Jarrakul

Azure, you win an internet. That's the most entertaining explanation I've ever heard.

I haven't played Skyrim, but I think the generally accepted ring count is 2. Why you can't wear 10, or even 20, is rarely touched upon, but I suspect you'll at least get your wish. It would strike me as very odd if Eternity didn't allow 2 rings per character.

I actually have no problem with infinite inventories. It isn't realistic, but finite inventories are a pain in the ass and don't really add any interesting dynamics to the game (except in survival horror games, but PE isn't one). So I choose gameplay over realism and vote infinite. I do, however, have problems with list inventories, which most infinite inventories are. So let me make a couple points about the way list inventories need to be handled. First, they need to have various sorting options. TES and Fallout 3+ attempt this, but they don't do it well. They allow you to sort by many different classifications, but the classifications have little or nothing to do with how I use the items. Basic categories need to be things like weapons (sortable by damage, speed, or any other weapon property), armor, consumables (sortable by effect), plot items (sortable by quest), and merchant fodder (sortable by value/weight ratio). We also need a "favorites" list (similar to the one in Skyrim, but by no means identical), which can be viewed on its own, sorted like any other list, and doesn't show up in the "sell" interface. Got that, Obsidian? If you do all that, you might well make a list inventory that people don't actually hate.

Right, sorry. Helth regen is teh best and u r stupid for not agreing ie sux cuze it dosnt have healt regan u r dumb gtfo Better?

I like the idea of a player-skill-based minigame, actually. And why not? Player skill matters in combat, why not elsewhere? Think Deus Ex: Human Revolution. That game had the best persuasion minigame I have ever seen. It was the best thing about the game, in fact. I would kill for another game with a persuasion system like DE:HR's. So add one in Eternity. More ranks in the Persuade skill might give you more information about the target, eliminate wrong answers, start you off closer to convincing the other guy, etc. The point here is that it'd take player thought and input. Sure, you could still reload and try again, but you can do that for combat too. The point is to make it more interesting than "roll, reload, roll again." And a persuasion system like DE:HR's would do that.

My thoughts on the issue: Stat requirements for equipment aren't useful. At best, they're part of the utility of a particular stat, but that leads to people wanting certain threshold values and not increasing the stat beyond that. So don't bother. It really doesn't add anything except level requirements in disguise, which are a bad idea in a singleplayer game. Stats need to be balanced well for all characters. The IE games, wonderful though they were, did an absolutely terrible job of this. Everyone wanted Dex and Con, but Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom were only useful for certain classes, and Charisma was only useful for one character in the whole party (Planescape: Torment did a better job, of course, but the point still stands) Instead of feeling tied to D&D's stat system, Arcanum's stat system, Fallout's stat system, or any other such system, Obsidian should use whatever system they feel is best. The rest of the game rules are new, why try and tie them to an old stat system if it doesn't fit their vision?

I, for one, do not like turn-based. Why? Because it doesn't give as fine control as RTwP. In RTwP, I can see something happen and react to it immediately. In turn-based games, I have to wait until it's my turn again. I don't like that. Now, which option is more tactically demanding is debatable, but I enjoy the slightly frantic quality of RTwP.

So, I think this thread could use a discussion of what different types of health regeneration do in terms of gameplay. Because right now we've got a lot of people shouting back and forth about how it's good or bad, and a lot of people giving examples of games they don't like (or holding up IE games as flawless, which is silly), but not a lot of discussion of how the health regen actually affects the game. So here we go. Out of Combat Regenerating: Allows designers to tailor the difficulty of each fight independently, without worrying about the fight before it. This places an emphasis on tactical, rather than strategic, gameplay. At its best, this leads to each fight being exciting and difficult. At its worst, this leads to everything being pitifully easy. Non-Regenerating: Forces players to consider long-term resource management, promoting strategic gameplay at the cost of making most fights boring (the only interesting one is the last fight before each rest, because that's the only fight where you'll be low on anything important). This also makes it much more difficult to design encounters, as it can be hard to anticipate when players will rest. At its best, this leads to players carefully considering the long-term effects of every combat choice. At its worst, this leads to the game becoming unwinnable because you didn't do well in the last fight and you didn't know there was a dragon in the next room. It's important to note here that unlimited resting (as was typical of IE games, except in the early game when you were afraid of hobgoblins and wolves, and was most significantly exemplified by Neverwinter Nights) is essentially the same as out of combat regeneration. The only difference is that it forces the player to click a button, which isn't really a problem, but it certainly isn't a strength. In Combat Regenerating: Rewards micromanagement (because you can pull injured characters back to regenerate) and reduces reliance on dedicated healing classes. It also encourages some cheap tactics, like kiting, and can make prolonged battles less threatening. It also tends to make back-liners (mages, etc) somewhat more durable than intended, as they don't usually get hit often. At its best, regenerating health allows for some really interesting tactical gameplay. At its worst, it turns the game into a "ring-around-the-ogre." Non-Regenerating: Makes long battles into epic desperate struggles for survival, and makes every stage of the battle really matter (the goblin that hits you in the first 5 seconds actually does something). At its best, this forces players to be very careful about everything they do. At its worst, this turns battles into a mindless slugfest. Note that the kiting problem can be solved by requiring characters to stand still and take no actions. This would still allow a character to fall back and rest while other characters covered their retreat, maintaining much (though not all) of the tactical complexity that regenerating health can potentially provide. Of course, you could regenerate while being attacked, but the regenerating would only serve to offset the damage. Think of it as fighting defensively. You only get to regain health while being attacked if the enemy's attacks are so pitiful that they can't overcome your regen (in which case the defense is clearly very easy). Incidentally, I'm in favor of the system proposed. Semi-regenerating health (the health/stamina system) allows for an element of strategy while making it much harder to get screwed over due to a single fight. In other words, it seems like a pretty good middle ground. In combat regen is very much to my taste, as it matches the "clash and separate" dynamic I experienced in my fencing days, although I do worry about kiting (which is why I proposed the standing still rule, above). Finally, I just want to say that I'm an old school PnP DM (depending on your definition of old school; I've been gaming for about 15 years, DMing for 10 of them), and I have no problem whatsoever balancing in-combat regen. If the Obsidian folks are half as good at this as I am (and I suspect they're better), they shouldn't have any problems.