Azmodan

IMHO - Permanent effects that impact parts of the anatomy will be tricky to justify, unless the game includes targeted attacks. In games like Fallout and Arcanum you could aim at a particular part of the body, however the gain for targeting parts of the body other than the head was minimal - as your role as the PC is to kill the opposition, not slow it down by breaking kneecaps. The trade-off of reducing your chance to hit for an almost guaranteed mega-critical (head goes 'splode) is a bit of a cheat, especially against higher-level-characters. e.g.: If I can ordinarily only hit a higher level character on a 17-20, with 19-20 being critical hit territory, then targeting the head, and increasing the difficulty to 19-20 is not a huge sacrifice, given that an attack on the head is an assured critical. i.e. I don't have to "confirm" my critical as would normally be the case, all I have to do is hit to get a critical. My chance of scoring a new-fangled "mega" critical goes from 1 in 10 (19-20 trigger) times 1 in 5 (17-20 confirm) (2% chance for those not mathematically inclined) to a simple 1 in 10 (10% chance, because targeting the head is automatically bad). This is a huge bonus. When the AI targets your body parts - and you get a broken leg as a result - sure it seems "RPGey" The downside of this, is that the AI would then be "stupid" to try and do anything other than targeted head-shots, which would result in the most grievous injuries. If there is no anatomical targeting, then the assignment of broken bones becomes a bit arbitrary and grievous wounds (e.g. missing eyes), significantly mid-dungeon, become a cause for quick-load. If grievous wounds can be fixed by: - a low-level healing spell, then that makes grievous wounds a waste of developer time to implement - a restoration spell (a medium level spell), then that's one of your characters wasting spell levels to make the game less punishing. - a trip back to town / consultation with a master healer, then this is a pace-breaking punishment (you're half-way down a dungeon, and you know there's going to be at least 1, possibly 2 more "boss" level battles, so you now have to go back to town to get the eye on your rogue and the right hand of your mage regrown). In conclusion: If the permanent effects as a result of critical hits apply to PC's party - the AI would be stupid not to try and deliberately screw you, making every encounter more frustrating, rather than more fun. Deliberately? Well yes - because an AI that bases it's decision on mathematical tables, which as demonstrated above are skewed towards targeting the head, should only ever pick the most high-damage strategies, rather than randomly determine its attack pattern. If the permanent effects apply only to the enemy, then the PC's party would be stupid not to only target the head. If the permanent effects are hard to get rid off, more often than not the quickest resolution would be a quick-load.

I agree with limiting merchant gold, but also think that the problem of ubiquitous +1/+2 items could be resolved more elegantly. Common weapons should be common and cheap. But "military grade" weapons/armour should be uncommon and carry a reaction modifier. If you are an adventurer, geared out like the Enemy army, you should be attacked on sight. Above that - truly magical items, should also prompt some kind of reaction due to their rarity (and bling factor). I hope that magical items in PoE do not have "+X" suffix. I do hope that the items are more along the lines of bronze < iron < steel < masterwork (including silver edged for lycanthropes) < mithril < adamantine Where the descriptor is an indication of quality. Additionally with "masterwork" items: - A masterwork item is made by a Master <weapon / armour> smith and their specific school - Theoretically every major geographical unit could have one - The traits of an item crafted by a master smith ought to be similar, both physical properties as well as NPC/Enemy types that frequently carry these - This would additionally solve the following problem common to almost all CRPGs: at certain challenge rating, the enemy is armed with +1/+2/+3 etc. generic items. Example: In a particular region, the enemies of a certain rank are armed with weapons forged in the tradition of a school of a particular master smith. These weapons are characterised by a soft blue metallic sheen to their alloy, and their hilts and scabbards are completed in the colours of the school. The weapons leave frozen burns on their victims. In mechanical terms these are +1 weapons for purposes of overcoming weapon protection, and do +1D4 cold damage. But this information should not be immediately available to the player. I hope adjectives and/or graphic effects are used instead.

Philosophy. I want my choices to be based on my character's values. I want to talk to companions and NPCs and feel like there is "meat" to the quandary. Ever since WOW introduced floating quest markers, I feel most quests have been "go here, do this, and then I'll be happy" or "give me X and I'll increase my favour to you by amount Y". The game that had meaning in spades was Planescape: Torment. Mask of the Betrayer also came close, but the substance was less fundamental. I can still remember how absolutely floored I was the first time I spoke to Ravel, how clever and righteous I felt when I convinced Trias to repent and how fulfilling and rewarding it felt when I examined the bronze sphere at the end.

*GLEE* The gameplay dynamic of a true co-op introduced in D:OS is so unique, that I hope that it will be plagiarised and disseminated as a feature into every non-old-school-RPG to be created hence-forth. I cannot wait to lay my probing fingers into this Larian are great at innovation. And yes - they had difficulties, most of which were from publishers. Obsidian can probably relate on that front.

Statistically speaking, Subutai is an interesting contender: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai "He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history.[1]" Essentially, Europe was spared by the fact that Ogedei Khan had died (back in Mongolia), and the Mongol princes were therefore obligated to travel back to elect a new Great Khan. If this death had not occurred, then Subutai's Mongols would have been washing their boots in Lisbon's harbour. Closer to modernity: 1) For special achievement in "Organisation and Post War reconstruction" I'd nominate Mustafa Kemal Ataturk for both his backbone and organisational skill (on and off the field) - the man dragged a medieval Ottoman Empire into modernity as a secular Nation-State. Work currently shamefully and steadily undermined. 2) For technical skill in the category: "Campaign, Special Achievement for Front-sized invasions", Alexander Vasilevsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Storm), who planned and prepared Operation August Storm, which in 10 days crushed the Kwantung Army (1.2m+) "The operation was carried out as a classic double pincer movement over an area the size of the entire Western European theatre of World War II."

+1 in favour of red herrings and other flavour-adding materials in games. One of the things I liked about BGs were the books and letters. Not every letter was tied to a quest and just about all books were there to add flavour. Expanding and building on this in the form of journal entries resulting from NPC interactions would add a greater feeling of immersion. Otherwise there is a dubious "psychic" element to how your PC has uncanny insight into "relevant" information. Although absolutely core, story-critical quests, should have some structure / clarity / objectives.

lol @ World of Warcraft for instituting the tyranny of quest markers I am relieved to have a return to the "ye olde" way of doing things. What I am wary of: - What would happen if you <accidentally> complete a quest, before officially receiving the quest? Or will the initiation of a quest via the primary interaction spawn the rest of the quest actors? 1) Having characters on site prior to quest spawn leads to a more populated and "realistic" world 2) Spawning in relevant actors following quest initialisation leads to a structured quest resolution by precluding some of the scripting difficulties and premature quest failure

I have read the entire thread and I'll quote JFSOCC, because that is a concise list of requirements. My 3 cents: 1) Wide screen monitor + isometric view, means I have to scroll down / up when casting spells to affect a character or monster that is the same distance away as a monster that is on the left or right edge of screen. A UI that uses up ~10% of the bottom of the screen in a solid band, is as inconvenient as blocking out 15-20% of the horizontal space (on the sides). With this in mind, Karkarov's UI leaves a gap that reduces the waste of space. 2) Once I learn the hot keys, I typically pay the UI no mind. The only bit of UI I want is to open two or more characters' inventory screens simultaneously. 3) When pressing the "highlight" button, things like overall health (tint), negative effects (icons floating over characters' heads) should appear. If this happens, I don't even need to see my NPCs portraits in the UI.

I hope that PE includes some of the features you describe. On the other hand, I can't remember Josh including much detailed info about this sort of thing. Might be because the topic had not come (because of all the other updates). So could already be worked on. I guess like with the rock-paper-scissors of damage types vs armour types, it is all down to play testing. It might end up being that some aspects of too much realism, might slow the pacing of the action sequences, which can be detrimental. Definitely hope that your question gets answered by a dev.

Water dynamics are actually really hard to get right, and I hope that the guys aren't going to be taking a single approach across the board. The opacity, textures and specular reflection of water should be scene-specific. e.g.: - a calm brook or lake - a fast narrow stream - a swamp (no, it's not as easy as turning the light map green) - a muddy puddle Similarly, other substances e.g.: - Oil, - Large vats of boiling blood - Lava - liquefied fears of children Should not look like recoloured water.

The game is being designed for a PC. Having said that - I give this game a month, before some enterprising linux devotee patches in controller support. And then your friends will be able to play it on consoles. I will also give your friends all of a day, before they realise that had they been using a mouse and keyboard, their responsiveness in combat and inventory/spells/skills etc management would be immediate, rather than dulled by the limited discrete points of input (i.e. buttons). To those who are saying: "OMFG, c0nsolez die! etc.", be the bigger person.

Like your idea, Lephys. I can see it working as a "trail of breadcrumbs" at a predictable distance, where all clues start invisible. Depending on party's maximum perception only every nth breadcrumb can be revealed (still needs to pass the roll). I liked how they did this in Witcher II, where you can either try to follow a trail of blood (hard when blood is lost in the underbrush), or you drink a potion, and go into a "predator" mode, where everything is black and white, except for blood and living beings (which are orange and golden). Theoretically - a ranger should be able to "cheat" past a puzzle of this type.

My guess is that the there might some limited overlap (lore / maps) between the Collector's book and the Almanac, but not much. The Almanac to my mind is more like the "Campaign Setting" books that accompany table top role playing games. e.g. The Forgotten Realms campaign setting. Minus the stat / GM tables. So where the Collector's book is like the game's "making of" document, the Almanac is instead a deeper encyclopaedia of the World the game is set in. I would sort of expect that if PE has lore books that you read in-game (think back to Baldur's Gate), then the Almanac is the source of those lore books, containing additional information, more details of history, cities, regions, cultures, races etc. Depending on what modding tools will be available for PE, if any, the Almanac might assist mod-creators flesh out stories and quests, item descriptions etc. that will feel genuine to the rest of community. That's my 2 cents, hope that helps

Totally would love something like this! Having some ability to change your "team" colours (i.e. the major colours of your stronghold guards' paper dolls) would be great. I will take it a step further - there are melee, ranged and support roles - allowing the player to optionally choose the major colors of each "type" would be great! Similarly, if you remember Crossroad keep in NWN2 - you upgraded the armour/weapons of your guards, and even back then that was reflected on their models. And yes - flag colour with crest! Crest! Crest! Crest! I completely agree with the idea that having additional visual cues to show that "this is mine" or the status and progress the player is making through these side-quests only enhances my buy-in as the player.

lol Thanks for reading guys! I probably went overboard with the detail in terms of the quest descriptions, but that was done for the benefit of those who don't remember Crossroad Keep. http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Crossroad_Keep The stronghold quests in prior games were text, that you as the player had to keep track of without adequate context. There was a lot of numbers buried in conversation trees, away from the player's immediate reference. The gist of my idea is to track these on a localised portion of the campaign map, and take advantage of that map in an additional way - visually demonstrate the player's progress. But yeah - it would be a feature requiring a lot more work.

TL DR; A new mechanic where-in the player's management of stronghold quests occurs on a separate / detailed section of the campaign map of Palatinate of Dyrwood. Feudal conflicts with a plethora of neighbours reflects growth of stronghold and broader feudal development in the context of Dyrwood. Would not necessarily require additional play maps / "wilderness areas" to be created. Mostly could be managed with text and stills. The very long version: Significant scope addition, that might potentially be manageable as a separate stretchgoal or better-yet - separately in the expansion. Could enhance the end-game for the stronghold. Those of you who have played "Birthright" / NWN2 SoZ, like overland travel maps of Fallout, might get a sense for what I mean. Imagine that the geographical area around the stronghold on the campaign map offers a "zoomed in" view, showing "Risk-style" (more accurately Birthright-style) grid of neighbouring feudal holdings. Not all your neighbours are high lords, most in your "backwater", are landed knights in small hamlets, barons, guild-towns etc. With patches of neutral land in between (forests where druids, elves, trolls and orcs live etc). All of these are vassals of more powerful Earls or of the Duke of Dyrwood himself. The idea is that these territories are where most of your stronghold-related mini-quests happen (mini-quests like where the parked NPCs in your stronghold are sent to "adventure" or where various text-based quest-prompts in regard to your stronghold development are sourced from). As the player grows their stronghold, the game asks for decisions to be taken in regard to these neighbours, some decisions might have to be hostile, others might be in order to help your neighbours, others might be trade-related and so the player's standing with the various neighbours changes over the course of the game. A mini-quest might take the form of: Neighbouring knight's hamlet is attacked by Orcs (as a random / scripted "event") The player decides to send NPC + guards to help --> they succeed --> Knight "allies" with player The player cannot send an NPC to help (they're off doing other stuff) --> Orcs pillage and move on, the Knight is wounded and the hamlet is saved because one of the other neighbours helped The player is Machiavelian --> Orcs pillage, the NPC + guards arrive "too late", clean up the Orcs and kill off the Knight --> The player annexes the lands End result - the relevant cell changes "colour" (allegiance) None of this happens in "real time", the decision is made by the player and a result is given a few in-game days later As the player interacts with these stronghold quests, the various neighbours' attitudes to the player change with relevant effects. Not all challenges are military - some might require the party rogue NPC to be sent to quietly kill an evil guildmaster, others might require the party druid NPC to commune with the local druid circle to take the forest back from witches coven who are dominating the local troll population into attacking the feudal settlements etc. At certain points Dyrwood Earls or even the Duke, give specific task(s) to complete that unlock or provide major Stronghold improvements. Stronghold end game scenario opportunity: Player is attacked by a jealous / power hungry Earl and loses the stronghold (result of player being very ineffective) Player is attacked by an Earl (who the player found out to have been conspiring against the Duke). Player with help from allies, rebuffs the assault and the Duke replaces this Earl with the Player Player "bullies" the vassals into service, the local Earl tries to intervene, loses. Player thus proves right to be promoted to Earl (might makes right) Player is promoted to Baron, because the route taken was mostly diplomatic and boosted trade, eased tensions in the region (everyone is happy) etc. Specific mechanics: 1) The zoomed in map of the region allows the player to see how various Stronghold tasks / NPC miniquests etc tie-in to the broader world --> The NPC you sent on a "quest" while your party is actually following the actual game plot, is represented as a figure on a map --> The trade-caravan you established from your Stronghold to a local Elven enclave crosses a patch of neutral territory (and you know to allocate guards to it accordingly) 2) The disposition and relative "garrison" strength of your neighbours guides allows the player to plan defences accordingly (and help neighbours who will come to your help in the event of a siege when your party is on the opposite end of the map) 3) Some of these map spaces act as "NPC quest sinks" earning you rewards e.g.: --> you send your rogue NPC to steal the Baron's jewels (+gold if success, - reputation if caught) --> you send your fighter NPC to participate in a melee tournament etc. 4) Broadens and contextualises rewards: --> trade routes, NPC thieving etc add gold --> working with organisations (Druid circles, Mages, Dwarven inventors, assassins etc) - adds unique items --> working with racial enclaves might add allies during siege (Elven archers on the battlements!) --> working against shadowy groups or competitors, lessens the chance of sieges, caravan robberies etc. --> that Knight's hamlet you "annexed" --> +Food and Conscripts! 5) Can't do everything, some things are mutually exclusive or require specific NPCs (add replay value) 6) Offers a potential end-game / "DLC" future opportunity, as some of these spaces could become self-contained maps in the future, where the player takes on the role of the Rogue, sneaking through a wizard's tower etc. Thank you kindly if you read the whole thing! Again - doubt it would be possible to bolt on this late into the design process, but it is a [late] idea...

This is totally why I hope they release a pre-alpha (or early, at any rate), engine benchmark for this game. In order to test how the implementation performs on user (community) hardware. I also had the micro-stutter on my rig when playing Shadowrun. Although it was not constant.

Oh absolutely! However on the other hand - Unity engine is also well established, so there might be in-built optimisations. And if there are, this would assist govern resource spend during alpha/beta. In either case, however would be a good test for hardware-specific quirks of users' systems - for example if someone is planning to run the game using integrated Intel renderer, then what would that mean in terms of number of concurrently rendered spell effects? As a further example why jumping on this early (whether pre-alpha or pre-beta) might be worthwhile - back in the day, when Starcraft 2 shipped, Blizzard did not include driver support for 7.1 Razer Megalodon USB surround sound (was patched following week). Not saying that Unity is known for this problem, but data and statistics only help, not hinder. In Blizzard's case - they're a massive studio with oodles of resources, and yet they had a launch issue, ironically for gamers with higher-end hardware.

Hi guys, Until the Xmas break (now), I hadn't much time to refer to the forums (i.e. I assume that the devs are working with the community), so I got my information from Kickstarter updates. I apologise if this sounds self-serving or lazy: Would it be possible to include in the forthcoming updates, more feedback / Q&A etc. from the team? Josh has been doing a fantastic job, and this request is mostly to sate the desire to hear the "technical" / "strategic" project management and implementation particulars from the frontline as well as from leads. Earlier updates introduced the PE team to us, and I'd like this fleshed out a bit further. What has been working well for you? What (if anything) you like / dislike / were surprised about with regard to the Unity toolset? Was there some feature of the Unity engine you found counter-intuitive at first? Or felt constrained by? What is your proudest achievement (i.e. deliverable) to-date or what are you most excited about? What task are you most looking forward to? Thank you!

I voted "For". But I'd like to clarify - I do not want: - stuff to be brought forward from any future expansion(s), this might compromise integrity of the narrative - micro-DLCs - hats - "Horse Armour" I would like stretch goals: - An interesting extra character that does not fit the mould (e.g. Golem or Dire Bear or an "Undead") - Let's dig deeper in the Endless Paths of Od-Nua - we have delved 15 levels deep, but as a stretch goal, I would happily support digging all the way to the toes! - Additional, self-contained, wilderness areas that have no bearing on the main story, but flesh out some aspect of the world history - Interactive history encyclopaedia - e.g. you are writing a World Almanac - how about bringing this with some "interactivity" into the game?

Would there be value to MacGyver an engine benchmark or "something" for the purpose of stress-testing community hardware and gathering statistics of where issues might arise? This benchmark would not need to have any game play elements, just a ridiculously large dummy map, with hundreds of simultaneous character movements / spell effects and multi-directional sound. I believe this might allow the development team to get an idea, up front, of where "funky" hardware issues will arise. Additionally if the statistics show that the vast majority of the community already have capable hardware, then maybe this will provide some comfort pre-alpha.

Hi, Not sure if this might answer your question, but which OS are you using? I'm using Windows 7, in the start menu, if you right-click on the "Documents" (also works for Downloads), you can actually re-map the whole location to another drive. For those of you who have SSDs, this might be a good work-around as it minimises writes to an SSD for what is seldom-used re-writeable data. Please note - if you don't have a recent install of Windows and you remap your folders, you may screw something up, so this optimisation is best done after a fresh install.