PrimeJunta

guns crossbows fireballs pirates

I never even got through that quiz because I didn't even recognize most of the titles. Kept clicking and clicking until I got bored with 33 more comparisons to go.

It was? I clearly have good taste, having recognized it's crap even without that piece of information.

Way overcooked for my blood. Almost enough to put me off steampunk altogether.

Maybe we can finally put this to rest. JES around 26:35: "Don't even think of putting a controller with it."

:sigh: I never said you think of the 1800's. I said the 18th century, i.e. the 1700's. I also never used you as an example of anything. I only brought your name up because someone was confusing you and Kveldulf, and I wanted to correct that mistake. Now, is there anything else you wanted, or can we get back on topic?

@Adhin, you said: After which I politely corrected you. You, for some reason, refused to admit your mistake but instead tried to weasel out of it by arguing that what 'the colonial era' means is somehow a matter of opinion. If you no longer think of the 18th century when someone mentions the colonial age, then that's great, you've learned something from this. I don't see why you're pretending you never thought it to start with, when it's right there in the above quote. Nor do I see why you're accusing me of yelling at you, when anyone can read this thread and note that the bluntest I got was "bluntly put, you're wrong."

The official explanation is that the Kickstarter was too successful. Kickstarter doesn't allow you to change the date after the funding period has started. They already said during the Kickstarter that with the expanded funding they wouldn't be able to make the April, 2014 date.

"Genuineness" has nothing to do with it. That's the gamism/simulationism discussion which is another matter entirely. The problem with unbalanced traits -- or any unbalanced features -- is that because they're obviously better, they become fake choices or pseudo-choices. There's no reason not to pick them. It's the same thing as with dump or pump stats. There's simply no reason not to pump STR and dump CHA as a D&D fighter, or pump INT and dump STR as a wizard. That makes those apparent choices non-choices. Like going into a race on the Nürnburgring and being give a choice between a Porsche 911 and a Volkswagen Beetle. I recently got into FO:NV. It's a prime example of this sort of thing (like all the Fallouts; in fact there's clearly some effort there to make the traits a little less unbalanced, but even so). There are lots of traits you can pick on chargen, but you only get to pick two. However, some of those traits are so obviously advantageous compared to the others that there's really little point to those others. Similarly, under S.P.E.C.I.A.L there is no reason not to pump INT, since what you can do is determined by your skill points, and your skill points are determined by your INT. That's bad design. If you have attributes or traits to choose from, there should be good reasons to choose any one of the options being offered. If it was up to me, I would've dropped all of the "mechanics-affecting" traits from FO:NV, and left only the "fun" ones, and I would've made all the "fun" perks available at level-up traits you can only take on chargen. So drop Skilled, Four-Eyes, Trigger Discipline, Small Frame and what have you, but make Ladies' Man, Confirmed Bachelor traits instead of perks, and put in more like Wild Wasteland etc. Or, alternatively, make chargen all about traits and backgrounds, à la Arcanum or Numenera, de-emphasizing direct allocation of stats. TL;DR: Why even have choices that are obviously worse than other choices? It would be stupid to pick them.

Right-o, Lephys. Next time, please just concede the point right away and save everyone a lot of trouble and some aggravation. Like so: "You're right, PrimeJunta, that swords-vs-maces trait was a poor example. Let me think of another one..." That said, I will point out that you're still pointedly ignoring may main point. Namely, that what you dismiss as "only ... the specific cRPG designs [i'm] thinking of" are, in fact, general cRPG designs. A swords-vs-maces trait is munchkiny because things like a wide variety of enemies, a wide variety of ways with which to defeat them, and a wide variety of equipment to acquire naturally dilute the downside of the perk, while leaving the upside untouched. These are not specific designs, but general ones. I did point out that it would be possible to produce a specific design in which the perk would not be munchkiny, but these would not be typical of cRPG's in general. Capeesh?

Two words: Dark Sun.

Quite, but if you're willing to accept a world permanently frozen at a 1000 CE level of technology, why is a world permanently frozen at 1400 CE or 1500 CE level of technology harder to accept? (Personally, I actively dislike "timeless" fantasy. I much prefer fantasy that incorporates change.)

Since nobody's posted an actual timeline... ~800: Earliest known formula for gunpowder (China) ~1100: Earliest known depiction of hand cannon (metal gunpowder weapon firing projectiles, China) ~1200: Earliest surviving hand cannon (China) ~1250: First use of firearms in warfare in Europe (as siege artillery on the Iberian peninsula) 1300's: Hand cannon becomes widespread in Europe 1400's: Matchlocks replace hand cannon 1453: Constaninople falls to Mehmed the Conqueror; regarded by many by first major battle decided by gunpowder weapons (used to breach the walls) ~1500: Rifling invented 1500's: Wheellocks start to displace matchlocks, both used side by side. Infantry firearms used at beginning of engagements, most fighting still hand to hand. Crossbows largely displaced by firearms. 1600's: Flintlocks start to displace wheellocks; ranks of musketeers start to displace pike formations as base infantry organization 1683: Battle of Vienna. Beautiful mix of weaponry here, from Ottoman mounted archers (Sipahi), to ranks of musketeers on both sides, pikemen, heavy artillery, and of course cavalry. The engagement was decided by cavalry actions, including the biggest cavalry charge in European history. Very bloody and hand-to-hand. 1700-1721: Great Northern War. By now, firearms were the primary weapons in use, but Charles XII had lots of pikemen too and used them to great effect. From there on out, firearms dominated. Pikemen were replaced by bayonetted muskets. Smoothbore weapons weren't fully displaced by rifled ones until the 19th century when manufacturing techniques had improved to the point that rifled barrels could be mass-produced. There were lots of wars fought where one side didn't have firearms, but those were rather one-sided affairs; as Belloc put it, "whatever happens, we have got / the Maxim gun, and they have not." In other words, gunpowder weapons coexisted with bows, crossbows, swords, maces, and what have you, for about a thousand years, give or take a couple hundred years, depending on if you count the early part where they were curiosities and the late part which were more massacres than battles. That's a good deal longer than the part of the European Middle Ages where there weren't any gunpowder weapons.

A first-person sandbox RPG would be entirely unsuitable for a kickstarter. Budget would have to be 20-40M for that sort of thing to be worthwhile. If they do another kickstarter, they'd be foolish not to use the engine built for PoE, so whatever the genre or style, it would be an isometric, party-based RPG. If they do do it, I really hope they'll go with a genuinely fresh setting, i.e. not pseudo-medieval Western tradfantasy, space opera, nor post-apoc; all of those are getting really threadbare, no matter what twists you put in them. Steampunk and cyberpunk are a little fresher, but not all that much. I'd hope for something genuinely new. I like this setting, for example.

Arcanum's backgrounds were actually, for the most part, pretty good. Min-maxed builds actually made you miss the mins as well as enjoy the maxes. It's a shame the rest of it was so completely out of whack, especially the ludicrously overpowered magic.

Because said circumstances are present in all computer role-playing games, unless the game is specially designed to avoid those circumstances, and I think desiging a game around a perk like this is a dumb idea. I think theorycrafting is largely a waste of time. Iterating on existing designs is much more fruitful. I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. What do you mean by 'this?' A perk, or a game? If a game, what does it have to do with the topic under discussion? Yes, and I'm pointing out that the perk/trade-off you suggested as an example is an inherently bad one, unless the game is explicitly balanced around that trade-off, and excplicitly balancing a game around something as trivial as a perk is stupid. Hypothetical extremely resource-scarce scavenging-based game notwithstanding. Yes... and in any game not explicitly balanced around that trade-off, you won't miss the other, and balancing a game on something as trivial as a perk is a stupid idea. How many times do I have to repeat this? Oh please, Lephys. Now really existing games are "crappy" because they're not balanced around your pet perk? Why don't you give it a shot. Describe a party-based fantasy cRPG where the mace/sword trade-off isn't something you would want to have. Assume the choice is between taking it and not taking it, not between taking it and taking some other even more munchkiny trade-off. Go.

I'm not sure deflection is purely gear-dependent. I think it's possible -- even likely -- that there are talents and other class-related abilities you can buy when leveling up. All we know is that it's not affected by your attributes.

@Osvir Ugh, no. For me at least the whole point with guns in a high-magic game is that they're anti-magical. In PoE, one of their reasons for being is that they ignore Arcane Veil. Making them into just another kind of wand would totally defeat the purpose. This game, OTOH, will totally rock. Not for TREND. Not for CORPORATE ATTITUDE. Not for STONER. Only true DOOM-MURDER HEADS.

I care that people aren't talking past one another. That makes my caring about semantics a strictly local, contextual business. Discussions about semantics may be needed if it turns out that the people in a conversation understand the meaning of some term differently enough to cause misunderstanding, so that meaningful conversation can continue. However I find such discussions in and of themselves worthless and uninteresting. I.e., I have zero interest in discussing what the term 'anachronistic' "really means." However if someone says that in his opinion firearms in a bronze-age tech-level fantasy are not anachronistic, I may be interested in finding out whether the disagreement is about substance (whether firearms belong in said fantasy world or not) or semantics (whether 'anachronistic' is a suitable word to express the way they do not fit). If it turns out to be the latter, I'm done. (And, should there be some meaningful conversation to be had, entirely willing to switch to some other word for the purposes of the conversation, should someone suggest one.)

What's that got to do with it?

BTW, Sharp_one, you might want to check your profile -- I just checked, and you don't, in fact, list your gender there.

Why would I do that? It would be silly.

Close enough for me. <plonk>

"-Sir, what do you consider the worst attitude nowadays unawareness or ignorance? - I don't know, I don't care" I will remember that you cannot comprehend the meaning of words for future discussions. Words only have the meaning we ascribe to them. Conversations about semantics are worthwhile only to the extent they're needed to clarify misunderstandings in a particular context.

Yeah.... you're pretty much alone here, on that one. No none here's being racist. And i urge you to look up a comedian named Reginald D. Hunter on youtube where he talks about middle class white people like you, who think everything is racist. Maybe it will help you stop being such a socially nervous, politically correct, ironical nazi. Plus he can make you laugh. Going to bed, work in the morning. I know the gamer scene has deeply entrenched racism and sexism in it. A few years ago, I would have been alone. Fortunately that's changing. I'm not alone in opposing that culture even on this thread, and of course many of Obsidian's leading lights are pushing to change things too. Better times are a'coming.