Valorian

As a designer, why would I want to? If someone wants to play a traditional wizard, they'll bump Int and have big AoEs and long effect durations, which is cool and beneficial. If someone wants to make a muscle wizard, they can bump Might. If they don't like the idea of having a high Might wizard, there are five other stats for them to bump for their benefit. Tuning is easier when there are fewer/less diverse input sources. If Might is the attribute that affects damage for everyone, it's much easier for me to calculate how that feeds into the system than if every arbitrary type of attack/damage has its own attribute that affects it. I don't know.. I suppose there are several reasons. Wizard with high Might (Strength) and Dexterity: His fireballs will disintegrate enemies as they deal exceptional damage and are very accurate. He will also be good at walking on suspended ropes and moving large rocks. Wizard with high Intellect and Perception: "Hey look, I have huuge fireballs (sadly I need a few of them to kill a rat), but I *am* able to interrupt the rat's attack pretty often!" I'd prefer to have wizard #1, but I really don't need him to be alpha and omega for walking across suspended ropes and moving huge rocks, as well. I don't know why would it be harder to calculate if magical attacks are affected by stat B and pysical by stat A. Two distinct types, not "every arbitrary type".

I understand that. I didn't mean to suggest that high Might makes the Wizard too combat viable. But, that sort of supports my point, err... qualm? It seems to serve even less of a point for Might to boost the Wizard's physical damage, since it doesn't really make him any more viable. That's some strange logic; if high Might doesn't make the Wizard "combat viable", then you might as well go ahead and allow it to boost his physical damage, for simplicity's sake. Because neither high Might nor high anything else are going to make him combat viable. Or do you want no stat at all to boost a Wizard's physical damage? Might would boost the wizard's physical damage, but not his magical damage. "if high Might doesn't make the Wizard "combat viable", then you might as well go ahead and allow it to boost his physical damage" You're forgetting srcipted attribute checks. The stat does matter even outside of combat.

One of the advantages of having different attributes governing physical and magical accuracy/damage, apart from important RP reasons, is to be able to fine-tune balance between physical and magical attacks. If all damage is affected by Might and all accuracy by Dexterity, you can't adjust attribute-enhancing spells/talents/items with specifically physical or magical damage/accuracy in mind.

I prefer the new attribute (effects), although I'd rather see strength than might. I'd shuffle effects a bit: Strength (or Might): +damage for physical attacks, area of effect and duration for magical attacks Intellect: +healing and damage for magical attacks, area of effect and duration for physical attacks And even: Dexterity: +accuracy for physical attacks, +penetration and interrupt for magical attacks Perception: +accuracy for magical attacks, +penetration and interrupt for physical attacks This way everything is covered and some diversity is achieved. An "iconic" wizard with high Intellect and Perception, but mediocre Strength and Dexterity, will deal lots of damage and be very accurate with his spells. Once he switches to fighting with weapons.. he will be bad. In the current system he needs Might and Dexterity for magical damage and accuracy, but these attributes also affect damage and accuracy with weapons. I guess I'd just like attributes to differentiate physical and magical attacks and reflect their uniqueness.

I loved the level drain effect as an on-hit ability on some monsters. However, I preferred when saving throws were allowed against the effect.

Hand-placed all the way. Especially if it is enemies' equipped gear we're talking about, as it also affects the quality of encounters.

Wilderness areas.

Totally forgot about this topic. There are 3 simple questions we should ask ourselves: 1) Does randomizing equipped items on enemies improve the quality of encounters? I'd say no. 2) Considering the above, is it worth it to spend time on creating such scripts (that would have to take a variety of factors into account) or is it better to spend time on equipping encounters by hand as they populate areas with enemies? I'd say the latter. 3) If unsure about 1) and 2) -- is randomizing enemies' weapons and armor in the spirit of games that PoE is inspired by? No. Take for example a sandwich and a variety of ingredients at your disposal. Would you like them randomized? I wouldn't, because some ingredients are disgusting if combined. *** As for encounters wandering... Some places on the map would indeed offer different tactical options (such as choke points), but wandering enemies is a necessity if they don't want to make stealth a joke. Besides, it's not like they would wander across the map, they'd have a control zone where they're allowed to roam.

I wouldn't like it. I want strength as an attribute because it conveys something specific, which is not the case with power nor might (they're very broad terms).

With those attributes, if someone wants to build a puppeteer kind of spellcaster (mind affecting spells) he can totally dump dexterity, true. Then again, I don't think that each single attribute should benefit every build. I believe every attribute, if dumped, should harm every build because there are two logical consequences if they do not: 1) If I can dump without significant consequence, it is likely (though not necessarily true) that bumping it is similarly without consequence. This means character concepts that bump that attribute are inherently worse off for having done so. 2) If one class can dump stats without significant consequence and others cannot, in practice that class has more attribute points to play with. E.g. fighters vs. monks and paladins in 3.5. When one class has abilities that derive benefits from a narrow range of attributes, it becomes difficult to balance their powers against classes that derive benefits from a broader range of attributes. About my example... The spellcaster won't be screwed if he dumps or bumps dexterity. If he dumps dexterity.. oh well, he can focus on non-aoe spells. If he bumps it he can focus on aoe* spells. Should the attribute system rescue people that insist on casting aoe spells with exceptionally low dexterity for example, when they have the option to cast other types of spells? So it wouldn't be a necessary attribute nor would it be a bad attribute, for a spellcaster. Current PoE strength, though, does seem a bit dumpy. Having lower base health and less inventory slots is more of an inconvenience than anything else. *Spells that would, in-character, need good aim.

With those attributes, if someone wants to build a puppeteer kind of spellcaster (mind affecting spells) he can totally dump dexterity, true. Then again, I don't think that each single attribute should benefit every build. Oh, and crossbows and guns would follow the rules of aoe spells: dexterity -> accuracy, intellect -> damage, strength -> offsets armor penalties, perception -> critical hit. Or instead: intellect -> DT penetration, perception -> damage, or vice versa. Or.. some other combination (for these mechanical weapons there seem to be plenty of combinations and all make sense!)

I'd prefer magic and mundane physical attacks with weapons to be treated differently. Strength: weapon damage // offsets a % of the action speed penalty when wearing armor for spellcasting Constitution: stamina // health Dexterity: melee & ranged accuracy // accuracy for AoE spells like fireball Perception: affects critical hit damage with weapons // accuracy for non-AoE spells Intellect: affects spell damage and healing // increased DT penetration with weapons Resolve: duration and AoE size The differentiation is achieved and each stat is useful for every class. It would be slightly harder to balance, but that's something that goes together with complexity.

K. Sure, I'm ok with generic ambush encounters (aka random encounters, when transitioning from one world map area to another one) having a bit of randomness. A bandit with a mace instead of a sword, to make Hassat happy on his subsequent playthroughs. Ohi Hassat: "An encounter wandering as a whole? Sure. But then it's really not handcrafted anymore." Stopped reading right here. How is it not handcrafted anymore if it changes position? Ok, I read a bit more just for the lols. "They could be encountered at another encounter." I suppose each wandering encounter would have an area where they're allowed to wander to not mix with other encounters, hm? "You could find them with the bowmen close to your party. I suppose it works best with melee only." You could find them with the bowmen close to your party if you approch them from east instead of west. Does an encounter lose its handcrafted status if you approch them from the "wrong" side? "And if that works, why wont random equipment? What makes one kind of interesting gameplay appaling to you, while it's not that different?" It's very different. I don't want encounters being "crafted" by randomness. Combat is already very random as it is, we don't need to randomize encounters too. Also, I don't need encounters to wander. It's more of an alternative to randomized encounters to make people like you happy. Although, I can see a huge benefit from encounters wandering (making stealth a bit more challenging than walking around enemies rooted in place).

Ships more than firearms. Our ranged combatants so far are still dominantly archers. I can only think of a few characters who are using guns. Very good.

Except it still be quality. And they can add quality AND quantity.With a difficulty system that modifies NPC's based on difficulty, don't you think a system which can add some randomnification helps with that? Also the encounters would still be handplaced. Just the equipment can be varried, based on a limited number of factors. Which indeed, yes, would make the game less predictable. Which would add a layer of strategy rather than mere anticipation and response. Requires the gamer to play better. How's that a bad thing? It's also not based on 'hard to do', rather 'time consuming to do'. And we all know that lessening timeconsuming things does help developers. Heck, most tools are written just to make the developers time spend as efficient as possible. Increasing the quality of encounters by randomizing enemies' gear... that's a new one. It's not "just the equipment"; equipment is essential. It can drastically change an enemy. Wasting time on scripts that will take into account all important elements for gear randomization is.. a waste of time. And stop with the "predictability" bull****. Do you seriously believe that people would remember/make notes that bandit XY number 28 always has a mace and make strategic plans accordingly, on the next playthrough? No doubt there are people who are going to play the game a dozen times and they will learn such details, but an overwhelming majority will enjoy a well balanced encounter on their first playthrough and that's it. You keep ignoring the possibility that enemies will wander. There, your unpredictability. You're presenting a false dichotomy and displaying a misunderstanding on the level of influence randomization must have. It's 100% or 0% for you. It's not like randomization elements didn't exist in Baldur's Gate games as well, so I think your perspective is a bit narrow. How am I presenting a "false dichotomy" if I state that randomizing enemies' weapons will have a negative impact on the quality of encounters? Where did you see "100% or 0%"? You're full of it. Weapons do have a big impact in PE. Please, do take a look at the armor system/damage types and then come back. Baldur's Gate didn't randomize enemies and their weapons. What exactly did BG randomize?

Graze isn't any longer half the minimum damage? So 10 instead of 12.

That would be tragicomic. Investing so much time into designing beautiful areas, interesting and engaging combat mechanics and then... let's fill it with random encounters! Regardless, they need to place these enemies by hand, somewhere. Quality over quantity. Designing combat encounters one by one is not the hardest thing they need to do, by a long shot. And I expect it to be excellent. There's nothing mandating that what you just said is true. Sure. Why would they do the sensible thing and, knowing their ruleset and mechanics, outfit enemies manually when they can make complicated algorithms that take into account class, talents, attributes, group composition, target level for the area and then bake a fabulous and balanced combat encounter. Aesthetically pleasing too. @No Lephys. It would be fine if they inject some encounter design randomness to random "ambush" encounters when traveling between areas on the world map. But in regular areas.. no.

I am not talking about random encounters when traveling between areas on the world map, of course.

Nope, you still don't seem to be aware that it actually reduces challenge because randomness will rarely random a well balanced enemy group. Randomness doesn't care about the synergy between specific weapons/armor types and classes/talents/abilities/attributes. A random thug having a mace instead of a sword doesn't add anything special to replay value.

Indeed. The random crowd doesn't understand this.

Unless you think dragons fight with swords in Project Eternity, your example kind of missed the point, as usual. I'm pretty sure the actual point he was making had nothing to do with whether or not dragons should drop swords. And the fact that they sometimes do in existing games makes it all the more valid of an example, with the point still having nothing to do with the "should"ness of dragons dropping swords. Mentally replace the word "dragon" with "guy who was wielding a +5 sword," if you must, and watch how the point remains the same. (For what it's worth, I'm in agreement with you that dragons should neither wield swords nor magically produce swords via the act of death). And you happily jumped on the missed-the-point bandwagon too. I believe I made myself clear that I don't care if the drop is randomized as long as it's not something equipped by the enemy. Making his highlight example a dragon that drops a +5 weapon is precisely an example of the bonus (randomized) drop being detached from the foe's weapons. And I was not objecting to this, especially if it's not something you find on the dragon's body, but in its hoard.

If talking quality, randomly generated encounters can't compete with detailedly designed encounters. It's ok to slightly randomize (good) loot in chests, it's ok to make enemies drop different types of mundane trinkets, but don't randomize equipped items. There's a number of issues attached to it, such as the fact that randomess doesn't care about the recipient's talents or class. It could make encounters repetitive and boring. Even visually. Make some enemies wander around in wilderness areas instead of randomizing them. This adds to the unpredictability factor for those who will replay the game. But still, keep in mind that most players don't replay games and hand-crafted encounters maximize the experience. And leave randomization for filler generic enemies when traveling on the world map from area to area. Unless you think dragons fight with swords in Project Eternity, your example kind of missed the point, as usual.

They should design bandits (and other creatures) to not be just clones of each other, they don't have to leave that to randomness. Randomness doesn't take into account if the enemy has a talent or ability that favors a certain type of weapon or armor. Also, randomness could drastically change the difficulty of a battle.

They are the sort of firearms found in 16th century Europe: uncommon and nothing more advanced than single-shot wheellocks. E: As a side-note, firearms of this sort were part of the Forgotten Realms following the Time of Troubles (smokepowder was introduced by Gond). In a new interview (thx browser translator) with Josh: "As for the level of technological progress, I would say that it corresponds to XVI century Europe, so small arms and large ships for long voyages are a common occurrence in Project Eternity. The only exception is printing, so books are not available in huge numbers, and are written by hand." Oh well... things change.

Is it worth going through that, I mean will the game reward you for it? Or is it one of those things that you brag about it to your friends who then ask: "What the hell is Project Eternity?" Of course it's worth it, don't be silly. Reloading repeatedly, or starting a new game if you play iron mode, is totally worthwhile if there's a possibility you're going to get an enchanted item that can be used on other reload-time optional encounters. Non-optional combat encounters, which are generally more accessible, become a bit easier with such enchanted items. So you can be totally happy that after reloading hundreds of times on impossible! optional combat encounters you get your reload-time cut in half on non-optional combat encounters; from 4 to 2 times.