TrashMan

Proof please. I'd like to point out how silly "Ad Populum" arguments are given the forums we're on. An old-school isometric RPG? Most players won't like that. It's the same preconception un-argument that is constnatly used (and abused) and leads to stagnation and creation of souless clones. Adventure games are dead. Old-schoold RPG's are dead. Oh wait, PE kickstarter campaign was a massive sucess! Space shooters are dead. Oh wait, Star Citizen broke all records. See the problem with equating "what is on the market" with "what will be a sucess". People play whats on the market because that's what they have available or is what they know. If the market is saturated with bread, people will eat bread because there's so much of it to go around. That doens't mean people will not like cake because bread is popular.

Well, the devs are free to think of anything, that's the beauty of your own IP. Speakign of Phoenix(es), all the legeds and myths that I know off speak of *a* Phoenix-(singular). Eternal, undying, the only one. And always in a positive context. While the Phoenix is symbolic of many, many things - including fire, death and destruction - odly enough it was never depicted as a negative or hostile force. (probably because it was also a symbol of power, freedom, life, rebith, hope, beauty, etc...)

Characters looking identical (if they should look identical) and not looking identical (when they shouldn't) is neither a pro or a con. It just is. What constitues as gameplay and what makes for "good gamepaly" is also up to a point subjective. If atmosphere is part of gameplay, then aesthetics impacts my enjoyment and how I play too. Yes, but the visually look exacly the same. Men and women - everyone. As long as they carry the same armor nad gun, they are like clones. And nobody is bothered by it. Except we are talking specificly about visual customization, not the overall meaning of the wrod "customize". Sure, in all games characters were different. They had differet stats, names, roles/positions in the team, and different portraits. It's their history with the palyer that made them "unique" more than anything. Nothing. Because I am quite happy with the way PE does things. I neither require nor demand that plate armor be unisex - even tough I would love to see it done that way at least once - to satisfy the historical realist buffs and just becausen o one else did it. Don't confuse me arguing aginst Lephyses point with me actually shunning the female form. As to what most poeple would want - it's a guessing game. How can you tell what most people want? How can you tell if it's even important or how they will react? Ultimatively, there will always be things that are put in because tehy are expected to be there or because people expect that they will hate the game if it doesn't have them. And quite often it turns out to be false. And vice-versa. The ironic truth is that often people don't really know what they want or will like.

No, but pray tell what makes you think it's the other way around? (as in, it's only your oppinion and tastes that matter?)

Except it does because it doesn't matter if it comes with it or not. (and technicly, if we are talking about a whole armor set, the helmet will probably have a plume) I don't care that it's a video game. I told you a million times before, that argument is null and void. There is no reason to force that destinction there. You are again forcing a priory distinction form orbit of everything as the ONLY acceptable way. Well frak that. I can have it both ways. I already do. We all already do. Unless you somehow missed it, game always use a specific level of abstraction, so some things will be realistic, others will be less so. I'm not nitpicking the armor design, I'm nitpicking your downright fundamentalist stance on it. You play as the party, but you are NOT the party. The destinction exists and is important. Either it's a moot point by now, since all of this is a by-prodcut of your whole "the player should know every character" point, that b.t.w. was compeltely flawed from the get-go, as it implies the player a moron that doesnt' know what his own characters are doing.

Ah..but here we come to a crux of what is is the "core" game and what is padding. What you call "padding" someone might call a core game experience or component. I get it might "feel" like padding to you - and truth be told ANYTHING can. Even combat. If you didn't have ot rest or eat you could beat a level in 20 minutes? Well, if you didn't have to fight you could beat it in 5. If oyu dodn't have to travel from point A to point B (teleport) you could beat it in 1. Again, you only see the worst possible implementation, which is rather pessimistic of you. You really think the food bar would depolete so fast? And lastly, if you're deep in a dungeon and haven't been in civilization for a month, then yes, I do think that "where do I get my next meal from?" is a valid question and part of hte adventuring experience. I know people always want ot skip to the "good stuff", but seriously. The issue with food is more inventory space and weight then money. How often do you eat in RL? There's your answer.

Dragons are overdone. Gimme Phoenixes. Way cooler and more awesome. https://www.google.hr/search?q=Phoenix&client=firefox-a&hs=1c1&rls=org.mozilla:hr:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=fnCGUZP0EcKj4gT11oGwAw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=717

COPY-PASTA

Because you got a dirty mind thats sick and too prone to haste?

Also, Snoopy there sucked. Comandizzle? That ain't even a word.

No, but they have to do with bad design principles that are long overdue to getting rid of.

Pfft. you think I'm impressed by a forum moderator? The way you flaunt one would think you're the damned Governator. Like a faun displays his feathers and puffs his chest, so you point out the post count beneath your belt. Too bad it's the only thing you have between your legs Dissapointed, that what she said while leaving your bed You should wake up and take a shower, Realise this is the only place you have any power The internets my stage, my voice will be heard So go ahead and rage, cause you just got served!

Haters will hate You have no clue So bring it on b*t*h! I'm not afraid of you. Your style is broke, Your rhymes are crappy So come at me bro! You won't leave happy.

Indeed, but only because asymetric warfare is a big unknown and thus practicly uncalculable - thus making wins and losses both more and less unexpected. The conventional actor in this case is operating mostly in the dark.

The tread for all your rhyming silliness. So here are a few taken from my repertoire: I challenge Ye forumites to a battle of wits Let the words bounce around like a pair of voluptios ****. Bring out some rhymes to glorify Project Eternity Or some events that warrant recording for posterity. Sharpen your toungs and let the dance begin, I shall be the judge so you know you can't win.

The snake pit of corruption and stupidity.

Nope. You established that you don't like it when I use it, and you like to pretend it doesn't exist, and simply argue the subjective. "I don't THINK there's a boost to visual distinction when 2 armor models are rendered differently than when they are rendered identically, and therefore THERE ISN'T!". But then you like to ask me why I keep talking about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, like it's not even pertinent to what's going on here. Fun times. ^_^ Nope. What I established is that if visibiltiy is the goal and purpose, then it OBJECTIVELY does not matter if that visibiltiy is achieved by capes, tabbards of color, or by having bumps and differences. The question isn't about the existence or non-existence of visibility, but rather the method of achieving it. And what about when it doesn't specifically state that the physical properties have no impact, then a tiny gnome helmet isn't any easier to crush than an ogre helmet because the game didn't actually represent the physical properties and differences for whatever reason? That's fine, but then it's not fine to take advantage of that when they're not going to be represented in a purely abstraction-free way anyway? You can't have it both ways. It's fine? When have I said that? Altough there is actually no reason why a gnome helmet would be thinner mind you. Same thickness, different size. There is also the matter of material quality and other factors. Man... he's got some amazing Charisma if he can "influence" Steve the Wizard to stop attacking, mid-swing, and instead begin casting a spell, all within the span of a fraction of a second, all while your main character is lying unconscious upon the ground. Gotta love subconscious telepathy. What part of "abstraction" is not getting trough to you? You, the player, controls the movements of the party directly, but the character doesn't. Would you rather that every time you give an order or any kind, your PC barks that order out, and only then does a NPC move? So, lemme get this straight... part of what you've been saying, "from the start," has included the fact that there are legitimate reasons for "my" approach? Because all I've seen from you so far is essentially the following quote from Billy Madison: "... Mr. Madison... Nowhere, in ANY of that... did you even come CLOSE... to ANYTHING... that could even be conSIdered a rational thought... I award you NO points, and may God have mercy on your soul." Yeah, and all I've seen from you is essentialy this quote: "crap".

"Calculable strength" becomes far harder to calculate once you throw in asymetric warfare into the equation. But I'd say that battles are won by defying the outcome dictated by calculable strength, and wars are won by wining crucial battles (or lost by loosing too many cruical battles)

General combat equals ambush/random encounter? Maybe, maybe not. Not to say that you wouldnt' get anything from combat - depending on whom you are fighting - but if combat is too rewardng, then there is never a reason to avoid it. Risk is the reason in real life, but in a game, it doesnt' exist (because save/load)

I have real-life knowledge of physics and chemistry that tells me that many of the effects of magic shouldn't work the way they do. Fireballs should blow out the walls of any room they detonate in (unless they're made out a foot of solid rock). Getting frozen solid should kill you instantly from the water in your body crystallizing. Lightning bolts shouldn't have a travel time. When it comes to understanding how these things work we have a "basis for realism and believability." On the other hand a smith making a chain mail bikini and then getting it enchanted with some spell that provides the wearer with an invisible layer of whatever across their whole body can, in fact, be handwaived away as simply being "magic." Fireballs are just a balls of fire. Not an fireball created by an actual explosion of TNT. So no. Unless a flamethrower burns down a wall that is.... Uhh... lighting does have travel-time. And freezing? Are you completely frozen (internally) or merely incased in ice? Speaking of which, there are animals that can survive beign frozen. IIRC, a species of frog to be exact. That's not to say that damage done should be taken literaly. After all, a sword blow to the head should kill anyone, right? Durability of combatatns has to be increased in party RPG's, because 1-hit kills in a real-time enviroment with irreplacable units are simply bad gameplay. If the player controls just one character, than completely realistic injuries can work. But a party? But you seem to forget that magic is magic. What even makes you think that magical lighting = real lightning. And seriously? So hadwaving "magic" is impossible in scenario 1 but perfectly possible in 2? Seems to me like you are confused.

Nope. Everything matters. And nothing matters. I though we already established that "objective" is a highly nebulous term. you keep wielding the terms "objective" and "truthfull" like a mightly hammer...yet you fail to realise what your'e swinging is a tiny tree branch. I already told you "it's a game, so who gives a f****" is not an argument worth a damn. A game world where things are unintuitive and conflict with the experience and knowledge from RL? Can work, but again, it's a matter of taste. Yes, if in the setting/lore it is SPECIFICLY stated that shape has no impact, it would make sense for any designs...BUT...if a setting/lore were to say that it acutomaticly looses credibility. You can't have it both ways. No one. I already told you. Why do you keep pretending that I didn't? It's more a matter of which prons and cons you like more. Abstraction son...Abstraction. The player is meant to be one guy whos'e personality and actions he controls. He can INFLUENCE other party memebers, but their personality is their own. Already played such parties and battles in other games with worse customization than PE will have. It's fun, and quantifiably non-problematic. And you can stil ltell the difference after you don the plate so your argument is null and void. Does it objective hurt to NOT have such a subtle difference? No. Also I don't care that it's already begin done. What does it matter at all? Is this some kind of attempt at appeal to authority? As long as you don't bother reading then this debate WILL continue forever. Becasue that's exactly wha I have ben saying from the start. There are reasons for and agaisnt both approaches.

So first you argue against having to manage it, and when managment is reduced to a minimum you complain there's not enough of it? Food is a relatively simple concept - you either haev it or you don't. You can buy it or scavenge/hunt. It has weight and takes space. Also it can go bad or be poisoned. I don't see any reason to complicate it needlesly. Yes, food managment is simply - just like health pots. After all, all you have to do is make sure you have a few in your inventory right..and click when helath is low. Not much different from food. And it is only your oppinion that is doesn't belong in PE. Food belongs in every setting with humans, so it's not "out of place" anywhere really. A LOT of things can go into the "s*** characters do behind the scenes". Like 99% of the things you usually do in 99% of the games.

I never new the guy as I joined late, but he sounds like an interesting guy. It's nice to see a developer that cares. It's even nicer to see a community on the internet that actually cares and is willing to go the extra mile. Heh. Maybe one day when I leave, people will remember me too (fondly...but I suspect it will probably be the opposite )

Wise words Nonek, however I think that all of it being toggable is not feasalbe. Since each option affects balance considerably, trying to please both camps will end up in a clusterf*** of crap. See, I personally feel that conservative tactics feel right. After all, you're supposed to be a guy living in a dangerous world and fighting for your life. I guess there's a difference between how people look at PRG's. Some look at them like leasure strolls and don't like anyting that "inconveniences" them. In other words, they don't want to adjust to the games pace, they want to force their pace on the game. I also find it funny that you're prefectly fine with backtracking to getyour armor fitte,d but backtracking to get food and healing is bad? For serious?

I see this is going in WAAAAY over your head. Eating is something that is important because without food you die. You need to aquire food and distribute it. You can't eat what you don't have. Reliving yourself is something that can be done practicly at any time and takes a few minutes tops. It has no prequisites or restrictions. (and b.t.w - the record for holding it in is 48 hours IIRC) Eating or not eating is something that will affect you in battle, it's not something you do doring battle. Nor is it something that you have to micro-manage (having food rations is enough, the characters would eat automaticly) It will also affect your entire expedition, as you need to carry food and supplies with you. Which translates to inventory managment. The difference should be obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together. - sharpening your blade wouldn't have a noticable effect, as blades don't become dull so fast. But, it could fall under regular mantainance. As long as you have a wheatstone, you can sharpen it. - balanced diet is largely a myth. There are perfectly healthy people who eat only one kind of food. The effect is unnoticalbe. - I'm all for a more serious injury system that doesn't triviliaze wounds and doesn't make HP easy to restore. But 3 months? Lolno. Also, what this game is and is not is not for you to decide. "Fantasy RPG"? Ha. That's a very broad category. You got hack-and-slash games that fit the bill. You do realise that have been Fantasy RPG's with all the things mentioned? No, you probably don't. So don't tell me what is and is not part of the game - given that you have no clue yourself, nor apparently any knowledge on the history of RPG's.