Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

600 Excellent

About Madscientist

  • Rank
    (10) Necromancer


  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

Recent Profile Visitors

339 profile views
  1. OK, my question is answered. Thanks everybody. I am also tired of this discussion, but I wanted to know how all of this started. I donĀ“t care if a game is turn based or real time as long as it is fun to play. There are many good and bad games with both styles.
  2. For every new RPG there is a discussion if it should be turn based or RTWP. BG1 invented the rtwp RPG and because of its success many other games used it later. BG1 was based on DnD, which is turn based (like any other PnP system I know, because it is hard to do real time combat with dice). Many other computer RPG are also based on PnP games or they were inspired by them. If computer RPGs are based on PnP RPGs and those are turn based, why did they make computer RPGs with RTWP? At the time of BG1 the following game types existed (as far as I remember, its been a long time, only the types I consider relevant for BG1) - turn based RPG based on PnP rules (e.g. Reals of Arcadia trilogy, They used exactly the PnP rules so over 80% of spells and skills were useless because it could not be implemented in a computer game at that time) - strategy games (e.g. command and conquer, but they are not RPG with no character developement and no complex rule set) - action RPG (e.g. Diablo, not based on PnP) - JRPG ( FF7 was very successful, maybe it was an influence and ATB was considered a mix of real time and turn based???) Did the devs ever say why they did it the way they did, especially regarding the combat style? PS: With the new forum look, can you start a new line without having a big space between the last line and the new one?
  3. A few dumb questions, because I am terrible in remembering names or who did what in what game: - Are Tim and Leonard ( the ones who direct The Outer Worlds ) involved with bloodlines 2? I thought they were the master minds behind all Troika games. - Was MCA involved in the original game? - I am not an expert for World of darkness. I have read that there is an old WoD and a new one and Bloodlines1 was based on the old one. Is Bloodlines 2 based on the old or new WoD? The first game was great (with the fan patch that fixes bugs and restores some content). The atmosphere was fantastic, game mechanics not so much. I will not pre order the game until I have more info.
  4. I will definitely buy it. Lets hope that my computer is still good enough for this game.
  5. One of the main reasons why I suggested the FFX like system was to avoid multiple actions per turn and to avoid that some stat make no difference (like dex 1 - 9 gives 1 attack, 10 - 19 gives 2 attacks and so on.). In FFX very fast char can make several actions in a row if the other chars are much slower. Yes, this increases the number of actions you have to select. But it serves the purpose of counting time "in real time" as good as a turn based game can do. If we allow several actions per turn that depend on stats or the effect lasts more rounds depending on stats we could just keep the current system. Your example is bad, because DnD has global rounds and I tried to get rid of them. Yes, in FFX or the FF with ATB it was hard to tell how long a status effect will last.
  6. Thanks again Thelee and MaxQuest The link to the guide alone was worth it. At this point I give up and leave the math to experts like you. I have finished the game on normal and beat everything except the mega bosses. I will not play on higher difficulties because the armor/penetration mechanic alone is annoying for some tough enemies. I completely agree with this: The double inversion may be a good mathematical solution, but it is very unintuitive and most players (and some devs) will have problems to understand it. There were lots of bug reports where players complain the damage is wrong because +20% and -20% does not result in zero.
  7. Thank you again So we could say: - penalties for attack speed have diminishing returns: two 20% penalties is a smaller DPS loss than one 40% penalty - penalties for attack time have linear returns: two 20% penalties is the same as one 50% penalties Are the results for damage equal to the results for speed or for time? The thing that makes it so complicated is that most chars wear some kind of armor which slows you down. There is also armored grace and the pet that reduces armor penalty, but you do not see the exact numbers in game. to the devs: WHY did you do this??? In PoE1 you invented a rule set that was relatively easy to understand. ( At least compared to most computer games based on PnP rules. ) In PoE2 you took the system from PoE1 and made everything more complicated. (e.g. double inversion, penetration system, . . .) I see no benefit in this, both for players and devs.
  8. We do what we must because we can . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ljFaKRTrI
  9. Thanks Max Quest I do now understand the concept of absolute/relative diminishing/linear returns. (At least I think so. After some more posts I will realize I know nothing.) But if I understand it correctly, the absolute linear ( or relative diminishing ) returns concept is only true when you have only bonusses. Do I understand this correctly: - Thanks to the double inversion, several negative modifiers will always have diminishing penalties ( both in absolute and relative numbers). That means the combination of penalty 1 and 2 will always be less than the sum of 1+2. - Things go to hell when you combine bonusses and penalties. ( I do not play computer games with a calculator on.) Even the devs did not understand it. ( See initial version of blunted criticals.) I do not know how much bonusses you need to compensate a penalty and I am not sure if the above concept ( absolute/relative linear/diminishing returns) changes if you combine bonusses and penalties. PS: Sometimes I have the desire to punch the guy who introduced double inversion. Attack speed will never be easy to understand ( especially when they measure duration for some abilities and speed for others ), but they should not have changed the damage formula from PoE1. All they needed was to define a minimum damage to avoid negative numbers.
  10. Problem is peoples are morons too and shouldn't be trusted to lead anything either. Then what do we do?! Thats simple, we do the same thing again: We build bigger machines and sacrifice more people to create better gods. Either its works or we ruin the world completely. Everything will crumble to dust eventually anyway and we will not be there to se the results of our actions because we sacrificed ourselves. Somewhere in the future aliens will visit us and all they see is a bunch of immortal gods fighting each other all the time and the world is a dead wasteland.
  11. If you make a system with action points, everything will change completely. You have to give each thing you can do an AP value and maybe change some abilities. The next question is: Should the number of AP be fixed or is it a variable? If it is a variable, what does it depend on? Do you remember Divinity Original Sin 1? It had variable AP. Result: Its best to max out speed. You act before the enemy and you have many AP which you should use to hard CC enemies before their turn. You could win most fights without being hit.
  12. Hi Max Quest, you were faster than me. I have the feeling that 4 actions per round would be too much in any case.
  13. I had to read the pathfinder PnP rules in the internet because the computer game tells you very little about game mechanics. So in pathfinder ( and probably DnD too, pathfinder is kind of DnD 3.75) you have: - free actions: These are "non actions", or stuff you need to do to perform an action or turn on/off a stance. Things like + barbariens can enter rage or stop to be enraged. Similar stuff for other "stances" + You can chose to hold a weapon with 1 or 2 hands + There are no items or spells as free action - Swift actions ( thats what you mean ). They can only be used once per round. + Quickened spells or some very fast extra attacks (e.g. cleave ) - standart actions: everything that is not described as sometings else, usually its doing an attack, casting a spell or using an item - full round action: You do somethings that takes a long time so you cannot move in this round. + casting a spell with a very long casting time. + making a full attack, where you try to attack more than once per round - move action: Usually you can use one move action and one standert action per round. You can chose not to make a standart action and move twice as long instead. You can chose not to move and make a full round action instead. For PoE2 turn based mode this means: You should only be able to use one swift action per round ( the stuff that is now a free action). You can do one swift action and one standart action per round. Maybe you can do two swift actions per round, in this case the second swift action would be considered a standart action and your round ends. PS: I have never played a PnP game and I read the rules only to understand the computer game. If somebody knows those things better, please explain this stuff.
  14. How about: story-archs? The advantage DLCs have is that they are linear - while stories are more shallow that in the base game the narrative team has an advantage of creating more traditional storyline. Base game is highly unlinear and almost every bit of content can be done in any order. While individual quests do together create a wider tapestry they don't have a focused direction and buildup as a more traditional story would have. Witcher3, while being open world, consists of multiple linear lengthy paths, rather than bunch of individual vinettes. This free design can be done well: see Fallout New Vegas, and I might be wrong, but I think that the difference is that NV has a finally which brings a lot of your precious adventures together. Or I might be off. But yeah, there is lots of good stuff in Deadfire but it doesn't resonate, so to speak. I think thats it. In The Witcher 3 you have several main story quest lines you can follow however you like and each main quest line can lead to other side quest lines that are interesting on their own ( Bloody Baron family reunion, viking king election, conflict between several mafia groups, . . . ) I also think a good dungeon should also tell a story. A good example that was mentioned often was the vault in New Vegas, where you have the election who gets sacrificed. In deadfire I did not like the many small "dungeons" with only one encounter. They were not bad, they were just not very interesting. World map encounters that disappear after you solve them are absolutely fine (e.g. several bounties), but a dungeon should be a bit more than one room with one group of enemies and a few traps. I think Poko Kohara was the only halfway good dungeon in the base game. PoE1 had the temple of Eothas, Readrics keep and Skean cultists as interesting dungeons with a story and some importent choices at the end and at the end of the game you had sun in shadows with an epic boss fight at the end.
  15. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0688ry0ipxj291p/AAD7WliOALbje0guKlNsUEexa?dl=0 Here is a link to all the crash logs I found in the PoE2 folder.
  • Create New...