Hiro Protagonist II

No. You're now forming an argument around your incorrect viewpoint. You've taken an abstract or concept and twisting it to your specific example and then further twisting it around again. All you're doing is arguing for arguing sake now. LMAO. Hang on. You quoted me, you used the word 'exact' and now you're claiming, "I wasn't claiming to quote you, or attributing the word "exact" to your argument". I never used the word or anything in relation to it. It was you who did and then proceeded in true Lephys form to argue against it. Seriously. How desperate can you go by now claiming you didn't quote me when you did and now claiming you're not attributing words in your post to mine. Obviously you're not there yet. Refer to the picture above. Maybe one day you might end up at PointVille.

No. You're changing the context. I was giving an abstract and how it is as a concept. And it's usually poorly handled in games when it's implemented. You also said 'exact' not sameness or any other words that you want to use now. Exact and Sameness are not the same and aren't synonymous when I look them up in a Thesaurus, but I can understand how someone would come to the conclusion that both words are similar when they're not. Also your example had nothing in regards to sameness. eg. "a Level 5 Human Bandit and a Level 5 Ice Troll aren't going to provide the exact same challenge." Firstly you're talking about two different opponents that are not the same. Therefore it's not consistent. A troll and bandit may have different ways to kill them. eg. Fire needed to kill the troll whereas the bandit doesn't need fire. The only thing that is the same is their level, everything else is different. And it's obvious they are not the 'exact' same thing and will not be the same challenge.

I said, at its core. And it's always been implemented poorly. And I never said anything about providing the exact same challenge.

Encounter Scaling is Level Scaling. At its core, Level Scaling provides a continuous, consistent challenge to the player. As the player's character rises in level, aspects of the world will change to accommodate that character's growth. As the player character grows in power, they should be able to tackle increasingly powerful enemies; the game will make adjustments based on the character's current level.

Perhaps it's probably better to focus on a low level game like BG1 than BG2? Considering you could get up to level 10 in BG1 with some characters and PoE has a level cap of 12. And talking about ToB? You're talking about Epic level 20-30 characters. Of course Epic level is going to be powerful. I suspect you'll probably find with PoE that a lot of the side quests will have great gear. We're talking about a low level game with no kill xp and quest based xp. So if there's a lot of side quests, the xp will have to be spread out over the game so you don't hit the level cap early. That'll probably mean that quest based xp for these FedEx / side quests will be low. So there must be an incentive to do these optional side quests if the xp is really low? If there's crap gear, then having low quest based xp and crap gear is a turn off for players. Therefore, there must be great gear to offset the low quest based xp. Otherwise, why do it? Roleplaying? So you're going to roleplay for the next few hours to get low xp and crap loot on these optional side quests? I don't think so and can't see many players doing that. A Scavenger hunt for crafting materials? *Groan* Even if the loot is similar on these side quests compared to the crit-path, why bother? I'll just keep the loot on the crit-path. Therefore, there must be some good loot. Much better loot than the loot on the crit-path. I really don't see what the big rewards for these optional side quests would be other than great loot or a scavenger hunt for crafting materials because it won't be xp. That comes across as Diablo-esque. Loot and/or crafting materials. woot! It's all about the loot! *groan* And even then I don't think the loot will be that 'great', when you consider this being a low level game.

I've haven't followed E3 since the late 90s. Looks like I haven't missed much.

This is turning more into a quasi-Diablo clone without the emphasis on things like xp and a feeling of levelling on side quests, and all about the loot and variations of level scaling. Because we have to protect those gamers who are just plain bad at playing games. We can't have players unintentionally making bad characters in their party, not being able to get past encounters, lay out loot along the way so by the end, there are no 'hard' encounters for the player. We need to hold the hand of those gamers that need hand holding. While some gamers find encounters easy, it's the gamer who doesn't have a clue, that we need to make sure can get through the game with enough hints and information for the player to prepare for that encounter. Otherwise it's a 'hard' encounter. The dev's also need to be careful with their naming of spells, because we can't have players who don't understand technical words like 'dispel' (area effect spell including your players) and 'remove' (enemy only effect spell not including your players) and don't comprehend spell descriptions when this is explained in the spell descriptions. We have to protect those players that don't comprehend this sort of stuff. We also have to make it easily accessible so it doesn't take more than two clicks to find those spell descriptions, because it's all too hard. I can't wait for the game to be released.

Maybe Obsidian should reward experience by Chapter. So by the end of Chapter 1, you're level 3. By the end of Chapter 2, you're level 5 and so on. This would satisfy the people who only want to do the crit-path and those who want to do every side quest in each chapter. And by the end of the game, both the bare minimum crit-path player and the completionist can go in the end fight and neither is disadvantaged. Because the optional content is just that optional and is not required. The player who does the absolute bare minimum in the game shouldn't be disadvantaged because they don't want to do things like exploration, roleplaying with different factions, going off on side quests, none of all that optional stuff. The bare minimum player shouldn't be disadvantaged at all. This solution solves balancing and players can decide how much optional content they do, whether they don't want to do any, or just one side quest or a hundred side quests and at the end of each chapter, you're always at that particular level regardless. I can't wait. I'm excited for this.

You weren't addressing the Australian market and then go on to why it costs more with the Australian market with different taxes, exchange rates, etc? Sounds like you were trying to justify the high prices in different countries where there is no justification at all. The example I cited was for Rage in 2010. The exchange rate was around $1.15 to the US$. That means if a game on Steam is US$60 then converting it to AUD would come to approx AU$52.20. What we saw on Steam is AU$90.00 eight months after release. Remember this is a digital distribution platform. hang on. I gave an example with Steam. You now say you have no idea what I'm rumbling about and then do the opposite and try to justify the high prices on that very same platform. Oh boy. Also, with Steam. Yes, they've done some good, but they've also done some bad too. And it seems nobody wants to acknowledge the bad. It comes across as fanboyism. And we see that with keeping games at high prices when their physical equivalent is 1/3 the price in stores. eg. Rage. The market has changed but Steam refuses to play ball with the market. What I've proposed in this thread is to open the market as was the case with my GoT post. No where in this thread have I said I pirate, give excuses or justified it. In fact, it's been the opposite and have come out and said in one post I have never pirated a PC game in all my life and I've been playing PC games for over 25 years. What I have said is I gave a why some people might do it with one example being a TV Show, it being pulled from the market (from iTunes and Googleplay) and people used to have access to a legal means now don't. And the owner of that content didn't care if you did pirate. That's a why some people might do it, not excusing it or justifying it. With adobe products, everyone knows and says the price is too high in Australia. Which is why it went to a parliamentary inquiry. Even the government and adobe knows it. The only two people I see trying to make half baked reasons are adobe and Mor on this forum. Just because I say I enjoy adobe products but I would never pay for it myself doesn't mean I pirate. All it means is I enjoy adobe products but I would never pay for it myself. There are so many ways to read that in a piracy thread. But of course there's only one way to read it for some posters here. And posting in this thread? Can't I give my opinion on such matters? Just like you?

You're referring to me? Read my post above.

Different exchange rates? For quite some time the AUD was worth more than the USD therefore the value of the software on Steam should have been cheaper than the US price. Not more than 1.5 times the price. And various import restrictions? What various import restrictions are we talking about when downloading the same game from Steam to Australia as opposed to the U.S.? Rage had no more import restrictions than it did in the U.S.? So what are these various import restrictions you are talking about? Taxes? What taxes do Australians pay on a download from Steam? Or from various other sites like GOG or buying BG:EE from Beamdog? There's none. There is no tax that I pay to the Australian Tax Office if I buy a game from GOG or if I buy a game from Beamdog or if I buy a game from Amazon.co.uk or if I buy a CD key from some other overseas website. So everything you have said is just made up. I'm not sure what you mean by price fixing. I haven't suggested anything about they should be price fixing in a negative way. Although 'fixing' the price to be similar as the local market would go a long way in their prices. Perhaps in your country Steam has been driving prices down. It's not been the case here in Australia. And there are various examples I can give. I gave one with Rage. Steam keeps the price at the RRP eight months after release while the distributors and the stores in Australia have already reduced the price of the same game from its original AUD$90.00 price tag to $28.00. This is 8 months later. The absurdity is Steam is quite often out of touch with different markets when they don't lower the price of certain games. I haven't said I've pirated their products. If you want to take what I said and jump to conclusions, that's your prerogative. And I haven't made any excuses. It does show that I can write two totally different sentences and people can infer and jump to conclusions. There was no implication on my part even if you want to try and connect the two. I use adobe products at work and the company buys them. It does show how judgemental people can be on these forums without all the facts.

I would rather not have the thread derailed if that's alright with you? TBH, I don't really have a problem with some of the prices in Australia with PC games. I bought Diablo II in 2000 for $99.00. The box still has the price tag on it. In 2013, that would be $139.93 according to the RBA website. Diablo 3 boxed edition sold for $80 rrp (and could get it cheaper in some retail outlets for less) and the CE sold for $138.00 which is approximately what games sold for back in 2000. The standard edition of Diablo 3 is far cheaper now than it would have been back in 2000. Red Alert 2 CE boxed copy that I bought in 2000 was $119.00 which was damn expensive back then. Today, it would be $172.32. So what I've seen is prices remain around the same with inflation or gone down quite considerably. And I have to chuckle when I see on Australian forums with gamers trying to save one or two dollars with getting a new release game (cd keys) and it's half the price I paid for games nearly 15 years ago. One person will say I found a deal with a game being $52 and another gamer saying I found it for $51 and a third saying they found it for $50. What I dislike is the discrepancy with Digital distribution. Such as a game on Steam will be US$50 for US residents and US$85 for Australians. The same game on the same platform, but because your IP is different you pay more. Which is why I never buy games on Steam. Never have, never will. And it's even more absurd when Steam won't reduce the cost and keep it at US$85 eight months later and yet the distributor/stores will reduce the price of the physical copy and I can pick up that same game in a store for around $28. Same day, same game, different prices. This happened with Rage back in June 2012. And it appears not much has changed since. If you're talking about Adobe and other apps and products. Then yes, it's downright criminal what they're doing which is why there was a parliamentary inquiry into it. Never bought any Adobe products. But I do find their apps to be quite good.

Bruce, this is not the Ukraine thread. Perhaps if you want to talk about particular posters and the Ukraine, do it in the Ukraine thread?

So what you're saying is average wages haven't kept up with inflation? Things are more dearer now than they were back in 1990 in an inflation currency value sense.

^ I agree that prices have never been cheaper. The 80s and 90s saw some exorbitant prices compared to today and yet most of us paid the prices at the time. Prices have gone down and wages presumably have gone up for everyone. I very much doubt people are earning the same as they were 20+ years ago. But games are cheaper. I'm always surprised at how people today complain at the price of games. Really? If you lived in the 90s it was worse.

Being a low level game, that's probably what we'll see. Perhaps a couple of levels difference between the two parties by the end of the game. It sounds like a lot of quests and exploration to get those additional levels. I just hope it's not tedious.

I suspect what we might see is the game designed around the crit-path to a degree and side quests to have very little effect on experience. It may increase you an additional level or two but that would be it. For example, the mega-dungeon. You won't be able to do the mega-dungeon in one go. So you go back to the crit-path, level up and then go back to do a few more mega-dungeon levels but because there is no kill xp, you may get very little xp overall for those dungeon levels. But you do get loot. You then go back to the crit-path to level up with the main quest xp. Once you get to a sufficient level, you go back to the mega-dungeon. Again, you get very little xp and no xp for kills, but you do get loot. The loot will be the incentive, not the xp. TBH, I think that's terrible but it's what I suspect will happen. It will be Diablo loot scavenge hunt with the side quests. Otherwise it would really unbalance the game to have no level/encounter scaling, one person do the mega-dungeon and most of the quests and someone who doesn't and for both players to end up at the final boss with the same encounter. One player will be more powerful than the other and we all know Josh is all about balance.

Nope, it is typically fair use. Okay. I'll just go to artists websites and download all their pictures. Thanks.

Is copying pictures, artwork and stills from TV shows and movies from the internet piracy? I've always found it odd that a lot of people who are vocal against piracy will copy artwork from the internet without a second thought. To use in their games, like portraits in the IE games, or to use as avatars on forums. It's so easy to right click and download on your computer.

I'd like the end boss battle to be set in stone. Not level scaled. Maybe scale it around a level 11 character party. For instance, if you do the crit-path only and hit the boss at level 10, then it's going to be difficult but not overly difficult. If you do quite a few side quests and hit the boss at level 11, then it's the same level as you and still going to be challenging. If you're a completionist and hit at level 12 cap, then you're party is not OP. You may be slightly tougher than the boss but it's still going to be challenging.

Nobody has suggested a TV series is critical or relevant to people. I was giving one reason why some people do it due to content being pulled. If anything, it's had the opposite effect with pulling content. And it appears HBO don't care. What I would like to see is content available on different platforms like it used to be which would cut down on piracy. Not the opposite with pulling content and encouraging people to 'acquire' the episodes through other avenues. What this does is then encourage people to 'acquire' other TV shows and those networks would have an issue with this. Just because HBO doesn't seem to care, doesn't mean other networks don't care either. And this creates a culture which is what we're seeing in Australia with terms like 'the national pastime'. That's not good when you're changing the social landscape of a country. We're one of the smallest countries in the world with a population of 23 million and yet we're on the top of nearly every list of downloaders in the world. You're taking people from how they used to watch TV shows a decade ago to a new paradigm on how they watch TV shows today.

Pretty much. But you get loot! We need out loot! It does seem odd though you would get great loot and hardly any xp though. You would have to get great loot to offset the paltry xp you receive. Otherwise if the loot rewards are paltry as well as the xp, then there's not much point in doing the side quests. It would be a drag. examples: 100xp and a +1 Dagger going through all these dungeons? Boring. Not doing that again. 100xp and a +3 Sword? Okay nice loot but still a bit tedious with the paltry amount of xp. We needs our Diablo loot side quests.

I'm not excusing or justifying piracy. I'm merely explaining the why in one example. Content holders take away content. The public is left wondering why. They see another alternative and use it. We then have a new social landscape and new class of people who are more 'tech savvy' with things they arguably shouldn't be and they weren't before. I don't see this as a good thing where more people are passing on their knowledge, especially to their kids. It's changed the culture and habits of people to circumvent and not for the better. I'd rather a market place where content holders would release their content easier to the public, not take it away.

I'm just going on the recent debacle with Game of Thrones in Australia. It got pulled from iTunes and Google Play where people were buying it from. Now a lot of people can't watch the show. Companies, ISPs and Google have come out and want a more open market. Google may have self interest in this but they are right. When you take away the availability for people to purchase the show as it was the case before, they'll go else where to get it.

I like this idea. If you have side quests with paltry amounts of xp, then completionists won't be that much more powerful as people who do the crit-path. The main benefit will be loot and not xp as you've said. And with PoE being quest based and no kill xp, this makes more sense to me.