Kaz

I want to rally behind the upgrade / enchanting route, but I have two issues. Remember the lore that came with the unique magical items found in IWD? While the upgrade / enchantment routes are interesting, it will mean upgrades will most likely come in the form of raw material, gold, or both. From a developer's perspective, you would be placing dragon scales, wolf pelts etc. as lootable items, which are sort of generic in contrast with pre-designed attributes and lore that came with magical armors of old IE games. The other problem I have with this is similar to the potion hoarding syndrome. This is what goes through my head when I'm about to use consumable items. Ok I found these magical scales and can use them to upgrade the set of basic scale armor that I'm wearing now...but what if I find another set of scale armor around the corner that is far superior? I'd feel bad if I wasted these magical scales on my pos scale armor! This uncertainty drives the hoarder inside me, and I tend to stock pile upgrade material until the end game and dump it all into the best full plate mail I can find. This would not make for a very smooth upgrade curve. I also suspect a lot of players back in the day ended up hoarding potions and scrolls for this exact reason. If we can solve these two issues I'd be sold.

I'm not in favor of save or die spells (the way they were implemented in the IE games at least). But I do think there is room for big bad spells which have severe consequences. I think disintegrate type spells could be thrown in if these two points are addressed. 1. Make it clear that a big bad spell is starting to be cast. Spell casting information used to get lost in the sea of attack rolls. Maybe the icon of the spell will briefly hover the caster's head? 2. Give the player a chance to do something about it. You could address it with long casting times, or having a delay before the effect takes place. Maybe an hourglass or an animation of dripping blood over the affected character that indicates the time remaining. At least this way a quick player will be able to swap grimoires and start casting a counter spell, or a spell to negate it's effects.

I like the idea of linking defense rating of armor to action speed as suggested by some folks here. It's simple and intuitive, and solves some of the problems posed in this update. Light to no armor would mean more attacks for warrior types, and faster casing for mages. It will be up to the player to tune each character between glass canon and sluggish tanks. It will also give incentive for fighter types to wear very light armor. I can see some battles panning out like this; FighterA in plate mail tanks while fighterB in leather armor rushes the nasty archers and mages in the rear. Of course he will be toast if he gets caught in the back with CC spells like web or hold person, so better buff him with some protections before sending him in. The specialization of fighterB will cost some spell slots in the mages grimoire. another scenario Midway through a dungeon you realize the party composition doesn't provide your mage with enough protection and he keeps getting flanked. No problem, I'll track back a little and grab some light armor off an ogre I pwned earlier and give it to the mage for some temporary defense. Now he will take longer to cast spells but at least he won't be interrupted. It will keep all armor types relevant throughout the game and is compatible with the tiered system suggested in the update. As a side note I think we should avoid damage types affecting various armor differently. (things like plate having bonuses against slashing damage) Was I supposed to pack multiple suits of armor to optimize my gear for each encounter? Or have a wide selection of weapon types in my limited inventory to counter the type of armor the enemy is wearing? Why would I want to use blunt weapons when I spent all my points in swords anyway?? I guess it would add some twists to things, but the effects should be kept minor or it will call for too much micro management. Edit: Seeing the amount of thoughtful responses this update has revived so far, why not end every update with a mechanical or balancing problem for the community to chew on? Perhaps a new thread started by one of the devs in the mechanic section of the forums. It would give us stuff to talk about between updates.

Nice! You got talent mang~ Keep it up!

Double post, please ignore

Is it the developer's job to safeguard the player's game experience? (I'm going to answer in the scope of combat mechanics) In a multiplayer or competitive setting - of course. Same goes to single player games but at a reduced degree. Even in a single player with a big emphasis on role playing and story, if you are going to have a game where there is combat (which PE will feature) with reward systems and character growth that directly influence your performance in combat, it stands to reason there will be rules and regulations that will be imposed on the player to make those achievements significant. The enjoyment you get from a balanced combat system is derived from the great challenges posed to the character, and the attempt to overcome that challenge by exhausting many options and making use of the tools available to you. Good systems are usually tightly designed - chess or even starcraft give rise to a plethora of strategy. Don't think those games are relevant? Just look at the AD&D rule sets, they are chalk full of tables and specific attributes. If the single player difficulty and overall experience was intended to be self regulated by the player, why did the developers bother fine-tuning these tables in the first place? Bottom line is, these games were trying to create a tight framework to give meaning to all the stats defined in the world, that much is very evident. Whether they succeeded in that is another topic, but I think we can agree on their intent. Some posts here argue that additional rules and regulations impede on their style of play, while no regulation affects no one and is fine. Look, I enjoy a good story as much as the next guy, but for a lot of us the draw for these games were the deep strategy and difficult combat. As I said above somewhere, difficulty and challenges arise from clearly defined rules, relying on self regulation simply deludes that experience. Don't get me wrong, self imposed limitations (such as no-armor runs etc.) are fun, I love those too, but it's not how you design your "normal difficulty". Edit: By the way I understand PE will attempt to fix the resting mechanic, which I am happy for. I'm just making this argument because there seems to be differences in philosophy.

Might want to check out these threads for further reading http://forums.obsidi...c-system-ideas/ http://forums.obsidi...ooldown-thread/ http://forums.obsidi...er-suggestions/

Final level will be first person hack n' slash where you must fight your way through Russian elves before the cool down runs off on their elf nukes. Directed by M.Night Shamalamadingdong. The story is in good hands, we can all get some sleep now.

I'll pass on auto-loot as well. (although it's not what OP is suggesting) I do like the idea of giving the looting system a revamp, and I want to point out that it wasn't the decision making of what to pick up that was tedious but rather the mechanics behind how loot was picked up. Say your fighter loots a chest containing some scrolls and want to give them to your mage. In the old IE games you'd either had to have the fighter pick them up and manually move them one at a time over to your mage's inventory, or select the fighter, move him out of the way, and have the mage walk up to the chest to grab them. Doesn't sound too bad.. until you have to do it a hundred times over the course of the game. I like what OP suggested here and would like to add a few more points. An obvious improvement would be to allow multiple items to be selected in loot screens or for transferring items between inventories. (ctrl or shift click to add/subtract from selection) So using the example I gave above, I could stay in the loot screen with my fighter, select the mage related items using ctrl or shift, then drag that selection group over my mage's portrait for the transfer. Boom. I'm re-playing IWD now and can relate to the "multiple loot piles cluttering floor" issue. Might be cool to get a mini preview of the pile's contents when you hit Alt to highlight the piles. Not to derail the topic, but while I was thinking about all of this I had another idea.. it's been hinted that there will be a stat or skill sets which enhances the ability for character to notice things, like knowing the true name of a demon etc. Loot screens might be an interesting place to hide extra info, or a chance to find a secret pocket on the corpse for a little extra gold/loot on the side for characters who picked up these perks. Should be balanced within reason of course.

From the front page of the kickstarter: Judging from the interviews I've read so far it seems like the devs share the same outlook on open map exploration. By the way exploring the wilderness in BG1 was also my favorite element from that game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFenZq2AN4

Remember the mysterious stranger perk from Fallout? Could we have a Miniature giant space hamster as a pet, which has a 1% chance of going berserk? The screen should go white and play I kid I kid. What I really want is a Miniature giant space honey badger. But seriously, great update. Thanks for doing these Tim, I really enjoy them!

Here’s another idea for the spell casting system. I use the term "mana" for clarity, but it could be called anything. Absorbing fallen souls. Think picking up ammunition from dead enemies. 1. You are able to replenish mana points by absorbing souls from your dead enemies. You may also replenish all mana points by resting at an inn. 2. Spell level is replaced with mana cost (magic missile costs 1 mana, haste costs 3) 3. Your mana pool equals the total spell slots of a traditional mage (In 2nd edition a 5th lvl mage could cast 4 1st level spells, 2 2nd and 1 3rd, this would equate to (4x1) + (2x2) + (1x3) = 11 total mana points) You shouldn’t be able to collect souls from every single enemy, (One goblin should not equal one magic missile) but you might be able to recover more souls/mana from fallen mages, or stronger souls. Still interested? Read on.. After a few battles you will gain a sense for how much mana you’ll be able to replenish from the next encounter by looking at the enemy composition. You can then make an informed decision on how much mana is worth spending, if at all. The vancian system promotes strategy/planning by forcing you to make spell choices in advance... however, it is impossible to scout an entire dungeon or city ahead of time. It is thus unreasonable to expect the player to make intelligent choices so far in advance. In the old system players often end up speccing for very generic encounters, or flat out guessing. The model I’m proposing abstracts the spell choice but retains the strategy involved in managing your mana supply. From a devs perspective it’s easier to design levels because you have a fairly good idea of what the spell caster is capable of within a dungeon(simply count the potential souls that can “drop”). Retainable mana points have a hard cap based on caster level, so a player will not be able to grind until he absorbs 99 mana and start blasting fireballs everywhere. Some obvious questions that came up while writing this.. What if you are stuck in a dungeon, and aren’t able to progress without additional mana? Potions are one option, but mana potion drops should be very rare and high prices in stores. If you are out of potions you deserve to make the trek back to town. An alternative might be a very slow mana regeneration. (I’m talking 10min per 1 point slow) How will souls/mana get distributed if multiple casters are present in the group? This needs to be thought through carefully. The best way I feel is to make the player decide which caster’s mana pool to replenish. This may sound like it discourages taking multiple casters because the total magical output would be the same as having one mage. While this is true, having multiple casters would grant you more spell options, and the ability to cast multiple spells at once. This would also introduce another level of strategy, do I give mana to the cleric for healing? Or re-arm the mage for more firepower? You won’t be seeing a ton of spell casting with this model, at least in the early levels. But I feel that makes every spell count more and allows adventuring parties to decent into deep dungeons without the need for a rest mechanic. Thanks for reading!

Congrats Justin for these beautiful pieces! I'm no musician, but in the Dirge track there was a longer hold before that settling note hits (around 3:40 in the trailer, 1:38 in the soundcloud ver). I loved that extra hold in the trailer and thought it added character and mixed up the pace. Wondering which version will make it into the final product? Keep up the great work!! -k

Taking an evil character has always intrigued me but I've never gone through with it because of the way hostility was handled by the engine. Once I agro someone it was permanent, and there was no way to interact with that NPC beyond that point. This limited your options severely, because I knew if I kill this guy right now, the whole town would go agro on my ass and I would miss out on a ton of quests / events. If I did attack someone the AI would kick in and I would say to myself "Welp, I guess I have to kill everyone in Beregost again". Which is fun in it's own right.. heheh I'd like to propose a new state NPCs can be in, which is the dislike/fearful state. (could be represented by an orange circle under their feet) The AI would not auto attack NPCs in this state, and still allow you to talk to them. Having this gray area would allow a lot of options for an evil character. You could attack the NPC, but not kill them as a form of interrogation. If they are capable of combat, such as guards or other adventurers, then yeah they will agro and there's nothing you can do. But realistically a civilian wouldn't dare try to fight a party of badasses. If you're caught stealing, you could still talk to the store keep and attempt to bribe him to keep his mouth shut. If your reputation drops far enough maybe people around you would automatically change to a fearful state, which would be kinda badass as an evil char. So to sum up, add more gray area to agro states to give evil characters more options - allowing them to experience more game content. Thoughts? Edit: Of course this would mean more dialog options, and I don't want to kill Chris by doubling his workload Perhaps there is a more graceful option?

I never liked the way an entire town would turn on you for failing to pickpocket a few coins. It could be very unforgiving in that regard, and only encouraged quick save / loads before any attempts to steal. It would be better if the consequences weren't so severe or permanent. Perhaps your pick pocket skill also increases your ability to pull off a disguise, so if you escape the agro'ed store keep's line of sight for a few minutes and return there's a chance he wouldn't recognize you.

Hello, first post here. I'm all about the narration + simple imagery approach. I always thought the old Miyazaki film Nausicaa had an intro sequence with a cool iconic style that invokes a strong sense of mystery and adventure. http://video.google....790173215648057 (skip to 2:00) It also contrasts well against the in-game art because when you cut away from simple drawing / etchings, it makes in-game art feel lush and detailed. Also the patchwork will echo the stained glass / cobble stone look that BG2 employed. A quick google search for "ancient nordic art" turned up stuff like this. It's close to the IWD approach, but reads "flatter" and extra embellishments give it the feel of a story book. All that being said, a full blown painting by Justin Sweet or someone of his caliber would be awesome too! Just my 2cents.