Osvir
-
Posts
3793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Osvir
-
-
I think Combat should reward Combat Exp and Objectives rewards Objective Exp. Basically:
Character/Class/Quest Experience
Combat Experience
Non-Lethal Experience
And before the non-lethal pathtaker arguers start arguing about "But then I'm going to be weak in combat!!" suck it up! You chose to play non-lethal, then you should not be as lethal as the lethal path, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that being non-lethal wouldn't be able to handle themselves in combat. They shouldn't be as strong physically, but could use their class abilities to overcome challenges.
As the challenge for Level Scaling, I can think of countless situations where it can be good, just don't make it like Oblivion or FF8. Enemies shouldn't just become stronger because you get stronger, but they should be strong by themselves and it should represent itself.
The Bandit Lord starts of at Level 5 in the game, when I get to him on a standard gameplay I get to level 4. He shouldn't be an equal challenge on Level 1 and Level 4, that's why the "Set Level" which is static. The level of the Bandit Lord gets dynamic when you get a level, so when you are level 3 the Bandit Lord magically levels up to present more of a challenge (on harder difficulties) on an easier difficulty the Bandit Lord might not need to scale at all. It is also a question of the Bandit Lord always being representative of his strength, and that's why he should scale on higher difficulties. This means that on Hardcore the Bandit Lord could be level 8, and on Easy he stays on Level 5.
I said it in another post but that would not equal the Bandit Lord having better gear, he just deals more realistic damage and gets advantages that you get. He gets more realistic to the representation in the game. If he is bigger than the party characters (physically) that could represent itself much more in Level Scaling.
I don't like Divine Divinity for this, absolutely great game but I was running back and forward like a fool. Ran into a nest of difficult Orcs, simply ran elsewhere, ran into a pack of easier enemies, gained a level, got back to the Orcs, defeated them until it got difficult again, backed up and ran elsewhere, got a level from easier enemies and stragglers, returned to where I couldn't defeat... etc. etc.
I wouldn't mind some instances where it is "This is too difficult for you now, so back off", with level scaling you can remove lots of that though.
Level Scaling might simply imply just that, on Easy the enemies are Level 3, but on Hardcore they are Level 5. Doesn't need to be more complicated than that.
-
The point is that you get a chance to save your character whilst they are dying, or you fail/don't get there in time and they die.
EDIT: Edair gets stabbed in the chest but he isn't entirely dead, dying sure, but not dead. With the use of magic or whatever I can stabilize him, but he wouldn't be ready for combat right away (unless someone throws some "Stamina Health" potion at him or whatever) and the HP he has now should be low and take several days to recover all the health. When the battle is finished he starts to regain Stamina like the rest of the party.
It is also a question of being able to save the main character (if it is Game Over when he/she dies).
-
* 2nd Adventurer's Hall also included?
This question is regarding the Adventurer's Hall specifically because I am curious to know what people think about companions costing gold from the Adventurer's Hall. If this is the case "Companions for Hire" that is, would they cost even more on... let's say Hardcore? Could you perhaps even be able to "Shut off" the Adventurer's Hall on Hardcore? (In essence: Not being able to hire companions for Hardcore difficulty).
I hope not. I'm planning on making my own party for nearly every playthrough, with a few exceptions (if I definitely want a Barbarian in my party and there's a Barbarian companion I'll probably take him). The whole replayability hinges on the different kinds of party setups you can have.
If Difficulty handled the scaling, it wouldn't mean that you wouldn't be able to hire more companions, it'd just mean that companions would cost more on higher difficulties (See my next answer on your other paragraph). Likewise, on a simpler difficulty it would just mean that the Companion costs closer to nothing the lower in difficulty you go.
Why should Companions from the Adventurer's Hall be "free"?
* 3rd Adventurer's Hall "Off" on Hardcore?This question is related to the Adventurer's Hall & Hardcore difficulty, or as an option regardless of difficulty. Excluding yourself from the possibility to hire "extras", making the game more difficult naturally and automatically (handicapping yourself, basically). I personally think that if you can turn it "Off" it'd be way more difficult. However, you could just not use it if you don't want to use it, but locking yourself out from it entirely also removes any thoughts of "Backup plans". Without the Adventurers Hall occupying the sub-conscious of the back of your head, it being "Closed" would and should cause even more carefulness in progression of the story.
That would be a bad idea. All it would do is elevate the status of companions compared to those you can recruit through the AH. Which would result not in you building interesting parties but always playing with one of every class.
The AH characters WILL become more of a problem on the higher difficulties, as they will probably start on level 1. That means it might be a pain/ feat of skill to keep them alive on a higher difficulty late into the game. So there's no danger that you will sacrifice them on suicide missions.
How and why is it a bad idea? (As an "Option") On Ironman Hardcore mode, Forton+Edair died, I can simply go and restock. Does that add to the difficulty? I think I voted "Yes" but I'd prefer it as an optional thing. It is also a question of making "Hiring" from the Adventurer's Hall a "limited" amount that you can do (on higher difficulty). Basically on Hardcore you can only hire 5 companions in total or something.
-
Wait what... reading up on it quickly I am not speaking about a Spirit Eater mechanic (not devouring souls... well... Cipher?).
A death counter, that's what I'm going for.
-
That's what I am advocating for I guess, money being a big deal on Hardcore where you have to think about your economy, whilst on easier modes you'd be able to do the standard "I'm rich!". It'd also make the game more difficult.
I can understand that lower difficulties should be different, but Hardcore kind of implies that it'd be Hardcore, not just a challenge but more realistic. The further you go away from "realism" the more Easy, Easy gets, and the closer you get to "realism" the closer you get to Hardcore (Dark Souls & Demon Souls). I mean, I wouldn't mind it if I got taken down in one hit by the enemy, and they do too (bosses being different ofc, they go down in more hits but I still go down easily).
You'd still be able to survive the fight, and perhaps not so Hardcore as Dark Souls or Demon Souls but close to. That's how I'd like Hardcore to be :D
-
Don't know how Mask of the Betrayer plays (never played it), which makes me wonder what is it that was bad about it? Or just because MotB did it bad, does that mean it is beyond redemption?
-
Just thoughts.
What is a soul and what is its role?
The soul is the persona, the Ego, the inner spirit or whatnot. Spiritualistic fluff, abstract, parallel-realm-ish, the underworld and the overworld, "Oneness". Connection and coincidence. Its role could be that Gods fiddle with it as they see fit and for a purpose, whilst some "earthlings" fight it, the "Gods" plan, some abuse it, some respect it. "The Grand Device".
Do souls grant sentience?
Yes.
Do souls animate whatever they inhabit?
Yes and no. Souls are everywhere all around, the "spirit". Druids, in my opinion, probably knows most truly what the "Soul" really is. They don't necessarily animate objects, but they are still there. "Soul of the Rock". A stone has a soul, Earth has soul, which is why it can be transformed into magical golems.
Are souls necessary for life?
Yes. Some form of it. Life is Death and Death is Life. Everything that has an ending has a new beginning. Dying in a "Body" doesn't necessarily mean that the "Soul" is dead.
What is undeath?
Undeath is the trapping of souls in vessels, which requires a second source (Necromancer) to utilize. Of course, sometimes lost powerful souls (such as a Wizard) can retain their existence and achieving immortality to become a Lich. In rare cases some with a great will still lingers left in the body, re-animating it (meaning that someone died rose up because he didn't quite feel he was finished with his life. So in a sense his body is dead, but his soul still lives on).
Are gods a passive or active force over life & death?
Active and passive.
Do all gods have dominion over life & death?
No. Could they all achieve it? Yes. Hades is a God of the Underworld, his purpose is to Govern the Dead, but he also tries to Govern the Living by his own schemes.
What is the role of a priest?
How does Priests interact with Souls Ideologically/Philosophically?
How potent are the abilities of a priest?
How does Priests interact with Souls Physically?
Is there a distinction between Divine & Arcane magic?
The power of the Priest should lie in how they interact with the Souls physically+ philosophy. Is the Priests abilities and beliefs against the Undeads favor? Does the Priest cast words of "Light" or like an "Excorsist" banishing the spirits (or releasing them) from the Undead vessel? In that case it fits. But if Priests use their abilities somehow differently~I don't know.
-
I'm thinking more like... if I'm a dual wielder irl, would I run out and fight with both of my swords out gung-ho style or would I have them sheathed? Probably sheathed. When a battle begins I would pick up one of them, because I want to test out my opponent and find weaknesses as well as learn from his style, I might bring out both of them instantly if I'm facing an opponent I realize I have to have 2 from the very beginning. But tactically it might be better to just wield 1 sword (a Katana?) with two hands for some instances. Switching between dual-wielding and two-handed. Two-Handed being strong against some enemies, dual-wielding against other.
Read "Vagabond" manga, such a great piece. It's the story of Miyamoto Musashi, well.. inspired by.
As for magic, why not? Not Skyrim magic, but P:E magic, combining two elements in your Grimoire.
-
So, some thoughts on mortality. I've never played DnD but I've read some stuff and played some stuff. Some slight research and understanding, got some friends who has played it too.
-10
That would be a really cool feature. Life is ticking away, you've been maimed. But instead of the Mortality being what is "going away", it could be the "Soul". When it hits 0, it obviously kills the character, and during this time you could heal your character. What I understand this is kind of a "Death" Counter, starting with 10 then, -9, -8, -7, -6 etc. etc.
Doesn't necessarily have to be 10, could be lesser. Maybe... -5?
-4
It could be part of difficulty, you get "less" or more "counters" depending on difficulty, giving you lesser time to "stabilize" the character. At "Stabilized" the character shouldn't be able to fight (maimed, starts at 0 stamina).
-3
Could you use some unique "Soul" abilities in this state at the cost of 1 death counter or more?
-2
Not anything powerful, of course, and no "Second Wind" abilities either (Like Borderlands) but more "chilled" (Maybe the soul of a maimed character can "heal stamina" at some weak rate or distract enemies somehow.
-1
*stabilizes* Sorry
"To Stabilize", what would be required? A shot of some powerful stuff, a potion? A hard beating on the chest to not stop the heart? Bandage? Magic? What would be required to become de-stabilized?
Thoughts?
-
1
-
-
Dragon Age 2 is a bad example in my opinion because it wasn't a finished game. Or rather, Copy+Paste game. Baldur's Gate 2 can work without the backstory from Baldur's Gate 1.
@motorizer: I kind of want a red thread going across both games rather than a "figure" or an "actor" being the red thread. But I understand. If possible, being P:E2 being ambivalent somehow, that it could be a new hero just as much as it is the predecessor from P:E1.
Dragon Age 2 is also narratively a bad example, because it left the red thread and poked it some times when mentioning the "Warden". It was way too vague in my opinion. I never finished DA2 though, and obviously no multiple playthroughs, how much does the background you choose effect the story?
Opposing Force, Blue Shift & Half-Life is in my opinion a great example. In Blueshift you get to see Freeman once or twice running past you as well. Just finished Black Mesa <3 *relaxed* what a great game
want Blue Shift, Opposing Forces mods naow! HahaTL;DR: Discussing sequels
-
This isn't talk about anything that is forced upon you, but an optional somewhat random situation. You are in the last dungeon, there is no turning back, your party has come this far and they could defeat the evil last boss or finish the last key without the main hero at this point. Which you, as the player, can of course. Or if your main character dies by chance in the last dungeon or against the last boss you would (as a player) be able to finish the game still (which is also a question of multiple endings or mod content). Now, Commander Shepard was required at the end... no he really wasn't why did they make such an ending to begin with!?!?
Anyways........
What I am just suggesting is the possibility for the main character to die, and you have the control of it from a non-narrative perspective (in-game designed) meaning that you hold the control of your characters life and death (Story-wise). In a sense I kind of not want an in-game designed death by Obsidian (they can handle the epilogue for a multiple ending scenario), but let me have that control of the death. The death of the main character doesn't often go good, I'd rather narrate it myself "My fault the character died" not "Obsidian's fault the character died" <- that's also why people complain about it.
If they make a sequel, then it should follow the cannon story rather than the cannon character~eeeh what I mean is that it could follow the main story rather than the main character from the first game. That depends on how Obsidian does it though.
Maybe in the sequel you follow the story of another one, who walks a different path but in the same world, perhaps at a parallel time which is a piece to unlock the big picture that unfolds when you've finished the Quadrilogy together
perhaps you have to go back and play the First one when you've finished the 3rd one because there were clues that you completely disregarded the first time you played (non-important originally). Anyways that is just rambling. -
This makes me wonder, should P:E's animals be sentient or non-sentient? That would make the Beastmaster Role way more interesting but I think I now understand why all monsters have been "riled up" somehow and it is a big thing in the world. Isn't in Baldur's Gate they say "The animals have gone all whack! And Bandits too!", or am I thinking about another game?
Regardless, developers making up lore to make the animals more mindless. It might speak for itself that making every animal sentient is probably a big workload.
-
-
1
-
-
Dual Wielding, in some ways I feel it should be some sort of "activated" stance akin to "The Witcher". Being able to switch between Dual Wield stance and One Handed. This way you could hold the Katana like a two-handed sword, and mid-combat do some "hidden blade" attack or even draw the second Katana by using an ability. Likewise, I would like to be able to go into combat dual-wielding two Katanas, but be able to switch back to single-wielding mid combat.
-
Maybe the player simply can't speak for the character at [Point of Death], and the characters will simply speak for themselves as pre-written (as they would with the player), excluding [Player] from conversations with some sense of purpose to why they are going on, perhaps no more banters but more "silent protagonist party" basically who seek vengeance or is in sorrow/confuse. I can think of it as.. kind of a earlier era Final Fantasy party style. You didn't play your character, you were playing Cloud, Squaresoft's character.
If P:E will be as customizeable as it could be, chances are that Obsidian's character story will differ way more differently than ours will. Kind of having "railroad" dialogue choices, more of a "casual" laidback approach to get the cannon story. Where there are minor choices in dialogues and the dialogues pretty much run on their own railroad. "Slacker"-mode!
The game becomes more like a movie in that sense, you are watching/reading the story unfold, rather than abruptly ending it.
*idk* armchair suggestion.
P:E (and yes also BG) isn't a single character game (unless you choose to play it that way and go against the developer's intentions). It's party based. Yet you are more attached to one character (because you create it). That means it's a hybrid type of game, there's no denying that.
You're still playing the role of the PC. The ability to give orders to your friends doesn't mean you have some hive mind that persists through death. If you went a trip with some buddies in real life and then fell off a cliff you wouldn't continue the trip by taking over one of their bodies; you'd be dead.
That could be pretty cool. Maybe the main character is a follower "Spirit", really, some spectral being who guides the party forward. The Event could be related to the "Soul" character and the character you create, maybe? And you'd be able to play good hive mind or bad hive mind
(Black & White) -
Does the DM allow your character to face perma-death? If so, does your DM allow you to re-roll with a new character that isn't the Bhaalspawn this time? Does the game end for the character or for the world? I don't want to ignore the DM's world, I want to explore it and if there is a point in the game where it could be possible (towards end portions of the game) that I can explore the world even if I lose the most vital character, I would want to continue exploring, if reasonable to do so.
But there is no DM Osvir. This isn't D&D, we aren't at the tabletop, this story isn't about the party which is comprised of five real human beings with their own characters. This is a single player CRPG and the story is only about MY character because I am the only actual player.
I am only saying this to reinforce the common sense reality of the game.
Again your idea can work, but it would have to be highly scripted and the game would have to be designed around it happening from the ground up. Also it doesn't really work well in blank slate games like this one. Games where it is less about you role playing your character and more about you experiencing the story and the world through a character (again example: Mass Effect's Commander Shepard) it can work. But this isn't one of those games. If it were then there never would have been an Adventurers Hall in the first place.
Obsidian is the DM, they create the world. But I see what you are saying I guess, they aren't active DMs but in a way more robotic representations of the developers creation. Still makes them the DMs. Developer Master by the way, if you were wondering xD
I think Sacred_Path has some great points generally and I'm pretty much on page with that.
-
No no, you sold the items for a very low price and bought them at a very high price. Conceptual-realism I guess. You bought a longsword from the guy for 150 gold, you think he's going to take it back at the same price? Maybe if he is an honest fellow he'll buy it back at a more reasonable price (I think I could sell the Short Sword for some 20-30 gold to Winthrop).
Here is where limited inventory comes into picture. If you just can't carry too much at once, disabling the player to be able to become practically this (what you are hinting at):
Likewise, you have 5 Short Swords, the Blacksmith has 10 (and he can make more), selling the first Short Sword would perhaps yield some 30 gold if he's even interested in buying, the second Short Sword wouldn't sell as well as the other one either, because now the Blacksmith has 11 Short Swords, and he can make more so maybe 25 Gold. How interesting is it for him to have 20 Short Swords in his stock when no one is buying it? Why does he want to have all the crap your throwing at him and why should he pay more for it when he already has the supply himself?
Who buys armor and weapons and who is allowed to do it? How? Why? Where?
What's the supply and what is the demand? Who makes what and who wants what?
-
^Most definitely not, we are on the same page.
But could realism be taken into account here somehow? The Fighter versus Fighter scenario, equal of size, on easier difficulties you'd chew right through him like tender meat, whilst on harder difficulties he'd be more your size, and mechanically fighting 6 bandits on Hardcore could almost feel like fighting a counter party (albeit way easier than an actual anti-hero party).
They don't need to get more gear, but just act more viciously, deal more damage. Kind of like facing another player party, if they can manage to make the AI that good, that's on Hardcore though and this goes for all games. I think StarCraft 2 in Brutal is way more fun and way more immersible than Casual or Easy which is more of a slaughterfest. So I kind of expect P:E to adhere to something like that for Easy, where encounters are a light challenge, not challenging on Casual (story only, play the game like a book), Normal starting to get challenging, Hard to get more challenging and Hardcore to be "phew" or "wake up and rage!!" for good or bad.
I almost want P:E to be Dark Souls difficulty at Hardcore but yeah, a bit too hardcore maybe? You pretty much insta-die, but so does the opponent. If the game can somehow link your [Character Level]+[Difficulty]=[Enemy Encounter Level] somehow I think level scaling might be easy. I don't even think the mobs necessarily have to have any "Level" either, but more of a "Hitpoints" statistic
Encounter = Not necessarily facing a mob of enemies, but just facing that dungeon could be seen as an encounter.
Also, if there is 1000 experience in total of what you can do in Chapter 1, then Obsidian probably has a good clue on what the possible max level you're at at that point and can scale the encounters from Chapter 1 to 2, or introduce new monsters. Perhaps not too often, but every 2nd-3rd chapter perhaps, depending on the amount of... basically 1/3rds. Same thing with Chapter 2 to 3 by the way.
With factions, one might grow stronger if you do that thing and the other gets stronger if you do that other thing. Differing the type of soldiers that roam the land in a planned invasion or whatnot. The presentation needs to be good I think, "Why are there new [Combat Enemy] roaming about?". Or does the Tasloi actually bolster in revolt after your destructive path, bringing all their clansmen together to fight you in Chapter 2 IF you slew them in Chapter 1, which I suspect many will. Or they upgrade in Chapter 3 respectively if you take them out in Chapter 2 (or has something else taken them out and occupying?)
For those who only follow the main story, I think it is within reason to say that getting the same amount of experience shouldn't be applicable to this. "Mary did 15 quests and gained 1500 experience, Rolf did the 2 required quests, gained 1500 experience". No.
How does the enemies scale against the non-lethal path? Do they adapt to your style? Documenting how you are playing in Chapter 1, and slightly creates some sort of counter-evolution against the type of character you play? Likewise, with reputation, wouldn't people start to know more and more about your abilities, and many that would've challenged you before will not and some challenging you just because of the path you've taken? At the same time: Having a low profile could actually be a good thing?
-
Valid opinion, and I agree, I also want it to be harder which does change the game slightly. Still the same game, but harder difficulty imply that things will be harder, combat becomes more tactical, potions comes into the question, you'll have to think about skill points more carefully.
I think, personally, that an oddball character has nothing to do in Hardcore as an example, but shouldn't be left out from Hard and down. Difficulty implies things being difficult. If your weapon is something that determines how difficult of a time you're going to have I think that should be accountable, otherwise I could just get that +3 Sword just like how I got it at Easy which will help me greatly on my journey. But without it, because you couldn't afford it, also implies difficulty.
Hopefully, a tactics mod would be created akin to the mod I had in BG ("Iron Crisis = Gear breaks easily/Not Magical gear ofc", "Bandit Raids = Rough", "Iron Shortage = Supply & Demand").
-
Exactly, but having the control of your characters life and death adds even more story. It'd make mortality a bigger business for sure, whilst I did kind of present the idea as a "global" thing I kind of revisioned it a little bit. Something that could be more valid/legit at the end-game dungeon or at the final boss both mechanically and narratively. Maybe being able to make a mod of it, write some fanfic ending~ <- which is my fear xD
-
xD I asked for "a moment". Oh well, yes I know but yeah, see the edited post
-
Sorry bro, I am re-reading stuff because I saw this:
So, you accuse me of incorrectly telling you that you misunderstand roleplaying, and then immediately say that you'd rather play the role of a story than a character, so I feel compelled to further explain what I believe is a misconception on your partAnd just thought "Wait what?"... give me a moment.
Here you go, my answer to Sharp_One regarding the roleplaying stuff, my bad. And here is your post where you say I don't grasp the concept of playing a role. Which was true, granted, I provided the wrong wording.
That would be as if I rejected whatever setting and background was provided by my DM in a PnP roleplaying game and explained to him that I would be ignoring him and walking around as a character that existed within his story but not within his decisions for my character...Does the DM allow your character to face perma-death? If so, does your DM allow you to re-roll with a new character that isn't the Bhaalspawn this time? Does the game end for the character or for the world? I don't want to ignore the DM's world, I want to explore it and if there is a point in the game where it could be possible (towards end portions of the game) that I can explore the world even if I lose the most vital character, I would want to continue exploring, if reasonable to do so.
"That's roleplaying folks" was a merry joke
I'm a sucker for that "bad humour" xD sorry hahaAlso, on board with you on roleplaying, I went theater school. You'll have to excuse my grammar/English sometimes, or get frustrated and I'll see if I can explain with other words I guess. It gets frustrating for me too, "That's not what I meant!" type of thing sometimes.
Great post and thank you
-
1
-
-
Absolutely, but would it stop Han Solo & friends?
Revenge? Cowardice? Honor? Struggle on? Common quest and goals? You've reached the final lair and your character dies, would that make the party run away like chickens or would they end what has been started and is at a climactic location?
-edit: I am changing focus of this idea towards being either an "Option" (as a mod) or end-game possibility, when the other characters are so dug into "it" that they are devoted individually to finish "it". They are part of the "Rebellion" now, or maybe not but they've got a score to settle! This I think was good in DA:O, where at first you are helping the companions with their quest, then they help you with yours. Some, like Alistair & Morgana (specially Alistair) are woven into the plot from day one, or day two considering the prologue and also would have motivation to continue A.D. (which he does for all I know). When you've gotten to the point of the game where your relationships are established and bonds or whatnot have been created, I think there'd be lots of motivation for the companions to continue, unless the character is really really needed narratively for the end-boss. Like I said, end-game final dungeon (not Od Nua, unless, both of them are interwoven) or from a certain later game Chapter.
Also, thanks for your understanding & intelligent post Karkarov
-
I disagree. I'm not talking "flashy" or "effectful" animations with lots of colors (probably all of them from that rainbow thing). Realistic movement. This is probably not going to happen buuut, it would be pretty cool. And it is hardly going to be a microscope, you're probably going to see (what we've seen from concept art thus far) your characters better than you see the marines in Starcraft 2.
Man, Zerglings? SC2 is such a great example graphically where detail really adds a lot.
I do agree about budget, but if they find time and/or resources in some way that allows them to organize models and animations effectively. Kind of: When your Fighter fights another Fighter they actually clash like 2 gladiators would, all decided by a dice roll with several outcomes. Stamina could be related to "Taking Action" (swinging/magic/fighting/blocking), Health to "Taking Damage". I understand that it is a lot of work but it would be sweeet!
-
2
-
want Blue Shift, Opposing Forces mods naow! Haha
perhaps you have to go back and play the First one when you've finished the 3rd one because there were clues that you completely disregarded the first time you played (non-important originally). Anyways that is just rambling.
(Black & White)
Economy & Difficulty
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
Ye your guess is as good as mine. I hope they aren't free, but more of "Hired Guns" ("Hire" implies paying) that I can narratively insert into my story as I see fit.
I'm with you. But likewise I would bi-polarly want to see options where everything is gimped and it is a real challenge. "I want a Challenge but I don't want to lose" is all fine, I kind of want the opposite, a Challenge that makes me lose or makes it way more difficult for me to "win"*. I want to make characters at the AH, that's where I'll be spending lots of time.
It still adds more physical tangible difficulty if you are locked out from the AH. Like I said in another post, I could just not use the AH and when someone dies they perma-die (with no replacements) but that is more abstract lock-out.
By the way, I intend to play Hardcore Ironman Mode All Hardcore options On and make a Let's Play series on my first playthrough
* I guess that's partially the point as well, higher difficulty implies that it should be harder to win.