Lephys

Oh, not at all, not at all. I didn't mean to suggest that we shouldn't know anything about them. I was only observationally commenting on that mystery aspect, just when you're not super sure of the exact identities of companions, as separate from non-companions. Not necessarily all of them, mind you.

What does it say about me that your words evoked the image of a trainer with a whip, commanding a person-sized pair of ears to balance upon pedestals and jump through flaming hoops? I am interested in finding out all about the settlement's atmosphere and background, as well.

I'm not going to say that it's somehow evident that they were totally planning that stretch goal from the beginning. But, it's not just "not turning down free money." The whole thing is free money. Before there were even any stretch goals, there's the minimum funding goal. That covers all the things in their basic game design. The 4-mil stretch goal is no less vague than the initial project funding goal. What is being spent on what, exactly? If you're running a fundraiser, and it's got a set duration, you don't just stop 3 days before it's over and say "It's fine, guys. We're good." You're creating a whole game from nothing. It's not like you can't put more money to good use. I just don't understand the negative connotation being placed upon the whole "they just whipped a stretch goal out of their arses that doesn't really mean anything" argument. As if improvements across the board are fictional, and they're obviously going to pocket all the money and buy themselves new Ferrari's simply because the stretch goal isn't some specific/"measurable" thing that's going to be added to the game. Just imagine the added scrutiny they can expect, now, when someone finds a system or character/quest story lacking, or that all the creatures only use the same 3 combat animations throughout the entire game and/or aren't even smooth/polished. "We gave you another huge chunk of money specifically to make improvements to these things!". Yes! Tress FX on the beards... AND the bears! Maybe not the beer, though. Hmm... fuzzy beer... Froth FX, maybe? That could go on the bears, too (RABIES!).

On that note, I think it's actually kinda great when you meet a goodly amount of interesting NPCs in the game, but don't really know which ones, exactly, are going to be able to join your party. You kinda meet people and say "Oooh, I wonder if they'll join me at some point?" Or, they could end up being "bad guys," or just being part of some elaborate plot or something. It's kind of a nice mystery. Or, it can be.

It wasn't specifically narration, so much, but the general story-telling of the original Guild Wars lore was pretty much from the Humans' perspective, and it made them out to be the "good guys," taking out the horrible, monstrous Charr (who were only attacking because the Humans, who are basically a feral species on that world, moved in, took over grounds sacred to the Charr, and built a bunch of crap on them -- the Charr were even quite intelligent and technologically/industrially advanced.) It's an interesting spin, it is.

Just make the whole soundtrack Nightwish, . You know... nice and subtle. "*Drums drums drums drums* *JIGGAJIGGAJIGGAJIGGAJIGGA* Merrrrrr-channnnts, andddd malll-connntennnnnt, linnnne the patttth tooooo the nohhhhh-ble's keeeeeeep!"

^ I'm not sure it' accurate to label stretch goals as "offers." It's simply their way of informing you of what changes they will make to the development itinerary should funding allow it. Thus, since they hit that last goal, they've allocated a fair share of extra man hours and resources to pretty much every aspect of the game. Again, not as exciting as previous stretch goals? I'll give you that. But it's hardly meaningless. I've already pointed it out, but it's no more meaningless than even a very specific stretch goal. If they had said "At 4 million, we'll add in a floating island!", how do you even know they didn't already have a floating island in the design? The last stretch goal basically told people "Here's what value more funding would be, at this point." Instead of "there are a bunch of very specific things we'd like to add to the game, but can't really do without more money," they reached the "there's just plenty of stuff that's already in the game that we'd love to spend more time and effort on, and it'd take about $500,000 to hit all of it." It's just what he name implies: a goal. "We'd like, ideally, to get $500,000 more in funding."

People make a lot of decisions in PnP games that they don't make in cRPGs that demand a noteworthy competency in combat in order to not simply fail to progress at some point. Also, you didn't answer my question. Using the example I provided, do you think people would generally be rather disinclined to willingly play as a Rogue? Assuming all the other classes got to level up, and got all kinds of abilities and combat capabilities throughout the whole game (forgot to specify that context with my example, initially... sorry about that.) And if so (or even if not), why?

... I now demand a cartography mini-game. Or at least an Artistry rating for characters, so that, when you "uncover" a new/unvisited area, an Artistry check is rolled, and your character either sketches in a brilliantly-rendered keep, or a little stick-person fort with a flag and symbol that looks like a 3-year-old did it with crayons.

I don't think the formula's magic. I think it's just a regular formula. I don't think we're quite ready for Magi-matics (magic mathematics) just yet.

If there's strong enough demand, I could always ask! A toggle could be nice. Regardless, what if the game sort of had contextual checks in place to decide what "level" of music to play? You know... the simplest example of this is "standard fight vs. boss fight." But, what if, say, you're beset by a wolf or two, and it just smoothly transitions into mildly active fight music (kind of like the music's gone from being at a casual walk to a jog, in pace)? BUT, if you stumble into an entire pack of like 13 wolves, feasting on some game or something, the game could sort of do a rough encounter difficulty-rating check or something (relative to your party), and decide "Oh, this is actually a bit more dire than those two wolves... better go with a bit more than a jog." Going even further with this general idea (if it's possible/feasible), and going off of Hormalakh's mention of having combat music sort of "wrap up" once you've beaten something, instead of just abruptly transitioning back to calmer music in the middle of struggle-evoking music... What if, for things like combat music (where... you want variety so it's not the same music 17 times in a row when you march through an entire forest and keep fighting things, but it's kind of all got the same job, just maybe with different "direness" factors), the music was actually sort of segmented into pieces? This is something I'm pretty sure would be quite difficult, so feel free to tell me how dumb and impractical of an idea it is... but, if the game could make these checks, then, even if you were fighting in a particularly non-dire encounter, and you just got unlucky or whatnot, and everyone succumbed to a status effect and/or got kinda low on health, the music could actually escalate in "direness" (I think they did this in Guild Wars 2, but just with the length of the fight -- the longer it lasted, the more elaborate the battle music got). Also, if you won the fight, the game could recognize that, and "tell" the music "Okay, when you get to the next segment, go ahead and transition into this 'wrap-up' segment, instead of going straight to calm music and/or just playing the rest of the battle music." *shrug*. Just thoughts from someone who doesn't know how any of this is technically executed. No worries. We won't. We'll just think you're a defective motherboard.

Referring to the "DPS role" is such an overgeneralization, since DPS doesn't really mean much without also considering factors like effective HPS (hits per second) and LODPS (lack-of-death per second), etc. In an MMORPG, things do actually get about that generalized, because of the whole "at level 1, you have 7 hitpoints, and at level 50 you have EIGHT-BILLION HITPOINTS!" approach to combat design. But, in a game like PoE, the role doesn't really hold true so simply, because you're not going to just pit a Fighter against a given foe, and a Rogue against another instance of that SAME foe, tell them both to attack, and record that, 5 seconds later, the Rogue has done 30 damage to the Fighter's 20. The Rogue's role is going to be what it's always been: to be an opportunist. While the Fighter doesn't really need to wait for Opportunity to knock to kick the door down, but also doesn't take quite as much advantage of it.

Josh confirmed your weapon would be "replaced" by your shifted form's natural weapon (claws, etc.), but he didn't make it to my question about armor and such. I would think something would have to carry over. Otherwise, your Level 12 Druid can just spiritshift at the beginning of a fight and suddenly get Level 12 offense and defense, essentially for free. *shrug* What reason is there to be in non-wereform if you can cast all your stuff while in wereform? Especially if your non-wereform needs to purchase/acquire weapons, armor, and accessories, and your wereform is already good-to-go?

Oh crap, I forgot the most important pun of the day: I think it's great that you read a chorale at the beginning of each day, and that, when you get stuck on something tricky in your work, a renowned composer's got your Bach. (I had to...) Oh, I definitely recommend it just as a game (although you might hafta start on Easy. It can be pretty gruesomely difficult until you get the hang of it, if you're like me and aren't inherently a strategical genius when it comes to such games). But, yeah, it's funny, 'cause my roommate watches a guy on Twitch.tv who plays that game for hours and hours and hours and hours on-end. And, someone in his chat happened to mention the music, and he sort of had an epiphane: "Yeah... I've probably put more hours into this game than anyone ever should, and never ONCE have I found myself thinking 'damn this repetitive music!" Even though there aren't really THAT many tracks, and you hear a lot of the same music over and over and over and over.

That's weird. What, you think people would all just play as other classes and not the Rogue? For what reason would they possibly do that? Could it be due to some failing on the Rogue's part in some relativistic comparison to the other classes?

First of all... Heartbleed sounds like a damage-over-time malware. T_T... Why did you greet only the awesome backers? *sniffle*... , okay, okay, jesting: complete. I really appreciate the breakdown of your process, Justin! I mean, I'm very, very far from an expert (very) or anything, but I at least understood your process in terms of approach and whatnot. It's pretty cool to read about, ^_^. Unfortunately, I can't listen to the track at the moment, but I will definitely do so ASAP, and will be sure to come back and complain provide feedback on it, . You thought the jesting was actually complete? MUAHAHAHA! Lastly, your mention of "listener fatigue" makes me think of FTL. I can't speak for everyone, but to me the music in that game seems to have staved off listener fatigue a great deal (I really had to stop and think about it when someone brought up that the music "never" really gets annoying, which just goes to show how unannoying I find it). That's also really, really important for that game, though, because of its Roguelike nature (not only are you subject to some of the same music for durations of a single playthrough, but the game is designed specifically to be played through a lot of times.) Anywho, I know you're probably really far along with stuff at this point, so it's not going to help with any foundation or anything. But, if you're ever having a problem with listener fatigue with a given track, you might want to listen to some FTL music for inspiration? *shrug*. It could be helpful. Or maybe not. Who knows... I'm just a Punsmith. I'm off to ham things... with my hammer.

Weap-utation! "I'm sorry, sir, but we don't allow your kind in here. Uh-uh-uhh... you there, longsword. You are most welcome to enter, ." Really, though, Osvir... it's a pretty good general idea. I couldn't tell you how to implement it in the best way into PoE, but, I very much enjoy the general concept. ^_^

I don't understand the point you're trying to make about durations here. Spells are limited, and combat will probably last longer than 18 seconds. That's fantastic. Spells will also have the potential to be per-encounter, and even at-will, eventually, and no effects are going to last past the end of combat anyway, are they? *shrug*. Also, the specific number of seconds in my example is mostly meaningless, except to say "the duration could be quite distinctly not the entire duration of combat." I'm not saying time everything to attack animations. "Oh, they're starting to swing a sword? USE SHIELD BLOCK, NOW!". Just... a shorter duration, as opposed to a more "toggley" approach (i.e. "this will basically last until this combat is over, or until it gets dispelled"), lends itself to additional tactical decision-making that isn't present when you're mainly considering "what protections do I need for THIS fight?". It's just something to consider, is all. Look at effects like True Strike. Its "duration" is very short: just one attack. But, look at the impact it can have because it's not just "here's a passive effect that makes you better at hitting." I don't think everything in the world should work just like True Strike. But, in an overall approach, a lot more things could work like that, instead of being more tailored to pre-battle/beginning-of-battle "setup" decisions.

Yeah, I don't even necessarily like how some stuff that isn't so extreme is commonly instantly curable. Poison, for example (your mention of poison made me think of this.) Sure, you should be able to cure the poison, but I honestly think it'd be better if it took time. Either you drink an antidote (or cast a spell), and the poison starts to get nullified, gradually. But, while it does, you STILL take poison damage every tick. If the regular spell deals, say, 5 damage per tick. Then, maybe it gets reduced by 1 damage per tick for the next 5 ticks. What this does functionally is still give a distinction to actually preventing the poisoning in the first place, versus just not even caring if you get poisoned or not because you bought 73 antidotes back at the merchant in town, so you'll just pause and use one every time you get poisoned, and it'll INSTANTLY be "problem solved, 8D!" This is something I don't think people shouting "you just want the game to be easier" understand. Just because I don't like the prevent-this-or-die (or pretty-much die/ be REALLY screwed) aspect of abilities doesn't mean I just want the abilities to not even be threatening, or that preventing them shouldn't even be encouraged any more at all. Preventing them should be ONE strategy, while reacting to them should be another. And sure, there might be one or two things that you can't really react to afterwards. But, I'd really rather that be something like "That mage is calling down a meteor... if I don't get the hell out of that thing's path, I'm in a world of trouble" than "oh, that mage is targeting me with a 'You're Effectively Dead/Useless' spell. May the odds be ever in my favor!" Just because everything doesn't rest on your saving throw doesn't automatically mean nothing does. And honestly, I even like that PoE will basically use the same Attack Resolution system with spells and effects as it will with "regular" attacks, instead of the saving throw system. With a saving throw, you either succeed or you don't. A lot of the time, either the spell lands (you fail your save), or the spell does nothing (you succeed at your save). I know there were also a lot of D&D spells that were simply reduced if you save (didn't allow for "full saves"), which is a nice variety. But, it's just a step further, methinks, when the spell's effect can "miss," graze (like a half-save), hit (normal success), or even critically hit. Combine those things, and you've got a lot more distinction between prevention as a factor, and reaction as a factor. Maybe you're fine with reacting because your Fighter's got some poison damage resistance or something. So you'll just cure him if he gets in trouble with poison. Only... CRITICAL HIT! Now it would've been WAY better off to prevent the poison in the first place. Whereas, if he's got really high Fortitude, it may not even be possible for criticals to occur, and unlikely for even normal hits to occur. The majority of outcomes will be grazes and failures. Unless you use immunities, you're ALWAYS gambling to some degree, which is great. You could have high Fortitude, and STILL get hit with a normal, full effect of poison 4 out of 5 times, if you're "unlucky." And yet, not-just-immunizing everyone against poison in a fight is a significantly more feasible choice. Poison was just being used as an example. I'm not trying to comment on how deadly poison was in any particular game or anything. I'm just saying that any effect really benefits from a lot of that variance. Even with something like insta-death... just taking the "insta" out makes a boatload of difference. I've always kinda liked the whole Doom effect from the Final Fantasy series. You could go with something like that. Full effect: you die in 5 "rounds" (it could be seconds, or groups of seconds... the duration would have to be determined according to other specifics and what works best). Graze: You die in 8 "rounds." Critical hit: you die in 2 "rounds." Boom. Now, maybe it requires some channeled spell to actually undo it. So, it's very difficult to react to, but you still can. Not to mention, even if you don't do anything about it, everything doesn't hinge upon "OMG, don't get hit by that!". Your character still gets to do stuff for a short bit, but ultimately is going to die "no matter what." No amount of armor or resistance is going to mitigate the culmination of that death effect, because it's just death. But, it's not all just one giant pivotal point of "save-or-die." Etc. Annnnywho. I just think there's a lot of potential for a much more interesting and versatile approach to the design of combat effects and how they're handled, and it has nothing to do with just removing extreme effects from IE games and leaving the rest of the IE system in place. It has nothing to do with making combat easier. Yeah, and Dark Souls' encounters are also designed to be a challenge for a single character. I sure as heck hope PoE's encounters aren't going to be designed to be a challenge for a single character, and you just happen to have 5 backups. "Oh, guys... 3 of our group have been petrified, imprisoned, and feared? No worries! We have 6 people! 8D!"

While I'm glad that they're appreciated, just know that I am aware exactly how terrible they are.

Then, naturally, the lower-most level contained a secret entrance to a secret Umbrella Corporation facility. The Umbrella Corporation is actually just the deepest layer of the earth's crust. (Seriously... those guys have secret facilities beneath EVERYTHING!)

Ahh, yeah. Didn't think of that. Good point. I was just thinking "used on the project" as opposed to completely unrelated projects that Obsidian decides to make later on/separately.

You're right. Let's give the Thief ONLY the ability to: A) Enter Stealth mode. B) Pick Pockets. C) Pick Locks. There, that's fine. He never even levels up or anything (because why would he need to? His stealth makes him completely invisible and undetectable, and he automatically can pick any lock or pocket), and as long as he has absolutely no opposition or resistance, he can definitely stab you in the heart from behind. Otherwise, he's dead. That would be perfectly acceptable, since there's absolutely no reason to even consider balance at all.

Whenever people bring up save-scumming in relation to a proposed problem or flaw in design, the save-scumming is a symptom, not the problem. That's great that you can play a game without ever doing any of this. Maybe you can go a whole day with itching powder all over you and never scratch yourself once. Doesn't mean everyone should just put up with an itch because you do. The other thing is, eliminating that itch doesn't even make the game easier. It just means more of the challenge is in dealing with the situation at hand, and not at trying to figure out how not to be swiftly eliminated. Just because your foes don't have 15 ways in which to immediately eliminate key members of your party if you don't specifically counter them doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on how hard it is to kill those foes. It's not like if they don't get to petrify you, they've lost the battle. (Except it's a bit close to that, in a lot of cases, which is another issue that's already been brought up.) I still think people are imagining the BG spell system, then just ripping out the things that are being perceived as issues. Then thinking "Man, that fight would be NOTHING if those creatures didn't have that handful of really, really threatening abilities that you have to counter or pretty much lose to." But, this game isn't already BG, and they're just removing stuff from it. They're not removing anything from the game, because they're building the game without it. Whether or not the encounters are still challenging has pretty much nothing to do with whether or not they make things function exactly like the old IE games had them function.

It seems inapt to use the word "backer" if at least a portion of the proceeds of slacker "backer" funding doesn't go towards the game. "Backer" implies the direct support of the project in question. Especially with "slacker," since it's saying "a little later than the rest, but still doing the same thing."