ddillon

@Monte Carlo: Cool, added option.

Loaded? I expected those three options to more-or-less cover all camps that have an opinion. Would you like a "don't care/not bothered" option?

@Cant: No offense or animosity intended towards you at all. I don't favor moderation in general and prefer action only for extreme cases, but I can see your point.

@Cantousent: You're overreacting imo. Piracy isn't the only way to try a game (come over to my place and I'll let you play any of my games, etc), and even if piracy was implied the purpose would be akin to that of a demo with the intention to buy. I know that some take issue with piracy-as-a-demo and don't want to argue about that topic, but still: I am also helping to fund the game and don't feel this worth moderation.

I noticed some back-and-forth about in-game exclusive content in the thread for Update 16 (exclusive in-game pet, etc). I'm not in the mood to argue about it, but I am curious what people here think about it, so here's a poll (and of course you can use the the thread to argue/debate/discuss/rage about it if desired). I don't like it but accept it more-or-less without complaint if it's temporarily exclusive and later available to everyone. Edited poll: Added "Don't care/not bothered" (requested by Monte Carlo).

That's one among many reasons that a memorization system sucks: Enemies must be nerfed because otherwise they have access to their entire memorized spell list for that one battle while the player party will have often used a portion of its memorized spells before that battle. Now you might call that a tactical choice, to conserve your spells in case you stumble upon a powerful enemy, but that means you'll be using your spells far less often and more than likely having far less fun using a sling to hurl pebbles at your enemies most of the time. So... yeah. That's my initial take on it, anyways, the first thoughts popping into my mind after reading your post.

I like JediMB's suggestion of a smaller cardboard box rather than a big box. How about a small, thick box similar to the Vivendi releases "Icewind Dale: The Ultimate Edition" and "Baldur's Gate II: The Collection"? Just tall enough to hold a standard DVD case housing the game disc, thick enough to accommodate the physical goodies, maybe have a flip cover. Total package would fit nicely onto a DVD shelf.

I would like an answer to the question posed by the original poster, too. The boxed version is near worthless to me if it requires Steam (at best, it'd be a display piece later sold as a collector's item). That really would be the dumbest thing they could do. There really is no reason to make the disc necessary, so I see no reason why they would. Needing a disc to play is a lot more annoying than needing Steam. And I like physical copies. Steam is *much* more annoying than a simple disk check. It's intrusive, and it deprives you of your rights under first sale doctrine, your right to resell the game if you don't like it enough to want to keep it. I am willing to accept basic copy protections such as simple disk checks* and offline CD/DVD-keys for physical installation media. (These are minor inconveniences, and Game Jackal is an excellent solution if you prefer physical media but don't want a disc check.) *simple disc check meaning just that, a simple disc check that doesn't require installation of Securom/StarForce/Tages/etc on your system The best solution would be for the install program to ask whether you want to install the Steam version (in which case the program would install to the Steam directory) or the simple CD-check version (in which case you could specify an install directory), and to also offer the game DRM-free at GOG. The only game file that would differ between the two versions on the physical disc would be the game executable (meaning that it would require only a trivial amount of disc space to offer the choice of version). --- I very much want a non-Steam version of the game on physical media. That said, Obsidian will get some support from me regardless because of their willingness to offer the game at GOG. I truly appreciate that decision.

I prefer the older logo to this new one.

Ug... fighting those plant-things, echinops, while *very* drunk was annoying.

The announcement of the Adventurer's Hall stretch goal and the likelihood of it being reached has convinced me not to reduce my pledge despite some misgivings (and to consider increasing it). I don't get why you and others like you are so vehemently against something that doesn't affect you and should require only minimal resources to implement but will make the game more enjoyable for a significant number of players.

Such as? Aside from KotOR (and possibly the first ME; I haven't played it), what other games form this imagined plethora of modern games suited to this group (those that like DA:O but hate DA2)? To be clear, we're talking about party-based, western CRPGs... Surely you don't imagine that all fans of DA:O are just as satisfied with MMORPGs, action-RPGs, and JRPGs (Blizzard, Bethesda, etc)? Close to BG2/IWD. Threat-based combat behavior or no? (I hope so.) To be fair, online registration of DA:O and participation in the social network are optional. Online activation of the DLC is optional with a simple edit of one XML file (so simple that it seems to be a deliberate workaround for those who need or want it; this wouldn't be surprising given that online activation of the game was dropped due to popular fan request). Patches are available for unrestricted download (with the exception of the patch for Witch Hunt, but it can be acquired easily enough elsewhere). I just installed the Ultimate Edition, the storage chest semi-official mod, the promo items, and latest patches on an offline gaming machine. Fully functional, legally purchased, good to go without any online hassle. The diaper sex is odd, but I guess that Bioware wanted animated sex scenes, censored the nudity to appease EA and the ESRB, and counted on modders to make a nudity patch. But in regards to "hordes of pant-wetting Buffy fans", I are confuzed... ? Care to explain that one?

The controls are terrible (one player at a time in isometric mode, oh yay) I'm not sure what you mean to say. I play DA:O on PC with a mouse and don't recall having any issues with the controls other than the lack of party formations. Could you give me an example of how it differs from IE games? (It has been a few years since I last played BG, BG2, IWD, etc). I'd agree that it is lacking in certain regards, but I wouldn't call it crap. My gripes are aimed more at the writing and presentation of limited options than the overall story. Again, I'm not sure what you mean to say. How is it any more boring than the combat of IE games? That's funny... I don't care for Sten.

@OP: I'm curious about your rejection of DA:O. Despite some gripes, I enjoyed the IE games. I have mixed feelings about PC-NPC romances (and could do without them). I have several gripes about DA:O pertaining to both story and mechanics. BUT I like and enjoy DA:O (and KotOR, too). Threat-based combat behavior is a marked improvement. I love the rotatable camera. I don't miss spell memorization, clerics, etc. The game isn't perfect, but I accept it as a spiritual successor to BG.* So... What's so bad about DA:O? (Aside from obvious gripes such as smaller party size, etc). *Two disclaimers: First, I *hate* DA2. Second, while I don't miss D&D clerics, I do like the concept of priests as presented in PE Update 15 ("...there are ranks of dedicated adventuring or mercenary priests who have turned the flame of their faith into a spark to ignite the power of their souls. Such men and women have found a divine link to their chosen deity, but their abilities stem solely from within.")

As I've said before on these forums, take inspiration from DA:O. Backstab, dirty combat tricks, poisons, bombs, dual-wielding, lockpicking, trap detection, etc - useful and very fun to play. Make the rogue worthwhile without taking anything away from other classes. Nerfing mages is not a good solution. So what if a mage can unlock chests and doors and scout with invisibility or a familiar? The rogue class should be interesting and useful enough to entice players to include one in the party anyway.

DA:O-style rogues would be nice: Backstab, dirty combat tricks, poisons, bombs, dual-wielding, etc - very fun to play.

I think we are kind of at that. Even with all the stretch goals we've reached we have 5 companion slots and 7 potential companions. That's with the two additional companions from the stretches, so originally we would have had JUST enough to fill out the party. Unless I'm really misreading stuff. You have 5 companions plus your MC. Initially there were 5 classes, but now there are 2 more. That implies 1 companion of each class - and they've also said that each companion is of a different class, so yeah. You ARE limited in your options - the only clear way to get two of one class in the party is when you make your MC. You get to shuffle around 2 slots out of 5 now, really. It'll be like most BioWare games post BG2 for me - replayability is hurt by the limited number of companion combinations (which was only kept at all fresh by limiting it to 2 or 3 your can bring with you (or 1, in Jade Empire.) Digressing a bit there - anywho... we were very limited, but two stretch goals have given us some options. And that is one of many reasons that we should have optional IWD/ToEE-style party creation in addition to the confirmed PS:T/BG-style companions. --- @everyone: Vote for the option to create as many custom party members as desired if you haven't yet: http://forums.obsidi...on-bgiwd-style/ (a good poll) http://forums.obsidi...ble-companions/ (a biased and misleading poll, but can still vote for the "both" option there) http://forums.obsidi...rafted-parties/ (the best poll, but locked by moderator) Or discuss it here: http://forums.obsidi...lus-companions/

I do remember having some fun literally unleashing hell on my enemies... and sometimes my own party. --- Another idea: Perhaps animals and other flesh-and-blood creatures could be spawned offscreen when summoned, proceeding to run/fly/whatever onto the screen to simulate nearby creatures answering the caster's call. Certain summons could work only in certain terrains, regions, etc. Or a spell could summon different creatures in different terrains, regions, etc. It might be obvious, but to be clear, I'm interested in: 1. a great number and variety of summons, preferably access to most of the normal creatures encountered in the gameworld. 2. a mechanic for summoning animals other than portals (charm/domination of encountered animals, offscreen spawning, or something else). 3. awesome portal summoning of spirits, demons, etc.

I thought it obvious that I was referring to "normal" creatures rather than "boss-level" creatures. I was not suggesting that conjurers/summoners be able to call Red Dragons, etc. The rogue (a better term than thief imo) should take inspiration from DA:O. Backstab, dirty combat tricks, poisons, bombs, dual-wielding, etc - very fun to play. Did you miss my suggestions for balancing? Similar to DA:O buffs, controlled creatures could reserve a portion of the caster's mana, meaning that the caster would *not* be a "fully functioning mage" while controlling animals. Or under a memorization system, the maximum number of controlled creatures could be determined by the caster's skill level, perhaps requiring the expenditure of a spell slot or selection to control additional animals and thus limiting the selection of other available spells (again, *not* "a very powerful creature plus fully functioning mage"). Or perhaps it could be balanced in another fashion: That's what this thread is for, to ask for a good implementation of conjuration and explore ideas concerning how that might be accomplished. Good post, interesting ideas. --- More concerning my rationale: It makes sense to me to be able to open a portal to another dimension to allow a spirit, demon, elemental, or other such creature to cross into or manifest in the physical realm. However, I've always found it odd that normal flesh-and-blood creatures are summoned out of portals. If a conjurer/summoner can reach across time and space to move a creature from point to point in the physical realm, then why doesn't that spell school also include teleportation? If a conjurer/summoner can communicate with or control summoned creatures, then why can't that mage do the same for other creatures encountered in the world? Sure, fantasy magic is unrealistic to begin with, but we can still apply some basic reasoning to it. Further, given that conjuration/summoning implies connecting to, contracting with, charming, or outright dominating the minds of summoned creatures to compel them to fight for the caster, why not solve the above problems by merging charm and domination effects into conjuration/summoning as suggested and utilizing those effects in place of portal summoning for animals?

Oh, look. A Troll. Listen: It is NOT Obsidian's fault if a Publisher decides to release a game before the bugs are ironed out. Fallout: New Vegas ran like crap because of "Bugthesda" and not because of Obsidian. Not necessarily true. The developer is responsible for planning and managing the work (and if necessary limiting its scope) such that a game can be completed within the allowed budget and time frame. I'm looking forward to PE as a chance for Obsidian to prove itself, because frankly it seems to me that they deserve their infamy based on what I've played of their games. Also, it isn't reasonable to call Azrayel a troll based on a single throwaway line given that the post includes several paragraphs of constructive, on-topic thought. People throw that term around too loosely. Also, see his subsequent post explaining the use of the nickname.

Conjuration/summoning is seldom implemented in a satisfying manner: RPGs are full of fantastic creatures, but conjurers and summoners typically have access to only a very limited selection of these creatures. If conjuration/summoning magic is included Project Eternity, please do it right. Allow conjurers access to most if not all of the creatures found in the gameworld. The number of conjuration spells should not be limited to the number of spells available to other spell schools. Consider that each new conjuration spell does not necessarily require new assets; the creature assets already exist as enemies, and portal/summoning animations and effects will already exist after the first conjuration spell is created. Also, I would be interested in game mechanics that allow spirits, demons, and such to be summoned by opening a portal to other dimensions but that handle animals and such in a different fashion: Perhaps animals could be permanently dominated by a conjurer/summoner of sufficient skill when encountered and then accompany the party on its travels (rather than be conjured or summoned out of portals, etc). The number of animals that could be dominated at once could be dependent on conjurer/summoner skill, or each dominated animal could reserve a specific amount of the conjurer/summoner's mana as upkeep (similar to the buff spells in DA:O). Thoughts?

Forget having a dog as a companion, let the player BE a dog! Joking, of course. Voted "Yes".

The only situation in which your argument has any relevance is the case of items weighing less than their equivalent value of coins. With gold having weight, if a gem has a value of two gold coins but weighs less than those two gold coins, then it is more efficient in terms of inventory management to retain the gem instead of selling it. Now you have a store of gems and other such items in addition to your store of gold. Inventory management is more complex. Here's the question: What does this add to the game? Why would it be desirable? In games having weightless gold, whether or not an item is worth looting can still be judged by the ratio of its weight to value. For example, in Bethesda rpgs, I skip most items having a value less than ten times their weight early in the game. Later, I sometimes skip items not worth at least twenty times their weight. Sometimes, even that much inventory management can be tedious.

Just do it like DA:O. 100 bronze/copper = 1 silver 100 silver = 1 gold/sovereign Every hundred of a coin type is automatically converted to one coin of the next type. This switch is automatic for convenience; it is assumed to take place when visiting settlements via merchants, moneychangers, etc (or with Bodahn in the party camp). Coins don't have weight, but I don't recall ever having more than two hundred sovereigns at once in DA:O anyway.

IWD and ToEE are mentioned in this announcement and in the stretch goals section of the Kickstarter page for Project Eternity: "Remember the Heart of Fury challenge mode from the Icewind Dale series? How about Ironman Mode from Temple of Elemental Evil?" Does the addition of the announced challenge modes include the option to custom design as much of the party as desired as in IWD and ToEE? Some of us want this feature in addition to (NOT in place of) the confirmed PS:T/BG-style NPC companions, and it would complement these challenge modes.