasn't limited with rogues designed just fine for that argument to hold. Saving has no direct effect on the gameplay. Thus, it should have no direct effect on design. If it does, I would call it bad design and not a bad save system. I still haven't seen one legitimate way it effects the design of the game. The rogue thing is just plain wrong. What you want to say is rogues are designed differently than you want them to be and you need to find somewhere to place the blame. Blame people like me. I love rogues being more combat oriented. Yet, I have never seen a trend of them being more or less combat oriented based on the save system. Unless you are talking about the IE game thieves and rogues too. Maybe you think they are too combat oriented even dating back to BG. At that point, I think its pretty obviously a function of the games being more combat oriented than PnP RPGs. and you're wrong about the last part too. Because the system I like still allows you to play the way you like. But the system you like does not allow me to play the way I like. They are not just different; one of them is inherently more flexible than the other. And not to be a jerk about it, but I really don't think I have to worry about it. I am all but positive we will have free saving just like we did in the IE games.

When a cheatcode is part of the basic UI and showed as a normal feature of the game, yes, it influence all of the game, as well as ingluence the balance mechanics of the game, and possibly even the contents of the quests. that's bad game design then. design the game to be played normally without the cheatcode ui and nobody is bothered. both starcraft and warcraft series have included very easy to use cheat codes but neither is designed expecting you to cheat.

if you want terrible stats, can't you just not use all of the available stats? You don't need to roll for that

can you ask about potentially having access to active abilities at a fairly low level? Either spells or non-magic combat skills. Just something so early level fighting is more than you stand here and auto attack and you stand here and auto attack.

TrashMan you brought this up yesterday without an example and you just did again on the last page. Can you please give some examples of a game allowing us to save anywhere negatively influencing the design of other parts of the game that can't be ignored by people who want limited saving? Every single example I've seen of saving negatively influencing someone's experience has been completely avoidable by simply not using the save/load feature when you don't want to. Like I said, you mentioned yesterday that you can't just ignore it because it causes other design problems (game design isn't in a vacuum or some such) but you haven't given an example. Ideally examples from the games these developers have designed that almost all (maybe all) included a save and load anywhere function.

I'm sorry, but to people saying the update wasn't clear about expansion access I really don't know what you read. It was pretty clear that anyone pledging enough would get the expansion for free the same time it becomes available to everyone else to buy; which they are predicting will be about 6 months after the game is released. Nothing early. Nothing as day one DLC. Just an eventual expansion pack as a free gift. I suppose not everyone is a native english reader.

i hated those dogs

its all about the simple things in life

i've decided that i like you seriously though, i'll probably buy it. kinda feel like a jerk taking it for free without having backed it or backing this enough to get it. at least I say that now because nobody is actually offering me a free copy haha