ComMcNeil

I think there will be a lot of variation based on the play speed (slow mode/fast mode) and on the level of completion of the whole game. I personally had around 50 hours logged in steam when I finished the game, although probably about 5-10 of these were AFK with just the game open in the background. When I finished it, I did not complete od nua and some sidequests though, which I am currently doing.

its 530, not 503, so there was a patch probably

Which bug is this? I was playing a generally nice person, but... In terms of completing the quest, yup! If you try to, it just doesn't update itself and Pallegina disappears. funny, it worked for me a few days ago, so the bug seems to not always hit (or i did not meet the "requirements")

I think the same, but apparently not everyone as a post saying a similar thing to yours got downvoted to hell on reddit. Personally, I think it is a very annoying bug and of course, should be fixed ASAP - that is clear. However, if you are able to beat encounters even with your passives gone (and I do not think they make that much of a difference in most cases), then I would say just play on

I experienced this as well, was at cap and sent 1 supply to the stash. Disappeared afterwards. Not that gamebreaking imho, fix should just be to not being able to pick it up if you are capped

I agree. Unless you play ironman, you just reload the encounter (if you saved beforehand :D) and try to do it better

I guess that expert mode really only makes a difference IF you enable it on the first playthrough. If you play through it normally and enable it on the second playthrough, you already know a lot of stuff expert mode disables in the first place. Ultimately, everyones own choice of course

Hi ComMcNeil, please contact our Support. If you can send us as much detail about what your friend is seeing (e.g., exact error messages) when he enters his key, that'll help us when we contact Steam about it. Also, what country he's in and what platform he's trying to redeem for (Windows/Mac/Linux.) Will do, thanks shameless self quote, but if Darren Monohan reads this: The problem was a "user error" on his part so my submitted ticket can be disregarded, found unfortunately no way to directly close it thank you nevertheless!

Hi ComMcNeil, please contact our Support. If you can send us as much detail about what your friend is seeing (e.g., exact error messages) when he enters his key, that'll help us when we contact Steam about it. Also, what country he's in and what platform he's trying to redeem for (Windows/Mac/Linux.) Will do, thanks

Email support. I opened up a ticket with paradox support (nothing I found directly at obsidian) - lets see how fast this can be resolved

I have a problem guys - I backed the 165$ tier, including 2 keys. I just redeemed my own Royal edition on steam for preloading, but the King edition key seems to be not working for my friend what can be done here?

not only that, Wasteland 2 will probably be released in about a month

hate it, and I very much liked the BG (2) way on this, you could even dump imoen after rescuing her for crying out loud :D

Some of the idea here are pretty elaborate, pretty cool I for one am a little against the cultural/material descriptor, as it makes evaluating gear a little more difficult, if not supplemented by numbers. I think DAO had a similar system where this exploded somewhat, see this link http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Item_sets_%28Origins%29 And there were only sets, in addition, there were also 9 tiers of materials for 3 types of equipment (leather, metal, wood). This is simply too much. Looking at it on a high level, I would like the armor system to be something, that makes the player looking forward to upgrades. When I look back at BG2, I think my party really changed armor a handfull of times during the complete story. Most of the time, I would find a new suit of armor, which went to one of my party members, which in turn gave his old armor to another one. After the first few levels in the game, you did not change your armor that much anymore, as you already had a solid alotment of protective items, so IF you found something better, it was an event worth celebrating. Nevertheless if I think back, BG2 (or IE games in general) made it not that easy to spot if an armor was better or not. I for one just tried on every new armor that looked interesting and if the AC went up, I kept it. In regards to armor classes, I would tie it into the stamina system - I think thats something DAO touched on a little, but there, stamina was more like mana. Giving heavier armor more protection of "health" but in turn reduce stamina regeneration or max stamina may be a tradeoff worth of looking into. Or incorporate more crowd control into the game (trip attacks) which take longer to recover from in heavy armor that light.

I dont think it defeats its purpose...but a few things need to be defined If all attacks you recieve only subtract from your stamina first and only if stamina is empty THEN from your health, I see your point. However, if attacks do damage to stamina and health at the same time, than I dont think it makes much of a difference other than increasing the difficulty and making it necessary to have full health whenever possible. Even in the first case, it only makes combat more difficult, as you have fewer regenerating resources left after each battle where you take health damage. Compare it to old IE games, hit point damage did not heal anyway and if you could not heal up, every combat got more and more risky of losing someone

I think it depends on the char in question but I like the basic idea of it. An old friend of yours wont take gold I guess but will leave maybe deeply depressen because you dont want him around anymore. Maybe he even starts to plot against you as he feels betrayed. Still, one needs to implement it in a way that may not be easily exploited.

iirc it was not said that this is the case, but rather that they wanted to make a game where you completly control every one of your characters (and have the option to let the AI take over if you dont want to control everyone) The problem with BG was that you level so fast that the balance was really whacky. The beginning was harder than in a party, the mid game was easier until you hit the cap, then it got harder again. If its just plain harder by design, I would be OK with that - probably meaning that a solo char would earn the same amount of exp than a single char in a 6 person group. I guess that would make it very hard to practically impossible to solo the game.

I would like it to be a clean cut ending, but the player should be warned about it in a way. So, like BG2, you basically got a pretty good idea before you faced the first irenicus form, that this is going to be the end of the game. Keep it like this. Also, as Sensuki said, depending on the expansion (which will come definately as we know) it may not even be viable to play on after the ending. If you look at BG2 though, story wise it would have been not that big of a deal if you continued adventuring after killing irenicus, as the bhaalspawn story arc may have just happend a little later then.

for me, the fear of running out of arrows really limited the use of ranged weapons for me in BG2. My Imoen had a short bow, yes, but either did cast, or not really use it at all. I would argue that it may be better to just have "magical quivers" that produce amunition, but have amunition with enchants or sth., just be it like an additional item upgrade for ranged guys.

Because I saw someone saying in BG2 you only had areas where "something happened": One could argue that this was by design. In BG1, you basically have no direct overarching quest other than "find out who killed gorion" so exploration was also more tied in with the story. However in BG2, the whole "rescue imoen, chase irenicus" stuff put a lot more pacing in the whole game, making expansive exploration a little "silly" for plot purposes. Granted - you could still take all time in the world to rescue imoen, but the game did not really feel like time would pass. So for P:E a more BG1 style approach may make more sense, I still voted for BG2 style as I did not enjoy the scouring for interesting things on each map in BG1. Also, if maps are really bigger in PE than in BG1, we need a little more density of content there I feel.

I dont remember that IE games forced you to change any character, either through quest design or through game mechanics. Its not like you go "on a quest" and someone says "PICK ME, PICK ME!" like for example in Mass Effect. You could stick with your team for the whole game and personally, it made more sense for me as you get somewhat morally invested in these characters. Also, as being D&D, you only had so much characters that fit "your" alignment available. Sure, more good than bad iirc, but I dont think many people just picked the evil companion over someone that was with their party for quite some time, only because the new one has better stats. I for one didnt. It even went so far that I pretty much disliked anyone in BG2 besides my usual party. And you did not really give examples, on what would be the reason to change party members in a game, where you dont "need" to switch party members in and out.

Hey, I did not find a thread about this specific topic, but should there be one, please post a link. Basically, there are many topics regarding the XP rewards, how they should be handed out and how they are distributed etc. But I guess, most of these have party play in mind. My question is, what is the stance on solo playthroughs? Sparked by the whole Project:Eternity, I got in the mood to play BG2 again, this time as a solo character. Even though many mechanics are clearly not directly intended for solo play, it is definately fun to overcome challanges you struggled with earlier, in a party of 6, now alone without really breaking a sweat. Will PE endorse players who choose do to things solo? Will it punish them by giving them less XP, reward them by giving them more XP, maybe even acknoledge the fact that the player only has one single character and build this in some dialogue or quests (which would be freaking awesome)? What I would like to see is a method similar of BG (and the D&D rules in general), that you get a fixes amount of XP for the encounter based upon relative difficulty, which is divided amongs your party members. BUT what should change is, that XP should not be static. Meaning, like in the "real PnP D&D", encounter give less XP, if you are higher level, at least it was that way in 3rd edition, I think 4th has gone back to fixed XP values. Nevertheless there should be a mechanic in place that tries to prevent your power from skyrocketing once you get to encounters that yield more XP. In my current BG2 playthrough, the beginnig with my sorcerer was fairly ok, I needed to pick the quests I could do, levels came in a reasonable speed and it seemed balanced. But not at the end of chapter 2, I get levels in a matter of minutes, as monsters tend to give more than 10k XP each, and are practically dead in a few seconds due to my overpoweredness. (I heard the problematic encounters come again in ToB but I digress) However, dont think I would like the devs to invest much development time in such an optional part of the game, as its more something that the player decides for himself - just like expert or ironman modes. If its not balanced, well, than its not balanced. I am sure the playerbase will create appropriate challanges for itself. What are your opinions on the matter, anyone likes playing such games solo as well?

Yeah, I understand that there have to be numbers internally, but I would like a more staged approach on relation than just numbers, so it does not become a new dragon age. Lets say companion A starts neutral with me. Some time after we start traveling together, I can help him with a quest, which will get him to like me. Another quest later down the line, and he is a good friend...and so on. Just dont do something like the gift crap from DA:O, where specific stuff did only unlock, if you had above a certain threshold of rep. Let it be the other way around - do stuff for (or with) your companion, which results in him liking your more (and reward that with story dialogue or maybe unlock additional battle skills for that char...)

I liked interactions with deities as well, but it should somehow fit into your character progression. I think BG2:ToB did this relatively well - encounter with gods only happens later on, when you are really becoming more of a demi-god rather than a simple adventurer with divine heritage. But being a plaything for a mad god (I think you are refering to stuff like in the elder scroll games) is imho not as funny, at least not for me. Also, I dont like being forced into quests which I have to complete before I can do something else again.

aye, no numbers please - even if it makes it more difficult to implement...