Jump to content

scrotiemcb

Members
  • Posts

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by scrotiemcb

  1. And yet Sawyer says in regards to crpg rule sets: pretty much all games get it wrong IMO. And there was a lot of feedback from players in the beta which was ignored because of ~feels~. This is the nature of science. Did Newton have gravity wrong? Yes. Yes he did. Does this mean Einstein could completely ignore Newton? No. No he couldn't. There is always room for further improvement, but the smartest thing is to start with the current status quo and innovate from there.
  2. I was not skipping over a discussion on the spirit of the rules, I was disagreeing with you as to what it entails. You apparently think the spirit of the rules is "do not retreat back to town to get rests before every encounter." Very benefit of the doubt of you. I think the spirit of the rules is "if you want to rest spam, or if you don't, we as developers do not want to take a firm stand on the issue, so house-rule yourself." To reiterate, I consider such an implementation bad design. If the intent is an optional mechanic, then you set a toggle in the options menu. Something like "can camp without supplies." And/or "no random encounters." That way if players want to opt out, they can skip the tedium of backtracking, or have risk-free camping/retreats.
  3. But this isn't a p&p game. As implemented, camping supplies can't even properly be called a mechanic. Partial mechanic is more like it. It suggests a mechanic, but it doesn't close the deal, instead expecting the player to do it. I consider such an implementation bad design. If you want it to be an optional mechanic, then you set a toggle in the options menu. Something like "can camp without supplies." And/or "no random encounters." That way if players want to opt out, they can skip the tedium of backtracking, or have risk-free camping/retreats. But as it is now it's just half-done and half-baked.
  4. Wow. Talk about a pro-Wizard bias. No class deserves per-encounter spells. None. I think Wizard might deserve better spells than they have now, even some access to metamagic, but everything should still be per-rest, even at high level. On the bright side, with per-rest there would be nothing gamebreaking about Wizards prebuffing before combat.
  5. More of this nonsense. If there is one thing I believe about video and computer games, it is that you're better off trying to appeal to 5 demographics with 5 games than 5 demographics with 1 game. Thus, this "always" rule of yours is utter drivel. I haven't played DA:I but if it's a game for feminists and gays then that's okay (and it's probably about time they got something with decent production value). Straight people are a demographic as well, so some games should be made for them, too. What you're imagining, however, is a game made for everyone "that matters," hatefully excluding everyone which "doesn't matter," based on the concept that there can be such a thing as a perfect game with maximum appeal. That is a lie. There is no perfect game, only perfect games. And someone's perfect game probably involves gay dragon porn. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe someday someone will make it for him. I'm following the romance formula that Skyrim used and that game has sold 20 million copies to date. You mean like how certain publishers waste millions upon millions of dollars trying to make their own Call of Duty or their own World of Warcraft, but it doesn't work because CoD and WoW aren't going anywhere and have already conquered their niches? Games shouldn't follow formulas because copying another game doesn't make your game better, it makes it a shallow imitation. Game designers should be themselves and put whatever they feel passionately about into their work (even if it's non-mainstream sexuality, even if it is no romance at all). And I mean that from both an artistic and a business perspective.
  6. A hard counter is an outright immunity. A soft counter is a strong defense which falls short of an immunity. For example, "+40 to Defense versus Blind" and "40 DR vs Burn" are soft counters. Enemies responding to your status with their status would also fall under soft counters. Although I believe hard counters should be used in rare circumstances, in general I believe soft counters are a better design philosophy.
  7. I'd qualify that as "studio heads trying to add multiplayer where it doesn't belong." But yes.
  8. Who is only considering you a sex object and not a person capable of contributing to the adventure as an equal?Just one person. But he's loud. @Duncan: You're so vain. You must have thought her comment's about you.
  9. If you consider it, you'd realize that allowing prebuffing leads to even more degenerative gameplay with per-encounter spellcasting in place. Hence, no prebuffing. I believe the key design mistake here was that Sawyer & Co fell in love with the idea of per-encounter spellcasting, and forced every other related aspect of game mechanics around it. Big mistake. Truth be told, the game would be better off if per-encounter spellcasting didn't exist, not only for the immediate benefits of the mechanic's removal, but for the hidden benefits of being able to revisit other mechanics which were warped to force per-encounter spellcasting into the game.
  10. Outside of my earlier, humorous quip... 1. Being a backer isn't really an achievement. It does not fit thematically with the other achievements, which involve in-game exploits. 2. Appreciation for backers could and should have been shown through a different route. 3. In the grand scheme of things, the seriousness of this mistake is so trivial that this degree of discussion on it is hugely disproportionate. There are at least a hundred more serious flaws in the game, many of which are also too trivial to merit serious discussion.
  11. More of this nonsense. If there is one thing I believe about video and computer games, it is that you're better off trying to appeal to 5 demographics with 5 games than 5 demographics with 1 game. Thus, this "always" rule of yours is utter drivel. I haven't played DA:I but if it's a game for feminists and gays then that's okay (and it's probably about time they got something with decent production value). Straight people are a demographic as well, so some games should be made for them, too. What you're imagining, however, is a game made for everyone "that matters," hatefully excluding everyone which "doesn't matter," based on the concept that there can be such a thing as a perfect game with maximum appeal. That is a lie. There is no perfect game, only perfect games. And someone's perfect game probably involves gay dragon porn. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe someday someone will make it for him.
  12. I file "better AI" under "soft counters." Because AI is what keeps static tanking so dominant. But the core of your idea is "counters are good," and that is correct. I am a little hesitant to use the word "hard," but let's just say it should be clear that certain tactics which normally work become bad ideas.
  13. An odd opinion for someone in an internet forum. It would seem your presence here implies some degree of care about what others think.
  14. You seem to be making the same absurd assumption that AAA publishers are making. The industry is trying to make every game into a blockbuster that appeals to everyone, and going broke in their attempts. They aren't selling out, you need to make more than you spend to sell out, they're just being idiots. The truth is that there is no such thing as the perfect video game, only perfect video games. The industry would be more profitable if it targeted various demographics with lower-cost but higher-focus titles rather than trying to lure in everyone at once.
  15. He is trying to say that what people ask for is rarely what they want. He has lots of psychological and sociological evidence, in the form of scientific studies, to back this up. Which means he's right. Might help if we cited some, though. I'll start with Wilson & Schooler 1991.
  16. It's a derail, but here's what my dream Ranger would look like... Revenge: This is a new resource similar to a Cipher's Focus. However, it increases when a Ranger's Animal Companion takes damage. Rangers start battle with zero Revenge by default. Without an Animal Companion, Rangers have no way to generate more Revenge. At character creation Rangers would have an additional Animal Companion choice called Lone Wolf. This option forsakes the Animal Companion completely, but the Ranger begins each encounter with maximum Revenge instead of zero. Themes in Revenge power design: 1. Marking powers Warning Shot Deals 1.2x ranged weapon damage Secondary effect: -10 Accuracy against Beasts (vs Will) [but not all Marking skills need be ranged-only] 2. Dual buff or heal powers Pincer Attacks You and your Animal Companion both deal 1.3x melee damage against Flanked enemies for 10 seconds [probably a Revive Companion at higher levels] 3. Pure archery coolness Ricochet Deals normal weapon damage with a ranged weapon, then the projectile bounces to another nearby enemy, then another, etc. Can hit a total of five times. 4. Limited nature stuff Binding Roots What would be gone would be many of the passives such as Swift Aim, etc. These would mostly be moved to the Fighter (whose role should be "King of Autoattacks" and also include some offensive builds). Ranger class-specific talents would be gated by Animal Companion type (including at least one for Lone Wolf). This would make choice of companion important for build variations, in the same way Order is important to Paladins.
  17. While I would like to see the shapeshifting part of druid buffed (voted yes to poll), I feel rather strongly this would have to be coupled with the spellcasting element of druid being nerfed. I believe giving them a limited number of spells known, rather than full-list access, would be a reasonable trade for a spiritshift ability which is actually relevant at high levels. If the idea is to just make druids better shapeshifters with no decrease in their casting ability, then you could consider my "yes" vote withdrawn.
  18. The first idea is horrible. It is roughly equivalent to "stop playing PoE for today, but keep the window open." The second idea is very meh. The third idea, however, seems genius to me. I can imagine several different reputations which one could gain based on combat choices instead of dialogue choices.
  19. I'm inclined to agree. In fact, I think quite a bit of what makes the enemies so predictable is that they always follow algorithm. Losing some AI and replacing it with some randomly rolled behavior would probably lead to more interesting moments.
  20. Although I agree that "balance" is an oft-abused term in gaming discussions, it is a subject close to my heart, so I feel I should explain it as I see it. Balance means nothing without the context of choice. Generally speaking, when people are put in a multiple-choice situation, one answer is deemed correct and the others deemed wrong. Balance is the art of tossing multiple choices at players and having two or more mechanically different answers being correct, relative to the moment of choice. "Mechanically different" is a key word in my definition above. One very common error in "balance" discussions is that changing A to be more like B mechanically will help balance A and B. The way I look at things, removing the mechanical differences between choices doesn't promote variety, but forces players into a single choice with two different forms of superficial window dressing. The objective of balance is to maximize mechanical variance while equalizing viability to the maximum extent possible. Another misconception about balance is that single, high-impact decisions are more important than frequent, low-impact decisions. As an illustration, imagine playing PvP in the following two fighting games: Game A has one character, Ultraman, which stands head and shoulders above all the others, but Ultraman's moves are well balanced against each other, such that you have a variety of valid moves at any point. Game B has balance among its cast of characters, but each character has a special move which thoroughly trumps all other moves in general utility Game A would be much more fun to play, despite being almost entirely Ultraman mirror matches, because move choice is balanced. Game B would feel terrible to play because move choice is imbalanced, rendering character choice to a kind of paper-rock-scissors game (which in fact becomes the entire game), while the game itself is generally just a mindless spamwar (which decides nothing, character selection already decided the victor). Lastly, although there is such a thing as balancing for skill (that is, focusing on good answers for underinformed players), balance normally assumes an informed player. This means they anticipate later situations and act accordingly. For example, players will probably save spells and/or rests in a dungeon for an eventual boss. So when I think of balance problems in Eternity, I am not thinking about wizard vs druid, at least not primarily. First and foremost I'm thinking about stationary tanking vs mobile control methods. Then I'm thinking about what a cipher can do with 15 focus which isn't Mental Binding. It is balance along those lines which is going to effect player choice in every single encounter, not just at the character creation screen. It is in this most frequently occuring form of balance which Eternity falls flat on its face. For some classes the sheer lack of tactical options is startling; you just stand still and autoattack. Tactics from one encounter to the next are ridiculously copy-pasted from the encounter before, you just keep doing the same things, combat becomes monotonous. And there are but two ways to fix this: one is a hard- or soft-counter style of encounter design (making previously correct answers wrong and previously wrong answers right) while the other is tactical balance (giving players multiple correct yet mechanically diverse answers to encounters).
×
×
  • Create New...