Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HansKrSG

  1. The cap is "hard" at 12th level. Source: I hit the cap with 1/5th of the game left (I am a completionist myself). I also hate hitting a hard cap. All the xp awards seems kinda pointless after you can't get any more xp. I don't know if there are any "fixes" to this yet, but I am sure someone must be working on it.
  2. So, decisions decisions. Should I wait until tomorrow, or start testing after midnight (as it will be in my country), and probably get too little sleep?
  3. Get a job in IT. I know the IT guys get a way higher salary than any other normal jobs in Belarus, although I guess it's not easy to get an IT job there because so many want one. ( I have this info from 3 colleagues I had that is from Belarus)
  4. Persistent, or at least persistent until map reload would be good. Of course, decomposing would be neat, and I like the idea, but it's not important enough to use resources that could go to other "stuff".
  5. I don't think it's crazy difficult, but it seems to give IE players more trouble than any of the other (unmodded) IE games. Not sure if I agree that IWD2 is harder than BG1/2. I couldn't win it playing only 1 or 2 characters, like I can with BG, but I guess that has much to do with the XP-system in 3.0-3.5. Full party IWD2 vs Full party BG2, I feel BG2 is harder. Am I alone in this?
  6. Can't say I agree that TOB was crazy difficult. Yes the enemies was crazy powerful, but so was your characters. I understand that the last battle is pretty hard, if you have the "wrong" party configuration, but the rest was challenging at times (except when doing the "right choices"), not crazy.
  7. I am sure I am beating on a dead horse here (Have been a long time away from the forums), but I just can't get over that the same stat that affects damage, also affects healing... Josh, can't you comment on this to make sure we haven't misqouted you or something?
  8. Shadowrun Returns uses a checkpoint save system if you haven't tried it yet. Because of limitations in time. Aftetr the expansion that is due sometime in the future, you can save anywhere and anytime.
  9. In my first dozen playthroughs of BG2 I hated Anomen and never in the rest of those playthroughs recruited him again after an unfortunate situation where he did something very stupid (don't want to spoil the Anomen story). But I tried again later, and made him not do stupid stuff, and after that, he has been my Cleric of choice if my PC is not a Cleric. Anomen turns out to be bereable after a while after all.
  10. Though I agree with your points, they could use the D20 system if they wanted, its open, although the XP system is not (for some reason; thats why Pathfinder has it's own XP-table). I don't really want them to use D20 even, just wanted to point it out, being nitpicky as I am. EDIT: I guess other people have already mention stuff like this, I just didn't read the whole thread. Sorry about that.
  11. I think that PE should go so far as making the game illegal to sell in Australia and Germany and other places with silly laws. No go fiurther, make it illegal in neo-moralistic scandinavia, that once embraced free speech and freedom of expression, but now wants to make illegal anything "bad". I am not being sarcastic btw, I wan't real evil that will shock and horrify people. Then again, I will play the good path (I am a carebear in games as well as real life), so might be I will never see the evil path anyway.
  12. In BG 2 or Planescape Torment; I never felt that any encounter was out of place or tedious. There was some of it in BG1, where random encounters was pretty boring and seemed very random, but in the other infinity engine games, there was little of that. Even where bandits attacked you in BG 2, you usually got a dialogue, and you understood what the bandits were after, sometimes they were even a part of driving the main story forward. If Project Eternity are going the route of the Infinity Engine games, the random encounters will not feel as random, at least not to me. Now the worst offenders of random encounters are JRPG's, and seeing the OP's mention of specific games like Fire Emblem, I think that where this gripe comes from, but I might be wrong.
  13. That intro always gives me shivers down my spine. Strange that the first comment was not a comment on the similarities between the OP's vision and Planscape: Torment. That said, no, I would not like that intro for Project Eternity.
  14. Great job. It looks just like I feel it should. April 2014 can't come quick enough.
  15. He's not asking that all spells be removed, hes asking that the game be completable without them, which it probably will be anyway. You shouldn't treat every religious person as if they are identical zombies - far from it - and while there are certainly obnoxious people out there, there are plenty of reasonable people out there who are religious and willing to let others get on with their lives. It's just that the idiots who cry witchhunt if they see someone reading Harry Potter on the bus are just a lot more vocal than everyone else. The only way that you can stop this being an issue is to have some dialogue with religion - not the extremists of course, but if a regular people are engaged, see something for what it is then it leaves the extremists without a leg to stand on. I don't believe I did treat this person as an identical zombie; I am arguing that the game shouldn't be designed around one player's moral principles. Get it? I'm disagreeing with the message, rather than the messenger. Sorry about the way I phrased that, I wasn't really addressing that at you so much as using that as a springboard to try and pre-empt any full on religion-bashing - I've seen quite a lot of Gamers vs Religions with each being openly hostile to the other in a way that just makes matters worse. As for the around one players principles, it depends on context, and what you mean by one player. To take the game "Smite" that there was a bit of an issue around last year, where there was an issue of it including Hindu Gods and Goddesses in an arena battle game alongside Greek, Viking and Egyptian deities. I'm not religious in the slightest but you could see that was going to offend people from a mile off and to me if nothing else ts good manners not to include a being or beings that approximatly ONE BILLION people consider to be real in a beat-em-up. What should have happened was the company should have gone "Oh, we're dreadfully sorry, we didn't really think it through properly, we shall remove them immediatly", but what happened in stead was effectively numerous mssage boards of idiot gamers saying effectively "suck on that organised religion", with the actual company replying basically that they were going to carry on adding more Gods. Which isn't to say that religion shouldn't be allowed in games, far from it, games are as a valid a medium to say what they like as books or film or whatever, but there is a difference between considered inclusion of something, even in such a way as if you were to make a game that specifically critiqued a certain religion, to just going "hey that guys deity looks cool, lets stick them in this fighting game so they can get beaten up!". We live in a very diverse world and the sooner people work out that other people are different to themselves and the sooner people stop doing things which will offend others because they didn't think about it and it seems fun the happier everyone will be. Equally though there are some cases where Religious people also need to look at things in perspective: I read something somewhere abotu a guy who returned Marvel: Ultimate Alliance to a shop because you had to find 5 candles to form a Pentagram to get through Mepihsto (the Devil Analogues) Realm. Where its something like that and they aren't familiar enough with their own religion to know that the pentagram was in the past a Christian symbol, and the context of the game where you had just killed hundreds of demons to get these candles, you can fairly safely assume that Captain America isn't a secret demon worshipper. In the case of the thread, yes it may one man's oppinion here, but as we already know it's possible to solo the game this isn't even an issue. In general, if a game doesn't have a point to make and it's a minor thing to change (or as in this case, not a thing at all), why not fix things to make more people feel comfortable playing your game, and help lessen the bad blood between religion and games? I began reading your post, thinking I would agree with your message, as many here is unnecceseraly hostile to the question of the OP, which is pretty innocent. But reading on, I understand pretty quickly that we don't agree after all. When it comes to works of art, wether as books, paintings, sculptures, movies, music or even computer games, I will not condone any compromise to the artistic vision. Religious or philosophical ideas should not be able to bend or change the art, except if that was the artists wish of course. Neither would I condone someone feeling compelled to change their work based on irreligious wants, nor political ones, so this goes all ways for me.
  16. I do agree partly with the OP, that archery often is underpowered compared to melee in rpgs, even in pnp. In real life, an archer had the advantage to be able to shoot arrows at you from about 150 meters (or more, depending on the bow and the archer), and would have many chances to pepper the target before they could run into melee. This is hard to manage in an isometric game, where you see about 20-30 meters or so in front of you. So to balance things in a system where you will approach melee pretty quickly, the bow should be at least as deadly as a melee weapon. The weakness of archery in the D20 systems, including AD&D, was that there was no statbonus to the damage, while melee weapons got those, making melee hit a lot harder usually. Other than that, I agree with Lephys post, and I have to quote his fabulous words "the fine line between abstraction and nonsense." - Glorious
  17. Many good ideas here. I like it. Just have to add that I am very in agreement with JFSOOC, I really hate it when I feel forced to trust an npc that I understaned from the start is bad business to get further in the plot, and then when the inevetable betrayal comes along, the devs have written it as you are an idiot for trusting the npc in the first place. Damn irritating.
  18. Your main character should not be free at all, so that you as the player can define the character as you see fit. The characters you bring along though, should have prescripted personalities.
  19. Digging could work like the few places in some of the IE games, where you use an "ability" at specific places where they have programmed that should change image/show another frame of the "animation" or the like, where it looks like you have digged a hole, and then you can get the hidden item. Making it possible to use successfully anywhere though would be... harder.
  20. Allowing players to bash open containers without consequence or limitation does a great disservice to those who enjoy playing rogues. If you don't need someone to pick locks and disarm trapped containers, you've taken a huge bite out of the purpose of the class. Give XP for picking locks and disarming traps as in B2, and nothing for bashing it open, voila, a good reason to have a rogue do it instead. I love playing rogues, but I usually don't bash open stuff, even when I can, because it just doesn't feel right. That it is possible, doesn't really stop me from using my rogue.
  21. To make it short: Having options on things to use money on is good, weight on coinage is bad (especially in a game where you can carry infinite amounts of stash anyway), the IE games did it pretty well, the NWN games didn't do it well, and limiting merchant gold as in TES is pretty irritating.
  22. I like the idea. You wont have to inlcude swimming and all the hassle that makes, and you won't have to make the game truly 3d, as long as you use graphic tricks to make it look right. Of course, speaking of truly 3d, an isometric game can be truly 3d without loosing the IE feel. In Ultima 8 (1994), you could walk over and under the same bridge, and is still isometric 3/4 overview.
  23. Evil Islands, an RPG where you only control 1 character(though you could have up to two followers), you also had sight cones and sound radius to detection, where I think the stealth skill made you make a smaller sound radius, while the opponents had bigger detection radiuses if they had better sight and hearing. You could see their detection radiuses with spells, (instead of cheating ). Something like that and what you explain with the commandoes game would be interresting, but I would not be sad if they used something similar as the IE games either.
  24. Exactly. There should still be a random factor in each permutation so you don't get the same patterns recurring too often. I just mean there should also be some logic applied to where each successive blow lands, based on the previous blow, but not necessarily sticking to any predefined combat chain. I guess maybe it's a combination of both historical and random in that case. I've often thought about this, in almost any RPG. Why does my Level 1 character take up a goofy "I'm gonna swing my sword like a baseball bat at yer head!" stance and swing once every... oh.. 3 seconds, in combat, and deal 12 damage, when he COULD swing every second (in a flowing sequence of little animations that rely on a handful of resting-point poses for all animations) and just do like 4 damage per swing? Hell, even dodges and parries could be worked in, because, as has already been said, a modern computer can process these rolls STUPIDLY quickly. I would say that, instead of gaining attacks-per-round (or basically attack speed, in a non-round-based game) as you leveled up, you could increase your auto-attack reportoire of moves. There'd be 4-5 different little weapon-swing (and enemy weapon swing) animation permutations to start out with (so it would actually look like you're both fighting each other at the same time, rather than just focusing on swinging a weapon on a cooldown and see who dies first), not including dodges and blocks and parries and whatnot, and then you could gain different essentially passive abilities as you went. For simplicity's sake (and example's), you could just throw in typical RPG things like stuns, knockback, trips, etc. Your "auto-attack skill" could be Swordplay, or Axe Mastery, or whatever (also already in a billion other progression systems in the universe), or there could even be a General tree that would provide a lesser degree of bonuses at the ceiling, but would apply to any weapon you were using. The only difference from typical systems is that auto-attack combat, in between active skill usages and movement active commands, would flow awesomely nicely, and you'd actually see an improvement to this as your character supposedly became the supreme master of all things blade, rather than him just standing around Rock'em'Sock'em Robotting away like a doofus until you click "Axe Hurricane of Impending Disintegration" and select a target. I just think this would do well in support of the whole "player skill and character skill are separate things that are both at play" idea. You could take any existent combat system (that's not turn/round-based) and work this in, simply reducing the amount of damage dealt by weapons proportionate to the increase in attack speed, and the combat pacing stays exactly the same. Combat just rocks a lot more is all. By the way, the little passive bonuses and effects I was talking about in your general auto-attackery would be quite minor compared to other things. No "50% chance to stun on each hit!" or anything. Pretty much any effect that's usually passive, in combat, could be applied in this situation. Because your auto-attack damage is pretty much passive. I think that's the problem. That's what it feels like in most games... That you might as well just have a damage aura that only hits your selected target every (insert weapon speed here) seconds, and there happen to be "Oh look, I'm supposed to be attacking him" animations attached. Guild Wars 2 actually does this, slightly. Your slot-1 skill (1-9 keys on the keyboard) is pretty much your auto-attack, no matter what class and weapon you're using, and on most of the melee weapons, it actually cycles through various slightly-different attacks (they actually have different tooltips and everything, and some of them apply effects, so you can halt your auto-attack at a certain step to save it for its knockback or stun effect at a slightly more useful time) much more quickly (probably an attack at least every second, because each attack is just a type of axe swing, or kick, etc... minor individual "moves" that one would probably perform whilst engaging a foe in melee combat. The problem in the old IE games is that they tried to follow the pen and paper system AD&D 2ed. In this edition, it is implied that you try to hit and dodge and parry several times within the 6 second round, but that of these attacks, only one is considered an attack with a chance to connect. This works well in a turn based system, but seems slow and uneccesary in a real time system. The good thing is that PE does not have 6 second "rounds" and is not based on a pen and paper system. They can easily have you make an attack every second, or every two seconds, or whatever integer they want and feels correct.
  25. As mentioned by many here. I would not hate an avoidance system instead of a miss system. As long as total avoidance does no damage. The best would be using both though. In combat the attackers skill should matter, as well as the defenders skill. Opposed rolls (as sneak vs. perception) takes too much time in PnP, but in a computer game, this would be ideal. I also like the ideas of degrees of the success of the hit. A better hit should also add to damage, even if not a "crit". Total miss - no damgage of any sort glancing hit - little damage normal hit - normal damage good hit - extra damage (+50% for example) Critical - Much more damage (+100% or more for example) Of course, you could make it more dynamic and have every "point" over a normal hit be a little better, and vica versa when lower, doesn't matter that much. Many are talking about critical misses, I think that it might be a good idea, but in no way important (IMO).
  • Create New...