rjshae

Really? Not everybody wants the same thing, and many of the preferences being expressed are incompatible. Options allow you to tune the game the way you want to play it. That's not bad design; that's marketplace flexibility.

Well... whatever weird or wacky ideas I may have had for a pantheon I've added to a netbook called the Diadamon Pantheon, which was last released in the 9th edition back in 2007. It's not going to be updated again and is freely licensed under OGL, so basically help yourself to any notions therein you find useful. Thanks.

It's not a rant about DA2. It mentions about what it did wrong and I learned from what it did wrong. What I've demonstrated applies to ALL RPGs, or should, if they are to be called RPGs. RPGs are ABOUT their worlds more than anything else, DA2's world was not convincing - it wasn't plausible, consistent or conveyed. What DA2 does wrong is very important. But it's not my focus of this topic - it's to remind Obsidian to focus on conveying the images, the sounds, the feelings of PE's world - as well as a logical consistency to its world and people. Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir, but eh, why not. It's the internet. Perhaps I want validation, or my points disproved, which I don't see you doing. Do you know how utterly arrogant you sound? It doesn't lend your message any credence. Basically you read like a troll. As with any game, DA2 had its good points and its weaknesses. I personally found it entertaining enough to play it to nearly the end. It has some design elements that remain appealing to me. What you need to do is accept the fact that it is mainly an action RPG.

Well hopefully we'll have limited zoom on the main view and we can use the mouse wheel for that.

From a purely schedule- and cost-driven perspective, I don't think that adding destructable environments will make sense. The latter is more suitable for action RPGs. It would make more sense to focus on more widely-applicable elements, such as getting the spell effects and character animation looking good.

One thing that could be done is to store checkpoint data in memory at key moments of the game; each time you save, you're saving the checkpoint data rather than the current state. This will require you to replay the game from the last checkpoint. It's somewhat similar to how saves work in DS2, except you don't have to retrace your steps as much.

Wouldn't it be better if our peculiar selections for a character build weren't considered a "mistake"? Otherwise this advanced planning just looks like min-maxing to me.

A decent idea; I could definitely see a grapple-type attack being implemented via a spell-like special attack that effects both parties. I don't think it should be a full stun effect, but it could definitely give some action restrictions to both. You could even have multiple, cumulative grapple effects against a single target. A simple visual effect, like an appropriate spell going off (Bigby's grasping hand!), would provide all the graphics it would need.

Given the nature of this game, I suspect that most structures will not have destruction mechanics. Maybe barrels. The only physics we might see would be from rag-doll physics, knockdowns, and perhaps trajectories from projectiles and explosions.

Another DA2 rant. Yawn.

I don't know how much of this we're going to do, I like all of those ideas and I think it would be fun to build an AI that can do them. We'll just have to see which of those behaviors is a "fit" for the game. I think we'll almost certainly have smarter AI that will try to do things like protect a spell caster or other weak allies. That kind of things isn't too difficult to implement and makes for a more interesting challenge. Thank you, David. I can understand that some of this type of AI might not be the best fit for a tactical game of this type. Still, some type of group tactical behavior would be nice to see, even if it is just cooperative behavior between neighbors in the mob, or targeting specific enemies. Whatever you decide upon, I'm sure it will be enjoyable. Thanks again.

Inevitably all slaves turn on their masters, just like the slave rebellions against the roman empire. With the major difference that a band of mages is far more dangerous than gladiators. So whatever society cooks that up will be probably a short lived one. Well, no. These slave-wizards are not dangerous because they are taught a different style of magic. They don't know spells for hurling fireballs about and they can't learn such; they know spells for cooking cabbage, cleaning chimneys, and sweeping the floor.

We're assuming that the wizards are free to contribute to the economy as they will. But what about a society that enslaves wizards? Or rather, a society that looks for slaves with wizard-like potential, then trains those individuals in a more constrained form of magic? What then? You can get your wizard-slaves heating your boiler rooms and providing water for your fountains, yet they have become the lowliest members of society. I'm not sure what means they'd use to maintain control over the wizard-slaves, but the Romans managed (for the most part) to maintain careful control over their gladiators; some very dangerous individuals indeed. Perhaps there is a crystal collar that can be used to suppress spell casting unless allowed by the handler? Maybe the form of spell casting allowed can only be used with certain scarce material components that are carefully monitored by the masters? Or maybe it uses prepared runes on parchment paper, with the masters controlling the special ink required? At any rate, this would allow wizards to contribute to the economy without having any significant power.

I can't think of any mythology where anthropomorphic races are the good guys, although you're welcome to give some counterexamples. Even then, I'd guess the good anthropomorphic guys are the minority among mythology. So what do you want to imply? We're fine with slaughtering them. First, depending on the source, Medusa was a normal human that was cursed with the snakes. By another source, she was one of three sisters. Hardly a race, even if having strange hair alone counts! Second, Minotaur was a singular freak of nature, who got locked in the labyrinth because he was related to the king. Again, not a member of race of minotaurs. And Anubis, of course, was a god. I think the point just flew over your head like a harpy on a mission. These are concepts that have found their way into modern games. Is that designer laziness? No.

Note that mythology had anthropomorphic races. Minotaurs? Medusae? Anubis? Ergo, the conclusion that developers must be lazy when they draw upon such concepts is a mental waste product. Personally, I have no problem with a "furry" type character race, although they should have a suitable origin story (like a god created them). That being said, I voted 'no' for this game.

See the Kickstarter page.

However the skill is implemented and improved, I'm actually more interested in the AI response to the lockpick attempt. It should take some length of time to pick a lock, and during that time nearby observers should have some chance to detect the activity (depending on the conditions). What happens when a detection occurs? There should be an area response to the alarm being raised, which should then have negative consequences for the player. Likewise, when an enemy discovers that a lock has been picked, there should also be a response; albeit less direct.

Thank you for the interesting responses, Steve. If I may, a general question I'd like to ask you is regarding AI: how much consideration do you think will be given to group AI by intelligent enemies? Will trained enemy soldiers attempt to fight in formation? Will they coordinate attacks so that, say, suppressing fire will be targeted at the party's PCs while the heavy fighters take on the PC front line? Likewise, will they work to protect their spell casters? Will they exploit bottlenecks and other terrain advantages? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Meanwhile, I hope your liver survives the PE experience.

Is this normal? Absolutely.

^^^^ Yes there are going to be players who don't want to mess around with a detailed inventory system, even though it is more realistic that way. It does get a little tiresome when the inventory grows significantly. Possibly there is something they can do with the Expert mode to enable detailed inventory, then keep it lightweight for the casual gamers.

Another option to be considered is entangling attacks. A net or a web spell could be as effective as a baton to the back of the head for subjugating a foe. Transporting the captive is a factor as well; does the party guard the captive while exploring the rest of the area or do they take the captive along? Would the captive have an opportunity to escape during overland transport? Is special gear needed to prevent this?

Yes, I was thinking along those lines. The body is dragged off to be eaten elsewhere (or buried), but the blood stains on the ground would remain for some time afterward. They could enhance the sequence with partly consumed corpses from time to time, followed by scattered bones.

Unless you're playing in expert mode, to me it would make a certain amount of sense to abstract some of the loot system. We don't need to be bothered with every little detail of looting the corpses and selling of the low-cost, mundane items. Nor do we need to track the spending of that money on food, drink, clothing, repair, and outdoor gear. Just assume that the one takes care of the other and you can get on with the more interesting aspects of the game.

For me, Paladins held some appeal because they are honor bound to "do the right thing". I could definitely live with them being chivalrous knights, or even samurai who follow the bushido. On the other hand, the general concept of a potentially fanatical individual who rigidly follows a religious (or other) creed is very unappealing. I'll have to see how they are implemented in the game to see if I want to play one.

Nobody is choosing the barbarian. I wonder why?