Lady Evenstar

I'd rather all potential party members spend their off-screen time usefully and remain at the same level as those currently adventuring with the PC. I'd also prefer that the number of companions in the party not affect how much experience each character earns. I'd particularly like familiars, summons, etc. not to affect experience. If classes are balanced around using them, their contributions should be considered part of the summoner's contribution. Just as added damage attributable to a weapon is credited to physical damage dealers.

:D Thanks for digging that up, plato111.

I'd rather they control income via drop rates than have them make trade a hassle. The old D&D convention of needing to store things until you had a full pack of them since the price went down with each batch of short swords (or whatever) sold was just annoying.

Where's the "indifferent" option? Pretty sure that I'll be happy with whatever races they decide fit the setting. I'd certainly want to know what race I might be giving up to make room for orcs.

This seems to me the sort of issue that probably shouldn't be resolved until final tuning. It's easy to say yes or no in the abstract, but what really matters is how the pieces fit together. Without knowing the impacts on class and encounter design it's hard to express a useful opinion.

I'd already prefer that they eliminate have the classes already announced and make them achievable as variants of the base classes.

If AI programmer's have extra time, I'd rather they spent it tuning enemy combat behavior. Demanding items/a fair share of party gold could make sense in a game where companions are generally more AI-driven. Apart from a few story-related conditions like saving Dynaheir in a timeframe acceptable to Minsc, the IE games put the player firmly in charge.

Exactly! They may also be able to offer limited accommodation to folks who want something different, but widespread feeling that the Kickstarter described one sort of game, and Obsidian delivered another would be a disaster for them. The assumption I've seen by some that folks who don't want a more punitive game, don't want to be challenged/don't want sophisticated enemy AI is wrong wrong wrong.

Point buy, please.

TES Online. I don't know whether we'll continue to play once we'll satisfied our appetite for exploration, but we'll take a look.

It's not just budget and how many dialogue options you get. It also affects scheduling and limits changes to encounters. I think that limited voice acting as seasoning is great. Full voice acting can add to a game, but it also serves as a bit of a straight jacket.

DA's dependence on cooldowns is linked at a very basic level to the notion that a good deal of the time the player is only controlling one character. If most party behavior depends on AI, controlling that character needs to keep the player busy and engaged. If controlling one character suffices to keep the player occupied, controlling a full party becomes an absolute pausefest.

I don't see myself utilizing the Adventurers Hall, but its presence won't inconvenience me, either. I won't benefit directly from localizations or Linux support either, but I can see them as beneficial in building community support for the franchise. Similarly, the hall opens the door to folks who want play with builds, roleplay their own party, or replace dead party members, and ultimately a larger, more diverse community will be good for the game.

I'd rather there were fewer classes and more feats so that you could just choose to give your fighter barbarian-type abilities.

I want to be able to save wherever I need to and for camping not to be a hassle. An occasional ambush, sure, but I want to be able to focus on clearing the dungeon, not wasting lots of time trekking back to town or a designated rest area.

I'd prefer that PE design movement controls and abilities based on the assumption that the player will want fully to control the party. Layering a few scripts on top of that is fine, but you get very different combat if the presumption becomes that the player is really only controlling one character while the rest are governed by tactics. I also hate hate hate it if tactics ever override my direct orders.

I'd much prefer that there not be multi-classing, although I would like to have the opportunity extensively to customize builds via feats.

Folks should be able to save (almost) whenever they wish. Limited saves were one of the negatives that caused me not to buy Alpha Protocol (along with not being able to play a woman, shooter mechanics, and QTEs). The IE games did not feature them. There is no reason to include them in PE. The role of an entertainment provider is not parental, and save scumming is only one of many reasons a player may wish to save with or without quitting. I almost always save if I'm going to need to pause a game for a significant time period.

So long as exclusive content doesn't affect gameplay (i.e. no starting out with items that affect game balance). it doesn't concern me. I thought Morrowind's EB helm was well handled. It was a worthwhile item, but it was located in a sufficiently dangerous location that the player didn't get it until a point in the game where it was a choice rather than an obvious best in slot. Bethesda also made it available for free download (under a different name) after the initial sales period.

Mmmm.... frothy drinks. ;-)

Umberlin, I didn't mean that folks should be able to flatten rooms. I meant that if a bandit accosts you en route to the inn, you should always have something you can do to defend yourself. Also, it would limit content development if they couldn't assume that a PC of any class could handle challenges that they might want the PC to face on their own--which is why, the more I think about it I favor limiting use of all special attacks. That way, if the PC is whisked off on their own the warrior with access to all his best attacks isn't bored by content that needs to be doable by a caster who doesn't.

I was actually really pleased to learn that the PC will lack party support at the start of the game since that implies that every class will be able to function solo--at least to a limited degree. I think that everyone's use of their more powerful abilities needs to be limited, but that everyone also needs an unlimited, class-appropriate equivalent of auto-attack. NWN handled this by giving mages a wand with unlimited charges of a weak frost damage spell early in the tutorial level. I'd also find the poll more interesting if it were structured: My PC is typically a magic user and ... My PC is typically not a magic user and ...

Dragon Age: Origins presumed reliance on henchman AI rather than full party control. Sure, really twitchy use of pause allowed more micro-management, but there wasn't a lot of support for that approach. Whether or not it succeeded well at what it did, it wasn't really the same type of game as PE aspires to be.

I don't see a need for plate to trigger spell failure. The issue with plate can be the same for all classes: weight and speed vs. protection. High strength levels or feats could partially negate the disadvantages, but characters whose fighting style requires high levels of mobility and who lack a gap closer like charge probably aren't going to choose it. Of course if high level mages get a teleport spell that could affect their choice, but I'd expect it to be chose more often by "melee mages" who use buff and touch damage spells to supplement an otherwise under-developed melee repertoire. Perhaps this is a good place to add that I've been a little concerned that I'd like the combat system not to be D&D tweaked just enough to avoid a lawsuit from WotC, but truly its own, based on principles of balance, fun, and support of interesting tactics. Obviously, other systems will serve as points of reference, but I've been a little startled by player conservatism.

I think it's fine to say that someone in light armor can sneak up to opponents and do an attack that does added damage because the opponent doesn't realize their presence. The enemy is unlikely to be unaware of a warrior clunking up to them in plate and has the opportunity to brace themselves in ways that reduce damage taken. That said, I don't want to see a model where the only things clerics can do are buff and heal. Everyone needs skills that will allow them adequately to defend themselves and to administer post-combat first aid. Class balance that encourages returning to cleared dungeons with a rogue who then opens any chests fails. In any case, haven't they said that non-combat skills will be balanced separately?