TrashMan

Good post(s) OP. I like.

What kind of scales are we actually looking at here? Universal scales or faction/individual ones? What are the things you'd expect people would keepin mind when dealing with you? Variables tied to specific NPCs: 1. Respect/like - certain actions that the NPC's knows you did may affect ther level of respect (in Leyphises example, sneaking or doing a certain quest may affect this differenlty for different NPCS) 2. Fear - NPC may think you are a wimp, might be unsure, or fear you Global/facton-specific variables: 3. Reputation? - this is basicly rumors. What people say you did.

Becasue people are short-sighted, self-entitled idiots. Whenever you ask people to vote on things, you're asking for trouble because people are IDIOTS.

You did actually And yet there doesn't need to be difference between two armors to tell characters apart. So your entire point FAILS. So..what is this if not exaggerated differences? I reject your postulation that it has to be done that way or that it is even necessary. Maybe it is neessary for you. But it's not for me. Especially not given all the other factors and GUI elements - from portraits, selection circles, floating names, different equipment, COLOR CODING, etc.. Names flot mysticly? And what about those giant heads that "float mysticly"? Or those strange green and red circles aroudn anyone? Or damage number or health bars? Why is suddenly a name "mystical and intrusive" while every OTEHR GUI element isn't? Also, while I didn't say "paint your armor" (I meant more in regard to things like cloaks, tabbards, plumes, armor engravings, etc..), in some historical instances armor was actually colored. OH, do we even know if we are even going to have different body types to begin with? Old IE games had all humans look the same and no one had a problem. Nice backpedaling. "Oh, it was sarcam, not actually an argument". Highlighting an inexisting fault by absurd comparisons. There is no parellel as the absurdity exists only in your example. It's crap debating. It's cheap. It is basicly RAA because that's what you are actually doing - not attacking the actual statement, but a fantasy version of it inflated to redicolous proportions to make it sound siller than it is. I'll be as blunt as I can here - I don't give a damn about whatever justification you come up with for using it, nor how you define or calssify it. Call it whatever you want. I'll still hate it, I'll stil think it's crap and I'll still think you are for using it. Sarcams for emphasis? How about this: Since we need to clearly tell party memebers apart, how about we add in bright, colorfull clown suits? Complete with those big shoes and noses in highly saturated colors. Also, highly fourescent colored paint so our party members light up like christmas light during those pesky night quests. Oh, and sice we're at it no mystical GUI, since floting things and numbers don't exist. Clearly a revolutionary move only a genius of your caliber could think of!!!

Unless class magicly alters your body, no. If you have a priest, a mage and a fighter and you give all of them the same armor/robes, they should look the same - barign different weapons, capes and stuff. You might see a fighter would be bigger and more muscular- but that's not necessarily the case. I know people from all walks of life with different body builds. Would there even be different body builds? If there are, they should depend on character attributes and NOT class.

I like the OP's suggestion. Having just a like/dislike system is not very deep. Just because I dislike you, doesn't mean I'll attack you on sight. A single variable is not really enough

Big Titties? Yes of course I'm all for- .... oh... nevermind. Yes, yes... a cycle would be nice.

AHa. The fallacios "You loose nothing, but I do" argument. Never liked that one, because one group usually assumes too much. Like that group 1 suffers no detriment to gameplay, but group 2 is somehow horribly inconvenienced and suffer greatly. "My suffering is greater then yours" will never fly by me. Subjective artistic style is just that. Subjective. Therefore no ones takes precedence. Meaning any decision that favors group 2 makes group 1 "suffer", and vice-versa. Secondly, the ability to intuitively select character is always there. It's a strawman argument that if armor doesn't have massive differences, that people won't be able to tell their characters apart. It is practicly never true... even in games that features an army of simple clone models it's rarely true. Unless all of your people are equipped EXACTLY the same, you should be able to tell the difference. And if you equiped them exactly the same, you should expect them to look roughly the same from a distance. And this is all of course, without taking into acount COLOR and FLOATING NAMES ABOVE CHARACTER HEADS or everything else for that matter. It's not a big issue (to me). I have more issue with the people and how they argue. But for some people it would be a big issue. Subjective values and all that jazz. And yet I don't recall anyone making that actual argument. Somebody here likes their Reductio Ad Absurdum. I'm tempted to use that same logic against you, but it would amount to making fun of your positions and beating a strawmen...something that is a waste of time as it actually avoid the actual point. Don't go down that road. It doesn't lead to nice places.

And I'd personally have no problem with that. If you equip people with exactly the same equipment and look at them from a distance they SHOULD look very, very similar. It's just common sense. You do realise that some people playing RGP's want exactly that - the sense of military uniformity. None of that "Look! Look how unique and interesting I am because my armor has bweeebs!" All of your character "uniqueness" is covered by armor? Lolno. Of you like the way your characters look, don't change his clothes. You can't have it both way. Anyway, I dont' forsee that problem in PE. This isn't BG with just one sprite set for all plate armors. Each armor will be it's own model so there should be differences. and, like I said, there's always all sorts of other visual cues. I think yes. For plate armors at least. You wear exactly the same armor..with no different accesories to differentiate...you character has the same hair color...and then you complain your character look the same? Wut? Excuse me if I have not a shread of simpathy for your..."plight"

[conspiracy mode on] Must be the Amuricans and their earthquake generator [conspiracy mode off] On a more serious note, disasters like this always put into perspective just how fragile we are.

The problem with that statement is that wether or not something adds tactics and mroe choices is rather objective. Wether or not something is busywork is not. Things that you might consider boring is something that someone else might consider FUNFUNFUN.

@Lady Crimson - would hte amount of light depend on the ambient lighting? From the graphics video we have seen it looks like it's a clear night with the moon out. If there are clouds or a storm brewing, I can certanly see it looking darker.

I want a pet Godzilla.

When I have six dudes in plates with helmets and swords running around (very likely due to rock-paper-scissors mechanics of P:E) your wise words will get me far. Personally, when I see people complaining for something to take 2 clicks when it could possibly have been done with 1, I think they're probably borderline autistic, but I wouldn't be so stupid as to deny that they have a point. But they don't have a point. "But it could be simpler" is not a proper argument since it can ALWAYS be simpler. And they are talking about altering aesthetics and making artificial alterations just because they can't be bothered to pay attention to their own party. What are the chances that everye will be wearing the same cloths anyway? And same weapons? And be the same gender? And have same colored cloaks and clothes? Same helmets? There are so many ways to tell them apart - discounting the obvious indicators - that it's not even funny. I ran around in many games with all party memebrs DELIBERATELY dressed the same. Same armor, same helm, cloak. Wanted them to look like a crack team of veteran soldiers. Still didn't have problems telling them apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB7Y2qOQ_3k

Why are people concerned with recognizing characters easily It's a zoomed-out perspective FF's, even with the greatest amount of detail, you're not goign to be regognizing faces at that distance. I never had trouble in any game - even in BG and ID2 where I gave everyone matching sets of armor! You got color. You got weapons and accesories like cloaks. You got selection circles. You can turn on name overlay. If you're having so much trouble telling your party members apart in the game, then the problem is not with the game, but with your head. Some people really raise alarms over hte msot stupidest of all possible things... Speaking of women armor...Witchbalde armor is a no-no. The level of armor coverage is all wrong. This is how it should be: http://i.imgur.com/GJAjR.jpg altough it could probably stand to loose a bit of the pauldron.

I wouldn't call it exceedingly inconvenient. Most of it is legends and myths. Even the stories about putting on armor. Yes, it takes a while because it has many parts, but it's not THAT difficult either. Most wmen spend more time putting on makeup than a single guy would need to put on such armor. Especially since a slight inconvenience is a small price to pay for safety. Not to mention there were even lighter and differetn variants with differing degrees of protection. IIRC, there were variants with a removable codpiece if you had to take a leak. That's what secondariy weapon are for, bub. Everoyne had a side-sword or mace and a dagger...just in case. Do you go around with weapons unsheated 24/7 just because you might be ambushed or attacked? No, of course not. There's no reason why a weapon must be ready for a quick-draw. You could carry it on the back depending on the length of the sword and your height (there were several ways to do it actually.. some types of scabbards I won't bother describing). Or you could use it as a walking stick, since it was chisel shapr, not razor-sharp.

It's not that heavy you know. It weigs less that most traveling backpacks I'm seeing some hikers use. And they walk from country to country. But if you are out travling, you probably wouldn't be going everywhere on foot either. If you can afford plate, you can afford a horse. Which is also another reason why in RL there are no accoutns of adventurer in plate. a) there is no RL equalent to adventurers b) if you can afford plate, you are rich allready, so you wouldn't bother trudging trough the woods in the first place Other way around. A Zweihander was probably more usefull as a personal weapon than it was in military formations. You need some room if you want to swing it. There's got to be a reason why it was a preferred weapon fo many bodyguard and banner guards. Also, you carry a shield over the backpack. It has a long strap.

Politicians like to fling mud at eachother. I wouldn't be suprised to find articles and studies about anything. The ammount of garbage propaganda disguised as science on the net is staggering.

Pffft. I can find about dozen studies that will say different without even trying. Internet studies are like statistics ... highly questionable and usually wrong. Sensationalism FTW. And even if it were true...so what? I'm not allowed to compliment you because someone, somewhere might think less of you? *Right now I'm thinking less of women because you emntioned Woman Studies. Congratulations. You just made matters worse for women. HOW DARE YOU!!!! I hearby forbid you to mention woman studies ever again, because it hurts women. If you do mention them I'll label you as a sexist pig or something. *b.t.w - that was sarcasm in case you missed it.

Well, since I'm aparently a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot, I guess it's my duty to jump the gun and murder him anyway. After I finsih defiling the graves of dead babies of course....

Is it? What is a "inconsiderate statement" is largely subjective. It doesn't have to be a government action. If you are a trying to force people into your line of thinking and trying to get them to shut up by pressure, then how can you call that free speech in reality? If all our social/moral "standards" (which are constatnly in flux btw) are subjective, then there is no "right" side so to speak. If you literaly aren't allowed to express your oppinion for fear of sanctions, then you have no freedom of speech. I mean, you have... but you might as well not for all it's worth.

MEh..the problem is that such PC crusaders seem to be getting louder and more obnoxious. Or they are growing in numbers. Either way, I have been runnign into them ever more frequently over the years. They raise a ruckus over nothing and generally throw mud at you. Examples are many. I once got attacked for using the term "fairer sex". Apparently some consider it insulting to women because it alluded to pale complexion and being stuck in the house??? Seriously, you cannot even compliment a woman these days. OR god forbid you say anything, EVER that isn't a 100% endorsment of everything that is jewish/gay/black (insert group here) - you're automaticly a monster. It's not enough to agree on 99 points with someone.... you have to agree to all 100, exactly and totally. There was this other forum where an article about a black cosplayer was posted. Some comments in the article were hatefull and racist and I agreed with such an assesment (that they are wrong), but among those where a few that were pretty innocent and overblown. I refused to condemn those people and I got immediately banned for it. Freedom of speech? Tolerance? It's an irony that in reality we aren't much more tolerant than the most intolerant of biggots - we just have a different filter. After all, they too don't care what your oppiinion is on thousands of things and will hapily let you speak your mind. But when it comes to things we really care about, difference of oppinion is in 99% of all cases treaded with hostility.