Stun
-
Posts
2849 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Stun
-
-
So... strength and intelligence would affect weapon damage?On the other hand, Intellect could believably affect damage for both spells and weapons, and Strength would be the attribute that affects damage dealt with weapons.
I don't know. I can understand if a high intelligence Barbarian gains a better understanding of an opponent's anatomy, thus he receives bonusses to damage/criticals, but that's simply the definition of accuracy. So, basically, intelligence here is taking the place of Dexterity, rather than strength. When it comes to the subject of weapons, Strength is Brute force. Dexterity is accuracy. So what's intelligence in this equation? Do we have a situation where the Barbarian is so smart that his blows have more force behind them? Or is he so smart that his blows are more accurate (ie. he was keen enough to aim for the vitals)?
Personally I'm fine with either one, so long as there's some sort of believable explanation instead of just: "well, we wanted intelligence to be more useful!". We've all asked for No-More-Dump-Stats, but IMO the solution isn't to double up and have 2 different stats do the exact same thing. Because that just seems like.... Lazy Design.
If you ask me, though, I think Intelligence should have an indirect effect on weapon damage. The smart barbarian should be able to master more weapon types/styles. He should be able to make better use of poisons and other types of weapon coatings. Stuff like that.
-
No, that's a different concept entirely than the Stronghold. What you're describing is a plot fork. In a plot fork, it's a given that both choices are designed to move the plot forward via distinctly different paths. So of course you're going to get plenty of vastly different content resulting from either choice you make. The game would suck otherwise.Is there something about "equal choices" in my post? Something about a different approach to the same outcome? No? Thought so.
Example: "Witcher 2: Assasins of Kings"
At the end of Act 1 you get to side with Vernon Roche or with Iorweth. The quality and amount of story after this decision is pretty comparable, yet the results of your actions differentiate a lot. Neither of these paths is better/worse (objectively, not subjectively), yet both have their distinct pros and cons. Can it be done? It can be done. The same goes with a stronghold.
This stronghold, however, is optional. It's not needed to move the story, therefore, compensating the rejector with an alternative set of content is not essential. The notion of rewarding someone for turning down a stronghold is ridiculous anyway. Someone who chooses to be a "traveling wanderer with no place but the road to call home" should not be treated like someone who acquires land, servants, security detail, gardens, trainers, a castle, and subjects.
-
1
-
-
Powergaming and roleplaying go hand in hand in any decently designed RPG. And most fans want both in equal measure. They'll deny it, but this very thread crawls with proof.Why even consider siding with the dragon? Because a role-playing game means you play a role (duh). Since when all of ours unique characters have a role of dragonslayers or landlords all of a sudden? You kill every single living thing for xp or gold? That's not role-playing, that's power-gaming.
A few pages ago, some people here were complaining that refusing the stronghold means they're going to be locked out of massive swaths of exclusive content, and that for some reason (fairness?) this shouldn't be. They cited Roleplaying for their argument. They flat out argued that a good RPG would give them "equal" rewards (or whatever), as a result of whichever choice they make.
But any TRUE role player knows that this is utter nonsense. First, there's no such thing as equality in a good RPG. Second, being denied content due to a very specific choice you made, is the NATURE of good role playing. You're suffering the consequences of your choices. Would these people prefer that there be no consequences?
The fact that they're complaining means their Powergaming desires are, apparently, not being met. They want to be able to reap all the exclusive benefits offered by the stronghold choice without actually having to do the stronghold.
-
6
-
-
Yep, and again, if that's all you can come up with then you got nothing. The ability to take prisoners is something that absolutely SHOULD be exclusive to stronghold owners, since a stronghold is the only logical way for an adventurer to own a prison.I mentioned prisioners and slaves as an example Stun.
Begging your pardon? An Army? No such thing was mentioned for this stronghold. All Tim said was security. And we have no idea what that entails.I can also add ability to gather an army that will respond my calling
I can. Excluding companions you create via the adventurer's hall, this game's companions will have their own frontloaded/pre-defined lives within the game's story, and their own places where they live and work. Until you acquire a stronghold, and get them to move in to it, it shouldn't be up to the player to decide what they do with their own off time.other way for idle companions to get an extra expierience when i temporary leave them behind (they can get it when i run stronghold, i see no reason why wouldn't they have own adventures even when i don't have stronghold)
I can assure you that you will not need to own a stronghold to get random attacks against your party.random attacks.
-
Damn straight.Now I get it... you're an elitist
If You want everything to be non-exclusive, and for all players to be able to experience everything the game has to offer despite their choices, then go play Skyrim, or Dragon age, or some other "everything for everyone" game. We "elitists" are FINALLY getting something that's been denied to us for 10 friggin years. Stop begging the devs to dilute it.
-
2
-
-
Um, no. You did not. The only actual example you gave was taking prisoners. And if that's the only one, then you got nothing. The stronghold SHOULD contain some exclusive content, And taking prisoners naturally becomes one of those since it will contain a prison belonging to the player character. If you can come up with another believable way for the player to get ownership of a prison, then I'm all ears.I gave you example what kind of things i think about and these are mine concern.
-
And we're getting SOME things. Aren't we. Unless, of course, you think there will be no other place in the game world where you'll be able to gather ingredients other than the botanical gardens in the stronghold. Or unless you think there will be no other place in the game world that offers training other than the Stronghold's Library/Training grounds. Or unless you think there will be no other place to stash your loot except for at the stronghold... and No other place to get quests, and no other place to make money, and no other place to come across merchants, and no other place offering crafting stations.... etc. etc.I think you missed the point. Why it has to be everything or nothing? I said SOME things.
NONE of that is true, by the way, as these are all things you'll still be able to do if you decide not to get the stronghold. In other words, you're arguing for something that we're already getting, and then trying to pass this argument off as some valid criticism of the game's design. It is however, coming across as a silly bash. The same type of baseless, moronic bashing that the rest of us backers have had to endure here every single time the devs give us an update.
-
If no one is against the idea of a stronghold, then the following claim is both false and a complete non-issue:No one is against the idea of stronghold,
^worried about a segment of players that don't actually exist...? Or what? If such people do exist, they certainly haven't come here and voiced their opinions yet, which means it must not be much of a big deal even to them. So why are we concerned for their sake?Please do not get me wrong I LOVE strongholds, but I worry for people who don't.
That makes no sense. So you want the stronghold to feature nothing exclusive? Why even put it in the game, then?it just shouldn't be the only way do do some things. Of course if you don't run stronghold there is no talking about taxes or libraries or such but there are things possible to do even when you don't run stronghold, and i wouldn't want them to be assigned and available for people who have stronghold only.
-
1
-
-
^Amen.
Also, I can answer this question:
The fact that the game lets you refuse it should be meaningful enough. Many other games that feature strongholds won't even allow you to do that!So what are the meaningful consequences of refusing the stronghold?
Enough already. The consequence of skipping major content is always the same: you miss out. Then the rest of us have to endure your complaining, later, when you come here and say: This game is shallow because I beat it without doing half of it..... Because that's how I like to play RPGs....I like to skip the good stuff. I'm a 'Roleplayer'!
Who cares about them. I certainly don't. There are people who also don't like to use parties. Should PE scrap its party-based system to accomodate them? Of course not. Instead, it should just allow them to play solo. Which it will. This is the same concept. The stronghold is optional, meaning those who don't want to do it will be able to skip it.Please do not get me wrong I LOVE strongholds, but I worry for people who don't.
Not sure why you've decided that this non-issue is worth 10 pages of discussion
-
2
-
-
What I mean is that some things which can be done by the owner of a stronghold could also logically be done by someone that did not own a stronghold.
And we're getting that. Except for 1) taking prisoners; and 2) collecting taxes, (which we'll discuss below) I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the things you can do in the strong hold you can also do in other parts of the game. ie. quests, ingredient harvesting, fighting off bandits, finding storage spaces for your loot, getting access to crafting stations; Training; etc. etc. I seriously don't see the gripe here, unless your stance is that there shouldn't be ANYTHING exclusive to the stronghold, in which case, see my gripes about POINTLESS content in RPGs.
But nit-pick time:
Thats... not taking prisoners. That's turning someone over to the authorities. Huge friggin difference. Just about every Crpg since 1980 has done that tired cliche. In the meantime, You've just sucked all the awesome out of the unique concept of actually taking someone prisoner yourself.I already mentioned the possibility of taking a prisoner by turning someone into a militia.
Your camp? Do we get our own personal camp in this game? And if so, wouldn't that be the same concept as a stronghold, just with less of the fancy stuff?Alternatively, I see no reason that you couldn't take a defeated foe back to your camp on a temporary basis to interrogate, torture, or collect a ransom for their release.
Right, but again, it's one of the very FEW things that this stronghold is offering that can't be had any other way. And even TAX collecting is not totally exclusive, since the game will obviously offer you a ton of other ways to make money.I never suggested that taxes should be collected by players on land not owned by the player, that's obviously ridiculous.
We cannot know the answer to this until we learn the nature of both the game world and the stronghold encounters themselves. The stronghold could feature encounters of a more political scope, in which case, a wandering, live-off-the-land type of adventurer won't have as easy an access to such questlines, no. On the other hand, if exploration is going to be Elder scrollish, then sure, the wandering explorer stands to discover more of the world than someone who spends the majority of his time behind the walls of his castle.I hate to repeat myself, but do you not think it possible that a pure adventurer would have more possibilities to run into unique encounters while adventuring than an adventurer who spends a great deal of time running his lands?
You mean, owning a prison? Yes. Unless the game lets you become a member of the city guard, in which case, I suppose you'll have access to the city's prison system, and then, via creative larping, you'll be able to visit that prison and call that prisoner "yours".Is owning a stronghold the only conceivable way to take someone prisoner?
-
2
-
-
Well, considering that BG2's world story does not take place over the course of decades or years, but rather, just days and months, it's NOT a stretch of logic to assume that "nothing significant" happens if you decline a stronghold offer. For my own entertainment, lets run through BG2's stronghold scenarios.
1) First, The theives guild stronghold. I can totally see Renal being unable to find a suitable replacement for Mae'var. After all, The Shadow thieves are being assaulted by the vampires. They're currently having trouble maintaining the thieves they already have, let alone being able to find new ones to expand their operations in the docks. They're not in a rush anyway. There's no competition to the Shadow Thieves. No rival thieves guild in Athkatla.
2) The Ranger stronghold - Imesvale is a small sleepy village. It's not a stretch to assume nothing happens if you refuse. But just in case, the existing, pre-stronghold story covers the bases. Madulf and his Ogre band protect the village.
3) The planar Sphere - You cleared it before the stronghold offer and it is forever rendered inert. So literally nothing can happen at this point. I suppose the Cowled wizards could take it over if they find it abandoned, but what difference would that make?
4) The Paladin & Cleric Strongholds. Totally inconsequential. You technically can't even call them strongholds since a) you don't get them. You just get your own little room wthin them; and b) Virtually nothing happens in them even if you DO accept them as your strongholds. So what happens if you refuse? Nothing. The Temples existed and functioned fine and will continue to do so without an extra cleric (you), and so does the Paladin Order.
5) The D'arnise Keep - This one is tricky, since if you refuse it, and also refuse to accept Nalia as a companion, then the Roenals DO take control of it, almost immediately in fact. But if Nalia's in your party, then, storywise, it's vitually the same as if you took it as a stronghold, you just don't get the silly little quests every 5 days or so. or the tax money.
6) The Druid Grove - Continues to be run by a competant Druid (and Cernd btw) if you refuse it. And that's not hard to believe, since you're told that it's always been run fine up until Faldorn invaded, and now that she's gone, it goes back to normal.
7) The Bard's Playhouse. Well... if you don't take it, then that Halfling who runs the bar is in charge of finding another Patron. When I don't do that stronghold, I simply assume he's still searching. No big deal, really. It's just a playhouse. Who cares.
-
1
-
-
Yeah, now we're talking
There should be consequences if you refuse it.
The stronghold exists after all, even if you say "no".
So what happens to it then?
<...>
My fear is that if you say "no" that the game goes on like the stronghold never existed in the first place.
Actually, from I can glean from Tim's description in the update, the Stronghold doesn't exist until you decide that it's going to be a stronghold. Until then, it's just a ruined castle... probably one that you just finished clearing. If you say No, then I imagine it'll just stay the way you left it.
Which makes sense. That's how BG2 did its strongholds.
-
What do you mean by "game at large"? Due to the nature of the myriad of stretch goals that were met in order to give us the game we're getting, your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Project eternity is a game made up of a bunch of pieces*. The Stronghold IS a part of the "game at large".Just to be completely clear, I don't mind content/items/etc. being blocked off based on player choices, but based on my above arguments I simply don't like it in this context. Content and items are being developed which would make sense to be applied to the game at large, but are then being restricted to being available only to those with strongholds (as far as I can tell).
*For example, The mega dungeon will be optional. The stronghold is optional. The named companions are optional. The adventurers' hall is optional. Crafting is optional. Hell even combat will be optional.
So what's your suggested alternative to these mechanics, items and mini-quests being exclusively tied to these optional areas? Would you prefer they be placed only in the main, critical plotline? If so, what was the point in having these stretch goals in the first place? More to the point: How exactly do you suggest we take prisoners (for example) if we have no place to hold them prisoner? Should the game just let you drag them around with you on your travels? If it does, then they can no longer be called Prisoners. They're just companions. Ditto with collecting taxes. If you don't own land, how can you demand collective payment from the citizenry? You can't... at least not without it being called extortion.
-
I know this has already been addressed by a dev, but my gut is urging me to put my two cents in because this question is absurd, and there are about 30 different valid answers to it:
So? what you're describing is the nature of sidequests in Decent RPGs.How can the stronghold be called "optional" if you have serious disadvantages when you decide not to use it.
From all that I have read, there are major advantages using the stronghold.
Watcher's keep is an optional part of BG2's Throne of bhaal (don't need it to beat the game), but if you skip it you'll miss out on:
1) About a MILLION exp for each party member;
2) About 1/3 of the expansion pack's artifacts;
3) A half dozen stat boosts (Machine of Lum the Mad)
4) An immeasurable amount of loot, gold, fun, story and unique battles
I wouldn't have it any other way. Would you? Would you rather that the stronghold offer nothing significantly advantageous to those who take the time and effort to do it? There's a word that describes such game features: POINTLESS. And history shows that if you offer players large quantities of POINTLESS content, they will skip it.
Personally, even as I sit here and listen to the developers remind me that this stronghold is optional, My mind is already made up: It is mandatory for ME. I'll be doing it as a rule, optional or not. Hopefully, my hunger for "choices and options" will be slaked *within* the stronghold system.
Edit: and there probably IS some advantage to not doing the stronghold. You'll likely have a lot of money hoarded to spend on something other than keep upgrades. lol
-
4
-
-
Omg, Omg, Omg Too much awesome to take in at once, but this part is way too interesting to ignore:
By Tim Cain, Senior Code Wizard and Systems Designer
If you have cleared the dungeon and built a prison under your stronghold, then when you are fighting some of the named NPC’s in the game, you will be given an option to take them prisoner instead of killing them. Prisoners are kept in a cell in your prison, where you can visit them and talk to them, and occasionally use them as leverage later in the game. But you will need to keep your security level high, or you might suffer from a prison break!
!!!
I've played dozens of RPGs, and several that had strongholds, but Never has any of them had this feature. Being able to take prisoners? This is evoking a total nerdgasm from me. I'm squeeing like a teenage Justin Beiber fan at this. Sounds too good to be true.
-
Music - I wasn't all that impressed by the musical score of either one of the BG games. It was decent, passable. But nothing that stood out. Planescape Torment and IWD1 on the other hand, had great music. They'd do well to look to those games' music for their inspiration.
As for the perfectly written, perfectly voiced, villian... meh. I suppose that goes without saying, although there's no rule that dictates that a good RPG even needs a Big Bad Evil.
Lastly:
That's not depth. It's the Opposite. The Rogue Stone and the Twisted Rune battle it leads to are actually the remnants of cut content - a major questline that the devs had to scrap due to time constraints.3. Depth, which is a very broad and subjective term. In this case depth meaning in game Easter eggs (such as in BGII needing a rouge stone to randomly be able to open a door in the Bridge District which turns out to be a portal.)
But yeah, the other stuff you mentioned is paramount, and I'm pretty sure we're going to get it in PE. Between Avellone's writing and Sawyer's immense love of history, it's a good bet that PE will absolutely burst at the seams with books, item and area descriptions, deep seeded lore, language and culture etc. In fact, I'm betting they're gonna hit this out out of the park and make the IE games look shallow by comparison
-
I thought about that. It makes sense, but it's still ass backwards sense.However, it would make sense if it's tied in with actual game mechanics. There's been some hints about the stronghold gameplay. If hauling shiny to your stronghold increases its prestige which has gameplay effects – fun quests? better hirelings? cleverer burglars? something else? – then sure, that sounds pretty cool.
Basically, with this system, players will be motivated to collect shinies in the hopes that they get robbed by better burglers. LOL
-
Yeah, this is Elder Scrolls stuff. And don't forget the Weapon racks and Armor mannequin displays where you can put that fancy magical sword and +1 armor that you don't consider real treasure.What I really want in an RPG is real treasure. I'm tired of opening a treasure chest and only getting armor, weapons, gold coins, or socketable gems. What I want is rare painting to hang on a wall in my hold, faberge eggs I can set on pedestals, Crown Jewel sets that can sit behind glass cases with soldiers standing guard, rare books to add to my library in my hold, rare pottery from dead cultures, unusual fossils, etc.... Basically I want treasure like people collect and hoard in the real world. I want some of that treasure to come in sets so you feel a sense of accomplishment when you complete your set of treasure and display it in your hold.
I'm tired of finding plus one swords then selling the swork for gold coins which is then used to buy plus 2 swords.
Who is with me?
Personally I think that kind of sentimental, Larping/Sim gameplay features are ok, but they don't really go anywhere, since devs never bother to tie "home decorations" to any creative questing. For example, When was the last time you played an RPG where bandits raided your home and stole all the paintings you found and collected or the jewel encrusted dishware you got from your last heist, or all the gems you hoarded in your Safe?
Also as L33t and experienced as the PE crowd is, it is inevidable that if the Devs put this kind of stuff in the game, the masses will STILL come here confused, and asking questions, and the conversation will look like this:
Player 1: "so... I found this unique looking ancient pottery! What do I do with it?"
Player 2: "Um.... sell it?"
Player 1: "So it's not tied to any quest or anything"?
Player 2: "nope, but you can decorate your dining room with it!"
-
Personally, I agree that such tools of emphasis are not needed (Although, a game that mixes voiced lines and unvoiced lines benefits greatly by using ALL CAPS to represent Yelling, and perhaps the occasional bold text to represent inflection within a sentence)
However, is this really an important issue? My stance is that I really don't care if a game has such things or if it doesn't, therefore, I won't waste my time, on a thread being watched by Busy devs, to specifically ask for their removal. Why? because it's not important to me. Planescape Torment wouldn't have been a better game without *astrisks*, would it?
-
3
-
-
Just a note w/ regards to text size and screen resolution, the GoG version of all the IE games features adequately resized screen resolutions - meaning you won't have a problem with tiny text, or having to play in windowed mode or any other such nonsense.
-
Maybe they were worried italics - commonly used for emphasis in text - would be too hard to read in whatever font they were using
Nah, the Infinity Engine simply didn't support it.
Yep. Same thing with Bold (which is what the astricks around words in the IE games was supposed to signify.)
-
That'll change.Now I realise that I don't want to spoil myself.
Right now this seems like a tough decision, but come next spring/summer, the anticipation will reach critical mass, and you'll be ready to knock down walls to get your hands on the beta and play it.
-
Acid antidote lol
-
1
-
-
The dialogue UI they just showed is exactly the same as the various IE games. Same font, same wooden theme, everything.
Why is it that whenever the Devs reveal something in PE that resembles the IE games (ie. what they friggin promised us they'd do!) we get people here complaining? Just curious.
Me, I saw the convo UI in update #62 yesterday and the flood of Nostalgia immediatly caused me to fire up a new playthrough of IWD. I'm in Kresselack's tomb right now. Man that game does mood and atmosphere well. Probably better than any other game I've ever played. But I'm digressing.
-
2
-
How many [Rings]?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted · Edited by Stun
Dungeon Siege 1. Only game I ever played that let you wear more than 2. It let you wear 6. It wasn't silly. And it wasn't overpowered either. No, it suffered from a different problem. It made rings redundant and mundane, because in the dev's attempts to keep balance, Rings became nothing more than a stacking game. And extensions of your armor.
Literally. There were no truly cool ring enchantments, like Invisibility, or Djinni Summoning, or Wizardry or anything like that. Nope, instead you'd just find a bajillion vender-trash rings that all gave you +6 to your armor, or +10 to your health, or some other soulless, inimaginitive crap like that. But it had to be that way. Because your character can wear 6 of the damn things, after all. 6! Could you imagine being able to wear 6 rings of Elemental control? Or 6 rings of Wizardry? It would destroy every build.