Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About Rink

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  1. It's not the same bug, but when your teammates are sneaking and you are not in pause-mode while talking to an NPC then the sneaking guys will slowly go invisible even when they are standing in clear view of NPCs. If you exit the dialogue box now and press pause, you can pickpocket everyone and plunder every container as long as you are fast enough.
  2. Happens with a lot of items (belts etc.) when previewing them with mouse-over or right-click when acquiring them in the little text-window. I noticed it for all the stuff you can get out of random locations like towers and ship-wrecks as well.
  3. I had the same problem with Fampyrs, even when terrified, stunned or paralyzed all ranged attacks lead to my guys being dominated. It is an ability that triggers on all ranged targeted attacks against Fampyrs. So make sure, everyone has a melee weapon or ground spells. I didn't, so I had to turn AI off, so my rangers didn't wreck my whole team while dominated.
  4. I am someone who almost wasn't able to play past the haunted mansion in vampire:bloodlines. Not only because I almost got a heart-attack after only approaching the house (when the lights shatter). Luckily such effects are harder to do with party-based isometric settings and there seems to be some differences in what people here understand about horror (largely because for me scaryness and goryness are very different. Fallout had a lot of brutality, but never really made you feel scared for example). I don't mind brutality in some quests like the skinner-quest in bg2 or some quests or dungeons where the athmosphere (story/music) makes me feel on edge, but I also don't like it when every place makes me feel uncomfortable. It should be a good mix and not become alone in the dark/amnesia from "scaryness" and not diablo from goryness/splatter.
  5. I think if mages could produce the currency of the game, then the "king" would firstly punish the mages and try to stop them and secondly introduce some security against that and have other mages cast very special spells on the currency (visual effects on the coins for example) so the currency made by the king differs from the currency that other mages are able to produce. If the king doesn't do that then the currency will not work in the way it is supposed to (giving him the power to buy soldiers, goods and labour without having to really do anything himself). Is exactly what we do today with our currency: we try to make them in a way that it cannot be copied by others. I like low-magic-fantasy because then you really do not have many of the problems we are discussing here. Nevertheless it is true that magic would affect economy if there is enough of it around and that most fantasy-games ignore this aspect. I like magic to be quite rare and low level spells to be more "expensive" than other solutions. So while you CAN use a mage to make fire, it should be easier to take wood or coal and generate heat this way, because spells are limited in uses per day, magic users are not easy to find and are more expensive than miners that get coal. But I don't mind some traveling mages going from village to village solving problems with magic like making it rain, animating scarecrows and the like. That surely would be a good business.
  6. Afaik there will be no open mod-tools for the public. Probably because they want to make an addon and a next game themselves. But maybe that changes later if the game has enough popularity and they do not fear our competition (for example if they develop the next game with better graphics and all and want to keep us playing the first game until it comes out ). It really is funny how many here do not see what the pro-romancers mean with romance (hint: it isn't just sex) and keep standing on that point until the bitter end. This topic wouldn't be alive if there weren't so many people that would "love" to see romance in the game. It would be nice, if they made "semi-romances" like in P:T and let the other guys have the possibilty to break the NPCs heart and smash the feelings of the NPC in their face and I am sure both sides in this topic will be happy.
  7. Hard choice, if I know something about the game I usually take a class that makes sense with companions and their classes. I usually go for the rogue if I know nothing about the NPCs/game or if I expect there to be enough with different classes in the game, now we will not have that many NPCs in the game and it is often useless to have two rogues in the party. So it will depend on how good the NPC rogue is (how appealing he/she is to me) and when he is introduced to the game (if it is late in the game, I usually also play rogue). Second choice is usually a healer, so cleric, but since healing magic is rarely found in the game, I am not sure if this class will be my cup of tea. Have to wait and see. Third choice will be the Ranger. But I will have to wait and see before I can decide.
  8. I usually reload as well, why would I have a partymember in my party and just let him die. If I don't like a partymember, I usually don't take him with me or send him away. The only time I didn^t reload was in BG1, where u could have some NPCs only toegether with others. So one night Jaheira ran into lots of spiders, alone and without any armor on, on accident of course.... Didn't really help, in BG2 she was alive again and Khalid was dead, maybe that is only fair. Why would they make quests about the death of NPCs? I would try them all and then reload and have the NPCs alive and I think that is exactly how most of the players would play that (if they do that at all). I think they would rather make quests that only appear when you have 2 NPCs together in the party than deadquests if they really have more ressources for more party-based-quests.
  9. I like environments that have variability in them and vegetation/plants, so heterogenous forests are my favorite. I don't like the environments that are plain and are seen very often in rpgs in exactly the same matter, so snow, ice or sand as far the eye can see and nothing for the eyes to enjoy, no nature, no secrets or dangers that you cannot see beforehand. I agree with Monte Carlo that tunnels definately should be in the vote. I would have chosen it as "I don't like it"-option, because that is the only thing I have seen so much in games that i like it even less than flat, samecolored, vegetationsless backgrounds. Unless they are very variable and innovative of course.
  10. No. I think this topic is quite amusing I don't care if others now reduce the character to the only thing that really isn't classicly estetic on this guy (the hair) and bash him because of that. I like the idea of the character and I don't really mind how he looks and I am sure the looks fits Fortons character or history. I would like it, if other NPCs / random people like kids in cities would pick on him for his hair and clothes and I would even more love it, if Forton had a badass answer to them and that they should not judge the book by its cover. Actually I am just waiting for someone of the development staff to do that in here :D
  11. Like the art, thanks for sharing! Like that better than the concept art and more detail makes her a lot more interesting, because the brain starts to work and make up stories of her past, present and future. And I am sorry but I have to say that now (even though it is nothing about the art here)... Cadegund..... brrrrr... that name still sends the bad kind of shivers down my spine, it reminds me too much of old german names that today are associated with very hairy and manly women like Kunigunde or Brunhilde, but then again the ending -gund means "fight" in old german, so probably my associations are exactly what this name should make me feel, I just hope it is not another man in a females body just because some writers do not know how to write women in fighting scenarios :D
  12. Never used things that were "branded" as drugs in computergames, no skooma, no pills in fallout universe and I guess I wouldn't do it in P:E as well. Probably because I always feared something that is labeled drugs to have very high and negative sideeffects I didn't want to risk (and if it only does affect your combat-abilities, it is even more useless as you can always just reload without negative consequences :D). But then again you do not have to "brand" something to be a drug anyway, you can call it medication and you don't have to make it illegal in the game (as there will be no cars anyway :D If something is illegal, I guess it should have good reasons that fit in the scenario for that).
  13. I agree that cities should have people in them. But I also like it, if those people that have nothing of relevance to say are named accordingly like in BG. So you do not have to run after guys that run around in the city and have nothing to say to you anyway. I don't think that is going to be a problem to be "animated", since it wasn't a problem 10 years ago. Abandoned city in the jungle: sure! Doesn't have to be one of the two big cities in the game though
  • Create New...