Gorbag

I was actually somewhat worried about merchants having limited gold. I thought of long shopping trecks or, even worse, about TES-like workarounds. TES made me hate this specific mechanic with a passion. So much so that I just stopped picking up any loot altogether (what do I care about this super-duper-daedric armour? I can't use it and I sure as hell can't sell it without spending an hour on that, so it may rot right there for all I care). Aside from my personal thing, I guess if you can't drop stuff, you might as well be able to sell it easily. As for picking everything up, yeah you could do that, but you could also do it with limited merchant gold, it's just more hassle. Personally I've never done this and probably never would.

What? Sell a winter wolf pelt - you get 500 gp. Sell a second one in the same shop - you get 300gp. If you didn't want that happening, you had to accumulate as many of the same items as possible and sell them all at once by selecting all of them before selling. This way you get max gp for each one.

^ There's not much to the adventurer's hall really. You go to a tavern, pay a certain amount and get to create another character. The most involved subsystem in the game is the Stronghold. The others are pretty simple and effective.

Just say it straight, you want to see Feargus Urquhart eaten alive by bugs, don't you?

Come to think of it, it'd be neat to see actual developers doing Let's Plays. Adam played Icewind Dale II back in 2012. It was fun to see him react to it (although sometimes in the "yell at monitor/click stuff instead of him" sort of way )

@Luckmann" Eder was just the first to pop into mind. I'm not interested specifically in him, they could showcase any character they want. Yeah, it makes sense to have them in BG2, but that did not stop me from leaving them out, whenever I feel like trying out different party compositions. Unless they are Shandra-Jerroed to my party, I can deal with a few plot-central companions.

I would like to see Adam Brennecke do a playthrough of PoE once it is out. That would be fun. As for PAX, it does not matter to me who actually plays. I'd like to hear more info/answers from the rest of the team though.

+1 for Companions Take Eder for example. Who is he and where does he come from? What is his agenda and why does he want to join your party? How does he react to things your party does (a specific example would be great)? How is he instrumental to the party other than being a fighter (rogue?)? Does he like/dislike some of the other companions and what comes out of that? If you can avoid major spoilers, that's a great thing to showcase imo. I know some of these questions have already been answered in various updates, interviews, etc., but it's good thing to show, not only talk about.

It's certainly something worth considering. Especially if there's another kickstarter project coming in the future. I think it may cause some heat for Obsidian though ("I'm a backer, I get suspended, they don't want to hear what I want to say, etc."). I think I'm going off topic.

I won't get too excited over something I have not seen, but I hope it finds its way into some future release. It sounds like an interesting mechanic.

@aluminiumtrioxide: Sure. But, back to my initial post, you can't really civilize people (and that's not what we are here for anyway). You can either allow them to post their thoughts the way they come, while pruning the worst stuff and giving warnings here and there, or you can delete their feedback entirely and/or start flinging bans left and right.

@Bruce: But that is indeed the internet. That is what is given. The matter is how you deal with it and the consequences of going one way or the other. @aluminiumtrioxide: If I suddenly start to scream aloud that the solid UI sux, it's too big, clunky and old-fashioned and hides my game, followed by a lot of complaints and probably a few insults for good measure, it may be a reason to believe that it's current version is too obscuring or not well placed, or (if there are a lot of people sharing this sentiment and there's still resource to do it) it may be a reason to implement another optional design. Could this complaint be done without the aggression? Sure, it would be much better. Is the feedback valuable nevertheless? I think so. Please don't get hung on the example guys.

Which should be treated as par for the course, because...? By no means always and certainly never tolerated. But sometimes what they don't say is more valuable than what they do. Other times they are just being trolls or a-holes.

@aluminiumtrioxid: Situations like these arise and collapse by themselves, followed by some quiet time and then another commotion. Mods can help, but there's always the risk of pruning negative feedback along with those aggressive/blunt comments (sometimes there is a valid reason for people feeling that way). As for your second comment: some are indeed incapable, some just communicate that way on the internet or try too hard to be seen or heard. @archangel: What's the guy supposed to say?

...Which would, presumably, be very bad, because...? I did not presume. But yeah, it could be bad. Freedom issues aside, even aggressive feedback is feedback.

@ ruzen: They did/do want feedback. There is a number of ways feedback can sound though. The necessity to become thick-skinned comes naturally with any feedback request, even more so with Kickstarter. So, yeah, it's a part of the game. From what I've seen, the OE employees who participate (mostly Brandon Adler), manage to hit a sweet spot where they can be both thick skinned and not overly defensive or dismissive. I guess sometimes stuff gets through though. I don't think there is a way to "civilize" a community aside from heavy moderation. People are who they are. They can take it down a notch for some time, but that's it. I don't believe in mass apologies either. Apology is a personal reaction that should not be caused by anything other than a person being sorry for something. Apologizing for everything because we don't want someone to get mad, is (at best) just a way to quickly change the tone in order to avoid escalating the conflict, and (at worst) an insincere token gesture. Either way nobody changes. That said, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the OP (or anyone else in particular for that matter).

@Luckmann: If you already know that you are going to win the battle, then it's not really a strategy. It is a question of conserving healing abilities and items vs. having that character around for the rest of the encounter. If healing is so valuable that you'd prefer to leave your characters to get ko'd instead of spending it on easy encounters, *then* we have a problem.

The green/red circular dots/pips indicate how healthy this character is, the line beneath them shows when the character will act next (after the line disappears), and the icon in the circle next to them shows what action the character is about to perform. They only come up during combat and I believe you can hide those. @BlueLion: Just don't. EDIT: Beaten by PrimeJunta

No. That would be right, assuming that you can manage that particular battle without your ko'd character (think about higher difficulties/smaller parties). Side question: Did the Endurance to Health mechanic change? Like when you get up after being ko'd, your maximum Endurance is not limited by your current Health? That question is honest, did I miss something?

That one has troubled me for some time as well. If intimidation is natural to fighters, then why is it not governed by their fighting abilities (such as strenght or constitution) rather than their charisma? If I am being intimidated by someone and have to decide whether to give in, I would base this decision on whether the guy can make short work of me, rather than whether or not he is a looker. The answer to that one is obvious and pretty gamist: because otherwise fighters would dump charisma with no consequences whatsoever. I guess you could argue that CHA governs not only good looks but rugged/scary/musculed as well, depending on the case, but then again you can find grounds for pretty much any gamist decision or mechanic if you try hard enough.

Imoen was among the most useful NPCs in BG1. She had great stats, initial thief skill distribution was good, you get her at the start so you can benefit from her ranged attacks in the early encounters and develop her however you like, and she can actually pass charisma checks for you in case you decide to dump it for your PC. Unless you are tired of her or don't like her character (or aim for a specific playthrough), there's no reason not to have her around.

^ The only AI help I need is "use basic action unless told otherwise" and "attack nearest unless told otherwise", and those are mostly for trash mobs I can easily plough through. Why would I want the game to play itself?

Actually there is a disease going on: a serious case of miscommunication (and perhaps a language barrier) causing multipostitis. On-topic: Further to BAdler's post, the devs are well aware of the issue already and will look into it: http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/108776456306/poe-hi-josh-thank-you-for-awesome-job-this-may Although additional "flavor" NPCs might be limited due to PC resource draining (we're not talking sprites anymore, guys), the walla is pretty much granted.

@archangel: That is true. Not posting does not mean anything. But probably some of them are not playing the beta, or just started some build, saw what the game looks like first hand, and left to wait for release. Most backers will make up their mind upon release, beta or no (those who care about the game that is, others will wait for reactions or reviews to remember it and see if they should move it up their game queue). So it's kind of difficult to reach any conclusion based on forum posters, but I do agree that having complaints repeated multiple times by the same people does not represent a massive dissatisfaction, and I have reasons to believe that (some design complaints aside) the game is shaping up well enough for what was pitched.

The internet is a friendly place full of ponies and sane, well-mannered people, who think twice before badmouthing something based on personal preferences or backer/buyer entitlement.