MaximKat

Because we all know that anything the devs make will be completely boring, unintuitive and unbalanced, right? Wait, why did anyone even support this Kickstarter?

The argument people usually have against regeneration is that it dumbs things down by removing the need to manage your health between encounters. With this system you still have to do it, since your real health only recovers by resting. What exactly seems to be the problem here? Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction to anything containing the word "regenerating"?

With that nickname, it's like you're not even trying...

You either have a reason to kill an enemy (other than "because killing is fun") or you don't. If you do, then you can get XP for whatever you have achieved by killing said enemy. If you don't, then tough luck, you don't get rewarded for meaningless violence. Problem?

Captain's log, stardate 12345 Wait, wrong game. Quest log: "Dealt with an assassin attack: +100 XP You were able to defeat the assassins sent after you. You have killed them without mercy, but were left to wonder about who and why would pay for your death. Perhaps you should keep the sword nearby during sleep, just in case."

Does anything prevent you from doing just that? Then again, if we're talking about the guild of assassins for hire, perhaps paying them to put you on a "no kill" list would be a better idea than just killing the first team and then having 3 more hunting you.

You're missing the point. The objective is not getting killed, killing an opponent is just one way of reaching it. Let's say we're talking about a team of assassins sent after you. You can kill them, or you can sneak away, or you can pay them twice what they were promised for you head and find out who hired them.

Well, if they want to kill you, you can either pay them in kind and collect a bunch of non-quest loot from their corpses, or run away.

They've said that there will be a separate option for this.

Seeing as only 4 people out of those 177 are against the idea, we can say with 99% confidence level that less than 10% in the whole "population" share their opinion. Math FTW. And that's assuming that the sample is uniform, which it's usually not, in favor of those unhappy with something, as we all know.

Doesn't this strike you as very counter-intuitive and arbitrary? So I get XP for killing stuff, but only if I haven't spoken to said stuff beforehand? How does this make any sense? And I still fail to see the point. What difference does it make: you kill 10 bandits and get 5 XP from each, or you kill 10 bandits and get 50XP for "making the roads safe"?

How does not getting 5XP for every killed kobold prevent you from doing any of this?

How does this work? Suppose there is XP for killing. You're given a quest: protect the village from the bandits. You go to the bandits and convince them not to attack the village anymore (100 XP gained for completing the quest). Then you kill all the bandits (10 bandits * 5 XP = 50 XP). Afterwards, you return to the village and, hey, free XP: you kill everyone there as well, gaining additional 25 XP. The "accomplishment XP only" is designed to not reward this kind of behavior. You can still do it if you're roleplaying a psychopath, but you're not rewarded for this. Imagine yourself in a fight. You've just knocked an opponent out. Would you waste time finishing him off, or rather concentrate on the enemies that are still around you? Remember, no matter what, this guy will not be able to harm you: if you win, you'll kill him later, if you lose, you'll be dead long before he comes to his senses.

Maybe it'd help if you answered my question instead of being a smartass... Just sayin'.

Still confused. Do you normally explore for EXP or just for the sake of exploration?

Different from D&D - yes, but I don't see how minor gameplay elements radically affect the spirit of the game. XP is an artificial concept and should be based, mostly, on the goal of balancing the gameplay, which includes accomodating different playstyles. I don't understand what you're trying to explain here. In the first sentence you say that you like to just explore, without any quests, but then you say that there is no point in doing it unless there is a connected quest. Ugh, nobody is saying that. If you haven't completed a secondary objective, obviously you get less XP. But if you have completed it, you get the same XP, no matter what route you took: killed the captors, sneaked around and picked the lock from the cage, or bribed a guard and got him free the prisoner. TBH, this is not really what I imagine when someone says "Baldur’s Gate" or "Planescape: Torment".

You normally hold smartphones and tablets much closer to your face than a desktop monitor. If you're sitting 35" from the screen with a perfect eyesight, you won't be able to see the difference beyond 114ppi. To fully use the 220ppi screen, you'll need to sit at the distance of about 15", which is hardly a good idea. Not to forget the obvious disadvantages of increasing the pixel count by a factor of 4 when it comes to gaming. I'd rather have 60fps at a reasonable resolution, than 15fps for something that I can't even see with my much less than perfect eyesight

I agree with the argument that they should take measures so that the amount of content that fits on the screen (e.g. viewport size) doesn't depend on the resolution. That's just silly: if the game was designed with a certain "camera" in mind, it shouldn't change because of my display settings (case in point: I played BG2 at 1280*800, because 1920*1200 was making the text unreadably small) What I don't necessarily agree with is that the graphics quality should be aimed at the hypothetical high-dpi screens that might or might not be "in every household" in a couple of years. Unless it's trivial and requires almost no extra effort, having just the current-gen assets is enough. No matter what you say, an upscaled image on a high-dpi screen doesn't look any worse than the original image on a low-dpi screen. It's true that It doesn't take advantage of the high-res capability, but it doesn't automatically become ugly, just because it could have been better, if more work had been put into it. It'd look worse, because 1024 to 2880 is not integer factor scaling. If you set it to 1440*900 and it still looks worse than a normal 15" 1440*900 screen, then it's a problem with the scaler and not the game, as AwesomeOcelot said.

1.5x compared to what exactly? I don't know about that. Higher resolution=more small detail=more work.

It works on a Galaxy Nexus. You can see the difference, for example, by looking at the statue teeth. It's nowhere near as dramatic as in the 4 monitor picture from the previous page, though.

Yes, I did. Well, duh. However, you're making an assumption that the devs can get these "more detailed" graphics "for free". This is only true if the original assets are high enough resolution. I don't know much about creating game graphics resources, but from what I understand, a lot would actually be hand-drawn, so you can't just flip a switch and make it twice the resolution overnight.

Umm.. The dpi scaling images on your website look better because they have more detail, not because of some magic scaling.

Unless I'm missing something, the 2nd image shouldn't look like that. An integer factor scaling doesn't cause blurriness, it'll look just the same as the last picture.