ctdavids

[Description of the issue] Once you make Merdreth hostile (by telling him you let the thief go), he remains hostile despite loading a game from a prior time [DETAILED list of steps to reproduce the issue AND what to look for] 1) Load the attached game and notice that Merdreth isn't hostile 2) Tick off Merdreth 3) Load the attached game 4) Notice how his party is hostile and attacks (without giving you the xp for completing the quest) [Expected behaviour] Game state should be determined by the contents of the save game file, not what happened before you loaded the game. [Files] Saved game: hostility.zip

And now you only have to set it once and never think about it again, no matter how many games you start. Pros/cons.

Couldn't agree more. Inventory is there to make the game work and not to be the game itself.

Most items have a base value and a couple specific values. Like platemail has (made up numbers, but spread based on recollection) 20% DR base, but 40% DR against slashing and only 10% DR against lightning. DT has similar effects. I assume they operate on a "most specific" value system. Though, the whole DR/DT thing (as well as accuracy vs. defences) lacks any explanation in the game save for reading the combat log. I don't think the short forms are even expanded anywhere.

Nope.

Is it just me, or is the only place you can see weapon damage ranges on the character screen? You can't see them on the weapons anymore. That's pretty awkward. Am I blind?

Thanks for the update BMac. You know, you could have just said it may take a few days... and if ready sooner surprise us with an "early" release. And if not, have some breathing room to wrap things up. Indeed. Listen to Scotty: (Replace "Starfleet Captains" with "Backers") P.S. Hope that's watchable in places that aren't Canada. Never can tell.

You call that living? ;p

Thanks for all the hard work guys and gals. Looking forward to seeing everything you've done!

A valid note illathid. Obviously the "appropriate" inventory design depends on the game in question. And yes, of course, we're talking about PoE here

My personal preference is for an unlimited ability to loot. While I recognize that it lacks 'realism', I find the other options (leaving loot behind, returning to town mid-quest to sell) break immersion worse for me than just not having to think about inventory space. I don't enjoy inventory management as a mini game and basically the least intrusive the better from my point of view. Obviously, people disagree with me though so I'm curious to see where people fall.

So there's been a lot of discussion about the inventory system (here, for instance: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68039-sensukis-suggestions-014-non-terrible-inventory-mockup/) and we know that in a coming patch the number of inventory slots per-character will be going up to 16 (from 8 ). It seems, however, like people have all sorts of different preferences for inventory systems. I'm curious about how the preferences split among all those who read the forums (and not just the vocal) so here we are. A caveat: I don't necessarily expect or advocate following a majority-rules approach here (or in any design decision). That said, I think information is good. Now, I've divided this into several polls because I think there are actually a variety of issues surrounding this topic and (hopefully) this split will lead to more useful data. If you think I've missed something, let me know and maybe I can add it, although I'm maxed on # of questions. Anyway, on to a description of the various questions. Looting Limitations This relates to how much you can pick up before having to return to town to sell. This ignores the question of where/how the items are stored and whether they're accessible before returning to town as those are addressed elsewhere. This is simply a question of how much junk you can pickup before going back to the magical merchants who transform junk into useable gold (yay!). I've provided examples of games that use that system for ease of reference - please divorce your love/hate of the game from the inventory system Item Accessibility This relates to the character inventories vs. stash dichotomy (i.e. some items are useable while some are not). Specifically, when should you be able to change which items you can use (for instance, moving them out of the stash as it currently stands). In respect of the "safe" area answer, I've left what that means rather nebulous, but figured it would provide some sort of middle ground between out of combat and resting (for instance, there were areas in the infinity engine games where you couldn't rest due to it being unsafe) Character/Party inventory This is simply about whether you want the useable items inventory to be per character or per party. Any non-useable area would be assumed to just be party wide (there being no point really in having a per-character stash area). Moreover, quickslots aren't considered part of inventory: I assume that each character will continue to have quickslots on their rag doll.

In my opinion, this is precisely where 'immersion' should stop and 'fun' should take precedence. Running back to the town to sell looted equipment 20 times per adventuring day would greatly damage the enjoyment. I couldn't have said it better myself BlueLion. I've been playing through BG:EE recently and was in Baldur's Gate itself before I realized that I could save game edit in a bag of holding. Spending 30 days clearing out the cloakwood mines because I had to keep making trips to town to sell stuff was horrifying. And, yes, I realize that I could have left stuff there. But I don't like doing that. I play CRPGs for the story/combat/world, not to move items from 1 square to another to find an optimal packing solution. Overall, during my BG:EE playthrough I found that my adventuring day generally ended when my inventory was full, not when I was tapped on spells/health. There are obvious exceptions around some of the boss fights, but that was the general experience. And it wasn't a great one. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy the game. But that element was painful. The stash in PoE is amazing. Being able to dump all the loot I just want to sell in one location and be able to sell it all easily in town is amazing. Yes, it totally lacks for realism, but I couldn't care less. It's spectacular. As for the per-character inventory vs. party inventory and number of slots debate, I honestly had no issues with inventory filling up in the beta. Maybe that would change in a full size game. I'm not sure. But either way, I don't feel very strongly about it so I'll leave it to those who do. Just leave the cache alone

@aeonsim That's a pretty hilarious idea and one I imagine falls pretty smack dab into "degenerative gameplay". I doubt it will be possible, but I love that you thought of it. In respect of same/different level tables for classes, I honestly don't think it matters in a CRPG as long as the classes are roughly balanced in terms of power on a per-xp basis (that is that if it takes you twice as long to level you get twice the benefit of a level). As long as each member in your party is roughly as useful (albeit in different ways) as the others, it's fine. As an aside, I think that equivalent level tables work way better for PnP because each player is primarily concerned with their own character advancement so giving them carrots at roughly the same rate is a good thing. That doesn't really come up in a CRPG though because one player controls all characters.

They seem to. I mean, the BBXs level at the same time as each other and the PC.

A fair point in respect of civilizations, but I guess to my mind a key difference is that in civilizations the content is unlimited. Slower development means a slower game, but you still get to experience the full gamut of levels from stone age to space age. The same would be true in a PnP game, assuming your DM didn't burn out creating content. That said, in a CRPG you've got a limited amount of content areas and I find that those content areas are more defining in terms of game experience than your character's level. Fighting wolves is different than fighting ghouls is different than diving into the deep to find sahuagin is different than a riddle puzzles is different than... As a result, the levelling mechanic becomes more of a reward/progression indicator rather than defining the whole experience. Another interesting point, to my mind, is that levelling an CRPG is most interesting when it occurs in the middle of a content area because you suddenly have a new tool to deal with the challenges you've been facing thus far. This is what leads to my liking 1-2 levels per content 'area' Please note: I DO NOT WANT THIS TO TURN INTO A DISCUSSION OF COMBAT XP. Do that somewhere else. Please I could live with 2 level gaps. I know that my 1 level behind paladin held her own in the BB, even before all her stats became 8000 or better. It's been awhile since I played BG (although I did just install BG:EE due to this post, and picked up SCS to see how that changes things) and I know part of the issue there was companions you got way too late in the game so that you were emotionally invested in your party (which I know OE has said they're going to avoid). My most recent experience with the level gap thing was in Wasteland 2 (beta) where I find level 8 NPCs when I'm in my 20s or 30s. I mean.... wow. I have a vague recall of something like this... but you might just have put the idea in my mind, you mind mage you. As you say, the Adventure Hall companions are level-1 at best in the BB.

We seem to have diverged a fair ways from the initial thread topic: levelling pace and character development. In respect of those, I have the following comments: I want levelling to be slow enough that I get a feel for any new abilities I picked up on levelling before I have to level up again. I do not want to spend 26 hours at level 1. Not even close. I'm glad Indira is enjoying his experience, but that's way, way too long between levels. To me, maybe 1-2 levels across the current beta quest content would not seem unreasonable. I want them to be within a level (given that all classes have the same level/xp advancement) and this specifically includes companions I haven't found yet. I really hate finding a companion who seems interesting, but is levels and levels below my characters, making them essentially worthless in combat. That said, it doesn't matter to me that the companions be exactly lock-step in terms of levelling. It can actually be interesting to have one char level up before another. It wouldn't surprise me if this happened as a result of characters found having slightly different xp values (although, again, hopefully within 1 level). With respect to Caladian's comment about keeping absent characters in lock-step xp wise, I would have to agree save that I'm ok if the xp values are a bit different, but within a level. I'm not sure I'd make use of it (I tend to stick with a party), but I think having the option to pickup a companion you originally didn't take is a good one (especially if you're the kind of person who wants to let their party members stay dead - that's not me, but they exist). So obviously Indira and I differ on this point. I guess my summary is that I want the game to be challenging, but not annoying. I want the combat to challenge a party of adventures of the expected level and gear. I want to have to work for it. I want to be rewarded with a level before I have to go to sleep. I don't want to have to gimp myself by taking a low-level character because I want that companion. I recognize that keeping within 1 level may lack somewhat for realism (or maybe not, I mean it's not like the companions just sit in a bar while I'm off saving the world... right?), but for me the easy-of-use just completely overrides that argument.

So, I'm not a fan of crafting systems in single player games for a couple of reasons. From a game-world point of view, it seems illogical to me that my characters (who specialize in beating stuff up) can do something NPCs can't (or do it better), despite them devoting their time to their craft. More importantly, to my mind, there's the gameplay issue which is that because it's a single player game all the items you receive are limited in quantity meaning you can do X ogre blood enchants over the course of the game. And generally, you find some items for high-level enchants early on (for instance, Divinity: Original Sin gave you rubies which give BIS resistance buff starting from the first areas in the game) which means you have this weird situation where you could enchant your gear, but don't because you want to use it on something you'll keep around. But how do you, as a first time player, know which items those are? To me, that just results in decision paralysis and makes me just hate the system. In MMOs, like Ultima Online mentioned above, you can always get more resources if you work at is so there isn't that 'this could mess up my game' feeling. That makes it better, IMO, but not acutally good. I would much rather just find items I can use. In terms of the mechanics of this particular implementation, I would say 1) I agree with Yonjuro's points 2 through 4 2a) If you're going to have items that get marked as ingredients and go in a special tab, then ALL things that can be used as ingredients should go in that tab (for instance, the emerald you get from a quest does not, but it can be used for crafting 2b) If you're going to have a special tab for ingredients, I would like to be able to see it (you can't currently, unless I'm mistaken) and sell stuff from it 3) I find the use of money to enchant a bit odd. I guess it's a limiting mechanic, but it feels weird to me. 4) To the extent that enchants/crafts have levels it would be nice if we could order them in increasing order of level. Not 100% sure that applies in this game, but figured I'd mention it.

I hate pixel hunting. I also, honestly, am not a fan of crafting systems generally so I'm hardly the target market on this. I'm not sure who, exactly, is the target market, but I guess they exist. If you're going to have a crafting system though and objects in the world are part of it, I would much prefer that they be highlighted.

I don't think combat is too hard. I think combat is too buggy to tell if it's hard. Ideally easy would be easy, hard would be hard, and path of the damned would be, well, damned hard. And, as much as possible, that difficulty should be consistent across fights and areas. This is not to say that all fights should be exactly as easy (variety is nice), but that the average difficulty remain fairly constant. I mention this because one of my issues with CRPGs is that they can start at a point where if you get unlucky you can die (because your characters aren't that well geared, don't have a full party, wolves can 1 shot mages at starting hp, etc.) and by the end you could roll snake eyes and still barely get hurt (because you've got resistance/defence/healing up the wazoo). I found this, for instance, in Divinity: Original Sin recently where early on I had to think about combat and on the final boss I don't think I even needed to heal. While it's great to have your characters grow in power, lack of challenge can be boring.

The guards have a really high deflection score that makes hitting them with autoattacks pretty hard. If you mouse over one of those misses in the combat log you'll see the math behind it. Note that, after modifications, a roll of <=5 is a miss, <= 50 is a glance, <= 95 is a hit, and > 95 is a crit (I might be off with some of the =, can't quite recall). Their deflection is so high that most of your attacks are going to fall in that first category. I can't recall if they have particularly low defences in any of the other categories (mouse over them to see, assuming you've hit them enough to fill out the lore bits). Try attacks that target fortitude, reflex, or will rather than deflection. There are a couple of priest spells that target something other than deflection, cause burning damage, and lower the deflection of mobs. Those might well be an option for you.

Thank you Kaz. Your whining is muchly appreciated! By us at least, if not your co-workers

Wow. He really, really does not want that book. Here, take my money! Just get that thing away from me! Good find

I have to agree with Gromnir that I'm not convinced a 2014 release is a good idea. Obviously none of us have as much information as Obsidian, but from what I've seen there are some pretty big concerns on the bug front. Leaving aside any concerns people have about the mechanics (xp system/attribute system/armor system/etc/etc) the simple fact is that there are a lot of show-stopping bugs: Items that disappear Combat stats that are incorrectly calculated producing invulnerable characters or completely ineffectual characters Memory leaks on save/load or just plain crashes on load As gromnir mentioned, the 'stuck in combat' or 'encounter abilities not refreshing' bug The infinite reload (character just keeps reloading weapon and does nothing else) bug Pathing being broken for groups bigger than 6 (including pets) I'm sure there are more. But those are all bugs that I have experienced not once, but every time I've played the game. They make it incredibly frustrating to try to play through 4 quests. Now imagine trying to play through a full game. If after 4 quests my paladin gains stats that render her invincible am I really going to enjoy playing another 100 quests? No, because there won't be any challenge. If my grappling hooks disappear in a beta well, ok, I restart, but if it happens after playing 20h? I'm done. All of these bugs existed when the backer beta started (except maybe the pathing thing, because there was no real collision). The item disappearing one got somewhat better. But not completely. None of the others have really been improved. Now, I'm sure they're working hard on everything, but I just have to wonder if there's enough time to get all the bugs squashed and do any balancing that needs to be done and add polish any content that needs to be done and... I would much, much rather see a delayed launch and a rock-solid product than a bungled release of a sub-par game.

I have no problem with naming saves. For me it's not a necessity, but it's fine and I completely understand why people want it. Also, easy to implement. Like, trivially easy. For me it's way more important that the saves be ordered chronologically (I'd suggest newest first, but newest last would still be way better than alphabetically). I mean, ordered alphabetically? I doubt that anyone made an intentional decision to sort them that way so I can only assume they just loaded the files from the directory and accepted the default ordering (alphabetical). Should be trivial to change it. As it stands, I have to squint to look at the (ludicrously tiny) font describing the real-world date of the save. Can't even rely on the time-played text, because it's often wrong (shocking!) Anyway, spend 30 minutes and change the sorting + allow custom names.