Pipyui

Alright, there is absolutely no way you could create such accurate models without knowing my ex.

But then how could I ever manage to sell the things? Me: "I call her Bonecleaver. She has tasted the blood of scores more goblin than you've ever even seen. Demons have been humbled by her caress. Many a villain vanquished and damsel rescued with her at my side. See that glitter of ember when I tilt the blade? Its steel has been hardened and permanently embedded with the burning fragments of soul left from the most vile of her conquests. Alas, I must pass her on, as I just found this neat masterwork greataxe of the maurader." Merchant: "Well now. Two jakatas." Me: "Two -?! I don't think you understand. Bonecleaver has been there with me to defy A GOD! No stone nor blade can any longer even even nick her edge! The dry blood permeating every pore of her metal serves as scent of warning to all wild things that approach!" Merchant: "That's all well and good for you I'm sure, but I gotta make a living selling it somehow when all it reduces to in my hands is a hunk of scrap. Alright then - two jakatas, a beer, and a clean rag to wipe those tears off your face." Otherwise, not an alltogether bad idea. Perhaps you could upgrade your weapon of choice at a smithy with enough gold, maybe raw material, and weapon experience (like a pokemon ). It might not upgrade to be the be-all-end-all of pointy sticks, but could certainly entice one to hold close to a particular pointy stick even when one of marginally better stats is found.

I think Alexjh might of hit the head on this one. I imagine Obsidian doesn't quite have the budget to rent out a motion capture studio, and while they could possibly spend some money out of pocket, considering the size of the characters as they will appear on screen, I don't see this as being very likely (or particularly cost effective). Continuing to restate exactly as Alexjh has already put forth though, reference footage for the animators could prove helpful. Especially, I would imagine, footages of various weapon attack sequences - since this could maybe help animators build flowing attack sequences that look somewhat realistic and natural. Just my 0.5 cent though.

So that's where it's been going. I always wondered why my sword felt so heavy after a good slaying. So it wasn't fatigue or moral guilt! You know, all and all, I could maybe find this acceptable.

I kinda liked in Fable 3(?) how your weapons had "achievements" you could earn with them to improve their attributes or add effects. I think it'd be neat if some weapons in PE evolved in a similar fashion, with one or more "achievements" to ... achieve. A void dagger that "levels up" if you kill so many innocents, a holy mace that levels after killing enough undead, betrayal's axe which improves significantly in power for each party member that dies, a greedy grimoir that starts with a single spell slot but can be upgrading by feeding it exhorborant amounts of coin (to a limit; ok, so maybe this item shouldn't really count), I remember in Fable there was a Swinger's Sword that gained elemental effects or something for sleeping with X men and X women, etc. I think some weapons like this or implementing something similar might be neat. Your weapon may not level infinitely (?), but gives you fun goals to strive for, and you might find yourself attached to it even.

Ah, I think I may have totally misunderstood this thread before. My understanding was that many were advocating the use of tiles as in the vein of NWN1 - as in reducing map "sizes" by replacing them with big texture grids to be rendered on the fly. No, it doesn't particularly surprise me that dungeons and caves and such are to be modeled using prerendered tiles as like Oblivion, not as in NWN1 (though I should hope the variety to be much improved over Oblivion's caves and dungeons). *shrug* Though really, I might just be unconsciously altering my old opinion to fit with new information so as to imagine I was correct. I honestly don't remember anymore (it's really late, and I'm too tired to look into it). Darn you brain! You're always like a closed book!

While I agree with many of the inventory clutter-clearing being suggested here, I have to say that I'm a little concerned about having absolutely no stash limit. Like cyberarmy, I will take everything I can pick up if it nets me a gold piece, and maybe even if it doesn't. Then going through that massive list when selling (for me) will turn into a massive chore of sifting through junk to ensure that I don't accidentally sell something useful. I know this is a problem of self control more than anything else, but I'd still prefer some hard limit to my stash, even if it is to be ginormous.

Sirens, legions of the damned (like zombies, but more tragic), nazis, rocklobsters, like the medusa thing but maybe without turning to stone - maybe eyesight causes mild combustion or something, banshees, piranhas (water hazard), landsharks, annnnd bloodflies (from I book I'm reading - large with nasty bites that soften the skin for the embedded larva eggs; be best to kill these without being bitten much, for the bites will cause them to multiply).

Meaning that all words spell the truth, meaning that, now written, I can never again trust either statement or the words that make them! Darn you, Lephys! On another note, PE was my first experience with kickstarter, and the stretch goals seemed pretty legitimate to me. You get more funding, you can introduce more stuff. Except that final "make a better game" stretch goal. Where was the money between this and the previous stretch goal going to go? That one was a little BS. I suppose they didn't want to outstretch themselves with too large an order though. Hah! Ahhhh...

Alright culture update! The pantheon is sounding pretty cool so far, it will be interesting to learn of these gods/esses interactions in the world and amongst themselves. Furthermore, what is the symbol on the Orlan's uniform? I suspect it's a hand holding a scepter, or maybe an arrow caught in flight (preventing violent crime?).

I think this can be accomplished fairly easily I feel for creatures with some minor model scaling and color variation (some goblins slightly larger/smaller, some green some grey some brown, etc). People are a little more difficult, as the loot issue should be accounted for, and someone mentioned the equipment should somewhat match. To solve this, I suppose you could randomize from a list of predifined outfits. Each of these outfit archtypes souldn't be strict mind, but should themselves each define the randomization of it's own equipment. This is what I remember seeing when playing around with the TES construction set. It was easy for those games though because you could just take a basic equipment piece and stamp a random enchantment or such on it. My understanding is that equipment in PE will be unique, and so I think you would need something like outfits that defined subsets of equipment pieces to randomize from? This should be easy for citizens and guards and the like, I just wonder how this might be implemented for mercenaries and such.

I like the idea. It would only be used for noncritical content, mind, and would require some amount of effort from the player to decypher, but I'm not sure that I'm afraid of such things. Information and lore to reward the explorer. Actually, I think mixing in a little Myst/Riven appeals to me.

What if full misses just drain stamina instead of stamina+health? We already know (inconclusively, of course) that hits will drain some ratio of stamina+health, so what if a full miss - e.g. block with a shield, dodge, parry - drains only stamina? A glancing blow could then still use the "half min damage" business, and randomness is still trimmed somewhat, though not as drastically. Edit: Whoops! Only glanced through thread before posting. Looks like Lephys already addressed this.

Superior backers isn't a playable class? Well now, that is disappointing.

Backer badge will come later. My understanding is that all backers will recieve an email when the fulfillment website is launched where you will be able to More info in update 29 here. Hope this helps, and welcome to the forums!

Good stuff, though I'll admit, I can never accept that Sagani is out of line.

Eh, I myself actually prefer the lower limits to summons, pets, and such. Carrying around 10 skeletons can be a pain to micromanage, especially when trying to get them through a doorway. And these would have to be some seriously weak skeletons, otherwise I can see no reason to choose a barbarian in my party over a necromancer and small army. The way I figure it, if I really want a band of skeletons, I can just build a party of 6 necromancers, each with 1-2 summons. Had I my way, I think I'd say that classes could obtain up to two summons, but these summons could increase in power with the character, automagically like or through feats. Course, this is running with the premature knowledge and expectations I have of PE so far .

I'm okay with practicing a suspension of disbelief for the sake of my entertainment, but for me there are only so many rules that can be broken before it gets to me. Creative license can take you anywhere, but it's always nice to leave a little anchoring behind for your audience to grasp onto . Breaking the "laws" of theoretical physics is ok, breaking the laws of Newtonian physics is pushing my boundries, breaking those laws for the sake of a purely "fluff" mechanic with virtually no exposition is not ok. Magic breaks many rules with all too often no exposition (I still have a slight problem with it under many implementations, which can be depicted aptly below (spoiler)), but proves to be ingrained deeply in narrative and gameplay. Breaking fundamental laws of physics (equal and opposite forces, conservation of mass, to name just two) should be reserved only for such ingrained content, and not solely to tack another greataxe onto my barbarian. Even then, at least have these laws broken to serve a practical purpose, particularly in this instance for gameplay mechanics - as mentioned above with the close-quarter allies, close-quarter caves, and such - I can not see dual claymores being anything better than grievously impractical; also and especially, Lephys aptly put: My post is getting away from me. In short, changing the laws of nature for fantasy is fine, but give me a few anchors in reality, and exercise some conservation with creative license.

Ugh, I hate those buggers. They're not good eating, but if you leave them alone they'll devour all game in the area. With such voracious appetites, why can't they ever inhabit someplace more urban, meat-populated, and out of my hair? Mother****ing frost wyrms! Better luck than I've had, most times I've gone hunting dragon, the only meat I'd scramble back with is half my party - medium well.

I'm not against dual-wielding, but I'll admit that I'm not sure that I like the damage-defense fighter spectrum that it implies. I'd rather that different melee styles broaden the fighting spectrum rather than deepen it, if that makes sense. I'd rather have three archtypes like, just to use my previous example, attack, defense, and utility, and have to effectively match 2 of the 3 than have just a linear spectrum between two options. In my mind, there is little need to subdivide such a 2-trait fighter role any more than offense, defense, and a midpoint between. Don't misunderstand, I'm not implying that dual-wielding automagically locks us into this latter model, I'm trying to say that I'd like my weapon preferences to reflect a broader one, and as such that a weapon preference like dual-wielding should be more than "slightly more damage than this equipment combination, but slightly less defense too." Just my 2 cents, anyway.

I'm with Lephys on this one. Just to add my own thoughts, dual-wielding can be neat, but it's gonna need to have a niche to fill. We've already got 2H weapons for the "no shield but more damage" business, and 2H weapons actually make sense. So where does that leave dual-wielding? Best thing I can come up with is using one sword to distract, and a dagger for close piercing, and that's pretty washy. Dual daggers? If I'm getting that close in combat, I'd prefer a free hand to a second blade. Maybe you could have a one-and-a-half hand style instead? Wield a bastard sword, and have a utility belt of throwing knives, bombs, whathaveyou. Then you'd have stick and board attack-defense, 2H attack-attack, and 1-1/2 sword attack-utility. I'm just throwing ideas around here. Edit: Sounded initially like I was putting words in Lephys mouth - didn't intend to do that.

Speaking of, isn't it about time we got a weekly update on the state of the sound and music design? Not far enough along to present us with anything just yet? Okay.

It seems I may be the only one, but I wouldn't mind particularly if resting was limited to certain areas. I wouldn't be angry if my party could only rest in the wilderness for example, and not in interior spaces or otherwise dangerous territory (and not "I'll just back up a few yards and try resting again" territory). Perhaps I can rest in such areas, but at significantly higher risk of ambush. Also, maybe my party could be limited in how many camping packs it can carry. That way I'd only be able to strike camp so many times before being forced to visit a town and buy more (it's not like I wouldn't be visiting a town often enough anyway to sell loot). Sure it's limiting, but it feels to me like a gameplay mechanic that can limit how a player rests without slapping them in the face with not being able to. It makes sense to me that I might not be able to strike camp somewhere because I've run dry on the necessary resources to do so. In this case I have to decide for myself when it's appropriate to consume a camp pack for some much-needed health and rest. If I run into a tough brigand and die a few times (not playing ironman), maybe I'll bite the bullet and strike camp to heal before trying again, but thus limiting futher how many more times I can do such before having to revist a town or settlement to resupply. Then you could make inn rooms cheaper than a camp pack (not necessarily too realistic, but practical), and make them almost somewhat usefull. Heck, maybe inns could even grant me a "well rested" stamina bonus.

"Oh Gods, Why is Everything on Fire?"

Not much to contribute here, but to me the question here shouldn't be interpreted as "Should PE include elements of sexism because realism?" and should be interpreted "Should PE make a point to avoid sexism (and other touchy subjects)?" and my answer is of course a big "No." I don't particularly care whether or not society in PE practices sexism, so long as the narrative choice made here is consistent with the feelings of an organic society. I don't want the devs to go out of their way to fit it in, and I certainly don't want them to go out of their way to cut it out. Whether or not society practices sexism though, I do like the idea of granting the PC sexist dialogue options for roleplaying purposes, whether they be male or female.