maggotheart

For swarms, how about you can actually run directly through the cloud instead of around it, but the entire area that it covers is considered its zone of engagement.

Now that we have engagement zones, how could they be used to make interesting monsters for the game? We could have creatures with multiple appendages capable of engaging many targets, perhaps even the whole party. I was thinking of a simple example, a lizard man warrior with four arms who would make a great guard because he could engage twice the number of targets as a normal fighter. Or, there could be monsters that specialize in strikes of opportunity, making them even more deadly than normal - a giant snake or spider, or even a great cat. There could be monsters with greatly expanded engagement zones, or moving/odd engagement zones - perhaps some sort of tentacled beast or a flying animal who dive bombs opponents, but its harder to determine what is a safe area of the map.

Hmm, thanks for the link and the perspective. I don't really care that much, I was just honestly curious.

I dont care about your level of response or your feelings. If you cant control yourself thats your problem, not mine. Well, I guess its mine now that the game has to cater to people like you. I think you do care, and I can control myself perfectly well. Serious question: how the hell did you become a moderator on these boards? You have a bad attitude and I'm fairly certain calling people stupid (you've done it twice now) is against the Forum Guidelines

Every single game mechanic released so far is "healing the symptoms". Rest too much? = Dedicated rest spots. Walk back and forth for loot? = unlimited inventory. Get sad because your level 1 toon misses sometimes? = only 5% chance to miss. Like to heal between fights? = No field healing mechanic at all. Grind for experience? = no kill experience. All of these (except missing) were controllable by the players themselves until "Dur, me cant control self" somehow became a legitimate excuse and requires programs to cater to their compulsive disorders. I think all of those things you mentioned are great ideas that are much needed and will make the game better. I'm just as much of a fan of the IE games as you and I'm not a stupid idiot who can't control himself. From what I can recall from the individual threads for each of those ideas, there were a small handful of complainers and naysayers (whiners) who were consistently logically routed over many, many pages by nice folks who tried to explain why those mechanics are good. Rather than be passive aggressive about it here, how about going back to those threads and telling us again how you think those ideas and the people who like them are stupid? I'm sure there are lots of people willing to continue those discussions and explain how you are wrong. I dont need to review them, they all come down to the same point, "I cant control myself so I need you to control me". Whats not to understand? Its a single player game and if a person want to "ruin" the experience for themselves by playing "degeneratively" then thats on them. Just as I replied to Trashman question. One way lets everyone play how they wish, the other way forced eveyone to play as Sawyer wishes. Instead of crying about being a poor misunderstood snowflake, perhaps you can explain why its everyone elses problem to hold your hand while you play. They do not all come down to the same point, that's just how it seems to you because you're being stubborn and narrow minded. Not that I would bother to debate you on that personally - it's just when you start calling me "stupid" and "a poor misunderstood snowflake" who is "crying" that I have a problem. I never said you should review those threads, I said you should go back to those threads if you want to debate those ideas, where you can continue to be wrong and have it explained in detail why. This thread is about merchants, not the stash mechanic or regenerating stamina. I never called you stupid, you called you stupid, but I do have a hard time disagreeing. I was responding to a query from Trashman about why mechanics like these spring into existance. You dont need to worry yourself about what I post. "Dur, me cant control self" ^^^ That is you calling everyone who disagrees with you stupid. (or retarded) I don't care if you were responding to someone else, it was obnoxious and directly attacking everyone who disagreed with you, which I happen to be one. If you don't like getting a strong response, don't post such nonsense.

Every single game mechanic released so far is "healing the symptoms". Rest too much? = Dedicated rest spots. Walk back and forth for loot? = unlimited inventory. Get sad because your level 1 toon misses sometimes? = only 5% chance to miss. Like to heal between fights? = No field healing mechanic at all. Grind for experience? = no kill experience. All of these (except missing) were controllable by the players themselves until "Dur, me cant control self" somehow became a legitimate excuse and requires programs to cater to their compulsive disorders. I think all of those things you mentioned are great ideas that are much needed and will make the game better. I'm just as much of a fan of the IE games as you and I'm not a stupid idiot who can't control himself. From what I can recall from the individual threads for each of those ideas, there were a small handful of complainers and naysayers (whiners) who were consistently logically routed over many, many pages by nice folks who tried to explain why those mechanics are good. Rather than be passive aggressive about it here, how about going back to those threads and telling us again how you think those ideas and the people who like them are stupid? I'm sure there are lots of people willing to continue those discussions and explain how you are wrong. I dont need to review them, they all come down to the same point, "I cant control myself so I need you to control me". Whats not to understand? Its a single player game and if a person want to "ruin" the experience for themselves by playing "degeneratively" then thats on them. Just as I replied to Trashman question. One way lets everyone play how they wish, the other way forced eveyone to play as Sawyer wishes. Instead of crying about being a poor misunderstood snowflake, perhaps you can explain why its everyone elses problem to hold your hand while you play. They do not all come down to the same point, that's just how it seems to you because you're being stubborn and narrow minded. Not that I would bother to debate you on that personally - it's just when you start calling me "stupid" and "a poor misunderstood snowflake" who is "crying" that I have a problem. I never said you should review those threads, I said you should go back to those threads if you want to debate those ideas, where you can continue to be wrong and have it explained in detail why. This thread is about merchants, not the stash mechanic or regenerating stamina.

Every single game mechanic released so far is "healing the symptoms". Rest too much? = Dedicated rest spots. Walk back and forth for loot? = unlimited inventory. Get sad because your level 1 toon misses sometimes? = only 5% chance to miss. Like to heal between fights? = No field healing mechanic at all. Grind for experience? = no kill experience. All of these (except missing) were controllable by the players themselves until "Dur, me cant control self" somehow became a legitimate excuse and requires programs to cater to their compulsive disorders. I think all of those things you mentioned are great ideas that are much needed and will make the game better. I'm just as much of a fan of the IE games as you and I'm not a stupid idiot who can't control himself. From what I can recall from the individual threads for each of those ideas, there were a small handful of complainers and naysayers (whiners) who were consistently logically routed over many, many pages by nice folks who tried to explain why those mechanics are good. Rather than be passive aggressive about it here, how about going back to those threads and telling us again how you think those ideas and the people who like them are stupid? I'm sure there are lots of people willing to continue those discussions and explain how you are wrong.

PE was also 25. 20 was the early bird pledge. I stand corrected.

$25 minimum pledge seems a tiny bit high (WL2 was 15 and PE was 20), but only $95 for the collectors box is nice. Do we have any kind of time frame for release of the Kickstarter? I'm looking forward to it... though I'm sensing a coming storm of relentless whining from people who seem to feel obligated to hate the idea no matter what, that's already getting tiresome and the kickstarter hasn't even begun yet.

It's a lottery because of the presence of microtransactions. It's obnoxious intentionally because of the presence of microtransactions. The game was designed to maximize profits from microtransactions. As I said in my earlier post, this is not a game they made and then added microtransactions afterward for people who might like that, the entire game was designed around having them there. You cannot divorce the game from that mechanic.

That's just it though. They'll see "a new Torment." And they'll judge the game based on Torment, so even if the game is good, but just not Torment good, you increase the chance that gamers feel jilted because they actually helped fund the thing. I'm sure when they do the Kickstarter for it, they will explain about the title. There will be really no good reason not to be informed about what exactly is being proposed, unless people don't bother to even read the Kickstarter page to see what they are funding.

EA shifted their target audience. They are not trying to sell games to JFSOCC or maggotheart anymore. They want customers who will pay for hats or pay to get out of having to deal with all that boring 'gameplay' stuff. And they are/will be very successful in making money doing that so we can't expect them to stop. Just like if my favorite beer brand turned into a diet soda and marketed it to kids, I will simply stop paying attention to that brand and go find another one that still makes good beer.

The problem with microtransactions in single player games is that they must then logically design the SP game around this feature. They don't design and make the game, and then add in the ability to pay for advancement as an afterthought: it's planned from the beginning and influences the design of the entire game. Add some grind to find components, and players might pay to remove the grind - which would never have existed in the game in the first place if not for the design considerations forced by adding microtransactions. I would personally never touch any game that had them.

I'd rather not see any speech skills. There should be things that affect speech, like if I'm really strong or a specific class or race, or if I learned certain things that give me different speech options, but no skills that directly affect speech. I really dislike the system where if I pass a speech check, it's just an "I win" button. Dialogue should be more mysterious than that and if I'm going to say something to make someone do something I want, I'd rather it to be because I as the player picked some intelligent things to say, not just that I picked the one dialogue choice with [speech] next to it, indicating it is the optimal choice.

The risk could just be offloaded elsewhere - I'm taking more damage from enemy melee attacks so that I can reliably avoid damage from my teams AOE; if the enemy is going to do more damage to me than I'm saving by not getting grilled by the mages fireballs, it's a bad choice. (In addition to other scenarios where it's a bad choice because of narrow corridors or other considerations).

So I can set my fighter to be 'paying attention to the wizard' at the cost of some (AC?) and when my wizard casts a fireball he'll automatically dive out of the blast radius? I like it, maybe I can set my Cleric to be 'paying attention to the fighter' to keep her within a certain radius of him no matter where I send him and cast healing if his health gets too low. You could have two characters set to fight back to back and they move as one unit.

I like the concept of having to strike the ancestor bone, I wonder what would happen if it was destroyed - perhaps the slayer gets cursed, or there is an explosion. Also, there would be a limited number of Obu Spirits since they all originate from one set of bones, maybe every time you destroy one, it makes the others more powerful? Then you finally have to confront the last one and it's a boss level adversary.

I like this too. Not just for the merchant aspect but also because it's one of those little things that makes night/day cycles actually mean something besides pretty graphic/lighting. There's stealth, if a game utilizes the dark for better chances or whatever, but I like more cyclic differences than that. I like the idea of having secret merchants that you can discover through exploration, but not having my staple merchants randomly becoming unavailable to me when I need them. Skyrim had this, and I just pushed the wait button if I got to a merchant at the 'wrong' time. There was also limited gold pools, and I would just fast travel around the towns until I had all my stuff cashed in. IT was kind of pointless to have those mechanics in the game.

Annoying merchant mechanics, IMO: Limited gold pools on merchants Multiple merchants who each deals with specific inventory items and will only buy and sell those items Merchants who only come out at night or during the day, or walk around the map or are otherwise hard to find Its especially annoying if you have all 3 together. I just want to know where the merchant is, dump my sellables and get the heck back out adventuring.

When they cast their "gate to escape", they could escape into a tiny pocket plane where they make their lair, so if you want to finish it off you have to follow it through it's 'panic gate' and kill it in its home dimension, where it is more powerful.

No I think you're right, many of them probably are - but at this point anyone making that argument is just uninformed and would probably benefit from someone giving them a friendly update to let them know it won't be in vanilla PE - without belittling them and the very concept of MP, as many posters have done and continue to do. I think most people would agree with this and aren't as far apart on MP as they might seem to be.

That's... actually pretty decent. Unique missile/bullet item is a good idea too. Thanks, I appreciate it I was trying to come up with something for a Flintlock that made sense; I think magical guns are a bit strange (do all those moving parts have to be seperately enchanted? The black powder? ) but a simple lead bullet makes a lot of sense.

I want LAN as much as the next jerk but lets be realistic, we're looking at an expansion, sequel or mods, not Feargus having a psychotic episode at the office one day. I just wish people would stop sniping at the very idea of co-op, obviously a lot of people want it - nearly 50% according to the poll in this very thread - so attacking the idea amounts to a circular firing squad. I'm only attacking the idea of putting co-op in games that were explicitly stated to be designed without co-op; had PE been stated from the beginning to have co-op play I'd have not said anything as its inclusion is a neutral to me provided it doesn't compromise the single player game. However since the developers have stated that including co-op play in the game would take attention and limited resources away from the single player game, since co-op was not part of the original pitch for the game, I personally find the continuing clamor for co-op play to be included puzzling. Who supports a game that doesn't have co-op, a fact explicitly stated early in the campaign, and then agitates for it to be added (drawing resources away from things already promised) once the game is going to be made? Its about as silly - in my opinion - as supporting a PC only game, explicitly stated to be PC only, and then demanding it be ported to a console. It makes no sense at all - unless that development option was one under consideration from the very beginning. Which it wasn't (and I say that as someone who has consoles and could certainly play PE on a console if it was ported to one - but that's not what the scope of the game was ever about!) No one who has read the interviews or followed the updates thinks there will be LAN support in PE. People who think that just arent paying attention and I agree to that extent with what you are saying. However, that doesn't mean we can't talk about how cool it would be, and express support for it to be included in an expansion, mods or a sequel, which is perfectly reasonable. If enough fans ask for it, maybe they will get it someday? That's all it's really about for me, and the point I was trying to make is that everyone who comes in here and lashes out at those who are asking for MP are only attacking and driving away fellow fans of the genre, which shrinks an already tiny playerbase further. That doesn't help us. Ieos comment here is a good example of what I'm talking about: TO argue that a substantial number of backers might want co-op in an expansion, mods or sequel is "pathetic", "ridiculous" and "very stupid", that I want PE to be like Skyrim, that all I want or care about is multiplayer, and that I should go away and play ME3, oh and also implying that I'm a kid and presumably foolish and immature so my opinions can be easily dismissed. What's the endgame with this attitude? To 'win' and get everyone who likes multiplayer to go away and stop backing these projects? Even if they only represent 20% of the players, that's still a huge loss.

Heat-seeking arrows? Really? Did you really just suggest that? What happens when your party is in an ice cave full of ice golems? DERP. Hell, what happens when your ranger is behind your party? DERP. DERPETY DERP DERP. Yes I did, and I still think it's a good idea despite all of those examples you cited, in fact having those situations would make having magical heat seeking arrows in the game all the more interesting. Not all weapons have to be useful against all enemies and in all situations, especially if I'm an archer with access to many different arrow types, as I was suggesting. You can read that a few times to get your head around it, then maybe do us all a favor and post some actual content instead of your usual socially awkward reactionary pedantic drivel, AGX.

I want LAN as much as the next jerk but lets be realistic, we're looking at an expansion, sequel or mods, not Feargus having a psychotic episode at the office one day. I just wish people would stop sniping at the very idea of co-op, obviously a lot of people want it - nearly 50% according to the poll in this very thread - so attacking the idea amounts to a circular firing squad.