Jump to content

Wirdjos

Members
  • Content Count

    234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Wirdjos

  1.  

    Also while PrimeJunta is right about his "all ranger party" comments.... Sawyer never said he would recommend people play that way or that it would be anything resembling easy.

     

     

    After reading through three pages of people lauding absolute freedom in party composition, I was getting worried I was the only one that appreciated party balance. Of course I don't want to be restricted to keeping a particular class or build with me, but I do want to notice that I don't have it. If I roll a full party of rangers, I want to notice that I don't have access to extremely useful wizard spells. I still want to be able to play the game fully whatever I choose party-wise, but I do want to be at least slightly punished for making strategically poor decisions. If only to add to the wild tactics people like those who love mages and only mages will have to come up with to deal with the fact that mages, and any other class, do have weak points better filled by different classes.

    • Like 6
  2.  I don't think expanding this concept makes rogues "not roguey", unless being bad in combat is essential to one's concept of what a rogue is.

     

    I think that concept just might be. Not counting the mention in the post you quoted, here are two other posts that point to a 'bad in combat' mentality.

     

    They call Rogues "heavy hitters". WOW calls them "DPS Kings". But in the IE games, and of course in D&D, they were nothing of the sort. They were the sneaks and the scouts. They were the lock pickers, trap disarmers, trap setters and pickpockets. In combat, they weren't the heaviest hitters. Not by a long shot. They could backstab for massive damage but only on occasion. They used the lower tier weapons, like Daggers and short swords. Not the big guns that the true heavy hitters used, like massive swords and greataxes.

     

    Even when D&D rules were too complexes and useless sometimes (I played pen and paper role),  there were 2 important design aspects about D&D that helped in its success: 1. Not every class must be good in combat. You could help your team to battle by healing, protecting or so, but in a 1v1 fight you were lost. Today players would call that a "support" role. 2. Non-combat abilities make the "role" part far more interesting. In there, those "weak" characters shined. 

     

    Perhaps instead of talking about another couple of classes next update, there could be a new update about noncombat skills and their relation to character builds?

    • Like 2
  3.  

     

    Animal companion gives ranger ability to do both ranged and melee harassing at same time, which makes ranger quite unique class. 

     

    I'm not suggesting the animal companion makes the ranger bland and generic, just that the role of the animal itself should be played by a party member (such as a fighter or rogue) in a party based game. Why not apply most of those bonuses the ranger and animal get from each other to the whole party instead?

     

    Are you guys seeing my kickstarter badge? My profile shows it, but I'm not seeing it when I post.

     

     

    That in my opinion would make ranger more supporting character than damage dealer, as s/he would buff other characters attacks instead of his/her own. And in party based game I see additional party member to be more of an advantage than hindrance, as it gives you more flexibility on how you position your characters and what enemies you engage first.

     

    Interesting. I hadn't considered the role shift that would occur if the ranger/companion buffs weren't confined to the two of them. I'm still not happy with the idea of an animal supporting the ranger as I feel like that is the party's entire purpose, to support each other. Makes for an excellent solo character though.

  4.  

    So excited to have more information on the classes!

     

    Two things I'm worried about: the way Coordinated Positioning is animated is going to be essential to making it smooth and believable as opposed to very "gamey" and I have never been fond of animal companions in party based games. Everything the companion was listed as being for is what the party should be doing, which makes the animal superfluous and kind of useless in a party environment.

     

    Just my two cents.

     

    Animal companion gives ranger ability to do both ranged and melee harassing at same time, which makes ranger quite unique class. 

     

    I'm not suggesting the animal companion makes the ranger bland and generic, just that the role of the animal itself should be played by a party member (such as a fighter or rogue) in a party based game. Why not apply most of those bonuses the ranger and animal get from each other to the whole party instead?

    • Like 1
  5. So excited to have more information on the classes!

     

    Two things I'm worried about: the way Coordinated Positioning is animated is going to be essential to making it smooth and believable as opposed to very "gamey" and I have never been fond of animal companions in party based games. Everything the companion was listed as being for is what the party should be doing, which makes the animal superfluous and kind of useless in a party environment.

     

    Just my two cents.

     

    How could I forget? I'm placing my vote for the Leaders of the Band. I am most excited about the chanter.

  6. The only real issue I had playing was the pathing and party selection options. This is very important since you're constantly moving your party around.

     

    I read somewhere the game will feature customizable formations but I believe the issue is deeper than that. Something like control groups that auto follow (like Warcraft 3) would help a ton and make sure your vulnerable robe wearers don't out-pace the ironclad.

     

     

    I'm also replaying the Infinity Engine games (a popular thing to do apparently) and I'm far more concerned with pacing than breaking formation in tight corridors. Somehow, don't ask me how, my back two party members(read: fragile casters) often got to my rallying point first. That resulted in more than a few mad scrambles as a tender mage was expected to take on a couple skeleton warriors or umber hulks all on their lonesome.

  7. Of course it is nice to get notified so that you can defend the place, but getting spammed and/or getting informed in another situation where I am engaged and/or immersed will break the experience. Kind of: "What an awesome place I am in, the story is great, the enemies are challeng.... *beep beep beep* ... stronghold attacked!?!? Need to defend!!". And also getting notified in the middle of a battle and hearing "You are being attacked!!" could get stressful.

     

    This is extremely important. I'm replaying Baldur's Gate 2 at the moment and apparently Jaheira and Aerie both think that the middle of a combat round is the best possible time for a heartfelt conversation. It breaks immersion everytime while simultaneously causing me to hate a character I'm supposed to be romancing just a little more. Making the the notification system as unobtrusive as possible will have a huge effect on its success.

  8. How about just having a general Maneuver skill that deals with movement while encumbered or constrained? Armor/Load is compared to the Maneuver skill to see if a penalty is applied. The same skill can be used to overcome spell effects such web or grease.

     

    Those are some interesting implications. But I do have a few questions. Should strength, dexterity, or any other stat interact with such a skill? Should heavier armors like plate have a higher maneuver check and if so should armor dependant classes like the fighter start with points in maneuver.

     

    I really like the idea of having an armor skill that does translate to other aspects of the game thus giving incentive for a fail sort of wizard to take it even if he never intended to take on armor. He could later grab some plate as the need arose and thus not feel like he made the wrong choices early on.

  9. I would lean towards armor skills myself. I'm thinking of something more like armor familiarity. It would function a lot like BG's weapon proficiencies where you got to add a point every couple of levels and become better at using a particular class of weapon. You could still use the weapon class without any points in it, you just weren't able to use the weapon as well as someone who had the points. That could translate to movement speed and stamina drain when wearing armor (which I am also in favor of). Add a point to plate armor and reduce stamina drain and increase movement speed while wearing plate. The other armors could have different drawbacks and bonuses (I can't imagine say cloth armor being heavy enough to drain stamina), like stealth in leather perhaps, giving different reasons for chosing different armor types.

    • Like 1
  10. I wonder if you've read Update #36. This in particular:

     

     

    Core Four Class Design and Advancement - We want our classes to feel familiar but flexible, so we've designed our "core four" (fighter, priest, rogue, wizard) to reflect traditional D&D roles and allow you to build outside of them. In our current design, each of the classes starts with two active use or modal abilities and one passive bonus.

    Fighter

    • Defender (Mode) - In the Defender mode, fighters' melee attack rates decrease while their melee defenses increase. This is a particularly useful mode to enter when a fighter is blocking a route of attack to protect other party members.
    • Surge - This active ability allows fighters to rapidly regenerate Stamina for a short period of time.
    • Melee Accuracy - Fighters have inherent skill with melee weapons that is reflected by a small accuracy bonus.

    Priest

    • 1st Level Priest Spells - Priests gain access to all 1st level priest spells. Priests can cast a fixed number of 1st level spells before they must rest to recover their uses. They can cast any combination of different spells up to the per-rest limit. As priests gain levels, their 1st level spells will eventually become per-encounter resources.
    • Recovery - The Recovery ability regenerates a modest amount of Stamina for allies (including the priest, if in range) in a Medium-sized area at Short range.
    • Sacred Circle - All allies standing within a Small area around the priest gain Accuracy bonus. This bonus does not include the priest unless there are no conscious allies in range, in which case it applies to the priest.

    Rogue

    • Escape - The rogue may hop a short distance away and all hostiles lose him or her as a direct target for 3 seconds. After the 3 seconds are up, enemies can target the rogue normally.
    • Reversal - Reversal prepares the rogue for the next melee attack against him or her. When it hits, the rogue takes reduced damage and instantly rolls to the opposite side of the target and executes a powerful melee attack. This will even allow rogues to move past enemies that are fully blocking a path.
    • Sneak Attack - This damage bonus applies whenever the rogue "flanks" an enemy or when the rogue is hidden from an enemy. Flanking means that the rogue is within a short distance of the target and on the "opposite" side of that enemy from an adjacent ally.

    Wizard

    • 1st Level Wizard Spells - Wizards can access all 1st level wizard spells immediately. Unlike other wizard spell levels, the wizard does not need to find scrolls or grimoires to use any 1st level spells. Wizards can cast a fixed number of 1st level spells before they must rest to recover their uses. They can cast any combination of different spells up to the per-rest limit. As wizards gain levels, their 1st level spells will eventually become per-encounter resources.
    • Blast - When wizards use any implement (i.e. a wand, rod, or scepter), they generate a Blast on the target. The Blast does a modest amount of damage to all enemies in a Small area around the target (excluding the target).
    • Familiar - All wizards can summon and dismiss familiars. Familiars are mobile "totems" for the wizard, providing defensive bonuses to allies near them and inflicting defensive penalties to enemies near them. Players can also access the master's spell list through the familiar, though casting a spell through the familiar still requires the master to physically cast it; it's simply targeted from the familiar. Familiars are weak and fragile. If a familiar is killed, the wizard takes damage and is unable to summon his or her familiar until he or she rests again.
  11. Sounds like a great idea, Hormalakh. It would definately add depth and characterization to dialogue.

    I wasn't sure about how it was going to work UI wise, but Lephys solved that as far as I'm concerned. I like the idea of long and complicated dialogue chains as long as they are well marked.

    The only other way I see to look at is by allowing tone to exist as something that can be chosen alongside dialogue. Your character would still make the same statement, but if you chose intimidate you'd move forward with a hand on your weapon or just speak the lines in a quite gentle voice if charm was chosen. Thus tone would be more about body language than actual lines spoken.

     

    Whatever the case with dialogue, you all have certainly peaked my interest for the next update in that lane.

    • Like 1
  12. Speaking of trolls, how do you guys like your trolls to look? Seems that in most CRPGs, trolls either tend to look like D&D's version (green skin, lanky bodies, high speed & agility) or more like the Lord of the Rings movies (fat ogres). I tend to prefer the later when it's done well. Didn't like Dark Age of Camelot's trolls that looked exactly like Thing from Fantastic Four, but I do like the idea of giving them a sort of earthy affinity.

     

    While I like the D&D edition troll, I'm not totally partial to it. When I hear troll, I think ugly and gnarled. I don't need agility, nature affinity, or even green skin. Give me warts, skin that looks thrice baked, and long, crooked noses. As long as they're an ugly sight to behold, I'll be happy.

     

    Being giant doesn't hurt though.

    • Like 2
  13. Ironman mode is a way of playing I might try on a second playthrough of a game I really enjoyed. After understanding the way the game plays and what it will allow me to, I might prevent myself from using something that made the game easier. Perhaps I'll only allow one save or never use a potion or something of that sort. Something to push myself and make the game harder. I've never understood the need to create a game mode to enforce that choice though.

     

    It sounded like you were asking a more philosophical question about the concept of Ironman mode, OP, so that's how I tried to answer. I would be interested in further elaboration on your intent either way.

  14. And rather than the curative ingredients be found at locations with the sole purpose of providing a remedy, those ingredients could just be part of regular quests or side-quests, so you gather up components along the way, without really knowing what they're for.

     

    This could be used to further emphasize what I imagine would be the lesson of the whole mechanic. Pay attention! Infections scream it at you by punishing you for not listening to questgivers and party members. The diseases themselves then punish you for not noticing that one of more party members is getting weaker and weaker. Finally the solution to the problem could be that if you paid attention to 'trash drops' and bothered to read their descriptions before tossing them out, you would have noticed what they were used for and already had the cure in your pocket. I really think this mechanic has a lot of potential to create some really enjoyable experiences.

    • Like 1
  15. Even if the disease you caught wasn't part of the overall game quest, it could become a mini-quest in itself.  If your party members react accordingly, with dialogue and suggestions for a cure, it could maintain the illusion that it was all part of the main story.  So adding it all up: you were warned about the possible dangers of disease in advance, plus your party members warn you in combat to stay back, plus it's obvious the creatures you're fighting are disease carriers, and if you ignore all those warnings and go steaming on in to melee, then the end results are a delayed notification and a mini-quest.  Either way, you'll have learned something from that encounter/experience and will possibly change your behaviour next time.

     

    This sounds amazing. If this were the case, I would avoid it in my first playthrough, discover this were the case through metagame knowledge, and purposefully get infected to experience this content in a second playthrough. The only issue I have with it, and it's one I'll ignore to get what you describe, is that disease would have to be relatively rare to avoid becoming a maddening nuisance. I did like the idea of different diseases being a somewhat common tool to spice up combat and force players out of using the same tactic for (nearly) every battle.

     

    What do you invision as far as the mini-quest? Is it a world travelling attempt to make a cure, a knowledge seeking quest to diagnose the disease and easily cure it(avoidable through metagaming), or something completely different?

  16. Players who aren't paying attention have it coming, of course.

     

    The internet makes it difficult for me to figure out sarcasm. Is this sarcasm or not?

     

    I assume giving the information to the player before hitting them with the mechanic would prevent a good number of ragequits and reloads because it would have that effect on me. I would feel like I deserved the damage and move on from there. I'm interested to know if it would have the same effect on many other players. Yourself included, PrimeJunta.

  17. @maggotheart, design for save-and-reload has to be executed and buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart. It's a lazy way to add the illusion of challenge where it adds nothing but frustration.

     

    I agree with this sentiment, but it requires a little examination. This is what Maggotheart said in relation to reloads.

     

    It's possible that getting a disease could trigger a reload, but when the player reloads he will most likely change his tactics to avoid getting infected by that monster - so I think it does have value insofar that it generates different combat behavior.

     

    Now I agree that noticing a mechanic is causing reloads, expecting the player to act that way and doing nothing, is lazy design. However, that doesn't automatically mean the mechanic is a poor one and should be replaced. In the case Maggotheart puts forth, the player gets frustrated, but learns something and changes play style after reloading. Now the latter half of that is good design. The player learns something about the game and actually changes behavior. That should be maintained. It seems to me that the more effective change here would be to forecast this information early, have NPCs or the questgiver warn the player about disease and (with lore appropriate terms) explain the mechanics of disease. This way even if the player needs the game to punish him with the mechanic before he learns, when he is punished he'll remember what we was taught and change tactics. So the only way the mechanic was lazy before was that the game failed to warn you about it prior to punishing you with it, not because it was punishing/annoying and should have been changed to something less challenging. This of course requires the effect to be fairly constant and not random so the player is not tempted to reload for a 'better dice roll' thus avoiding the mechanic entirely.

    • Like 2
  18. Also, there should be a certain amount of sensible strategy too.  If you're facing mummies or giant rats or beasts that feed on carrion, the player's first priority should be to avoid melee as much as possible.  Ranged weapons, fire, acid, and small nuclear devices should be your first strike. :nuke::dancing::nuke:

     

    These are the sort of reasons I would prefer disease to a regular debuff or curse. A contagious disease, especially if it can hop between the player's party members (as maggotheart suggested), forces you make different tactical decisions. If the disease develops quick enough, it could change the entire course of the encounter.

     

    Say this particular rat spreads a disease on contact that lowers intelligence and wisdom. You can easily cure the disease after the battle, so you send your fighter up front and let him take the hit. Int and Wis don't affect his ability to attack so it's fine, just keep it away from wizard. Over the course of the battle, there's an ambush from the back. The wizard is now in danger and needs the fighter to be a meat shield for him. However, if the fighter comes to the wizard's defense, the wizard will be quickly rendered useless by the disease.

    Now you have to make a very tactical decision. Is it more important to keep the wizard pumping out high damage/strategically necessary spells and possibly take an injury(or die based on difficulty) or should you effectively remove the wizard from the battle and save him for the next encounter?

     

    That sort of situation sounds like it would significantly add to the game in the form of more interesting/exciting combat rather than becoming an annoyance that calls for a reload. This would of course require disease transmission to be an almost certain thing when entering the infected's melee zone and for the disease's rules to be explained properly beforehand. I really think this form of disease is a good idea, maybe even a great one, but I wouldn't want to be the guy charged with implementing it.

    • Like 2
  19.  

     

    There was some discussion about a mechanic where each character would have an area around him that he can 'cover', preventing enemies from passing through and guarding allies in that threat range. That same radius could be used as a 'contagious zone', anything passing through would have a chance of catching the disease. Do I protect our flank and risk infecting my allies? There could be a map where you are travelling through an infected city, with lots of diseased NPCs. You would do well to avoid them, and in battle use ranged weapons.

     

     

    I think combining the above quote with General_Azure's suggestion of keeping disease a quest related thing presents an interesting solution to Gfted1's (very legitimate) complaint.

     

    P:E is suppose to take place in an atmosphere like the point in history when the Old World was discovering the New World, right? What I'm thinking is that there is this secluded, uncontacted area in which there is a disease that noone in the outside world is prepared for. (like those two historical peoples dealt with) You have a quest there and with every melee attack from the people of this place, you have a chance of infection. The infection spirals out of control if you don't address the problem (ie rest, some difficult potion, whatever solution thought up) and turns from some nothing debuff into something debilitating. This way the disease is confined to one area of the game and adds to the dramatic effect of that area/quest.

     

    I like TRX850's idea of having the disease hidden until the debuffs start occuring, but I think that might only suit it if disease is not confined to one locale is just an element of the world.

×
×
  • Create New...