Jump to content

Giubba

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

About Giubba

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. First impression let's see...... Create a new game ok Watch the cutscenes ok Reach the first conversation....game crash even before reaching character creator 2nd try Reach char creator and complete it Move to the game Nice first impression game seems more polished and involving than POE 1 beginning Pass the very first sequence and reach the first map and....i start noticing strange stuttering and freezing,drop in the frame rate etc. After a couple of minutes game crash 3rd try Load the savegame Went inside the first cave Spent some time inside and game freeze for a good minute when i finish levelling up for the first time with my char. I DID NOT uninstalled the game but god dammit i was close to do it, i thought that with poe obsidian finally move on from they ****ing trend of releasing game bugged to kingdom come. I guess i'm gonna complete a POE game first so some patch will roll in and i hope it will fix some ****.
  2. .....MAGIC. You're aware this is what we're talking about, right? Are you aware magic is a work of fiction and is not governed by the laws of physics? Magic must answer to the law of its fictional universe and as someone pointed out on page 1 this is not the case.
  3. Creativity and free spirit are good but if they are not tempered with common sense they became silly. How many kids when they play became superduper heroes who can do anything ? The muscular mage is the same thing it's a naive stereotype.
  4. So the only character you are able to quote as being both great wizards and great fighter are gods,godling, or mary sue character? Stop try to justify the unjustifiable.
  5. Josh, one of the things that I think you aren't taking into account when dealing with PoE numbers in general (i.e. not shifting the numbers to negatives and positives and only making things positive, or large numbers, or decimals) is that these "complex" numbers are easy for the computer to crunch but become hard for the players to comprehend in terms of magnitude and implication. 1000% bonus damage? What does that mean for a player? 10x damage makes more sense. Same with other numbers. I really think you should look back at how you're implementing numbers and while considering that the computer can crunch those numbers for you, people have to actually make informed considerations with those numbers and keeping the numbers manageable will go a long way in usability. If people can't make calculations in a first-order model quickly, it's tough to truly understand that system. Ultimately, present the information in a way that most people could understand it. Yeah. This. But mostly the problem I have is that there's no meaningful consequences for dumping a stat to 3. If you build a fighter with 3 Might, you shouldn't be receiving a 10% bonus to base damage (especially with a melee weapon). You should be receiving a significant penalty to damage. Your Greatsword should do less than its base. You can chalk this up to "ok, so we just need to tweak the values a bit, stop whining trololol!!", but we all know it's more than that. The decision to eliminate stat penalties IS part of the "No-bad-builds" design goal. Tweaking the numbers so that dumping a stat carries significant build penalties would go against the design goal. This! Really i'm not playing the troll right now, but you really cannot see the Stun's point?
  6. Gandalf is good with a sword. What he's saying is that Gandalf is basically a half-god. Gods in general can be simultaneously great at everything. Not half, lesser god and you got the point mate.
  7. "Muscular wizards do not line up with my stereotype of wizards, therefore the core mathematical mechanics and design of the entire system is flawed. Also, I am incapable of opening up a dictionary and checking possible definitions of 'might.' Send help." Putting aside that yes it doesn't align with my vision of a wizard, the primary reason i'm opposed to the concept is that is ridiculous pretending that a system that allow the existence of a character that can hurt like a fighter class and cast ,at the same time, the same amount of spell with the same effect of a vanilla wizard is nothing but inherently flawed But he's still inferior. Lemme do another comparison and guess which game I'm citing: Fallout New Vegas, cause I'd have sex with that game and take a bullet for it. <3 Anyways, you know what ultimately is gonna set apart two characters in New Vegas with 100 Melee Weapons skill? Perks. The game was admittedly poorly balanced skillpoint-wise for level 50, for obvious reasons (initially capped at 30), so capping skills was pretty easy. So doesn't that destroy roleplaying? Won't my Legionaire skilled in Melee weapons and unarmed tactics be just as good with energy weapons as my Brotherhood of Steel paladin and vice-versa? No, because perks. Perks made all the difference between "competence" and "mastery." 100 Melee weapons without a perk just means you deal considerable damage with melee weapons. A character with all the perks though...? They can't be knocked down, they knockdown on hit, they do massive damage to blocking opponents and they attack faster. You put two characters with 100 melee weapons against each other while only one has perks, the unperked one doesn't have a prayer. Same concept here. Yes you CAN go melee with a sword as a wizard....but why would you? A Wizard can't knockdown with a sword, a Fighter can. Likewise a wizard can already cast from range and auto-attack with a staff, so why would you diminish his ability by making him melee? You wouldn't. And to top that off, what law of the land ever claimed a character like Gandalf cannot possibly be competent in swordplay? That's nonsense. Just because you're smart doesn't mean you can't be physically capable aswell. That little trope came into play to reinforce RPG mechanics, as replay value and varied character playstyle are a cornerstone of RPG gameplay.....But we HAVE the varied gameplay here! The Fighter and Wizard are both capable of things the other is not! Just because they have a common ground in that both can wield a sword competently does not mean they're the same; you'd NEVER create a wizard with the sole intent of him meleeing with a sword because that's madness. Likewise, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think wizards are capable of taking the weapon talents that award increased skill with that weapon type, so they'd fall behind in that regard aswell. So wtf is the issue? Dear god, your wizard can use a sword without accidently cutting his **** off! Surely this is a crime against humanity! Never played Fallout 3,i'm not on post-apocalyptic stuff. But anyway do you realize that Gandalf is a Maia aka the lesser rank of divinity of Ea? Just saying . Why i would? Crap if i can make a character that makes the same amount of melee dmg of my fighter added with the magic dmg of a wizard who need cc ability i will be able to blow the sorry bastard ass out of his next 3 incarnation at very least. BUT WHY WOULD YOU MELEE? That's the point, you wouldn't. The magic you can dish out as a wizard is far superior and you get a magic auto-attack with the staff. Why on earth would you even make a swordplay-focused wizard? You wouldn't, that's the point. So you're complaining a concept is POSSIBLE even though it's completely counter-intuitive....you know, just like statting a wizard full with STR in a D&D game. I have no idea what any of this even means and I hope you realize how hard you're missing the point if you're citing some LoTR lore as a reason why Gandalf wouldn't be good with a sword. Holy crap yes i totally would, i could deal both physical and magical damage at the same time in theory i could be able to bypass any kind of damage resistence in the game. About the lotro sutff: i wasn't really clear but anyway my point was you involuntarily mentioned a character that has literaly no possible restrain because it's bloody god (a lesser one but a god nevertheless), so you saying why Gandalf cannot use a sword? Well duh he's a freaking god of course he can do anything he want. And yes i never played fallout 3 i'm not a particular fan of elder scrollish game and as i said post-apocalyptic stuff is not my forte.
  8. Prime sorry but i will never ever buy this animeish explanation. And Conan the barbarian as example of believability is not exatly the best one. While the description of a wizard as a sad nerd that somehow his nerdines made him master of the World is more believable... Yeah,right Translate with a studious of a science that require hundreds of hour of study and specific training that do not leave much time for physical practice than that yes is correct. And what about the sad nerd stuff? Guys even in books author try to avoid mary sue character like the plague, do you think there is a reason or not?
  9. "Muscular wizards do not line up with my stereotype of wizards, therefore the core mathematical mechanics and design of the entire system is flawed. Also, I am incapable of opening up a dictionary and checking possible definitions of 'might.' Send help." Putting aside that yes it doesn't align with my vision of a wizard, the primary reason i'm opposed to the concept is that is ridiculous pretending that a system that allow the existence of a character that can hurt like a fighter class and cast ,at the same time, the same amount of spell with the same effect of a vanilla wizard is nothing but inherently flawed But he's still inferior. Lemme do another comparison and guess which game I'm citing: Fallout New Vegas, cause I'd have sex with that game and take a bullet for it. <3 Anyways, you know what ultimately is gonna set apart two characters in New Vegas with 100 Melee Weapons skill? Perks. The game was admittedly poorly balanced skillpoint-wise for level 50, for obvious reasons (initially capped at 30), so capping skills was pretty easy. So doesn't that destroy roleplaying? Won't my Legionaire skilled in Melee weapons and unarmed tactics be just as good with energy weapons as my Brotherhood of Steel paladin and vice-versa? No, because perks. Perks made all the difference between "competence" and "mastery." 100 Melee weapons without a perk just means you deal considerable damage with melee weapons. A character with all the perks though...? They can't be knocked down, they knockdown on hit, they do massive damage to blocking opponents and they attack faster. You put two characters with 100 melee weapons against each other while only one has perks, the unperked one doesn't have a prayer. Same concept here. Yes you CAN go melee with a sword as a wizard....but why would you? A Wizard can't knockdown with a sword, a Fighter can. Likewise a wizard can already cast from range and auto-attack with a staff, so why would you diminish his ability by making him melee? You wouldn't. And to top that off, what law of the land ever claimed a character like Gandalf cannot possibly be competent in swordplay? That's nonsense. Just because you're smart doesn't mean you can't be physically capable aswell. That little trope came into play to reinforce RPG mechanics, as replay value and varied character playstyle are a cornerstone of RPG gameplay.....But we HAVE the varied gameplay here! The Fighter and Wizard are both capable of things the other is not! Just because they have a common ground in that both can wield a sword competently does not mean they're the same; you'd NEVER create a wizard with the sole intent of him meleeing with a sword because that's madness. Likewise, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think wizards are capable of taking the weapon talents that award increased skill with that weapon type, so they'd fall behind in that regard aswell. So wtf is the issue? Dear god, your wizard can use a sword without accidently cutting his **** off! Surely this is a crime against humanity! Never played Fallout 3,i'm not on post-apocalyptic stuff. But anyway do you realize that Gandalf is a Maia aka the lesser rank of divinity of Ea? Just saying . Why i would? Crap if i can make a character that makes the same amount of melee dmg of my fighter added with the magic dmg of a wizard who need cc ability i will be able to blow the sorry bastard ass out of his next 3 incarnation at very least.
  10. Prime sorry but i will never ever buy this animeish explanation. And Conan the barbarian as example of believability is not exatly the best one.
  11. "Muscular wizards do not line up with my stereotype of wizards, therefore the core mathematical mechanics and design of the entire system is flawed. Also, I am incapable of opening up a dictionary and checking possible definitions of 'might.' Send help." Putting aside that yes it doesn't align with my vision of a wizard, the primary reason i'm opposed to the concept is that is ridiculous pretending that a system that allow the existence of a character that can hurt like a fighter class and cast ,at the same time, the same amount of spell with the same effect of a vanilla wizard is nothing but inherently flawed
  12. If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue. It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else. And that's the reason why they didn't. The point is that this is a balance problem and not an inherent flaw in the core mechanics. I think what he is saying that they will tweak the impact of the attributes until they do have the desired impact. Well no the system is inherent flawed for the sole reason that it want to make playable and viable build that do not have any logic (muscle wizard) and in doing so it opens the door to even bigger flawed build like the one Msxyz described in his post.
  13. If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue. It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else. And that's the reason why they didn't.
  14. Regarding bow: bow strings have a certain amount of kg of pull that they support, so a stronger bowman can pull further the string and transfer more force to the arrow once shoot, while the amount of force that a crossbow transfer to a bolt is only given to the physical structur of the crossbow itself. Bu this is an abstraction because if you apply to much force to a bow string the string could snap or a bowman with a certain level of strength could always pull the string at his max capacity, it's simply another method for calculating bow damage (with some actual logic on his side). For the rest: i'm not fairly sure what do you mean with magic add physical damage, you mean like in a lot of anime? Do we really want to move this game over the JRPG area? And lastly: Str:govern everithing that require physical force Dex:given or taken as it is in poe Con:Health Int:govern everything that require insubstantial force like magic,intelligence(the mind,the psyche call it as you want) rapresent the will that people put in controlling something invisble and insubstantial I would use only those attribute, the rest would be only a series of skill.
×
×
  • Create New...