Lephys

Could you elaborate? How is it good, specifically in relation to instead simply having to deal with an encounter that is designed to be feasibly tackled without increasing a bunch of values before going in? But... does it actually make combat more interesting? I like being invulnerable, because it's simply nice to not take any damage. But then, does it really enhance combat, which is basically about a challenge in the first place? In other words, if, instead of being a spell, all enemies just didn't react to you for 10 seconds after you started the battle, or if you could just always launch infinite abilities at once, instantly, would combat be better, or worse, overall?

Fluffle, we're both pink... we're both soft... we're both adorable. I should become your noble steed. u_u

For what it's worth, I believe the portal was/is specifically having issues today. It should be back up soon. (Basically, that isn't just you, today. It's the portal, methinks.)

Then there's a class distinction. Either way, the game is representing that a distinction exists, so you still end up with a stat affecting both aspects, rather than the game just merging them into one aspect. I mean, everyone uses their soul powers in different ways. Fighters directly augment their physical capabilities resulting in soul-powered, though still physical in type, attacks. Everyone doesn't just run around doing everything with ambiguous Soul-Magic telekinesis. The Wizard manifest his power via specific spells from his grimoire, so he can't just throw a tree without casting a "Throw Tree" spell, or an "Augment Strength" spell. But then, if he casts a spell that just boosts his "strength" stat, then it just boosts his Might. So, he'd be simply boosting his ability to boost his ability, because Might = magic potency. But then, he's still not capable of throwing a tree, without casting a spell to do it, because he's not a Fighter who just manifests his energy into physical ability enhancements. If Might just affected soul power, then that would mean no one ever does anything without using soul power. In other words, you could not have a traditional "Strength" check, even though people still obviously have physical bodies and non-soul-powered capabilities. Does a Wizard swing his weapon with soul-power, or does he just use his arm? If so, Might wouldn't apply, and would only apply to a Fighter. So then, you might as well have per-class specific effects for each stat. Do you see the imbalanced equation, there? The little bit that's always left floating around where it doesn't really belong, either way you go? Sure, it's not the end of the world if it stays, but I don't think it's the intent of the system for that particular quirk to exist. It's more like an unwanted side effect. I simply have an interest in eliminating it, if possible, without detrimenting the rest of the system (which is pretty great). I don't expect everyone to be so interested in this little puzzle, but I'm fairly certain that the puzzle at least exists.

I understand that. I didn't mean to suggest that high Might makes the Wizard too combat viable. But, that sort of supports my point, err... qualm? It seems to serve even less of a point for Might to boost the Wizard's physical damage, since it doesn't really make him any more viable. Like I said, the sheer fact that Might affects both attack types at the same time for every character is a lot more of an unwanted, quirky side effect than it is a problem. I don't think it screws up the system or is super unfair. It just seems really... arbitrary. Again, if each class could only use one or the other (physical or non-physical attacks), then the quirk would cease to exist. Then, there's the matter of non-combat stat checks. If there's a scripted interaction, and a character has to hold up a collapsing door, for example, and it just checks Might, then even the arcanely powerful Wizard passes, even though he has no telekinetic-type spell prepared or anything (or couldn't cast one that quickly, etc.). Either the check seems to represent that he's automatically super-beefy and physically capable just because he's magically mighty, OR you forgo such situations/checks and we lose that little aspect of things. The only way to fix that particular thing is to add in something that distinguishes the two aspects of power once again, or simply split the stat effect (which doesn't result in any additional entities.)

You're completely avoiding the fact that both things (brute strength and magical/mental potency) are still represented in the game, in the form of physical punches/weapon swings as opposed to magical spell energies/forces. Thus, I'd say define "necessary." You can be a mighty Wizard or a mighty Barbarian, and they're basically the same thing, with the exception of class. Or, to put it another way, any time you make a brutishly powerful Barbarian, you're ALSO making the most magically/non-physically powerful Barbarian there is. And any time you make a magically phenomenal Wizard, you're ALSO making the most physically powerful/damaging Wizard there is. You cannot make a Wizard who is less damaging with spells, but more damaging with a sword (like a battle-mage hybrid), or vice versa. Furthermore, if the Barbarian simply can't use any non-physical/magical attacks, because of his class, then the whole thing's kind of lopsided unless the Wizard also can't use physical attacks (which we know isn't true). It could be said that "well, because of his class, the Wizard's always going to be less capable/deadly with a physical weapon than other classes, anyway." But then, what's the point in allowing the versatility of allowing your Wizard to be more focused on physical arms and armor, or more focused on magic, in the first place? It's... a little strange, really. It's like an unwanted side effect, because I'm pretty sure the main purpose of having a single stat affect damage is not to marry together physical and magical capabilities. I'm very much in agreement with Valorian's proposal: It's not even changing the stats to do different things for different classes. They simply affect attack types in different ways. Basically, you're always dealing with the same set of stat effects, and all the stats are useful in some way to every character type, and yet the distinction between physical and magical capabilities is maintained, instead of your 20 Might Wizard hitting like a Mack truck with a mace WHILE hurling Thor-quality lightning at everyone around.

I know it's not finalized, but I like where it's going. I still have a minor qualm about one stat (Might) making, say, a Wizard both produce quite damaging spells/non-physical effects AND swinging a mace way harder. I'm fine with some physical feat being checked against EITHER mental power or physical power (for that aspect to be shared -- power is power, after all), but I just feel like any potent character now is ambiguously powerful; it kinda tosses out the physical/mental distinction, is all. I get it, though. From a stats-and-effects standpoint. It works really well. I just wish there was a better way to do it, to maintain that distinction. I know, I'm a hopeless idealist. Really? I was under the impression it was the other way around. Otherwise, NOTHING would affect healing potency from spells/abilities. "Oh, you have 1,000 Might, so you can produce the most powerful lightning bolt ever! But, if you cast a spell that uses healing energy instead of lightning energy, it's still only going to heal for like 6 Stamina!" That just seems weird. Also, why would your physical/non-physical power just cause your cells to knit themselves back together faster than other people's? What does your ability to generate power/force have to do with your ability to regenerate?

So? I've never in my life played a game that contained combat, that DIDN'T have at least 1 such encounter. Oh and by the way, POE won't be any different, so.... Wait... so you don't deny that, ideally, things would not be designed thusly, yet you actively advocate not trying to design them better, simply because you believe they wouldn't actually be designed better? You do realize there are two different things there, right? You can think something is objectively problematic, AND simply believe it's not fixable. Deciding that somehow means it isn't problematic doesn't solve anything.

I'd just like to point out that the vast majority of "What's wrong with (insert game aspect here)?!" questions being posed in response to Josh's (and others') observations are completely missing the point of the referenced problems being about the extent of the game's aspects, and not the sheer existence of them. Reloading, for example. Reloading isn't bad. Reloading because a dice roll either places or removes the lynch pin of even your cleverest strategy is bad. Scouting and planning isn't bad. Scouting and planning, then magically augmenting 17 aspects of your party before even beginning combat, just so you can be on par with OR instantly annihilate your foes is bad. One quick note on "pre-buffing": Josh has said that buffs are currently planned to be combat-only abilities. This in no way prevents you from "pre-buffing," in function. You just have to wait until combat technically starts, but the first thing you can do is buff accordingly. There aren't rounds, so it's not like you might have to wait 3 seconds to buff AFTER stuff starts charging you because you missed the previous round window. And it's not as if the only way to be "in-combat" is to run out into the open and wave your arms at your foes. In BG and BG2, you could attack/cast on enemies who didn't even know you were there yet. Of course, once you finished your spell, they knew you were there. But you already got to cast it, and "get the jump" on them, so to speak. Also, I've gotta second the question: What is fully-preperatory (outside-of-combat) chain buffing really adding to the game in terms of significant choice? "Do I want to be WAY better in this next bout of combat, or don't I?" What's the alternative? In combat, choices are significant, because if you DO thing A, then there'll be X consequences, and if you DON'T do thing A, then there'll be Y consequences. Those are weighable against each other. What kind of a choice is "Hmm... should I boost all my stats and damage and defenses NOW? Or should I wait until stuff's attacking us to do that?" There'd be entire mercenary groups of Buffers in a world like that. Just 15 people that all cast a different spell, all at once. "Want to assassinate the king? We'll enhance you so much that you can take out ALL The guards, 8D! For a fee..." I mean, in combat, if you could just queue up all your offensive spells/abilities by "casting" them all before combat, then just release them all in a single moment IN combat, would combat be more interesting or less interesting? Again... extent. There's planning, and then there's The One Plan To Rule Them All.

Splendidful update! 8D! If we didn't feast enough over the holidays, we can surely meet our fill quota with this update. Excellent progress! I really like the character sheet. I realize it's still alpha stuff and subject to changes, but, I'm just curious... I noticed the stat effects are different there than in the prototype list Josh recently posted in the Attribute Theory thread. Is that screenshot more up-to-date (what you're actually working with at the moment), or was that an older iteration of the stat mechanics?

How can people possibly think that? Look at the stats! Dexterity: Dump it, and you'll suck at hitting things. But, boost your INT (as it stands) and Perception, and when you DO hit stuff, you'll hurt. Every character is DEFINITELY not going to be blandly the same. There's plenty of variety. I don't understand how what he's doing is ruining variety. Pluck all the weeds from a crop field, and that doesn't mean all the crops become identical. It just means they're all valid crops, with no useless plants in the mix.

It seemed to me as though Josh's intent, in that whole elaboration of the old games' issues, wasn't to just say "So we're throwing all that out," but rather, to tweak. To change things, however much they need it, not to just change things for difference's sake. Also, nobody wants there to no longer be good choices and bad choices. I think Josh just isn't fond of systems that are not only unintuitive but also provide a plethora of completely dead ends. There's a difference between "Oh, you're takin' your little sedan off-road there," and "Oh, if you go that way, THE BRIDGE IS OUT! MUAHAHAHA!" I'm sorry, but I don't know of anyone who isn't insane who actually WANTS there to be a probability that, halfway through a 40+ hour game, they'll discover that making it through the rest of the game is pretty much infeasible, and that they need to start over. I'd MUCH rather see "Well, this gonna be kind of tough, but if that's what you want, then go for it." If you want to make it tougher on yourself, use difficulty/game mode options, and try out quirky builds. There's no reason the class system should be designed to accommodate a bunch of terrible dead ends, just because that's occasionally amusing to some players. How's about a game mode (like Expert or Trial of Iron) in which you receive fewer character creation resources? There ya go. Now the system is still designed fine, and you have your challenge. It's just some simple math changes at the beginning of the game. No need to intentionally poke a bunch of holes in the system itself just to allow for potential challenges. Decreasing the extremity of the worst stuff is not the same thing as making everything a good choice. Making things forgiving is not the same as removing consequences altogether. I'd rather have a system that says "well, you're going to have to use your weapons/spells differently than you wanted to, because of what you did with your points, but, you're still objectively capable, as characters go," than "you're just useless from here on out, LOLZ!"

We could just actually have NPCs mean it when they say something like "No, it's so dangerous! No one's come out of there alive!", instead of just saying that about everything. "A small boy got mauled by a single, regular wolf the other day... IT'S UNSTOPPABLE! Don't even TRY to hunt down this monster!" Really, though. I think people could give you an assessment. "I dunno... Dwern's better with a sword than anyone else in town, and he had to turn back when he tried to do such-and-such. Of course, you do seem to be a lot better equipped than he was, so, who knows." Or "Uhhh... I saw that thing throw a tree. Not one of the little ones, either. You do as you please, but I wouldn't go anywhere NEAR that thing!" They don't have to tell you stuff using overly specific, out-of-character game mechanic terms, yet they can still tell you. Of course, sometimes you just won't know, either because no one's really capable of giving you a good estimation, or because they think some demon's out there and it's actually just a disguised man (or vice versa... they think it's just some pretty-average threat, and it turns out it's something horrible). Basically, they don't know, but assume.

Agreed, in terms of specific stores actually just magically getting better wares simply because the player has more need/use for them. However, if you're talking about stores in general (as in, as you level up, you're also coincidentally exposed to stores with better wares), then I'm actually okay with that. Not the JRPG "every single new town you get to sells an even higher tier of stuff, as if the entire world revolves around your party's journey" extent. But, in general, yes. It's a valley between extremes. I'd like to see all stores only carry exactly what you can use/acquire at your level at all times equally as much as I'd like to see all stores always have 60,000GP Ethereal Plate +7. Which is to say, none. 8P But, you're right. Nice equipment shouldn't simply not be available anywhere JUST because it's "higher level" than you. I don't like an ultra linear progression with equipment. If you want to spend your 600 gold on a suit of plate for your Warrior, instead of on 5 suits of Quality Leather for the rest of your party, or weapons or something, then I think you should be able to do so. Again, within reason. There's no reason a legendary blade should be available at a merchant stall in a small town.

True that. I think the level of evil is directly proportionate to the amount of bare face (while amount of facial hair > 0). I mean, look At Gandalf. Huge beard, super good. Then look at people who kidnap damsels and tie them to train tracks. Thin, wiry mustaches ripe for twirling.

The thing is, you can't ever avoid that fact without completely foregoing player choices at character creation altogether. If someone doesn't care that they get 20 HP instead of 100 when they dump Endurance/Constitution and boost the crap out of INT (with just their stat-point allocation, even), then you can't make them care. All you can do is make having more than 20 HP an objective benefit. Now, I DO understand that this upsets a strengths/flaws system in which you pick them separately, because you could always just say "well, I've only got 20 HP, so what do I need HP regen for?" and take a regen detriment to get an extra X points to spend on another bonus that actually affects something you care about. Which is why I'm more and more convinced that the best policy there is to organize the strengths and flaws there by affiliation. I do think pairings that basically just mimic stat allocations are not very good, like "You're really good at damaging things, but you suck at being charming." So, basically, this trait gives you a further Strength bonus, but lessens your Charisma. Of course, if you make super-low Charisma actually affect battling (maybe certain equipment merchants won't even sell to you, or you get hardly any money for the loot you sell because people just-plain hate you), then that might work out. Either way, the penalty you choose (or that's inherently paired with your strength/benefit) should actually affect the same aspect of your character as the benefit, methinks. This is, I think, the core benefit of the whole "no dump stats" policy. Look at Dexterity. Being able to hit things is never not useful in an entire playthrough. PoE isn't designed to allow pacifist runs, so you're going to have a significant amount of foes you need to dispatch. And you can only dispatch them if you can hit them. In D&D, your Wizard doesn't give a crap about DEX, 'cause he can just use spells (which usually always hit, but, more importantly, are not affected by DEX). But, in PoE, whatever you're attacking with is essentially subject to Accuracy, which is derived from DEX. Therefore, If you willingly make a character with horrid Dexterity, you're willingly accepting that inability to hit anything worth a crap. So, it really all depends on how the system's set up. If all the stats end up really being that significant to a lot of things, then it may work perfectly fine for traits to further boost a stat at the cost to another. Is a value of 1 Charisma (just an example -- I realize PoE will not have Charisma) going to be insignificant because everyone'll just be fine with talking to your friends all the time while you never say anything, ever? Or will there be important dialogues in the game in which someone goes all "No, I'm not asking you, I want to hear it from HIM!" and points at you? That kind of thing. Again, if the values are always significant (high OR low), then the tradeoff exists, whether the player cares about it or not. For what it's worth, JFSOCC, I do agree with that 2nd bit, about detriments being worth fewer points than "equivalent" bonuses cost. I think that's pretty much always a good idea, as long as you're using the "pick-'em-separately" approach.

It doesn't matter what approach they use, though. In the former approach (every kill gives XP), just think of a kill as a tiny, frequent objective. Boom. There's an objective, so you know there's going to be XP to be had. Just, before, the objective won't always be there for "Look, there's a live thing, END ITS LIFE!". I don't see how that's in any way going to affect the balance of XP for combats that ARE objectives, in this approach. "Objective -- dispatch the 17 uber-ogres" isn't going to give you 15 XP, while "step on that rat!" gives you 1,000,000. Or, rather, it could just as easily do so as killing a rat in a game using the former approach could give you 1,000,000 XP while killing 17 uber-ogres could give you 15. Whether it's per-kill or not doesn't really matter. You still have to come up with feasible XP values. Now, the dev team could fail to do that, but that's true no matter the approach. Also, while I get where you're going with the money example, it's not really the same thing. You don't ever need to spend experience (or even get to) until you've gained a level. Once you gain a level, you get a certain amount of allocatable points to spend, and you're told how many of those you have. Think of it as a trip. If you're headed to the Eastern City of Bleen, and it's 100 miles away, then knowing it's 100 miles away doesn't change the fact that it's 100 miles away. The more steps you take, the closer you'll get to the city, and you'll know when you get there. Thus, the only functional concern there is "What distance is a feasible distance for the player to have to travel to get to Bleen?". Sometimes you'll walk for a few hours, and sometimes you might catch a ride on a wagon (smaller XP objectives versus bigger ones), but, a foot is a foot. If an hour of walking gets you to Bleen, it gets you to Bleen. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. The only way this example fails is that any distance that takes you PAST Bleen would be useless, whereas XP gain past a level-up goal is still automatically applied toward the next level-up goal.

Maybe it's simply the distraction/stress of supporting all that armor weight whilst trying to mentally focus your energies for spells? Maybe, even, Strength could affect action-speed penalties from heavy equipment. *shrug* Then, you could make a buff Wizard who guffaws at the seemingly paper-lightness of his plate armor, while almost distraction-lessly casting spells. But then, you're giving up something else for that Strength value, so it's not exactly an "obviously you give your Wizard 100 Strength and plate armor every time" thing. *shrug*

It'd be great if that was sort of a whole branch of dialogue options, akin to other themes for... response-sets, for lack of a better word. Kinda like Sawyer in Lost... just, that kind of person, who's always giving nicknames to everyone, whether they want them or not. Sorry, I know that's mildly separate from simply being able to assign nicknames, as the player, to your peoples, but it was a thought I had. Supplemental, haha.

Not to discount all the lovely stuff you're saying for what it is -- I honestly believe it's excellent analysis of a realistic basis from which to make abstract conversions, and the effects of doing so, etc. -- but... the segment above is a good example of how your skirting my point. Which doesn't supercede anything you're saying and render it moot or anything. It's simply a matter of my point not actually being addressed by you, is all. You see, every time you set up an example to support your claim of Strength not really mattering that much, you have one control scenario, then compare it to another scenario in which both Strength and some other factor are different. My point is, quite simply, that Strength affects whatever Strength affects, independently from other factors. What you're arguing against is that other factors often have more of an impact on things than Strength. Yet, Strength still has an impact, which is my point. It is not contradictory to yours. Look... here's a good example: Bows. Different bows have different draws. There's a direct strength requirement there. No amount of Intelligence is going to supercede the Strength requirement of the draw. If you can't draw that bow, you can't draw that bow. Now, that being said, if you CAN draw the bow, then you can still fire it stupidly, or intelligently. Thus, Intelligence still matters in its own way. Speaking of draws, your slingshot example works into this. Obviously, a slingshot isn't going to benefit from a D&D Strength rating of 18. Fists. A big brute guy is going to hit harder than a little skilled guy. What I mean by that is, if he just hits you (devoid of any special usage of martial arts), he's going to hit harder. The little skilled guy can probably match the big brute power-for-effectiveness, but that's the difference. If the big, unskilled brute comes upon a little, unskilled guy, he's going to outdamage him. That is my point. Not that strength matters MORE than Intellect. But just that, Intellect doesn't necessarily matter more than strength. Intellect is its own separate thing. An old, frail wizard might know the best way to whirl around and parry and kill you with a greatsword, but he might also have horrible Dexterity/Agility and be incapable of doing so. OR, even insufficient Strength to hold a sword up long enough/effectively enough to actually reach the point at which he can effectively strike you with it in his super-intelligent manner. Also, another aspect is skill (which I've already mentioned a bunch of times). A genius might comprehend the physics and such behind the effectiveness of swordplay more quickly, but he's still going to lose to someone who's dumber, but has mastered swordplay. Intellect does not supercede all other things. Which is my point. It contributes to the effectiveness of attacks, in a given situation. As does Strength, and Dexterity, and Perception, and skill, etc. So, if you're going to measure Strength by itself, as a stat, then use that measurement in the determinance of things it effects. If in situation A, X Strength ends up producing 20 damage, and in situation B, it ends up producing 10 damage, then so be it. I'm not asking for it to supercede anything else. I'm asking for it to do what it does. And yes, it's a system of abstraction, so it's not going to perfectly match reality. If it did, it wouldn't be abstraction. If they could just program in reality, I'm sure they'd do that. But, I don't think we've quite hit that level of technology yet. As for the naming, I understand you, and don't disagree. However, I'm simply more concerned with what is grouped with what else (as represented by a single stat) than I am with what those groupings are called.

FWIW, it is not my intention to bash Gfted1. His concerns are perfectly valid, but he seems to mentally investigate all his concerns with the Torch of Worst-Case Scenarios +1. He acts as though everyone (including the dev team)'s just pretending those aren't even concerns, as if getting hurt really badly and having to go rest isn't even a potential problem. I'm just trying my best to assuage his worries. Why? Because, his concerns seem to all be pretty decently addressed, while he reacts as though we can't do anything but assume the worst. I'm with Josh in that I believe he'll be able to enjoy the game, even if it's not his favorite game in the universe, and I hate to see someone hold onto such powerful concerns for something (essentially, at this point, "I don't even think I'm going to enjoy this game, even though I paid money for it already") that he didn't actually have to (because it turns out, in the end, it wasn't nearly so bad as he thought.") And it's not just him. There are other people with those same exact concerns. When I see people failing to consider things that might lessen their reason for concern, I just try to point those things out, is all. That's just how I am. Maybe it comes across wrong, and/or I fail at my task. But, it's not for lack of trying, and I'm confident it's a purposeful task to attempt. As for the topic of "difficulty," to put it simply, it's as Josh said; there need to be factors that manifests in different groups, at different values, in different situations, so that the player has a reason to actually evaluate the effectiveness of what he's doing in any given situation. Now, the extent of that evaluation is where sheer difficulty settings come in, but making a game that doesn't engage the player's thought processes at all isn't really doing anyone any favors. The core of the idea of challenge (as opposed to none) is in the engagement of the player's mind, the support of the player's efforts and choices. It's not about setting some bar you have to hop over. That's where actually difficulty comes in. Challenge, as an inherent part of the design, is like a multiplier for the player's interactive efforts. If it's 0, then the utmost exhaustion of the player's mental capabilities is no more useful than their complete neglect. If it's more than 0, then player efforts actually contribute to the gameplay experience. Difficulty sets the bar. For example, Iron Man Mode makes death-prevention efforts necessary, instead of merely beneficial. It is a level of challenge, rather than A challenge in lieu of none.

Hardly every finding magical items and hardly ever finding better-than-what-you-currently-have items are two distinct things. Also, as far as limited gold goes, I don't think it has to be just all bad or all good as per a given player's preferences on the matter. I really like the idea of having something like a pawn shop that deals in general goods on a higher volume, so they always have a lot more currency with which to buy your stuff, but they give you less for it because they don't really specialize in/have need of your specific items. Then, having specific merchants who have less gold on hand, but will give you much more for the items they specifically deal in than the general vendor will. Combine that with the ability to trade (skipping the currency values altogether), and proper balancing so that you don't NEED to penny-pinch just to adequately equip your party to be able to handle the campaign, and everything's pretty set, I think. There's a lot of leeway with specifics, however it's done. I have absolutely no qualms about having lots of spiffy things in store for people who go through the extra trouble of managing things a bit better, so long as the people who don't want to bother with that still get adequate stuff. That comes up a lot as a concern when this topic is discussed, and people tend to say "Hey, that's not fair! I don't like managing my money and doing all those side quests, but that player who DOES got this spiffy sword! I shouldn't miss out just because I don't like that stuff!". But, really, that's not true. That sword is an extra. Nothing's being taken from the players who don't get that sword. They just don't get that spiffy sword. I just think there's a way to do it a little more naturally, without quite having to separate everything into expert-mode-esque options. You never know when you might find yourself in the position to say "Hey... the weapons stall is the closest one, anyway, and I've got some weapons. Might as well stop by there and sell them for a bit of extra gold." Or, really, even if you never consciously/voluntarily do so, I think we gamers benefit from variety like that even if we aren't the kind of people who take advantage of it. "Hey, I happened to be closest to the weapons merchant, and sold my stuff there until he ran out of gold, then went to the general merchant, and now I got some more gold!" As opposed to just always getting the same, lesser amount of gold, but never "having to worry" about the potential difference. To put it simply, it can be done without requiring the player to worry about it.

Well, then go speedily assemble a dev team and fire up your own Kickstarter project, and show them how it's done next December/New Year's. Chop chop! *clap clap* (I jest with you).

Heh, well, I'm glad. . I usually just feel like an information fountain. So, it's nice when someone actually needs a drink. 8P As for the fee, I dunno if this helps (more information fountainry! 8D!), but I believe that there's an $8 Obsidian Order of Eternity option in the add-ons list, in pledge management. Of course, asking Obsidian is probably never a bad idea, since they know a lot more than I do about any and all things specific to pledge management. I'm sure they'll get you situated. Also, pointless comments are a spice of life (there's a whole spicerack full of Life spices. Little known fact, u_u). @Sophos: That's actually a pretty great idea! Unfortunately, I already confirmed a mere "Lephys" as my credit title. *saddy face*

If you haven't done so, you need to journey to the Backer Portal, log in (with your forum login -- it's all part of the .obsidian.net domain, methinks), and manage your pledge (There's a "MANAGE MY PLEDGES" link near the top on the right side). Go through the pledge verification process. Of course, since you said "Yay! Badges!", maybe you already did all that, 8P. In which case, it sometimes takes a few minutes, I think, for them to start showing up. And if they STILL won't show up, there's a thread around here for the Green K not showing (http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64773-kickstart-backer-badge/), but I'm not sure about VIP/pledge-level ones not showing. If all else fails, I'm sure the splendtastic moderators can help you out, Hope you're having a Happy New Year as well, ^_^