Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

ogrezilla

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    882

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ogrezilla

  1. ogrezilla
    I hope so. I would love to have the option to set it by character too. The old games had quite a few autopause options for things like health threshholds and stuff, so it seems like something they should include. They mentioned that you would be able to queue up actions I know. I hope they don't use that as an excuse to get rid of autopausing.
  2. ogrezilla
    maybe I'm missing something, but how would this change the autopause feature at all? Well how would they decide when to engage pause without a 6 second or some x second long round or turn? It seems like they'd almost have to invent something that works the same as a round or turn in order to automatically engage pause in a fair manner for both your party and the enemy. All of that was handled automatically in the IE games. when one of your characters is ready for a new command, the game pauses.
  3. ogrezilla
    my expectations (largely speculation based on their comments) is that within the time of a single encounter, the system they create will play almost exactly like the old IE games. I think it will be the method of recovering your spells outside of combat that will differ.
  4. ogrezilla
    I think one should always assume the player knows. The only real value to having rush options is for players who explicitly wants to characterize themselves as recklessly rushing through situations. That is valuable, yes, but trying to use it to punish or otherwise go GOTCHA at other players seems unwise. It won't trick them on subsequent playthroughs and there are too many resources (such as forums and walkthroughs) that prevent it on the first playthrough. And trying just seems like you're trying to be a jerk to the player. It violates a trust between player and DM. If the player trusts the DM enough to not spoil the outcome of quests, do you really want to ruin that by making it a notably bad outcome? These people should be cherished. I would very much enjoy occasional bad outcomes. The problem I guess then comes on the second playthrough where it feels more gamey. I like bad outcomes, too. But not on a scale of ideal outcomes vs bad outcomes. But where all outcomes are bad and you're just trying to find the one that's better for you/me. Alpha Protocol's bomb scenario. never played Alpha Protocol, but I think I get what you are saying. Really I just want things to be written well and make sense.
  5. ogrezilla
    that's a good way to look at it.
  6. ogrezilla
    cooldowns don't automatically mean dragon age. if you read the comments they made, you know they plan to make the combat mimic the general spirit of "# of casts per day" style mechanics using cooldowns in place of rest. They also value spell choice and preparation. So why would they chose it? They can potentially create a system that feels like the classic system but without the rest system to screw with it. Thus, you may actually end up having to strategically choose spells AND think about when you use them. The old rest system completely negated that second part.
  7. ogrezilla
    I am proposing exactly that. But with a more *umpf* than just simply *chunk chunk* that we Baldur's Gaters are familiar with. I agree that it is more than enough... 10 years ago. Heck even today too it is more than enough. It is still more than enough... for us conservative progress-halters. Today the technology exists to make the Baldur's Gate combat animations exactly the same mechanically but what we see is something different. So instead of, as I said earlier, the static animations a la *chunk chunk* beating it off on each other you could now today make the same exact system but with more vivid, clarified flowing animations. Instead of having two guys go at it on each other with their manly arms holding sword and shield, they could block, parry, clash. Mechanically it would be the same thing, visually something different, new, progressing. you are describing a dream where combat is more than taking turns hitting each other in the face with a sword. What is this nonsense? No really, that sounds awesome. But for a low budget game I could see that likely being more costly and/or time consuming than its worth. Yes, I am aware of the budget and time limitations. Although as this is a speculation and discussion forum I do wish to flirt with this idea generally. I am sure there are many developers in these forums (Not only Obsidian), observing the progress and what the "people want" in RP games. I wish to put emphasize on this dream, because it is doable, revolutionary and profitable. I hope there will be animation modding possibilities, for in that case one could possibly modify the animations to something more akin to what I am suggesting. Also, it wouldn't be more than taking turns. It would simply look like it; more. Example: Turn 1: I roll my dice as I try to take a hit at you, but you roll your dice and you block it. Turn 2: Then you roll your dice as you try to chop at me, but I roll my dice and parry it. Turn 3: My turn! I hack, but you valiantly dodge it. Turn 4: Your turn! You slash, and we clash. Turn 5: Finish Him! ~Friendship! Turn 6: Make it happen please :D <3 *rolls dice impatiently for the result* I would love it too. I just doubt this will be the game where we see it. It would definitely make combat for interesting to watch.
  8. ogrezilla
    maybe I'm missing something, but how would this change the autopause feature at all?
  9. ogrezilla
    I think one should always assume the player knows. The only real value to having rush options is for players who explicitly wants to characterize themselves as recklessly rushing through situations. That is valuable, yes, but trying to use it to punish or otherwise go GOTCHA at other players seems unwise. It won't trick them on subsequent playthroughs and there are too many resources (such as forums and walkthroughs) that prevent it on the first playthrough. And trying just seems like you're trying to be a jerk to the player. It violates a trust between player and DM. If the player trusts the DM enough to not spoil the outcome of quests, do you really want to ruin that by making it a notably bad outcome? These people should be cherished. I would very much enjoy occasional bad outcomes. The problem I guess then comes on the second playthrough where it feels more gamey.
  10. ogrezilla
    It's not to prevent save scumming per se. It's more to allow for a more authentic or genuine role play where the PC just has to deal with the consequences of his or her actions. But, when you get immediate outcomes of certain decisions, it tends to make (some) players gravitate to decisions which gives the highest XP or loot... But when you have options where one outcome is obviously 'better' than another, but you don't know what the consequences are until 8 hours later, all that leads to is a non-trivial number of people consulting a walkthrough every five minutes so that it doesn't happen again. It's far better game design if the player's actions have consequences in that there are changes to the state of the world, but without there being outcomes which are obviously better than others. For a simplistic example, if I side with one guy over another, then that shouldn't mean I miss out on a quest line two chapters later, but it might mean I get a different quest line, as long as neither outcome gives phat loot that the other doesn't. there should be ways to further investigate the situations before making the decision. So you have the option of making the choice, or going and checking further into the situation. If you just make a rash decision, then the results should be harder to predict.
  11. ogrezilla
    I'm just an optimist I guess. I look at the exact same information and my reaction is the opposite. I have yet to see any reason to believe that is Sawyer's intent.
  12. ogrezilla
    What he has said. 3. They want to mimic the number of casts a day mechanic from D&D while avoiding the rest mechanic 4. They want spell choice and preparation to be important
  13. ogrezilla
    Fine, but nobody is sure what exactly that means. That's all we have - expectations. indeed. I doubt the developers have a whole lot more than that at this stage of development.
  14. ogrezilla
    Probably not, but will it be different enough? Nothing much to do now but wait and see. I think the community has made itself clear and there isn't a lot more to say. the quotes all indicate that they are looking to use cooldowns to mimic a combination of the vancian system and resting while eliminating rest spamming. I expect it to feel more like BG or IWD than DA from everything we've been told so far.
  15. ogrezilla
    8 hours? no. I think its pretty safe to assume we won't be seeing something resembling the Dragon Age system though.
  16. ogrezilla
    this is why I quit WoW. I loved doing dungeons with my friends because we would figure them out ourselves. Sure, you had to die and try again and that does feel a bit cheap. But at least we were solving the problem ourselves. When I first started raiding, the raid was pretty much brand new so we were figuring the stuff out for a bit. But then other people somewhere in the world finished it and I was forced to just read instructions and watch videos on how exactly to win a fight. I completely lost interest. The game mechanics simply aren't challenging enough in most RPGs for that to feel rewarding. Figuring out the strategy strategy was the rewarding part of the encounters.
  17. ogrezilla
    And how design that removes a possibility of choice is any better? its not. luckily that's not an issue because its pretty clear that the planned system for this game will not remove choice.
  18. ogrezilla
    ??? Listen, if us "munchkins" hadn't been out in force here today with our complaints, Josh probably would not have stepped into the forum to clarify his position with regards to level scaling. And who knows? It could be that thanks to that, even the slightest possibility of level scaling in this game has now been eliminated. Don't belittle the munchkins. We get things done. the discussion on that topic was much more reasonable than the discussion about cooldowns has been.
  19. ogrezilla
    you were absolutely not the only one. This talk of strategic spell preparation and careful spell conservation do not remotely match my memories of those games.
  20. ogrezilla
    I'm not the person you posted, but for me it's the same reason I post on other gaming forums, or on hockey forums. Not because I think I can sway the developers (or my favorite NHL team's GM) into doing things exactly how I want, but to discuss something I enjoy with people who also enjoy the same thing. Also, I post my ideas/thoughts on features for PE in hopes the devs might see them and say, "you know, that might work". But I don't post with the belief that they *will* react that way. I would say that in a Kickstarter project where there's a direct relation between our happiness and the amount of money Obsidian gets to make their game, the chances of them reacting are much higher. that's the problem. I don't want them to react too much to us. The simple fact is this: they know more about making games than we do. I want them to trust their own judgement over ours. I'm pretty sure they are capable of that. Feedback is important. feedback is fine. There are people with good constructive criticisms. its the people who are essentially lighting their torches or taking their ball and going home despite the lack of information that bothers me.
  21. ogrezilla
    I'm just saying it wasn't all that well implemented as far as strategy was concerned. If the game was giving you hints that would help you decide what to use, sure. But usually the first encounter was just a guess, and then once you actually saw the encounter you could prepare for any subsequent tries if you died the first time. It wasn't strategic because you didn't figure anything out; you were shown the answer.
  22. ogrezilla
    intelligence definitely can throw a wrench in this. Because I hate when I know the answer to in game problems but my character doesn't. I think its probably the correct game design, but it is still infuriating to watch. Ideally, the lack of intelligence from the character would prevent him from gathering the information to let me the player know the answer in the first place.
  23. ogrezilla
    I'm not the person you posted, but for me it's the same reason I post on other gaming forums, or on hockey forums. Not because I think I can sway the developers (or my favorite NHL team's GM) into doing things exactly how I want, but to discuss something I enjoy with people who also enjoy the same thing. Also, I post my ideas/thoughts on features for PE in hopes the devs might see them and say, "you know, that might work". But I don't post with the belief that they *will* react that way. I would say that in a Kickstarter project where there's a direct relation between our happiness and the amount of money Obsidian gets to make their game, the chances of them reacting are much higher. that's the problem. I don't want them to react too much to us. The simple fact is this: they know more about making games than we do. I want them to trust their own judgement over ours.
  24. ogrezilla
    I'm not the person you posted, but for me it's the same reason I post on other gaming forums, or on hockey forums. Not because I think I can sway the developers (or my favorite NHL team's GM) into doing things exactly how I want, but to discuss something I enjoy with people who also enjoy the same thing. Also, I post my ideas/thoughts on features for PE in hopes the devs might see them and say, "you know, that might work". But I don't post with the belief that they *will* react that way. agreed. I like talking about things that interest me. Apparently we even agree what those things are. stupid lock out
  25. ogrezilla
    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: fair enough. I guess I personally just agree with their opinion of those spells.
×
×
  • Create New...