Stun

You mean respond selective. Yes, I'll often do that at times when someone makes a giant post filled with many different points. I'll then select the points I disagree with and form a response to them. Does we have a problem with that?

^can you show me where I disputed, quoted, or in any way disagreed with that passage of yours? Ever? You can't, because I didn't. Edit: Rigid and mathematical is THIS: ^deciding that it's pointless to play a bard simply because we did the calculations and determined that warriors do more damage in combat, and thieves are more effective at picking locks and disarming traps. If you wish to counter that your definition of fun is Power-gaming (or whatever you're arguing above), then fine. Say that. And then be prepared to defend the very irrational claim you made that a bard's spell list is paltry, when it is, in fact, something that very easily makes them more powerful than Thieves on the battlefield (for example)

I did no such thing.

Do your Chicago-style eyes see the word "objective" anywhere in that sentence? I wasn't speaking objectively. I was countering your rigid, mathematical-like approach to game design by reminding you of the whole point of playing a game in the first place: To have FUN.

That's not what anyone on this thread claimed. Obviously fun is not an objective measurement of anything. (who would ever argue otherwise?) The point, which you missed, is that when we discuss balance, we don't take into consideration all the intangibles that can make a game.... fun. Intangibles that Balance is at ODDS with. For example: Lots of people see power-gaming as fun. But Balance by definition seeks to minimize (or flat out eliminate) the ability to power-game. On the other hand, Many people love to challenge themselves by trying to beat a game with gimped builds. But again, Balance seeks to do away with the notion of gimped builds. If Balance is 'more important than we realize', then I'd like someone direct me to the reasons why. Because I'm simply not seeing its purpose. Specifically, I'd like some examples of what Balance (especially class balance) brings to the table in a single player game. And while we're at it, I'd like to know *why* its so important that a Bard be just as "powerful" as any other class.... in a Role Playing game.

Oh, it's a lot more than that. I read an interview with Feargus where he mentioned that the backer number has creeped up over the past year to somewhere above 130,000. And of course, if you look closely at the backer tiers, you'll notice that many of them feature multiple copies of the game. Well? many of us do not plan to just sit on those extra copies. We're probably going to give them away to friends, or whatever. So add those to the total # of copies that haven't actually been sold. Still, I don't know if you can call that a literal loss. First, as mentioned, the money we gave has paid for the game's development. Which means, they do not actually have to sell a single copy in order to break even. Second, Backers are a noisy bunch who will be advertising the game for free. If a game is good, then those 150,000 or so backers can do quite a lot to convince others to buy the game. Companies routinely give away free products for no reason BUT to generate this exact kind of word of mouth to get sales.

Neither am I. But again, the results can't be denied. Maybe mathematics don't play as big a role when it comes to tactics (which is what should determine whether or not a fight turns out easy or difficult). The old "too many cooks spoil the soup" cliché might be a more apt explanation of things.

Lets talk about your 'cracker' nonsense, then. Authentic New York style pizza has a crust that you can fold. You can't fold crackers. St. Louis style Pizza is what you're describing. Because it actually DOES use a cracker crust. Literally, the crust is made without yeast, so it's crunchy, and crumbly, like a cracker. It's even cut up into little squares like a cracker too.

The point is that Pizza shouldn't be a complex meal at all. It should be... Pizza. But Chicago style tries to make it something its not. And by doing so, they ruin it. If I've got a Corvette Sting Ray, I already have a classic sports car. I'm not making it better by Painting it pink and green, adding ground lighting, giant monster truck tires, putting big gold eagle ornaments on its hood and adding 10 foot high wing spoilers on the back. I'm Ruining it.

Complex meal It's Pizza, for gods sake. But maybe that's the problem. Chicago style pizza comes in a bowl and is eaten with a fork and knife. Silly. That's like ordering beer in a wine glass and sipping it with a straw. They're doing it wrong. Both the makers and the eaters.

You would think this is true, and it sounds obvious. But for some reason, it simply doesn't turn out that way (at least with the IE games). This is just *my* experience. But for BG1 and BG2, and to a lesser extent the IWD games, Having a full party of 6 actually makes encounters more difficult than when you do it with a smaller party. It may have something to do with the fact that smaller parties gain levels at a faster rate, and thus things get easier for them. But even a game like BG1, where you can compare a party of 6 level capped characters to a party of 3 or 4 level capped characters, it's STILL easier with a smaller party. And I have no idea why. Maybe it's easier to manage a small party. Maybe setting up strategies is easier to do with less people. Maybe you've got less people to heal. Maybe it's easier to load your party members up with powerful gear when there's less people to share the best loot with. Maybe pathfinding is better for a smaller party. Or maybe it's something else, but the results can't be denied. Those games are simply easier with smaller parties. Soloing though, is a different matter entirely, as it really depends on the build you're soloing. BG2 with Throne of bhaal has an 8m xp level cap. This is a huge benefit to soloers, as you can become Game-breakingly powerful very early, and depending on the class, the game can become A LOT easier for a soloer than for a party of 6. When your Solo Sorcerer is spamming Dragon's Breaths and Time Stops in chapter 3, Nothing is 'close to impossible'. or Hard.

Well, it is. And it will always be, even if someone comes here and argues that it's not as "balanced" lol

If this is the case, then your gripe against bg2 Bards doesn't make much sense. They're more fun to play than fighters, and that's something the "balance" issue doesn't address. It's common knowledge that BG2's bards aren't designed for the power gamer. As you say, they're not as good at being thieves as thieves are, not as good at fighting as fighters are (although the Blade kit comes close) and obviously they aren't as good at spell casting as mages. But they're light years away from being the weakest class. (that title can only go to the 'role-playing' classes, like beastmasters and wizard slayers) Bards have enough of all three skillsets to be super powerful on their own. They have that "jack of all trades" quality that multi-class builds possess without having to multi-class. Among many other things, this means that they'll get their HLAs much earlier than any Fighter-Mage-Thief multi-class. And once a Bard Gets UAI, Spike trap and Time trap, all discussion about being 'underpowered' Abruptly ends. Oh, I wouldn't say that. There are some developers who's awareness of Balance is absolute. Consequently, they release games that are so balanced that you can't power game if you tried.

For the 1236th time: Change: Generic Orcs have 10hp and do 2-12 damage at one point in the game. Then, at another point in the game, Generic Orcs have 40hp and do 2-20 damage. Factor forcing the change: Game chapters. Bonus Observation: devs decide to do the exact same thing with Trolls, Ogres, and assorted other common monsters.

I'm guessing the reason for the confusion is maybe because "healing your stamina" almost sounds like bad English. When I go out running and I find myself, slowing down, huffing and puffing for air, I think to myself: "well, I'm tired. I'm out of stamina", I don't think: "Man, I must be wounded. Quick, give me something to heal my stamina." LOL Still, I don't have any problem with the system as it is being described. Like Sarex says, it's probably something that's going to take some getting used to. Gosh, I couldn't possibly disagree more. It can be immensely fun, and quite satisfying. Have you tried it? The fact that you can solo the game and that the devs didn't design mechanics that require a party is probably the BEST thing I've heard about this game so far. Speaking as a giant IE game fanatic, I can say, with great emotion, that some of my most memorable playthroughs of Icewind Dale, BG2 and BG1 have been Solo Runs. I rank the freedom to pick the size of my party pretty darn high on the list of "Things I really want from this game". And Kudos to Obsidian for understanding this! And it's not just soloing. Taking just your main character, and one other companion that you really like, can be equally fun. It's just a different dynamic to the game. And its value goes up in any discussion about a game's replayability..

Same Spot? Says who? The enemy/race ITSELF can scale based on when you encounter it. (and that applies to actual LEVEL scaling as well. Take Oblivion for example. You're straight out of the prologue and you encounter bandits in a cave way down south when you're level one. Those bandits will be scaled to your level. Then later, you're way up north, and you're 30th level, and you encounter bandits again..... Those bandits will suddenly be 30th level, just like you. Question: Does one have to be in the same spot, facing the exact same bandits, in order to see, with his own two eyes this glaringly obvious example of a game employing grotesque level scaling? No, one does NOT. Yet, this example is ALL one needs to determine and confirm that enemies in Oblivion grotesquely Level scale. You can't just pick and choose the definitions you like, Mr. Sharp_One. We all know what Level scaling is. We all know what *scaling* means. You're not going to convince anyone that Drastic uniform changes in enemy power from one chapter of a game to the next isn't "scaling". No matter how much you try and spin things. Scaling is like porn. Everyone knows it when they see it. We don't need to split hairs with the definitions. Now you are blatantly lying. Do I encounter different level of monsters if I go to the area x in chapter 2 and different level of monsters if I go to the exact same area in chapter 3? (hint: NO!) Why does it have to be the same area? I never claimed that NWN zone/area scales. Did I. And...? Unless you're going to argue that HUMAN prisoners aren't actually human, you're not making any point whatsoever. You're just arguing for argument sakes. The Toolset sees all humans as... 'creature type: human', no matter what title you give them. This is manifested in spells/weapons that do extra damage to humans, Armors and devices only equitable by Humans etc.

Nope, since we're not dealing with a LEVEL scaling system, we do not need to use the same exact instance of a creature. We may, if we're discussing chapter/story based encounter scaling, compare different instances of the same type of creature (ie: Orcs), and then compare the difference in their power when they spawn in chapter 2, vs. when they spawn in chapter 3. The scaling takes place as the game goes from one chapter to the next. Hmm... well there's the humans (both named and un-named) in chapter 1, like the ones in the prisons, and the blood sailors. And the mercenaries that get sent after you whenever you recover any of the waterdavian creatures. There's the Humans (both named and un-named) in chapter 2, although some of the bandits in Luskan don't count since they're lycanthropic. (ie. wererats) Then chapter 3's got a ton. There's 2 military outposts of humans in chapter 3. There are human mercenaries in chapter 3. Chapter 4, IIRC has humans from Luskan that are in Maugrim's/Aribeth's army. And again, the power difference between these humans is massive, and all based on which chapter you face them.

Exactly. But I cited 2 different chapters, too. And the same creatures (orcs) change drastically in power from one chapter to the other. This is not level scaling,(as we both admit), And its not static, since they don't remain the same.... so it must be.... That's RIGHT! Chapter/Story based scaling! Well you're half right. They are hand placed. But hand placement in a game with a tool-set and generic blue prints sees devs/modders adjusting the difficulty/levels of their hand placed creatures based on where (or when) they place them within the game. In NWN case, Bioware decided to adjust Orcs so that their difficulty fits with the chapters. Thus generic orcs in chapter 3 are more powerful than generic orcs in chapter 2. This is still encounter scaling, just not level scaling. It's a scaling based on chapter advancement, instead of being some banal automatic thing that checks the player's level and then adjusts the enemy <gag> I will not download and install game to back up YOUR claim. You don't need to download or install anything. Did you not just pull up the Orc Blue print from the Wiki? Do the same with HUMAN. and then ponder your ridiculous claim that these Blueprints represent exactly what you see in the game, without any power adjustments.

Yeah, your memory is defective. Chapter 2 is Port Last and its surrounding areas, of which Luskan is only a small part. And chapter 3 is Beorunna's Well and its surrounding areas. And we don't need to be talking about the exact same creature, since NWN does not have level scaling. We merely need to show that a specific type of monster (in this case, Orcs) are in 2 separate chapters, and that they differ in power based on the chapter. We really don't need to focus on one individual Orc when chapter 2 has whole CAVES full of them, and Chapter 3 has a network of Orc TRIBES, remember? Of course there's only one basic orc Blue Print. Blue Prints in the Aurora Toolset are just that: blue prints. it is then up to the developer/modder to adjust all creatures' stats as he places them his campaign. As it stands, Bioware does that multiple times, with orcs, Trolls, Dragons, Ogres And even Humans. (go ahead, look up the HUMAN blueprint in the NWN tool set, then come back and tell us all that you've seen the Wiki, and visited the official site and have confirmed that ALL humans in NWN are 1st level and have 6 hit points, because that's their Blueprint, and anyone who disagrees with your Googling needs to prove otherwise. LOL)

I didn't dodged your question I answered it. This is a static design, there is no scaling. Every enemy is hand placed and have a set level, stats, spells etc. You seem to not grasp what SCALING is. Your statement is false. The basic orcs have a set stats regarding of chapter they appear in. There are of course orc champions, cheftains, shamans and so on which are tougher, but they all have a set level, stats etc. regarding of chapter. Neither NWN wiki nor game files support your claim. There is only one blueprint for generic orc. http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Orc_(creature) I assure you the wiki is wrong. NWN has a tool set, and all this wiki link is doing is displaying the standard Orc template from the tool set. Play the OC. And show me ANY Orc in Chapter 3 that only has 4 hit points (for example). They all have about 5x-10x that much. And you can't call it static when the same creatures appear in 2 separate game chapters but have drastically different stats.

Dragon age 2 is a pretty serious offender as well, as it not only has a blatant 1:1 level scaling, but also has symmetrical level scaling which the Character stat screen proudly flaunts via your armor, attack, and defense scores, all of which have values that automatically go down every time you level up, as if the game is telling you "hey there buddy, you just leveled up, and so has every single creature in the world, so you better look around for better gear to keep up, or else you're gonna get your ass kicked by the bajillion waves of street thugs we've parachuted in for you to fight!"

Are you talking about the Amazon Bounty-Hunter chicks encounter? Yeah, that battle is particularly nasty. In fact, that whole map is pretty hard. They put the exit of the Nashkell mines there, which means, your average gamer is probably not going to be running a party of characters that is much higher than 3rd or 4th level, Yet that map contains encounters of the same difficulty as the Cloakwood mines, which is chapter 4 material.... which is designed for a 5th-6th level party (That map has a 10th level mage with 2 mustard Jelly pets; and the Amazon chicks are the same level as Drasus and his gang, who guard the entrance of the Cloakwood mines. Addionally, the far southern portion of that map has Ankegs.) That map will kick a low level party's ass. My advice if you're low level: Get the hell out of there and come back when you're 6th or 7th level. But man, the rewards.... If a party of 3rd level characters DOES manage to tough that map out, they'll go up a level...possibly 2, putting them in great position for taking on the Bandit camp. (chapter 3). Just my off-topic 2 cents.

There is no LEVEL scaling. Instead, encounter difficulty is scaled based on Chapter. I will give you a specific non-boss example, now, since I've actually Played the game. Ok. There are Orcs in chapter 2. And there are Orcs in Chapter 3. The Orcs in chapter 3 are significantly more powerful than the ones in in chapter 2. And, AGAIN, this is regardless of your level. Role up a level 1 character, and begin the game at Chapter 3, and face those Orcs. They will be exactly the same Orcs that a 15th level character faces in chapter 3. But they will be DIFFERENT, powerwise, from the Orcs that either character encounters in chapter 2. Now, back to my question, which you dodged: What am I describing above? What is the term for it?

Easy Tutu might have broken it. But we may just be arguing semantics here instead. BG1's enemy AI is not intelligent enough to "search" for something that it can't see. If your party has successfully traveled far enough away from an enemy where you no longer share the screen with them, then they will no longer pursue. They can't. Instead, they will just go back to wandering around aimlessly. If they manage to find you again, it's because either you or they (or both) happened to wander back close enough to share the screen, thus re-engagement has occurred. Ok, I know for a fact that this IS a TuTu thing. Escaping from enemies by leaving any area map absolutely works in every IE game except for BG2. Which means it won't work with easy TuTu, since TuTU *IS* BG2. TuTu is nothing more than BG2's mechanics and UI plugged into into Bg1's little gameworld.

Well, in the IE games, Morale failure doesn't automatically mean "I'm afraid so I'm disengaging/running away". Morale failure also sometimes produces the berserk state. enemies turn yellow, and start wailing away at the nearest creature (usually that's someone in your party). Also, You can do successful tactical retreats in BG1. And all it takes for an enemy to leave you alone (thus ending combat mode) is for them to no longer have you in their sights. And that's easily done with a little bit of thinking. 1) Make yourself invisible and walk away (invisibility potions aren't rare at all in Bg1) 2) Toss a grease spell at the enemy and walk away 3) Toss a web spell at the enemy and walk away 4) Toss an entangle spell at the enemy and walk away 5) Summon something at that enemy and walk away (although this one requires that you move each party member individually) 6) Toss a sleep spell at the enemy and walk away ^once you do any of the above, and walk far enough away so that they're no longer on the screen, they will 'forget" about you and stop pursuing. Also, I'm not quite sure why running to the edge of the map and doing an area transition somehow "doesn't count". In BG1, this is absolutely viable and will guarantee a totally safe escape. Be thankful for that, because BG2 takes that option away from you. Enemies will follow you right out the door and even to different maps in Bg2!