Jojobobo

I'd like to see a sitaution of crushing damage doing more stamina and less health damage (if you are heavily armoured, it effectively knocks the wind out of you but is unlikely to bust a rib unless the person hitting you is very strong) and piercing or slashing damage doing more health and less stamina damage (if you've been skewered they may have hit a vital organ, but they haven't fatigued your body as a whole).

I think FO:NV had a decent system, rarely did vendors have significant amounts of caps for you to get for your items and so if you had a load of high level weapons in full repair you have to barter them for a different item (especially with the inclusion of the Gun Runners' Arsenal DLC) you wanted rather than currency. In this regard, you get a sense that wealth isn't limitless but at the same time it doesn't inhibit the player greatly. I'm not entirely convinced that enough players would enjoy a dynamic economy enough to merit its inclusion in the game. I would enjoy it, but it does seem like it would be a very resource intensive venture. However if you look in the lore update under Readceras it mentions that a popular religious movement sparked the collapse of the nation's purple-dye market, so I think clearly the team is going to have the economy in the game in some shape or form. Instead, you can always simulate an economy through quests (or as many have pointed out, events like natural disasters or war between nations). For example maybe there's a trade embargo between the Free Palatinate of Dyrwood and the Penitential Regency of Readceras, and a coterie of merchants in Readceras comes to the player wanting them to solve their supply issues. Solutions could be liaising with smugglers in one of the regions to solve this problem, or creating trade deals with the merchants of a entirely different region not involved in the embargo to solve the supply problem. After this has been sorted, new items will be available from the merchants to demonstrate their new found supply - indicative of an economy without having to actually produce a dynamic economy.

KOTOR's theme was great, it was something new whilst at the same time feel awesomely Star Wars. The Final Fantasy series has likewise done a good job with its main theme. So yes, a nice discintive theme would be good for the series - one that isn't too fantasy-esque with the late medieval focus of the game.

So I didn't think what I was suggesting here really fell under the purview of the Armour and weapon designs - a plea threads, but if it does a moderator can feel free to lock it. What I'm asking here is what outlandish weapons and armour would you like to be in the game, or you think would be interesting? I think we all know this game is medieval inspired, but as it is a fantasy game (and with some societies more closely adhering to a Bronze Age level of technology) what kind of weird and wonderful things would you like to see that are either unusual, culturally disimilar from western medieval Europe or just not contemporary to the time period at all. As a disclaimer I thought I'd say this is just a thread for bouncing around ideas, I'm not advocating that any of these things should actually be in the game to avoid the whole "well I don't think anything like this should be in the game as I think it is too resource intensive" train of thought. To get the ball rolling I'd like to see a sword breaker in use, particularly for a duelist style rogue: I think it would be very cool, especially with some sort of trapping and disarming manoveur. It would give such a fighting style and extra layer of subtlety. Secondly I think the net and trident combo would be interesting, a la a Retairius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retiarius). I know this is a bit more gladitorial and outdated to the medieval setting, but it would be nice seeing a combination of weapons designed to work in harmony like this.

I like sword and dagger duelist style. I think duel wielding, if it were to be used for larger weapons, should be limitted in the game or difficult to learn - in previous IE games it was all too easy to get a couple of feats and then you were good to go. I'd imagine having that level of coordination to use two weapons effectively is quite a tricky task.

"All classes should be balanced, and should have abilities that progress in accordance to the challenge they are presented with." (Cain 17:12-15) Of course I'm joking, that quote wasn't by Tim Cain and he isn't really bible worthy (well, maybe he isn't) but I think my sentiment sums up the features of a nice functional class system quite well.

I would like a long reload, so you have to chose between leaving that character vulnerable or just letting them charge in and musket-whip people.

There wasn't enough ass. I'm an ass man, and I say that more ass is called for in the concept art.

But not everyone who plays this game will have originally been a backer, and so will be ignorant of these updates. It's easy to forget that this game will in the future be something greater than the some total of the cliquish sub-society of hardcore fans who originally backed it on this forum. Not that that's a bad thing right now, but in the future the game still needs to provide for those who at first never knew it existed.

I've only skim read after the first page, because often after that it these threads devolve into a back-and-forth and some very specific points of contention. Hence, sorry if my ideas have already been covered. First off: transparency. I feel like this is a big motivator behind this thread. People need to know how the mechanics work in a game, but they also need to know specifically. A perfect example of this is in KOTOR, where I didn't immediately realise lightsabers were finessible (i.e. they go off the higher of strength or dexterity). These things should not be glossed over, they need to be laid bare for all to see. Beyond the specifics, there needs to be some method to relay information that is less specific to the player (good spell, feat or class combinations in a party). A good example of how this was done was VTMB, where they had a (skippable) tutorial but then they put information on loading screens that helped to sketch out more explicit game mechanics (i.e. things you wouldn't notice immediately). I think this is key, and can be used to convey not only the basics but what feat combinations or spells work well in conjunction with one another (but not everything - people should be required to use a bit of their nouce to both engage and reward them for their ingenuity). This way even casual players don't get tripped up. However, if a player wants to blunder blindly into a game and do whatever they like despite guidance that's their choice. There's only so much help you can give someone. Secondly: buffs, or any other combat system that is enhanced by a party featuring a certain class/spell/whatever combination. Good things in this game should be mutually exclusive - or at least there should never be one class that any party would greatly benefit from (typically, there isn't a single party in old IE games that I've played that wouldn't benefit from a wizard or cleric buffing the crap out of people). This should not be the case. Why? Well it isn't hard or ingenious to select certain spells and cast them for each battle, people have essentially learnt how to play the game but there is no challenge. Buffs IMO need to be specific or situational - so you wouldn't feel like you were missing out by not including a wizard/priest. Other playstyles (i.e. at least 5 very conceptually different viable party set-ups should be in the game - and these should be loose to favour customisation) should be encouraged, it should never be a case of "I must include this class or else my party will fall to pieces". All classes need to be equally weighted. Basically what you need here is a balance - having a system that isn't skewed towards one specific combinations of classes, feats and spells (if it is skewed, have it skewed towards many different options - i.e. all these very different options are powerful, not just one). By forgoing the need for such narrow specificity, you make the game more accessible. However you do need some of these mechanical combinations - or at least strong hints of such - to be made clear to a player and early so they can avoid trouble from later down the line.

This is a really minor point, but one I felt was worth a mention. It would be nice if they included examples of five female, male and surnames in the manual (or character creation screen) for each race in Project: Eternity - I don't know about others but I like to name my characters in the conventional way their race is named so they seem more in synch with the world. Naturally these names wouldn't cover the entire scope of what a race could be called, but it would at least give you an idea of whether a race favours harsh or soft consonant sounds, short names, descriptive names - you get the idea. The TES series has fairly detailed conventions on naming, if Project: Eternity was to do similar I would like to have an awareness of it before I start playing - for me calling a character something ridiculous and having it taunt me all game can be a good reason to restart. Anyone else think this is a good idea - or aren't most people as anal as me?

You're making these things a bit more black and white than they are, i.e. all players who care about loot aren't bothered about gameplay. If I think a certain piece of equipment would enhance my gameplay (i.e. synergise with my character build or character's personality, give them unusual options) then to me it does pretty much become mandatory as I feel like the character would be lacking without it. The two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Plus I'm completionist, and I can't see any reason why one of my characters - unless I was playing them as cowardly or overly cautious - wouldn't explore the dungeon when presented with it. Most people when presented with something intriguing wouldn't just go "Meh, can't be bothered"; and so to roleplay those characters properly I would go through the dungeon again even if I had long passed the stage where I enjoy it. Hopefully it will be adaptive in someway, for example offering different opportunities based on player character class when you're down there or reacting to side quests you've done that deal with ancient lore (i.e. when the ruins were built). That would be one way to keep it a bit more engaging, as with so many classes you'd have to have a fair few playthroughs to experience all of what it had to offer.

Speak for yourself, see previous answer, I have magic in spades - fire is shooting from my orifices as I type, it's not dissapointing because I am ultra-suave - I have a tuxedo and everything, yes - I am Elrond incarnate, no - I won't need to cope with anything because I am pretty much the most awesome human being on the planet. Now that I have answered your questions, good day sir.

Yes, but I don't finance football or stage dramas. No it doesn't necessarily have to have a purpose, but it should be compelling; by drawing something out by such an extent you dull its impact after the first time and so it becomes far less so. It's like having a Lord of the Rings film marathon - might seem like a good idea at first but by the end of the day you'll be ready to claw your eyes out.

Colour me controversial, but I'd have been more than happy to have never had a mega dungeon as a stretch goal. The trouble is a mega dungeon is almost certainly never going to enjoyable enough for me to want to play through it again and again on repeat playthroughs. Now here's the dilemma: either the devs offer some sort of tangible reward to get to the end of the dungeon which is good enough to motivate a player to take it on, or they don't really offer anything and so all their hard work is bypassed. On the one hand you have a situation where you are obligated to play through an enormous dungeon again and again because the reward is too good to pass up even though it has become a chore, on the other no one bothers to play the dungeon and so its existence in the game is pointless. There isn't really any balance between these points, if you give a middling to good reward but the dungeon is really purty people still won't be incentivised enough to want to go through it again on a repeat playthrough. I really hope I'll be proven wrong, that the dungeon will be a show stopper and I'll gladly sink an hour or so into getting through it every time, but I have a strong feeling that this won't be the case and to me it'll always be an enormous waste of a stretch goal. I would have pretty much enjoyed almost anything else as a stretch goal than this.

I like the bell curve going from fully happy ending to depressing ending - it's very statistical. Honestly multiple endings are a bit of a deal breaker for me (well not exactly as they already have my money), they are an rpg standard and by no account should be excluded. An open ending for me would also suck, I think for some quests having an open ending where you're not sure precisely what went down is fine but for the main quest I want a degree of resolution - this isn't Inception people.

I voted yes and no, lololololololololol!!!!

I would love horror to be a part of this game, maybe on a few signature quests that set themselves apart by having a distinct horror feel. The kind of horror I like is typically a sense of creepiness, building to an overwhelming sense of foreboding and oppression - kind of Lovecraftian I guess. In light of this I went for "Yes, but not the main theme" and "other".

I think you've got to have that buzz that makes you want to replay an old game. If I try and force myself to replay something I've played to death (Arcanum, VTMB, FO:NV, Bioshock - plus a whole load of other games that I've played that aren't rpgs or have rpg elements) then I'll be bored to tears. But if you wait for that time when you haven't played it for a while, and you start reminiscing about what it was that you loved about that game you can fire it up and once again it's a joy to play. At least that's how it is for me. If you have gaming ennui I'd suggest trying a different hobby for a while. It won't take long before you want to be playing a game again.

I wouldn't think they'd need to be integrated with the story - in the same way that in game justification isn't given for playing on regular difficulty and being able to save and reload normally compared to Ironman mode. If you mean integrated in general - just only save on quit, then if you die you reload from the last time you saved and quitted. And yes it is practically the same thing, just makes difficulty a little more tunable.

VTMB's voice acting is pretty top notch, and plenty of the characters have very memorable lines. Even so I don't know important it is to have characters in an isometric game fully voice acted - the fact is if they did they may have to re-use certain voice actors for certain bystander characters which to me makes a game less immersive. Voice acting should IMO be used in a game like this either for main characters, or for characters where the devs feel like a distinctive voice could convey something about their character that visuals and description could not (for example Cicero in Skyrim or Gary for VTMB are both characters that wouldn't be the same without their voice actors).

I like the gist, but not necessarily the implementation. First of all as others have said I don't think an alignment meter is necessary, as morality is completely subjective and not something you should hang a number on - even if it wasn't visible in game it shouldn't even be in the system at all. I think the idea of perceptions or reputation shifting over time is fine, and I suppose it a reflection of your alignment that people's opinions would change - however a follower getting to know you better and your relations improving with them is just a result of them observing more empirical evidence about what they believe is your nature. If a whole town could do the same their perception meter would also shift. Quite possibly appearance/race/background that make you look like a thug/handsome devil could impact on the starting reputation value for a town, but good deeds done for them or bad deeds done against them would shift it in the normal manner. Too little transparency can also be annoying. People like to be in control of their player and affect them in whatever way they choose. Having too many values off the books makes it more difficult to tune a character to what the player wants them to be. Some values will of course be hidden, but it shouldn't be too many so that accessibility is compromised. For some values it's fine to obscure them if a qualitative as opposed to a quantitive approach is better (as in someone who likes you would have their relationship listed as you being "Liked" by them in your journal as per FO:NV instead of using a value like 5, where 5 is the mechanistic number that corresponds to that reputation). I do very much agree however a greater level of subtley needs to be given to social interactions. Different cultures will have different preferences as to what they fine visually appealing (so they are more readily persuaded or seduced by a character) and also what they find unappealing (so they are more readily intimidated) - this should be a combination of looks and equipment. Some aspects of appearance you can change (a haircut, scarring) but shouldn't be able to. How I would like looks to break down is sliders between different values, that once set cannot be changed but both ends of the sliders have different drawbacks and benefits. For example for facial features you could have "Brutish" on one end of a scale and "Defined" on the other. For the most part characters who have a brutish shapeless face will find that most cultures find them intimidating and will react initially poorly to them - but some cultures will find their more lumpen ugly faces more attractive than that of characters who are defined as they associate them with physical weakness or possibly illness. Likewise most cultures will find the defined people with good bone structure and the like to be more attractive and ammenable to get on with, but maybe they come into contact with a hideous race that finds their apperance far more terrifying than the brutish characters. Slap bang in the middle of this you get a character with no real benefits either way - your plain Jane. Possibly some of the classes could alter their appearances through magic for a short time to alter these preconceptions. I don't know as if intimidation should really be linked to strength in anyway either, I think what equipment you are wearing should be far more important. Someone who is armoured to the teeth but has more of a lithe (read dexterity focused) physique IMO should not be able to intimidate someone any worse than someone with huge muscles and a warhammer.

But they are already implementing Ironman mode - or do you realise that and you think the idea of continues is pointless? I wasn't clear on what you meant. On the whole "as long as it doesn't waste resources" argument - I really can't imagine how it would. I mean if they weren't going to have Trial by Iron then it might be a difficulty, but essentially continues would be a very minor tweak - instead of having the single save deleted when the PC dies one time (a value = 1) you can set it so that value equals a higher number (a simple matter of changing the value to = 2 or 3, anything). Trail by Iron would still be a game mode, this would just be a slight variation - unless someone with more experience with these things knows it would be a great deal more involved than this? I guess for me I like very hard difficulty, and I would like to play something like Trail by Iron on my first playthrough - but because Trial by Iron is a one strike and you're out kind of deal I think that would too much even for me. Having 3 strikes and your out (2 continues) would encourage caution and would have a lot of the edge of your seat excitement/nerves of a Trial by Iron mode ("Please don't die, please kill that enemy before he kills you, you're both on similar health - just hold on" followed by the triumphant "YEAH, TAKE THAT!" or the crushing "Oh great, I'm dead, I HATE THIS GAME SO MUCH!") - but it would not be as brutally punishing. I do realise that is the point of a Trial by Iron run, but I would like a slightly easier time of it first time round. Then with later characters once I know what the score is I would play Trial by Iron every time anyway. Plus to me continues are a fun bit of nostalgia - not for IE games but classic arcade style ones.

I went for no, I guess previously I would have been a sometimes guy but I think I'll try and roleplay P:E as deeply as possible when the time comes. I think quests relating to the death of a party member is a great idea, or at least you could inform their family and watch their trauma to make companion death impactful. It certainly would better than the usual companion getting stabbed to death by a goblin and it having no effect on the world what so ever; even loner types would have some ties to the world around them or some form of legacy. It would also encourage players to consider not reloading, as there would be some things you could only find out or experience if a companion died - which adds to replayability. If they did this, I'd probably end up offing companions myself with one character just to see what would happen.

Humour's fine; all you have to do is keep it separate from the more serious story elements so it doesn't spoil the mood - but anyone with a touch of sense would do that naturally anyway. Honestly a lot of the past titles the devs have worked on have had some decent humour in them without comprising their games' more earnest moments or making them generally silly, so it would've been very weird if they didn't put it in for P:E.