Jump to content

Mlatimudan

Members
  • Posts

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mlatimudan

  1. Maybe it's just because of what I'm used to, but don't you like things better in their original language (assuming you know it), I'm not having a go it's just that whenever I read something like a book or even see a cartoon dubbed into my language I can't help but notice how better the originals and no matter how good the translation there is a lot of lost meaning (mainly wordplay but other stuff too). Btw I totally think they should dub it if they can and people want it I'm just curious since I know that most fantasy stuff would sound really silly/stupid in my language I learned english through videogames as a kid, if you wanted to get further in the game, you had to figure it out.
  2. @ Sheikh Why would you want any class to have no non-combat use? I don't understand how that adds depth, why can't a warrior be good at sneaking around or talking to people? Surely a warrior who has trained himself to be good at those things is a deeper more interesting character then Og the brainbasher who can only bash brains and is outwited by pastry filling. On the opposite end of the scale surely a Rogue has to be at least reasonably powerfull in a fight when his lady's husband sir Musclehulk the Armoured comes home early and the bedroom is on the 4th floor.(not saying powerfull as in lifting boulders, but a good combatant, he could kick him in the groin and stab him in the neck) Why does a rogue have to be an open lock/ disarm trap robot to have depth? If every class is pretty good at combat in its own very special way, surely that adds more depth since they all do things differently but still effectively so some will be more usefull in certain situations while worse in others, but never outright bad. If every class can be invested in a certain skill surely that also adds more depth to the use of that skill, a sneaking rogue will backstab an enemy while a sneaking wizard can drop a cloud of sleeping gas in a room without being detected, the guards would just think they dozed off, a sneaking chanter might invoke panic on the back row of an enemy formation collapsing the formation for his friends without having to fight through enemies. A fighter could sneak into an enemy formation while under protection from lightning and attack an enemy, the enemies would cluster around him and before they knew it the fighters druid friend zapped them all with thunderbolts. Surely people should be able to roleplay a somewhat mechanically inclined ranger who uses crossbows or guns, or a rogue who has high lore knowledge so he knows what's worth stealing, or maybe even a stealthy barbarian whose tribe fought from ambushes, or a priest who is good at survival since he was a missionary in barren lands where resources were scarce.
  3. The thing is that I think your friends are supposed to heal you after battle and if you haven't got any friends you die from your wounds, I think that double K.O-s like the one you experienced would be very rare in the game. Just think about it, If you get stabbed three times in the gut but manage to kill the stabber, you will still die if you don't have someone to get you to a hospital (or to your party medic with bandages or healing spells as it were). It doesn't matter that you "won" since you are still dead. The endurance/health system is an abstraction, you don't really get tired if you get hit with a club, you get your ribs broken, if you have friends around they help you after the fight, if not the wasteland claims you. Also even if you are supposed to be knocked out and not injured/incapacitated why would you regenerate endurance while knocked out on the floor but not while standing, surely taking a breather is better for rejuvenation then a short term koma.
  4. I don't really see the problem with a stash, think of it as a cart you lug around(or a beast of burden does for you), you can't really unpack it all the time but when you make camp, sure why not, in fact if they just add a line of dialogue about a cart from a companion or the hero I think everyone can be happy, roleplayers, simulationists, lovers of gameyness, and people who don't care alike. Also if you hate it just don't use it, your carry weight is restricted by slots anyway so even if you were Hulk Hogan you couldn't carry more then you have slots.Which makes sense since even a light pack of a huge volume will encumber you just like a small but heavy one, maybe even more.
  5. As long as they are as good as FO:NV( or the old fallouts for that matter) I think we are safe, and as for the combat barks I think that as far as most games go :sneaking:"ssh, we're hunting ****heads" is pretty hard to beat. Of course I doubt Minsc will ever be topped but that doesn't mean companions can't be fun as hell.
  6. I reckon it's going to be possible, just very hard to do, you will probably have to resort to clever tactics such as avoiding combat, sneak attacking, traps, clever effect spells and such, just as I am sure you had to for BG2. It will probably be easier for a second playthrough or with a guide so you can optimise a character and know where the best items available are. Or you can wait for someone to mod in a machine gun and mow down arcane horrors from the dungeon dimensions with impunity.
  7. As I said I am a big fan of quest/objective/achievement xp, a great example would be Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines where there was a lot of fun combat, but non combat gave you more xp, although you had to invest in non combat skills to get it possibly making parts of the game harder( the end was almost a pure fps). In VtmB you didn't get any xp for combat but it was really fun(especially patched) and I don't think anyone could say it detracted from the combat in the game.You didn't just get xp for finishing quests, you also got it for doing them in exceptional ways(mainly not getting spotted but that was kind of the theme of the game, hence the Masquerade part). That said a lot of people feel just as strongly (if not more) about kill xp and I think that the devs will give them some form of xp for combat. Your Idea about bonuses against enemies based on how many you kill(or learn about them) would be a better way to do it in my opinion but I guess the problem is that if there is one dragon in the game there isn't much point in getting a bonus against them after you kill it. Also when you have a bonus against every common monster(wolves, goblins etc.) is it really much of a bonus? I also just had an idea that a high lore score could let you get info about monsters from books thus filling out your bestiary from the comfort of your local library.
  8. I suspect it will be more along the lines of the first 10 wolves you kill give you xp, and the rest are fierce predators to be avoided, or hunted for their pelts, as it ought to be.
  9. As far as I know the original plan for this game was to have quest only xp, then people started complaining because they would miss kill xp. The word on the street is that they will implement xp for filling out a bestiary in the game for instance if the file on wolves has 3 pages you have to kill 3 wolves to fill it out and you get xp for doing it, but you don't have to kill all the wolves in the game so you might want to spare some, or even most. Also your lore skill will help you fill it out faster so you need to kill less. I don't know exactly how the system will work but I think this is the general idea for the game.(might not be 3 pages, it might be 3 paragraphs or 3 lines, or 62 pages for all I know) The vast majority of xp in the game should come from quests not from killing (although I suspect you will be able to solve many of them by killing).
  10. I like quest only xp but I think the bestiary xp is a pretty good compromise and it doesn't break immersion because the more you learn about a creature the better you are at killing them. Of course the same could be said of plain old kill xp since the more you fight the better you are at fighting but I think that quest only xp promotes different solutions to those same quests since it may be better for you to only kill some of the enemies some of the time conserving resources(spells, potions etc.). An example would be Fallout New Vegas where I would routinely sneak around hostile compounds like caves or buildings and where instead of just sneaking past enemies I would always take them out for the xp. If xp was out of the picture I would only kill those that were at choke points or those that were wearing armour that I wanted to conserve ammo and other resources. And again I think bestiary xp is a pretty good compromise between no xp for combat and pure kill xp where you lose nothing for killing bad guys since you can always use xp more then some other resource.
  11. I actually really like weapon bundling, it gives you more options and what self respecting warrior wouldn't know how to use at least a couple of weapons (hold the blunt end-poke people with the sharp end), I just think that it would be really cool if Fighters got something extra with a single weapon, but if it doesn't happen I wont exactly be sad. In the IE games your warriors would pick a weapon and stick to it all their life(at least for me), and I think bundles are a nice way to improve this since if your Barbarian finds a halberd he can just pick it up and not have a penalty since you spend your game waiting for a holy spear that never arrives.
  12. I think an extra weapon specialization for a specific weapon for fighters only would be nice as a talent, but it would be kind of lame if it was just a +2 to hit or something like that, I would much rather it be an added bonus for the weapon type, for instance if a sabre usually gives extra bleeding damage a fighter specializing in sabre could get an extra bonus to deflection with it due to him being better with the guard, or a mace could get an added (lets say 5%) chance to stun, and regular swords or spears could get extra bleeding damage for a specialised fighter. I feel this could really make the fighters kings of combat. keep in mind I have not played the backer beta so I don't know exactly how stuff works but you get the gist.
  13. I was just thinking of the simplest way to do it, obviously it could be implemented differently and much better than that , especially with the mechanics check angle, but I think that would just open it up to a lot of bugs and require more work to put in. Although I have no experience with coding or programming so I could be wrong on that. Of course If guns are expensive three guns would be three times as expensive.
  14. From what I understand the game will have flintlock (or something similar) firearms. Will it be possible to buy a brace of pistols as a weapon, it could have a really long reload time to signify reloading for instance 3 pistols, but after emptying them you could switch to a sword and go toe to toe if the pistols didn't do the job. I don't think this would be too hard to implement since you could just treat it as one weapon with three shots and then a long reload mechanically and the picture would just be three guns. I think it would be pretty interesting especially for a swashbuckling rouge build and it would make sense in world since it isn't exactly genius level thinking to take three pistols with you instead of one. Of course the pistols would have to be weaker then a musket, or less accurate, or with a shorter range, or all of the above to balance it out a bit.
×
×
  • Create New...