Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Jenda

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  1. This is pure gold, can't wait to see more (and can't wait even more to play it). The dynamic lighting and characters are simply amazing. Thank you everyone at Obsidian for the great work! Those are good points IMO - the transition from running to standing did look unnatural and the animations on the trees looked a little blurry. Also: - if your eyes rest on a tree or bush, you can notice how some parts are animated (and blurry) and others are clear and still, which breaks the feel a little bit - the wading characters feet sometimes go under the ground level, but I'm not sure this is something that can be fixed in any efficient way in 2D
  2. I went for $100 - $75 tier, $14 for comics and $11 for... well... Torment?
  3. I, for one, hope there aren't too many mutually exclusive areas, storylines or other content*, and if so, they can be arranged in such a way that you can experience the vast majority in no more than two playthroughs. Anything else is, in fact, forcing you to grind through the parts of the game that are mandatory so you can experience the content you were blocked out of on your previous playthrough(s). I love playing RPGs, but I rarely play them more than once, and I don't think I ever played any more than twice. I like choosing my own way through the story, but I'd hate to think I missed out on huge chunks of content because I made the choices I wanted to make. * mostly areas and storylines shouldn't be mutually exclusive - different conversation, differently played battles, even different companions and quest results/rewards for different characters are fine, since they don't mke you feel like you missed out.
  4. Ah, that's what I was missing :-D I thought the subscription model was faltering, though.
  5. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained?ref=live Camelot Unchained, a Realm vs. Realm MMORPG... What am I missing? Why is this attracting so many backers? Another monthly-subscription-based MMORPG, where you first pay for the development and then pay a monthly subscription?
  6. I'm not sure if the kickstarter money really covers all costs. My guess the development of the game costs a lot more than what was raised on kickstarter, but some of it is simply absorbed by the company and will hopefully be recovered from sales. In other words, it's impossible to hit exactly 0 at the time of release (because it's not an exact science, really), and I think the actual numbers could be in the far negative, because of all the resources Obsidian invested in the game (some pre-kickstarter). I doubt the kickstarter money would cover all the overhead the company generates as well as the actual cost of development. On the other hand, it benefits us all to maintain the illusion that $1 on KS = $1 for game development, because that's what draws the money in.
  7. Yes! Please give us cutscenes like that at reasonable intervals! We don't need full-motion animation, but cutscenes like this sound great where appropriate. It would be nice if there was a narrator's voice, but that could even be added later if the budget doesn't allow (while reducing the risk of over-simplificaiton for voicing purposes). On the other hand, it shouldn't pop up whenever an environmental skill check or decision is required ("The door in front of you is locked. Hushed voices can be heard from the room beyond. Do you (i) listen carefully (ii)apply [item] (iii) peer through keyhole (iv) pick the lock") - when the isometric view tells the story just fine, avoid breaking the flow of the game. Conversely, there should be cutscenes at key points in the story even when no skill check or decision is involved. But I'm sure the team has already thought of this ) I have full confidence the right decisions will be made. (And also, thanks for update! Can't wait for next. Already backed Torment, too bad there aren't any higher digital tiers without the P&P rulebook or WL2 - I would seriously have to fight with myself. I might just throw in a few more bucks for good measure, though :-D )
  8. I would still prefer something more akin to the strategical and tactical decisions made in the "combat minigame", such as selecting the type of lockpick or method of lockpicking to be used. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be a system that still leaves lockpicking as a single click-roll action, but allows modifiers to that roll, much like weapon choice and attack type modifies the results of combat (or even the results of a single sword swing). For example: Different locks have different difficulty ratings, and perhaps a few other attributes (like size, age, complexity or design). When picking a lock, you could choose from a variety of lockpicks, each of which would give a certain numerical bonus to your lockpicking "roll" (the bonus could be the same for all locks, or different for some - a basic lockpick would give +2 to any lockpicking roll, and a dwarven lockpick would give +1 for most locks, but +7 on dwarven locks, a thick, strong lockpick would give a -3 bonus on complex locks, but +5 on old or rusty locks, etc.). Additionally (and optionally), you could further modify this with a few choices of lockpicking methods (pick lock, force lock, etc.)
  9. So... combat should be the same? Hmm, that would make the game very entertaining.
  10. I think the basic idea presented by the OP is a good one, even if the exact implementation suggested is waaay too complex for a game like this. Given the fact that P:E has promised to deliver more inspiring non-combat mechanics than have been the norm previously, settling for a success-failure roll for picking locks would be a disappointment for me. Non-combat skills should be a combination of player skill and character skill, just like combat is. However, it doesn't make sense for a party-based game to have a first-person minigame in the style of the bethesda games or thief, plus there are MANY people who despise minigames (as evidenced in this thread, among many others). This leads me to the conclusion that if Obsidian implements some sort of lockpicking process, it could include a toggle switch for dice-roll enthusiasts (if it's possible for tons of other "difficulty" settings, and implementing a dice-roll mechanic doesn't seem like a lot of extra work to me, though I may be wrong). Also, no matter what the system is, it should not include subskills - a game like this is very hard to balance as is and we don't have subskills for shield bashing or backhand slashes, either. That said, I would very much enjoy a system that combines various aspects of your character (stats, skills, equipment, player input) to determine the success-failure-critical failure outcome, as the OP suggested. For example (and I'm not being original here - just building upon/twisting the OP's idea) the system could be based on the following premises: - different types of locks (no more than 10-20 or so generic ones throughout the game, so player experience can come into play, plus, upon a few occasions, unique/epic locks that have no equal and take some work to crack - we have epic foes and complex dialogue quests, too) - simple lock, secure lock, antique lock, dwarven lock, other culture-specific type locks, etc. - several stages of lockpicking, but only requiring few clicks each time (to address the fun-after-100-locks problem) - Identification - done passively when you enter the area or click locked item, dependent on lockpicking skill and perception-like stat/attribute of best scoring character (we don't know the names of the basic stats in P:E yet, do we?); every party learns the basic characteristic (i.e., name) of the lock, different levels of success (not too many) reveal difficulty and hints on recommended tools. Reading books, talking to characters and perhaps perks can (passively) bypass this step, so that you immediately know that (e.g.) dwarven locks are extremely complex and that only masters can open them without dwarven lockpicks (because you read that in a book) or that Joe's chest has a moderately complex lock and will probably yield to lockpick type A, B and C (because someone already tried, but doesn't have the skill, so asked you to do it for them and described the lock to you - and perhaps you asked an expert locksmith about this type of lock). - Equipment - obtaining lockpicks: although perhaps not necessary for basic lockpicking, any character focused on this discipline should obtain or make a set of lockpicks early on into the game (since it's a leather pouch with a few bent wires, it could be added to inventory once a single point is invested in the skill - or perhaps the crafting system will provide an elegant way to do this). It doesn't make sense to pick locks with your fingernails or random garbage lying around, and I don't see an ingame disadvantage to such an item in one's inventory (you need a weapon to use some skills, afterall). The item could act as a container for storing lockpicks, or the lockpicks could simply be added to it like keys to a keyring (i.e., they wouldn't act as separate items once picked up). It would be better IMO if it was shared for the entire party, just like keys and possibly quest items. - Equipment - lockpick attributes: there are several ways the usefulness of a lockpick could be handled, and I can think of two. You could either have a fixed number of lockpick types, and each lock would have a table expressing the viability of each lockpick, or, and I think this would work better, each lockpick could have say 3 stats (maybe completely hidden, or indicated by the lockpick inventory image or other hints) that would be matched up to the locks. We could call these stats length, width and quality (or width, curvature and quality, or without the "quality" attribute altogether), and they could scale from 1 to 5 (to keep it simple). Examining a lock could hint that it's narrow and deep (or just slender, depth unknown), so if you would look for a long, thin lockpick (and higher quality would always be a bonus). The names are examples, and if the stats were shown, they would have to be replaced with something that makes more sense. The advantage of this system is that similar lockpicks would be good for similar locks, and vice versa. Also, a 1-5 scale would favor lockpicks with "3", so perhaps a round scale would be better (e.g. the lockpick would have one or two stats expressed in hours on a clock, so 12 and 4 would be equally good for a lock with 2, while 8 would be the worst choice). - Equipment - actual use of lockpicks: this is the most important point - unless the use of lockpicks is "streamlined" to one or two clicks, the mechanic will become a chore. Selecting the best lockpick automatically would make collecting lockpicks no different from gaining skill levels. Perhaps it could be done as simply as (i) select lockpick skill and click item or click known locked item, (ii) menu drops down listing your lockpicks, select lockpick from list (iii) determine outcome. - Skill checks: and on that note, I like the OP's idea that different situations could favor different approaches, but I don't think it's worth extra skills. Perhaps the outcome of the lockpick attempt could be more dependent on perception in some cases, or more dependent on dexterity or intelligence in others. Old or rusty locks should require more dexterity (break easily, rust makes weird noises), new and complex locks would benefit more from perception and intelligence. Or, perception (in conjunction with lockpick skill) is required to identify the lock correctly, intelligence (+lockpick) is required to make the connection between lock type and best lockpick choice, and dexterity(+LP) helps compensate for bad lockpick choice and prevents lock jamming. Result: Party comes near locked chest, finds that the chest has a "rusty lock", and hovering over it reveals that it's a "rusty lock - very narrow" (in reality, the stats are 1-3 and perhaps a difficulty penalty of 3). Party doesn't have a thief, but the priest has high perception and dexterity and some points in the skill. She has a thick long (4-4), medium (3-3) and thin, very long (2-5) lockpick, so she uses the thin one. Her lockpick is 1-2 off, plus there's the difficulty of 3 (total penalty of 6). She fails the dice roll that takes into account these numbers, plus her skill, but her dex is good, so the lock doesn't break or jam (in the same roll or a second one). Her perception is high, so she also finds out that the lock's second stat is medium. Her medium lockpick is better suited for this (just 2-0 off), so she has better chances the next time around, and succeeds following a dice roll. Perhaps something along these lines might work in a game like this and yet be more fulfilling than a simple skill check?
  11. Just adding I's: -Magical items are very rare, gold is for consumables: lll -Loot is "branded/tagged", origin of items affects NPCs differently: ll -Crafted magical items are few, unique and true achievements: llll -Temporary abstract armour degradation in combat, repairs are "automagical": ll -Armour and weaponry can get "enfeebled"/"fatigued" over time, easy repair: ll -Individual party-member quests in cities to challenge their personal strengths & weaknesses: llll -Beast-of-burden teams embodying the deep stash; they are useful and sometimes shady: ll -Give magical non-weapon items much more love: lll -Magical artefacts for our houses and strongholds: ll -Maps, weather and environment affecting spells and the party: ll -Nice UI for weather and temperature, including an adaptive fog of war: ll -Guns can be used on certain doors and chests to open them: ll -Innovative ideas for strategic cipher abilities before and during encounters: l -Quests, or rather objectives, centered on discovery, intrigue, info and non-fetch, non-kill X critters-goals: ll -Icons marking the tone and skill implemented when picking dialogue options: ll
  12. I believe lockpicking can be balanced against other methods of opening locked doors, containers etc., so it doesn't become obsolete even if there are a number of viable options. For starters, you can award more XP for a successful lockpick than for other resolutions, and make all options comparably difficult. Brute force methods should alert nearby enemies of your presence, drain your stamina, possibly damage the weapon used, and in case of containers, break potions and other fragile consumables. Magical methods should destroy (non-quest) scrolls in chests - depending on the mechanics, this should encourage mages of all people to have lockpickers available. Also, magical attempts could have a chance of critical failure preventing further magic attempts (e.g., you melt a lock with a focused fire spell, but all you achieve is blocking the latch in place, leaving the door stuck until bashed in). Doors and chests could have various levels of high DT (moderately high for a flimsy door, very high for a sturdy door, immense for steel doors etc.), plus they wouldn't be subject to minimum DT penetration - this way, only characters with big weapons and strength could bash doors and/or containers. If you somehow managed to get an equivalent of a 20+ STR character with a gigantic maul, perhaps you should be able to bash even otherwise indestructible doors. A dual-dagger weilding rogue should and would only be able to "bash" through a canvas sheet.
  13. Often times (in fact, almost all the time) in the IE games if my party lacked the resources to fully heal themselves up after a bruising encounter (or if I simply didn't want to use up my resources), I *didn't* wait (or rest) until I was healed. I moved on, confident in my party's abilities and my own gameplay strategy to be able to take on the next encounter in my wounded state and still do fine. So no, don't be imposing your modern-rpg degenerate gameplay habits on the rest of us. Rest-spamming is a degenerate gameplay tactic bred and encouraged by (among other) IE games. What has it to do with modern RPGs? (I for one am a huge fan of P:E's proposed system, although I'd probably look for a different term than "Stamina", which doesn't really sit right with me. The short-term resource keeps you on your toes in fights, but regenerates quickly so you don't have to lose time between encounters, and the long-term resource punishes you for playing ineffectively and wasting your characters' stamina & health)
  14. This is pure genius. If used correctly, it could make for an epic foe. Perhaps a generic one, but probably better suited for a quest-specific monster. Having to fight through a dungeon/tower/complex pursued by a spirit (soul?) that animates various objects, assuming different strengths each time, perhaps luring you to locations where it can form even more powerful constructs, all in the attempt to identify and destroy its bond to the physical world - this is something I'd like very much.
  15. Hmm, will this not result in monks running up unarmed against ironclad juggernauts and rock golems, only to switch to their trusty bladed weapons when chopping up peasants, zombies and wizards? I'm not saying that's a game-breaker, but perhaps it might benefit from being handled differently, perhaps by adding some overriding effects to unarmed attacks (e.g., unarmed is always classified as crushing (e.g. for purposes of immunity), but doesn't bypass DT as other crushing weapons, and isn't classified as the "wrong" attack type against light/no armor)? I realize this is a question of verisimilitude, and the entire idea of expert unarmed attacks being as devastating as expert weapon mastery isn't very believable, so perhaps adding extra efficacy against armored targets isn't such a huge leap from there. When I imagine an unarmed-fighting monk, I don't imagine him/her ripping a foe open with a savage blow, or causing fractures/concussions as a warhammer or mace would - I imagine him/her dominating the armed (or monstrous) enemy by being quicker and more agile, using this advantage to evade incoming blows, sidestep or leap over or behind the enemy, taking advantage of the enemy's momentum to disable/topple/disarm him/her/it and only when they are so disabled, dealing damage with well-aimed critical strikes (e.g., snapping their neck). I guess it would be more believable if unarmed inherently did less damage than armed (and then perhaps DT penetration would make sense), which would be compensated by (much) greater attack speed and a multitude of additional effects (stun, disarm, knock prone, counterattack, evade), and maybe increased chance of extreme critical hits against disabled enemies. At the same time, I'm not saying this would be more fun gameplay-wise.
  • Create New...