Merin
-
Posts
618 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Merin
-
-
In the old IE games rogues weren't DPS kings. You had to be invisible to backstab, and once you got off a single backstab, that was it. You became visible and your subsequent hits were normal weapon damage, and far less than what a standard Fighter could do per round. If you wanted to backstab again, you had to re-stealth, which was nearly impossible to do without magical assistance, and literally impossible to do in the same round as your previous backstab.
In IE games rogues were so unnecessary that I almost never had one. Locked doors? Knock spell. Traps? Run through them and heal the damage. That's how I played all my D&D cRPGs. Magic really made rogues absolutely unnecessary.
-
So...Dragon Age combat then. Well that's it. I was trying to decide between the $140 and $250 tiers. Now I won't be contributing at all. An old school game with cooldowns. Nice. Unless MCA or Tim Cain can convince Sawyer of the wrongness of them. I'll wait to see if cooldowns are officially ruled out until the end of the kickstarter, but this game is dead to me now. Enjoy your Biowarian twitch-based popamole kiddies. I'll go back to replaying BG2 and anticipating Wasteland 2.
lol
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, right?
"My way or no money from me." The less of those responses on the forum, the better.
-
1
-
-
Maybe it would be best if we forgot both vancian and manabar systems and go full on skill-based system. Like where mage can learn conjuration, evokation, illusion, summoning skills as base skills, which s/he uses to cast different kinds of spells. Each spell has difficult level, like what higher difficult level is more mage gets penalty to his or her skill check. And addition to that mage can decide how fast s/he tries to cast spell, shorter casting time means more penalty to skill check and longer casting times comparably make skill check easier. And then we can throw addition of mix skill checks for more powerful spells to stop mages to think before they min max one skill detriment others.
I'm not sure I like it, overall, but it does seem like the kind of thinking outside the box I'd personally like to see overall.
-
Obsidian is doing an above average job overall. And, for the most part, they are doing a great job.
They could have been more enthusiastic and optimistic going in. That's the only fault I'll give them.
Otherwise, after day one they really ran with it.
Would I have them do somethings differently? Sure. But I don't think they are doing anything poorly.
-
1
-
-
And since they are looking to balance things, especially for tactical choices with companions and such, classes being built for specific roles seems like a no-brainer. They are doing it.
But without that many companion characters, that risks limiting players to just a handful of viable party constructions.
I think we are kind of at that. Even with all the stretch goals we've reached we have 5 companion slots and 7 potential companions. That's with the two additional companions from the stretches, so originally we would have had JUST enough to fill out the party. Unless I'm really misreading stuff.
You have 5 companions plus your MC. Initially there were 5 classes, but now there are 2 more. That implies 1 companion of each class - and they've also said that each companion is of a different class, so yeah. You ARE limited in your options - the only clear way to get two of one class in the party is when you make your MC.
You get to shuffle around 2 slots out of 5 now, really. It'll be like most BioWare games post BG2 for me - replayability is hurt by the limited number of companion combinations (which was only kept at all fresh by limiting it to 2 or 3 your can bring with you (or 1, in Jade Empire.)
Digressing a bit there - anywho... we were very limited, but two stretch goals have given us some options.
-
In the end of the day whatever system they go with I'll be happy with as long as it fits the lore. No shoving something in because everyone loves it if it doesn't fit the setting.
In the end, I too will be happy with any system they use ....UNLESS they settle for an action/DPS system that makes mages feel like nothing more than archers with colorful arrows. because nothing can be more stupid than that.
Agreed.
As I said before - spells should NOT be like ammunition for guns or bows (got my fireblast / incendiary rounds / flame arrow; my magic missile / armor piercing rounds / razor arrow; etc.)
Magic should be fantastic and do things that no mundane things can.
All the blasts and buffing kind of take the magic out of magic for me, really.
-
I think there's plenty of strategy in only being able to cast so many spells in a given encounter, or 24 hour period (not based on resting, but one time passage in the game), based on some mechanic (in this game's case, the soul) only allowing so much energy to be filtered through it in a given period of time.
If the spell caster knows how to use that energy to make fireballs, he should be able to cast as many fireballs as his energy allows. Anything outside of that feels artificial... unless you include some kind of component requirement, and then you need to have enough bat guano or some such (I am not advocating components - hate it!)
Magic shouldn't be a gun with special ammunition... or bow with special arrows.
Personally, I also wish there were other down sides to casting spells - Warhammer does this pretty well, and theoretically Dragon Age's setting (even if not the game mechanics) does so, too.
People are really locked into the spell schools, spell lists, number of spells per day, realm. There are so many other ways this could be done.
I guess suites of spells is a possibility, but it just sounds like tinkering with the underlying mechanisms and logic of Vancian. If the suites work off of "I am a fire mage, I can choose these spells" or "I work with illusions, these are the spells I can choose" I can live with that. I don't think that's what's being suggested, though.
-
This just feels like a 3E vs. balance argument again.
People who like 3E like character creation freedom. They don't like limits on what they can make They love multi-classing, min/maxing, and using skills and such in unique and unusual ways.
This isn't wrong - but it does cause a problem for game balance.
Since they chose to go with classes, I have to believe that balance and clearly defined roles are exactly what they want. They have said as much, I remember specifically in the Reddit questions that Tim Cain answered.
And since they are looking to balance things, especially for tactical choices with companions and such, classes being built for specific roles seems like a no-brainer. They are doing it.
---
Outside of this, while the terms like tank and such came out of RTS and MUD's (sorry, they existed before MMO's, guys... the terms for the roles, at least), the concepts are older. D&D, the very beginnings, you had front line combatant, support, ranged, flankers, and artillery. Yes, magic items gave some leeway on some things, and spell selection in particular, but the concept of specifically trained people filling specific roles is how militaries work....
Phalanx soldiers weren't also archers. Skirmish troops weren't used to absorb initial charges. Heavy cavalry didn't hold back to fire trebuchets.
I am not a fan of MMO's, but in this concern all they did was codify and focus on what already existed.
You can even see this in most classic super-hero teams -
Justice League: Superman, Wonder Woman - your bricks; Batman, Aquaman - your flankers; Flash - your skirmisher, Green Lantern - your artillery; Maritan Manhunter - support.
Fantastic Four: Human Torch - artillery; Invisible Girl - support; Mr. Fantastic - skirmisher; Thing - brick
X-Men: Angel - skirmisher; Beast - brick; Cyclops - artillery; Iceman, Marvel Girl - support.
Did they mix it up for a good story? Sure... but they clearly had roles in the field.
It's kind of archetypal. How many fantasy stories do you read about wizards going toe to toe with barbarians? How many thieves or archers? How many stories are the barbarians in back, covering the backs of others or tending the wounded? I'm sure there are exceptions out there (or you can pick the odd occasions like Robin Hood and John Little having their quarterstaff match) but, for the most part, these "roles" really existed before MMO's.
-
Having some sort of "Prelude" or "Origin" where you get to organically determine your character sheet could be a cool alternative to being able to edit it manually.
That said, Fallout 3's prompt that let you edit your sheet again just as you left the Vault was horribly immersion-breaking, so that either needs to be presented in a more immersive way, or there should be a switch you can flip in the game's settings to disable the prompt and just go with whatever sheet your choices have generated.
And, of course, there has to be an option to skip the prelude entirely and just go straight to the character sheet and then jump into the game.
I agree - the Fallout 3 beginning is great, on a first play of the game.
But any veteran of TES games will tell you that you should create one permanent save game - right before you leave the tutorial area, right before you can make those final changes to your character - so on replays you can just load there and "create your new character" then.
But I also agree - a toggle / ability to switch this would be better. Even better? Tutorial is optional and part of the start menu.
-
I prefer the vanacian systme honestly.
Not only is it more tacticla and rewards preparedness more, but it also given the gmae gravitas. Having to rest, but the area being dangerous - a tactical decision.
With no mana and HP that replenishes after each battle you have ot make some tough choices.
In tabletop games, the "Vancian" systems do make strategic gameplay more important, but a lot of that is lost in a game with reloading. Especially if the choice of spells has a dramatic effect on efficacy (e.g. did you memorize dimensional anchor before fighting creatures that are constantly teleporting all over the battlefield), failure to select the "right" ones can result in catastrophic failure. In the absence of information required to make informed decisions, those choices aren't strategic; they're just guesses. After a reload, they're meta-strategic, but I doubt most players feel clever for making a retrospectively obvious choice.
...
I think this may be a fairly strong indication that Vancian isn't likely.
If so, let's now all join in hoping for Obsidian to come up with a great system of their own!
-
It is indeed strange and rather confusing too... The typos don't help either. ^^
I don't know why it's that strange. Those are some of the ways that games handle character creation... and it's a "mark as many answers as you want" so if you want, say, what Bethesda has (answer questions, but then get a character sheet to adjust however you want (or, in earlier TES games like Morrowind, the option to skip one of the processes), or you want some kind of tutorial introduction where your stats are chosen for you as you play only, or you want random rolls that aren't explained outside of the manual....
It seems pretty straightforward to me.
-
RPG =/= Storytelling. Dear Esther is thattaway --->
Okay, yes, a good story helps add to the total package of what makes RPGs good, but if one requires 3D whizbangery to get their story... well, see above.
Story != RPG
Correct.
I know many people are upset at BioWare for "romance"... but what I'm upset at BioWare for is that they have successful upended precedence by making people believe story + recruitable companions = good cRPG.
Story, or companions, are as "vital" to a cRPG being a cRPG as gold, swords, class-based leveling and transferring of characters between games.... that is to say they can be part of a cRPG, but a cRPG certainly doesn't need any of them to be a cRPG.
Grrr.
-
And I am already looking at the wrong game. This is not a game for me, I am fully aware of that. But I still cringe when I see ignorant people discussing things based on old notions and nostalgia.
Query - if this isn't a game for you it, the wrong game as you say...
did you donate to it? Why - to just support Obsidian?
And whether you donated or not (especially if you hadn't, but it's not that important) - if it's isn't for you, why are you advocating for changes to it?
This forum is not restricted only for fans of this game. Of course he has right to voice his opinion as much as any of us do.
This wasn't a "go away, you aren't allowed" question but a "why do you care if you already know the game isn't for you?"
I mean, I don't like Call of Duty. I'm not a FPS fan. I think it'd be an absolute waste of my time to go over to an Activision forum and start telling them that I want to be able to create a character and engage in dialog with characters for a game I'm not going to buy anyway.
Of course, in a public forum, he can say what he wants.
But why would he want to? I don't understand the motivation, the return on effort. "Here's a game I don't want, it isn't for me... and I'm going to tell them how I'd prefer it to be created anyway."
It's a silly waste of time, but his time to waste I guess.
---
That said -
if he's not a backer, he doesn't actually get to have an equal voice in how the game is made. He can say what he wants about the game where ever there's a public forum for such things - but someone who isn't putting money down shouldn't really have his voice considered with much weight.
It's like someone who won't vote in an election complaining about politics. Yeah, sure, they CAN - but why if you aren't really part.
---
If he DID donate, even if the game isn't for him, I still think it is something of a waste of time for him - but as he put money in, then his voice should carry some weight.
-
I'm going to go so far as to add that character creation is more than twice as important to me as story and companion characters combined!
I just like making characters.
-
And I am already looking at the wrong game. This is not a game for me, I am fully aware of that. But I still cringe when I see ignorant people discussing things based on old notions and nostalgia.
Query - if this isn't a game for you it, the wrong game as you say...
did you donate to it? Why - to just support Obsidian?
And whether you donated or not (especially if you hadn't, but it's not that important) - if it's isn't for you, why are you advocating for changes to it?
-
I'll be the stick-in-the-mud who says, "Boo, multi-classing."
Also, not having stuff limited by race makes me a little sad. I like content locked out by choices the player makes, even in character creation.
Choosing to play the thief, for example, should stop you from doing the "uphold the law" quest, or being the dwarf should prevent you from picking up the "elves attacking the dwarves" quest. Simplistic, broad examples... but it's what I'd prefer.
That said, these aren't deal breakers for me at all.
-
1
-
-
Arcanum had a fairly nice balance, more recently I also liked Drakensangs.
What the hell ever happened to Dragon magazine anyway, just stopped appearing in the newsagents over here in blighty.
Dragon? Uhm, WotC took the license away from Paizo and made it part of the WotC D&D website first, then part of DDI. Back in like 2007-2008.
-
2
-
-
Creating my character is the number one reason why I play cRPGs. Everything else comes in behind being able to create my own character.
I have fun with questionnaires, or playing through character creation, as long as it is skipable and I get to see a character sheet at the end and edit it to my tastes.
-
5
-
-
You can make a great RPG that has Wasteland-tier graphics, but I'm sure that's not the goal
Everything I've heard the devs say says that more or less IS their goal, and when the first screens come out, though they are sure to be lovely, I think a lot of pledgers are going to feel awkward because they didn't really understand the kind of game they were funding.
Wasteland 2 graphics, maybe, but certainly not Wasteland.
That said - Obsidian said Infinity Engine and listed, specifically, Baldur's Gate...
... Icewind Dale ...
... and Planescape: Torment
-
All I ask is for developer to not take this kind of threads too seriously. I'm facepalming here over and over again for some of these requests. If they listened to all of you, soon they would have some 1988 text-RPG in their hands.:D Nostalgia is ok, but this has to be updated to todays standards. Now it seems you are forbidding everything that possibly could make gameplay even a little bit smoother and less painful.
Clumsy user interface and unforgiving gameplay were not what made Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment great to me. In many ways they could have been lot better and some are requesting those same "not so good" features to return in this game. No thanks.
Yes, most are very reasonable, but for example things like semi-permanent companion death are just creating unnecessary reloading, or if you don't want to do that then you just walk to nearest priest and after formal fee, your companion is revived anyway. Some might say this is immersion. I would say it's just waste of time. Deaths should be made unwanted in some other way and (I know some won't like this) I think DA:O did great job by making revived characters "wounded" until you could cure them.
Also I think the old "spell and ability memorizing" system is outdated. It's just another version of cooldown mechanic. In old RPGs you had to sleep to memorize spells, which again is waste of time because all you need to do is go to nearest tavern or other place where you can rest and *poof*, spells are again usable. Nowdays you just have to wait certain time until you are going to be able to use the spell again. Just more streamlined version of the old system without unnecessary running around. I know in some dungeons you couldn't rest and so you had to think carefully your use of spells and abilities, but they can be made hard in so many other and IMO better ways that it's not really worth it.
There is a difference between "clumsy" and what I would say is instead "out of style."
Out of date implies inferior to new... and when it comes to most of the requests, they are matters of taste and opinion - not a quantifiable "inferior or superior" in the sense of game design advancement or technology.
Wanting CGA graphics instead of at least XGA - that's clearly inferior, out-dated tech.
Wanting text instead of voice - that's not "out dated", it's a matter of choice.
Characters being unkillable existed in early video games, it's not a new phenomenon. So the difference between companions being invulnerable or able to suffer death is a game design choice, or a player's preference, not inferior or superior. It may be out of style, but it's not out dated.
I don't want spell memorization, but it's not inherently inferior or out-dated... it's a matter or opinion or taste if it is good or bad.
Just my two cents on this.
-
-
I can't say for certain if they are going to do something, but if Trey and Matt do decide to make some reference in the show... it'll be hilarious.
-
Some minigames are fun. I really enjoyed the lockpicking minigame in Wizardry 8.
I don't want them in my cRPG's, but action RPGs I don't mind certain kinds. The BioShock ones, for example (and, yes, that's stretching the RPG concept, but still), I found fun.
I didn't mind the hacking mini-game in Alpha Protocol. Wasn't fond of the lock-pick one (but, then, I'm not fond of ANY lock pick mini-game I've experienced.)
-
I'd make the same offer, Sylvius, except I already doubled mine today to help push it over 2.1 million. That's about where I'm likely to cap it. I don't have any money, either, and this is already more than I should spend.
Limiting Combat Roles by Class
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
I just said this in a different thread -
I almost never (I think I fiddled once or twice with a fighter/rogue halfing or a mage/rogue elf once or twice) had a thief in my party in the D&D games. Not only could you have other characters handle the duties (or ignore the duties... oooh, traps, run through them and heal) but it was effectively a wasted slot - a second cleric or wizard would do you much more good, and even a second fighter (one more tank or an archer) was a better choice.
DA:O is the first game where I CREATED a rogue to play, and on my first play of the game - but that was because, narratively, with the background choices given and the one I picked, I wanted to role-play a rogue for the first time in my life. Say what you want about BioWare, that was an achievement in my book.
All the IE games, and D&D prior to 4E in general? Yeah, no thanks, negative interest in rogues. 4E, however, made rogues quite interesting to play tactically.