Jump to content

norolim

Members
  • Posts

    228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by norolim

  1. Well, if there were be a red dragon in the game (let's hope not, I'm sick of them already) it would probably be tied to a quest. This is also why I believe that the distinction of regular and epic monsters is useless when the quests and encounters are properly designed. Well, there were a few dragons in BGII, that weren't tied to any quests. You could kill them but you didn't have to. And associating all "epic monsters" with quest doesn't solve the problem, either. What if I don't want to do the quest related to a dragon I'm about to kill? What if the quest is given by a faction I don't want to help, e.g. Evil mage: "bring me th head of that dragon and I'll make a artifact, thaht will destroy this town"? In that case I get no XP for killing the dragon. My party learns nothing in the process. It's a bit of a problem.
  2. Why? You can still fight through like in old IE games and get objective XP, anyway. People who can possibly have a problem with this are just those who wouldn't like other people to get objective XP through different ways. No, you misunderstood. Getting XP throught accomplishing objectives is great. That's how this should work. My slight (mind you slight) problem is that you can only get XP if you accomplish a quest related goal. I would also like to get XP for kills, but not in the traditional way. I understand why the old way is not working. As I mentioned in another thread and someone before me in the update thread, the best solution is: Epic enemies (dragons, giants) - reasonable amount of XP; Standard enemies (your average Orc): very little XP; Insignificant enemies (peasants and kobolds that are e.g. more than 3 levels below your level): no XP.
  3. I don't think so. If it is modernized, it will be only with regards to things that didn't work in the old IE games or can now be solved in a better way, because the technology allows it. And some things will just be changed to differentiate the game from a blunt D&D copy. Doesn't mean these changes will make the game more accessible for modern players. From what I can see, it will be the other way round. Modern players are used to easy XP for killing peasants with pickaxes for weapons. They are used to having tones healing spells and potions to help them in a battle. They are used to not having to worry that their characters will die. They won't find any of those features in PE.
  4. Whoa, I just realized you two are not the same guy. But we are the same guy. We just have many and multiple forms. And using our combined power we will obliterate all life! Buahahahaha!
  5. Damn it! i missed it 'cause my ISP screwed me. Thay had a bloody failure. I hope they don't do the same tonight.
  6. NO. This game is starting to look more and more like a real hardcore PRG. Darklands was hardcore. It seems thath some backers just can't accept that this game is not going to be a D&D copy. The HP/Stamina idea is great imo. The objective focused XP is not that great. I would prefer sth in between, but I can live with it, because apart from the drawbacks I can see th eadvantages. Open your mind people. Analyse the systems. This is nowhere near what modern RPGs have in terms of mechanics.
  7. We now have officially passed the 3.5M strech goal. The 2nd big city is confirmed!! My prediction is we'll get to about 3.7M
  8. This doesn't sound as bardish as the previous songs, but I guess it's intentional. And it's the best one so far. Don't let the end of the campaign stop you. There is an extremely long development period before we can play the game. I don't think we can handle the wait without the help of our community bard
  9. I'm not voting, 'cause it's a bad poll. Too little options. Instead, I'll just explain my position on this. I think objective based XP is a good idea, but not the best. I would prefer to get some experience points for strong monsters that are not tied to any quest. I don't want to discover that after an epic battle with a red dragon my party learns nothing. Someone suggested in the update thread that they could separated enemies into cathegories: Epic, Standard, Insignificant and give reasonable XP for the Epic ones, very little XP for the standard ones and no XP for the insignificant enemies. That, I thing, would be a perfect system. But anyway, I don't mind no XP for kills too much. I can see obvious advantages and I can live with the drawbacks.
  10. Actually, you've managed to offend prety much everyone on this forum including the devs in your trollish rage, So, why don't you go for a walk, now. Please. I also think there sould be at least some XP for killing monsters, but I don't feel entitled to fling insults at everyone because of that.
  11. Than 1) as I said you wouldn't last long, and 2) I wouldn't want you as a companion-in-arms; I would kill you myself if I saw you trying to sticik your sword in a fallen enemy's skull (esp. taht it's not as easy as you think it is) instead of helping me with that huge ogre. BTW, how are you planning to check if the poor fellow is dead? Will you take his pulse? No? Cut his head to make sure? Good luck with that. That will take you half a minute...or actually would, 'cause you'll be dead well before you finish.
  12. You are lucky the times when people fought battles are over 'cause I'm afraid you would last long on a battlefield. You completely don't understand battle dynamics. When you're fighting an opponent those around can as easily stab you in your back as when you're molesting a fallen foe. The difference is that when you are fighting someone you can't really do much about it. You fight your opponent, because he is a threat to your life. When you incapacitate him he is no longer a threat. Now those around you are th eonly danger. It looks like you believe that, at that point, it's a good idea to disregard that threat around you and insted concentrate on the "meatbag" on the ground that can do nothing to you or any of your allies? I'm not trying to be mean to you, but I'm afraid there is absolutely no logic to your reasoning.
  13. You didn't seem to have read my explanation. On a battlefield it is a bad idea to take your time with a fallen enemy. It takes time and effort to make sure an unconious person is killed. And it also makes you vulnerable. Battles and skirmishes are usually crowded affairs. There is always someone next to you. And that person may at any moment attack you. So think about it. Your life is at stake. What do you do: start stomping the head of an unconcious enemy or engage the foe next to you, that might at any moment end your life with a single blow?
  14. There's nothing wrong with defeating Firkraag being a quest or objective all in itself. That's what I meant before. There's nothing wrong with explicitly associating XP with defeating specific enemies or specific groups of monsters as part of a quest where it makes sense. If the quest is "clear the slums" and you're supposed to get rid of the kobolds, the goblins, and the orcs, you might be able to sneak/talk your way through that, but you're probably going to "get rid" of them with some magic missiles and axes to the face. Yes, but this, in the context I created with the dragon, would mean that in PE there would have to be a quest linked to every "dragon" that you have an option to kill, but don't have to. Do you think that giving relatively little XP for killing monsters, like in the Witcher games, would be comlpetely at odds with the vision you have in mind?
  15. Hmmm. I'm not sure about the XP thing, though. If for example in Baldur's Gate II I decided to kill Firkraag (and killing him wasn't associated with any quest), and I was not given any XP for that, I would be rather disappointed...I mean it's a bloody red dragon...it's extremely hard to kill him. I would guess my characters would have learned a thing or two in the process. Josh?
  16. Exactly, I'm also surprised that this is puzzling for some of you, people. Looks like an excellent system. Why would you spend time dealing with a non-threat while there are other targets still threatening you? Even in standard D&D with unconsciousness/dying rules, it's tactically a bad idea to spend time finishing off a target that's out of the fight instead of moving on to other enemies. Very true, Rabain, I replied to your comment in the other thread, when you had similar doubts. You should've read it:
  17. I imagine it will work sth like this: if a character's Stamina drops to 0 he/she becomes incapacitated. As I explained here foes will usually stop atacking an unconcious opponent and engage somebody else. Therefore, an unconcious character can be helped during or after the battle. If however their Health reaches 0, they die in Expert mode and can't be brought back to life and are maimed in Normal Mode. Now, a maimed character I believe cannot be revived with magic, as such magic is very rare. Such a character will probably only recover after a rest and possibly some healing kits will have to be used. What Josh says is a very general idea, but if done right it can be a great realistic system.
  18. Nice. As I mentioned in another thread, I really like those Stamina/Health ideas. And the fact that curative magic is a rarity is even better. It was exactly what I was asking for
  19. Well, I think there are no leaps to be made. Josh clearly stated that, if a character hits 0 Health he/she dies and that there is no resurrection in PE. That's the current plan. It's plain. No reading between the lines. Hmm. We all have our fetishes You are forgetting one thing: that it is a battle/skirmish scenario you are talking about...not a duel. You are trying to rationalise, so let's imagine a real skirmish. And these tend to be fast and chaotic. When you kill an opponent, do you think his friends will just watch you lean over him drill a hole in his skull with your sword? No, as I see it, during a battle a participant that incapacitates an enemy will immediately look around and try to engage a standing opponent, because a standing opponent is much more deadly than an unconscious one. Because at any moment that standing foe can deal that decisive blow that will end your life. In a real skirmish you fight for your life, not XP. This is how it works, if you want to keep it real. What system? It's a set of general ideas. We have no idea how exactly the final system will work. All we know is that, right now, the plan is to base it on the principles Josh mentioned. As mentioned above, the devs don't want to make the game too difficult for those who don't wan't it. You will be able to switch dying off. Though I don't like the idea. Hmmmm...yes. That's how it works. Unlike in most modern RPGs, you must win a battle to win it. And winning a battle means killing your foes while staying alive. Every battle. Yes, when they choke or faint. Not when the're quartered.
  20. Weight limit is a must. Period. I can't imagine an orlan character running around with 10 greatswords, 5 full plate armors and 2 balistas in their backpack.
  21. Thay didn't say anything definitive on romances in PE. They, however, said something clearly about romance topics on the forum: they will be locked immediately, as they generate unhealthy discussions.
  22. It has been posted on the main PE Kickstarter page, but I'm glad you reposted it here because I think it's a great interview. My smile was bigger with every page of it. I especially liked the Health/Stamina system Josh described. I think all the Prophets of Doom, claiming PE will be streamlined and easy should have a look: This, if realised well, may be an excellent system. I hope we soon learn more about what else we'll be able to do when resting.
  23. I'm pretty sure we'll get to 3.5M, now. Americans just need to step up their game. I looked like at least yestreday, pledges form Europe made over 50% of the total
×
×
  • Create New...