JFSOCC

Can you give an example of what you consider to be a good reason for saving? If you had reason to believe that nearly every battle in the game was going to be challenging enough to kill half your party on your first attempt would it change your position at all? I'll offer a few: A good reason for saving is if your gaming session is at an end, nobody plays a game that last 60 hours or more in one go (well, maybe some people do) so when you are done and want to go do something else, that's an excellent reason to save. I believe since this game won;t be one constant encounter that this is easily doable between encounters. Another good place to save is before an encounter you know is going to be tough, (yes) but before you've entered combat. Because the challenge as a whole wouldn't change before saving. If you save long enough before an encounter the debuff would wear off before the encounter takes place. Which means that it is a minor inconvenience if you play the way most people (I expect) play. However, if you save every time you enter combat, just to be sure, you'll quickly be discouraged to do so. So it would only discourage extremes. No tactical or gameplay options will be removed. And if you do decide to save scum, challenges don't become stale because they are too easy, because you've effectively increased your own difficulty. Another good reason to save is after you've made significant progress which you do not want to lose. I don't want to play something over and over again because I couldn't save. So, directly after an encounter is also an excellent time to save. Well I have misformulated my question: this drawback for saving anywhere anytime, do you want it to be: 1) an option that can be toggled off (thus making save scumming drawback free if the player deactivates the feature) ? 2) or a feature that cannot be toggled off ? I responded the way I did because I fear it presented a false choice. I would have be a feature that can be toggled off, perhaps based on difficulty settings, but I want to make clear that even if this feature is toggled on, it doesn't limit saving, just offers momentary drawbacks. also, upon load, not upon save. so, option 1) comes closest, but more nuanced that than.

What would be your views on separate inventories for different item types? (whether or not that includes a pane for quest items I'll leave up to you)

1)Drawbacks to save scumming (but still be able to save anywhere) Ironman mode is for hardcore players who think there is NEVER a good reason for saving during inopportune times in the game, I don't want to go that far. it shouldn't be one extreme or the other.

What I'm looking for in a stronghold is several things. 1. I want a project that I can call completely mine. I want to customize *MY* stronghold to fit MY aesthetic preferences and my strategic preferences. 2. The stronghold should flatter my Ego. as such it should be hard enough to get that it feels like an accomplishment. it should also mean that I can do powerful things here. in order not to break the game, perhaps they should only be possible here, or come at a significant enough cost that while worthwhile, it's a tactical decision. 3. My stronghold should matter in the game world, I would enjoy some quests that open up upon completion of certain upgrades of the stronghold. different strongholds get different quests. So I could mix in politics, become the benevolent (or not so benevolent) dictator of my fiefdom, build a centre of learning or a successful business mini city (with whorehouses, or warehouses, whatever I choose) 4. going back to #1, I want a project, that means that I don't mind that it requires some quests to add or alter and grow the power of my stronghold. 5. I want my stronghold to remain relevant to me throughout my game, not a thing to do and then cast away after it is finished. I'd have some suggestions on how to do it, but I trust the team is capable enough to figure out good ways themselves.

I don't think you will get a constructive discussion as long as your argument boils down to "anyone who disagrees with me obviously doesn't know what's good for them." (And, seriously, can we drop the 'saving your game is cheating' argument? It's not doing anyone any favours.) I'm still waiting for anyone to explain how saving anywhere will inherently ruin the game, the game design, and everyone's enjoyment of the game. Last time we asked, the response was something like "oh, you can't explain how, but it does". Sorry, but that's not good enough. I'm sorry if I come across as arrogant, that is certainly not my intent. I do feel frustrated as I fear my argument is not coming across; I am after all, using arguments, despite being told that I'm not. Must be bad communication on my part. The argument that saving anywhere will ruin the game is a simple one: You kill the challenge of the game if you can retry every encounter, whether combat or dialogue, because you are certain to always overcome every obstacle, without having to change your behaviour. You don't have to get better at tactics, you don't have to moderate your words to get the best result. You just have to brute force all the possibilities and then pick the one that yields the desired results the best way. Rewards will lose all meaning, since you will always have the best of the best, challenges will lose all meaning, because you will always overcome them so exceptionally well. everything will go your way. always. all.the.time. I suppose that in the information age which is upon us this is the case anyway, where everyone can look up solutions online. In the end I can't prevent anyone from playing how they choose, and I wouldn't seek to. I would however like to find a way to encourage players to enjoy the challenge, rather than seek to breeze through. perhaps coupling mechanics like summoning sickness to difficulty settings is an idea?

If they make it past 3.5 million (which I already think is terribly impressive) I'd rather they save the extra money into a pot to be used for polishing, or parts of the project that need more help. a buffer to prevent problems from forming up.

in the end it's delivery that counts. I wasn't seeing a deep character, and if I have to specifically play through all the DLC to get it when he's the main.game.antagonist. seems silly to me.

TIL domain knowledge, thanks!

"He didn't bleed overly"

Even ridiculous amounts of humour can be done well in a game, but it does change the tone(anyone ever played Quest for Glory games, terrible terrible puns?). I want the tone to remain serious enough that the setting remains believable. So that means I prefer humour that isn't meta, but in-game, arising from in-game situations, comments and characters.

I love puzzles and riddles in games, that said, I sometimes find that riddles use language that build on cultural knowledge, English or American sayings. These become indecipherable for someone who doesn't know these sayings, like those who speak English as a second language. So be careful that the riddle can be solved by knowledge that most players ought to have, preferably from the game itself.

The dragon breathes a foul breath, if you are to slay it you must first collect the blood of a pegasus, From that I will craft a powerful fire potion, hehe. ahem. What do you mean I don't need pegasus blood for a fire potion, and that I already have a fire potion right here? I think they would feel much more useful if their use was valuable (but maybe not essential) for use during the game. such as my rather lame example of a fight against a foe which you may see coming. but the same could be said for any number of items used in your campaign, you want to find the sword of a thousand souls and have it be special, that means that you can't find new swords of awesomeness under every stone. If potions are used, make them valuable. (but not so valuable as to never want to use them)

I have to agree with True_Spike. overly clichéd villain, cursing as the hero gets away yet again with foiling his nefarious plans. making stupid decisions not because they made sense but because they were more evil. that's bad characterization IMO.

maybe we could make it a more general question, since everyone seems so happy to put their ideas here (and that's awesome) Not "Do you like this underground big city idea" but rather, "what cool ideas do you have for a big city" I like most suggestions I've seen so far, though some have problems that have been pointed out. It might not fit the game world, but I enjoyed the "City of Union" as described in the DnD epic level classes rulebook. (I hope some of you know what I am referring to)

I couldn't sympathise with the DA people, all their problems were based on being stuck in their way of thinking, even my main characters "choice" to join the greywardens was one I would not have made. that and the game was riddled with design flaws.

people like me? I think I made a pretty good case earlier on how I've learned that this is not enjoyable. but that lesson did come at the cost of enjoyment of a game I otherwise would have enjoyed from the outset. Edit: Why the hell do I feel that I must defend my character? I was hoping for constructive discussion.

region specific. I want to be able to relax back in my nations' fair capital after having cleared an enemy infestation in the pit of despair.

it's a prediction. People have been shown time and again to be very poor judges of what will bring them happiness. There are some very interesting studies on the matter.

Ok, I'm a little upset, some of you clearly didn't read what I said, if you're not even willing to hear me out, why are we even discussing? If you'd seen the suggestion you'd have found that it imposes no limits, you can still save whenever you want. I've also suggested that penalties at other times would not be severe or even extant at all. it depends on the situation, that can include combat, or a tough dialogue, but doesn't have to. If you had even bothered to read you'll find that I'm not limiting save games with my suggestion, at all. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your useless post since this statement illustrates your incapable frame of mind so completely. You should have. your argument is invalid because you didn't even read what I said. talk about wilful ignorance. Why do you want to impose on other people your definition of enjoying? Personally, I couldn't care less about your childhood expieriences. If you feel cheating ruined game for you - DON'T USE IT. If you feel saving ruins game for you - DON'T USE IT. But don't demand your attitude be "encouraged" with game mechanics. Everyone and their dog has own idea of enjoyable gameplay, yours is neither better nor worse. That's incorrect on 2 levels: 1. I do not force my way of playing it on anyone. you can still play however you want. 2. Save scumming actually does make the game less enjoyable. it's just counter intuitive to believe that because the brain is hard wired for efficiency. The bolded part in particular is a good example of the flaw in your argument for this mechanic. The problem with your suggestion is you're assuming every player thinks like you do, and thus this mechanic serves its intended purpose only if that assumption (which is clearly wrong, based on the replies in this thread) is correct. You know what two game mechanics would ruin *my* game? Not being able to save at any time I want, or being punished for saving my game when I felt like it. wel 1, you'd be able to save whenever you want, 2, you would only be punished when it would give you an unfair advantage. it would be minor, it would be temporary , and it would make you use discretion when you do save. but if you must save, you could still do it. It wouldn't be the end of the world, I don't even think it would be annoying, it just encourages you to be a bit more tactical. finally, and I cannot stress this enough, I'm merely trying to suggest possibilities. try to work with me, rather than be rusted stuck in your absolute view that player freedom is the highest good ever and can never be wrong.

I've pledged 25$, it's all I can afford.

This serves no purpose. There's no true reason for such a mechanic. None of the "arguments" put forth as to why it's a good idea to limit saving are convincing. And really, there's a vast difference between "encouragement" and "punishment." You really think your debuff idea is an encouragement? Wow. Ultimately, your stance is meaningless. There's Trial of Iron for ya, probably other difficulty options to tweak saving too. It's a single-player game, so someone else doing the save-reload dance 30 times against Firkraag shouldn't bother you one whit (and if it does, well.... pathetic). /facepalm The purpose it would serve is to discourage players from ruining their own game, without making it impossible for them to do so if they feel it's important enough. temporary debufs are proposed because it means it doesn't permanently penalize a player. Ah, yes, Obsidian needs to discourage stay-at-home Moms from frivolously jumping up whenever the baby cries ... Seriously, folks have lots of reasons to save frequently that have nothing to do with save scumming--and really don't need designers of entertainment deliberately adding a debuff to the annoyance of interruptions. Because mothers with babies are the main target demographic for Project Eternity. When I go and play an RPG game, I know I'm going to be behind my computer for a while. And how do you justify that from an in-game perspective? I don't. I was merely trying to "think with the team" and offer suggestions and alternatives to help out with what some consider an issue. As to the last post, I'm not a zealot, I too believe everyone should be allowed to ruin their own game as much as they please. that doesn't mean that making that easy is the correct design choice. The developpers have some power to influence how you enjoy the game, and discouraging people from doing something that seems to make sense (maximizing efficiency, - something which is hardwired in our brain to attempt) but may actually ruin game fun (because it can kill challenge, -you can keep going back infinitely till you brute force your way through by trying everything) And people who make the choices to ruin their game fun might not do so deliberately, they may not even realise that it is the effect it will have. When I was about 11 years old I played Delta Force 1, I cheated all the way through, mostly because I was not confident of my abilities. Later I realised I had deprived myself of an immersive and tense experience, of getting skillful because I had gone the easy way. I played it again and without cheats found I enjoyed the game much more. Most of the replies to me have been of categorical thinking: Things that prevent save scumming are bad, because it decreases player freedom to do what they want. You hold this player freedom sacred. The consequentialist philosophy is that this will lead to many players unwittingly ruining their game, they might end up with a less than satisfactory experience of the game. The issue is not one of Freedom VS constraint, but rather one of "How can I encourage the player to enjoy the game the most, without holding their hand and deciding everything for them" In this case I think that there is some merit to the idea of preventing save scumming. though the precise method that works best is up for debate. (aside from whether to do it, how it could be done.) I thought of debuffs, but I also said that this should only be in places where save scumming may negatively affect enjoyment the most, by killing difficulty; During conversation trees and mid combat (but not just as combat starts), and how in some cases no penalty is needed at all (safe locations) Mothers who need to take care of their babies no doubt can use the pause option, and if you want to save to come back hours or days later, I'm sure you can use 5 minutes time to go through this encounter you're busy with now, or if it's early enough during the encounter, replay it from the start. I don;t foresee a situation where a pause will not suffice at a moments notice, and if it's more than a moments notice "I really start having to do something else NOW" I wonder if you maybe aren't brilliant in planning your game session.

separate lootpile for NPC's, problem solved.

I would think about humour that doesn't break immersion. it has to be in-game. No paintings that feature Sonic the Hedgehog or something like that. Earlier in the music thread I suggested something like an inn that you enter where the music is so loud that you have to go outside in order to speak to whom you want to. (done by lowering the volume of the voices, so that the music is louder, not by actually blasting music into your ears) That's funny and situational and feels like it comes from the world. Sarcastic remarks about atire, or an NPC character that speaks with a voice that is so incredibly over-acting "evil" that a player can't help but comment on it could also work, but you have to be careful not to break immersion.

unfortunately I am alone amongst my facebook friends in caring for this project.