Iyanga

The product doesn't exist when you're seeking funding for it. So you're not a customer you're a backer. So people who pre-order games that aren't done yet are "backers"? As the other guy said, if a game is cancelled when pre-ordered the customer gets his money back. People need to understand that not a single one of us has "pre-ordered" a game. We have funded a game and hope to get something in return, provided everything goes as planned. We are not customers in any way, and there is not even any certainty the game will even be made. That is the preimse of Kickstarter, you take a risk and hope to get something in return. Like a stock. Just without getting part of the profit the company makes. Oh. Doh.

To be honest I don't want to be part of a site that only has the input and views of backers. I want to chat to a wide range of people that support the concept of the game but didn't necessarily back it through KS. I feel this is more inclusive and will give me more opinions. So the fact the backer site isn't up yet isn't an issue at all for me But what has this to do with the question whether the management is good or bad?

You can spin it any way you want, it still doesn't change the fact they don't seem to understand a basic balance sheet? The problem is not to see when there is no more money. You can tell this already when you start developing the game: money / monthly salaries = time to develop. The question is: When money runs out, is the game finished then? And to determine this, you need to know what you have to do and how much time this still takes. And then you also need to have a good estimation how much post-development money you need, for testing and fixing bugs. A spread sheet doesn't tell you before how good the developers work. This is why most projects run out of money during testing. If you realize earlier that you are about to run out of money, it is a sign of an actually properly managed software project. Project management does not prevent problems, it's purpose is to show the problems.

Seriously, are you guys kidding me? THIS is what we get for 100k USD? Find the recipe, find the materials, click a button?

Duke Nukem

The problem is that there are not many good ways to fail a mission, but plenty of bad ones. Just again in Mars: War Logs - you have three options to choose from, one is the "Everyone will be happy" result. Unfortunately, there is no way to know the right dialogue option. So whether you win or lose is rather random. I hate this.

As stated, there are no requirements set in to stone for the goals. So, as the poll specifically asked for Obsidian and PE goals: I would be seriously pissed off if anything will be discarded. a) We are not talking about newbies here, implementing their very first game. If they make a goal, I expect them to know that it actually is possible. b) There is enough freedom in the goals to have them implemented. I just say: Duke Nukem.

No need to invent much, there are ****ing strange things on our planet already. Meet the Aye-aye Just picture it large as a human. - Can hear you from a mile away and uses echolocation to find you, so it's not affected by blindness-based spells, but maybe silence-based ones. - Has the ability to grab a party member with its large hands. The party member will be stunned while grabbed and receive a DoT, as the Aye-aye happily gnaws on such a victim. A percentage of the damage done to the Aye-aye is distributed to the grabbed party member.

You are starting to disappoint me, you are not reading what I write, just in order to have an argument. I already stated that the self-discipline and ideals part is of course a core part of the monk. If the monk could not fight at all, it would also find resemblance in the real world. Would this be a good concept for a monk in PE? According to your logic that everything is fine, as long as there is a match in the real world, then a monk class that has no use in the game and just uses up a party slot would be fine, too. And using flagellation as excuse for the combat mechanics merely shows that the concept of flagellation is not understood. It's part of meditation and rituals, not something people do while fighting for their life and it has nothing to do with masochism, where the person seeks out the pain itself. A monk who would be able to sacrifice HP temporary before a fight to receive a buff f.e. would reflect the concept of flagellation ten times better than a rage counter (and even add a strategical element to the class, not just a tactical). Anyway, I don't think I can add much more to explain my point of view in this thread.

One of their stated goals since early in development was to stray from cliche D&D-type mechanics/concepts with a lot of the outlying classes. I don't mind the concept. I mind the label. Calling a table a chair is not groundbreaking, just confusing. And "You can sit on both and both have 4 legs, so it's fine" is not really an argument that convinces me.

A lot of postings used the approach:"It is a good concept, if I can kind a reasoning for it." But shouldn't it be vice versa? If I want to display "discipline" in combat as part of a character class, is a "rage counter with special attacks" a good concept for it and the first concept I would pick? I think the conversion of damage to DoT is great. This is for me the discipline part. The mortification of the flesh, as written in the lore. I can force my body to not give up...yet. But with special attacks that unlock and use a rage counter, the monk basically starts to ask for pain like a masochist, just because you want to deal damage. I think what I would have preferred: - Damage is turned into DoT (maybe depending on current hp) - Some special attacks (on timers f.e.) are able to remove a DoT This does sound like the same, but is not. The special attacks are not fueled by the DoT, that is, the special attack is available even if you have no DoT running. Your technique of "Slashing The One Legged Eagle" hurts the enemy the very same, with and without DoT, but it also gives you the power surge you need to last longer in combat (by removing a DoT or maybe healing you). This way it is still viable to protect the monk from getting hit, without sacrificing his offensive power, but getting hit does not have the same negative effect on the monk as on those undisciplined warrior classes.

As I said....rage counter.

You are describing now a different part of the combat - but even there you agree, that your monk gets his powers from discipline in whatever form, not from being hit. So I suspect a system where the character had to rest/meditate and train his body would reflect even him better than a rage counter, that unleashes wrath when full.

So you wouldn't mind a "mage" class that can't cast spells or anything, wears plate only and uses a two-handed sword exclusively? That's okay. I will say:"Why the **** do you call this class 'mage'?"

I don't quite get the core monk implementation: The more wounds you get, the more you deal out. I thought Monks are guys who avoid taking damage. This is why you see a lot of unarmed and unarmored X running around. Not because the rules say you can't use those items, but because in most situations it's one of the best ways to play. An unencumbered X can be a terror on the battlefield, a nightmare that just won't seem to die, no matter how hard he gets hit. Blows that seem like they should kill him only serve to make him stronger. Sorry, but when I read this without the class, I would have said: Ahhhh...the barbarian! Cool. Just like . Using any weapon that is useful, as long as it gets the job done - and in really close combat, why bother with a weapon if there are muscles? But...a monk?