Lephys

Sincere question: How have I intentionally misrepresented your argument?

As opposed to asserting that there's a reason beyond "people would like it" for it to be in the game, without any evidence at all? And it's not game-destroying. I never asserted that. I said it's contrary to the game's design. If you build a team of low-Will people, then get to a group of enemies who are all spellslingers, targeting Will, then you have the option to just go respec your whole party so that you can dominate that fight. The purpose of your build decisions is the mutual exclusion of strengths and weaknesses. And, "you could just not-use it" doesn't work, because... what if you could take 20 people with you in your party? You COULD simply opt to limit yourself to 6, but why do that? Besides... how do you even know you're not at a disadvantage by not using 20 people? It's the role of game limitations to let the player know where boundaries are. If you can only take 6 people, then you know encounters weren't designed with 10 party members in mind. If you can only get 20 Might, then you know someone with 18 Might is VERY powerful, relative to the absolute best they could be. If the game provides you an option, how are you supposed to know how you'll fare without using it? Respec isn't something that should inherently be in every game ever. That's all. It's not a bad mechanic. It just isn't a good fit for this game. Why? Because the game is designed around being unable to respec. That's why. If you dislike that design, that's fine. But, you can't say that "No, the design can't possibly exclude respeccing; respeccing is always a part of all designs, ever." Also, if you're able to re-do your character build choices, why not get to re-do all your choices (without actually reloading or making a new game to completely play back through them)? "Wait, I didn't want to fail to convince that guy to give me money. Where's my re-dialogue option?!"

Duelist Wizard, HERE I COME! (This is going to end badly)

Maybe it means that target is out of your current attack range, or something similar? Or maybe it means you're switching targets? I'm not sure.

-------------------- That's just silly. If you wanted to, you could go stock up on camping supplies every time you ran out. If you wanted to, you could replenish any finite items in between every battle. Does that mean scrolls and potions should have infinite uses, or just not exist, simply because it's purely a matter of convenience? Or, better yet, making a new game shouldn't be an option, because you could always just make a new game and get back to that same point using fewer camping supplies. It's just really inconvenient. I don't know how else to explain the difference between not having to manage something at all, and having to manage something. And you still haven't touched on any limitation at all existing in your line of reasoning. If there's a less convenient way of achieving something in the game, then we should just always make it the most convenient thing ever? If not, then why? What criterion justifies limitation?

Lady Evenstar, Did you check the Backer Portal again? Darren posted that a Hero Edition key would be given to people in place of discs, for now. Just this morning, I believe, or last night (is when he posted it).

*Fires up the Sensuki Signal*

------------------------------ Responsio ad absurdum. If you can't answer someone's question, you might as well not even respond. What makes the idea that the game should have respeccing any less absurd than the idea that it should have any of those hypotheticals I proposed? It's a simple question, and it's basically the heart of this entire debate.

----------------------------------------- There's also a saying I just made up, right now: "Don't assume that doing something a different way must be an attempt to 'fix' something." Designing the game so that you have to manage your health over the course of several battles isn't any more wrong than designing a game so that you're always in perfect health every time you meet an adversary. It's simply two completely different ways of designing the game. In the former, how you do in each battle matters in a different way. In the latter, as long as you don't die in one battle, you're golden, and your worries reset. And yes, what do you care? That's an excellent question. While you're at it, just go ahead and grab the mod that prevents you from even being able to take damage. Then you don't even have to worry about resting at all, 8D!

Think of it like all the items casting the same buff on you. If you cast "Increased Accuracy +3" seven times on the same person, the spell's just going to keep overwriting itself. It's not going to simply add up. Not that there's anything wrong with the notion of equipment effects stacking, as in some other games. But, it's just two different ways of doing it. If they didn't choose to do it this way, then all the +X Reflex items you found would simply be wayyyyyy, way simpler, so that you couldn't find several by level 3 and just gain ungodly amounts of defense. It also allows individual items to be that much awesomer. "Oh wow! A cloak that gives +17 Reflex?!" Instead of just "Oh, add that to my pool of Reflex boosting from everything else I'm wearing, LOLZ!"

----------------------------------------------- So what you're saying is... if you couldn't go back to town and rest whenever you wanted, AND you still had limited camping supplies, you would suddenly be fine with the game's design and not wish for unlimited camping supplies? Also, I just want to clarify here, in the face of all these posts about how silly a lack of limitation is, that there's nothing wrong with enjoying playing a game with cheat codes on, etc. If you have fun having infinite health, for example... that's not wrong. But, that's wrong as part of a game's design. That's why cheat codes are called "cheat" codes. There's nothing wrong with using them, but wondering "Why isn't the regular game just as unrestricted as these cheat codes, by design?!" is a really silly thing to wonder. As if it's somehow wrong of the game to require that you perform to a certain level of effectiveness so that you don't fail.

Haha. "Arbitrary." Yeah, like HP limits, or finite weapon damage, or Quick Item slots, etc. Why game have limits?! *puppy head-tilt*

I get purely wondering why you didn't get a consolidated Steam key with all the goodies downloadable via Steam, but why the outrage (this isn't the first thread I've seen about this) regarding having to simply open up a different website (that you've already got an account with or you wouldn't have been able to confirm your pledge in the first place), log into it, then download your goodies from there? Why does it matter if a digital guide comes from Steam or the Backer Portal? Once it's downloaded, you've got the same pdf file, either way. It's not like it's a game, so Steam doesn't track anything or help you organize anything. It's just some extras. *shrug*

I think it's still supposed to be a multiplier of 6. If it changed, it would've been to just a different number (like 5). So, if he has 10 Endurance at character creation, he should have 50 Health. I'm not sure how it's supposed to increase, though. I kind of assumed it would increase proportionately as you level up. I know there are some things in the game that increase Max Endurance, independently. Are you sure there aren't any of those effects in place on your Barb?

Define "benefits" and "drawbacks." What are the benefits to the game's design, beyond "someone who wants it gets their desire satisfied"? That's kind of the whole point. The whole "why not, it's optional?" argument is suggesting there are no drawbacks. That's why I made the whole "there's a barrel of legendary weapons sitting on the ground at the beginning of the game" example. You don't HAVE to go take a weapon, so there's no drawback to having the option of grabbing a weapon, right? I think people sometimes don't understand the general idea of designing a game. Hey, what if, in the rules of solitaire, we just let people play whatever card they want, wherever! It's fine if someone likes to just play cards in places, but it's either a deliberately-designed game, or it isn't. I mean, why respeccing? Why not just let you switch talents and re-allocate anything you want, whenever you want? It'll be just like character creation, but nothing will ever be locked. Go in and pull some points out of your Mechanics skill now, and you can just put those into something else. I'm serious. Skip the middle-man. Why reset all your points in one, singular function, when you could just leave them malleable throughout the whole game?

I'm very confused now. You don't get more info with Expert Mode on. You get less info. It's possible the design has changed in the final game version, from earlier versions, but it was designed not too long ago to remove all the tooltip info on enemies in combat. What I mean is, the info pane that pops up when you hover your mouse over an enemy in the midst of combat. It shows you their defenses, etc. Also, the second bit should be a separate feature. Expert Mode is essentially a toggle for a whole collection of individual game options. You can toggle whatever you want off, while leaving on "show me dialogue options I don't meet the pre-requisites for" or however it's worded, so you can see "[intellect 12/15] (dialogue option here)" even though you cannot choose it. I hope that's helpful.

Here's the thing: If "I want this" is a reason for literally anything you could possibly want to be in the game, optionally, then what would constitute something that should not be in the game? I mean, should we have the option to have 97 party members, just because someone would like that? What's the point in even designing a game at that point? "How many party members are these encounters designed for? Ehhh, just however many." If someone just wants a "cinematic mode," in which you don't actually play the game at all. You just watch a complete 100% playthrough of the game, handled entirely by AI, while you munch your popcorn... should that be an option in the game, just because "desire"? There's just more evaluation of a potential feature to be had than "someone would like this." That can't be the sole determining factor for the reasonability of a feature.

I'm not sure, but I think 1 meter in the game is pretty close to the diameter of a character's selection circle.

I think it was more just technical design limitations. In the time allotted, they weren't able to design an individual stealth system AND do all the other stuff they needed to. You have to remember, this was a relatively small project (team/resources) compared to big-publisher games.

That's highly strange.

Does. Not being a smartass, you just asked, and the best way to learn is to be corrected. For both your curiosities' sakes, Fredward was actually correct (so English WIN! ). Death's Usher AND Soul Whip are both stacking (even though it's a question... they're questionably stacking), so 2 things are stacking. "Does things stack?" isn't right, so that's a good way to figure out which to use. "Do things stack?" Yup. . Or, to go it another way, a thing "does" stack, and things "do" stack. So, just figure out if you're dealing with a thing, of if you're dealing with things. It gets a little dumb if you simply replace that "and" between the two ability names with "or." Because technically, only one OR the other is doing the stacking. Never both. So then it's "does Death's Usher OR Soul Whip ... (insert verb here)" That's the kind of rule that becomes little more than a technicality, though, as "Do Death's Usher OR Soul Whip ... (insert verb here)" doesn't suddenly cause you to not know what the question is or anything. Annnnnnnnnywho... 8P English is a silly language, but there are some little tricks to use for most of it.

Someone from Australia reported, in a similar thread, that they had already received a "your stuff has shipped!" email from Paradox. So, I would assume that the goods have arrived at their final distribution center with Paradox, and it's just taking more than a single day to get it all shipped out. My guess is that it should be shipping out within the next few days, give or take, as it should all be coming from the same place. But, yeah, it was air-freighted to Europe prior to the 26th, I'm pretty sure. And, like I said, the fact that an Australian backer has already received word of shipment to Australia, that leads me to believe the big air-freight shipment of all the goods has made it to Europe, and they're simply working as fast as they can now to get all the individual backers' goods bundles shipped out to peeps from there. Just my best educated guess. I'm sure a member of Team Obsidian will chime in on this as soon as they get the chance.

Thank you SO much, Darren! You didn't have to do that, and you guys are just friggin' amazing. I'm glad the game's being so well-received, and I can't wait to get home and play it now that I don't have to wait for my disc (or compromise a key reserved for a friend). You have my utmost gratitude (as well as many others', I'm sure), ^_^

The only boxed version so far, if I'm not mistaken, was obtained via Kickstarter backing or "slacker backing" shortly after the Kickstarter campaign ended. I don't know if there's a retail version available for purchase now, or if there will be one at any point in the future.

... YESSSSssssssss! You guys are the BEST! I would've been content waiting for my disc, but now I just got a +15 Contentment buff! ^___________^