curryinahurry

Pretty hard to judge without a size reference and a decent view of the face. One thing I hope is that there is some variation as per the images we saw of the Cean Gula. Especially when looking at the head / antler arrangement, this could become a way of denoting age / size or breed (along with coloration). It would be interesting to see the concept art.

You mean something like DA:O map? is there any more details on this? I'm not really sure, but my understanding was that there would be large areas that would serve as hubs from which additional / smaller areas would be accessible. From the smaller areas, travel would be possible back to the hub area, possibly the world map, or another specialized quest area. But it wouldn't be map to map roaming like BG. I can't recall where I saw this however, so take it with a grain of salt.

The dev's can't stop you from metagaming, that's the players issue not theirs. Also like Sawyer said in his clarification post... it is tracking your averages and long term actions not one off moments. So no, making one mean choice is not going to suddenly make everyone think you are the scum of the earth if 90% of the time you are Mr. Nice Guy. That and there is no "wrong" answer. I seriously doubt critical game content will be tied to having a certain reputation or disposition. In alpha protocol for example all that happens is sometimes you could talk your way out of a situation with the right choices, or get some bonus/situational things for upcoming levels or battles. If it was a key plot fight you still had to go at it regardless of what you did, said, or how you did it, and said it. Yes, I understand how the system works, Josh Sawyer's (and your previous post) pretty much cleared that up. And I definitely like the idea in general. The concern I have is related to the potentail mis-alignment of developer and user intents. Certainly a degree of metagaming will always occur, but I disagree with the notion that it is not the dev's concern. In fact, much of the attempts to address, "degenerate gameplay" by Obsidian have this issue in mind. Minor misalignments between dev and user will likely not cause any problems, save for those people who feel the must get everything 100% correct to their POV...there is nothing the developer can do about those situations or should try to, I agree. But if results are frequently different from a player's desired intent with regards to these interactions, he/she might feel that they are being compelled to play the game the way the developer wants them to and not the way they want; which I doubt is Obsidian's intent in implementing this system. It is a risk, however small, and I am not overly concerned.

^ That sounds pretty reasonable; a bit like a local reputation system. If I make benevolent choices in one location and cruel ones in another, they will remain local and not follow me to another, third locale. My only question would be around choices and the potential for meta-gaming in this system. I may be faced with a situation that I feel requires a pragmatic solution. I make the decision that I feel follows a pragmatic course (in expert mode let's say), and am given points in "cruel". Well, in some situations I might feel that is okay, sometimes the pragmatic choice can be cruel. At other times, I might feel the choice I am making is not cruel and be surprised or disappointed by such a result. Playing in default mode could be even more problematic as the potentials are being labeled. this might encourage some to play the answer they feel gives them the correct outcome rather than the choice they would like to for their character. Of course a lot of this comes down to how things are written and may not be much of an issue. It is good to see the extra layer of complexity in interactions.

Hmmm....not sure how this will work effectively. If it provides flavor, it might be ok. As long as we don't wind up with de facto alignments out of this type of mechanic.

@ Teknoman2 Well, we don't know just how punitive "maimed" status will be in game. We also don't know if it will be a toggle setting that is set as default: on in expert and off in standard modes, and could possibly be adjusted to player preference. And yes, I think that is a fair assessment re: Cleric Nemir, particularly the D&D legacy issue. Personally, I think this type of system provides for much deeper gameplay, but I can understand the frustration of people who want this game to be as close as possible to the IE / D&D games. I personally have some concerns about how the classes are being designed, but I think overall gameplay will be quite fun.

Here is the reference from Update 24: Stamina and Health In Project Eternity's combat, players need to be concerned with two elements of a character's vitality: Stamina and Health. The majority of damage a character takes is subtracted from his or her Stamina. Stamina represents how much general abuse a character can take before falling unconscious. Characters lose it quickly and regain it relatively rapidly, even without assistance. Soul-based abilities are able to help replenish or regenerate Stamina and are often used on the battlefield to turn the tide of combat. If a character hits 0 Stamina, he or she is knocked out. Intervention from another character can bring an unconscious character back into a fight. For players, the Health of their party members is a tether that makes them consider how far they are willing to venture from a safe resting spot. Though Health is typically lost at a lower rate, when the PC or a companion hits 0 Health, he or she is maimed (in standard play) or killed (in Expert mode or as an option in standard play). Magic may help mitigate damage to Health and slow the tide, but once characters have died (in Expert mode), there is no known magic that can bring them back. So death or maimed depending on difficulty level. 0 stamina is knocked out.

@ Karkarov: http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Vitality and check out update 24. Knocked out is 0 stamina; maimed / dead is 0 health. @ Cleric Nemir The concept for this system was likely influenced Darklands; a game older and tougher than the "oldies" you are referring to in your post. No resurrection in the PE world, so dead is dead. That is how some of us want to play the game, with death actually having some consequence as managing characters becomes more strategic over the course of a dungeon than tactical in that of an encounter. As Lephys pointed out, death in the IE games was little more than a time out for any character not the PC.

Great update, thank you. As the game develops, I hope we get more of these types of updates along with reveals on gameplay mechanics. These little insights into the game design process are one of the true pleasures of the crowd-funding process for someone like me. Cheers

^ Scrolling isn't the issue, there are a variety of ways to move the screen regardless of why one might want to do it. The particular problem with screen edge scrolling with a mouse cursor is that one has to move the cursor all the way to the screen edge and keep it there while the screen scrolls. It's a lot of mouse travel and a fairly inefficient as a way of moving the screen. That may not be a big deal for some people, some might like the nostalgic quality of doing so, but for others, like me, it will be a nuisance if there are other plausible options like dragging the screen with the mouse or WASD (or arrows for the left handed). These other methods require less or no unnecessary mouse travel while keeping the cursor close to the object one might want to manipulate.

Larger than what we where shown are the area maps, which was in one of the updates. That would likely have a different set of tools like directly clicking on the map as you mentions or possibly mouse-wheel dynamic zooming a la google maps. Yes you could scroll an entire area, and if that is enjoyable for you, I hope that you have that option. For me, having to scroll in that manner has always been wildly annoying, so I hope we have options.

Different engine, sure... but they're trying to replicate IE as best as possible.Why is this a crappy solution in 2014? Because all other games in 2014 have fixed cameras on their PC and thus scrolling is made extra difficult, since usually the camera is locked on them? If so, that's not a very good reason IMO. While dragging with the mouse seems reasonable (and I assume will be in) I have no reason not to believe simple mouse scrolling like in the BG's would feel absolutely fine in PE, rather than in other modern game with their PC-locked cameras. I don't see why they can't just make WASD move the camera around, pretty sure they did it in later Infinity Engine games. As long as it can be moved with mouse scrolling like IE games, every other option on top of that is fine. That would be fine as a minimum, no doubt. The issue for me is that the screen resolutions are quite different from the IE games; that was my point Hassat Hunter (regarding my 2014 reference). Given the technology and resolutions at the time, scrolling was pretty much mandatory to allow smooth gameplay and to get around the battlefield, especially for an outdoor encounter. Given the outdoor screenshot we were given as an example, scrolling won't be much of an issue in full frame (1x zoom). Even zoomed in 2x, most of the scrolling would be in fairly small increments so moving the mouse over to the screen edge will be cumbersome. WASD or arrow keys could be OK as a solution, but direct dragging with the mouse would be the most responsive.

Different engine; you're right in that I doubt there will be much problem with screen edge scrolling, but its a fairly crappy solution for 2014. Direct dragging with the mouse cursor would be best, but I'm not sure if there are re-draw issues with Unity-generated graphics when zoomed in. This could make the game choppy on some machines.

Hey... that's just how he scrolls... Lovely. Ok, the point I was trying to make still stands, I really would like to be able to drag the view with my mouse while in a zoomed frame. I would prefer this to screen edge scrolling, but that would suffice in a pinch. It would likely have to be done in a paused state with an Alt or Ctrl + Mouse button command. NWN2 tried this with the camera patch, but it was a bit of a mess. I'm wondering if any other isometric games have this type of function.

@ Silent Winter yes, that is correct. Normal convention for panning is rotation in camera and translation in isometric or 2d views when working with 3d software like 3ds max. I probably should have said mouse scrolling or dragging the view in zoom. Sorry for the confusion.

The view angle is fixed but I am pretty sure they have said you can zoom the camera. Thanks for the zoom bit, I wasn't sure. I wasn't referring angle, that can't be changed in a projected view without creating strange distortions as Zeckul pointed out. I was thinking of panning the camera in plane when zoomed in (or even in regular view depending on how they do the fog of war) as one might an image in photoshop. It would help us inspect areas as we deem necessary.

A camera that we could pan and zoom would be great. Even if the zoom is limited to 2x - .5x, it would be helpful when coupled with zoom; especially during combats involving a lot of spell effects and auras. Also, considering how detailed they're making these backgrounds, it would be nice to occasionally zoom in to see interesting items up close or zoom out in outdoor areas to get a greater sense of scale.

There was a post at some point about exploration being a combination of BG and IWD by one of the developers (I forget which one and had no luck in searching). I assume that means that there will be map nodes that will serve as "hubs" with adjacent tiles for quests and exploration. That isn't my preferences for map exploration or overland travel, as I would prefer SOZ/ Darklands style, but it could be ok if Obsidian can make these nodes feel dynamic over the course of the game. They could do this by adding adjacent map tiles as new quests open, adding small additions/ changes to existing maps, or making areas of larger maps accessible later in the game. As long as we get a decent sense of exploration that isn't one and done.

^ Certainly, some do prefer playing buffers, support, or multitude of other styles. My point has been, since my first comment, that we were promised a system with the latitude to accommodate different styles, but the concept of different classes occupying in strict roles could work in opposition to such a claim. I use the paladin as an example of a melee class that has at its core concept a supporting role in buffing others, that could be a problem to someone who wants to play their paladin in a more aggressive, active style. Josh Sawyer has stated that abilities would allow flexibility for such a class to play a bit more actively, but we will have to see just how far this goes. My comments aren't about restricting choice or valuing one play style over another; they are about allowing greater flexibility, and the use of party roles worries me in that regard.

^ I didn't use the word equal, did I? If Sawyer is right in his statement about active use abilities, that could be fine. I just think that the system runs the risk of creating bland play-styles for certain character classes if it gets too concerned with roles in combat. Leader or no, a person playing a game with a specific character and class is going to want to feel relevant both in and out of combat, and garner his/her share of glory; whether that comes from AOE damage, backstabbing, or something else is particular to the class. For melee oriented characters, this comes more from active participation than passive buffing imho.

@ Gitfted1 I edited my post, but D&D is less my concern than the fact that fighters are fighters and should be able to fight. More importantly, I am worried about roles as they are being described by Josh Sawyer in this thread as they sound much more constricting than I had understood previously. I think you had mentioned a rock, paper, scissors combat default in another thread, and that is exactly what I don't want in this game. @ JE Sawyer As I said, I know little about the system, and I could care less about D&D as the baseline. I am coming at this more from the POV of player expectation with regards to class typology and whether the class will be fun to play. I don't know the system as we have only snippets to go by and what you've stated in this thread gives me pause because it makes me ask the question, "why is this fun for me as my player character?" with no obvious answer (by the way, I will not play a paladin in my first play through and have never been particularly found of the class in any of its incarnations). Believe me, as someone who exclusively plays melee characters, auras and buffs just won't cut it as a fun factor.

I see. In that case the motivation for choosing a Paladin would most likely be for their party buffs. If you haven't seen from previous comments, Paladins seem to be pattered off of the D&D 4th edition Warlord. Yes, I know, but my point was that party buffs are great, but most people who choose to play a warrior class (or any class for that matter) in a crpg as their player character, are going to also want to be fairly proficient at opening a can of whup ass when in combat. It would be a bit odd to be the hero of a story (and paladins are likely to draw the hero wannabe types) and walk away from a game thinking, "gosh, I remember the time I buffed the crap out of the party during that epic battle with the lich!", instead of, "gosh, I remember that time the time I destroyed the lich with my special attack as my party members rallied around me." I'm not saying it's impossible that Obsidian has included such abilities; just that Josh Sawyer's post worries me that balancing and roles might lead to a class like the Paladin being fairly flavorless as a player character for those who would want to play the heroic leader type. @Nonek, My comments have nothing to do with D&D; I could care less about it as a system. My comments have more to do about the fact that dogmatically situating classes within roles is at loggerheads with allowing the player to create a narrative experience through their chosen character if drawn too narrowly. And most importantly, such roles can be flat out boring; or at least work so against player expectations as to be so. Again, in a game that has combat primacy, every class available to player characters has to have some potency and particularly those who choose to play front line melee types. If the combat system can't accommodate this, it will be a failure in my eyes.

From his description, fighters are pretty much mandatory as they are only class that can tank. And unless you catch all the mooks in a bottleneck you will probably need more than one. I was referring to Paladins as a traditional warrior (frontline melee) class, not using it synonymously with the fighter class.

I've resisted commenting about the combat system because there is so little information, but this quote worries me. From what Josh Sawyer posted, I'm wondering why anyone would want to choose to play a paladin...that is, what about this class will make gameplay fun for those who choose it as the PC? I fully understand that PE is a party based game, but it isn't Icewind Dale; the model for the game more closely follows the BG games in that there is a set protagonist. In that regard, why would anyone choose a warrior that is middling at dealing damage? It's a warrior, no? Shouldn't any warrior have the ability to dish out pain; whether for self interest or righteousness? The point I'm making here is that the vast majority of people playing this game are going to want their player characters to be badass; and passive auras are not the criteria for which we will judge such badassness. Stabbing enemies in the face, or blowing them to smithereens with long range nukes is more likely what most people will find satisfying. We were promised that character classes would allow enough flexibility for us to build unconventional builds; I also hope that means we will be able to build any class to be potent offensively, regardless of the class' title; not a glorified cheerleader or doorstop (honestly, why even call it a fighter if its main attribute is defense...shouldn't it be called a defender?). People play games like these for a multitude of reasons, but in all cases, they would likely want their player characters to become powerful; and in a game that is combat intensive; that means powerful in dealing damage to foes.

Sorry, but many of us will notice a structure that makes no sense in its composition. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that the design looks acceptable in your eyes, but for anyone with even a passing familiarity with these types of structures of the history of architecture, those battlements are going to stick out like a sore thumb. Is it a game killer? Of course not, but to me it was a pretty glaring oddity, and I can't be unique in this fact since others have commented on this as well.