Lephys

What are you talking about?! The only thing we can assume is that Obsidian are actually pure evil and are intentionally slighting us all! *snicker*... I tried to keep a straight face.

What are you whining about? Nothing is left out of the game in any way. I believe he/she is alluding to the basic/champion/royal tiers as if some of those contain gameplay elements. *shrug* Assummmption isss the SPIIIIICE of LIIIIIIIFE! 8D

Obsidian should hire a TimeLord to make 10AM Pacific Time the exact same time all around the world, instead of different times in different places. For some people, that'll be right when they're getting off of work, and can conveniently start playing the game immediately, while, for others, that'll be at the start of their work day. Clearly they hate their backers, because they have allowed timezones to exist, u_u... GYAH! All they did was bust their arses to get this game made, when obviously they could've been flawless, angelic beings who willed everything to go exactly as planned. NO respect whatsoever, u_u...

I would figure that Obsidian doesn't send all the keys directly to all the Steam customers. They probably just let Steam distribute those keys. Thus, it's understandable to me that Steam is better equipped to get a bajillion people their keys to a game on their own service, purchased through their own storefront, than relatively small development-studio-and-not-distributor Obsidian is. *shrug*

*slow clap*

Engage Ion Thrusters. Get it? 'Cause we're keeping our ion the clock in anticipation of release.

As Leferd said, I assumed it has something to do with updating the Backer Portal in preparation for keys being available.

It wasn't really an argument. 8P. It's a meme. Online. Like an ongoing joke. But, the truth of the matter is, we're all going to live, and we're going to get to play this fantastic game. So, chill or don't, but... *shrug*. Reality is reality. I'm not sure all this moaning is proportional to "oh no everything isn't going flawlessly!". Patience is a virtue. I dunno what else to say. "Oh, patience is a virtue?! So we should just wait forever and be happy about it?" Just going ahead and pre-emptively addressing that response: No. But pitching a fit about it doesn't really accomplish anything. And that's why children don't run the world. If people REALLY want to submit negative feedback about things, they can do so in a formal capacity to Obsidian, not just whine about everything on a forum. "Who are you to tell me what to do?!" Pre-empting that response, too: I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm simply highlighting some simple truths of the matter, is all. If you don't consider them useful, then feel free to ignore them. You're not even obligated to read them, if you don't want to.

He's certainly not keeping it very LO-KI within the otter community. u_u

The whole second half of this thread is one giant First-World Problems meme. "New video game releases at 10AM on Thursday, but didn't get to preload it in time to play it the second it fired up, *crying woman face*"

Right. That's what I thought. Thanks, . I just didn't know that's what you were referring to, at first. I thought you were talking about how the modifier was applied to the base or something. Hence the confusion. And no, mutonizer... we don't so much need to specifically prevent kiting. But, yeah, it doesn't need to be the go-to, no-brainer tactic to use, and a farm boy with a bow doesn't need to beat a seasoned Barbarian warlord, simply "because ranged!" 8P. But, regardless of what we should do, globally slowing action frequency "because movement" just doesnt' really accomplish anything useful. After-stop delays would (and they even make sense, because it's REALLY hard to fire a ranged weapon milliseconds after you were just running in the opposite direction, for example). Other things would, too. But, the main point is that movement slowing recovery time doesn't, and that's most important because it's currently doing that in the game. If all the other things were implemented, currently, they'd be a lot more important of points. But, even if they don't replace it with anything, removing recovery-time-slowing from movement would be constructive.

I'm pretty sure enemies' Health is pretty much pointless. It's possible some foes can use "resurrection"-style abilities to get their allies back on their feet, and they can't do that if all their Health is gone (only if they're out of Endurance.). But, honestly, it would've been pretty interesting if there was some kind of bleedout/stabilization/regain-consciousness system in the game, that applied to both you AND your enemies. Maybe if they knock you down, but don't kill you, and they leave you alone for 20 seconds, you'll get back up and recover 25% Endurance or something. Same goes for the player choosing not to kill enemies, but to just down them, then switch focus. That, and friendlies could speed up the process. Maybe you could get someone back up in 10 seconds if you spend that whole 10 seconds resuscitating them. *shrug*. Just something like that. Of course, that would require much more advanced AI decisions.

If you ask me, a good XP system would be one that separates combat and non-combat activities. Maybe it groups them, though, so that hitting someone with a sword doesn't JUST make you better at hitting with a sword, direct-simulation style... maybe you just gain combat insight and such, and realize you probably should've blocked with a shield there, etc? *shrug*). Because, how do you represent poisoning a ration delivery, or dislodging a boulder from a cliff so that it crushes all your enemies? Really, you should just gain "cleverness" XP for that. So, maybe there are just groups of related skills, and you gain XP for doing things, which you can then spend on any of the skills in that group. OR, maybe you still just gain general XP for quests/accomplishments, but something like fighting grants you points towards combat perks? And doing non-combat things that weren't necessarily quest-oriented could give you points towards non-combat perks. This way, you're improving yourself if you decide to, for example, go slaughter all the wolves in the land, but you're not doing so in a global/overarching way. "I'm just 7 times better at everything because I've killed SO many wolves! 8D!" *shrug*. Just, with only general XP that levels you, improving you across the board, there's not much "YEAH BUT FIGHTING GIVES YOU EXPERIENCE!" argument to be had. I mean, that's true, but if the system isn't really representing that, it hardly matters. So, in terms of "All we're going to have is one type of XP, levels, and sweeping character improvements from those levels," I definitely think only rewarding "quests" is the way to go. Although, I think the typical layout for quests is not fit to use for everything, and I don't even think the term really covers all the things you should get XP for.

I suspect it's pre-orders? They just count 'em as sales, whenever they are, I guess. Now, I dunno what the scope of that is. It's probably something like "for the month of March," or "this week," etc. Or maybe it's the top seller in its genre? That's pretty awesome, either way, but depending on the criteria, it could make a pretty big difference in what that actually means in terms of sales numbers.

The stuff-to-feedback ratio is a bit wonky, That's what I was talking about above. Even if it IS in, there's not much to indicate that it is, other than "I paused right after Interrupting someone, and I happened to no longer be engaged by them." 8\

Oh. So, by "multiplicative," you mean that the % modifiers aren't added together, THEN applied as a tag-team percentage to the base? I guess that would be additive? (You're referring to the method by which the modifiers are applied, I mean?) Sorry. I'm familiar with those concepts, but a nublet when it comes to that terminology. <----- Art student. I haven't used much math in about 10 years, . I sincerely apologize for being so clueless.

I hear ya. I've got like 9 other things backed right now on Kickstarter. And that's AFTER I stopped myself from impulsively backing all the things I wanted to back.

You're suppose to read them all the game documents as a bed-time story. 8P

But... that's already true of current armor. Current plate slows you buy, what, 50%? So, whatever your current recovery time is, it's going to be multiplied by 1.5 when you're wearing that armor. I don't... what spurred the emphasis on the multiplicative nature of percentage modifiers? (Sincere question) EDIT: Ohhhhhhhh. I think maybe I see? Is it because I mentioned giving armor a smaller base recovery time than it currently has, then listed integers? Sorry about that. I don't know why I didn't say that better. I meant, "Instead of its current X% modifier, just give it a set integer that's fairly short, then have movement incur a % modifier while you're moving." Also, for the record, I wasn't suggesting "this would be an awesome/the best thing to do!" or anything. Just saying, IF I was going to slow recovery time while moving, I'd tie it directly into the the armor aspect. Just off the top of my head.

^ Okay, I'm sorry. I should've said without spamming pause and searching the combat log, OR watching for the disappearance of engagement lines. You don't exactly have a huge window of opportunity to move if an Interrupt breaks your engagement, and that's what you were waiting on. Just seems tedious to have no indicator without pausing and pausing and pausing. "Is the line gone now? Hmmm, how 'bout NOW? Hmmm... OKAY NOW! MOVE NOW!" *shrug* Anywho, I don't even know if that made it into the v480 build, or if it's going to make it into the final game (even if it's not in 480), OR if it just got scrapped.

I'm missing the significance of that. I don't understand the "though," in other words. That't not an insult, either. Just a matter-of-fact statement that I am not clear on what is in direct response to.

^ I agree, but what do you expect to occur without completely separating combat stats from non-combat stats? I mean, you could do that, but then, how do you have checks for something like Strength or Dexterity? Do you have combat Dexterity, then non-combat Dexterity? As a Wizard in D&D, I always enjoyed having pretty decent Strength, so that when we got into a bind and the Fighter or typical brute-force person was out cold, I could be surprisingly helpful by lifting debris, moving things, etc. It didn't really help me in combat much, so it was, in that context, a non-combat stat for me. I'm just not sure how to design a stat system in which you don't have to give up a "roleplaying" (for lack of a better term) character aspect for sheer combat effectiveness at some point, or vice versa. You can't have EXCELLENT eyesight, but also be highly inaccurate in a fight. You can have high Perception and low Strength, but you can't be only-combat-good at something, while being non-combat terrible at it. *shrug*. I guess this is where skills come in handy. You can be strong, but have absolutely no skill with a weapon whatsoever. Boom. You've got combat effectiveness potential, but the stat itself doesn't really lend itself to either combat or non-combat. That might be the best way to go. The stat is raw potential, and the skill is applied potential. As in, you could have amazing Perception, but that doesn't let you track an animal or aim a bow at a guy 100 yards away. You still need skill with tracking, and with archery.

What ever happened to Josh's proposed changes to Interrupt, allowing successful Interrupts to break engagement? Did that make it into 480? I've played it a little bit, but didn't think to check specifically for that at the time. Even so, if it DOES work like that now, how can you tell you've broken engagement without spamming pause and checking the combat log for "... has interrupted (insert foe here)"?

Yeah, I mean, as long as you don't make a party of 6 Rangers, you should be fine in terms of class deficiencies, I suppose.

I don't follow. Armor currently just increases your recovery time by X%. How does that "amplify any aspect of" gameplay? I'm unclear on what you mean by breaking it down "that far," and what criteria beyond "is it necessary?" you're using to decide whether or not something should be in the game (as I'm fairly certain you aren't suggesting that something that isn't strictly necessary shouldn't be in a game's design, as that would eliminate about 90% of the game).