Osvir
-
Posts
3793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Osvir
-
-
I'd prefer they didn't get burned up.
Kill a mage and steal his grimoire for the win. That should be one way to learn new spells.
Well, the dangers are in the abusiveness of this as well. Do you want it to be super easy to get new spells or not? Hmm, that sounds like a poll.
-
It's completely nonsensical. I can kill 100,000,000 goblins and not get better with my sword. Hand a guy a magic marble and suddenly I'm better with my sword.
It's terrible design.
This should help not putting 100.000.000 of bloody trash mobs in the game. And, as has been previously pointed out, murdering umptillion of gobbos helping you become more persuasive is equally retarded, because the system is only a abstraction of reality.
How about being better at taking the specific enemy down? By taking down 15 Goblins you get +1 to "thaco" towards that specific creature.
-
1
-
-
I'm split to be honest, voted "Don't care". I also felt the poll option "Don't care" was pretty bad, which makes me hope that Obsidian really reads the threads and doesn't just look at the "score".
Leaning more towards "For" but I don't want to disregard "Against" entirely, as it could benefit the game and playerbase. I'm sure a hybrid can be implemented, where you only get experience from certain mobs, that are driven by the story somehow meant to make your character grow (The Tutorial is an "experience" in itself for both you and your character).
Revelations = Experience. In this case you could get experience from certain mobs once or twice, as you unlock their "codex" learning what they are. But as you fully know what they are, there is nothing more to gain.
-
1
-
-
Absolutely no. You freaks already have your mass-market virtual "relationship" simulators with Bioware games. Start playing japanese dating sims if you need more virtual relationships with nuance and drama and "tasteful" sex.
Deep characterisations for companions - yes, absolute.
Virtual **** puppets you can dress up and validate your lonely basement-dwelling existence - hell no.
That's the thing, it isn't about the humping or pumping, I'm with you on that I'd not want the diaper action. It's about the depth, that's what I personally want. This can be achieved with or without romances, with romance you just go one step further.
Love is common in stories, in many forms (friendship is a form of love <3 and on that, I like you
). I feel that Lord of the Rings does this well too, without the above. We can leave our imagination to what our "love mates" do after the game. That's a private thing. However, "seax sells" as I saw Sawyer say on Formspring. I agree with him. That doesn't mean I believe it should be exploited.Also, for those who want romance, please don't be agitated or affected by the obvious provocation we see in this thread.
2nd EDIT: For you who do not want romance, please don't be agitated or affected by the obvious provocation we see in this thread. If you think "to have romance in the game" is a provocation by itself you are not attacking the game, you are attacking people's opinions... which is just sad to see, even if that's not what you intend.
This video is great :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuStsFW4EmQ
EDIT: I have yet to see a comment from someone who is against who could imagine a "better" way (except the obvious and common "The better way is to be without romance" which the topic isn't about). I feel we are on these forums to dicuss "How can you do it better?" not "How can you do it without?".
That is actually something I haven't seen either, how can you do better with companions without romance? Ideas for friendship? Ideas for "inter-party conflict and/or harmony"?
In-party banters and mechanics that enhances the game experience (with or without the love thing). A party member dies, will he be mourned or ridiculed? Does the party members sit in the tavern and laugh at how they destroyed the dragon? I want a novel, personally, a rich story with depth. If the characters come to life, I am sure that the story will be even greater (Planescape: Torment is probably the best game up to date that I can think of that, where the characters were their own characters, whilst in Baldur's Gate they were my "Tactical Party Members" so I could defeat a boss or whatnot).
However, in Baldur's Gate (and Icewind Dale for that matter) I create my own romances and friendships by the power of imagination which works really well too and is a great approach as well. I guess I am like, another poster above, split on this matter.
I'd love to get a comment from Adam Brennecke when he has finished Icewind Dale 2 (I doubt it, and I think it should be something Obsidian discuss amongst themselves), what he feels about this from his own "scientific" view.
-
2
-
-
So you think it should be a dating sim rather than an RPG to do romances.Glad we agree.
No, I want it to be an interesting deep part of the game (if included), not it's own game. Don't worry! People seem to misunderstand my posts, you're not the only one. I also wish to discuss the matter and try to communicate and work something out (if there are any possibilities to make it better), which makes me wonder why I'm even replying to you...
---
How to make it interesting, that's an entirely different thing... I really like Beowulf's "romance", as well as Tristan & Isolde. Greek mythology/History generally has some pretty harsh but deep interesting romance portrayals that I think games should try towards a bit more if anything
But as I said, and re-capping, 1 or 2 romances should be enough as well as a "data template". The deeper it is, the deeper the modders can do it ofc.
-
I don't usually go dissing on people but this attitude....... it is provoking to say the least. As if wanting to cause a firestarter so yet another thread is locked up, that the plan Living One?
Anyways, with the party being the main plot, what I mean is that nothing will happen if you stay around, your party is what drives the story forward... featuring the almighty mouse pointer and right pointing and middle finger.
What a surprise.To be honest I have several millions of ideas of how to do it but I don't want to put energy in it because I'm lazy and it's a complicated matter that involves post-romances, break ups, jealousy, triangle drama and lots and lots of more like that. Why can't I device a good one though, because I have no idea what the story of P:E is... if I had some clues to it, or had the whole manuscript in hand, it'd be easier to put ideas to it (Because that's what romances are, it's impossible to come up with a good way to put it into the story if you don't know what the story is).
For the mechanical parts, if it were ever implemented:
A, Main character is not a pimp, sure he is strong and protective and all that, but everyone doesn't instantly have to go all drooly around him.
B, Implement it into the story somehow, have triggers = Cadegund is hit, gets like 1 HP, your main character runs in and kills the enemy she's fighting. Trigger reacts, Cadegund now likes your character more because he saved her. He'd be the knight in shining armor in her eyes, or simply a companion doing his job (depending on their relationship up until now). She might even become pissed off, a la "I had that you bastard!" and you can banter "I'm sure you did...." or whatever.
C, Lasting dialogue, don't let your companions fall in love with you early game (okay maybe some could, but not all of them, this is where it starts to get complicated, this depends on the Companion, what personality they've got versus your Main Character choices). Either have certain points in the game that are important to the companions (<-- Only!) or have banters chapter and quest locked. Never have time based banters could burn out quickly, depending on how slow you play you could be finished with the romances between early-and mid-game.
D, Have one or two core romances, it'll be easier to insert into the story and it'll give modders some material/template to add in even more. It'll also give Obsidian much more time to think out 1 (or 2) great well thought out deep story-driven interesting romances both mechanically and story-wise/roleplaying-wise, instead of making 200 generic ones.
EDIT: E, If a romance is to be good, it needs to be very well written and understandable (making sense), hit us with surprise (right in the heart) and most of all not undermine our intellect, it should be a puzzle something you fight for and try for. Some of the most frustrating moments in DA:O was specifically the several "I wasn't even trying" moments I felt. Never ever in that way again, please.
Finally, I feel I want a line at the bottom here: I would love to see some sort of inter-party conflict thing.
-
1
-
-
I don't mind either. I would love to see romances, but it should be "difficult". Friendship should be most dominant.
In Dragon Age: Origins ALL the companions wanted a piece of the action, so I was like "Wtf dude?". Don't make the main character a pimp.
In Baldur's Gate (with mods), you can make your party members romance each other! It's great. You should be able to make your party members become enemies too. The inter-personal conflict within the group. After a big main story, you could have banters directly relating to those battles.
...
There could be special banters that arises if one party member hardly does any damage on the boss, a trigger is sent through the code, making another of your Companion start to plot against this other one, or talk behind his back "Man that guy worthless, why are we keeping him around?" etc. etc.
Romances shouldn't be at the end of the banter tree (meaning that your companions ALWAYS fall in love with you a la "Oh he's talking so much to me I think I'm in love because he is interacting and taking notice of me kawaaiiiii" wtf? Companion...! Gtfo.
So that's that- I wouldn't mind romances at all, just make them interesting, rarer and harder to get.
Yes!Lots of options!1!!Remove part of the main plot and divert resources even!!!1!
Isn't your party part of the main plot though? Isn't the Adventurer's Hall part of the "No romance option, robotic party set up"?
I'd say more personal-party-conflict-intrigue, "**** we just fought a dragon guys" type of thing. Not "Oh that's a nice dragon you got there
". Less of the latter, more of the former.Baldur's Gate does this really well imo (if you switch companions every now and then). EDIT: Deleted some lies xD
With a good romantic story, the game can be enhanced. Likewise it can be ruined. Clarification, I'm either with or without *shrug* I'm not dissing it because I'm sure it could find it's way into there I can't think of any good ideas though.
If, hypothetically speaking, you wanted romances... how would you want it? What way would be best, for you the player, so that it enhances your experience and not like "Off-topic" (Like Dragon Age, well, except that last thing with Morrigan)
-
I realy don't understand thouse guy's that don't whan't romances, if you don't simply don't start them.
Even if I don't like romances putting them in the game is good becouse people who want them will have them and people than don't whan't romances simply can not starting it and they will not have romnace isin't that logical ?
I guess not for everywon
I don't mind either. I would love to see romances, but it should be "difficult". Friendship should be most dominant.
In Dragon Age: Origins ALL the companions wanted a piece of the action, so I was like "Wtf dude?". Don't make the main character a pimp.
In Baldur's Gate (with mods), you can make your party members romance each other! It's great. You should be able to make your party members become enemies too. The inter-personal conflict within the group. After a big main story, you could have banters directly relating to those battles.
There could be special banters that arises if one party member hardly does any damage on the boss, a trigger is sent through the code, making another of your Companion start to plot against this other one, or talk behind his back "Man that guy worthless, why are we keeping him around?" etc. etc.
Romances shouldn't be at the end of the banter tree (meaning that your companions ALWAYS fall in love with you a la "Oh he's talking so much to me I think I'm in love because he is interacting and taking notice of me kawaaiiiii" wtf? Companion...! Gtfo.
So that's that- I wouldn't mind romances at all, just make them interesting, rarer and harder to get.
-
4
-
-
Why? Look at his armor, don't bother with the sword... for now. He also has a cannonball Megaman arm (which shoots pirate cannonballs).
Some might say "Batman!" to this next one, but the armor is in fact possessed by an evil (wolf) spirit. Or rather, it awakens the evil spirit existent in our protagonist (it's deep, Berserk is an amazing manga, check it out). This is the Berserker armor:
-
2
-
-
Sorry, read the first couple of posts only (don't want to forget what I want to suggest):
Reach weapons are simply a must, period. Out of discussion. Spears need to reach further, Halberds and Quarterstaves too. Why?
Because it's freaking badass.
So I'm replaying Icewind Dale, I've got a Paladin and Fighter (that I had to make into a Fighter/Thief at my foremost dislike, now I'm loving it) up front, with a Cleric that joins in every now and then. My Fighter/Druid is fighting with a Quarterstaff behind the Paladin and Fighter/Thief shield. And just as usually, my Wizard is sitting this one out (except when there's lots of enemies and/or smaller foes).
It is a great tactical advantage and it "needs" to be in there. Can I reach further with a spear then I should be able to hit further away with a spear.
Loving the idea of "narrow space" vs "big weapons": This could be a trigger, because I don't think the animation is going to be in the game (which means that in a narrow space, the trigger could simply be "-10 to [big Weapons]".
Also, different types of enemies should take different type of damage depending on the different type of weapons (Slashing/Piercing/Crushing/Explosive etc. etc. whatever there might be in this one). Skeletons were super weak against Bludgeon/Crushing as an example, Trolls are super weak against Fire. Because "slashing" is so common, and piercing too, I never really understood if it was/is better towards anything?
Also, bringing this with me from another thread:
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61306-armour-weapon-designs-a-plea-part-ii/
I'd love to see two-handed mace's (cudgel's?) or giant swords, but my character should be almost dragging them and attack very slowly (Unless having a ridiculous amount of Strength). Giant weapons generally, within reason and with realism/authenticity taken into consideration.EDIT: One tactical aspect of this could also be to buff my Warrior a lot with a Chanter, making him even more capable of wielding the two-handed weapons. So if he attacks super slow without buff's, I can buff him so he attacks "slow" or even "average".
In other words it would almost be a disadvantage having a giant weapon, because it'd need an upkeep of 2 characters. However, tactically the two handed weapons could be advantageous (as they should be) against a large crowd of enemies (sweeping and cleaving attacks).
-
Yes, the title says it all pretty much.
I'm curious, I've started my first few steps towards the education of it (Bond University in Australia, and some other).
But I'll say like I said in Grad school: "If I know that I can get the best grades, then why should I study at all?".
I've got horrible grades, seriously (private **** during my upbringing causing all sorts of harm to my educational grades), if you saw my English scores you'd be surprised how well my English is. Math too, never had much of a problem with it, yet my score is utterly horrible. Years later, my grades are haunting me in whatever I do. And today my grades haunt me so bad that whatever I do I have to spend an extra year or two (worst case 3) of my life to even be able to start studying Game Development;
Is there any other way to get into the industry?
Developing games is my dream, and one way or another I'm going to get there nonetheless.
Anyone with tips and thoughts that I could benefit from?
Also lots of hugs, just because :D <3
-
If Obsidian keeps their PayPal up another month or two it might reach the Big City as a secondary stretch goal (e.g., not prioritized). Otherwise they might be able to build a Big (but Small) City? :D
-
I'm sorry Umberlin, I don't mean no ill but your posts doesn't give much. Except being condescending and "I have to be right!". Personally I know what Obsidian have in mind, I've read their lore (not all of it, and some is scrambled in memory). Doesn't mean I'm not allowed to discuss it or other ideas. I respect your preference of not having Monks, I want them
I just hope that not all of them are like Forton.A, because I want my own unique Monk that I can shape (Which I am sure I will be able to anyways, even if all of them are like Forton)
B, Forton should be Forton, in more ways than just his personality as a companion, and he should be best at what he does (Doesn't mean that I could learn a thing or two from him or go down the same path without him).
I'm with Aedelric here, I'm kind of ignoring (skimming) your posts because you're not bashing (or addressing) me. Maybe I should brace myself for it though :/
As I said, I mean no ill.
-
Obsidian spoke of Spell Levels "locking up", what if (lore-wise) it meant that the (sentient?) Grimoire closes and locks by Magic, either by saying ""No more" because it draws on it's own soul or simply closes itself on the Wizard. It could be set as a restriction on a book by the Wizard himself because he knows that he'll die if he over uses the power? Obsidian said that Magic is common, but clearly the way the Wizards draws from the soul should be different?
What if the Wizard had to speak the words from the tome which would essentially "burn up" the words from it, and with the power of imagining the Wizard's soul would flow through his arm, through his fingertips to the Grimoire he's holding and replenish the words?
Bump and... Wizards would be like mathematics/scholars, scientists in a sense, with the Magic words written down in a Grimoire being their calculations.
I draw heavily (or some~) inspiration from Klarth (Tales of Phatasia <3). Gosh I really want to play Tales of Destiny now.. such a badass game
-
A mage is not a machine gun of fireballs.
Then why the hell are they LEARNING magic for many YEARS ? For a fun ? Mages are suposed to live 200 to 400 years (or even more) An for all this years he can't remember Fire ball spell ? He can't cast a simple Fireball when he wants but he can burn dawn whole villige with fire storm spell ? I dont understand that logic.
If powerful mage must rest must rest after 3 fire arrows becouse his tired then haw he manage to cast firestorm spell 4 times ? i think that it takes 10000 fire arrows to do the same effect as Firestorm spell .... wheres logic in that ?
Fighter can swing sword when he want but if he whant to do pawerfull blow he cant do this every time becouse he must rest he will simply get tired. I undersdand that 1 or even 8 lvl mage don't remember everything or can't swing spell all the time becouse he also get tired (on mystical level) and he don't have big power yet. But 40 lvl mage like Elminster shoud pull fireball in suth dificulty as farting and i don't know anywon who must rest before he farts again.
What is it that Thalanthyr says now again after you've saved Melicamp?
EDIT:
He says something (not actual quote) along the lines of "It took me this many years to know when to use my power and when not to" (much better written in the game).
-
Obsidian spoke of Spell Levels "locking up", what if (lore-wise) it meant that the (sentient?) Grimoire closes and locks by Magic, either by saying ""No more" because it draws on it's own soul or simply closes itself on the Wizard. It could be set as a restriction on a book by the Wizard himself because he knows that he'll die if he over uses the power? Obsidian said that Magic is common, but clearly the way the Wizards draws from the soul should be different?
What if the Wizard had to speak the words from the tome which would essentially "burn up" the words from it, and with the power of imagining the Wizard's soul would flow through his arm, through his fingertips to the Grimoire he's holding and replenish the words?
-
I'm speaking of class focus/trees, let's say you start off as a Monk class and you develop it to your liking as you level up and explore the world. Not so much press a "Dual-Class" button and suddenly you are a Dual-Class poof. Same thing goes with the Multi-Class, instead of going for instantly having 2-3 classes you'd get 2-3 classes as you play. Not necessarily Level 2 Monk, Level 1 Thief, Level 4 Fighter etc. etc. as someone posted but you'd still be a Monk with traits and feats making him a hybrid Monk pretty much.
Let your gameplay define your class, not the other way around.
Basically you'd be a "commoner", a "noob" as a character (apart from your class) you start off in (as you usually do), but you'd be able to decide and choose how to "branch" out and grow.
A "Commoner Monk" or a "Commoner Fighter", this is not a suggestion, merely an idea that needs heavy polishing. And as you grow you could become the "Guardian Fighter" or "Flagellant Monk" etc. etc.
So are you sort of talking about a Elder Scrolls-esq system where what you use defines what gets better? I'm not against that, but I've yet to see it done well (Skyrim for instance, has rather bland options for customization). The quality and variability of the customizations, not what unlocks those customizations, is what matters to me.
Yes and no. In-Game you meet a Master Swordsman who can teach you how to begin your path towards being a Samurai (Ranger Class Kit), and it doesn't matter if you are a Fighter, Monk, Wizard and so on and so forth. By leveling up you'd put out perks, skill points and so on which defines your Class.
What I am trying to explain (I am horrible at explaining mind you) is some sort of system where you've got all abilities available in front of you regardless of Class.
Sure, you start off as a Fighter, but as you level up you can level up towards being a Wizard *shrug*
However I like the approach of Final Fantasy 2 (your weapon skill grows the more you use your weapons, same thing with Magic). The only problem with that in P:E is that we don't know how Wizard's exactly function yet, and it could end up with a Wizard end-game that is better with a dagger than casting Magic (which would feel weird).
-
No Multi-Classing, Ultra-Classing.
Discussing Forton, the Monk, in another thread I came to the conclusion that instead of having Multi-Classing, we could have "Class Focus". Let try to explain:
You start off as a "Commoner Monk", basically, and then you develop and evolve into a "Flagellant Monk" or perhaps a "Chi Monk". Basically you create your Class Kit by playing, and in many ways you could "Multi-Class" by developing your class (e.g., your Monk becomes a "Fighter Monk" in essence).
Thoughts?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this? As long as it involves a great deal of customization options I don't particularly care about HOW that customization is implemented. I will say that many customization schemes tend to be highly ineffective at actually allowing customization, providing only superficial changes while still pigeonholing you into a very specific set of roles - this is only a half-step better than having no customization at all. Multiclassing tends to avoid this because each class has it's own theme already, and when you mix and match classes you also mix and match themes - allowing for a great deal of variation. The downside is that multiclass mechanics tend to be harder to balance (with MANY useless combinations, and the potential for overpowered combos - this matter less in single player games though, as if you play an overpowered combo you effect nobody but yourself).
I'm speaking of class focus/trees, let's say you start off as a Monk class and you develop it to your liking as you level up and explore the world. Not so much press a "Dual-Class" button and suddenly you are a Dual-Class poof. Same thing goes with the Multi-Class, instead of going for instantly having 2-3 classes you'd get 2-3 classes as you play. Not necessarily Level 2 Monk, Level 1 Thief, Level 4 Fighter etc. etc. as someone posted but you'd still be a Monk with traits and feats making him a hybrid Monk pretty much.
Let your gameplay define your class, not the other way around.
Basically you'd be a "commoner", a "noob" as a character (apart from your class) you start off in (as you usually do), but you'd be able to decide and choose how to "branch" out and grow.
A "Commoner Monk" or a "Commoner Fighter", this is not a suggestion, merely an idea that needs heavy polishing. And as you grow you could become the "Guardian Fighter" or "Flagellant Monk" etc. etc.
-
I don't think it should really matter what other players do with their saves; they can limit them selves, or be allowed to exploit the system, whichever they prefer.
BUT,
if I had to have some type of limit on what kind of saves, where I could do them, how many, etc., I would probably split into 3 groups:
1) Combat Save (Save & Quit) - If you have to save in the middle of a battle, this will save your progress and quit your game; loading this kind of save will delete the file once you resume playing. You can only have one of these per Player Character.
2) Dungeon Save (QuickSave) - If you have to save in a location where you are exploring or traveling, but aren't in combat, you can use this save type; you can load this kind of save as many times as you want. You can only have one of these per Player Character; creating a new Dungeon Save will overwrite the old Dungeon Save.
3) Resting Save (Save Points) - If you are in a location deemed "safe" by the game, like resting in an inn or camping, you can use this save. This save can be loaded as many times as you want, and you can have as many of these saves as you want.
This limits save scumming to a per combat basis, preventing save scumming on a per round or per action basis. Basically, increasing the granularity of the save limits the flexibility of the save.
This is something that, if I had to, I could live with it.
But really, Project Eternity doesn't really need anything like this. In my opinion, the sheer boredom of constantly reloading the game until you get the optimum desired result is punishment enough.
I'm replaying Icewind Dale and some other games. The only time I really need to reload is when I play with my noob friend on Multiplayer. The save thing isn't really an issue in Single Player. I've reloaded like... twice? (everyone died but 2 characters) Almost finished with Vale of Shadows. Had to go to the temple once thus far.
I'm rest spamming a lot though, that's the issue. Saving is not.
-
1
-
-
No Multi-Classing, Ultra-Classing.
Discussing Forton, the Monk, in another thread I came to the conclusion that instead of having Multi-Classing, we could have "Class Focus". Let try to explain:
You start off as a "Commoner Monk", basically, and then you develop and evolve into a "Flagellant Monk" or perhaps a "Chi Monk". Basically you create your Class Kit by playing, and in many ways you could "Multi-Class" by developing your class (e.g., your Monk becomes a "Fighter Monk" in essence).
Thoughts?
-
I've been asking this a couple of times now on the forums with no answer... will the dungeon continue to grow with Facebook "Likes" after the Kickstarter campaign? I.E., with the development of the game? Let's say Obsidian gets 40k Likes in 6 months, would that equal another Level?
EDIT: underlining for this statement: Within reason, of course, if Obsidian feels like it.
-
why can they wear both?
Obsidian stated that they wanted to give more choice to the player, hence letting the Wizard be able to wear Heavy Armor. Now if they lock that out from the Monk they will be lying about choice so I think it is pretty obvious that the Monk should be able to wear Heavy armor too (speculating).
I think that Heavy Armor = Slower-movespeed, slower attack speed, slower casting speed, easier to target, probably need to spend points in a stat (Strength?) to be able to wear Heavy Armor, thus getting lower in another essential stat for the Wizard (and in turn making your spells do less damage)~ that's quite a plenty of disadvantages (speculating). What are the active penalties in DnD Umberlin? *sigh*
To put it simply, "We need more information before we can really talk about heavy armored versus medium armored versus light armored."Speculating.
-
It would be interesting to see some "Post-Kickstarter" stretch goals that are flexible. Let's say people continue to back Obsidian past the Kickstarter a couple of months into it, (for ease of explaining, 6 months) and Obs get the budget to implement something they couldn't before and they still got 12 months left to finish the game and it fits into the time schedule. Heck they might need to overwork a month or two (or three) (19-21 months until the game gets finished, in this case) but it would get more content.
-
I had a dream about the ultimate solution!
...
..
.....
.. but I forgot it xD
). I feel that Lord of the Rings does this well too, without the above. We can leave our imagination to what our "love mates" do after the game. That's a private thing. However, "seax sells" as I saw Sawyer say on Formspring. I agree with him. That doesn't mean I believe it should be exploited.
". Less of the latter, more of the former.
Are you for or against gaining experience points only for completing objectives?
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
Good point. I was just thinking about Final Fantasy II (which is the reversal of gaining experience from journeying, and it's utterly utterly utterly horrible. Although the story is great, it really suffers because of this).
Now this isn't what I'm aiming for with my suggestion, TES in the trash bin. If you and I discussed for a while you'd find my weak points and strong points in terms of discussing, right? If I fought a Goblin a couple of times I would do the same, the first few times I might even lose and have to run away because I have no idea what the crap I'm facing, it's patterns and what it does, can it cast Magic? Is it a Shaman in the Goblin population?
Things like that make the character's combat attitude grow. Read Vagabond, please.