Osvir

Not necessarily a computer game or anything but... it's a crepe thing in New Orleans. A friend I met in Michigan is setting this up, so I am a little bit biased here but just felt like throwing it out here. It is the Kickstarter Thread right? http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/20336424/flat-jacques-creperie-on-wheels They do a pretty good job with the presentation in my opinion.. but I am biased

Lol, I thought slacker backer was hilarious when it first came. Mostly because *gasp* I didn't back Project: Eternity until about 2~2 1/2 months or so ago (Late April). I was a slacker about it (I.E. "I am going to back this project in some way or another, but not right now"). ^In that context, I do believe I wasn't the only one who lurked these forums and enjoyed these forums discussing the game without having backed it. How many of us slackers were around these forums that didn't back the project originally? in that reference, I think "Slacker Backer" is hilarious, and it reflected on myself and what I was doing at the time. I was slacking with the backing~ although for legit economical reasons that I don't feel I need to get into atm or ever. I don't personally mind "Slacker Backer" being "Slacker Backer", but some of the posts in this thread got a point that it isn't very "inviting". Say, imagine if us here in this community market the game by "word-by-mouth" to friends or whatnot (mentioning it in another forum~promoting etc. etc.) who might not even have known this game was Kickstarted or that it is in development, they haven't shared the journey thus far. "Slacker Backer" doesn't reflect well to those who are new to the information on this forum or about the game altogether. It is like Obsidian (in a sense) would say to people they've never met before "You are a slacker for not knowing about us!". So yeah, might be good to change it. Not a very good first impression if you want to hold hands no?

*skim skim* 2 things I have thought about when it comes to Ranged combat is: 1. Being able to create a firing "arc" akin to how Grenades are used in FPS games nowadays (GUI-wise, you get this arc showing you how the Grenade will be thrown). Perhaps you can manipulate it somehow. A way to avoid "Friendly Fire" or shoot over a tank who is guarding a Wizard or other squishy character. 2. Not kiting, but just having some mobility between shots. - Shoot - Move - Shoot - Move - Shoot A penalty for moving between shots could be longer Aim time (Bows) and longer reload time (Guns). Additionally, a number 3 I came up with mid-post: 3. Aim getting better and better the more you focus on a target (Stationary). First shot might be 25% chance to hit, second shot 35% to hit, third shot 45% to hit etc. etc. a stacking "To Hit" chance. If you switch targets or move it could go down to "0%" again. This could actually work as a Trait or a Perk now that I think about it: "Focus Aim: The more you shoot towards a single target opponent you gain +5% chance to hit for each shot" or something. Now that I think about it even further, why isn't that^ a mechanic to begin with? (For both Melee and Ranged) It makes sense to me that you would get better and better as time goes on when actively doing something. For instance, if I play a Dart throwing game I might be horrible the first two throws, but I also get better at it as I feel the weight of the darts and also see the trajectory of the darts I threw (if I stay focused and concentrated). The 3rd Dart might be a 100% hit because I adjust and try to learn. That goes for bowling, Poi, Staff-play etc. etc. and I believe it would be something that would be realistic in a close-combat as well. I might hit the enemy's shield the first 2 times when I swing my sword, thus when I swing my sword the 3rd time I can adjust my swing to fool my opponent and then get a hit. This is something I actively do on League of Legends, I throw some "false" attacks to fool my opponent that I am horrible at what I am doing, but when it really matters I switch my tactic to "Hit" rather than "Miss" <- If that makes sense. 1. I intentionally miss twice to see how my opponents are moving (I.E I get intelligence on the opponent movements). 2. Thus I heighten my chances To Hit with my 3rd Attack. Darts: 1st Dart might be a 25% hit. I adjust. 2nd Dart might be a 30%-40% hit. I adjust 3rd Dart might be a 40%-50% hit. I adjust etc. etc.

I will crank everything up to be as challenging as possible at first, and when I eventually meet my doom I might lower the settings. I don't usually do this (I usually start at Normal, then I work my way upwards), but ever since I joined this community and have explored lots of old-school PC games (Ultima, Lands of Lore, M&M, Wizardry, Dungeon Master, Betrayal at Krondor etc. etc.) and done lots of research and communication on the subject I've developed a somewhat different mindset than I had before. Not to mention I constantly advocate for Hardcore mode as well. These forums have made me develop as a gamer and person Regardless, I also wish to savor Project: Eternity. I usually swish through a game if it is on anything but "Brutal". For once I want to play a game and take my time learning it on the hardest difficulty. With the pressure of having the hardest hardest difficulty on, it would be required of me as a person (and gamer) to research and analyze the game assets to my best ability... and also do something I almost never do..... reading the manual. @Off-Topic, Manual Learning: I recently read the Dungeon Master manual, and gosh what a great manual. It actually starts off like a book, telling the story through the manual instead of through the game itself. Please consider having some story elements in the manual Obsidian! Some of that Eternity Lore Josh Sawyer posts on his Formspring (Great stuff bro!).

Quoted for truth. This is a non issue. There are no healing potions, it is literally impossible to "potspam" in P:E. The concept, I believe, isn't specifically "Health Pots" but general medicine intake. A. Alcohol: Drink too many bottles of beer and you get drunk, you have a fun time whilst the world is a sail boat. Drink some more and you begin to tip over. B. Medicine: Take way too many aspirin and you'll probably find yourself with a worse headache than the one you had before you took em. C. Fiction-Herb Salve: You got Bleed Effects on your left leg and you are now limping? Put on some Coagulation Salve squeezed from some medicinal bush leaves, but if you put on too much you might get a stiff leg and will continue to limp (but the bleed effect is gone at least). D. Chemical Drugs: Take some morphin and you'll ease the pain and make you funny. Take too many and your organs can take permanent damage and in worst case, death. It's a fantasy universe with Magic and hopefully it has alchemy, what kind of "funny"-juice-experimental magic liquids can there be? Not to mention monster blood as an ingredient. What kind of effects does it have on an Aumaua? Human? Orlan? Elf? Etc. etc. Not that I am suggesting that Alchemy should be different effects depending on race, but there is tons of stuff to work with I am sure to make more potions than simply generic "Health Potion" and "Mana Potion"~ which isn't what I think Cultist was going for. I like the idea. But to polish it a little bit I'd like to add in that I feel it needs some incentive to go overboard as well. Drink 1 Potion and you get a normal, controlled effect. Drink 2 Potions and you get a little bit of a boost. Drink 3 Potions and you get a chaotic effect, a temporary boost but lasting consequences. 1 Beer "Potion", Saloon~ Suave 2 Beer "Potions", Tipsy 3 Beer "Potions", "Yaaarr!!" *moments later* "Uuueegh..."

I don't know about you but I've always viewed Project: Eternity as Project: Eternity. No one has led me to believe anything else. I imagine that those who do take all that "spiritual successor" too much to heart and overblowing it into larger-than-is proportions lead themselves into believing these things. It's like conspiracy. Our minds tends to put things into patterns making us see what we want to see, regardless if it is true or false. There was a good article about this about a recent Half-Life 3 conspiracy~ something to do with a release of a Surgeon game and some sort of Korean patch. Some guy went into it deeeep and appearantly came to some sort of conclusion that Half-Life 3 was going to be unveiled September this year, but it was debunked by Valve.

I think we should just outright complain about hands in PE. Hands are OP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qMHNFOtjYk

What about "Animat" Guns? (Soul Guns pretty much) Weapons powered by the same type of energy that powers the Animat Factories. Need to make a stand-alone topic about this... Soulpunk

This is something I have wondered for quite a while, with PE being a fantasy setting (with magic)+having some psuedo-fantasy-technology that seems rather "advanced" (The animat factory for instance). What other sorts of "powder" could exist in PE? What can you load your arquebus with? Let's play with the fantasy a little bit, what kind of "ammo" could it allow for in this premise? Could you blast a close-ranged static cloud of dust onto an enemy that shocks them? Sparkles of electricity~ (envision a Blunderbuss going off and all that smoke coming out of it actually forms a "cloud" that deals magical damage or inflicts a magical effect). Weaker than actual magic of course, but could it function like some sort of Single-Shot Tech-Magic? (That still requires long reload times) Could other elements be combined with the powder?

I never said that you require a single-sort of spell to stop a Death Spell. I like options too, and different ways to stop things or use things are always fun and tactical. I'll repeat myself: "Death Spells should require a 100% sure hit" - This means that a Level 1 Protect Spell could defend against 25%. - If the enemy weakens me with confuse, silence, stun, poison etc. etc. that would heighten the chances of a sure hit. - Additionally: Some death spells could be conditional or having "requirements". "Cast Honey Poison first to follow up with Demon Killer Hornets".

What I am suggesting is leave it up to the Player to "Resist Death" instead of basing it on a "Lucky Dice Roll". That's why what I am trying to continuously suggest is the same as "Resist Meteor Spell" and "Resist Death Spell" in the context of what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting "Hey guys let's bring back the lucky dice rolls Death Spells from the IE games". No. I am trying to suggest something new that the Player can control. Kind of like Dark Souls (this is an extreme example/concept of what I am suggesting): if you don't dodge the Dragon on the bridge, you are most likely dead <- Death-Effect. But you can dodge it, right? The complaints seem to be, in this thread at least, that Death Spells in the IE games were "Hit or Miss" Spells based on lucky rolls. If they hit, you are dead. If they miss, nothing. So what I am suggesting is to remove the chaos of "Luck" and implement "Awareness", "Reaction", "Tactics" and "Skill" elements regarding Death Spells for "Balance's Sake". EDIT: I am suggesting the implementation of "tools" (options) for the Player to defend themselves against Death Spells. 1. Enemy casts "You die"-Spell 2. Player casts "I think not"-Spell

You are talking about going back to the mage combat puzzle that was most of BG2, no thanks. I want my combat to be less about .... "Ok so the mage has these buffs and is chanting this spell... lets get my mages to cast that to counter this and...." It is not fun, it isn't tactical. It is RPG Combat via tic tac toe. I have no issue with mages calling a meteor out of the sky that will kill me if I don't do "something". But that could be taking the mage out, silencing them, moving out of the aoe, buffing myself to survive it, using an ability that cancels out the mages powers, whatever. That's fine. I can counter that in lots of ways, heck... if my party is strong enough it may actually be able to survive even if it gets hit eventually. There is no surviving a death spell though. No spell if not stopped or mitigated should simply "kill you" the end. *scratches head* But that is exactly what I am suggesting for Death Spells. I also want to note that I'm not suggesting Death Spells around every corner. Instead Death Spells (if present in PE) should be something very very rare. I did suggest 2 or 3 spells? Thinking about it I really mean 2 or 3 encounters.

That is not what he said Osvir. He said he was opposed to save or die effects and they would not be in the game because they always came down to "Did I make my save?" or "Did I have my hard counter buff prepared to block the spell in advance?". Power word kill can be defended against if you have more than 50 hp, but if you dont? Save or die. He said there would be no abilities like that in game. In short, there will be no instant death spells or effects. It will never be "Have buff or die" in PE, those are hard counter spells and buffs and he specifically said he was against them and they had no place in the game. The fact that many posters keep overlooking the reality in that PE has no rezzing doesn't help. This isn't BG where "Oh gosh imoen died, well Jaheria cast raise dead....lol". When you die in PE you dead, game over, you aren't coming back. I know, and I didn't even talk about anything you brought up in your post. I am opposed to that sort of thing as well. Let me simplify my post: The IE games = Save-or-Die, Prepare-or-Die, Meta-or-Die What I am suggesting = React-or-Die What this basically mean is that, okay, you forgot to save, your opponent begins to channel a Death Spell. Well ****. What do you do about it? Can you stop it in combat? Can you react to it and turn the tide? That is what I am talking about in my post. "Is there some other way to handle Death Spells that you can counter with 'on the fly' reaction instead of Meta or Preparation?" <- <- <- <- That is what I am trying to bring to light. I am Anti-Save-or-Die Effects as well, but I am not Anti-Death Spells, as long as there are some Anti-"Death Spell"-Spells that fire faster than Death Spells in combat (That got complicated quickly, or did it?). Let's try this instead: Anti-"Save-or-Die" Spells

Uhm... I meant "then the AI should be able to defend against Death Spells". I was tired.

Error on my part. Thanks for spotting it ^^ reading too fast+reacting to it without "consideration" is a bad idea

I'm doing some Project Eternity research on their Official wikia and came across this: http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Class Notice that it says "multi-classing is also under construction" (also note that the last revision was February 2013). Something to simply consider, doesn't mean that Multi-Classing will be in PE but merely that Obsidian might think about ways for a single Class be able to do a "Multitude" of things within their own Class.

First: Could I get a bit of a recap on the "core" of the discussion? I don't care much for "Lephys and Stun are arguing" but what is the underlying sentiment and idea? The "broad" picture basically. A summary would be nice (for those who lurk these forums as well I believe, new and old members who haven't followed the thread, 11 pages is quite a lot). Second, a bit of a recap of what I said and a point I want to make come across: The only thing Josh said was "I don't like Save-or-Die effects". That does not mean that there are Death Spells that cause instant death. What it means is that there will be no instant death effects that you can't defend against. In other words, PE will most likely have a ton of "Die Die Die!-Effects" and "Die Die Die!-Tactics" for both the AI and the Player alike. So why should Death Spells be excluded? Some things I want to emphasize as well if Death Spells (that cause "Death-Effect") are in PE: 1. Protect Against "Death-Effect" Spells that you can cast before the Death Spell has been cast in-combat. A Level 1 Protect Spell could make a 100% Sure Hit turn into a 75% Hit (See #4). 2. Priority Targeting & "Color" Coding. Display a "warning" text in some way that the Player knows that "Incoming Death-Effect". Examples: - Aloth says "The enemy is channeling a powerful spell!" in the Dialogue tab. - It says in the Combat log: "Enemy Wizard is channeling/readying Death Spell" - Enemy gets a specific type of "aura" or "color" when channeling a Death Spell. Giving the Player a clear notion that the Enemy is specifically readying a Death Spell. ^A good example (Top of my head): Warframe There are these pesky little flying robots in Warframe that does not attack, but they shield everything around them. So if you are facing 10 enemies and a Shield Robot, you have to target the robot first or it will replenish all the shields over and over again on every single enemy. Death Spells should have this if they are in PE. Scripting the AI to target the Player too. 3. Stuns, Grapples, Taunts (Mocking) or whatever. Channeling or readying a Death Spell should take a ton of concentration but first and foremost: Time. Instantaneously casting a Death Spell should not be viable in any way (not even with Buffs or a high enough level). Heck, perhaps even regular damage could interrupt a Death Spell (Shooting an arrow at the Wizard could perhaps negate the Death Spell briefly before the Enemy* can start readying it again). 4. A Death Spell should require a Full on Direct Hit (100% Hit). A 25%, 50%, 75% hit would not cause "Death-Effect" and simply "tickle". Pokeball mechanics boosting chances to get a 100% hit (Poisoning and/or general Weakening of the Enemy). Same thing for the AI, if they Poison you, they get better chances to deal "Death" to you. With all of the above said and done for balance-sake: A) You engage in a fight. B) Enemy begins to ready a Death Spell. C) You notice this by the use of #2. D) You cast a spell to protect yourself before the Death Spell is cast. Alternatively you move into range and interrupt the Spell. - Not "Save-or-Die" but "React-or-Die". *Enemy could also mean Player. I want to put emphasis on that everything that the AI can do the Player should be able to do and vice versa. If the AI can cast Death Spells, then the Player should be able to cast Death Spells. If the Player can defend themselves against Death Spells, then the AI should be able to cast Death Spells. Final Note: Regardless I hope that Death Spells aren't common in the either the Lore of PE or in the actual Gameplay of PE. I would like to see some of them, perhaps 2 or 3 existent in the game, so building Scripts and Triggers for them should be more simple as well (because they would be such a minor part of the game). A Death Spell is like an "Ultimate" in my opinion. League of Legends and DotA reference here: Most "Ultimates" in those games can be avoided. For instance, Cho'Gath can't eat you if you're out of range. Darius can't dunk you if you are out of range and Lux can not hit you if you dodge hers etc. etc. Death Spells could be purely Skill Shots as well. Though then it gets complicated for the AI I would believe, and much easier to dodge and read as a Player.

Artificial Difficulty isn't quite what I wanted to put emphasis on with that video, but the fact that if you play with awareness and using skill+tools provided to you (rules), you can avoid all traps, beat all enemies and all bosses in Demon Dark Souls. You could, in theory, finish Demon Dark Souls without dying once. The beginning of the video is what I wanted to put emphasis on really, where he plays 2 different "extremes". The one on the left who treads more carefully and soaks his environment in and reflects it (paying attention/having awareness) and thus avoids dangers, whilst the other simply goes gung-ho all in YOLO style and consequentially runs into danger. Player #1 is being rewarded for playing with awareness and knowledge of the game's rules. "It is my fault, I have to get better"-mentality. Player #2 is being punished for ignoring the rules. And, in this extreme (yet very common) example, blames the game/developers. "It is your fault, fix it in a patch!"-mentality. I like Player #1's attitude and I obviously like this form of difficulty. I grow as a person overcoming difficulties like that. I'd actually like to call it the "Parenting Difficulty". You get a firm "No!" if you fail in the form of "You died", and if you succeed you are rewarded with a continuation of the bedtime story. He also brings up some pretty good points, in my opinion, throughout the entire video. But I think that's more of a mindset as a Player rather than a "difficulty" per say. EDIT: P.S. I haven't played Dark Souls, I did play a lot of Demon Souls though. Mostly done video watching & reading on Dark Souls (Lore, Mechanics, Articles etc. etc.).

I don't really see the connection here The whole point of a multi-class is to have a character that is able to handle different situations, in my opinion. What do you do if you play a Solo-Fighter and you encounter an enemy that is immune to physical attacks? However, I don't think or believe that would be a problem for a PE Solo-Fighter. I hope every class has some sort of ability to use some sort of trademark magic. The Fighter's magic library might just not be as large or even near potent as a Wizard's magic library and potent (IF the system works in any way like this). Will the tools be available for my character to handle different situations? I believe/hope there will be (that's just speculation). In that sense, overcoming the AI shouldn't be too hard in theory, if one abides to the rules and takes logical tactical & strategic decision-making into account.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oYLhAZvjvU&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLWLedd0Zw3c7iIIMT0WQwEVeztYgS4A_t EDIT: Dark Souls and Artificial Difficulty. Great video in my opinion. EDIT EDIT: Additionally: Extria Credits Depth vs Complexity

I'm definitely going to try soloing a bit on the harder difficulties for laughs and "just-because-challenge"/"challenge accepted" but I don't expect it to be easy or even doable (or designed with it in mind). I imagine that mobs can be conquered but bosses might get very difficult unless Obsidian is thinking of implementing some sort of GW2 scaling mechanic (more party members = tougher fights). Thinking about it more, that could even work psuedo-lore-soul... ish. The more souls that gather up in one spot, the more "volume" of souls there would be? If all of their intents are the same (e.g. to do battle), would that somehow change the balance of the "force"? Imagine 1 against 1 in a forest dueling honorably against each other with no eyes watching but their own. 2 bodies with 2 souls (and nature and whatnot~ but that's not the point). Now take 6 against 1 and there's suddenly 7 bodies with 7 souls. Could something cause a fight to be "fiercer" when there is more souls present than when there is less? Some sort of "Soul Balance Mechanic" /End of rambles "Where most gather, there always is 'commotion'. The heart of the largest city stirs like a boiling pot, left right up and down and around around. In the forests of nature there is songs and chirps from all cretin within; In some ways beautiful melodies, in others ways 'noise' and 'unrest'. Yes, indeed, only in One's own heart and in One's own equality will One find the most rest." - Written by: A suddenly surprising rush of inspiration. What I wanted to say with this little tidbit is, where "more" gathers, "more" happens. In that sense, would "more" Power gather when you are adventuring? Let's take a Bandit Lord for instance, if you stomp into his camp with a full party of 6, would that cause a larger reaction from the entire camp (and thus triggering a "Bandit Camp vs Party of 6"-Fight) than, let's say, a single (Solo) Fighter appearing in the camp and specifically challenging the Bandit Lord? - Party of 6 enters camp: Camp fight - Party of 1 enters camp: 1v1 fight Aaaand EDIT: Some introspection/reflection, would such a GW2-like-ish Multiplayer scaling translate well to a Singleplayer RP game? Maybe. The real question, I think is, how easy would it be to implement and how could you do it as simple as possible? Simplest form I can think of: - Party of 6 enters camp: Spawn more enemies (Triggered by "X Party members?"). Let's say 6 underlings+Boss for simplicity's sake. - Party of 1 enters camp: Spawn less enemies and/or directly fight Boss. Let's say 1 underling+Boss for simplicity's sake. In fact, the only thing I can think of being the most problematic when it comes to "Solo"-plays are balancing Boss fights "correctly". So, again, for simplicity's sake the only areas that would "require" some sort of "Solo-Scaling" would be Boss triggered fights and/or areas.

5 districts definitely. However, I see 2 more that could potentially be districts as well. 1 greenlands/farmlands area to the north-east of the city. City outskirts basically. 1 area to the north-west under a cloud that looks like a small area (the cloud and shadow makes it look like a "slummy" area or some sort of Thief Guild area ^^ but that's because of the cloud shadow I would believe). It might also be part of the 2nd Layer district next (left) to the "City center". Summary: 5-7 districts?

There were quite some lore bits in there and some minor explanation of the world/souls. To me it felt as if Chris was hinting a bit companion progression/direction/inspiration with Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI (U.S = Final Fantasy III). In essence: Taking control of your companion characters and exploring side-quests with them (and their stories) without your main character and in many ways exploring your companion's stories further. Though, that's merely speculation. Similar speculation goes with the emphasis I thought Chris put on Final Fantasy VI's narration choice mid-game (the "end" of the world, Kefka reshapes the world)... God Bomb, anyone?

There was quite a lot of new information, given in small doses but it tells a lot about the game itself though. I'm excited

This. Opinion: I am a firm believer that Obsidian should be allowed to work at their own pace with the game without having to feel rushed. If they feel they can finish it by April 2014, fine, but if they decide that they want to polish it further and/or work on it some more (a.k.a. can't finish it by April 2014) then I wouldn't mind it much from a consumer standpoint if it was released in May, June or even July~ I'd prefer to have a finished product rather than a rushed product. Thoughts/Ideas that may or may not contradict the above Opinion (Very much an "IF scenario"): What about an episodic type of release? Let's say Obsidian can't finish the game entirely by April 2014, they've got all plans all concepts for the last areas on paper, last levels and last stuff to put into the game but they need 1 or 2 more months to actually develop it (model the areas, balance, quests, story progression etc. etc. spawn points, locations or whatnot, triggers you get the deal I believe). Should they release 70% of the content in April 2014 and then release 30% of the last content periodically over the course of the following months like Telltale's game "The Walking Dead"?