kgambit

This. It's simple, straightforward and functional. .

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. You are pointlesly nitpicking, because the "you don't know" is reffering to the kidnapping example. Since my reply specifically mentions definitive deadlines and you chose to quote that in your reply, I suggest you look up the definition of the word Definitive. I'll save you the time. Definitive means precisely defined or explicit (fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied) Definitive deadlines are known. Not sometimes, always. When I originally replied, I listed "payment of ransom within a specified time period" among the examples I cited from RL. It directly addressed your claim that you wouldn't know about time limits in RL, either in general or specifically with a definitive ransom demand from kidnappers. That's not nitpicking at all. How do you deliver a ransom demand or an ultimatum that no one knows about? Why would the people who received an ultimatum not make that known to the people they are asking for help? Assuming you accept the quest, if the kidnappers deliver a ransom demand you have to act on the time deadline specified in that demand. Unless previous circumstances provide a clue otherwise, you can not possibly know whether the kidnappers plan to keep their word or not. Therefore you have to react on the basis of known information and not speculation. The kidnappers intentions are irrelevant with respect to time demands when you decide how to proceed. Oh wait, you must be talking about the situation where the kidnappers ransom demand is a smoke screen and they have already killed the daughter. But if that's the case then the time frame specified in the ransom demand is immaterial. This is no longer a timed quest. It doesn't matter that the player wouldn't recognize the difference because the quest itself has morphed from "timed quest" to "untimed plot device". And while the latter might be an interesting discussion around quests/plot lines in general, I fail to see the relevance to the topic of the thread "Should P.E. have time limits"? And how are we supposed to know that when not once in this thread starting with your first post #70 to #164 have you ever once explicitly mentioned deliberate quest failures for plot purposes. Even your most recent post in #164 does not clearly make that distinction. You very well might have intended to make the distinction that the failure is for plot purposes but it's not clear from that quote. Coming back after the fact and claiming that is a bit convenient. The confusion occurs because you simply failed to make your point crystal clear. That is your problem, not mine.

Men can jiggle, sometimes - it just isn't pretty and it sure isn't sexy.

I could watch this all day. I have been. For some reason I keep thinking of this: There's always room for Jell-O.

Presumably. But as Silent Winter also said regarding this: the Ironman crowd (or those who intend to play on Ironman) can't reload. This feature is directed at a harder difficulty a higher challenge (as I usually direct many of my ideas). When PE comes out I'll see how the scripts work, maybe you can modify some existing values to become virtually permanent (Extending a "Weakening" Effect for 100000000000000000000 hours/in-game days etc. etc.), maybe you can even modify Critical Hit values. The idea is based with Player choice in mind, it shouldn't be something that is "tossed" in the Players face a la "You got injured. Deal with it 8)". A feature in a "Challenge Mod" might be more appropriate than in the original release. Fair enough re: Iron Man mode. I think the idea is extendable to normal difficulty in PE under the conditions I mentioned. It's in Dragon Age Origins on all difficulty levels and it's not a crippling (har har pun intended) mechanic. True enough. LOL @ death as a permanent injury

Linking crippling wounds to crits could work. But the injuries have to be treatable I would use the link below as the model with the appropriate adjustment for PE stats: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Injuries The only addition you need for PE is to add something comparable to injury kits. (the only other way to remove them would be via resting and I'm not sure that encouraging additional resting is a good idea) If that doesn't fit the game design model for the state of medicine in PE then I would drop the idea As mentioned before, permanent crippling wounds are simply going to result in reloads.

Yep. That nails it. Pretty good movie.

How do you know such things in RL? You don't. You PC doesn't. So why should you know it here? Also, if you did your best effort to get there in time, then you SHOULD get there in time - if it's possible. I guess you could have quests designed to "fail", but I'd keep those to a minmum. Nonsense. You do know about definitive time constraints in real life. You have bills that are due by a specific date, work schedules that must be kept, stores have specific shopping hours, appointments at a specified time; the list goes on. And the consequences for missing those deadlines are well known too. Theaters showing plays or operas often have "No seating once the show starts" restrictions. There are hundreds of real life examples you can think of. Even kidnappers in RL usually require payment of ransom within a specified time period. Or try explaining to your fiance (or more importantly her father) why you couldn't get to the church on time with any explanation short of the loss of one of your limbs, preferably two. Want to talk about consequences? If you are going to set up a quest with a time deadline, then you have to do it in such a way that the PC (and by extension the player) is aware that a time constraint exists. This doesn't have to be so blatant as "You've only got 3 days", but could be something vague "This is the fourth time this has happened, these guys don't wait around long for ransom payments. You really better hurry." Although I suspect that vague time limits are going to engender a fair amount of save/reload gaming. If you can't figure out a way to properly frame time constraints so that they are logical and fit in the context of the game, then get rid of them completely. If the time constraints are simply too generous and don't offer consequences, then get rid of them. I do agree that your best effort should allow you to complete the quest on time. (Although "best effort" is a bit vague). If the time constraints are so restrictive that you can't complete the quest when you don't delay then there is a problem with the quest not the player. Not having failure options for quests? I know you have to be ****ing kidding here. Even "fetch me that herb" quests (or similiar) have failure options. No herbs, no reward. But if you're really serious, then maybe you would be happier if we just give everybody the same amount of xp or cash reward simply because they took the quest. That's the fantasy equivalent of "participation medals". ROTFL Any quest involving combat has a failure option - it's called death. And that's pretty final last time I checked. No second chances on that one (excepting the save/reload option). Edit: I honestly think you misphrased your thoughts with that last comment Trashman. Agreed. If you're going to put a timed quest in the game, then it's up to the party to make the decision whether they are up to completing the task as is, to take extra time to prepare, or blow the task off completely. And how the PC reacts to things that are outside of his control IS a choice. The world shouldn't be under the PC or players control. Nothing ruins the immerion of a living world more then it being visibly desined to rotate around the player/pc. A world in whioch nothing happens wihtout the player giving it it's AOK is a sterile, fake world. I'm with Lephys on this. Rephrase the last line: A world in which everything happens without regard for the player's choices is non-reactive. It's impossible to immerse yourself in a game world where none of your choices matter. Therefore the world must be designed to react to the player. Should there be some events that occur without a player's input? Absolutely. Events outside the control of the player can be important in defining a world. But those events have to be scripted. They are static, not dynamic. Further, the player is simply a spectator to them - they unfold before his eyes. They change the world but the player has no control over those changes. Can those events ultimately affect the player? Very possibly. Will they offer new choices or puzzles for the player? Almost certainly. In the end, those events only matter if they offer the player a choice. The player gets to choose how to react. Edit: It might be possible to script events which occur outside of the players control in such a way that there is some randomness to the manner if which events play out. That makes the game world a more dynamic place but you are still restricted by the number of event forks that you script. For example, I can introduce a long running land war between two game factions and script it so that the victor is random with varying results on the game world and with different choices offered to the player as a result. That's not a true dynamic world however. Then why were you late? You either f**** around or you didn't. End of story. Unless you think the clocks should be such that milisecond literalyl decide sucess of faliure? If so, that is only your assumption. Seems to me like you are just trying to find every possible way it could suck, by designing the worst possible clock/scenario in your head. I seem to recall in another thread or perhaps an earlier post that you argued that time was a resource and required management. So either you've changed your mind or we're getting hung up on what a time limit means. Time limits imo are hard deadlines. It doesn't make any difference it you miss one by one second or one minute or one hour. You miss it and the quest fails (or some other event is triggered if the use of failure bothers you). Even if you missed it by a millisecond. Harsh? Maybe but softening the deadline just means that there are still going to be people who miss the deadline by a hair. In fact, you seem to take a hard line on that in the line just before: "Then why were you late? You either f**** around or you didn't. End of story." That sounds pretty definitive to me. So if you don't like well defined time deadlines, then let's do away with timed quests totally.

Thanks. That did it.

Are you sure? I just tried and this message is still popping up: "NOTICE: This domain name expired on 09/17/2013 and is pending renewal or deletion."

I agree. Not only does it give you a chance to layer some complexity onto a quest, but it makes the world more reactive. There is a cost in terms of design resources but I like the idea of having fewer, more complex, quests than a bucket full of "Fed-ex" quests.

Rangers grab a split of the series with an 8-2 victory. Darvish wasn't on peak form (or anywhere close to it) but the bats woke up. Rangers Tampa tied for wild card with Cleveland a 1/2 game back. Rangers start 3 game series with KC tomorrow; Tampa starts 4 games versus Balt

We played like crap. Profar screws up a sure inning ending double play then BOOM! next guy up goes yard and it's tie game. Then Nathan comes in, bottom of the ninth and gets the first two and simply gags the save. Should have had that one. Tonight it's Darvish versus Moore. Tough matchup. Thankfully Cleveland lost but it's getting really tight. We need this game tonight because KC is up next, and they are scrappy.

Wouldn't it logically follow that you ought to volunteer to fight the Syrian regime like some sort of BBQ-n-bourbon jihadi? Then POTUS might be buying you guns. The problem is that sooner or later you are going to be confused with the beer-n-brats and grits-n-grillade jihadis and eventually the media is going to start labeling you as one of those dreaded sushi-n-chablis terrorists. It's just a no win situation. You're better off staying home, watching Fox and cursing Obama.

I think that's right. Standard field artillery is 105 mm or 155 mm , self-propelled artillery 155mm. The only larger caliber I know of are the 227mm MLRS. The United States as well as Soviet successor states have operated 203mm self-propelled howitzer pieces in the form of the M-110 and the 2S7 Pion respectively (the latter remains in active service). However the advent of smart munitions and advances in fire-control systems have indeed reduced the importance of caliber, explosive power, and sheer volume of fire in the effectiveness of artillery. I thought the 203mm M-110s had all been retired in the 1990s. Thanks for the correction.

Intent can and does play a significant role in how crimes are prosecuted, and the best example is being charged with attempted murder. That's carries a considerable longer sentence than aggravated battery. In the case of attempted murder it is the intent of the individual that is paramount. The same distinction applies after a fashion with the difference between premeditated murder and a murder committed as an act of passion. Intent does matter. The selection of the means to achieve a goal are secondary to the goal itself. Again, with attempted murder it does not matter which weapon the perpetrator chose. But in the case of rape the goal is not the crime but the act itself its the crime, or to follow with your analogy it would be as you were being prosecuted because of your choice of weapon. I'm not saying that rapists shouldn't be prosecuted for their intent aside from their crime, but that intent and the crime are separate entities and should be treated as such. Good post btw. I understand the distinction you're making. I don't think anyone would think that you are proposing that we not prosecute rapes. Being prosecuted for your choice of weapons is a good counter. In certain cases the choice of weapon can be important. But just as in murder and homicide, rape and attempted rape are both prosecutable offenses. So the intent to commit the act whether or not the act is actually completed is sufficient to prosecute. Specifically if a rapist enters a house and makes it clear via word and/or action that his intent is to sexually violate a women, he is prosecutable if he completes the attempt or not. In this context, the term intent does not refer to his underlying motivations but rather answers this question "Did you intend to rape the victim" as opposed to answering "Why did you want to rape the victim?" Our debate is centered around the latter which explains the sociological / psychological motivations for the crime. BTW, I'm more than happy to defer to lawyers in the audience if they wish to correct my legal terminology or understanding of the law. Good discussion.

I think that's right. Standard field artillery is 105 mm or 155 mm , self-propelled artillery 155mm. The only larger caliber I know of are the 227mm MLRS.

850,000 to 1,500,000 Afghan civilians killed during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (excludes Mujahadeen) Documented soviet chemical weapon attacks occurred six months prior to the invasion (air attacks) and continued with 43 separate attacks and 3000+ deaths in the first year after the invasion - delivery systems include Mi-24 Hind helicopters Documented use of TMS-65 decontamination vehicles by soviet troops

Intent can and does play a significant role in how crimes are prosecuted, and the best example is being charged with attempted murder. That's carries a considerable longer sentence than aggravated battery. In the case of attempted murder it is the intent of the individual that is paramount. The same distinction applies after a fashion with the difference between premeditated murder and a murder committed as an act of passion. Intent does matter. The selection of the means to achieve a goal are secondary to the goal itself. Again, with attempted murder it does not matter which weapon the perpetrator chose.

Conversely, let's look at it from the sense of what the desired goal is. I can define a goal - let's say house demolition. Then I select a tool to accomplish that. I can use dynamite, a wrecking ball, an M1 Abrams, a horde of termites, some really hungry beavers, or a demolition crew. No matter what tool I choose the goal is the same. Destroy the house. The tool I choose is simply the means to that end. In that context, a sexual assault or a physical assault against a woman can simply seen as the choice of which tool the perpetrator uses to achieve the goal of establishing power over his victim. The tool does not define the goal; rather the goal establishes which tools are suitable to achieve that goal. The goal remains the same, only the tool changes. Edit: It's probably not that easy or accurate to pigeon-hole everything so neatly. I suspect that there are circumstances that can't be easily categorized or explained.

Game 3 Rangers / Tampa series ..... )#%)(&^)#&^)#(&%)#&$)#@*%& Nathan

I think the JA2 system is great - in JA2. How would you specifically alter it for PE or a cRPG in general? Make that for a cRPG in general since we don't have all the details on the PE system yet. What things are specifically lacking in cRPGs that you would borrow from JA2? No heal-bots? What about Dr. Vincent Beaumont at the hospital in Cambria? He totally sucks in combat and his only decent skill is (wait for it .....) medical. He's a JA2 heal-bot if ever there was one. Off the top of my head, there are half a dozen other mercs who have skills split between marksmanship (for example) and medical: Dr Q, Danny, Fox, Spider, MD and Ira. They fit the classic fantasy trope of a cleric as a combination of healing skills with combat abilities. It's not a big deal but let's not go overboard about the heal-bot analogy.

I didn't notice the shoes. Which means I'm going on top! ROTFLMAO

This. +1 The potion "charges" idea is interesting.

Your alternative is not substantially different from a straightforward timed success-fail quest. In the success case of your proposal, all you have done is add an extra obstacle to completing the quest. You still recover the item in question but have to go thru an extra combat for completion. I like the retaliation idea, but it has not altered the time mechanic unless you go one extra step and make the final obstacle (i.e. retaliation) dependent on how quickly you achieve success. Recover the object in a specific shorter time frame and not only do you get the object, but you are able to escape in such a fashion that the pursuing troops lose your trail and no retaliation occurs. That would add an extra incentive to a really quick execution of the mission. And you could throw in an bonus as well, say cash, maybe a second item or bonus xp. Knowing that there is an extra bonus heightens the sense of urgency for a rapid completion. In the failure case, "I've got to plan to get it back" implies that you are giving the player a second chance to recover the object. Assuming you meant to have some risk of quest failure during the second attempt, which may or may not be timed as well, all this path does is delay the final quest resolution. Failure is still possible. So your proposal does nothing to "eliminate thinking in terms of failure". And knowing that a second attempt is possible could really weaken the sense of urgency. If that second recovery attempt has a 100% guarantee of success, then the quest simply becomes "Go get the Item" with a slight variation in what obstacles you face. The risk of quest failure is zero and the time constraints have meaning only if the xp rewards vary depending on how the quest is finally completed. Your proposal does spice up an otherwise ho-hum "fetch the item" timed quest. Using time constraints to define or alter the circumstances surrounding that quest is an interesting idea. But in the case of the quest you offered, it doesn't really change the underlying time mechanic. In fact, it reduces the risk of failing from missing a time deadline by saying "Oh too bad, you were too late, no soup or you. Oh wait ... Here's yet another chance to recover that item." The quest you offered as an example was based on recovering an item. While events can play out differently and you can alter the rewards (either XP or financial) depending on the path to completion the quest will still revolve around success or failure. Perhaps your example wasn't the right one to choose. I can certainly think of ideas for timed quests which are not simple "fetch" or "rescue" quests which could have substantially different resolutions and impact on the game world.