Jump to content

Jojobobo

Members
  • Content Count

    1,287
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Jojobobo

  1. I don't think there should be resting, sitting down for a little while or sleeping never magically made peoples' arms reattach themselves to their bodies. I think cooldown is key, giving a mass heal spell one use and a real time cooldown of 20 minutes would stop players from abusing resting entirely; as though someone could leave there game running for 20 minutes in a practical sense you often wouldn't bother. Then with easier difficulties you could just reduce the cooldown time, simple as. Sleep should only be there to reduce fatigue or exhaustion on a hardcore mode, like New Vegas, in my opinion. This method would be frustrating for people who want to blast their way through the game, but it adds in a nice amount of resource management in my opinion. In a broader sense, I think any developer should try to make their game un-exploitable. The thing is, I like to play optimal characters. Why would I want to play an average Joe when I could be playing Superman? I guess some people might enjoy playing a really middle ground guy with no especially good focus in anything, but I don't. That being said, I still want combat or stealth or whatever I've optimised my character in to have some challenge - characters shouldn't be able to get exponentially good (like Skyrim) so that challenge no longer exists, it should be linear and there should be a maximum limit. I shouldn't have to purposefully hamstring a character when I know I could make him better because the devs didn't balance the game properly.
  2. So what sort of range would you like stats to fall under, or don't you think it matters? For me I normally like as small a range as possible, so when I improve a stat it really feels like I'm doing something important and not making 29 strength into 30; however this compromises slightly on fine manipulation in the mechanics (more increments allows for more complexity) so I think a range of 1-10 would be sufficient, I guess if they are using a D20 systems it will probably have to be higher. I do think there should be a finite limit on how much you can improve a stat - even with equipment - as there should be a limit to what is humanly (and dwarfly, elfly, etc.) possible, with some races reaching higher limits than others. I also think classes should have higher limits in some stats (as in my understanding a class seems like a shaping of the soul, giving you more of an affinity for some stats) and these benefits should stack with races. Now multiclassing, though not entirely related to this point, is with respect to whether some classes get statistical benefits. I think that an experience penalty is not half as a severe penalty as there needs to be, and I'm in favour of characters both not getting full benefits of a class (so things like statistical maximums suffering and limitted access to special abilities or perks) and also gaining additional flaws and weaknesses. Why? Well to me it seems like multiclassing might be a sure fire way to fracture a soul lore wise if taking a class is shaping a soul, and also it would stop exploitative players doing things like taking one level in a class to wear a particular item that is class specific. Furthermore, if you are privy to full benefits of one class as well as getting some of the benefits of others, why wouldn't you multiclass (I'm playing Icewind Dale II on HoF mode right now, and there's not a single character I'm not multiclassing with as most reach there full benefits at level 20 of that class whereas the maximum level is 30)? I think multiclassing needs to have a severe penalty to avoid exploitative play (not experience, as if you play for long enough you can usually level up to the maximum anyway), but it should be possible as multiclassing in IE games is tremendous fun and allows for more unique and specialised character builds. So what do you think? Also I'm sorry if these points have already been covered, but I did run a search and didn't find anything with this specific focus.
  3. I thought that swords largely fell into disuse in medieval times due to not being able to cut through chainmail? As in though you could use a sword as a piercing weapon, axes often did a better job (a smaller blade so more PPSI, and often you have the spike on the other side of the blade too for even more PPSI) and maces offered concussion or the chance to break some ribs - slashing against chainmail or even platemail is pretty damn useless. Ideally I think this would be nicely represented in the game by a few people using magic swords that could get through armor, but with the vast majority of people using maces and axes as a standard weapon. EDIT: Nevermind, people have already covered these points.
  4. I'd like to see Ciphers, and mind control in general, incorporated in an intelligent way. Say there's a woman who's grieving over her husband who was brutally murdered by burgulars trying to get a magical necklace from her house. Grief has destroyed her life - all her friends and family have deserted her for being as she is - and the reason why she can't get over her grief is not because her husband is dead, but because of the horrible and mentally scarring manner in which he was killed right in front of her. Now as a cipher would it be right to alter her memories so that her husband died in a manner that was much more peaceful, knowing that the are no other people left around to remind her of the truth? Is it right to make this call knowing that if you asked her she would tell you she wanted to remember the truth, but also being sure of the fact that if you did alter her memories she could finally be happy and at peace? In a broader sense, is mind control always inherently a violation, even if it can be used for good? That's how I'd like to see ciphers used in this game, also mind controlling the bad guys and making them fight each other is always fun.
  5. I think killable children should be the case, with a reputation penalty. I think there should also be some surprises if you go around killing children willy-nilly too, for example if someone could shapeshift to make themselves look like other people then a player attacking someone they thought to be a child would be in for a nasty surprise. I know that's a bit cheesy, but something along those lines might be fun.
  6. So, would you like experience for killing enemies? I personally like it when experience is only rewarded for killing significant enemies, such as bosses, as this prevents characters from grinding to high levels by random ecounter fights early on. It also gives the developers a tight control on how a character levels up, as when only finite experience is dished out they know a player will only be at a certain level when they come to a certain point in the game. In an open world environment, this can be tackled by making some quests only open up at certain stages during the main story or when a character reaches a necessary skill level or reputation in a region - thereby allowing the character to explore freely but making sure not all quests are available from the off and making them revisit locations later on which helps the game feel less static. I think my favourite example of this style of play was in Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines, whereby experience was rewarded only for significant fights and often there were other options available to a character that yielded similar levels of experience - such as sneaking or talking them down. It helped to shift the emphasis away from killing things and more to weighing up other options rather than just charging in head on every time. That being said, tactical RTSP combat is a feature of the game so perhaps experience for the killing of any enemy will be the case as gamers might feel cheated if they devise a good combat strategy and yet don't get rewarded for it. I think it's safe to say that if they do give experience for combat, good scaling should be a given. Let me know what you think.
  7. I think the real question is will there be toilets? 9/10 people agree that having toilets in a game make it feel more alive - it's a real statistic, honest!
  8. I don't see how it would detract from group based play, it would just provide gamers with extra options and for me having options is what rpg play is all about. I guess I should make it clear that I'm not after radical time consuming changes that would take lots of effort to implement thereby detracting from the main thrust of the game which is group play; what I would like is just a few minor features that help to differentiate solo play from group play, so that the absence of companions isn't the only thing that is different when playing solo which is the case in all the rpgs I can think of.
  9. Well even if the "benefits" did not make the game easier, I think maybe unique dialogue options would be fun - just a way of letting you know that the game acknowledges what you're doing and to help solo play feel as if it is a different style in itself rather than simply playing without companions. I guess what I'm driving for is something that sets solo play apart - in most games all you notice when you play solo is the lack of your companions' stories and quest arcs, having something extra even if it's just different options during the story that offer no mechanical benefits would be interesting.
  10. I suppose you're right - part of the fun of solo-ing is that it is more of a challenge than regular play. Still I stand by that a few little touches would be cool, to reward a player for having a harder time of it without companions.
  11. This seems like the place to make suggestions, so here it goes: I would like to see some benefits included for players who want to go solo, i.e. companion less. I appreciate that having companions increases a player's emotional involvement in the game and also makes the combat more tactical, but personally with rpg games like this I always like to do a solo run as well. The kind of benefits I would like to see are things like magical equipment that can only be worn if you have no companions/followers in your party, a few quests that can only be attempted if you have no companions (or maybe if you've never had companions - to avoid players just ditching their followers to do the quest and then taking them back on after it's finished) and maybe unique skills/perks/whatever Project Eternity's equivalent is for solo players only - which would help balance combat in that you don't have a load of other followers to soak up the damage. Obviously much more time should be spent in making playing with companions and their story arcs more appealing than solo play - because having them there helps to keep the player more in touch with the gaming world - but still a few flourishes to make solo play a distinct and rewarding play style in comparison to playing with a party would be nice. Does anyone else think this is a good idea or am I completely alone (ha!) in thinking this would be fun?
×
×
  • Create New...