there's a lot more going on in life than video game releases.
been going through the stretch goals that were met, and this thing is going to be excellent: orchestrated music? player houses!
NeoGAF got one of the Inns, an artifact, and a NPC in the game by the way.
And my likeness is going to be one of the portrait options for the main character, too.
And my likeness is going to be one of the portrait options for the main character, too.
Wait, when did that happen?
Awesome stuff, I really do like how they are moving their design direction if this is anything to show of it.
I imagine the portrait will be usable for the main character and for custom party members created in the adventurer's hall.
Well, I assume the likeness would get an art style pass, so the Evilore would look good and appropriate. You don't get that with an imported image unless you're putting a lot of work in yourself.Seems a bit redundant considering you'll be able to import (so I presume) portraits.
I'm not a neogaf crewmember, but I'm also designing an NPC.
I still find it funny that I'll be contributing to the game, even if it only has a 0,001% effect on the final product.
If you guys are very interested in the game, Josh Sawyer posts many interesting things on the Obsidian forum. I don't agree with everything, but it does sometimes end up with some info not talked about anywhere else.
This is more like it.
Now show me a pretty elf.
I was expecting them to reach this kind of level with the art, I am glad they did. Early stuff was meh, but we rarely see stuff that early, so I assumed it was very much a work in progress.
If you guys are very interested in the game, Josh Sawyer posts many interesting things on the Obsidian forum. I don't agree with everything, but it does sometimes end up with some info not talked about anywhere else.
This please, if someone follows their forum and stumbles upon interesting stuff (written by the developers of course), quoting it here would be appreciated. Thanks.Anything in particular that you think is interesting / worth mentioning?
They don't plan on including romances fyi...
Anything in particular that you think is interesting / worth mentioning?
There will absolutely be circumstances where using a certain weapon, weapon type, spell, spell type against a specific enemy will be a tactically inferior choice, just as there is in A/D&D. The reason you have a party and the ability to switch weapons, spells, abilities, etc. is to allow you to adapt to the tactical requirements of different battles.
In 3E/3.5, if you have a character equipped with a mace and a character equipped with a longsword facing off against a zombie and a skeleton, insisting on attacking the skeleton with the longsword and the zombie with the mace will almost always be a bad tactic. Insisting on casting sleep against them is a bad tactic. If you cast Reflex-based AoE damage spells against rogues and monks, that's usually a bad tactic. Casting fireball at a red dragon is a bad tactic. If a tactic is never circumstantially bad, that's the death of tactical challenge. Why think of something else to do when the thing you've always done works just fine?
But just to make clear, in contrast to A/D&D, PE's weapon types will not be strategically inferior, i.e. bad even in the absence of context. There are a ton of weapons in every edition of A/D&D that are flat-out terrible on paper compared to other weapons. In 3E/3.5, it's usually Simple weapons, but there are plenty of Martial weapons that most people would never take. For example, why would I use a Heavy Mace when I could use a Morningstar? The latter weighs less, does the same damage, has the same crit range/multiplier, and two damage types (B/P vs. the Heavy Mace's B). Why would I use a Greatclub when I could use a Heavy Flail? The Heavy Flail weighs 2 lbs. more but has a higher crit range and has bonuses against disarming and when making trip attacks.
So if you want to make a dagger-wielding character, even a dagger-wielding fighter, that will absolutely be a viable choice in PE. If we do our jobs well, it should be roughly as viable -- and vulnerable to tactical challenges -- as a fighter who uses longswords or a pike. I wouldn't say that's usually the case in A/D&D. But there will be cases where Dagger Guy is going to run into problems against a particular enemy -- just as there will be for Longsword Guy and Pike Guy.
^This was all in the same topic from the #39 update.We're not making a realistic simulation. "Is this realistic?" is a question I try to answer after I have answered, "Why would anyone want to use this?" If I haven't answered the latter question, the answer to the former is pretty irrelevant.
I've previously explained the basic mechanical distinction of low damage, high speed weapons vs. high damage, low speed weapons. Even if you're using a good damage type against the target's armor, you may still be operating at (significantly) suboptimal efficiency due to the difference between your weapons' damage and the target's DT. If the target has relatively high DT, using low damage, high speed weapons is inefficient. If the target has relatively low DT, using high damage, low speed weapons is inefficient.
Additionally, every base weapon type has an advantage that is not necessarily unique, but is not shared by most other weapons. The examples I have given previously are the pike's extended reach and the flail's ability to negate some of the defensive bonus of a shield.
We don't really have the concept of "rounds" since we're working in real time, but certain weapons are inherently faster than others. Weapons like daggers, stilettos, rapiers, hatchets, clubs, and flails (think of these last two as being relatively small-- no caveman clubs or Witch-King flails) are "fast" one-handed weapons and attack more frequently than larger/heavier one-handed weapons like swords, maces, battle axes, war hammers, etc. Two-handed weapons are slower than their one-handed counterparts.
In terms of basic mechanics, the primary trade-off between fast weapons and slower weapons is between damage per hit and damage over time. If the target's DT is low, the low per-hit damage of a fast weapon is not particularly important because your attack rate racks up the damage quickly. If the target's DT is high, low per-hit damage is a bigger problem and the slower attacking weapons become much more efficient. But because DT is a value, not an absolute property associated with a type of armor, the applicability of weapons can shift as your character and his/her gear becomes more powerful. I.e., a DT that is problematic for Capt. Dagger at low level will mathematically become less relevant as your per-hit damage increases due to character/gear advancement.
^Here, he anwsers a forum member.This is important to me and I will do my best to pursue it. To me, the realistic purpose/function of a weapon in the real world (assuming it exists) is the foundation for determining its place among peers, but realism should not dictate a weapon's overall value. I don't believe in designing "junk" weapons just for the sake of having them. I like the idea of having types of weapons with distinct strengths and weaknesses that the player can analyze for tactical application. If a player looks at a type of weapon and instantly realizes it will never have a place in his or her arsenal, I feel that's a failure on my part.I loved the weapon balancing of New Vegas. I love that there was actually reason to use Lucky over the Ranger Sequioa and that the best weapon was subjective, depending highly on your character's build. A character with high luck would find Lucky or That Gun amazing, whereas a character without high luck would consider them both bland, useless pistols for end-game. A character with high agility would enjoy using the Medicine Stick and it became his bread and butter, whereas a character with low agility or Trigger Discipline might find the gun fires too slow or reloads too slow to be worth using in combat. And again, a character with Fast Shot may use the AMR, but a character with Trigger might find it too slow to be useful, opting to use a Sniper Rifle variant instead. On the other hand, a Fast Shot user would be confined to an Assault Carbine or other highly-accurate SMG or shotgun whereas a Trigger Discipline user could enjoy anything from an Automatic Rifle to a 12.7mm SMG.
This, for me, gave New Vegas a lot of replay value. I replay it over and over and over trying to design characters around certain weapon concepts, figuring out what they can and can't do when put in the right hands. It was interesting to see which weapons could do what in the right situation, and this truly made two characters that both utilize guns manage to feel different from each other in playstyle.
Please, more of this. No "this Steel sword is 20% cooler than this iron sword" and gear that simply levels up with you with little to no variation at all. Give us variety, give us reason to experiment and give us reason to try and use different weapons as our main weapons, and have them perform differently in combat, of course.
This also applies to weapon upgrades within "type". A longsword +2 is universally superior to a longsword +1. I think things get more interesting when an upgraded weapon is slightly inferior to its antecedent in one way. The more the player stops and makes a consideration of the pros and cons of using one weapon or another, the more he or she is problem solving and engaged in what's going on. If choices ever become no-brainers, they aren't really choices, and I think that can detract from the enjoyment of the game.
Examples of J.E Sawyer's anwsers to some questions.:
...
There's much more, but I'd have to search for specific things he's been talking about. If I see something that sounds interesting in the future, I'll post it here.
Not sure that's quite true about dnd 3.5 weapons- there's quite a few reasons to use a Greatclub- but that's just being pedantic. Good information, all told.
And my likeness is going to be one of the portrait options for the main character, too.
Narcissist much?
Even if his specific example is wrong, D&D is full of useless weapons no one in their right mind would use (let alone specialize in) - And you can't know which ones until you're very familiar with the rules. I'm glad to know this is not the case in PE.
And my likeness is going to be one of the portrait options for the main character, too.
It's EviLore.
What's that supposed to mean?! haha
info
It means we know you're prepping for EviLore Travels: Project Eternity by adding your likeness. Don't disappoint, we expect let's plays and everything.
gonna make a custom quest where EviLore must journey to GT Kingdom to meet Lord Pachter
Seems a bit redundant considering you'll be able to import (so I presume) portraits.
Well, I assume the likeness would get an art style pass, so the Evilore would look good ...
Leaked portrait from Project Eternity, evil wizard evilore.
[
Have they sent out the survey for pledge add-ons yet? I don't remember receiving an email for it.
And Chris Avellone's LP of Arcanum started!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO9Qa8KbeMc&feature=youtu.be
360p?
Ooo nice. Can't wait to watch this instead of working tomorrow.And Chris Avellone's LP of Arcanum started!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO9Qa8KbeMc&feature=youtu.be
And Chris Avellone's LP of Arcanum started!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO9Qa8KbeMc&feature=youtu.be