ddillon

Not true. For example, Ice Island (mod for Skyrim) is exclusive to Steam Workshop.

@Obsidian: Will backers get keys appropriate to their pledge tiers? The question was asked during the course of another thread, and Adam Brennecke said that he would ask about it, but it's been over a month since and there doesn't seem to have been an official answer. To be clear, matching the basic tier packages to the proper editions would be sufficient. It seems reasonable that addons would have to be downloaded from the Backer Portal given the myriad possible combinations a backer might have chosen. Really, at the very least, tiers $80 & up (if I read the reward summaries correctly) should get the Royal Edition so that you're not slighting your most enthusiastic supporters. Also, could we please get our keys early so that we can add the game to our GOG or Steam accounts and know that we have everything set and ready for release day? It's the end of February now, and I want March to be a month of building excitement that isn't darkened by these concerns every time that PoE comes to mind. If we can't get our keys before release, then please at least give us an official assurance that we will receive the proper edition on release day.

Thanks, I appreciate it. To be clear, matching the basic tier packages to the proper editions would be sufficient. It seems reasonable that addons would have to be downloaded from the Backer Portal given the myriad possible combinations a backer might have chosen. Really, at the very least, tiers $80 & up (if I read the reward summaries correctly) should get the Royal Edition so that you're not slighting your most enthusiastic supporters.

That might be the plan. I'm not sure yet - I'll ask Darren about it. Thanks, I'd appreciate that.

The issue is that I'd far prefer to have my digital content available from and backed up at from GOG rather than the Backer Portal. Why is it too much work to match up pledge tiers with available editions? I understand if some addons would have to be downloaded manually from the Backer Portal, but why can't the basic pledge packages be matched?

@Leferd & Silent Winter: Thanks for the info... So... We get stiffed with a non-upgradeable basic version because... they're too lazy to have the portal differentiate between pledge tiers? I hope there's been a miscommunication or misunderstanding about this...

Related: Has Obsidian said which pledge tiers will receive which GOG editions?

This has nothing to do with wanting to cheat. I'll try to explain this to you with an example. I'm currently playing Wasteland 2. I designed all four Rangers, balancing party needs and trying to give each a sense of character (plus a sort of team identity). I was already having fun before completing character creation. And you know what? When I was describing the game to a friend, I said (without thinking about it) "my Ranger team" with a bit of pride. I've accepted a NPC companion, Angela Deth, for the extra gun and the extra story bits, and it's only added to the experience: We could use the extra hand, and she's a capable fellow Ranger, but I still think of her as an 'outsider' for now. How's that for roleplaying goodness? What's more, I know that if I really enjoy the game, I'll be able to play again and again with new teams. Heck, I could make things really interesting by going with, say, an all-melee squad of ex-Raider junkies. Now maybe you utterly lack imagination. You'll play PoE as a generic fighter, using a walkthrough to determine the optimal build and quest resolutions, dutifully putting up with characters you don't like, and cursing every choice or option presented to you. Whatever, your loss. But how about not trying to keep other people from being able to enjoy PoE in a multitude of ways just because you personally lack the capability?

@Bryy: At this point, I could almost believe that...

@Valorian: Okay, that's more-or-less what I had assumed, tho I phrased it in the reverse: a 5% XP penalty per party member after the player character. So the balancing effect of split XP in the IE games could be emulated (somewhat at least) by simply increasing the percentage difference as you suggested, right? --- This issue vexes me. It should be simple: Backers want to be able to create custom parties as promised in the stretch goal. Shockingly, we don't want to be penalized for doing so. Who would have thought, right? PC: "I'm looking for an old friend." Innkeeper: "Tell me 'bout this friend of yours and I'll tell ya if they've been around..." Is that too much to ask? It's a simple variation of what's already present: PC: "I'd like to hire an adventurer." Innkeeper: "Got a few 'round here looking for work. Tell me what you're looking for and I'll hunt 'em down." Hells, have both and let the player decide whether to hire a mercenary or find an old friend. Dialogue isn't voiced, so why not? If party size really must be limited for part of the game (if the XP balancing mentioned above is insufficient), how about limiting per level or per inn or whatever? After reaching the limit for a particular level/inn/location/chapter/whatever, the innkeeper could say: "No, no one 'round here like that." until the next whatever is reached. Still not a perfect solution, but it'd be better than having to waste valuable in-game resources to be able to play with a custom party.

@Valorian: Is the XP split among party members, or does each party member get that amount? If it's split, then why is a penalty needed? Larger parties would level slower than smaller parties by default without the penalty.

@Silent Winter: Yeah, that's how I read it, and why I endorsed Valorian's suggestion of increasing the percentage difference. But we might have misunderstood what Sawyer meant.

I assumed he meant that every character in a party would receive the same amount of XP as a lone PC, but at the reduced rate. That might not be marginal, but it's still more XP per character than in the IE games iirc. It's been a while since I last played one, but I remember XP being very noticeably split between party members. This balanced different party sizes: Larger parties have the advantage of numbers but level up slowly, while smaller parties level up much faster. This is why I made the quip: "Like in the IE games, ya know?" It seems like they're trying to fix something that wasn't broken.

@Utukka: Thanks! I somehow didn't see that thread in the search results, or I used a phrase that didn't return it, or something. Appreciate the pointer. Flimsy excuse. See my reply to Sawyer in the thread Utukka linked.

That seems a flimsy excuse. The number of adventurers could be limited by level or by AH innkeepers spoken with if pacing is really a significant issue. Or you could widen this gap: to 15% or more as Valorian suggests in order to even things out. Like in the IE games, ya know? And? Why does it matter to anyone else if someone wants to play that way? Is stopping "cheaters" in a single-player game really worth preventing Utukka, IndiraLightfoot, Remmirath, myself, and others from playing in ways we enjoy?

Not playing the beta (I don't use Steam), but I watched: Is that still the case in the current beta? If so... It costs a minimum 5000cp to create a full party? Unless it rains coins in Dyrwood, that seems damn expensive. You could rest 25 times in the most expensive room in the inn for that amount. How about an option to say: "I'm looking for an old friend." to which the innkeeper could respond: "Tell me 'bout this friend of yours and I'll tell ya if they've been around..." Is that too much to ask? Pacing is not an excuse: The number of companions could be limited by level if pacing absolutely required some kind of limitation (which I doubt). Nor is ignorance of player desire to roleplay a group of adventurers rather than hire mercenaries an excuse: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61516-the-adventurers-hall-should-not-be-a-money-sink/ Nor is "realism" an excuse: Maybe a rogue wants to join me because I offer them a suit of Shiny Chainmail of Awesomeness. Or because I'm a famed adventurer. Or maybe I'm just charming as hell. Who knows? Why enforce some arbitrary fee? What good reason is there to screw players that want to build a custom party?

As others have mentioned, it's a toggle (on by default on the PC), but weapon-based AoE attacks don't produce FF regardless of the setting. Scattershot more-or-less breaks the mid to late game because of this... Agreed, that'd be interesting. But at the least, ranged weapon-based AoE attacks should produce FF. If archers/musketeers aren't strong enough to be viable, giving them FF-free AoE attacks is NOT the solution. Agreed.

My most anticipated games are probably: The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Dark Souls II Pillars of Eternity I'm also very interested in: Wasteland 2 Dying Light Thief Lesser (primarily because of art styles) but still interesting: Lords of the Fallen Divinity: Original Sin Carmageddon: Reincarnation There Came an Echo There are other games on my radar, too, but I kept the lists short. Many of the games in the Dorkly poll were unfamiliar to me. Bayonetta 2 might have made the second list for sheer awesome crazy factor if it wasn't going to be a Wii U exclusive. EA and Bioware can shove Dragon Age: Inquisition up their rear ends: I am not willing to forgive DA2. Nothing to be ashamed of!

Big cat familiar, fire AoE, buffs, decent melee but capable spellcasting... Druid is the impression that I get from your posts, so long as PE doesn't have idiotic D&D-style restrictions on bladed weapons.

No. Not me. He isn't as bad as Virgil in Arcanum tho. If a 'quirky' character like Minsc or Virgil is present, only comic content and a personal quest and companion interactions should be tied to accepting that character as a party member. I don't want to miss interesting game content because I prefer not to have a dolt in the party (as in Arcanum). Nor do I want to be forced to take a 'quirky' character because I desperately need a fighter or mage, but that shouldn't be an issue if we can create our own companions as promised. A flavor of quirky more akin to Dandelion from TW2 or HK-47 from KotOR or Morte from P:T might be acceptable (quirky but not idiotic is what I'm thinking), or perhaps characters like Mission Vao from KotOR or Alistair from DA:O that have a strong sense of humor but aren't walking jokes, but I'm wary of 'comic relief' characters in general.

I've only skimmed the walls of text above, but: Your idea of avatars based on method of purchase would require DRM to determine if a copy is legit and unlock the appropriate avatar. Are you suggesting that the game be DRM-free except for avatar selection, which you perceive to be a cosmetic and trivial feature present only on menu screens and thus not a part of the game? Or have I misunderstood? You keep mentioning keys, which leads me to question if you are familiar with the basic concepts and services involved. GOG games do not typically require keys; those that do usually require a unique key only for access to multiplayer. GOG games do not require a client to play. How do you propose your avatar selection DRM interact with a GOG copy? Do you suggest that a key for your avatar selection DRM be included with each purchase? Point blank, I want my copy of this single-player RPG to be *completely* DRM-free as promised. The above aside, your idea seems to be to give pirates an easy means of purchasing the game if they really, really like it. Why would this be necessary given that THEY'LL ALREADY HAVE EASY MEANS OF BUYING THE GAME: Digital purchase from GOG, Obsidian, or Steam. At most you've eliminated a few clicks and a miniscule amount of typing. You also aim to provide some positive encouragement to buy the game, but do you really think that an avatar on the main menu and the good feelings from being able to select that avatar honestly will motivate pirates to purchase? If they want the avatar but don't care about supporting the devs, they'll simply crack the DRM protecting avatar selection. If they truly enjoy the game and want to support the devs, isn't *that* their motivation for making a legit purchase, no avatar hoopla needed?

But... that quote has nothing to do with threat mechanics? The quoted post is Sawyer's attempt to sidestep n0mDePlume's posts about how threat-based mechanics accomplish the same aim in a fashion more appropriate to the genre. Unless I misread that string of posts. --- @everyone: Have you played an IE or Aurora game lately?! How exactly is the combat any more 'tactical' than DA:O? Do you remember just how stupid the enemies are in those games? How boring combat is in general? DA:O *requires* tactical play and player involvement to win, and while perhaps not 100% 'realistic', enemies determine targets in a fashion much more believable than "saw u first", "last attacked by", "get the mage", etc (basic IE scripting, in other words). (Yes, we all know that Forcefield is broken... I know someone wants to bring it up, but it isn't relevant to the mechanics in general). Do you think Bioware looked to threat-based mechanics and cooldowns because MMOs are popular? Don't be foolish. Theat-based mechanics and cooldowns and mana address the same issues as engagement and grimoires. The very thing Sawyer is crying about in the video doesn't happen nearly as often in DA:O because (as I mentioned before) threat already solves this problem. --- @IndiraLightfoot: Did you dislike threat-based mechanics and cooldowns, or was your real issue having so many activated abilities and being forced to take a much more active role in directing combat (in other words, pausing & clicking a lot, the 'clickfest' that you mentioned)? Nothing wrong with that if so, not everyone enjoys combat, etc, but recognize which mechanics are actually vexing you. --- I'm done beating a dead horse for now. And I'm okay with PE not having threat, cooldown, etc. I've accepted that PE will likely be a step backwards mechanically; I'm in it for the world and story at this point. Anyway, be back Thurs or Fri. Looking forward to the next update.

Somehow I missed this before: Mind-boggling post... Haven't played Dragon Age: Origins? Not even aware of it? Go play DA:O now. If it's not your cup of tea, fine, but playing on dislike of MMOs does *not* work as a dismissal of threat-based mechanics for a party-based game.

^ Obviously I was making a comment on fighters in general in the IE and Aurora games... you know, the inspiration for PE? And of course in the video Sawyer is talking about fighters in the IE and expanding and 'fixing' those mechanics... So, yeah... You a bit slow? Edit: On a diplomatic note, I don't know you, so perhaps you meant that as good-natured humor to make the point (that this is a different game, that fighters might not insta-kill most other classes in PE, etc)... If so, take no offense from my return jab. Internet communication and all that.

Let's not forget the ending of Fallout 3 (spoilers ahead obviously): Got Rad-X, RadAway, & Advanced Radiation Suit? Too bad: Sacrifice yourself or send Sarah Lyons to die in the irradiated control room instead. Got a mutant or robot companion who is immune to radiation? Too bad: Sacrifice yourself or send Sarah Lyons to die in the irradiated control room instead. Want to say 'f*** it' and run for your lives? Too bad: Sacrifice yourself or send Sarah Lyons to die in the irradiated control room instead. What's worse is that the designers considered at least two of those options: Fawkes refuses to help, claiming that he doesn't want to steal your destiny (wth?!), and the doors to the area are locked by script, barring the player from escape. At the least, if they wanted to force the situation, Fawkes and RL-3 could have been killed by Colonel Autumn if present, and the impending explosion could have been described as nuclear with no chance of escape, perhaps having Sarah Lyons scripted to explain it again if you attempt to open the doors. Or they could have given the player options instead of forcing you to play out a contrived ripoff of Wrath of Khan. (For whatever it's worth, the Broken Steel add-on/DLC patches the scenario to allow some additional options... too little, too late).