Pipyui

I'm sure he knows what he's doing then. To me the idea seems like it could be neat, but could just as easily end up annoying. I suppose it doesn't particularly need stating, but I'd rather devs put frills into my games only if they are inspired, and not just for the sake of tacking them on. This early in development sounds like inspired frilling. And that is a whole other ball game, my friend. A difficult one to address at that, I would wager. I'm with you on these sentiments though - I'd like to see a lot of consideration put into the economy game of PE. I actually had a thread about it at some point, but suspect I made a mess of it. Edit: Tomorrow morning I shall return to these midnight ramblings and surely offend or otherwise confuse myself, so I'll apologize in advance: Sorry.

While the currency division doesn't particularly bother me, I see no real reason to have separate currencies for different locales. Presuming in this case that all currency is valid anywhere, that is. And in the case that it isn't, it might just feel needlessly impeading unless there is a method to exchange currencies, in which case I ask again: what is the point? I understand that sovergn nations have their own currencies as a result of history, pride economics, etc; but these things seem of little merit in a video game when compared to how it complicates the system. On the other hand, I can get on board having particularly currencies that serve for different merchants and/or items. Like in Neverwinter Nights, you could collect smuggler's coins to purchase special items. Perhaps certain collectors or factions (maybe only in a particular culture) deal only in rare artifact pieces that can only be found through adventuring, and can be traded for regular or unique services/goods. Just my 1 silver 2 copper, anyway.

I'm kinda ambivalent on the codex idea. I prefer my lore to come from ingame texts a la TES style. On the one hand, I absolutely did not like how the codex was implemented in Dragon Age. There was too heavy a disconnect between what I was percieving in the game and what knowledge I was aggregating in my codex. It seemed I could walk into a room and a little hud popup would inform me that I had learned advanced economics because I might have witnessed a coinpurse lying on a desk somewhere. On the other hand, the Witcher 2 had a codex, and I rather welcomed it. When I became acquainted with somebody, I was usually well enough informed ingame of their background and relationships, but would also get a codex entry detailing their background as should be common knowledge in the world, and some of Geralt's immediate impressions of them. As more information was gleaned through the story, the codex was updated accordingly. Creatures upon first encounter would get a basic desciption in your codex, and would only be detailed further upon the reading of particular books (I prefer this method as opposed to having my codex fleshed out dynamically as I fought them (e.g. "you killed 10 goblins, you now know a weakness of theirs!", "you cast a fireball at a troll, you now know trolls are susceptible to fire!")). Basically, I like it if a codex would reinforce knowledge I have already acquired ingame, and don't like my codex to be the first to acquiant me with it. If I open a book on hyrdodynamics of submersibles, it's fine to me if I get a codex entry summarizing it - whether or not I as a player read the text - so that I don't have to lug the item around with me for later perusal, but can if I want to. I should not get an entry on the hydrodynamics of submersibles simply because I encounter such a vessel though. Also, broad-knowledge loadscreen tooltips are cool. Edit: spelling.

Hello all, I've been a long time inactive on the forums lately, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but I've just gotten to wondering of how many 3D models can be rendered on screen in a 2.5D game, and of how many of these models can have advanced or basic AI. Actually, I feel this is a gameplay impelementation request more than anything, but what I really want to see in game at some point or another is full scale battles being played out. In the old IE games, technology limited what could be rendered and controlled on screen, and so battles were always fairly small and isolated affairs. Given that our computers have improved quite a bit since then, I wanted to be able to play out a battle or two on even grander scale. Everyone on these forums has seen the LOTR movies, or at the least read books depicting epic battles of full armies I can fairly assume. The battle at Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, etc - you get the picture. Those are abolutely awesome, and I'd love to be a part of one, even if just as a little game avatar. Full scale battles crop up now and then in modern games, but as I've seen them in full 3D games tend to be extremely limited by rendering capability and processing power. This usually means static battles - groups of warriors fighting endlessly around you in simple animation, untouchable by the PC. While this itself is perfectly acceptable to me, I wonder if using 2D maps in PE can reserve some more horsepower for drawing more 3D models (bigger battles, better animations). More, I wonder if modern processors can handle advanced scripting of several models or groups of models (platoons) such as to create a dynamic battlefield. This doesn't mean that each indivual combatant on screen needs to have advanced AI, or even that AI needs exist at all outside of PC combat. Maybe the battles could advance in real time along a prewritten script in response to player events (for pacing). Maybe the player needs to respond to battle events to shape it accordingly. Anyway, what I'm getting at is: how feasable is this? How big, dynamic, and epic do you speculate these battles can get? Are such scenarios even an element you would like to experience in PE? Should I add a poll?

But how am I supposed to feel like an elite backer if everyone can get the same things I do? No, I get your point that digital goodies cost nothing for the developers to continue distributing, and can even net them more for those like yourself who would choose to pay for it, but I think that they have a legitimate reason not to do so. When someone funds towards a kickstarter, they are funding an unknown quality. Before these many updates we've been getting over the months, all solid evidence we had about this game - at the end of the kickstarter - was a screenshot, some music, and a little concept art. Anybody in their right mind would pass this up and wait for the final release, or at the very least, more information before committing any more than maybe a few measly coins to purchase. The developers can't make the game without this funding first though. To entice potential backers to take this risk on a promise, the devs provide extra goodies to those who fund. The more you fund, the more goodies you get. Though I'm not against it myself, I think that providing these goodies to late backers who have had the privilege of being further informed about the project breaks the unwritten agreement of, and undermines, this model. Backers only fund these early promises in exchange for extra benefits. If there are no particular incentives to backing earlier rather than later, people will back later, and the project will never get funded in the first place. This being said, I believe that all backers to the point of the fulfillment site launch will be able to modify their reward tiers and such, so don't give up on getting those extra goodies just yet!

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.