Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Arkeus

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    96

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Arkeus

  1. Arkeus
    I would find it stupid as hell that you can win every fights. Sure, it depends what your level is by the end, and the lore. But the "stronger" beings/people should be able to own your party without any trouble whatosever, whatever you do. Maybe if you go in extreme preparation mode, you could -possibly- make them run or something. If you do so, you should win some pretty incredible artifact or some such. Let's say, for example, the king. If you attack him, all his bodyguards would come out of the shadows and attack you- if you manage to survive, you should win something, but it shouldn't be a "winnable"fight unless this game already goes in the "epic" tier.
  2. Arkeus
    They made a million in a day. They can make another in five days if we are review whores, which we hopefully will be.
  3. Arkeus
    Ok, i pledged 100$ with a 80$ reward (digital tier). Does this mean i get the expansion pack, or do i need to do something special? It must be at least 40K, nothing to do with being half a million.
  4. Arkeus
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! But what about the cookies?
  5. Arkeus
    is there a good solution to do that? You mentioned extra experience but that seems bad to me. The people who are avoiding reloading are likely doing so at least partly because they enjoy the challenge, so making us stronger for doing so is kind of against the point. I get what you're saying, I just don't know how to do it. Mmmh, you are right there... Maybe a lore book that only drop if you do it that way...
  6. Arkeus
    It's a game design problem, the same way that having carsomyr in the first room of Baldur's gate 1 would bea game design problem. Sure, i can 'not use it', but it's dumb as hell to put it there when the game is actually geared toward a lower-level playthrough. As i said, it all depends on what the game is supposed to be. If it's supposed to be some kind of linear game that is also encounter-based, then sure there is no real reason to encourage the players to not load games when they make a mistake (by that, i mean having a minore character dying, or being forced to lose a quest, or being forced to use a very rare potion). However, if the game is designed for strategic gameplay as well as non-linearity, not giving an incentive to not reload is bad game design. Now, i will repeat once again- i am not in favor of making saving impossible in most places, or "forbidding" people to reload. I am, however, in favor for there to be reasons for why the player should not want to do so.
  7. Arkeus
    No, i am talking about someone who didn't plan ahead before arriving to the boss fight, and needing to reload just before the fight ten times until he dodge all the fireballs/save all the save-or-dies etc. And, again, it's not about 'caring what someone else does'. It's that i know myself, and i know that if i get to a boss fight not prepared enough, odds are i won't say "i'll come back later", i'll say "i'll try again and again until i do it". Which is destroying half the design of a non-linear game where one of the biggest thing is forcing the player to realize "welp, i can't do this right now, better come back later".
  8. Arkeus
    Yes, which is why i am saying the devellopers should find way to encourage players to not abuse saves in a way that destroy game content. I do agree with you that it shouldn't be done in such a way that it takes away from the enjoyment of the game, and that 'forcing the players to replay a long passage' is probably not the best way to do it. Probably 'rewards' like having the quests give a tiny more exp if no reload is used during the whole duration of the quest (except for save&quit save/reloads) could work better, i don't know. Except that enabling the cheat console and then learning the cheat code is accpeting "i am cheating". Reloading ten times against a boss until they get perfect rolls is not, for most players, considered cheating.
  9. Arkeus
    When a cheatcode is part of the basic UI and showed as a normal feature of the game, yes, it influence all of the game, as well as ingluence the balance mechanics of the game, and possibly even the contents of the quests.
  10. Arkeus
    Except Ironman doesn't allow dying at all, not just make it more costly. There is a big difference there.
  11. Arkeus
    The people who loses there are: *The people who want the game to be designed upon a quest-basis with attrition system, not a 'encounter' basis only. *The people who are honest but knows that between "trying five times through reload to win the second end of the dungeon" and "go back to town, heal, rest, buy potions and wands before finishing the second half of the dungeon" they will almost always choose the earlier possibility, but knows that doing so will curtail their fun.
  12. Arkeus
    is it? If its important to you, that's something you can easily avoid doing. But there's no good reason why anything I do should be important to anyone else. Ok, let me qualify this, then: It's very important for everyone as long as the develloppers actually put multiple choices and mechanics for death. If it's a linear game without a death mechanic, then yes it's not important. But if it's a game with branching choices with consequences? then yes, it's ridiculously important that the players are encouraged to actually, you know, experience those consequences and multiple branch, or else most of the game is created for nothing.
  13. Arkeus
    What he is arguing for isn't trial of ironman or something, but encouraging the play to live with the consequences of his actions in a normal game. It's a very delicate balance, but it's also very important that players don't reload every time they don't do something perfectly (messed a dialog response, messed up a quest, have a companion die and need to sell gear to rez, etc). OTOH, it's VERY hard to encourage the players to accept the consequences of their choices without it feeling stifling for the average player.
  14. Arkeus
    Is that a problem? If you feel you are not going to be able to win against an enemy, then yes, you should leave it alone. Then, if you want, you can come back a couple of level aters, stock fulls of potions and scrolls and wands and anti-dragon gear, and try to kill him. That's exactly why not being able to save all the time is good. Of course, at least in the longer quests, there is merit in having the ability to save when the floor is 'cleared' of enemies, so that you don't have to lose 5hrs of gameplay if you get TPK, just half an hour or so. This is a fair point. I guess there is a balance to be had there.
  15. Arkeus
    And then the people you have issue with just save/quit and reload. Just implement a save anytime system and realize that some people will exploit that fact, and others won't. Do not complicate things. People who are going to play legitimately will play legitimately all on their own. No meddling required. Anything beyond that is, "None of your business, keep your nose out." Are you joking? This isn't about other people not playing the game correctly, it's about me having trouble playing the game correctly if there is a clearly superior way to play it that is within the vanilla game. If we can save scum (not talking about the ability to save if you need to leave here, but about saving&continue) this means that it fosters to the players, that mean me and other people, a feeling of "you don't need to be as careful", because obviously if i need to take two hours of dangerous playing with a 3-members party going back to a temple and spend half my money raising the deads, or reloading, i will almost certainly cave in and just reload. You are basically saying the equivalent of "having friendly fire off by default" or "having all the attributes without cooldowns nor any kind of restrictions all the time" in the 'normal' option. Yes, it limits what people can do. But guess what? This is what a game is supposed to do, forcing the players to play. If you don't like playing, you can just toggle off the friendly fire and toggle down the enemy damage and engage easy mode.
  16. Arkeus
    "Save scumming" as such destroy most ideas of strategy or tactic, as people have not only no incentive to not be reckless, but it destroys any of the more interesting parts of living with the consequences. However, you have to be careful in how to limit it: I would say that when entering a dungeon, there should only be: *Saves if you need to quite the game. If you come back to the game, that save will be deleted once used. *Saves once you are 'safe' (have cleared a floor, have fortified your position, whatever). When out of dungeons, saves should be unlimited.
  17. Arkeus
    you have only seen half of their statements, it seems. Look at this for more. @Jaesun: i think the number of cast spells for low-level in your changes are ridiculously low. A mage that can, at level 11+, cast only one level 1 spell, as well as 3 spells for the whole levels 2-3-4, is useless. The whole point of the system they are putting in place is for making it possible to -not- rest. Your system would force the mage to use all of his spells in each fights and go back to resting for any fights that is not very easy. I much prefer their ways of 'for a level 11 mage, you get your normal numbers of level 1/2/3 spells that you can cast each encounters, and then level 4/5/6 are per rest', as long as you can only rest in very specific locations (inns, temples, never in dungeons). @vrailor: I highly doubt your mage somehow get all the spells at once for the low-level spamming. Like the high-level spell choices will be limited by grimoires, i expect that the spells you can use for low level would still be limited in some ways. As for incantations, it was quite explicit that Wizard will still have them.
  18. Arkeus
    DA:O.... I loved the beginning of that game. The 'Origin concept' was so damn great, and finding out the spell combinations was cool. Having a warrior and thief that actually had techniques to use was nice, too. Then there was a LOT of dialog with your companion, and their dialogs together when you walked around could be fun. However, the more i played, the more readily apparent the flaws were: *The Origin had no impact whatsoever in the plot *Only the mage class was important- every other classes were window dressing in comparison, and useless as their skills and ability just weren't up to par *The tactical side of the game was...not tactical. You just needed to know how the character worked, and you steam-rolled everything without any real need for tactic but 'buff and destroy'. On Nightmare. *The companions became trites and boring after a while. Alistair, the mroe we knew him, the more stupid he was. Morrigan turned into the classic vapid ass-licker, and Leliana was so cliche it hurts. Sten and that alcoholic dwarves weren't any better. *Very, very, very few quests had any kind of choices. There were some, sure, but it was usually false choices. Anyway, i am one of those heretics that actually by far preferred DA2 than DA:O, as DA2 didn't hide that it was a action-rpg. The characters there were much, much better done, and *gasp* all three classes were useful. Main DA2 problem is the damn RUSHED third act, as well as the lack of big choices with consequences (there are some, just not enought).
  19. Arkeus
    Or maybe you -can't- rest at all when in enemy territory, so you can never get those higher-tier spells unless you are going back to town (which may not always be possible), and so having, say, 3 'easy' encounters, 4 'normal encounters', 3 'difficult' encounters and '2' Hard encounters by dungeon would force the player to prioritize his spell use heavily (you wouldn't use your high-level spells on easy encounters, but you might want to use one if you are unlucky in a normal one, let alone a difficult one). Basically, you could feel the 'attrition' of your spells/ressources slowly going down without having the need to go back to town for resting.
  20. Arkeus
    Definitely NWN2:Storm of Zheir styles of Overland Map here. The problem with that one is that it would need some REAL work, and would probably need to be a stretchgoal. And, sadly, not sure enough people would know what it is that they would pay for it. Still, SoZ-style overland maps are by far the best i ever saw in a rpg.
  21. Arkeus
    as opposed to endless rock flinging machines. And this isn't unlimited use within a single fight. But it essentially gives you low level spells to use every encounter. Not only that, but it also makes it "ok" to not rest. Basically, it will encourage people to go through fights without using the high level spells without giving such a penalization for using spells that you feel you need to rest every two fights. Because let's be honest here, in BG/BG2/etc if we didn't know the fights we were going in in a new quest we would almost always need/want to rest a couple of times within an enemy infested map. It's only on subsequent playthroughs that not resting once while going to the castle of Arnise is remotely possible, and that gives players few reason to limit the sleep-spamming.
  22. Arkeus
    A bit more insight upon the magic system (Sawyer saying more about it). I find that quite ok myself.
  23. Arkeus
    Well, this explains the Mage system in a bit more details.. Seems i was more or less correct.
  24. Arkeus
    It's only overpowered if fighters are underpowered. Given that everyone uses 'magic' (soul power), it makes sense that fighters won't be so limited. The resting mechanic would be that in order to use higher-level spells, you not only need to have the necessary Soul-Power but also refine it into the grimoire. It could be logical that for a spell level you just got, you can't do it without hours of meditation. I am comnining both the text and dialog versions of the reddit answers (who are slightly different) so that there is both a cool-down and a "sometimes you need to rest" thing. Of course, i might be wrong on the "sometimes you need to rest" thing, but given he did say something like "using a big-ass spell would mean not being able to use it for a while" i am hoping there is such a restriction.
  25. Arkeus
    My understanding about the Magic system is a bit different than the ones people seem to have: *Spells that are much lower levels than your max level of spells do not need you to use a grimoire to cast, and as such they do not need rest nor cooldown to recharge. (though they still need soulpower). *You 'charge' your grimoire, which means that each level of spells in the grimoire have a limited number of spells you can use before that level is drained. a Cooldown is then activated until the appropriate level of spells are charged with soulpower again. *Higher levels of spells (compared to your wiard level) in the grimoir can't regenerate without rest (too complex for oyur current character to recharge on the fly). *You can switch grimoire within a fight, which means transferring all the soulpower within a grimoire to the next grimoire. When doing so, it means 'switching' between two different sets of spells.
×
×
  • Create New...