Osvir

Quoting Wombat: "Difficulty to build wealth" huh? Gets me loads of ideas. The point you bring up about one Player managing wealth and the other Player not managing it til the end-game sounds awesome. It means there'd be more variety in play style. Do you know any game, cRPG or not, that serves a sort of end-game difficulty where you are not wealthy? In all games you are almost always the richest man in the world at the end of the game... but what if there was a difficulty or a game that was so difficult that you'd struggle through harsh rains in rags instead of plate? "Poor Man's Mod", should be fairly easy to create and balance post-release. Just learn how much gold there is in each chapter and adjust the merchants accordingly. Oh, and removing a lot of high-level drops from enemies too.

First of all, I like to discuss a higher difficulty (theme of the thread and my thoughts): http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/73030347037/merchants-will-poi-feature-thematic-bg-and-iwd-like Josh says it all I guess. Do you think limited gold is an interesting feature? I think it works well in Fallout & TES games. Though, the only thing it affects is early game really (tends to be a slower early game). But I also think that if it is balanced properly (combined with a harsher and harder economy) it could make the game more difficult for a harder difficulty experience. I played an interesting immersive mod for Baldur's Gate, it made the "Iron Crisis" more authentic to the story as well as items broke more easily as well. A Short Sword cost like 150 gold, and sold for maybe 10. In the original experience you buy a Short Sword for maybe 5 gold and sell it for like 2. High Level Loot: Likewise, I think that if some High-Level Loot is not available, or loot in general is scarce across the game, it'd make the game more difficult as well. Combine Limited Gold, High Cost Items, Less Loot Drops or Unavailable Loot Placements, and you get a more difficult experience. Thoughts?

Replaying some Shadowrun: Returns with a character named Shoddy Short Arm. I like it. But it doesn't work well in the dialogue, where maybe "Shoddy" or "Shorty" would work better. It's often like this in other games too, few games have "Nickname" or "Short Name". Full name goes to Records/Biography page, maybe even some bosses or plots could say the full name too (a boss or maybe a baron etc.). Plot name. To take it one step further would be to introduce a "First Name" & "Last Name" at character creation. It could be solved quite easily by a "Show/Hide" varibale as well, "Show/Hide Last Name". Which accomplishes the same thing. Thoughts?

Having some fun in Starbound, played it at first like Terraria, but soon realized after meeting the first boss that it's kinda different. It's more of an adventure. The "Collect & Build" elements are still big in the game, but just not as much. First of all, I'm such a loot hoarder: http://steamcommunity.com/id/osvir/screenshot/703982671809781807 And the first boss took long with only an iron bow: http://steamcommunity.com/id/osvir/screenshot/706237801487153609 Luckily, on my next playthrough, I met some friendly pirates: http://steamcommunity.com/id/osvir/screenshot/706237801487192376 And they proved to be great allies: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=206499518 They shredded that thing. Took me, with an iron bow, maybe 30 minutes. For the pirates, maybe 20-30 seconds.

Repeat, too lazy to directly link to my previous 3-4 posts in the other threads with the same topic: - PE does not have Multi-class or Dual-class - PE seems to have an underlying "Role" system underneath the "Class" system (A Wizard Class can play the Role of a Fighter~ not anywhere as good as a Fighter, but still be able to possibly handle a 1-on-1 situation) - Conceptually, this means you could potentially build your characters for Multi-Purposes. A Multi-Role Fighter (NOTE/EMPHASIS: Multi-Role, not Multi-Class) could perhaps be a Fighter/Wizard/Ranger, a Fighter with a Bow, a grimoire with some low-level spells that enhances aim/accuracy maybe, and medium armor protection~ or you could build a Dual-Role Wizard, a common example, a Wizard in Full-Plate Armor, maybe even dual-wields and maybe even swaps to Grimoire to place some defensive spells or whatnot. Or aggressive spells. I've also read some rumors that a Fighter class would be able to use a Grimoire as well (but only capable of some low-level spells). Don't know the accuracy of this one as I've only read about it in some credible member posts here (one of the reasons why I believe it). But it's still a rumor as I haven't followed up on it to read an actual dev comment about it. Anyways, Role-system underneath the Class system it seems.

It's a metaphorical question. Playing Baldur's Gate with my friend is one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had. Nothing was spoiled or became "bad" because I could experience that type of Multiplayer. Very much the opposite. Though, I will admit that if Baldur's Gate would've had some psuedo-Diablo or MMO-styled Multiplayer I would've stayed away from it. But that's not what I am asking from it, is it? Nor does Baldur's Gate have that type of Multiplayer. The point I am making is that the IE games didn't have some fast loot fast shoot type of Multiplayer, but you had to really work together and experience it all together. You didn't play separate games or worlds or had your own agenda in it, you shared agenda and shared the struggles of the Bhaalspawn and experienced the Singleplayer experience, but together. Sure, you could be an ass and teamkill your friend, or ignore their reading speed and just read ahead of them or skip the dialogue or whatever. But that's not how I played, don't know if you had an experience with that. The IE games had a great MP which requires patience, it requires more communication with your friend and you need to really work together. In games like Borderlands or in Diablo or WoW or even in Guild Wars 2 you're having an individual experience, even if you are on the same team. But the IE games didn't have that, it was a shared experience and you had to share it otherwise it fell flat and became boring. Kind of like the Portal 2 example/concept I provided in my earlier post, you can't do **** if you only have the Blue Portal. You have to work together. EDIT: I also agree with MReed somewhat. Karkarov, your ideas for a Multiplayer for PE sounds like it's inspired by these MP-concepts that people are not interested in. With an emphasis on "individual experience". A Multiplayer that focuses on the individual Player. Something we see in AAA such as Borderlands and Diablo and MMO's. A game like PE needs a Multiplayer that focuses on the importance of "sharing" the experience. And the IE games does that the best in my opinion. Sure it could be slightly innovated upon, or improved upon, tweaked a little bit. But it shouldn't be a game-changer. Some of your ideas, Karkarov, made me think about games like Borderlands and Dead Island. Fitting for a faster-paced gameplay that you can experience on your own, even if you play with others. Not fitting for a slower-paced game like PE. I'm not worried about people asking for an MMO type of Multiplayer, not even in the future, because I'm confident that Obsidian doesn't feel that way about PE. I suspect it'd be more tabletop-inspired than catering to each individual Player, a shared experience (like the IE games), not a shared individual experience (like Diablo, most MMO's or FPS MP games). None of the latter systems fit with a cRPG, maybe with an aRPG, but that's not what PE is and hope it never becomes that either.

I don't even understand how Borderlands kind of Multiplayer for a cRPG is even compared with one another. Baldur's Gate was also a D&D experience, especially with friends, if you so choose to do so. Psudeo-DMing the game. Making decisions together, letting both read and if not just narrate important bits~ Great fun, much better type of Multiplayer than Borderlands or an aRPG like Diablo 3. Those are loot fests, even with your friends. Portal 2 is an excellent example of the concept. You work together to achieve the goals in the game. And it wouldn't matter whether they did a story to it or not, it was still the same basic underlying Singleplayer system, but divided to each Player (Blue & Orange Portals). Your friend has the tool for half the solution of the problem, and you have the other half of the solution, together you are one. But most importantly you still have to think. None of these, or at least many, of these Multiplayer games ain't got that. It's either lootfest or shootfest, mostly. Which is what I think is unique with the IE Multiplayer experience, it is a little bit slower paced. Not at all like EVE Online or like Everquest, but a slower co-operative experience. Again, I don't care if Pillars of Eternity has MP or not, I am just arguing and promoting what I think is good MP, and what I think would fit into PE and thus promoting my ideas; if not now maybe in the future. And why is a console discussion even part of this? This is a top-down tactical cRPG RTwP. I'm not denying that a proper console port could work that retains the mechanics & can manage some sort of good controller handling... but only post-PC-release and completion (priorities). But that's another discussion. Other games have MP, sure, but so few RPG's plays at a slower pace like Baldur's Gate. Me and my friend couldn't run amok in the first area and gain 5 levels (Diablo 2 reference), we had to carefully position ourselves and communicate through all situations and narrate in-between. This roleplay experience... doesn't fit into an MMO. But with a couple of friends around a table and some dice? Sure. That's the charm of it.

"The official voting period has ended. See the results below." Pillars of Eternity on 41 ggwp

I like it, could work quite well as a checkbox option: "Show/Hide all experience feedback" or something. I'd probably take it for a spin on hardcore.

Good job everyone thus far! Pillars of Eternity is now on 43 (37%) :D it was on 44 (36%) when this thread began. So a slight improvement It is kind of odd, but understandable, why Early Access games aren't available on the list. Likewise, Divinity wouldn't be up there cus it's in some Alpha/Beta stage I believe. Which would be "Closed Early Access", in a way. Early Access games are also "kind of" right around the corner-ish (within a month to a couple of months), so that could potentially also be a reason why they aren't up in the anticipation list. Most of the games in the anticipation list seems to be games coming out late Q2 to Q4 of 2014 (and some might even be delayed to 2015). I wouldn't be surprised at all if Final Fantasy XV came out early Q1 2015 for instance. Similarly, Hearthstone isn't on the list. Starbound isn't on the list. Xenonauts isn't either. Godus. DayZ. There should be an "Most Anticipated Early Access Completions" xD or "Most Anticipated Kickstarters". Tides of Numenera isn't on the list though, which is odd. Or is ToN expected 2015?

LOL! Can a mod please modify the tags for this one btw? I made a routine mistake. This is Dorkly, not Kotaku xD @Karkarov: If you get a pair that's "unfavorable" or you want to wait to vote on it you can "skip". It doesn't skip the number but say you get Metal Gear Solid vs Pillars of Eternity as your very first vote, then you can skip it and you get paired (randomly) with something else. Also, don't feel sad about FFXV getting into your Top 5, the director is Tetsuya Nomura Also director on Kingdom Hearts 1 & 2

I understand you don't have the budget for an MP experience, and I think many others understands this too. When I'm hoping or asking for a Multiplayer experience I am not expecting something grandiose or over-the-top. The IE games has a perfectly fine Multiplayer, a bit cranky but the concept of it is simple. It's basically Singleplayer with a friend or two. Many people whine about the IE games Multiplayer, about petty things really. Sure, there are some things that could be improved upon, but it's not necessarily "bad" that the IE games has the option. Multiplayer enriches any game and fulfills a greater potential. You get a larger audience instantly because you have a great selling point which people search the internet for and buys games for: Multiplayer. Some people buy Baldur's Gate primarily because it has Multiplayer, and would never touch it if it hadn't. You know this I am sure. There's actually 2 things about the Multiplayer of the IE games that really stand out: 1. As a Singleplayer experience, I can create an entire party of 6 for myself. 2. As a Multiplayer "Bedtime"/Narrative story. Now, this takes a lot of energy and time, I still had a blast with my friend. We made up our characters before starting, then created a couple of trials and errors until we got the right match. Then as we traversed the land we came up with various stories and narrated situations and happenings. Even stopped playing for some time and just read some in-game lore books. Out loud. Most of it out loud. If not out loud we checked with each other "Turn page?" or stated "Finished" when we had finished a page, and then we just waited for each other. We also made all the C&C decisions together. Though, this is my experience with it, and experiences are individual. So what I am trying to say is, I disagree. Reading can be a team effort. Narration can be a team effort. Wait a minute... Multiplayer? Multiplayer = Team effort required. If you or your friend reads faster than the other and ignores the other as well, then maybe you should try a different game? Or incorporate it into your character and explain what's going on and what needs to be done. From my perspective, there is only a single "problem" with the IE games Multiplayer, and that is the fact that you can't talk to people at the same time as your friend goes off and does other things (Player 1 looks for Quests, Player 2 goes to a merchant, doesn't work in the IE games as you'll constantly be interrupted by each other). You see, when 1 Player starts a Dialogue with a character, the game pauses for the other Player (and takes him to the same screen). It has nothing to do with consequence, but everything to do with choice. Though it isn't necessarily "bad" either, once we understood this "rule" we accepted it. Parallell thought: So what would've happened if they added a Multiplayer to Dragon Age: Origins like the IE games? Nothing. The design decisions wouldn't have had to be any different. Just have a friend control Alistair or Morrigan or whoever you have in your party. The game would've been exactly the same, the only thing different would be the experience. Mass Effect? Same thing. Finally: You say the design focus was Singleplayer in the IE games? Why am I even asking that question, of course it was! I know this. But what I wanted to point out was that if you were to consider (like, consider-consider) Multiplayer for Eternity you won't have to change your design focus whatsoever.

No they are not Leferd (harmfull that is), but they can be annoying and MANY are outright dumb. Example of many general achievements in most games: "There is a door, a single door, you have to pass it to get to the other side. It is the only way to go through because the game is designed that way. You open the door. Achievement!!!!" Or when you gain a level "You gained a level! Here's a cookie achievement for you!" *pat pat* "Who's a good boy? Yes you! You are a good boy yes!" *woof woof*. But on the other hand, I wouldn't mind getting an achievement for finding a secret door leading to the same room but might give me favorable positioning. Definition of Achievement, I want it to stand for what #2 defines it as. Achievements should be for executing moves and positioning skillfully, rather than just casually playing the game. Best memorable examples I have encountered that has a good Achievement systems (imo): - Risk of Rain - Bastion And...err... go get them! Two amazing and awesome games. So...yeah. Do iiiit!

Close enough? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI7u5UyJDHo

Yep. I got Stick of Truth and Pillars of Eternity to pick from xD My end 5 games that I voted on did get a bit wonky though, they came out in the wrong order because I didn't "skip" the last ones properly. This is my list: 1. Pillars of Eternity 2. Dying Light 3. Kingdom Hearts III 4. Final Fantasy XV 5. Destiny Also want to shamelessly promote this while I'm at it. It's related by "community marketing" I suppose.

Commandos, Desperados & Brink uses asymetrical play & skill no?

Black Mesa a graphical update/rebuilding of Half-Life using Half-Life 2's engine, made by fans and released for free. Every voiced line you hear in this game is fan-made. Honestly? I think it's a better game than the original. But that's because HL2 is superior to HL too (in terms of gameplay). Black Mesa made Half-Life (in my opinion) better than Half-Life 2, where previously I thought Half-Life 2 to be the better. Here's a better link for the voice-acting in Black Mesa. Skywind, voice-work scattered about in the trailer really, but it's the subject around 6:30 and some samples provided. Work in progress. This thread title needs a change because okay I get it, half-assed, casual volunteers are a no-go. We get that. But "Passionate Volunteer Voice Actors"?

Achievements = Play Game. Actually, when you get to the Main Menu of the game, it should say "Achieve Game" rather than "Start Game". Then you should get an Achievement for it, you should get an Achievement by simply hovering the mouse-button over the option, and an Achievement when you click it. Then after the forced first cut-scene you should get yet another Achievement. Of course not, I hate Achievements like that. In fact, they seem to be everywhere. Please don't. They make no sense. Achievements shouldn't even be present in the game until you get to late-game. But then again, low- and mid-tier achievements might give incentive for Players to keep playing "I'll stop playing after finishing this...cool! An achievement! Guess I'll continue for a while" or something what do I know. I really got hooked into Bastion recently (like, super hooked). It has 3 or 4 high-tier Steam Achievements (Defeat this at X difficulty with Y conditions). But many of its Steam achievements are also in-game rewarding achievements (One of the buildings in it that you can build; the Vigil). Rewarding Achievements are nice. I don't chase achievements (though, if a game is really good and I'm having a blast with it I tend to look them up), I think they ruin the experience by popping up in your face amidst playing and they are often somewhat "meta" in nature. They also spoil progress by being available to the player pre-gaming. But it's also wise to consider that Achievements are a norm in this day and age. What I'd want: - Rewarding Achievements - Narrated Achievements - High-Tier Achievements (Difficult Challenges) - Secret or Hidden Achievements (Not even an unexplainable "?" in the Steam "Show Achievements" list. In-Game only) - Creative Achievements What I don't want: - NPC: "Do you accept this Quest?" Me: "Yes" Game: "Achievement!!!" - Pop-Ups I'd really not want Achievements at all, but if they are going to be in then so be it.

"Most anticipated game of 2014" on Kotaku http://www.dorkly.com/toplist/57693/the-most-anticipated-game-of-2014 Pillars of Eternity is currently in the top 50's (of 100 games, I think). It's simple really, you get 2 games presented to you, vote on the one you anticipate more. If it's a difficult vote (I.E. you are anticipating both games a lot) you can skip and be presented with 2 new games to vote on. Godspeed my friends.

The idea is fairly simple, but it would require something from Obsidian. A) Make a generic wilderness area. Empty of any content (NPC's, Quests, monsters or whatnot). A forest area with no paths and lots of trees, or an open grassy field. Or a desert area. B) A hobbyist or modder could then clone this area, add content into it. Environmental effects maybe, triggers, NPC's, quests, monsters/encounters and so on and forth. Another separate idea, which is more or less "encounter modding", could be to have some sort of arena in-game in some city (Maybe a boxing den in some slums, instead of some large coliseum inspired arena). Then you could modify creatures and enemies specifically for encounter purposes. Maybe be able to create some sort of "Encounter Set", "Arena Set", or "Challenge Set". "Stronghold Defense" goes in the same bin, it would be a great asset to be able to modify what type of enemies attack the stronghold, their strengths or whatnot, and also be able to add some sort of trigger in-game to activate it.

My preferable: 1) Eternity World-Building, kind of like the three first Half-Life games defined the Half-Life World (Half-Life, Blue Shift & Opposing Force). Now, the two latter games might be viewed as "expansions" but I see them as a part of the game world and being separate stories by themselves. Unfortunately they are quite short. Moving on! 2) Eternity, the first Eternity game, starts the story with a unique character with a unique storyline that goes across Eternity 1, 2 and maybe even 3. This character would start at level 10 (if not imported) in Eternity 2. 3) In Eternity 2, just like Blue Shift or Opposing Force, you'd get to start a new character with a separate storyline, with a fresh character Level of 1. Let's say the world has only 20 areas in Eternity 1 (conceptual number), in Eternity 2 it could have 20 more areas. Don't do the Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 "mistake", keep Eternity 1 areas for Eternity 2. The world will become much bigger that way. A method: - If the Eternity 1 character starts off in the West of the World as a Level 12 character, going East, then maybe an Eternity 2 character could start off in the East part of the World, going West. There's probably hundreds of various forms you could use here, but this is just one idea. Of course, Eternity 1 areas could be updated in Eternity 2. Maybe Defiance Bay gets an expansion, or the Od Nua dungeon becomes a tourist attraction (if completed). Some areas could be destroyed, and other areas or towns could be built. This way, Obsidian will go epic, but progressively so. If Eternity 1 has 50 areas, and Obsidian decides to keep the formula that is Eternity 1, then they could simply make Eternity 2 with 50 areas as well, and then combine both worlds of the two games and suddenly have 100 areas. For Eternity 3, they could make 50 more areas, and Eternity 3 would be a gigantic game. Eternity 4 could have 50 more again etc.etc. now I'm going a bit far ahead but yeah... what I wanted to say is that Baldur's Gate 2 feels very "small" after having played Baldur's Gate 1. The content is fine and all that, but Baldur's Gate 2 just feels "small" in terms of exploration. Hypothetical question: What if Black Isle had "kept the formula" and joined both worlds by incorporating all areas from Baldur's Gate 1 into Baldur's Gate 2? Oh! Best example, [words-in-here] = example/concept (to make myself understood better~): Eternity 1: Start in [Candlekeep]* Eternity 2: Start in [baldur's Gate]** or in [Amn]* * Original experience. Start in Location X in Eternity 1 and continue in Eternity 2. ** Separate, new story, starting off at Level 1.

I am not all too up to date with the attribute system (nor with this 21 page long thread), to be honest the only thing I hope of it is that it caters more to the IE games than what it does to the more modern RPG's regarding Character Creation & Leveling Up. I wish for static Attributes akin to the IE games. You spend the points during character creation, then you can go find supplements in the world, some temporary, some equipped and some permanent. Although rare. A hammer with +1 Strength maybe. Or a potion that grants +1 Strength for 5 minutes. What I don't want is +3 Attribute Points to spend when I level up. What I speak of is, I suppose, a DnD way of handling it: Character Creation Example, IE style: Level 1: 14 Strength 16 Dexterity 13 Endurance 10 Wisdom 14 Intelligence 12 Charisma Level 2: You don't gain any points to spend 14 Strength 16 Dexterity 13 Constitution 10 Wisdom 15 Intelligence (+1 from equipment: Robe of Intelligence) 12 Charisma Dragon Age style: Level 1: 14 Strength 16 Dexterity 13 Constitution 10 Wisdom 14 Intelligence 12 Charisma ​ Level 2: +3 Points 15 Strength (+1) 17 Dexterity (+1) 13 Constitution 10 Wisdom 15 Intelligence (+1) 12 Charisma​ And so on and so forth. I'd personally prefer to avoid the latter, unless scarce points and scattered maybe... every 3rd Level? +1 Point every 3rd Level that is. I think the Attributes matter more in the IE games and define the character you've created, whilst in RPG's where you can spend points makes the attributes define damage, health, dodging, critical hits and so on and forth. There is, of course, the method wherein stats simply grow with every level. On Level 1 you have 10 Strength, on Level 2 you get 12 Strength and so on and forth. I dislike this method too, but it makes sense in a way. I still think the IE method is the best way to go, create a character with this and that many points (that you put out) and then that's it. No more point spending, but maybe find a sword that gives +1, or a potion, or a skill book etc. etc. Question: "Attributes" (Called "Abilities" during character creation in the IE-games): Is PE going by a "Level Up Points" (Dynamic) system or a spiritual "Infinity Engine Level Up" (Static) system?

I want some magical guns, guns that shoot energy lasers & whatnot (minute meteors? Fireball? Frost bolts? Etc. etc.). Bigger reload- or no reload time and charges for balance, maybe you can only shoot 2 or 3 magical blasts a day and they are weaker, and then when you rest you "reload" maybe? Or guns that have been merged together with wands somehow, some experimental blacksmith or magician or whatever who is an innovator and tires to merge a gun and a wand together~ can we craft, smith, or combine a wand with a weapon? A sword? (I.E. use a wand in the building of the sword grip). Imo, seems there is much to explore in this regard, narratively and mechanically. In a world like PE, I wonder if anyone would pursue this curiosity? (Combining a magical wand with a gun that is)

I was just continuing on this thread-of-thought.

What if I cast an illusion spell on the babies, make them look like the Priest's most hated enemy, then remove the illusion spell afterwards, and then laugh in the Priest's face: "HAH! You just punt'd some babies!!", what sort of effect would that have on the companion Priest? EDIT: That's what I mean when I say "can you mess with your companions?". Not through in-dialogue choices but by using the game world and lore against them. Edair might be a stoutfast man who hates burglary, would it be wise to take him with you to do your burglary? Shouldn't that be something you do on your own, or with some like-minded companion? And then, when the guards finally catches you, and Edair is with you, the guards would view him as a bad guy too. A collaborator to the crime. It doesn't need to change Edair's personality, but it could change how others (NPCs) percieve Edair. They might think he's a bad guy, and it's your fault. Corruption doesn't necessarily have to be an internal struggle against inner demons, but it could be a struggle against the world and the people in it as well. If a group of people begin to think you are scum, then it doesn't matter how nice you are, and the more people who think you are scum, the harder it gets to prove it wrong. I'm envisioning a dialogue, Edair is getting nosey in your disappearances and the Thief's Guild, which you work for, is getting twitchy and somewhat paranoid about Edair's involvement in the main character group: Thief Guild Representative: - "If you care about him then you should ditch him, he's getting too close to our plans" Main Character: 1 - "Ditch him? Why?" 2 - "I'm planning to." 3 - "I need him in case things go bad. He's one way out" 1. Thief Guild Representative - "If things go bad he's gonna get us all caught! The men are already twitchy as is, don't need them to shake and drop that crystal, would we now? I need em to be alert and focused!" 2. Thief Guild Representative - "Good, then get on with it already so we can get a show on!" (If choosing this, there's a Global Dice roll and a chance that you'd encounter Edair whilst performing jobs for the Thief's Guild) 3. Thief Guild Representative - "You can't stand on both sides on this one. Either we provide a way out for you, or he does. The question is, who would you prefer less to be your enemy?" The point I wanted to make is, if you were to keep Edair still in this situation, continue to do jobs for the Thief's Guild and then bam, suddenly you are recognized in the underground and Edair is in your group, unaware or aware of your side-work. Regardless, anyone traveling with the character at this stage gets reputation loss, which would mean that Edair would be seen as a corrupt individual perhaps. If he's aware of your doings, his personality might simply call for a code string and make him go undercover, so suddenly Edair becomes a companion that travels with you just to bust you. Or something. Ideas ideas.