curryinahurry

There was a topic similar to this during the kickstarter days on the forum about starting character age that had some interesting ideas, you may want to search for it. Beyond that, ageing can only be an issue if the game's plot resolves itself over a significant period (more than 3 years, as an example), and the PC and JNPCs can be of a wide range of ages. If that is the case, then ageing could be a nice mechanic (possibly even spells that cause ageing, etc.), but it should be reasoned well, and not necessarily follow medieval European standards.

Actually, with regards to timed quests, since PE won't be doing a great deal of VO, they could re-appear in different locations at different times. Instead of Billy getting kidnapped in town X at the Spring festival, maybe Sally gets kidnapped in town Y at the Harvest festival It really depends on how long we spend in the world in game time. the IE games always had a sense of urgency to some extent in the main questline, but PE might have a different pacing, where things don't really begin feeling hectic until the third or fourth act. Of course missing quests, or quests expiring shouldn't be a big deal if there are plenty of them. But in this case of missing documents, blackmail schemes, kidnapped children etc., surely these things will happen more than just once in a region the size we will be dealing with of the course of a year or two.

Aguy, ask yourself the following questions: How do you balance a game that has unlimited difficulty customizability? How will the user know whether he or she is playing at the appropriate difficulty to their expectations when purchasing\backing the game? How do you prevent people from claiming the game is too easy and disseminating that information to others on the web who won't pick up the game because they think it's not enough of a challenge? There a likely an assortment of other issues a game designer can think of that I can't, but I think you get the idea. The game is being designed with limited resting in mind by virtues of its spell and dual hit-point system. Add to that fixed difficulty settings (which, like them or not, are an understood convention), and the issue really becomes about resting where (consequences, or even if possible to rest), type of resting (how curative), and possibly when, if fatigue is a factor. Most of the backers for PE are looking for a throwback feel, some of us to a time before IE games, and specifically against the culture of casual gaming many of us aren't particularly thrilled with and feel has despoiled the RPG genre a bit.

While I agree with the OP about AI slots being convenient (although buying them was a terrible, cheap way of forcing resource management on the player), the rest of his/her post about control and micromanagement is mostly a matter of preference. Personally, as others have pointed out in this thread, I want to actively manage my parties actions; possibly not all of them, but I certainly don't combat to be of the sort that 80% of the time I am watching it play out like a scripted event. Unfortunately, that is how a lot of the combat in DA:O felt to me. Most of the difficulty in that game came from not knowing a great deal about the abilities/ strengths/ weaknesses of opponents, or what our own parties abilities always functioned. I found that most of the time, once I knew how mobs in a particular area would behave, I could adjust for it, and let the AI do 80% of the work, making occasional adjustments on the fly. That isn't what I personally want out of combat in PE. As far as graphics go; meh, I never had much of a problem as I recall...although being able to toggle spell effects (or even have an opacity slider), would be helpful later in the game, when spells are likely to be more powerful/abundant.

With regards to the Cean Gúla, I like 6 or 10; 5 looks like it had an accident with a pasta maker....maybe a variant that occurs only in haunted taverns?

As far as easter egg items or characters; it isn't a high priority for me, but can be nice as a way to add humor or excitement (especially at lower levels where a semi-powerful item can seem wondrous). The other part, encounters that seem happenstance, or obscure, to my likng, are absolutely a must to add depth to the game. Encounters that are only available if one uncovers an otherwise unremarkable object, or only occur if the PC is in a particular location at a particular time (of day or even year), are the sorts of things that give a game a long life for those players who want to linger in the PE world. On a similar note, I really hope that there is a robust rumor system in this game that yields actual quests, or even quest arcs. It is a great way of giving a sense of exploration in the game and can be delivered to the player in a multitude of manners.

I would prefer the character development system not leading to kits like "armored monk" vs. unarmored monk which in turn leads to specialization. Not that a specialist shouldn't be viable as a build, but rather that generalists should also be viable. Situational usefulness of different styles as Hormalakh mentioned is one way to deal with this. the other way is allowing players to build generalist characters that are good a several things, but invariably have a few large weaknesses (not so much glass cannons as Achilles heels), while specialists might only be strong in certain aspects and only marginal in others, yet can avoid glaring flaws.

Without having more details it is difficult to really assess the viability of such a build; but I could see an armored monk as a tank with counter-attacking abilities: The first could be a return in kind counter-puncher... there might be a wound ability that allows the monk & his wounds to resonate with materials delivering back damage or channeling it into a weapon. Wear plate and get hit with a mace? Your return attack with a slashing weapon can channel crushing damage (hope that made sense). Another could be to build damage soak that allows for massive counter-attacks that are more infrequent, storing up attacks that can be unleashed on a single opponent or at the center of an AoE. There are probably a lot of other ways to create synergies with armor as well, its more a matter of what you will sacrifice; mobility, DPS. etc.

I voted for SOZ, but a combination of SOZ & Darklands would be ideal. I liked the way SOZ dealt with abstracted travel, use of skills, and certain encounters; but I would also like to see the mix of non-combat encounters (escorting traders, visiting with a hermit, etc.) that was present in Darklands.

If Obsidian are going to the trouble of designing spell and stamina recovery they way have outlined, I'm not sure why it's particularly important to have resting in dungeons or other interior environs. Maybe after clearing a level or a discrete portion of a vast area, and then hopefully with the types of potential pitfalls that Nonek described in his post. Easy mode could possibly have different resting options, seems like a waste of time quite honestly, and could be better handled by smart level design.

Great Start! looks like there are some kinks to work out in animation and lighting, but really impressed. Cheers

From what was stated during Kickstarter (I haven't followed many discussions since), it seems that the game will have BG2 style nodes and some overland travel/exploration system a la SOZ, or possibly from older (Pre-IE) games. I'm not sure there will be any of the BG style map to map wilderness exploration.

Meh...it begins to sound cumbersome. Also, the imbalance between casters, who can re-establish spell buffs mid-combat, and fighters, who cannot fix armor degradation on the fly opens a massive can of worms. I think that Maggotheart has it right with his ogre analogy; if we adopt a temporary system, the abstraction can be handled in penalties to actions and protection without getting into any specifics. This leaves the flexibility to apply penalties across character builds without singling out characters that rely heavily on one type of protection. Unless there are some high level spells, traps, or monster abilities (dragon's breath, etc.), that have a permanant, irreparable effect, armor degradation seems to be more trouble than its worth.

There is no alignment system, and if the game is properly designed then your actions should always please some factions and displease others. Hopefully the game will keep things a bit cloudy as to white hat vs black hat groups and every faction will have their own motivation and believe what they are doing is right. Reputation is trickier and I would prefer it kept as generic as possible otherwise it can become a metagaming crutch for people want to get certain results. Of course, there are many who want just that, to know that they are being the good guy or bad guy, but I would prefer a system where one is capable of being a hero while being secretly (or openly) hated by segments of the populations.

Don't like the idea of temporary armor degradation...it just seems like an ad hoc solution. Not to mention that would give spell casters a huge advantage as they can counter de-buffs while your typical fighter won't be able to make adjustments on the fly. Armor degradation only works if armor is given a rating based on quality (a la darklands). If we work from a percentile system and master-work armors are in the 70s then degradation can easily occur in small sums that have a meaning effect while not ruining the armor immediately or causing hasty swapping. And as I stated in the earlier post; it should preclude mundane attacks; I'm thinking that dings and dents and punctures can be patched on the fly abstractly, and their inclusion would lead to a frustrating level of micromanagement to all but a few. This of course begs the questions as to whether magical armor can be degraded, and how such a system would work (a percentile loss in magic bonus? A saving throw system for the armor?). Not sure that its worth the effort, but if it is instituted, let's have it be logical and consistent and systemic.

With regards to healing potions; let's remember that there are 2 types of damage and if there are any potions, they will only effect stamina. I think that we will likely have the option to heal stamina through our "soul powers" as certain classes develop. Some amount of potions might still be warranted, but it should be a dangerous proposition to chug one in combat (or impossible without disengaging). With regard to combat becoming a whittling exercise; I have a feeling that this will have a lot to do with gameplay balance and design... At low levels, armor types, available feats/ powers and hit points will be balanced for fairly straightforward combat; in other words, at levels 1-3 you're not likely to face an enemy that is highly resistant to certain types of damage. At higher levels, the types of damage as modified by magic, feats, and powers will allow for greater tactical flexibility e.g., we may develop a power that allows us to convert slashing damage into crushing damage (or vice versa). It may also be possible to enchant weapons to deliver more than one type of damage. there may also be spells that corrupt armor or lower certain types of damage resistance, etc. Either way, I think that this is a systemic issue and one has to consider the myriad combinations the developers can come with in a system like this to make combat fun vs tedious.

Agree with TrashMan....hopefully they will implement a disengage/ attack of opportunity system for swapping and potion chugging (if there is any). Although this opens the door to the mechanics of using "soul powers" while in combat and any penalties that might be levied for such actions. As for armor damage, if there is any, it should be specifically related to spells or potions (like Acid Fog, etc.) that targets armor and reduces quality to lower resistance thresholds. This sort of damage should either be non-reparable or only via blacksmith in town/ stronghold.

Considering Obsidian is planning on this game being the first series, an ending with the protagonist dying might not be in the realm of possibilities. Plus a branching ending would, of course, lead to a situation where one ending was made canon, which would yield its own set of troubles and griping. That said, a possibility of real failure should always be viable, and failing at the end of the game is no exception, especially if the main quest has been consistent in telling the player what he/ she might need to do to be successful at that point. Also, a game doesn't need for the protagonist to fail in his or her quest for the story to end up a tragedy. In fact, the game could be designed so that the player's successful completion of the main quest brings tragedy upon others; a town, an NPC, or a companion. These sorts of plot resolutions could serve as the basis for the next installment of the game.

Osvir, a trigger might be ok, but it might also create weird meta-gamey moment where we wonder about sudden NPC initiative. Now, there could be something halfway along the lines of what you describe...possible quest specific issues are such that the npc goes off on their own, while general tasks like shopping, training, etc. could be player run. That still might be odd...not really sure how to solve such a problem because the npc could discover something on their travels they may or may not want the PC to know. Of course, like the discussion we had in the NPC XP while not in the party thread, the npc might relate the mini-quest to the player in a playable flashback. Later the PC could find out what was reported back wasn't completely the truth. Although that might confuse the f**k out of people.

If this were an IWD type of game I would say split parties are a great idea. However with having greater depth in characterization and NPC's having their own motivations, this would negate any option for an unreliable narrator. If you ask Aloth, for example, in a city to find out more about a certain book the party has discovered by doing research, not having direct control of the character would allow him to report back with a fabrication or half truth that served his personal agenda. By having direct control, you pretty much can't have such situations.

There will be a faction system in this game. If you kill an NPC to loot their bodies, that would put you in the doghouse with that particular faction regardless of whether you completed a quest some other way. This in turn would prevent you from obtaining future quests from that faction. Of course, this would be dependent on the situation and if you do something like first blackmail the npc and then go back and kill them, it might not matter so much as both lead to negative reputation. The penalty could still arise not not getting any continuation of a quest line that might have existed if you went with a strictly non-lethal solution.

Actually, anyone with a sedentary lifestyle can get fat. I agree that in the PE game world (pre-industrial), that would most likely be the wealthy, but it could also be shopkeepers. The fact is that if you take an accounting of an adventurer's typical day; walking in armor carrying 40-60 lbs of gear, hiking, horseback riding, exploring caves, stabbing monsters in the face, etc., you're looking at burning 5000-7000 calories a day. For an overweight character to keep from losing weight, he/she would have to consume 7000 - 10000 calories a day. That's 10 pounds of roast mutton washed down with a gallon of mead.

I think the devs could come up with some narrative conceit for there being a prime range of adventuring age regardless of lifespan (let's face it, most people who are going to play elves are going to want young & pretty and other races could have lifespans similar to humans). The one thing they could do is put a cap on the starting age at around 40 to avoid issues regarding decrepitude. They could also start people at older ages with initial penalties to stamina or reduced skill acquisition rate to offset any initial benefits. Either way, there's no real reason to not have a wide range of starting ages which, combined with backgrounds or cultural traits that the devs have discussed will only add to player immersion and replay-ability.

Some very interesting videos...thanks to all who posted. Not totally on topic, but looking at some of the videos really makes a strong argument for the type of dual stamina/ health system that Sawyer is proposing.

Increased cast time makes the most sense as there will be no rounds. If they make it such that offensive spells take longer to cast, increasing as armor gets heavier (and spells get more powerful) and combine that with a prohibition on spells like haste (or that haste doesn't reduce casting time), that could provide plenty of penalty.