scrotiemcb
-
Posts
236 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by scrotiemcb
-
-
You might want to check out Malcolm Gladwell on engineering hits:Always fascinated me how much effort people put into this kind of thing. Don't people want to experience something new? Or is "adventure in tv and sofaland" really what we should be writing nowadays?
-
To even put turn-based and RTwP in the same genre feels like an error to me. From a gameplay perspective, Pillars has more in common with ARPGs like Diablo 2 and Path of Exile than it does with Divinity: OS. There are differences, "with pause" does matter, I'm just saying you don't genre by lore, you genre by gameplay.
Hopefully this helps highlight just how poor gameplay in Pillars really is. Story is the only sane reason to keep slogging through.
Turn-based is a completely different animal. A huge element of such games is strategizing strong defense for beginnings and ends of turns, while it is okay to be vulnerable mid-turn. This is why feats like Spring Attack and Shot on the Run are so powerful in D&D, but it is a core part of what players are always trying to do, creating footsies battles among combatants (you know, enemy is 50 feet away, both you and enemy have 30 movement, so you only advance 10), from the very beginning. Everything is radically different because of the very nature of condensed, mostly uninterruptable turns.
-
Au contraire, mon frere. That's not the problem. The reason given was that he was laughably "too short."Hiravias doesn't bathe and apparently likes to have sex while he's in the form of a giant cat. I believe 'eww' can be a pretty appropriate response to that.
Also furries.
So what we are simulating then is a world where everyone treats women like pieces of meat to be fought over as prizes rather than individuals?SIMULATING ROMANCE FOR WOMEN IN GAMES
BY LUZARIUS
Let's use POE as an example:
* Durance hits on female player.
* Aloth hits on female player.
* Eder hits on female player.
* Lesbian NPC's hit on female player.
A fight breaks out between Eder & Durance over the female player.
It's up to the female player to control the situation or let it pursue and decide which offer to accept.
DAMN I'M GOOD.
-
3
-
-
So when a male wanders in and says female romance options need to be large-breasted supermodels, that's bad... but when a woman wanders in and says male romance options need to look like Eder or they're just too "ewww," that's okay? Sorry. Not doing the double standard thing.
Now that is uncalled for!I dub thee luzaria.
Durance is the only gimme "ewww," because I'll grant he doesn't take care of himself.
-
1
-
-
I dub thee luzaria.who the sam-hell would girl players romance beside Eder? Aloth? Nope. Durance? Double nope. Kana? hahahaha, and that little dude (I forget his name) is way too short.
-
1
-
-
ITT: luzarius unironically suggests incorporating the plot of Shallow Hal into Pillars of Eternity as a romance option.
-
2
-
-
Well i went ahead and changed it myself so we can check, everything @18 int and the screenshots dont mention it, but also with the +10 aura increase ring. (cba to redo the screenshots)
removing it limited the range to just Eder on default range.
default range
x2 range
x3 range
I think that changing all auras to 3m (like Zealous Charge, currently the other two are 2.5m) would do the trick. 20% more area for those two abilities. I am emphatically against an area doubling, because I do not believe Auras should be full-party buffs at all, but instead more like "subteam" or "splinter group" buffs.
-
Nope, no such command. That said, I agree with you; paladin aura ranges should be normalized and at least doubled, maybe even tripled.
Definitely not that much.
I definitely feel that Paladin auras should apply to your back line or your front line, but not both... unless you get two Paladins.
-
So in conclusion my suggestion earlier is awesome? :3
-
1
-
-
Which is why it shouldn't be imagined as "Fortitude."Sorry, scro, but I'd rather that things were rational, rather than made up with no rational underlying basis. Thus, I'd rather that Fort was tied to CON because it makes a lot more sense, rationally speaking.
Please note that I'm not looking at this from some hyper realism point of view. Just a relatively moderate and reasonable one. Linking Fort to Might makes no sense whatsoever to me. Period. Might (pardon the pun) as well link it to Int or Perception. Makes just as little sense. IMO, Fort should be linked to CON or nothing at all.
It isn't hard to imagine a Might-based saving throw. For example, if something is trying to knock you Prone, it actually makes more sense that a kind of strength would prevent it from happening, as opposed to simply having a lot of health.
As I edited my post, Stability is a better word. We'd be going more for the concept of immovability and/or unstoppability than having a good immune system. Health is ALREADY a numeric representation of resistance to damage, to include damage-over-time.
So Stability or whatever would apply to avoiding Prone, slogging through Stuck or Hobbled, fighting through Paralysis, or conquering Weakness. It wouldn't make much sense against Sickened, but that's about it.
In essense, a Might-based saving throw would be opposite of Reflex. Reflex is about quickly getting out of the way when the enemy wants you to stay still; Stability would be about staying the corse when the enemy wants you out of the way.
-
I agree that there is a bit of a "realism" issue with such a system. A lot of this could be fixed with renaming...I could make a dump-free system for tanks easily.
MIG: +3% damage, +2 fortitude (no healing)
CON: +4% health, +5% duration (no endurance, no fortitude)
DEX: +3% action speed, +2 reflex
PER: +5% range*, +2 deflection (no reflex)
INT: +5% area of effect, +2 will (no duration)
RES: +4% endurance, +3% healing (no will, no deflection)
*12m range on weapons to 10m base, 10m range on weapons to 5m base
The issue is squishies. You can reduce dump by separating duration and AoE, and by penalizing a lack of perception with reduced range, but you can't force squishies to use duration, AoE, and/or ranged abilities.
Scro, honestly, FORT should be linked to CON. Constitution and Fortitude seem very interrelated to me, and much the same thing.
Fortitude becomes Stability
Constitution becomes Vigor
Will becomes Logic
But as I said earlier in the thread, a game isn't supposed to be a reality simulator. At the end of the day it is the gameplay that matters, and although it feels wonky my system offers more meaningful choice than the present attribute system.
-
I could make a dump-free system for tanks easily.
MIG: +3% damage, +2 fortitude (no healing)
CON: +4% health, +5% duration (no endurance, no fortitude)
DEX: +3% action speed, +2 reflex
PER: +5% range*, +2 deflection (no reflex)
INT: +5% area of effect, +2 will (no duration)
RES: +4% endurance, +3% healing (no will, no deflection)
*12m range on weapons to 10m base (6.5m@3per,15m@20per), 10m range on weapons to 5m base (3.25m@3per,7.5m@20per)
The issue is squishies. You can reduce dump by separating duration and AoE, and by penalizing a lack of perception with reduced range, but you can't force squishies to use duration, AoE, and/or ranged abilities.
-
1
-
-
No. My favorite thing about this post was that I was able to combine something I sincerely felt with bitter irony.
Is it weird if I'd actually want to see this?I'd just like to add that if POE 2 adds romance, please make sure the female is perpetually clad in a head covering and full-length robe, conservative Islam style, such that she could look either beatiful or mannish but folks like luzarius would never know for sure and would have to actually listen to her words to determine if she was a loveable character to them.
But do give her beautiful eyes, thank you.
(Not saying Islam is a good or a bad thing. Or that its clothing practices are good. Just referencing the type of garb, let's not derail, thx.)
-
1
-
-
Why aren't more people simply agreeing with the OP?
-
It's actually pretty easy to make each attribute relevant to defensive builds. This is because there are normally several offensive vectors, and defensive builds are interested in managing all of them to varying degrees.
It is more difficult to make every attribute relevant to offensive builds. There are only so many ways to effect damage globally, and damage-dealers can ignore some specified damage routes to focus on others. In a party-based game, you still get dumps even if you use immunities, because you can have different specializations for different party members, and thus different "carries" in immunity situations.
However, I can say without reservation that Eternity's design could have better avoided dump stats in defensive characters. From a defense perspective, Dexterity and Intelligence are both strictly-speaking inferior to Perception and Resolve respectively, and those two are virtually the same attribute, anyway, so the game feels almost like it has 5 attributes but one of the five starts at -4 and can be pumped to 27 (30 if Orlan).
Preventing "squishy" offensive dumping is harder, but would be not as important of a point if the game wasn't so tank-and-spank mechanically.
-
Although he's not a RPG designer, his general game design experience shines through here. A game shouldn't be a reality simulator. Corresponding to reality can be useful at times (it can reduce the learning curve) but what matters to the game is giving players interesting choices and challenges. Realism can and should be bent as necessary.
From longtime Magic the Gathering design czar Mark Rosewater:I've never understood what the big deal is with dump stats. Real life has dump stats depending on what your line of work is.
Game design != life design, therefore your argument is invalid.Game (and puzzle) design is very different from most types of design. For example, let's say you're designing a lamp. You want every component of the lamp to be as obvious as possible. The switch to turn it on should be where you would expect it to be and the switch should be as simple as possible – most likely on/off. Every element of the lamp from how to move the light to what plugs in should be as clear and intuitive as possible. The goal of lamp design is to make the lamp easy to use.
Game design though isn't about removing obstacles but adding them. Let's suppose that a game designer set out to design a game lamp. Well, how to turn on the lamp wouldn't be obvious. The switch wouldn't be where you expect it or even necessarily look like a switch. How the lamp moved or plugged in would not be simple and the reason being that the point of a game lamp would be for users to figure it out.
A CCG designer is not an authority on RPG design, so I'd actually say your argument is the one that's invalid. I actually think the biggest issue with PoE's attributes is that they tried to make a system that didn't have dump stats. In trying to fix a problem that didn't actually exist they only made a screwy system that doesn't make much sense.
-
From longtime Magic the Gathering design czar Mark Rosewater:I've never understood what the big deal is with dump stats. Real life has dump stats depending on what your line of work is.
Game design != life design, therefore your argument is invalid.Game (and puzzle) design is very different from most types of design. For example, let's say you're designing a lamp. You want every component of the lamp to be as obvious as possible. The switch to turn it on should be where you would expect it to be and the switch should be as simple as possible – most likely on/off. Every element of the lamp from how to move the light to what plugs in should be as clear and intuitive as possible. The goal of lamp design is to make the lamp easy to use.
Game design though isn't about removing obstacles but adding them. Let's suppose that a game designer set out to design a game lamp. Well, how to turn on the lamp wouldn't be obvious. The switch wouldn't be where you expect it or even necessarily look like a switch. How the lamp moved or plugged in would not be simple and the reason being that the point of a game lamp would be for users to figure it out.
-
PoE actually does have a dump stat problem due to a build-hybridization problem. Unless you are building for solo (which has a wonderfully deep array of build options), the temptation to polarize between either "tank" or "spank" is practically overwhelming due to mechanics-based incentives. Furthermore, although some classes offer decent build hybridization (fighter, cipher), some do not and should get some additional tools.
In other words, dump stats are not a microcosm but part of a larger design picture.
-
1
-
-
I'd just like to add that if POE 2 adds romance, please make sure the female is perpetually clad in a head covering and full-length robe, conservative Islam style, such that she could look either beatiful or mannish but folks like luzarius would never know for sure and would have to actually listen to her words to determine if she was a loveable character to them.
But do give her beautiful eyes, thank you.
(Not saying Islam is a good or a bad thing. Or that its clothing practices are good. Just referencing the type of garb, let's not derail, thx.)
-
4
-
-
I do not agree.No developer is ever going to build a system that will save players from themselves. People who want to dump stats are going to find a way to do it. Don't judge a game based on stupid things players do to themselves.
However, consider the case that a developer does create a system where players are automatically saved from themselves. In such a case, the outcome is undesireable, because player attribute assignment is essentially rendered irrelevant. In order for attribute assignment to have meaning, there must be right and wrong answers.
I believe the closest we can get to no dump stats is to have no attributes which are useless to a particular class (in a monoclass game such as this one). Once you further refine that to a specific build of that class, at that point you can have certain attributes be better or worse than others. Then, as players look towards build hybridization, you discover situations where choices between attributes become meaningful and difficult.
-
False assumption. I feel the game should have at least 2 and probably 3 per-rest classes, and I also feel the cooldown thing is limited enough that the game only needs 1 "chanter" class, but as far as mana systems go I think one or two more could fit.
Why do you feel it is fine for Cipher and Chanter but no other class?In a general sense, I'm not opposed to these things, either. If I was, I would be arguing for the removal of the Chanter (cooldowns) and Cipher (mana system). I'm not.
But what I am opposed to is the removal of per-rest abilities and classes which specialize in per-rest abilities. Those deserve to remain in the game.
If you don't like it, play a Chanter or a Cipher instead of trying to give everything the same ability mechanics. Sameness is boring.
-
Engagement/kiting:
1. What you see as a turn vs RTwP issue, I see as a UI issue instead. Generally, turn-based uses tiling or similar stuff to clearly show "engagement" range, but just imagine a turn-based without such clear indicators. Divinity: OS doesn't have an AoO mechanic but otherwise fits; imagine that game with no added visual indicators for AoOs, but with AoOs nontheless.
Now imagine PoE where the red circles around enemies in the UI expanded to clearly indicate engagement range.
2. Kiting was simply hated on. Engagement is overtuned with not just free attacks, but free attacks with more damage and better interrupt. While these things may be fine for specialists (for example, a tank Talent to buff disengagement damage), making them standard was ridiculous.
Sawyer wanted kiting impossible and got his foolish wish: movement is weak in combat.
Weapon balancing:
Disagree with just about everything you wrote. Accuracy from an attribute would be boringly mandatory for all characters. DR penetration has no need to exist when you have the ability to alter your damage type, therefore it shouldn't.
That said, armors should have more variable DRs, and enemies should have less all-around DR (perhaps more base health instead). The bias against fast weapons seems to be the result of monster defense design, rather than inherent to the system.
Soft counters would be good.
No strong feels regarding OP's other points.
-
1
-
-
Scrotie's law: that which is not controversial requires no internet discussion.While discussing resting is important (because strategic decisions should matter), it doesn't affect combat more than armor DR, shield deflection, AoE disables, summons, billionaire simulator and AI not working in certain situations. I know I mentioned it in the first place, but it has taken a life of its own and monopolized the topic.
-
In a general sense, I'm not opposed to these things, either. If I was, I would be arguing for the removal of the Chanter (cooldowns) and Cipher (mana system). I'm not.I didn't get far into D:OS but that sounds more like a balancing problem then a system problem. Longer cooldowns or less powerful spells are possible solutions, no? Im not opposed to a mana system either.
But what I am opposed to is the removal of per-rest abilities and classes which specialize in per-rest abilities. Those deserve to remain in the game.
If you don't like it, play a Chanter or a Cipher instead of trying to give everything the same ability mechanics. Sameness is boring.
-
2
-
Trun Based vs Real Time RPG combat...?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted