teknoman2

you know this made me think... calling the black people in the US african american, is actually more racist than calling them black. calling them african, is like denying them their national identity... they are no longer americans with black skin, they are africans who live in america

that's what i say. people will always find ways to exploit, no matter how exploit proof you make the game. so making a game mechanic in a certain way just to prevent certain behaviours with no other reason in mind, would be bad game design. im not talking about this game in particular because they offer valid reasons for the way the system works.

this in not a 1999 game played on a 2009 screen. back at the time the most comon screen resolutions were 640x480 or 800x600 (1024x768 was for the rich) so the game was designed around them. they werent exactly thinking that 10 years later people will be playing it on 1920x1080. and since that is the standard resolution these days, there wont be a problem for a few years. besides today we have rendering tecniques and the hardware to execute them that back then were not possible, so making it all change size to match the resolution automatically is easy

im against full VO in this sort of game. there will be partial for some important stuff and battle responses, but any more than the absolutelly necessary would be detrimental. many modern games with full VO cut down on the amount of dialogue (even when some extra lines are necessary) because of the cost. so it's better to have something with partial VO and have the dialogue writters make as much as they see fit

I'll give an example. We don't have to call it kiting. You use one character to lure a creature and with another you go stab it in the back with a melee weapon. AI, being silly as AIs usually are, keeps chasing the other character while being stabbed in the back repeatedly. This cheap tactic would be harder to execute if moving stops your recovery timer. actualy this can be done in this game even with the recovery time. you do as you say.... if the enemy keeps going for the fighter while your rogue is on his back, the rogue will get a disengagement attack. and as the rogue follows while the enemy tries to catch the fighter he will trigger disengagement attacks constantly. and since for this tactic to work, the rogue needs to be faster than the enemy, then the rogue through various stops as he reaches the target will deplete the recovery and will be able to attack again. so the tactic will work anyway, it will just take a bit longer

logically speaking, someone with a sword can attack on the move. someone with a bow, needs to stand still to draw the string and aim. someone with a crossbow needs to stop to reload because it takes some strength to arm it. flintlock or matchlock guns are complicated to reload and the procedure cant be done on the move technically speaking in game terms, a melee character cant kite anyway, while for those who can, there is a valid reason to have a delay to their attack if they move. in the end however, a melee character will barely have to move most of the time, and when he moves, it will be a few steps with 1 or 2s move time, since there probably wont be any large scale battles and most of the action of each encounter will be in an area about the size of the screen.

i can see the point of Lephys on the recovery time matter. if you have autopause when an enemy dies and the fighter gives the killing blow to his target, you give him a new target while paused. let's say that he has to walk for 5s to reach the new target. isnt that plenty of time to recover for his attack? why should he wait another 2s after reaching it before attacking? i think that for melee, recovery time should count down even when moving (at half the speed maybe)

I assume you are asking why would the USA try to assist in defeating Boko Haram? Several reasons, they are already involved throughout Africa in places that are potential breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalism. But the main reason is that most people, including the USA, think that the kidnapping of young girls to be sold into slavery is an utterly unacceptable situation and needs to be condemned and stopped. The good news is the USA has already offered to help https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigerian-girls-captor-sell-them-122202090.html?.tsrc=yahoo#e9OMLLo This is good news Malc, the USA is getting involved the US government doesnt give a flying F about the kidnaping. if there is an intervention, it will be used as an excuse, but there will be as always political/economical reasons underneath. there are dozens of places in the world that would require an intervention for humanitarian reasons, but nobody cares to intervene because nobody has anything to gain by doing so. however where there is money to be made, the US rushes first to save the poor inocent civilians

a kite tactic i used in BG was to have the party spread out, all with bows and slings and as the enemy was chasing one guy around, the others were hitting him. if he changed target, the bait would start attacking and the new target would go around baitin the enemy

What kind of nation would deserve to win such a war? after a war, the important thing is to be alive while the enemy is not. the rest is trivial idealism

>implying the US sents the army uninvited into other countries from the goodness of their hearts

it will probably stop draining when you go down to 1 point

really? I recall that you could use fear or confusion which made creatures to lose control and wander around, but I don't recall a morale system in bg\bg2 and neither in PoE for that matter :/ Edit: maybe you mean "morality" i.e. the alignment system? no he menas morale... there were often messages saying morale failure. if a character or creature was getting overwhelmed, it would run away in fear. your party's morale was deternimed by the leader's charisma

here's how to win a war fast. you build stealth balistic missiles with nuclear warheads and shoot them without warning in a way to cover the entire enemy country with explosions. you need not shoot a second time or fear retaliation, since there will be no one left to fight back

isn't this more of a combat mode problem than morale problem? A little of both I suppose. Im not 100% sure what triggered morale failure but once it happened the mooks would run away and you would be forced to run them down and kill them just to exit "combat mode". and that was a combat design problem. if in this game you make an enemy flee, since you get no xp for the kill anyway, he should just run off and despawn once he is a certain distance away from your party (let's say double the visual range). he is no longer part of combat so the combat ends.

Merging spell and weapon damage or accuracy into one attribute is not needed to accomplish that. Anyway, regarding character builds, I'm curious if we'll be able to choose Abilities (not talking about Talents) from time to time. I'm not expecting to be able to do so at every level up, but being given a choice between 2 abilities every few levels would be nice. if you have a separate attribute for everything, you would need strength for physical damage power for magical damage dexterity for physical accuracy clarity for magic accuracy tactics for fighter aoe engagement intelligence for spell aoe perception for landing criticals with physical attacks wisdom to do the same with magic attacks defense for resisting physical damage resistance for magical damage resolve to not get interrupted by physical attacks will to not be interrupted by magical attacks might to be intimidating as a warrior presence to be intimidating as a wizard charisma to be persuasive charm to flirt and many more that's not a game anymore but a spreadsheet. the point of having abstract attributes with a class system, is that each attribute represents a different character quality within the role of the class. a fighter is for going toe to toe with the enemy, a wizard's job is to cast spells. so a mighty fighter has the strength to cleave enemies in 2 with a swing, while a mighty wizard has the power to burn anything to a crisp and a mighty ranger can pull the string to the limit, shooting extremelly fast arrows.

1: im not sure 2: enemies are hand placed, but the type and number depend on the difficulty level. if at some point you are to meet goblins, there will be goblins. however, depending on the difficulty, it may be a few normal goblins or a few elite goblins or both and they may even have a shaman 3: if you scout (stealth mode) ahead you can see enemies before they see you and may be able to avoid them 4: i think they have a morale system, but i cant recall any precise info about it

in accordance with the video, attributes are an abstraction, because to make them more specific would require about 100 of them... so i was just pointing out the reason they called it might. also the way the system is made, prevents you from making a totally gimped character, by making the changes from attributes small and providing a benefit for each (that may not be useful in every situation) so long as you stay within the role of the class... if you make a wizard that cant cast spells and fights with a 2h sword, he will obviously be gimped

> as much quality content as they can make with the money they have. and that sums up what most people here think

they call it might and not strength for a reason. that reason is that might is not necessarily a body trait. besides as Josh explained, the bonuses received by the attributes are not the only thing that determines things like aoe and damage. also these bonuses are not that big. with maxed out might you get about 15-20% more damage than normal if i remember what he said in an older topic. so you can cast a fireball and hit for 100 damage in a large area with high intelect and low might, or for 120 in a small area with high might and low intelect. so neither is more powerful overall, but depending on the situation, each choice may be a blessing or a curse. eg: if you have a large aoe and fight in a place with civilians around or against a single powerful enemy, it becomes a hindrance or you just wish you had that extra damage. however if you have the extra damage and are getting zerg rushed by trash mobs, you'd wish to have the aoe to wipe them out in a single attack.

most probably he will attack imediatelly. but only Josh can tell you for certain

to use an easier example, you shoot a crossbow bolt. recovery time, is the reload time of the crossbow. if you move before you reload it (ie you put in the bolt but havent pulled back the wire), you leave it half armed and finish the reload when you stop. same principle applies to all attacks with all weapons

the point is to look at the whole picture. in an mmo, first they make the world then they fill it with mobs, then they balance the classes in a way that all of them can kill all of the enemies in every area with as little difference in difficulty as possible. in a single player game made for party combat, there will be places where certain classes will be favored and others penalized so getting through the entire game with one character will have variation in where you get to play god and where you get reminded of your first time playing dark souls. at least that is how i think it should be

i think you confuse it with stamina we talk about attack speed. recovery time is the time the character sits idle between attacks. your character swings the sword, hits, and then just waits there for a second or two before attacking again. that second or two is the recovery time and has nothing to do with the stamina

But the flip side to that is that you will probably make the other classes worse to play by balancing them to be equal to the bard. You have to ask yourself, is it better to have all the classes balanced or have all/most of them be awesome to play? Balance in a single player game should not be the main focus of attention. i did not say balace all classes to match the weakest, i said dont make a pointless class in the first place. as for balancing, say that you are playing solo and are beset by 50 zombies. they are slow, they are clumsy and they are weak against fire. so if you are a wizard, you spam a few fireballs and problem solved. if you are fighter you can tank them (harder than blasting them) and a ranger can kite them by shooting and moving away using his superior move speed. so this situation is easy and fast to solve for the wizard, medium speed and a bit hard for the fighter and slow but relativelly safe for the ranger. some other situation may be easier to deal with for a fighter but hard for a wizard (an enemy imune to magic but with no physical defense for example)