Hormalakh

still concerned that multiple solutions can lead to the loss of challenge and satisfaction for overcoming solutions. it's a fine balance.

Thank you for your response Josh. The main issue I guess I'm having is that there seem to be three competing camps here: budget/time, lore, and mechanics and you can only pick two. I totally understand limitations of budget and time, and don't expect you guys to go over-board especially with a singular race, but I do expect that the mechanics you guys come up with to match the lore that you've told us or at least have an in-game explanation for all this stuff. I know you're an advocate for abstraction, but I know that you're aware that an abstraction of mechanics that contradicts or really flies in the face of your lore, doesn't really do too well either. Either the lore or the mechanics should change. There should be a reason why all the god-likes aren't expressed in this game, or why they all have the same attribute, or why only the heads of these race are the only thing affected. I would rather have a limited god-like subset with a more expansive and robust mechanical infrastructure set in place for future games than 50 godlikes with superficial mechanics. You can explain the god-like limitation away with something that fits the game world. Then you can expand with future content in expansion sets, PoE2, etc. Even D&D's tieflings, and other planar beings were developed over a long series of games. Nobody expects the world to be so expansive as 4-5 editions of D&D. But just make sure that the set-up is in place I really do wish you guys the best, and I hope you know that I am offering these pithy recommendations as a gamer and not as a developer, so take from it what you will. All the best to you and the rest of the guys/gals.

if it's balanced around other races, then yes. otherwise no: godlikes would become the go-to race.

you finally made me laugh Lephys. After all those puns and terrible side-jokes, you've finally done it. Damn you, I'm tearing up.

One of the criticisms is that the godlikes, mechanically, are not as varied as they could be and most of their differences are cosmetic. As an example, each of the races so far are distinguished by each other by 1: attribute modifiers (humans +2str/resolve, all godlikes +2dex/+2res) 2: racial abilities (humans fighting spirit, godlikes vary, but death has death's usher) 3: dialogue and reputation changes in game (unknown at this point, but promised by devs). 4: subraces (hearth vs wild orlans, the varying godlike "subraces") The issue here is that all the godlikes have the same attribute modifiers, but it is unclear as to why they should have the same modifiers. I would assume that the attribute modifiers would match with the lore for each race. However, each godlike is not touched by the same god and thus does not have similar lore behind it. It doesn't make sense that the attribute modifier is the same for all godlikes. A proposed solution to this first requires the developers to clarify whether godlikes are a supergroup of races or a subgroup and to design them accordingly. What I mean by this is that are characters first his/her specific race then a godlike of that race or a godlike and then a race? The solution resolves from this answer to this question. 1- If they are a supertype (first godlike, then a race), then each godlike should have a variable attribute modifier. There are at least 15 different combinations (if we assume every modifier is a +2/+2, this could be increased with +1/+3) and if the 5 base races take 1 each, that leaves 10 more modifiers for the gods. I really don't think there'll be 10 godlike options, but if so, there's 10 attribute modifiers for them. 2- If they are a subtype of the races they descend from (aumaua/elf/dwarf/human/orlan), then they should just keep the racial attribute factors of their base race OR further modify the attributes (+1/-1, +2/-2 for balance). 3- they are considered a separate race altogether. While this doesn't match the lore really (unless it's meant to be a way to show that the lore is "incorrect" in its thinking and that similar godlikes of varying races can mate), this would be the only time where having a single attribute modifier would make sense. Furthermore, godlikes have locked out head slots (most likely due to clipping issues with the 3D models) and thus their racial abilities are (hopefully) more substantial than other races (for the sake of balance). However, based on the kickstarter information, so why is it that every option given to us, thus far is only the head slot option. It would be better/more interesting/cooler if the player was allowed to pick which item slot was locked out. One way to do this is thus: each slot (head, neck, hand, body, waist, rings, feet) should have items that are appropriately balanced within their category from early game to late game items. All the devs would do is to take that item slot and give a mid-level bonus respective to that item slot and lock it out. It plays like a "you benefit now, but lose out on improving later" mechanic - a tactical and strategic choice. And it's not like there aren't other characters who couldn't use those impressive items instead. Obviously they don't need to do all the different slots but even 3 types (head, hand, feet) would be a lot better than more interesting (graphically as well as mechanically) than one.

I would also like to reiterate the above point regarding an earlier announcement. Unfortunately (or not), we have begun to expect Tuesday updates and I think a lot of us would be appreciative to know whether we should wait for it tomorrow or not. I don't think it's unreasonable to let us know (with great certainty bordering on absolute) whether the update is fully, and completely, ready, or that it might not be ready by tomorrow. All the best.

thanks for the response, but i still want to know whether we'll be getting this big big update anytime soon? is it set for next tuesday, or is it hence-forward "to be determined - when it's ready"?

The woods are many years after their burning by the drakes. Burnt wood would have disappeared log ago. Your thoughts however inspired my own recollections of the petrified forest and the painted desert in Arizona and I'm sure the fine folks at obsidian might draw some inspiration from those locations.

complete ones.

honestly the fighter, monk, chanter, cipher, wizard, rogue are all classes i'd really like to see becuz they seem to have new mechanics that are very interesting.

any update today? hoping for the big big update, but i really don't think it'll happen....

it seems we need a Brian Fargo to come in and come up with a title just like he did in games past.

Yes, they last until the next time you rest. It'd be nice if the inns give certain bonuses that the stronghold can't. Especially if you have to pay for the inns - higher cost, better bonus. Perhaps even the campfires give a certain bonus that the stronghold can't.

That's one of the biggest changes for rogues/thieves between 2nd Ed. and 3.X. Because backstab in 1st Ed./2nd Ed. was a multiplier, you could perform a backstab and easily roll a 1 for your base damage, resulting in a pathetically low total. In 3.X, this became additional d6s of damage. It was a good change because it normalized that damage output, but it also caused a lot of consternation while we were developing IWD2 and NWN2. Some testers simply couldn't believe that when they were doing +15d6 damage that they wouldn't get close to 90 points of bonus damage at least some of the time -- even though "some of the time" is extremely rare when you're rolling 15d6. On IWD2, I eventually had to go over to QA with 15 actual six-sided dice and roll them in front of them 20 times, charting the results on a sheet of paper. On NWN2, Andy Woo, who has a master's degree from MIT in combinatorics, had to explain the same thing, in detail, before testers would accept that the RNG wasn't flawed. This is a good example of what I had been talking about a long time ago: sometimes I wish designers would be creative with how they present information. The whole 15d6 is very difficult to understand unless you have some understanding in probablity, and the issue isn't that your testers were stupid: it's that you can't repeat the same information over and over again and expect them to understand it: the information has to be presented in a different, hopefully more intuitive way. I bet that instead of showing your damages in a simple number format like 15d6, you had shown it using a distributive curve, they would have been more likely to understand it. Here's a link to what I mean. Instead of using mathematical notation, if you had shown them a picture (or presented the information in any other intuitive way), they would've understood how to utilize that information. I applaud your efforts to minimize obfuscation: it'll make the game more fun for everyone.

That was probably a bug where crit overrode your backstabbing damage.

Have you considered adjusting the critical damage bonus? I know 50% is a nice bland number, but what about 60, 66, or even 75%? Those are simple fractions too, and arent too much of a jump from 50% but are more likely to ensure that crits hit higher than highest base dmg. Sword with 5-8 damage. Crit of 5 rolled is 7.5 in original percent. 8, 8.3, 8.75 with the new numbers respectively.

I would hope that the restored stronghold had multiple levels of restoration. I know portions are restorable, as in on and off when it comes to mechanics implemented portions, but I wonder if the entire structure itself has multiple levels of restoration? For example, the barrels that are on the walls continue to be there in the restored state. I would hope that as the stronghold becomes more and mor erestored, things become more and more organized. Maybe the barrels get moved and are stacked up differently. Just little tidbits that change gradually from a "zero to hundred" percent restored. Of course, this depends on how much time you guys really want to spend on it. It looks beautiful nonetheless. Also, assuming the garden is a mechanics upgrade as well?

While it's true that we're not designing the game with touch screens in mind, we have had the game running on a Fujitsu Windows 8 tablet and it worked fine. We are trying to make the game one-button friendly, so while there is functionality on right-click, it's usually ease-of-use functionality rather than core. E: Also our min res is 1280x720. This is a terrible decision. I want to voice my opposition to this sort of mentality. One-button functionality as a design choice limits you and is a slippery slope. As soon as you begin to consider limiting yourself from the availability that is provided with a compter, there is no real reason why you wouldn't continue to limit yourself to "fit" your game to tablets or other consoles. If you allow one-button functionality then soon you will limit your game to the resources found on a tablet to allow for the one-button functionality to continue to make sense. Please do not do this. If you are limiting yourself you one-mouse button, you are putting in a bunch of handicap UI elements and engine modifications that are unnecessary for computers. This is a waste of time/resources in order to appease a market-crowd larger than what you originally intended and sort of goes against what Chris Avellone discussed when he spoke about the benefits of the PC vs the console. One of his gripes was the limitation that lay in joypads. Do not do this. Do not limit yourself to one-button. Make a game for PC/MAC/LINUX and only them.

just a reminder: josh sawyer has mentioned in the past why he posts on something awful instead of here before. it has something to do with being at home and not at work when he posts and something about his computer not letting the obs forum work or something like that. jesawyer isn't the only dev that's working on this game; there are plenty of other people too and they post here plenty enough. game creation is a team effort.

bethesda should just give fallout "back" to OEI. That would be best. But we live in a world ruled by money and shareholders. So that won't do.

Well, it's OE's phault to a point. They could have changed the classes completely like Cipher and chanter, not naming them after D&D. **** Rogue, call him Assassin. Knight or warrior intead of Fighter. Shaman instead of Druid etc. If they wanted to change the mechanics to resemle something of a MOBA, they should have shred the D&D conection entirely. D&D was quasi-simulationist, and that is people assosiate with these names. Sawyer's philoshophy doesn't agree with that. Long post short, the classes are the problem and not their design. If people thought that the mechanic design was based off of MOBA's, we'd have a riot on our hands. Josh Sawyer has never come out and said this directly, so it's not really clear if this is truly the case. For the most part, Josh has always backed up his desgin philosophy by talking about elements found in classic RPG games. But I agree with you. I would have much rather had Wizard, Cipher, Assassin (although again, this has historical significance), Warrior, Druid, Priest (another one that was changed, although....priest is hardly the best term for them), Chanter (changed) Mortificant (as opposed to monk), Berserker (as opposed to barbarian), Warlord (as opposed to Paladin, another one with a lot of drama), Ranger. Utlimately, it doesn't much matter as long as there is sufficient lore to explain why each term was used for their respective combative genre. Ciphers has such an explanation. Monks do too, at least partially.

Ah I see that I need the slowpoke meme here. This is old news isn't it? Skyforge apparently... carry on.

OEI is making an MMORPG? Man... don't those things always end up as failures? Does Obsidian really need another game that people will bash?

It's the same as barbarian as a class. A lot of this stuff has been talked about already. It comes down to the fact that players don't like too much change from the original recipe and that the creators of D&D didn't know what the hell they were doing.

Sort of wished the illi...vithracks would not be so spider-head, human body. The remind me of ancient Egyptian gods a la anubis.