.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Karkarov
-
Posts
3108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Karkarov
-
-
This is a non issue if you are referring to the main character. You get to create that character and I would assume play them however you want. So if you want to be a elf hating human you make your character an elf hating human, pretty simple. If you are talking about NPC's that join your party.... Why would I recruit and elf, or a dude who loves elves, if I am an elf hater? In the end the NPC should behave in a way realistic to that NPC. So obviously my character and the NPC won't get along so eventually the NPC should either quit the party or force a fight and I have to kill em.
Pretty simple really. I am pretty sure the devs have already accounted for all of it too since they have done similar things in their older games.
-
Nope, I am opposed. Losing loot from forcing a lock is beyond dumb to begin with. I broke the lock on the chest, I didn't cleave the whole thing in half with a giant two handed axe. So what about Rogue's? Easy. Forcing locks has always been harder and less likely to succeed than just picking them. Even when I had a character good at forcing the locks I still tried to pick it first and always kept some kind of rogue around or a mage with spells like "knock" to do so.
As for combat, this is dumb. It only encourages me to not use my big guns. If I am never going to use my best skills for fear of causing a good item to be destroyed then the game may as well have never given me those skills to begin with. You want more options in combat and more ways to win, not fewer and or people worrying about if they just destroyed their loot.
-
2
-
-
More in the tavern line....
We need tavern brawls. There must be at least one in the game and it must be part of the main story. Also you should have the option to ask a bartender to "hit you with the strongest thing they got!". This should result in a warning and a cheeky "are you sure" from the bartender. If the player says yes and drinks this god awful brew of death they must lose consciousness only to wake up naked in an outhouse with the words "Bubba was here" painted on the side.
-
2
-
-
Off with your light armor, stilettos.. and fight naked, munchkin!
You mean sneak naked.
True warriors always sneak for quest xp you know.
True.
You know it is pretty funny but in elder scrolls games I always play a heavy armor wearing dude who uses a two hand sword but also sneaks everywhere and refuses to ever use magic (or keys for that matter
) to get past locked doors and has to pick em all!Your above post at the top of the page is actually pretty good junta. The only issue is you still seem to think it is highly unlikely or impossible to design a game without level scaling. It just isn't, it can be done and done well. The argument is still moot since Sawyer spelled it out plainly exactly how this game will work in regards to level scaling. Which was it would not have any level scaling at all over than a few encounters on the main plot line which would be tooled to a level range not full on scaling to the players strength no matter what.
-
Who should get most XP, and why?
I can't say but I hope Rudolph has some really good health insurance. Even if he doesn't get the plague getting that holy symbol out of his "orifice" is going to chafe.
-
All mechanics are contrived. Regardless of how experience is gained, PE is not a linear, IWD-style adventure. Even in Icewind Dale II, the majority of experience gained was from quests. If you chose to skip optional side quests (especially near the beginning of the game) the party could easily be lower level when they hit an encounter.
I disagree. Some mechanics feel logical and natural, for example getting better at killing things (level up) because you have experience in killing things. Other mechanics can feel shoehorned in, like you can only play a game the way someone else wants you to play it. But I digress.
If kill experience was removed to keep degenerates from outleveling an area, wouldnt the same be accomplished with just scaling every encounter in the game to the current party level range? Why the need for both?
Sigh.... They aren't doing both. Very specific main story mission only encounters will be scaled to a level "range". Meaning this encounter will always be tuned for someone who is at least level 10 but maybe as high as level 13 but never higher than that. Meanwhile 95% + of the game has no scaling period and this level 5 area is always meant for level 5, and that level 20 area is always meant for level 20, etc. etc.
That is not level scaling, that's tweaking a small set of very specific encounters to make sure they are matched to what power level the player is likely to be when they get there.
-
Where is the neither option? And Baldur's Gate had crafting? You mean the Dwarf that said "Bring me Dragon Scales and I will make ye a fine set of plate HARHARHAHRA?!?!?!"
That is not crafting dude, that's a fetch quest with a really great reward at the end.
-
1
-
-
Some guys are saying that this method of balancing:
the only things we're likely to scale with player level are crit-path special encounters and even then, only within a range of levels.
is level scaling... So if you balance a few encounters (ONLY in the main campaign), then it is a level scaled game... In other words if you level scale an entire game without range or only a few encounters in the main campaign within a certain range, then that is the exact same thing.
Praise baby Jesus! A good game designer made a good game design decision, go figure. The fact that some posters in this thread consider that to be "level scaling" is funny but not really surprising.
Let me sum up level scaling for those who seem to love it but don't know what it is.
Leveling Scaling is balancing the encounter a player faces based on their level to maintain a consistent challenge curve throughout the entire game. Meaning entering Cave X at level 5 will give you a good challenge that you can complete with reasonable loot and exp for you. Entering Cave X at level 20 will give you a good challenge that you can complete with reasonable loot and exp for you. Entering Cave X at level 50 will give you a good challenge that you can complete with reasonable loot and exp for you. Entering Cave X at level .....
Do you understand what "Level Scaling" is now? I don't care "how" you level scale your game, it is always about achieving the effect I just described. The player always gets good loot for their level, good exp for their level, and the game is never too hard or too easy.
Tuning one encounter here and there to be based around a close set of levels like 10-15 is not level scaling. It is called good game design. If I show up at level 20 I am going to walk the dog but the exp and loot will suck. If I show up at level 7 it will be tough but I can maybe win for big exp and great loot for my level. If I show up at levels 10-15 it will be a reasonable challenge and will have good, but not great, loot and exp for me.
Hey guys, what's going on in h-
Burn all videogames forever.
Best post ever.
-
1
-
-
You guys do realize no one ever said that every "hit" would always do HP damage right? The theory crafting in this thread is getting totally out of hand. We don't know enough to make even a quarter of the assumptions I see in this thread and they are being bandied about as if they are stone cold facts.
In other news this isn't D&D 2nd Ed. So why does everyone keep acting like the ruleset of 2nd Ed (or any other edition for that matter) has anything to do with P:E? It doesn't, drop the D&D based arguments, they simply don't apply.
-
Or rather, I wouldn't consider Diablo 3 to be ugly.
For a game that cost as much money and took as long to develop as it did it looked like complete crap.
-
Don't overestimate the amount of polish the graphics are gonna get. There might be some difference, but I think it's really gonna be more IE-like.
I certainly hope not as IE game graphics look like crap by today's standards, and anyone who thinks they don't seriously needs to play a modern game. This game doesn't need to look as good as Sleeping Dogs or Far Cry 3 (two of 2012's most graphically impressive games on PC) but it certainly better look at least as good or better than Diablo Already Looked Dated on Release Day 3.
-
Huh, I wasnt aware that resurrection had definately been removed from "normal" mode. Bummer.
Huh indeed. There is no dying in "normal" mode. Therefore, what possible use would resurrection have?
Just for the record I am pretty darn sure they have not said that. There is nothing that says "maiming" can't result in your death. Only that when you go down you are not "automatically" dead. Truth is even if "maiming" never kills you but results in stat loss or some such you could still end up with a character who for party use purposes can be "dead" due to various stacked up maiming penalties. I suspect the general idea is you play smart though and no one ever gets maimed or it is very very rare.
After all nothing forces you to keep going in a dungeon after a particularly nasty fight, it is the players job to know when it is time to run away to fight another day.
-
If you aren't going to go for the full monty on this (which I go into in the only thread I started), and Obsidian isn't, then there is no point tying it to stats etc. Just give players the option to pick a body type and some other things at character creation. I will also say this, on screen your character looks small, however, nothing says you can't have the characters get zoomed in for conversations like many RPG's do it these days. Even if you never see your player "up close" except for character creation a more detailed character model is still better than one that lacks detail.
If you want an example of what I mean about the never normally seeing your character up close but get zoomed in comment look no further than Obsidian's own Dungeon Siege 3. Most the game is played with your character at a reasonable distance from the camera, but the higher quality models still get some use.
It is not really that hard to implement this and outside of RPG's where you are put in control of a specific character (like Witcher 2) it is pretty much standard these days.
-
Why not simply have all those glancing blows converted fully to stamina damage?
That's just the thing. They have said there is only mitigating attacks, not out right negating them. Stamina loss is still considered damage and we know you always take more stamina than actual health loss. So who is to say this isn't exactly what they have done? Which by the way, is exactly how they should do it.
Good post.
-
Real-time + stamina shield make glancing kinda an overkill. Making new X-Com an example was kinda dumb because in TB you do see effect of every miss. In RTwP I rarely ever payed lot of attention to misses, I mostly watched flow of combat in general.
XCom EU is a great argument in favor of the system Saywer says they are making. I suffered the loss of units more than once in XCom when sending them to make shots that were insanely easy and they miss and next round are shot dead by the person they missed. When I say insanely easy understand I don't mean like 70-75%, I probably missed over 10-15 times with odds of 95% + before the game was over, at least 3 times on 99% odds, and once I actually missed on a 100%. No, not joking.
RNG is the enemy of good planning and solid tactics because it makes the best plan that should work with no problem at all blow up in your face for no other reason than dumb luck and a bad random number roll.
-
1
-
-
In Baldur's Gate you can get hit by a lightning bolt as well (Why does Khalid always get struck though? In like 3-4 games I've played, always Khalid).
One time it actually got me. But I was standing near Khalid when it happened.
-
2
-
-
Yours and Karkarov's posts are vastly different, but they're both still posts.
Kind of like saying Rogue and Diablo are vastly different, but they are both still video games.
-
Will say the same thing I said in the actual formspring comments.
Remember that in P:E stamina loss is the primary reason you get incapacitated in combat, not health loss. Yes, blocking a sword swing with your shield might not actually hurt you very much, but it will definitely fatigue you. As will having to make a desperate dive to avoid a fire ball, or a series of fast parries to block a furious attack, etc etc. Even games like TES series and Dark Souls follow this type of system with a stamina system. Just in this game stamina is maybe more important and you don't lose it for taking offensive actions, or at least not always.
There is also something to be said for combat mechanics that remove RNG, speed up combat in general, and put the focus on tactics not luck or big all or nothing attacks. As long as they include rules to make it possible to get mitigated effects in same melee without having to have a shield I see no issue. The minute being able to take reduced melee damage becomes reliant on having a shield strapped on.... well you can forget about dual wielding or two hand weapons unless their damage potential is over balanced. I trust Obsidian knows that though and already has plans to address that and other balance issues.
-
1
-
-
I'd just like to point out up-front that we don't really know all there is to know about the "armor" system, per se. We just know how the "damage" system works, specifically, and how it relates to armor. So, even though higher armor always limits the damage or, at the very least, restricts the threatening weapons list, it may not be that wearing heavier armor is necessarily better.
But, honestly, I think, so far so good.
Yeah really, I saw this thread and did a double take looking for some update I missed. We just don't have enough info right now to discuss this stuff in detail. Which is probably a large part of the reasons why the forums are getting more inactive every day.
-
The correct definition of 'roguelike' is serious business.
No it isn't, but when someone wants to come into the thread and be an ass about it I am happy to return the favor.
-
You know Dream it is funny but every time I see you posting lately it is to try to instigate another flamewar. In this case how about we just say we did and let the actual posting part slide?
You're the one telling people they're wrong about things without actually knowing anything about them. It's generally a good idea to do some research before spouting off misinformation as if it were fact. Saying **** like "Nethack is roguelike-light" is just asinine when it's one of the games that defined the genre (it's probably the most famous roguelike of all, perhaps even more so than Rogue itself). It's the equivalent of saying "Heretic is not really a Doomclone."
But you know what, it's my bad for not being nice like PrimeJunta who's actually trying to entertain your ridiculous statements and educate you.
Let me spell it out for you. Much of what I say in my above posts is just me kidding around. I am now going to stop doing that. So let me speak plainly.
Since you want to be a douche about it if you think a game that 1: Is not turn based, 2: has Permadeath as an option not a rule, 3: has multiple save files, 4: allows and in fact encourages multiplayer, 5: has no food management or any other meaningful resource management, 6: recently went so far as to introduce a real money auction house, 7: is completely action / twitched based combat, 8: has straight up PvP, 9: the actual goal is to farm loot, 10: etc etc etc is a roguelike then I hope you are ready to start arguing that XCom Enemy Unknown is one too. God knows it has more in common with Rogue than Diablo does.
Anyone with half a slice of logic can see some inspiration was taken from those games for Diablo but I say again, being inspired by a game does not mean you are the same game. Or is KotOR 2 actually a racing sim, it does have racing mini games after all. Clearly it was inspired by racing games so must be a racing game too?
Also let me respond to this laughable statement:
1UP.com's Jeremy Parish, action role-playing games such as Blizzard's hugely successful Diablo can be considered types of roguelikes, due to their similar premise: players slash their way (in real time) through increasingly difficult monsters and obtain treasure while traversing deeper into randomly-generateddungeons to complete quests.[1]Hmmm sounds a bit like a Brian Fargo game I heard of.... Yeah... Called Hunted: The Demon Forge. Odd thing is that game is played in third person, designed for co op, has no permadeath, and is purely action based even having cover shooter mechanics. But it must me a roguelike considering it has players slashing their way (in real time no less) through increasingly difficult monsters and obtaining treasure while traversing deeper into randomly generated dungeons to complete quests.
You see what I did there? Nostradamus has made predictions that were less generic than Jeremy Parish's justification for why Diablo is a Roguelike.
Or is Dot Hack a roguelike now too? I mean it doesn't have perma death but it does have random levels, slashing your way through increasingly difficult enemies in real time, while traversing randomly generated dungeons to find treasure and complete quests. I can do this at least 20-30 more times no problem.
Lets not forget this either:
Salon.com's Wagner James Au attested that, when he visited their offices, "Blizzard's designers readily acknowledged their debt to Nethack and other Roguelikes".[6] Moreover, the permanent death feature of the roguelike is retained in Diablo 2's hardcore mode...First off "debt" implying inspiration or help, not implying being the same genre. Permadeath is retained! Sure it is only in an optional mode most people don't use but that doesn't matter, does it? It isn't like it does all those other things I already listed that are completely different from Roguelikes. Nope definitely has no co op, no player versus player, it isn't real time either, surely you cant trade items with other players, you must be locked into one save at a time too right, oh wait none of that is true. Diablo 2 is even less of a roguelike than Diablo 1 was in case you somehow missed it.
Or we can go to a real gaming website not crapipedia and look at something actually relevant.
http://www.giantbomb.com/roguelike/92-1065/
Well looky there. Looks like there actually IS a codified list of what makes a roguelike made by professionals not random guys from 1up.com and forum users. Looks like Diablo fails at least half of it, shocking. There is a pretty long list of games that are supposed to be roguelikes and diablo is listed, but then again so are games like Lufia 2: Rise of Sinistrals. Maybe it is just me but putting one optional random dungeon in a traditional JRPG doesn't turn the JRPG into a roguelike, and if Diablo is a roguelike why isn't Torchlight? Hmmm... logic again....
-
Companions complaining or a bird flying by and pooping on you sure, those things can be funny and light hearted. More than that? No. The player shouldn't come back to a dead NPC or being robbed just because he went afk for an hour to eat lunch or had to go help someone with something and it took longer than they thought. P:E isn't a PvP game or Ultima Online.
If you want an OP item that has a goofy side effect drop something like a sword that makes fun of it's user and randomly hits you instead, or a magic ring that is stupid good but turns you into a kobold, or maybe a shield that makes you immune to magic but arbitrarily decides to "release" it's pent up magic energy to a fart like sound effect resulting in the player and party getting hit by a fireball. If you want to get really sadistic you could have a magic cloak that makes you super lucky (like D&D equivalent of +5 to everything) but also turns any money you acquire into lead so you are eternally bankrupt and can't even pay to sleep in an inn.
-
Slightly off-topic: From where does the idea that PE will have Celtic inspiration stem?
At least I got it from the names on the map (and elsewhere too). Ruins of Eír Glanfath sounds pretty Celtic to me...
What he said. Just to throw this out there though a lot of what gets tossed on the forums is basically assumptions by forum users based on some pretty lean stuff. It really is too early to call what "exactly" druids in game will be about but seeing them be inspired by the Celtic version would be nice. That would make it a considerably different class than what Druids are in most games.
-
How can you even argue what is and isn't roguelike when you don't even know what Rogue is?
You know Dream it is funny but every time I see you posting lately it is to try to instigate another flamewar. In this case how about we just say we did and let the actual posting part slide?
) to get past locked doors and has to pick em all!
Display Resolution Support
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
Wrong sub forum and this topic has been done to death. If you want to add to the original feel free to hop in on it.
Linkage: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61474-dpi-scaling-for-pe-much-more-important-than-resolution/