Osvir

What I mean is that there are probably general outlines for different proportions. Instead of making "Proportion 1M & 1F" and "Proportion 2M & 2F" etc. etc. I'm sure it would be easier, and more cost effective, to make "Unisex 1" and "Unisex 2" for the 2 different proportions. Bandaging the torso makes sense to me as a compensation to make the "Unisex" proportions fit both genders easier. EDIT: Man 1 dies on the battlefield, Woman 1 inherits his armor because she has similar proportions. Man 2 wouldn't be able to wear it just as Woman 2 wouldn't.

^You are comparing 2000'ish insights with late 1500/early 1600'ish insights.

I don't think you can easily bolt something like this onto the game post release. It is not just a question of networking code, since there are quite a few fundamental gameplay mechanics that have to be changed to accommodate a second player. Not really "have to", Baldur's Gate MP & SP are the same in terms of gameplay. For simplicity: Player 1 controls Bhaalspawn, Player 2 controls "Imoen" instead of the AI doing it. It doesn't have to be more complex than that. It does most certainly not have to be a game changer just because it has MP support. MP Player 1 = Leader/Main Character Player 2 = Side-Kick ^That's how the IE games MP works. Take away the Player 2, and Player 1 controls the Side-Kick instead. SP Player 1 = Leader/Main Character Player 1 = Side-Kick

She would wrap bandage around her torso, and then be able to fit into male armor. 1. Would that be financially feasable to produce bandages for half an army? 2. Discomfort wise, would it not be risking some grumbling among that half of you're army? 1. Yes. Although I've got to admit, I was thinking plate armor. If you look at some pictures of middle ages armor you'll see that it's fairly unisex and uni-size in a way that it's easy to fit 1 armor to several sizes. Similarly, majority of men are soldiers, soldiers die on the battlefield, looting and refitting on women = win-win. It would be more costly to produce a specific "Female Armor" and a "Male Armor". Bandages would be cheaper and they would only need to produce "One Type of Armor". On the battlefield you are not "Man" or "Woman", you are "Soldier". 2. Military discipline.

She would wrap bandage around her torso, and then be able to fit into male armor.

^Great points & ideas Lephys. We'll probably not get "lying down fighting" animations or "rolling around" animations (you won't be able to attack from prone-stance for instance). I like the thoughts on the abilities, that's something that could work very well for a Barbarian Class or Fighter (I'm envisioning a sort of "Wrestle Perk"). Concept of what that could mean: Wrestle Perk: When Effected by "Knockdown"; character with this perk can pull down a single hostile target within Engagement Circle, causing "Knockdown" to target whilst possibly removing effects of "Knockdown" on Self (Otherwise both character and target gets "Knockdown" effects). Additional thoughts: - 1 Fighter, 1 Rogue engaged = 100% Engagement (Locked in combat) Standard combat sequence (Auto-Attacking each other) "Chop chop" - Knockback = Forcing 0% Engagement ("Force Disengage") Ability & Critical Hit Effect. Disengaged. - Knockdown = 25%-50% engagement (Characters would still be locked in engagement, "Escape" would be easier to utilize and Fighter wouldn't be able to chase after if "Escape" is successful) Ability & Critical Hit Effect. Still engaged in proximity. - Dazzled = Blind Fighting, 50%-75% Engagement Ability & Critical Hit Effect. Still engaged in proximity & combat, character effected just has a poor/blurred vision. - Stun = 0% Engagement Engagement Circle Nullified in CCQ. Trample & Overwhelm feels like a sort of "On top of Knockdown"-Effects: If a character is suffering from "Knockdown Status" and more creatures/enemies enter the engagement circle, % of Trample or Overwhelm. Finally, something that struck me writing on the "Dazzle Effect". A Blur Spell could be a sort of Buff to "improve" some sort of Engagement Advantage?

With things like the engagement circle, knockback specifically sounds like something very tactical in general. Being able to push enemies out of engagement circles and being pushed away by an enemy etc. etc. Engagement: Knockback: I can see situations where the AI is gunning for my Wizard or some other character, and my Barbarian engages with a Wild Rush and knocks the AI out of the Wizards engagement circle. Or my Fighter is getting a lot of damage and is locked in engagement, being able to "push back" the enemy and run back a little bit and heal up some stamina might also be a life saver. Knockdown is pretty much the same thing as "Stun" or "Dazzle" but with a little bit more *Thunk* to it. I wouldn't mind the mechanic, and I want some challenge so it'd definitately not be something I would turn off entirely from the game. Instead, look at other solutions, how would you protect yourself from getting "knocked down" and how can that be introduced into the mechanics? (A shield helps, helmet, perks, spells, a Fighter has a natural resistance to knockdown abilities/attacks? Etc. etc.)

I believe that having a tedious element (such as torches in the main-hand/off-hand) early in the game might make the game better as a whole. Why? You begin with shoddy gear, shoddy execution, you got to equip a torch in your off-hand or main-hand to get more light in a dungeon (in essence: to see further in the FoW). As you get more party members/level up, find new gear, craft items, you start to learn that you can get better light sources (that doesn't require an off-hand/main-hand). Magical spells, lanterns on the belts, glowing armor, night vision upgrades, glowing crystals etc. etc. eventually the torch is a thing of the past and you've experienced some minor "evolution". Scale is 1-10. 1-3 Early-Game 4-7 Mid-Game 8-10 Late-Game 1 = Tedious, primitive, torch. Requires off-hand or main-hand (Can drop or throw). Night Vision "Light" 3 = Spells on duration, lanterns, glowing crystals, Night Vision "Medium". Requires no hand usage (Paradigm shift). 6/7 = Constant light source spells, glowing armor, Night Vision "Pro" etc. etc. Basically allowing the Player to go through a sort of "paradigm shift" where they become self-sustainable (in terms of light). The torch becomes a thing of the past, and can be re-used in a stereotypical "You've been stripped off all your gear"-Dungeon/Jail/Imprisonment Late-Game Level and characters could even react to it as well. EDIT: Not to exclude tamed animals that see better in darkness (Panter or Cats with a great Night Vision, Wolves, Birds etc. etc.)

Project: Eternity 2a = Technology won Project: Eternity 2b = Magic won To be honest, I think that^ is possibly something Bioware is doing with Mass Effect. (Mass Effect Red, Mass Effect Blue & Mass Effect Green, games that take a spin from each choice)

^Be that as it may that there are tons of Modern Warfare FPS games, just stating the obvious that there really is no "Modern Warfare: The Isometric RTwP 6-Party Members RPG in Old-School D&D Spirit" that I can think of. Just saying (not a request).

Great points! - Knockback - Knockdown - Trample Not to exclude - Overwhelm - "Intimidate" and/or "Fear" (A psychological knockback/Indirect, no damage taken but perhaps other penalties)

Maybe a magical fantasy disaster occurs (Someone casts "Summon Split Atoms") and we get "Fallout: The Middle Ages", thus, the modern world never reaches Project: Eternity~ who knows. To speculate just to speculate though: - Eternity = Late/High 1500's, early 1600's (let's say the game's story occurs during... let's say 5 years to broaden the possibilities of the original's story scope) That'd make the following installments: -- Eternity 2 IF continuing right after (1605, 5 years story again) IF making a 100 year leap (1700's) -- Eternity 3 IF continuing right after (1610, +5 years) IF making a 100 year leap (1800's) -- Eternity 4 IF continuing right after (1615, +5 years) IF making a 100 year leap (1900's) I'll stop here. Basically, if Project: Eternity wishes to go into modernization, it'd have to make some pretty big leaps that also explains both why it makes big leaps and somehow tie together with the previous installment. Point is, you wouldn't see Project Modern Eternity Warfare until Eternity 5, that is if Eternity would make leaps. Though I've got to admit, it'd be quite an interesting take on something I've never seen before. Usually the fantasy installments tends to stay in the fantasy genre without progressing their world (much). Graphics are improved (The Elder Scrolls is a good example) but it's still the same static world. As if it never changes, apart from visual effects and eye-candy. Honestly, been thinking about this more and more lately, a story that has a progressive and growing world. Something that advances across several installments. Now that is something I haven't seen in an RPG. I do have an example of something that touches this, Civilization into Alpha Centauri. And from what I've read from the Alpha Centauri reviews and honors, one thing that is a continuing praise is "Alpha Centauri begins where Civilization ends". Now, Project: Eternity is probably not a game that takes place several centuries by itself... but what if several installments could?

I've had some thoughts on engagement and, specifically, the choice of standing a bit further away from the doorway. Now this might be a great tactical decision for 1, maybe 2 enemies coming at you, but when you're engaging several enemies (a mob of units) at the same time, standing away from the choke point might be a poor decision. Here's some examples and concepts I thought of: This is all good, the enemy Goblin will face off with the Fighter right away and he will be "locked" with the Fighter. Next, a poor example: The first Goblin gets "locked" in combat with the Fighter and thus none of the others can get in good position. This is bad, knowing that there's open ground both to the left and right of the Fighter, which should allow for more Goblins to approach. Something like this should occur: The Goblins gets past and now you've got problems (Okay, perhaps not all, probably 1 or 2 dies on the way but I'm trying to make a point) That's why, I hope, you will be able to put a "plug" in that choke point and this will occur instead: Well, that's all I wanted to convey, I hope my point comes across.

I'm a little bit curious about the cavalry scenario depicted at your instagram (thoughts related to Quests in P:E), and taking that for a spin in discussion here (because I feel it is an excellent example of several different ways of approaching a quest): From your (Sawyer's) instagram: 1. http://distilleryimage7.ak.instagram.com/32e1fd98a15211e2b23122000a1f98cf_7.jpg 2. http://distilleryimage1.ak.instagram.com/757fe2dea14b11e29f7222000a9f130b_7.jpg So the cavalry is coming and some guys are hiding in the cellar, one guy is jumping out the window. In P:E, what kinds of different ways could you approach this scenario, if something similar where to be in it? Some quick-fire thoughts on that particular scenario: - Hide in the cellar as to avoid detection. - Everyone jumps out the windows and escapes, leaving the tavern to its fate (the coward's choice) - Hide casually in the tavern, hoping not to get noticed (depending on reputation, cavalry might not do anything to you except "initiate provoke dialogue" or whatnot) or simply a sort of "Aragorn approach" (sit in the corner of the tavern and enjoy a good mug of mead) - Heighten your chances (Safe): Tip the tavern owner some money so that he won't give you away (Perhaps you have to pay him money to even be allowed to hide in the cellar to begin with). - Heighten your chances (Riskful): Threaten the tavern owner, though that might make the owner tell the Cavalry that you're hiding in his cellar (Keeping a Rogue character, hiding in the shadows in the bar could perhaps be intimidating and make the owner not dare tell on you?). - Attack the cavalry head on, because you're playing an aggressive gung-ho party. Bar fight!! - Poison the mead secretly, everyone who drinks it dies. - Poison the mead, tell the owner to give that specific batch to the cavalry (Cavalry guys dies, or they notice something is strange and initiates slaughtering sequence, unless the Player intervenes). EDIT: - Is there a sewer escape? Leading into a deeper (more dangerous) area? etc. etc. - Would the cavalry guys throw down torches and stuff? "They are here! Burn it down!!!" or, would they head down and face you in the small space of the sewer and be taken down one by one? 1 event that could take place (all I could think of): - Cavalry guys are being rowdy, foul to the people in there. Giving the Player an incentative to care or not to care. Furthermore: Will I be able to use other elements to progress quests? Such as: - Pay some beggars in a town to gather information for me. - Pay some beggars/mercenaries to annoy some guards so I can slip past them - Tip off a town crier to spread false rumors about something (making conspirators or whatnot shake their boots) - Initiating and progressing quests indirectly. Basically not being some physical brute fighting his way forward but rather an intelligent "mastermind" who unravels plots by using "weaker" minds to do your bidding (I'm thinking Breaking Bad in some ways, but general "Ganglord" hierarchy. Being able to order someone else to do your bidding whilst you sit back and watch it unfold) <- This perhaps for late-game scenarios, when the Player has a ton of money and doesn't know what to spend it on, and/or in a way to build some territory and (if possible) their own Faction.

Amazing, absolutely gorgeous

About Fallout 3 top-down perspective. There is a pretty big flaw in my reasoning that I failed to take into account myself: In-doors+Roofs. I was only imagining outdoors in my "vision", but then I realized that in-doors would cause a problem (unless roofs and in-doors can cause some sort of "see through wall" transparency).

Thank you for the corrections. Only want to address this: 1. What I am speaking about is a perspective, not so much a gameplay "mode". "Look at the game in a different way". Basically, being able to get that top-down, RTS Free Camera Scroll Panning. This, I don't think is difficult or even time-consuming to implement, for starters it's already possible to "unlock" yourself from the character in the engine by Bethesda. Now all that is required is to be able to "fix" or "lock" the camera above the character in a top-down perspective. It's just a matter of "locking" the camera in a different perspective. Below is a video clip of a guy showing that it can be done (He's showing off Morrowind and Cyrodil in Skyrim, he's not making the point I am making). 2. Movement+Shooting: This is where it gets tricky I believe, the movement and aiming controls. If the developers would add in the perspective (top-down) as I explain above (see 2), how do you control your character? There are only two issues really: "How do you move?" and "How do you attack?". The rest are triggered by other factors that works regardless if it's top-down or FPS. Let's take Fallout 3 (PC) as an example: Original Fallout 3 Game: Move with WASD, Aim with Mouse, talk with "Button", shoot with "Left-Click". Possible Solution?? Movement Controls: - Switch/Button >> Move with Mouse, Aim+Shoot with WASD (Auto-Aim)+V.A.T.S. (Shoot with WASD like Army of Two PSP) Following could occur: - Disable Movement Input (So that Moving the Mouse "Left" doesn't make your character move "Left") - Crosshair becomes "Mouse Pointer". - Screen Panning when "Mouse Pointer" is at the edge of the screen. - Move in direction of "Mouse Pointer" when "Left-Click". "Right-Click" gets unused and can be keybound to something else. - Character Center Aim Fixed/Locked (Character Always Aims straight forward, fixed). The Rest is Keyboard Keybinds (Talk to person when character model is close to them etc. etc. menu, V.A.T.S etc. etc. all keyboard binds). Shoot Controls: - Pressing "W" shoots "Up"/"Front" - Pressing "A" shoots "Left" - Pressing "S" shoots "Down"/"Back" - Pressing "D" shoots "Right" - V.A.T.S. for elevated enemies, smaller enemies (Geckos, Rats, etc. etc.) or simply "Auto-Aim" in the direction of "WASD" - Shoot while walking: Click "Mouse Pointer" at Location X some 10 meters away, pressing "WASD" whilst character model is moving would not disrupt movement but make the character shoot whilst walking. For Fallout 3 PS3: Typical/Standard Top-Down Shooter Controls - Shoot with Right-Stick (like Army of Two PSP)+V.A.T.S. and Auto-Aim - Move "Pointer" (Crosshair) with Left-Stick (And perhaps R1 would be "Issue Move", in essence, equivalent of Mouse "Left-Click") [Analysis Start] I disagree with the minimal returns thing. I think both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas had everything to benefit from including a top-down perspective (and would still benefit from it) like Fallout 1 & 2. Why? Because Fallout 3 spawned from the top-down perspective and a free camera control with screen panning that Fallout 1 & 2 has. It would cater to the fanbase of those who enjoyed Fallout 1 & 2 more than F3 and it would cater to the FPS fanbase that enjoy F3 more than F1 & F2. I don't see anything to lose, only benefits (in essence: More customers = old & new). Like Brian Fargo pitches in the Wasteland 2 Kickstarter (which is hilarious and pretty much sums up a lot of discussion that was going on when Fallout 3 released): Brian Fargo: "We wanted to make a Wasteland 2 but we didn't have the rights, that's why we made Fallout instead" Publisher: "Interplay made Fallout 3? I loved that game!" Brian Fargo: "No, we made Fallout 1 & 2" Publisher" There was a Fallout 1 & 2!?" Brian Fargo: " " Now, my solutions are probably not the best to represent Fallout 1 & 2, but I'm trying my best as to present some sort of possibility that I can think would be as simplistic as possible, taking into account and consideration with how Fallout 3 & New Vegas already plays/works. With this in mind: Making Fallout 3 & New Vegas top-down would require to make it into a top-down shooter with V.A.T.S. and "Auto-Aim" pretty much. That's as simplistic as I can think of it. Anyways, I do think you have a point, but I'll continue to advocate the dream in hopes that it'll be spotted by someone with "know-how's" and take a top-down perspective into consideration for Fallout 4 or a spiritual successor in the future to a Fallout 3/4 or New Vegas game whilst not excluding the FPS/3rd Person-Perspective (when Fallout 3 & NV gets considered "Old-School"). I'm just archiving some ideas for the future As I said, I don't think a game developing company has anything to lose by implementing the possibility for both FPS and Top-Down. [/Analysis End] Ending this post with a touch of cliché: "A man can dream"

From what I deduce, it seems PE is going to pay most tribute to Baldur's Gate & Icewind Dale. A sequel however (PE2), could perhaps introduce more industrialism into its setting, and not only continue the story from the original, but also evolve the world story (and pay tribute to Arcanum). In doing so, the list of games in current development (the current top-down/isometric cRPG) could look something like this: Links are to the Kickstarter projects, many of them are finished and all of them have reached their funding goals. High-Fantasy (& possibly Steampunk-ish?): - Project: Eternity = Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale & Darklands Tribute (0 Seconds to Go) (- Project: Eternity 2 = Tribute to Arcanum whilst keeping the above)* - Divinity: Original Sin = Divine & Beyond Divinity Tribute (16 Days to Go) - Shroud of the Avatar = Ultima** (0 Seconds to Go) Science & Spiritual & Metaphysical: - Tides of Numenera = Planescape: Torment Tribute (0 Seconds to Go) Futuristic: - Shadowrun Returns = Shadowrun (SNES) Tribute & Sequel (0 Seconds to Go) - Wasteland 2 = Wasteland Tribute & Sequel (& old-school Fallout Tribute***?) (0 Seconds to Go) * Just a "wish" & vision & possibility Like swatting 3 flies with 1 hit: 1. PE sequel 2. Arcanum tribute 3. progression of the Eternity world ** Does not look like it's going to be top-down (more like 3rd Person) but I felt like including it into the list~ *** Honestly, I haven't followed the development progress of Wasteland 2 but what I can say is that I hope Fallout 4 (or the next one in the Fallout franchise) has options to move the camera into a top-down perspective with a Free Camera mode and a point+click system. A hybrid system, hopefully, something that allows both First Person and Top-Down (Something I feel that both New Vegas and Fallout 3 would have done nothing but benefit from doing). Dragon Age: Origins benefitted a ton by allowing you to have the "over the shoulder" perspective and allowing the player to zoom out (PC version). ^That paragraph has nothing to do with what I wanted to say: Wasteland 2 doesn't strike me as a Fallout-esque game from what I've seen on the pictures and the little I've read. It really looks like its own IP and that it has nothing to do with Fallout except that both are post-apocalyptic settings. That is intended as a compliment btw, Wasteland 2 looks awesome on its own. In my opinion: Wasteland is Wasteland. Fallout is Fallout. TL;DR: Ramblings. The point I wished to convey is that PE2 could introduce more steampunk & industrial elements based on time progression between PE1 and PE2. PE1 = Represents late 1500's (High or Late Middle Ages (Eternity Wikia); Technology in P:E) PE2 = Could represent the more Arcanum represented Era: 1760-1850's (Industrial Revolution (Wikipedia))

I think you have some good ideas here, though I want to air some of my old ideas regarding Fast Traveling on the World Map. If there are no horses the below wouldn't be possible, unless there is some other substitute creature that can be the "Horse". I am all for "No mounted combat". Strictly speaking Fast Travel on the World Map: [Walking] on World Map = 8 hours to the closest location [Horse*] on the World Map = 4 hours to the closest location [Flying] on the World Map = 2 hours to the closest location [Teleport] on the World Map = Instant * Horse = Fantasy Creature, simply a mount that takes you to the location faster than walking. Why would any of these be interesting though? If there are "Events" that run on time, getting there a couple of hours earlier might be something good. In essence: Getting there in time you might be able to save the village, whilst not getting there in time you lose the village.

There is also the question of counter-magic. Is there some way the Player and AI can counter Death Spells? Because then it isn't a question if it hits or not, it is a question if the Player or AI defended themselves properly. Power struggles. 1. AI casts "Beam of Death" 2. Player casts "Portal", places 1 in front of the Player and 1 behind the AI 3. AI casts "Absorb", absorbs the energy of the beam, amps it up, shoots it back with greater force 4. Player casts "Shield", the beam burns through the shield like nothing and disintegrates the Player. A bit of a "Who dies?"-ping pong "mini-game" (in a sense). This is probably hard to design but it would be awesome on so many levels. Leave it in the Player's hand to defend themselves against Death Spells. In this way it does not become "It might hit and kill you instantly, or it might not hit at all", it becomes "If it hits you you are dead, but if you block/dodge it you survive". It still has the power level of over 9'000, but you can do something about it.

I agree. Baldur's Gate has the most interesting method. However, I believe that a Baldur's Gate+TES hybrid could be interesting as well. "Weapon Level" or "Weapon Experience" more akin to how "Combat Experience" is handled in many RPG's (get experience when you take down your enemies, not when you chop at them). Weapons having their own D&D-like experience tables (Level 1: 0/100, Level 2: 100/1'000, Level 3: 1'000/10'000 etc. etc.) Yay/This is what I am advocating: Take down bandit = 15 Weapon Experience (Mechanically speaking: "Combat Experience") Nay/This is not what I am advocating: Chop at bandit = Weapon Experience (TES)

@Lephys: There is one way to deal with it, and that is to make up some specific "lore" for the specific deathspell. So "Conjure Water" (although drowning someone from the inside sounds cool, it doesn't quite have the same tone as summoning, pretty much, a bullet into someone's brain). Concept: - Summon Death Pebble A wicked and cruel ability, most foul and dispised by any high standard Wizard order. The Wizard solidifies the essence of the Soul within a target, inside their pinal gland to be more specific. About the size of a pebble. The result is swift death. It is most forbidden, only one has been known to use it in practice (the creator of this wicked abomination). By gathering, manipulating and compressing several forces of several souls, the Wizard does not only commit an atrocity to one entity, but a multitude of souls. @Moridin84: In my opinion, viewing their force powers, I view them as Wizards. As an organization and as an ideology, yes Paladin would fit well. Strictly/Objectively speaking about their ability to bend the Force, then I view them as Wizards. Force-Push, Force-Choke, Force-Lightning, all those abilities are quite magical.

^Spinning further on that Lephys, and going into off-topic domain: For some reason I think that idea with the pebble can have a touch of depth. It has a pretty major "Dark Arts" or "Forbidden Arts" tone to it. Something that must overcome the other recipents Soul in order to be able to physically summon stuff inside them, in turn perhaps even violating some sort of (example) "Law of Souls". Take a novice Soul against a master Soul for instance (A low level Wizard vs a high level Fighter). The pebble would be unsuccessful. Now turn it around, a high level Wizard (a Master) against a low level Fighter (a Novice). Why not? Granted that the P:E world allows for such a thing to happen. Similarly, a Cipher manipulating Souls to such an extent that it could rip someone's soul out of their bodies entirely. Arthas kind of does this to Sylvanas in WarCraft III: Reign of Chaos. About Portal stuff opening up behind the enemy archer, for balance sake... shouldn't the portal stay up for a little bit? This way the enemy archer can say "Hey! I can shoot right back at ya through this thing!". It could make stuff less overpowered. Eventually, the Wizard could perhaps even be able to teleport full characters, with a risk to cause permanent injury (In essence: "Loss of Limb". Strictly statistical). TL;DR; Off-topic stuff: Speaking about high-level Soul magic stuff, teleportation and, I guess, presenting a solution to what could work as a "Summoning stuff inside someone" (Forbidden Arts).

Just out of curiosity... how often does a Jedi force throw his/her Lightsaber? It's quite rare I think? It happens once or twice in the movies and while it's in most game where you play a Jedi it's normally useless. Exactly, that's the point I am trying to make. A Jedi can be seen as a Wizard who fights close-combat most of the time, with the ability to throw their sabers at a distance. They are still close-combat oriented first and foremost. What I am flirting with is: Could the Grimoire function as a primitive fantasy/magical medieval (close-combat) Lightsaber for a "type of" Wizard? Additional, stand-alone thought: A Yoda... err.. an Orlan melee Wizard would be awesome to roll with ;D

Well, @OP, I agree with you about DA:O somewhat. However, I see a lot of potential usage of a multiple currency system (which feels like it is never used). Mainly the use of "Social Status" & "Reputation". A line from Breaking Bad (TV series) inspires me: "Anyone can be poor, but you have to learn to be rich". Being rich warrants attention, having lots of money is a sign of power, power and attention causes conflict. In this way I can think that copper, silver and gold can be quite interesting. Do you spend your "gold" wisely or do you throw it around you? Does the non-lethal/pacifist get through the crowd easier by acting less like a rich man, and more like a common man? "Hiding in plain sight". Are there merchants that can be seen as "trusted sources", someone you can spend your gold on, someone that doesn't shout "Hey this guy has gold!"? Kind of... like-a-"Mike"-but-Merchant character. Specifically speaking about the Mike character from Breaking Bad. Another question I have been curious about: How economically harsh is the world of P:E? "Hierarchy of Currency": Just thoughts of what it could be Copper - The Commoner's Coin (Low-Class) Silver - The Merchant's Coin (Mid-Class) Gold - The Noble's Coin (Upper-Class) Though then the question is, how do you earn each one individually? How do you spend it? And on what? Does a Merchant who sells a sword for 1 silver and 10 copper accept your pay of 110 copper or does he kick you out? How do you trade between currencies? How do I "upgrade" copper into silver? Into gold? If I don't have silver for the sword, can I then perhaps buy it for 150 copper instead? If I have 2 silver, does the merchant gladly take 2 silver or does he give 90 copper back? Again, what kind of Social "Status" does 2 silver have versus 200 copper? It gets intricate (and imo intruiging), I believe it could make a very big difference in terms of immersion and in-depth World story (I wish to separate "World Story" and "Main Story" by a lot here, I think it gets easier to picture the perspective *shrug* and I also want to put an emphasis on [World] story here). EDIT: What type of Social Status/Reputation Effects does lots of money have versus having almost none? Can you finish the game/story with little gold and well-placed/wise buys and less "hoarding" just as much as you can finish it if you do hoard and get as much gold as possible? What impact does each have on the rest of the game? Does anything change? Is it wise to have lots of gold or does that change anything in content? The less gold I have, I get other, more "underground" pathways forward? What I am thinking here is kind of: - Lots of Coin, the Nobility takes note of you, you get into the Mansion by invite (gets hired for Quest). - Little Coin, you take note of the Nobility, you get into the Mansion by disguise (robbery, stumbles into Quest). Similarly: - Lots of Coin: Bandits chase you. Assassin's. Gangsters etc. etc. people shout your name. Beggars annoy you for coin. - Little Coin: You are the Assassin, you are the Gangster. Or you are simply a Rogue. A devious sneaky shadow that comes in, then leaves, no one even saw you. Someone else gets the blame. You can walk through crowds without hearing your name shouted at you. I honestly believe that "Coin" could be one way to manage the Lethal Playthrough vs the Non-Lethal Playthrough because: 1. Lots of Coin = More Power, More Attention = More Physical Conflict 2. Little Coin = Less Power, Less Attention = Less Physical Conflict