Shevek

Thus far, devs have stated that you can make one character and then get joinable NPCs. They have also stated that NPCs will NOT be required. If this is so, I would like to put forward this question: Since NPCs are not required, why not allow us to craft the entire party? I know I really enjoyed doing this in BG2. I would go into multi-mode, make a party, save and then drag the save file to the single player save folder. I mean, sure, the first couple times you play the game, its fun to get the NPCs, do their quests, etc. You see them fight eachother, hit on you, you learn about their past, talk to them, etc. That's all quite engrossing, no doubt. However, once in a while, its munchkin time. Sometimes, I wanna craft the ultimate band of heroes myself in order to achieve the best orc village killing time. ToEE let you do this right off the bat. You could make a whole bunch of party members AND get NPCs. Can't Obsidian do something similar here? Maybe the first guy you make is the "main" PC for story purposes and the others are just his friends or something. I know many folks my disagree with me here and that's ok. I just wanted to share my thoughts on this.

Oerwinde: The problem with that, however, is that the community of 2014 must then go and create those tools. In the past, people did that because games, in general, did not have tools released. If folks were lucky, the devs would released import/export plugins or extractors, etc and thats it. This game will be released in 2014. I am unsure if people in 2014 will have the same impetus to create mod tools and then mod for a game when they can just mod games that already have tools released. This is not to say it can't happen. Certainly, there was some limited modding for ToEE, for example. Still, makes you wonder if the same type of modding community the IE got way back when can crop up around a game with no mod tools on release nowadays.

Dogmeat.

That is an interesting option: releasing the game in an easily modifiable state. I would add that import/export plugins for 3D models and the like would be nice if they went this route.

Exactly.

Most polls created here are push polls. People use biased language in the poll and that leads to questionable results. I do think the well written polls can be a useful barometer of public opinion for Obsidian.

One thing devs have been relatively quiet about are mod tools. Certainly, the game will not have 3D terrain. Some may argue that could preclude the viability of modding much. The difficulty in drawing backdrops would definately prove troublesome for folks wishing to create modules in the same way they did for NWN 1/2. Certainly, however, 2D isometric rpgs have had mods released for them in the past. The Infinity Engine games, in particular, had very active modding communities which regularly released NPC, rules and some area mods as well. Looking back at mods for games such as BG1/2, ToEE, etc, how do you folks feel about mod tools for this game?

I care more about the depth of characterization rather than the number of joinable characters. Mask of the Betrayer had very few joinable NPCs and I loved all of em. By comparison, BG1 had a ton of npcs but only a handful mattered.

Pirates can be great fun. You can go dozens of ways with it too. There was a comic I read a while back about Vampire Pirates (Sea of Red) - that was pretty entertaining.

One of the selling points of the Unity engine is the asset store. The painted backdrops largely removes that as a benefit. Who knows, they might go with something else.

I think the first player house for this first game should be a house. I figure, since this is the first title in what they hope to be an IP, the first game should take players through the low to mid levels of what their system can handle. So, this could be like how BG1 & TotSC took players through low level DnD. At those levels, a moderately size house with accompanying property is appropriate. Perhaps in sequels and expansions, players would grow in levels and be able to have more impressive strongholds as they level. I would just request some choice in house venue (forest, city, rural, etc).

Can you please troll another post?

I am a big fan of having as many factors as possible somehow change how a character plays. I have to admit, I do like the idea of weapon choice fundamentally changing how the character approaches combat.

Ya, all design decisions, I think, should be made from the standpoint of "is this tedium or is it challenging?" I can see how buying crazy stacks of nonmagical arrows can be seen as tedious by some.

Like my previous thread, here a few more unbiased polls on a few topics related to gameplay in Project Eternity. My goal is to take the opinion out of how questions are asked to produce more actionable data. Here is a link to my previous thread as well (Combat - Immersion v. Simplicity I).

I can see where you are coming from there. Immunities can be a bit too heavy handed.

Here are a few questions. Other threads have asked similar questions but they have framed the questions in a somewhat biased way. This is my attempt to give the dev team some actionable data.

So, your *preference* for a big heavy phallic weapon is a logical argument how? You prefer it that way? Use the hammer. Nobody's stopping you. That's not a reason why you ought to FORCE other people to adhere to the game mechanics that are YOUR preference. Phallic? Wow, now Im a sexist pig because I disagree with you? Conversation over. Go troll someone else.

LOL another straw man. Sheesh. The argument you're making here speaks of the erroneous implementation of Dragons in crpgs, not of the viability of Daggers for effective combat. LOL another straw man. Sheesh. The argument you're making here speaks of the erroneous implementation of Dragons in crpgs, not of the viability of Daggers for effective combat. I find the entire concept that you can have "realistic" combat in a CRPG to be so absurd that any arguments based on any kind of "realism" fail simply on those merits. You want to claim it's not realistic to do X? Well, I can point to a thousand areas where any would-be system is not realistic. The concept of having a *numerical representation* of damage is ridiculous from a "realism" standpoint. That, and the fact that you could quite easily "kill" a skeleton with a dagger by using said dagger as a wedge to shove it up under the skeleton's jaw and lever the skull off. Or slide it in between a couple vertebrae and give it a twist. Presumably you're not dumb enough to sit there and try to chip away at its femur with the blade making "grr!" noises. Or, heck, if it's an animated skeleton held together by magic . . . how can you "kill" it anyway? Shouldn't the bones and bits of bones reassemble themselves? You ought to need something like a disintegration beam or a really hot fire to take one down. Or, if the magic isn't that strong, you ought to be able to "kill" one by giving it a good shove. You know, in a sneak attack, I could maybe see a rogue trying to snap off a skeleton's head with a dagger. But, sorry, taking a few thrusts a round in the middle of brawl, that ain't gonna happen. Please contextualize those examples.

I dunno, that seems like alot of cop out to me. Everything you are saying is skirting a very simple issue. If I see a walking skeleton and I have two choices... 1. tiny dagger and 2. warhammer ...I choose war hammer. It makes sense. I would rather crush a skeleton than try to pierce its non-existant organs. Please stop trying to cloak things in weighty rhetoric.

English longbows were superior to early guns in certain qualities. They had better range and accuracy, for example, in addition to reloading more quickly. Crossbows I'll grant you though - they're essentially low power guns. Ok, thank wikipedia for this, but apparently here is the history. 1. Arquebus - early 16th century, sucked, only good in large vollies, bow/xbow = better 2. Musket, ok, better than bow and xbow @ 16th century in most situations 3. Rifle, way better, bow/xbow = useless Quote: "The cost of gunpowder also gradually fell. By the 16th century the handheld firearm became commonplace, replacing the crossbow and longbow in all advanced armies" If you have guns, then all bows/xbows are useless in the world (or should be). The arquebus was quickly improved. Sucky guns were only around for a short time. Best not to have them at all unless you want to trivialize bows/xbows.

I'd rather have this kind of variability come from different weapons having different situational values rather than a bunch of cheap immunities. For instance, switching between ranged weapons and melee can have great strategic and tactical consequence. Or switching between a sword and a spear for the extra reach. Or switching to a hammer when trying to stab a skeleton's rib cage is dumb.

You're forgiven.

A sword should be less somewhat effective than a hammer against a skeleton since its weight is distributed along its edge instead of being focused at one point up top. Also, sword weigh 3ish lbs not 10. A dagger should be useless. You're wrong but whatever. Go fight hordes of skeletons with a pointy knife. If that makes you feel ok, thats fine with me. I think it detracts from immersion but its a minor thing.

Ok, show me a 10lb dagger.