Jump to content

codexer

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About codexer

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. My main personal point is that I want multiple save slots. I certainly don't think anyone, on either 'side', has suggested that you can't save at all or something. But multiple save slots/files ... where I can choose to save in this slot, play for an hour, then choose to put the next save in a new slot, creating a new file. There are numerous reasons why I like/prefer multiple save files, and most of them have little to do with wanting to "cheat" the game/combat all the time, every 5 minutes or whatever. Anyway, that is what I want, and that is what I've had the impression that the 'anti-s
  2. This is an amazingly ignorant argument. Never in my life have I heard of a DM letting their players "reload" and replay an event. Saving is simply not something that is part of the pen and paper-experience of roleplaying. Period. Also. I would ask of you to stop using the term "save-scumming" when it doesn't apply. Save-scumming is when you prevent the game from deleting your save. fair enough, I had never heard the term until this thread and I'm sorry, but saving is a part of the roleplaying experience. replaying content isn't and getting 2nd chances isn't, but its not at all unc
  3. This is an amazingly ignorant argument. Never in my life have I heard of a DM letting their players "reload" and replay an event. Saving is simply not something that is part of the pen and paper-experience of roleplaying. Period. Also. I would ask of you to stop using the term "save-scumming" when it doesn't apply. Save-scumming is when you prevent the game from deleting your save.
  4. Sylvius: would you also enjoy the freedom to decide your character statistics freely? Would it bother you if the game got too hard or too easy as a consequence?
  5. I think there are diminished effect of attrition when saving is allowed anywhere. Let me describe an example: Suppose your party cleared three fights since the last save. They did so without resorting to use of any "dailies", but you've sustained some damage to your party members and you're not in your best shape. You generally like to not use any of the dailies for non-boss battles. Now before you can proceed to the next level of the dungeon you will have to beat one more encounter and you're pretty sure it's not the boss. Also, you don't think you'll be able to rest in this dungeon. With no
  6. For an example: in fallout you could save on your own turn in combat. This could be used to win any fight by saving at the beginning of your turn and reloading until you had a good couple of attacks. You could also save at the end of the turn and reload if the enemy got any good blows in. This was a winning strategy of course - and a trivially easy one. The save mechanic wasn't quite lax enough in the IE-games so as to make combat trivial but it certainly made it a lot easier. You would never have to fail disarming a trap or fail at a pick-pocket attempt in those games either.
  7. This is the important point. The save mechanic is not something that's "outside" of the gameplay; it's something that's integral to how the game is played and thus its design impacts everything else. With a lax saving mechanic all games, regardless of other difficulty settings, end up trivial.
  8. I don't think anyone suggesting the removal of the "save&exit"-function. Such a function should always exist and it should allow you to quit at any time, but if you continue again the save-file is deleted. Savescumming is not exploiting the save-function to get a desirable result; that's just called saving and reloading. Savescumming is when you circumvent the deletion of a save-files from a continue: http://www.urbandict...rm=savescumming
  9. What old games, could you be more specific? all of the IE games if I remember correctly. IWD, PS:T etc. Most cRPG's actually. they just don't lead to an enjoyable experience when forced to repeat content. You couldn't save in combat so as far as I'm concerned there were limitations on saving.
  10. So let me get this straight. Y'all who're against limiting saving want the ability to save in combat and dialogue? Or do you want a limited saving at just certain times, like for example outside of combat and dialogue? For you in the first camp. I hope you realize that the combat can be portioned up into a series of random rolls of which you can come out on top in each case? In fact, playing optimally will be doing just that. This is obviously very bad design because the game becomes deterministic; the enemy will fail and you will succeed. Playing optimally will be tedious but valid inside
  11. This is a silly argument. If you think it's boring to play overly cautious then stop doing it! You're basically admitting here that the game-mechanic of limited saving is forcing the player to become better at the game. This is a good thing. Repetition is simply the punishment for playing bad. That's about the point when you lower the difficulty a bit~ Having limitations on savings makes the game harder because it requires that you play more consistently. It's a degree of difficulty that can't just be likened to increasing how much HP and damage the enemies do; it's another
  12. what have they said that makes you think that? I haven't read anything that leads me to believe we will have limited spell choices. I'm not being condescending. I really would like to know. We have the JS quote: "Knock and its old friends spider climb and invisibility are part of a classic family of spells that made rogue and thief players say, "Hey, why do I exist?" I don't believe their inclusion in pre-4E editions of D&D and AD&D was a great thing." In conjunction with how TC described the classes in the twelfth update:
  13. I'm not worried about cooldowns. I'm worried about spell selections and spell lists in general. Will they be as rich as the IE-games? I see no indication thereof, rather I see traces of the opinion that big chunks of the arcane spells of D&D are going out the window so as to not make wizard highly customizable and also prevent them from stepping on other classes toes. I guess I want omnipotence in high level wizards. My fear is that on a white board in the OE:HQ the following thing has been written out: Fighters - Tank/DPS Rogue - DPS/utility Priest - heal/buff Mage - DPS/controll
  14. On balance Let S be the set of all possible spells in Project: Eternity. Let x be a character and let Bx be the set of spells available for that character. Assuming a cooldown mechanic, let Bxcd be the (multi) set of spells currently chosen to be on continual refreshing via a cooldown. In this situation we have that Bxcd is a subset of Bx, which, in turn, is a subset of S. I want to investigate under which circumstances this series of inclusions is part of a balanced game. The set which most directly determines the power of x is Bxcd, and it is clear that this set must be limited
×
×
  • Create New...