TrashMan

There's 2 reasons for that: 1) In-game you could see the actual faces of characters and NPC's during gameplay (if you zoomed) and during cutscenes.The actual face takes the role of the portrait. In old games all you had was a portrait, so you spent hours staring at it. Of course it will be memorable. Don't tell me Alistairs face (DA:O) isn't memorable. 2) Since they weren't as necessary or important as in old games, the actual 3D portraits were much smaller, to save UI space. If you recall, in the character screen the large portrait took up half the damn screen. Given the nature of PE, 2D portraits are the way to go. But maybe they should take inspiration from Jagged Alliance 2 and make them animated 2D portraits. I loved that in JA2.

For serious? You are limited by the starting portraits and by what you can find on the internet. So the underlined doesn't really hold water...not truly. Making a custom portrait is basicly modding. Which is no different from downloading a hair mod for skyrim and similar, to get the exact look you want. The 2D portrait import is far simpler to do tough, so it gets points for that. Personally, for a game like PE I prefer 2D portraits. Detail face morphs and face modelings are a waste of time and resources given the perspective.

The point of a wepon is what you make it. I'm personally not fond of things just being there as a padding and massive scaling that renders your previosu accomplishments pointless. It's a different kind of balancing and experience I guess. And whiel everyone likes good loot (more or less), I think it's a games job to make it all relevant. If I find a magical sword (+1) I SHOULD be excited. If I'm not, the game is doing something wrong. And if most people are going to switch weapons to a +9000, like you say? Then who cares? I'm not here to dictate how people will play and what they will do. If I am to design a mechanics system, then I want it to be as immersive as possible and well thoguh-off. People might do X or Y? Well, they might alos do Z. There's more than extreems in the world. And ifthat wants to do X, Y or Z - let them do it. So what if they "farm" familiarity (note that it would require you to use the weapon for some time, so you really couldn't switch weapons all the time) Familiarity isn't there to balance early weapons with late game ones. TI's jsut there ae a little bonus. A little something for those that do decide to stick with one (well that and upgrades and enchantment) Then we have something in common. Except for running games. It's so hard to get a PnP session going here..the onyl PnP I played is over Skype sadly. Humans are biologicly inclined for efficiency. INCLINED. We are after all not total slaves to our instincts. I todl you before I'm against illogical mechanics for the sake of balance. Why? Because I don't think they are opposed. You can make a logical mechanic. It's the same as people claiming fun and realism don't mix. But it does. Choice is choice. What is desirable differs from person to person. Yes, most people probably would power game. But not all. It is still a choice. And the less unbalanced it is, the less attractive it is. While I understand where you are going, I still call BS: That's not freedom. That's avoiding the consequences of actions. The idea out of a dozen choicves, they must all be made artificially equal, just so that player A wouldn't have it worse than player B? Frak no. Player A needs to grow soem balls and stop being a whiny b****. Who cares what player B does? It's not competetive. There is no scoreboard. RPG?s are about the journey...about the experience...not about the score. That's not even remotely similar. The weapon isn't actively fighting you at all. Again - why would a weapon fight you? If it is imbued with part of someones soul, wouldn't it be equally likely to work with you? After all, maybe you are the type of person the previous sword owner would like - hence, the weapon likes you too.

Well, I assumed you awere taking in D&D terms as a point of refference (and thus, using a D&D scale, where +5 is a gigantic bonus) So for scaling purposes, familiarity bonuses should be fairly low. And that's exactly why I want to keep familiarity bonuses low and to-hit magical enchantments also low (and rare). So that (in D&D terms) you won't ever get higher than +5, no matter how many perks, feats and enchantments you gather. There is quite simply a cap.

TheSadDragon tells it like it is. Games have conditioned (and are conditioning us) us to play and think a specific way. Skinners Box method. Read upon it. http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html Mind you, it's just the tip of the iceberg. It's time to break that stupid mold. I find it horrible that RPG games are CONDITIONING players to not roleplay. Yes, they do that because players make decisions that sensible people in the shoes of the PC wouldn't do.

Wouldn't all heavy weapons by tireing to use? Especially things like two-handed axes, which are heavier and less balanced that greatswords? I'm kinda for and against this. For because weapons could always use things to tell them apart. Against because you don't really need perks. Stats would be sufficient in most cases (with possible exception being special checks - lik if the weapon can be hidden or not)

You realize that argument has been used to argue agaiusnt every little thing that is htere for immersion. Why bother with weather? Or NPCs in town acting normally. Players dont' care if htey stand still, etc.. The idea that bonus has to be huge or GTFO is redicolous. Things dont' haev to have a SIGNIFICANT impact to be worth it. And speaking of which, that +1 to hit might be a life safer. There is a point to it, just like there is a point to the +1 weapon (wether magical or masterwork) I'm against illogical mechanics just for the sake of "balance" (balance agaisnt what?) That kinda works. Still don't like it tough. I just find it silly that a weapons "soul" prevents you from getting accustomed to it's balance. Come to think of it, why would anyone create a weapon that is actively fighting you? It just makes littlesense.

@Jarrakul: You are complicating matters nedlessly. Familiarity bonus should stay low. It's not there to make a starting weapon into a uber one. That's what re-forging, upgrades and enchantments are for. (and weapon proficiency) There's nothing to be overpowered, since it doesn't take forever to gain familiarity, and as I said - the bonus should be small. However, if you want to make it so that familiarity increases greatly, then I still see little problem. Familiarity is a function of individual andexperience, NOT magic. So there's no logical reason to make it oposes. It just doesn't make sense. If someone wants to bee-line for a powerfull sword, let them. Exactly why should you stop them to begin with? OF course, you cna also make itthat using a weapon for a week grants +1 familiary. For a month grants +2. For a year +3 (and after that doesn't increase) I'm using week/month/year figuratively, since familiarity would not be measured by time in-game, I'm jsut stating how it should logicly work. Mechanicly it could be the number of sucesfull hits or kills with it or whatever.

That only works to a point. As long as one class/method isn't VASTLY superior/inferior. At the end of the day, we play with the intention to win. And if looting everything that isn't nailed down means you end up 10 timesricher than a player who doesn't do that, and thus breeze trough encounters, the nthere is a problem. A big one. Even worse if the game is balanced so that NOT looting causes frustration down the road.

I didn't see it. I really did put him on my ignore list. I don't either have the time nor patiance to wrestle with confrontational/naysaing/trolling people like him. Hopefully this thread can now get back on track.

Why +5 to familiarity? +5 isn't a tiny bonus. Now it's you who are turning it into an overpowered thing. +1... +2 tops. Besides, who said a bonus to hit must be standard on magic weapons (or even a big one)

I would assume because you don't know them that godo early on and neither do they know you. It takes time to get to know a person, and sometimes it may look like you and someone else will get along perfectly...yet you end up hating eachothers guts.

I don't see it as problem. You're not gonna start the game with the best sword in the game, and you are incredibly unlikely to get a really good one early game. Familiarity takes time after all, and it's a tiny bonus. Why swhould familiarity and enchantment be opposed? There's no logic behind it. Besides, I may want to enchant my familiar sword. And if enchantment and familiarity are to be opposed, what about mundane weapon upgrades (like adding a ricasso??

Quite. While can choose not to backtrack and be a pack rat, that puts me at a serious disadvantage compared to a player that does. In other words, the game itself is rewarding degenerative gameplay - or in this case, illogical behavior for an adventurer. Problem is, people often see perfectly logical thing as "limitations" simply because they were allowed to do completely silly things in the past. "Merchants have limited money/dont' buy everything? But it's limiting my abiltiy to sell stuff! Why doesn't he buy EVERYTHING I own! I want his moneyz!" Remind me again which one of us has a problem with self-control again?

Enjoy the ignore list, troll.

Every single game mechanic released so far is "healing the symptoms". Rest too much? = Dedicated rest spots. Walk back and forth for loot? = unlimited inventory. Get sad because your level 1 toon misses sometimes? = only 5% chance to miss. Like to heal between fights? = No field healing mechanic at all. Grind for experience? = no kill experience. All of these (except missing) were controllable by the players themselves until "Dur, me cant control self" somehow became a legitimate excuse and requires programs to cater to their compulsive disorders. Dedicated resting spots actually make sense. You don't rest in the middle of the enemy base. Unless the area is reasonably secure, no one would. Of course, players would just exist the base and rest right outside...which could be avoided if the enemy sends out patrols once you start attacking, so the sorrounding areas become far more dangerous. Thus leaving the base to rest right outside would be stupid. You'd want to get some distance. But leaving would also give the enemy time to regroup and fortify, makign your battle when you come back HARDER. As long as you program in realistic consequences, no artificial limitations are necessary. Also kill experience WAS a cause of problem. Good riddance to it.

That works unless leaving the stuff cripples you financially. Suggesting the root cause is the mechanic where hauling loot is the wealth generation mechanic. Indeed. Now if you have limited inventory, that partially fixes the problem. "But wait" - you say - "people just make multiple trips!" Not if all items dissapear. "But mah immersun!" You were gone for days bub. It's gone. Well, that or some other way - like making merchants simply not buy stuff from you. but that might also make people angry when they first visit merchants. Yup. Altough experience is technicly experience. In this case more of a social kind, but unless you're using learn-by-doing, then the game doesn't make a distinction.

Then don't gather and lug around all the crap. It's funny how people go around trying to heal the symptoms, while avoiding the actual cause.

Actually, I already have most of it on paper. But I sure as hell won't bother just to satisfy your whims. Obviously you do, because watching you flail around in this thread for the past two weeks has been funny as hell. Well, at least someone is laughing, so I guess that's a positive. Your posts just make me cringe and shake my head.

Then make week character .. for example take taka a warrior and give him all points to inteligence and wisdom ... and not a point in stamina or strenght .. on bummm ! And loose the game? No can do. A game is balanced for a specific power curve. You can't accomodate both playstyles at once. Yes. But what makes something fun or a struggle is subjective. Not really. Exceptionally unlikely, but stuff like that happens. I know a guy who fell fro ma 6 story building on the road. Only broke his legs. I knew another guy who tripped while walking down the street, hit his head and died. Then again, a extreeme run of bad luck was possible in D&D - roll several critical misses in a row, enemy rolls critical hits.... There is no reason why a dragon has to be a demigod-like creature..it could be very natural and animalistic. It's all down to prefferences, since dragons aren't strongly defined. The second question is - if it's a demigod-like creature, should a player even be abel to kill it with normal means? Or kill it AT ALL? Sykrim has otehr problems, in that you could do stuff avoidingthe main quest and level up to redicolous proportions. It's not that dragons were weak, it's that the player character could easily become too powerfull.

Nope. That's an urban myth. You can easily get up in full plate. Also, I don't think the wolve can bit trough it, while even a simple dannger can ruin a wolves day. Seriously. It's like a tank vs. a prius. And what if I don't want to feel ultimate power? IF it's done exactly as you say...yes. But I never said that. You seem to think I want som real-world medieval simultor. No, I just want some more sense and believabilty. Seriously enough with the luck and chances already. It is pointless and has no bearing on anything. But I don't want that. I don't know what shrooms you are smoking but it's not what I'm talking about. Also, there's no problem to adjust to mythical creatures. Why should it be? So what if they dont' exist in RL?

You don't even have an example of your system do you? LOL. Who would of thought that Trashman was full of ****. Have fun with your totally balanced system that works perfectly but you can't show one example of how it works! I already have given you simple examples on some aspects of it, it's not my fault you lack the mental acuty to put 2 and 2 together. But game systems are by definition complex things. Mechanics can take hunders of pages alone. You want me to write essays? Screw that, I don't have time to entertain morons like you on the internet.

Wut? Wolf killing a guy in armor easily? Yeah, I don't see that happening. Maybe if it was leather and the guy was incompetent. What's the fun in a struggle? The struggle, the satisfaction of overcaming the odds I guess. Well, what's the fun in no challenge? The feeling of power. Neither is more "valid"

I want the opposite. I want exactly those 3 things you don't.

Funny, that doesn't sound like "swords will do 1d8, spalles will do 10d6 damage". You use D&D numbers because they said it will be "something like that", but that in itself is vauge. Comparable in feel? In scale? In atmosphere? Numbers by themselves are MEANINGLESS without context. Context is everything. No mechanic of variable exist in vacuum - so natural everything is adusted. How can you possibly claim that the HP of a human PC/NPC/oppoenent ranging from 100 to 200 is more unbalanced that HP going from 4 to 160 (or whatever)? How is THAT balanced? That you die from a sneeze in the begining? Heck, I recall ID and BG1 ... a single lucky hit by an enemy and the character is dead. You call that fun? And in you go back that that area late game, you can go and make yourself a sammich while the goblins pound on your immobile without worrying that you might die. Assuming the sword damage is in the 20-30 range, you always have a buffer, even early game. And what is wrong with armor being vital for survival? That is what it's for after all. You scoff at the use of damage reduction items - but what is inflating HP other than basicly that? Reducing damage recieved isn't much different from increasing the damage you can take. Instead of reducing one number (damage) you are increasing the other (HP), but the end effect is pretty much the same. So don't go telling me that the system can't work and it's crap, when your own ideas of what works and isn't are crap. You got no leg to stand on - furthermore you are not an authority and I don't have to justify anything to you. Because it was an example of an hybrid system. And because people asked me about it. The confusion happened because I stopped talking about the mod and talked about the system, yet you continued to talk about the mod.