teknoman2

i wanted to ask about that too. i just use the badge as a regular pic in the forum or there is another way to have it appear?

as i said earlier, in the de arnise hold in bg2 you can sneak some dogmeat stew to a cell and have the uberhulks move away from your path. that gets 20k xp for each party member while killing them would give 6k to each. however you can still kill them after serving lunch and get a total of 26k. that means that if you opt for a certain approach you get penalized by getting a smaller reward.

all systems have as many flaws as they have advantages. the thing is: what system will allow a player to role play without getting penalized for not playing in a particular way? with the xp for killing system, even if you use a different approach to solve something, in the end you will still kill any unfriendly npc that you can for that extra xp and loot, unless you are a hardcore role player with self imposed limits on what you will do and how. a way to solve it would be to make the unkilled enemies useful later or make them disappear immediately after solving a quest in a non violent manner so you would have no way to power play by killing them. in the goal based xp system you can still kill anything after you solved the quest in a different way, but you don't get any reward for it so its easier to role play without pushing yourself to deny a possible reward. in this case however it would take some effort to make it so that the quests you get wont contradict the way you play, or have alternative solutions that fit your style This is a "Root cause" issue. The root cause of your concern is that actions other than killing aren't viable because they don't yield a reward. The solution is to make actions other than killing viable by yielding a reward. For some strange reason, people keep bypassing this, and instead jump straight to "The solution to the problem is not reward experience for killing" instead of "The solution to the problem is to reward experience for more actions than just killing". To be honest, and this isn't directed at the quoted poster, I seriously wonder if many advocates of the Quest-based system don't have ulterior motives. The solution to the issue is extremely obvious and simple, but instead many keep jumping right past it. There has to be some other motivation here, because there's no logical reason to ignore "Make things other than killing viable solutions" and jump straight to "Don't give anyone experience for killing". I strongly suspect there's a number who are just hiding a hatred of people who min-max and want to prevent people from playing that way, even though it doesn't affect them. Seriously, what is so wrong with "Reward experience for more actions than just killing"? What concern is it that this doesn't address? Because it really looks like that isn't what people are really concerned with, it really looks like what people want to do is to dictate how others play. you are missing the point. often not killing in BG2 yields more xp than killing, however after the peaceful solution, you can still kill them for the extra xp. the lack of such xp would demotivate players from killing people with whom they reached an agreement. you can still opt to kill them from the start or even later, but you get no additional reward for doing so besides possible loot.

the best laughs were with the dwarf "wannabe monk" in NWN2. just thinking about the conversations with him makes me laugh no matter how long its been since i played the game. then they threw me out the window like a drunken hippogrif... magical it was!

all systems have as many flaws as they have advantages. the thing is: what system will allow a player to role play without getting penalized for not playing in a particular way? with the xp for killing system, even if you use a different approach to solve something, in the end you will still kill any unfriendly npc that you can for that extra xp and loot, unless you are a hardcore role player with self imposed limits on what you will do and how. a way to solve it would be to make the unkilled enemies useful later or make them disappear immediately after solving a quest in a non violent manner so you would have no way to power play by killing them. in the goal based xp system you can still kill anything after you solved the quest in a different way, but you don't get any reward for it so its easier to role play without pushing yourself to deny a possible reward. in this case however it would take some effort to make it so that the quests you get wont contradict the way you play, or have alternative solutions that fit your style

nothing... i pledged as much as i can afford.

No, my point, which you missed by a margin the size of Jupiter, is: if they're gonna give XP for "other activities" such as persuasion and solving puzzles, they should hand out XP for combat encounters as well. Each slain enemy that tries to kill you is an objective in itself and should be awarded with XP. The most puzzling thing is that you've kept writing this way for more than 10 years by now (thinking it's funny and/or an awesomely original way of making a point). the point you miss, is that they dont give xp for non combat activities, they give xp for doing stuff no matter how. let's say some bandits are blocking your path on a bridge: you can kill everyone or talk to them or steal from them or pay them or sneak past them or just take a different route around and so on. in the end you will get 1000xp for getting to the other side of the bridge no matter how you do it. you are not getting rewarded for the skills you used but for reaching your destination. let's say you need to get an item from a locked chest: you can pick the lock, pickpocket the guy who has the key, kill the guy who has the key, use magic on the lock or bash it with a sledgehammer... it doesnt matter at all. you will get 500xp when you pick up the item and not a point more, no matter what you do to get it. so where exactly is the favoritism to non combat skills with this system?

at that time it had to be scripted and turn based to be compatible with the low processing power of the PCs of the time. today's game engines and PCs can do the same thing easily in real time. besides you usually fight 2 or 3 types of enemies in every battle not all types of enemies the game has to offer at the same time, so it doesn't have to load ALL the animations and run out of memory.

they already said that they will not have all dialogs dubbed. they want to write the story and dialog the way they want not the way the money for the actors permit. so it will be partially dubbed and only important parts. if they have money for it, they will add more speech lines, if not it will be the minimum necessary for the atmosphere

the first Neverwinter nights had some similar things happening sometimes even if it was isometric. i had a sword and shield fighter and at some point i was fighting vs another fighter and an archer. when the enemy fighter attacked and his roll was bellow my AC, my character evaded by crouching, made a hit roll and stabbed the enemy with a thrust, then he turned his body and stopped an arrow with the shield (the archer failed the roll) and then he succeeded in a counter roll on the next enemy fighter's attack and used the shield to bash the enemy's sword away then made a spinning attack. so why it should be hard or bad to have animations on the characters to show how the battle is played out?

there was a dungeon in divinity 2 where you were faced with magical challenges of morals. if you did the good choices, you would lose some stats and the reward would be a fairly crappy sword by my equip standards at the time. if you did the bad choices you would get no reward at the end but would lose no stats and maybe get some gold on the way. so it balanced out in the end but the most important thing in a mature rpg is to NOT have clear indications of what is right and what is wrong. you have to figure it out for yourself and probably what is right for you, may be wrong for someone else and in the end deal with the results of your actions

let me give an example. in the De'Arnise hold in BG2, you could make a dogmeat stew and then sneak it into the uberhulk feeding cell, clearing the way without fighting. however, after that you could still kill the uberhulks for the extra xp. had there been an objective based xp system, then you would get X xp for passing the uberhulks no matter the method. so if you used the meat you would gain nothing by killing them afterwards, thus avoiding powerplay. the problem of this system however is in the fact that you will accept all quests, no matter what kind of character you play, in order to get xp. so if you are a psycho who likes killing things for the fun of it, you will still accept the quest to go fetch a bottle of wine for the farmer. if you feel that the guy you need to kill has a quest to give you, you wont kill him for it and so on. to avoid this you would need a complex system that would determine, based on your actions, who will come to give you a quest and who wont. you cant have a peasant go to a stuck up super arrogant mage who considers peasants useless insects, and ask him to save his daughter from bandits for free. this NPC will simply not give you the quest if you are that kind of person

i have not seen a game with the mechanic you describe so far, but i bet you are talking about one of EA's abominable ideas

the thing i want most of all is to see the attacks connect. i swing a sword, i want to see it hit the enemy or be blocked or avoided like in kotor. not just see the character waving it around and get a message every few seconds "you hit for x damage" or "you miss". and as an optional feature, i want to see the enemy fall according to the way he got hit with the final blow. if the last hit is from a sword that comes from bottom left upwards, he should turn 90 degrees to the right and fall on his side. if the same hit comes from a hammer, he should fall flat on his back. if he is hit by an arrow or bullet, he should drop on his knees and then fall, if he dies by fire he should run around in flames screaming and so on. if its a critcal hit you can have a special move like a decapitation or pierce his chest with the sword or an arrow in the neck. of course for bosses and especialy non humanoid bosses some sort of special finishing move is needed. you can see the enemy leader, who is a human warrior, fall with a simple sword swing that connects and its fine, but what if you are fighting a manticore or a dragon? the character in that case will have to give the last hit in a way that makes sense like piercing the heart with a spear, slicing the neck open with an axe, putting the sword in his spine or an arrown in the eye or sending an ice lance through his mouth.

FNV style would be the best i think. at most you can add the need for specific lockpick types for specific lock types but no more than that. let's say 3 diferent types of locks and 3 diferent types of picks if you have the right pick and the skill you can try to open the lock fallout style and that's it.

hehe... the final amount when the time comes to close the kickstarter page will be 1999999

one thing i disliked though about arcanum's background stories is their lack of involvement in the game other than the set up of your initial stats and skills. you start in a zepelin... where was it that you boarded it and where was it bound to (the answer is given at some point in the game and it's that you got on it on Caladon and the destination was Tarant, and that brings us to more important questions)? who did you leave behind at your departure, who did you know and who knew you? where was your home? what did you intend to do at the destination? why, if you had already been in caladon in order to board the zepelin, did you not even know where it is or if it even existed? all these things are missing from the game, as if you were born at the moment the zepelin crashed... you dont know anything about the place you are in, and no one in the whole world knows you. even if your family in most cases still lives somewhere in the western half of the continent.

Which is it? Do they reward for it or do they not? Finally, one of your sources for a "Great example" is a Shooter. Deus Ex isn't an RPG, because it's Player Skill dependent, not Character Skill dependent. It's an FPS with a crippled interface, and a "Leveling system" that reduces the degree of crippling, until the point that the Player's Skill is sufficient to overcome the crippling and from there out, it's a full-on FPS. OTOH, if you'd like a great example of a game that handles the situation correctly, Fallout, Fallout 2, and Planescape. its so sad to see people considering rpgs by the stats and how these stats work. rpgs are much more than numbers in a character sheet

if you kill the guards you get the loot besides the xp. if you sneak in you get the xp and no loot. so a benefit for fighting is still there. you get xp for reaching the town alive non for how you reached the town. and i repeat: if you fight your way there you get loot you may get nothing in terms of xp if you just clear out a random dungeon you find along the way, but who is to say that you wont find an npc later who will ask you to go to that dungeon? in that case the dungeon will be clear for you to do what was asked unhindered

the thing i want is for all companions to have an actual use in the game. usually having a fighter, a thief, a mage, and a priest is enough for any party, however if you gather 5 warriors, 4 thieves, 6 priests and 3 wizards for a total of 18 companions, 15 of them will be useless to the player cause Salazar the wizard can do the same thing that Merlin the wizard or Edwin the wizard can do, so it doesn't matter who you take with you, thus rendering useless the other 2. that thing happened on KOTOR 1 and 2 (and also in almost all party based rpgs i ve played). you had many companions, could take 2 of them with you at any given time and after a point in time the non jedi companions were practically useless. a thing that i would like is to be able to make a second party with the companions that are not actively in the main party, and send them on errands like doing that easy gather 20 boar tusks sidequest that i dont want to waste time with myself or go explore that area to see if there is anything interesting or find me that plant for my potions, restock my home's arsenal with arrows so when i get back i can replenish my supplies without going shopping myself etc. also, the ability to swap party members anytime is good, but should be also done in a sensible manner. so im for option 2, but without me having to backtrack. i have with me a wizard companion that is useful in combat with his fireballs, but i need help with something he cant do (like making a golem clone of someone or reading someone's mind) and my other wizard companion can. the other companion is in my home 4 hours away. i send the wizard from my party back to tell the other wizard to come meet me at this or that spot. the wizard then will leave the party, make a 4 hour trip and after 4 more hours the other wizard will arrive at the location i specified, and wait for me to meet him there. i can also send a messenger and make the swap after he arrives, keeping my current wizard in the party for the 6 instead of 8 hours (a messenger makes the distance in half the time, but the wizard will still have to travel 4 hours) that will take for him to come. in the meantime, me and the rest of the party can go about our business or rest at the inn while we wait for him to come over. later in the game, when one or both wizards can use teleport, they can instantly transfer companions to and from the house, making party member swapping fast and easy

FNV style is the best. you can make friends, you can make enemies and everyone is right from his point of view while wrong from the other side's point of view. oh, nerdboner are you a fellow shadow jedi?

well we obviously mean doors and chests. in BG you would get into a room full of barrels, crates, chests and so on and you had to slowly sweep the screen with the mouse to see which of them you could use or not. in BG 2 you pressed tab ad you could see that from the 50 barrels, 20 crates and 8 chests, only 3, 4 and 5 were of any use and the rest were decorations. traps, hidden doors and the like you had to spot first and then they would highlight

im pretty sure they already know what they are going to make and the possibility of being influenced by our polls is minimal at best

jumping would be fairly easy... you just add an animation to the character, and set the 2D obstacles that are low enough as jumpable so the character can pass over them. swimming is also easy. you just add the animation and merge the model with the water background digging is also easy so long as you dont mean minecraft digging. you just have to put an animation and change a sprite in the terrain now climbing and flying would be trickier, cause they would need a change in perspective to be done in a more complex manner, unless done automaticaly through a skill check. you click on a climbable wall, and if the character can climb it, the screen goes dark for a moment and the next thing you see is the character on top or on the other side of it ready to resume the game. flying would just take a zoom out and you would have to click on where to land. then the camera would zoom in and your character will be walking on that spot

yes i agree. its not fun going out for pixel hunting to find what you can or cannot interact with. either have a single chest in a room that we can interact with, or have a way to tell which of the 10 chests we can open and what is just decoration. or make all 10 chests intercative