Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Valorian

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    961

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Valorian

  1. Valorian
    When I use the term "AI" I use it to reference enemy AI; he used it in the context of party member AI apparently. So I was actually talking about the silliness of enemy AI being able to willy-nilly switch damage types (which was one of the suggestions offered previously, by someone). Lephys, I'm glad that you feel the need to stress how important constructive discussion is, while going on with your amateur psychological profiling for several posts in a row. That's interesting... from a psychiatric point of view.
  2. Valorian
    After detailed explanations (about why xx "solution" is horrible) fail to get through, it's important to stress the degree of stupidity*, as succinctly as possible, in order to avoid it. It can come across as ruthless and shocking, cause hair to fall out from the stress, induce hysterical crying etc., but it's all for the greater good. *Hey, you used that word.. I don't think there was unadulterated stupidity in rjshae's post, but rather copious collateral silliness.
  3. Valorian
    Someone didn't check the BG/BG2 (especially this one)/PS:T/KOTOR unofficial patch notes to see how many XP issues where resolved. And TSLRCM can't even fix the engine-bound "place mine, go other area, return, disarm mine, XP" mechanic KOTOR2 has. Yeah, the current XP systems where *just fine*... Except for the dozens and dozens of times it horribly failed. And these games didn't even try to make non-combat viable in a lot of scenario's, as per PE's design goal. Why does evil being murder everyone? Wouldn't it be more evil to do a goal to gather food for the orphanage, and instead of giving it to them, selling it for your own personal profit. Or is evil only evil if you kill the orphanage for XP? I'd personally say I rather want evil to be the first evil than the second evil. And yes, Objective XP can fit that concept and goal perfectly. 1) Excellent argument against kill XP! ... Not. Every possible element of the game can lead to bugs. Should we remove companions, factions, spells, abilities...? Because, bummer!, they all cause lots of bugs. 2) Excellent argument against kill XP yet again! ... Not. You'd get no combat XP for killing defenseless children in an orphanage.
  4. Valorian
    Brilliant and ingenious.... There are few things more *wonderful* than out-of-character NPCs with knee-jerk weapon switching capabilities.
  5. Valorian
    While I am certain all could be fixed while still giving XP-per-kill, the entire system would be ultra-hacky at best. Leading to bugs, difficulty for modders and developers and confused players. Right. Because it's never been done before (xp-per-kill), let alone thousands of times, it would surely lead to bugs and player/modder/developer confusion. Such an astute guy, this Hassat.
  6. Valorian
    But.. you do see the difference between hitting a dummy that can't hit you back and killing an enemy that can potentially end your life, right? You do realize that for balance reasons the former usually doesn't give XP, while the latter does?
  7. Valorian
    Lol no. If you're doing 1 damage consistently, there is no other option other than swapping weapons. Losing an attack (and you'll attack cca every 2 seconds, or faster) is a laughable penalty. Also, you seem to be oblivious to a much more important issue: enemies. Will they be able to swap weapons in all scenarios, the majority of times? Like humanoid PCs can? They won't and they shouldn't.
  8. Valorian
    So that it too can be overanalyzed to death? Sure, someone has to point out the glaring flaws in the system, while others are too busy mashing the like button or pondering about important things like how many damage types should a flail have, hmmm. Ah, so that's why you can't wait. Shrug. No.
  9. Valorian
    The difference is huge, but you're too pretty to lose sleep over it trying to figure it out. So don't.
  10. Valorian
    So that it too can be overanalyzed to death? Sure, someone has to point out the glaring flaws in the system, while others are too busy mashing the like button or pondering about important things like how many damage types should a flail have, hmmm.
  11. Valorian
    "Can it not be = I took Bandit down, now I get more [Component] that I can use to upgrade my [Gear]!" No. XP = XP. Loot = loot. Experience isn't loot.
  12. Valorian
    "I mean if your character accepts a quest, completes the quest, then returns to the quest-giver for a reward, then slaughters the quest-giver (and his people) it should negatively affect your reputation with future factions. That example is pretty much how they've described degenerate gaming. A kind of double-dipping on xp, with no consequences. But if a player knew that his/her reputation would take a dive from this sort of behaviour, and potentially mean lost future quests (and xp) then they might think twice about doing it." Indeed. Quite a simple and natural solution to the "problem", without using radical "solutions" like removing combat XP altogether.
  13. Valorian
    I can't wait to read about this new idea he had regarding armor mechanics.
  14. Valorian
    Kudos on the blueprint, Valorian, ^_^. I like how it addresses the whole weapon effectiveness (and, on the other side of that coin, armor effectiveness). And yeah, it does seem more complicated at first than it really is, heh. I dunno if Josh wants to change the whole 4-part-defense-roll system they've got right now (which takes care of certain aspects that the AQ range addresses), but the team could still easily work in part of your weapon/armor type relationship, even without adopting the whole thing. For what it's worth, I give it several thumbs up. Admit it, you liked it because the allure of a large post was just too strong. I know you! :D Jokes aside, yes, they would keep the flavour, but get rid of the stiffness. I think it would be interesting for the player to compare and experiment with different damage/AP and DT/AQ combinations. Weapons with high AP would still be preferable against armors with high DT and armor penetration (AP) wouldn't be a piercing damage exception. If every weapon has this stat, the player has to keep it in mind when judging the effectiveness of said weapon, and that adds a bit more fun in finding new weapons, I think. No spreadsheets would be needed though; the rules are simple - the bigger the numbers the better the weapon/armor is!
  15. Valorian
    I've tried the system with many different ranges. If the range is the problem (it doesn't seem to be), the larger problem is scaling. I really don't like systems that terminate their scaling, which is why I'm avoiding DT as a percentile reduction. I've tried lots of values for weapons, for armor, for DT bypass, for MDTDT, linked or unlinked to damage types/handedness/speed in different ways. I think the model itself has too many input variables/factors to be elegant and clear. I had another idea last night that I discussed with Tim this morning that I'll be playing around with. I think it will be more intuitive than either system I've talked about, but I want to play around with it for a while. I don't like percentile reductions (as a base armor system) either. Anyhow. I'll offer you my armor mechanics system, because... I'd really like your project to succeed so if I can help in any way, I'd be glad. I'm a little bit jealous of it and I'd love to use it some day in an imaginary rpg that I'd be working on, but since that's most likely not going to happen, here it is: Armor has two stats: DT (or DR) and AQ (armor quality). DT would be a flat number and I'd have it work with smaller numbers (and differences) than your example; For example. Tunic: 3 DT Leather: 6 DT Plate: 9 DT (It would of course vary depending on material type, magical properties etc.) AQ is also an extremely important stat. It would be expressed in a range, a roll, (e.g. 2-4) and would represent the quality of armor and the fact that different parts of armor have a different chance to be penetrated. For example. Average leather armor could have an AQ value of 2-5. Plate 3-8. Etc. All weapons would have an armor penetration stat, in addition to other stats, also expressed in a range: For example, a dagger could have an armor penetration value of 1d5 (1-5), a maul 2d6 (2-12) etc. With your str modifier which should be something reasonable and not too hight (and dex modifier in the case of finesse weapons, but I'll leave that for later). How would it work: Let's say you have an enemy with leather armor with the following stats: DT: 6 AQ: 3-8 And an attacker with a mace: Damage: 4-8 AP: 3-5 (+2 str bonus) -for finesse weapons the bonus would be drawn from dex If the AP roll is greater than the AQ roll, DT is halved for this particular hit. For finesse weapons (like daggers and stilettos etc.) the DT would be reduced to 1/3. In practice this would look like this. Attacker with the mace rolls 7 damage. Rolls an AP value of 6. Defender in leather has base 6 DT. Rolls AQ value of 5. AP > AQ and therefore DT is halved from 6 to 3. 7 - 3 = 4 damage is dealt. If the AP roll wasn't higher than the AQ roll. Only 1 damage would be dealt. 7 - 6 = 1. These are just example numbers. It's not rock-paper-scissors like your armor system (especially the new one with the 50% damage penalty) because every weapon has a chance of penetrating, but the chance varies depending on the type of weapons, your str or dex score and other factors such as magical properties. A sword could have a lower AP of let's say 1-4 (+str bonus), but higher damage than a mace. Minimum of 1 damage dealt, regardless of armor, would be good. PS. Although, I do think that having DT be a range would be preferable, perhaps. Instead of 6 DT, it could be 4-7 DT etc. And I know it seems complicated at first.
  16. Valorian
    You're forgetting to factor DT into the equation. Making a challenging AI for such a system is a very complex task. Because it involves calculating dynamic positioning relative to the risk of attacks of opportunity and damage-type effectiveness. Have you considered designing DT and damage to not have such a wide range, from when you start the game to end levels? Instead of 0 - 50, to have a range of 0 - 25, for example? I'm not sure how damage/DT scales as you level up and find better loot, but having huge leaps is not good for balance.
  17. Valorian
    I made only a quick scan of your post, Lephys, you know me. In fact, they *are* using a combination of both and I had that in mind when I made my observations about why including a massive 50% damage penalty is a horrible decision.
  18. Valorian
    I don't see that single zombie is enemy which I would qualify a nasty enemy. But group of zombies could have several different kinds of weapons with them, so it would be wise to player to use several different armor types in his or her party. Or zombies could carry diseases, which would make normal armor useless against some of their special attacks, as those attacks goes against characters fortitude. If we take assumption that golem's creator has not equip them with slashing or piercing weapons, then we can make rock golems be nasty enemies making their armor such that all weapon types are bad against them or make them do so much damage that even characters in good armor type against it hits can't take many. And of course there could be enemies that deal only one damage type as they only wield one weapon, which would make them be in somewhat disadvantage against characters that wear armor which their weapon is bad against. And if remember correctly, inventory system which they have planned has very limited number places for items that you can uses outside of the safe zones, which could make it bad idea to keep there twelve change armors, for cases where you face opponents that deal only one type of damage. And eighteen good armors probably cost rather heavy price to one keep so many in his or her stack. If, if, if... It's not about ifs or about the zombie being a serial killer, it's about realistic situations and possibilities. It's about this system being super debilitating for the AI and a mere annoyance (at worst) for the player. Do you find a pack of wolves (alpha wolf included) attacking the player a realistic scenario? What will they do if their damage type (piercing) is completely useless against the party's armor? Will they pause the game, go to the dentist, have their teeth removed and replaced with blades or guns? All the player needs to do is find the nearest transition, change armor and come back. No, he doesn't even need to reload... And wolves and their teeth will be useless. That's if they happen to be spotted by the pack of wolves, if they're not.. the party doesn't even need to exit the area and can change armor on the spot, before engaging them. Wolves can't. You face a huge aumaua brute with a two-handed warmace.. And all of a sudden, 'coz he doesn't like your armor type, he unsheathes his lil' dagger and starts poking you with it... Or, a powerful assassin, and you've heard stories about him and his prowess with daggers, throws his daggers away at the beginning of the fight and starts hitting you with a flail? Really? What would this silliness look like? Is it worth it? And what about attacks of opportunity (against a headless AI chicken that chases your guy with light armor) that I mentioned earlier, how would you like to fix that? The -50% thing works in strategy games like Warcraft where units can't just switch their damage type. Deciding which units (and damage types) to produce is an important strategic element in such games. Here, they want it to be a tactical element, and it simply doesn't work for the AI.
  19. Valorian
    Oh yes, this is indeed ingenious... having every enemy and their mother switch weapons (even if it's completely out of character) to overcome their "bad" damage type that they've been practicing with their entire lives. I'd expect a zombie to pull a hammer out of its ass if the axe doesn't do the job, correct? Rock golems should start hitting with karate chops to overcome their inherent proficiency for bludgeoning, no?
  20. Valorian
    Alright, analysis time. The rock-paper-scissors armor mechanics and why would it be better to reduce the damage penalty for "bad" damage types to at most -25%. And perhaps limiting the number of times you can switch weapons in combat. The 50% penalty: *AI is screwed. Will AI focus targets that have "appropriate" armor? If so, the slash-monster with a slashing weapon who runs around the battlefield going after the lightly armored party member because the rest of the party is in heavy armor, causing attacks of opportunity against itself all over the place - is it a good thing? *You face a particularly nasty opponent (within a group or not) that does copious amounts of, say, slashing damage. Too bad, people in your party are all in light or medium armor. No problem! Reload and have them wear heavy armor and laugh the once-nasty opponent out of the battle with his pitiful 50% damage output before DT even comes into play. Shall I say... degeneration? Is this good combat? Lowering the damage penalty would lessen the rock-paper-scissors effect and make the life of AI much easier. Limiting the number of times you can switch weapon sets during combat (to 1 time, could improve with talents) would make it an important tactical decision. Do I throw my shield on the ground (figuratively) and use a two-handed weapon? If I do so I won't be able to pick up the shield until the fight ends so I need to think about it carefully. As opposed to willy-nilly switching weapons when the tool-tip says "DO NOT HIT WITH SLASHING!", "DO NOT HIT WITH CRUSHING!" ... - The mechanics for weapon bonus elemental damage sound completely illogical.
  21. Valorian
    Oh my, we have some important things to discuss here. 1) This is quite a horrible change. Before this change your character could kind of still work in a "bad" weapon-vs-armor scenario, but with this huge arbitrary drop of -50% damage before armor mitigation, you're making it completely unviable. It's unintuitive and makes the reflex-switch, when you see a baddy armor in the tool-tip, a necessity. For the sake of... what? What was the problem before? Can't the player switch weapons when he sees he's doing 1 damage to his target? Isn't it preferable, from a tactical combat perspective, for the player to dynamically adjust his tactics, exhibiting tactical awareness, instead of having laid out what needs to be done in a tool-tip, beforehand? 2) I'm not sure I follow. So if the effect did +50% the sword's damage, it would be opposed to 50% of the damage threshold? Why does more damage lead to more DT being applied? Why is this bonus elemental damage a percentage? Is this bonus damage in-game actually a flat damage value (or damage range), but expressed in a percentage here for this example, to explain how it works against armor?
  22. Valorian
    This could work on budget. Make 3 attack animations per weapon, but let all swords have the same animations. Same with hammers and morningstars or flails. This overlap is no big thing, and you save money for death animations as well Neither do I.
  23. Valorian
    Inchresting! I'm curious if there'll be some (not insignificant) combat penalties for a party that has been spotted, like a penalty to defense for instance? Or will such a party be as combat ready as a party that went directly on the foe, weapons unsheathed, with the intention to fight?
  24. Valorian
    And level scaling IS in--with locked zonal encounter scaling and bounded plot level-scaling. All of this stuff should be in the FAQ/sticky/wiki/whatever. Stop spreading misinformations. Josh confirmed that if they scale anything, they'll scale only special crit path encounters. "The only things we're likely to scale with player level are crit-path special encounters and even then, only within a range of levels." http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63017-level-scaling-and-its-misuse/page-9?do=findComment&comment=1297921
  25. Valorian
    What you're asking for is a no-brainer and guaranteed to be in the game. In 2013, if you're including a race of bipedal, amphibious monsters, they're not all going to be of the variety that wields axes, lacks ranged weapons, casts no spells, attacks mindlessly and has exactly 30 hitpoints. There's bound to be at least the usual shaman and a variety that's even bigger and badder and maybe even a lizard chieftain. That was true in the year 2000 AD, and it's even more true now. However, adding randomization to the mix is the only way to ensure that even a veteran player can't contemplate exact strategies without ever even seeing his enemies. No more boring meta-gamey picking of spells at the start of the game knowing "this is the spell I'll use to pwn the monster on level 3, room 2, second coffin from the right in the Temple of Doom". All randomization within limits of course, but even though I always advocate for the game to be well playable in Ironman mode I could live with the fact that randomization of enemies in a horde had an influence on my party's demise. It's still preferrable over the lack of excitement of knowing every enemy in the game like the back of your hand. Then there are people who think randomization is of the devil and must be cleansed with fire, of course. You missed the point completely and misconstrued what I said (how shocking); I share your vision, worthy of Nostradamus, that members of each race won't be clones... but that wasn't the point. I was talking about variety in details. From naming, to appearance to stats and passive abilities - for all creatures and encounters, not just bipedal races. That piece of armor on the skeleton's shoulder didn't fall from the sky; it involved development resources. PE is not Diablo, so no, spawns shouldn't be randomized for the sake of "veteran needs more challenge!". Some random encounters when you travel between maps - sure, but general spawns being random - no.
×
×
  • Create New...