Captain Shrek
-
Posts
578 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Captain Shrek
-
-
You mean to give a feed back? :D
-
1
-
-
I still think it is a mistake to relay too heavily on the beta encounter design to extrapolate larger design philosophies. The beta is an extremely small sample that is not even part of the main path.
Well, we have nothing else to rely on right now. A rational man makes do with what he has, not with what he wants. He ends up getting what he wants as a result. The irrational man however, does the other way round and loses what he had as well.
-
2
-
-
Captain Shrek: You have me intrigued right there. I will definitely check it out.
Just a small warning. The game is unforgivingly hard and you need some patience to get into it
. Enjoy! -
No, I haven't. Enlighten me. Is it the Holy Grail od CRPGs?
I don't know about Holy grails
and talking about them is just a controversy inducing thing. But none the less it has some amazing features: 1) The combat is actually tactically challenging. The real challenge is making the RNG work for you. If you know what you are getting into and you actually prepare for it, then 8/10 times you win. If you just barge into a battle you probably will lose. In fact, most of the times Combat is a bad idea, sensible right?
2) It is a VERY combat heavy game and despite that, they have managed to make all the encounters sensible. That was something I found very remarkable.
3) The game is very Consequence heavy. As a single player RPG, you never get to see the whole story at once. But still you get a piece of it that makes sense according to your background. Which was a refreshing change from most other games *hint* *hint* that simply do not acknowledge that game mechanics interacts with the story in a meaningful way.
-
2
-
-
True for the southern path. But then why are the crystal spiders in the cave? Is there a reason why the ogre spends its time surrounded by them? I mean. come on! That critter is probably the most dangerous thing in the beta. Why would you live along side it?
The problem is, that in the game, the dungeon delving is practically dissociated from the story. That was the second point. About the acknowledgement. There is almost none.That, such encounters have really no reason to exist, except to lengthen the game.
Captain Shrek: I get your points 100%, and I do agree that this would be very apt in a computer game calling itself RPG. It has very rarely been done. Funnily enough, you do cite NWN2 - and one expansion there had a perfect explanation/motive and reaction to you being a mass murderer - and it happens to be one of my favourite games of all time: MotB.
However, there's room for the mass-murderous heroes as well, both in PnP and CRPGs. I have played such games, and they are immensely fun - if they have a good enough story, and that they can explain reasonably convincingly, why these waves of various baddies assault my party, that is. In fact, BG 1-2, NWN2 OC + Storm of Zehir, are also some of my favourite games too. Why? Because I grown accustomed to them being very much games first and foremost, with tiny xp rewards, loot, build development - which in the other form of RPG-ing are treated as taboo, almost, since these things have nothing to do with playing a role. In fact, having a whole party is also regarded with scepticism, since you can only be IC when playing but one role at a time. To me, this kind of "murder spree in order to save the world"-games hearken back to Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Gandalf, which essentially did just that, obviously without any arcade-like points floating around above their heads while doing it, and no mechanics with numbers visible, but still that's the spirit I draw some extra fun out of the happy number and system box that is in fact what most CRPGs are. Still, there are computer games out there with very little combat, and a huge emphasis on the roles of play, and the convo options you pick, and I really like them as well. Surely, there are room for both kinds of games, and then plenty of hybrids in between?
As for PoE specifically: From what we've read in the updates and seen in the BB, it's more or less right on in being a spiritual successor to the BG series. It's very combat-heavy, hero-being-a-legit-mass-murderer, and it's all about builds and characters that are optimized for combat. It's story and choices are important too, but not that much if you compare this to what the player does most mechanics/UI-wise in game. Well, there is indeed sneaking, but it won't always be possible, and it doesn't change any of the other facts that make PoE a very combat-heavy CRPG.
In short, as long as they trash mobs make sense contextually (ethologically or socio-culturally in that setting), I'm fine with such mobs, well, provided that combat is fun enough and offer plenty of solutions to each encounter.
Hi Indira.
Just a question: Have you played Age of Decadence?
-
2
-
-
....but rather the core design of the game that is associated with the gameplay.
I mean encounters and how they are integrated within the story of course!
The real king in a single player game is content. And the content is NOT equivalent to packing dungeons with Giant beetles. Content is all about meaningful sidequests (read, not fedex) that interact with each other and create a story. Hopefully, a different aspect of the same story depending on how you do these quests. Alpha Protocol did it well so I know you guys can do it! But the best example I know of this is Iron tower's upcoming game Age od Decadence.
I will outline my biggest deal makers just for clarity:
1) Sensible encounter design
2) Acknowledgement
The first issue is about deciding what do we go to kill. Do I have to kill all the critters lying around? Is the world so infested with monsters that every step I take, I face a magical/dangerous creature? I am assuming that this idea intrinsically is insensible and only adds frustration and tedium in the game. We only need to fight those things which are IMPORTANT to the plot. Don't get me wrong though. I do not mean that this should somehow bring down the combat to the level of the Torment 2. But if the beta is any measure (rather the only measure we have at the moment) then the game seems like it is going to be a grind fest. Please avoid that!
That is the real problem: TOO MUCH COMBAT and that is a terrible design decision! That made IWDs a chore and NWN/NWN2 a disaster that most players can't replay it despite enjoying the story somewhat! Learn from their mistakes! Say no to the trash mobs!
The second issue is acknowledgement. There is an acknowledgement is the game, I must admit. It is the XP given out for ridiculous things. If there was a worse, more insipid form of such a payback, I haven't seen it yet. XP is the lazy man's way of design. Killed some zombies? Here, take some numbers that help you in a totally unrelated way. Maybe you want to increase you skill: SInging with that? What??? Besides several the mechanics related issues that I will not note down here, this is a really bad way to implement a kickback.
This HAS to change. Rather, killing everything should have consequences. There ALWAYS has to be a story! And a good story to boot. That is the real consequence in a game that calls itself an RPG. Personally I am a combat-type guy and I enjoy playing Bloodbowl to TOEE any day. But, if I want to play TOEE then it will most assuredly put me off if I have to kill 1 billion random encounter skeletons/giant battle toads without knowing what caused such an outburst from them and being able to take a quest to switch it off. So give us good reasons to kill things. Doing so for "bestiary" xp is just not good enough. A mass murderer needs to be treated as such, probably being set upon the local EPA/PETA people who are really out to get you.
I think this really needs to be in the game. A PETA group that hunts you down for sport for killing beetles. yeah.
-
7
-
-
First of all, I totally do not understand how kill XP is always a Grind XP. That is only true when the map is full of trash mobs. If every encounter is "quest crafted" so to speak, there willbe no grinding. The idea of giving "quest XP" is just a band aid on the trash encounter cancer. We need to cut that out.
-
2
-
-
So how do you define complex, pray?
-
Diablo has a way more simplistic combat system then PoE and that is a combat focused game.
Seems to me that you think that if a game has combat, that means it's a combat focused game. I don't think that how the majority of gamers categorize a "combat focused" game.
You are kidding, right? Diablo is a single char game. And each char has more active skills than any one char in POE.
-
That "unfairness" is something Josh, Feargus, Adler and the rest were aware of from the start. As soon as they launched the KS, and basing it fully on being "a spiritual successor of the IE games", they brought it on themselves. I reckon, that ambition was a perfect one, and I don't think they regret it for one minute. But like Josh said in that RPGCodex interview with Sensuki, regarding combat complexity in PoE vs the IE games, this will take time. It's precisely like you say: so much ground work, so much tradition and systems to build upon in BG2 or BG:EE, but here they are building a lot from scratch. Personally, I think they have over-complicated things here. OE could have had so much stuff for free, stuff that they are very familiar with, but ambition may have gotten the better of them. Only time will tell.
Wouldn't they have to pay licensing fees to use DnD ? If they make PoE and it leads to an expansion and a PoE 2 then they have made something they own which they can use for free in the future. Using DnD as the basis for the game would mean having to work on an IP they don't own. Most people liked F:NV, but it doesn't look like OE is going to get another shot at Fallout because they don't own it.
SRD? Somebody knows details?
-
I agree about the maps being rather content packed. I hope some areas are larger than the ones we got, but I feel it's pretty smart to give the beta, maps which have alot of content. Like let's say, Valley of Tombs in BG1.
I think it will feel artificial if all maps are this action packed. But I'd prefer a little more action than some BG1 maps, let's say North Naskel Road.
It is not content packed. It is trash mob packed.
-
I personally feel that the entire SNG argument is pretty terrible. It has led to a lot of bad design decisions in this game in my opinion. A game is an abstraction, after all. The first priority and also the last, is that it be enjoyable. As an abstraction, it has to remove all the cumbersome parts and improve those which enhance the enjoyment. Which is exactly why I am not a proponent of a full simulation. I only want it as long as it allows contextual meaning and so long as it provides entertainment.
A game is an abstraction, after all. The first priority and also the last, is that it be enjoyable. As an abstraction, it has to remove all the cumbersome parts and improve those which enhance the fun. Which is exactly why I am not a proponent of a full simulation. I only want it as long as it allows contextual meaning and so long as it provides entertainment.
So I would take it that opening the same lock again and again, in fact, teaches you nothing more because you already mastered the mechanism. But frankly, no argument would be necessary. This is not a very relevant story altering point anyway that spoils fun. So I would as well not make an argument and accept it en passant.
-
1
-
-
But as I have tried to demonstrate several times before (and I have no clue why this argument keeps appearing again and again) is that the Buffing is basically allotting a spell slot. In IE games, you could rest a bit too often, especially in IWD2 to get back all those slots. If that is eliminated, then NO! Buffing is NOT a no-brainer. Maybe you should explain what is wrong with this argument first.
Resting is limited, but it isn't gone. As others have said you don't need buffs anyway for most fights. For those that you do it would not be very hard to save up enough rest supplies to get in a rest, use your prebuffs, then go in. Obsidian wants it to be more than a spell slot lost, they want it to be a tactical choice/and have an opportunity cost. As was said, there is no tactical or opportunity cost when you are prebuffing, just a lost spell slot.
Why isn't a lost spell slot a tactical choice? You could put, say, a fireball in there. Right? Also, it looks to me from your description that the resting economy is broken. Maybe fixing that is the real solution? Wouldn't that be a good thing either way?
-
But as I have tried to demonstrate several times before (and I have no clue why this argument keeps appearing again and again) is that the Buffing is basically allotting a spell slot. In IE games, you could rest a bit too often, especially in IWD2 to get back all those slots. If that is eliminated, then NO! Buffing is NOT a no-brainer. Maybe you should explain what is wrong with this argument first.
-
I think by your article Pre buffing is tactics, not strategy as it is done for the battle and not for the war. I am acutely aware of the difference. This was written about an year ago:
The way this word gets thrown around is seriously injurious to mental health. There needs to be a real guide for morons to understand what things like resources and depth are. So here is some very basic description of what the word Tactics ought to mean in video games.
First, I need to explain that I am NOT borrowing the meaning from a dictionary. I am going to take the description from experience (with games and real life) and if you do not agree with this approach, I cannot take your criticism seriously. Also, nothing revolutionary is being said here. If you are reading this to get new insights , give up now.
Alright.
Within most combat engagements, planning is done on two non-exclusive but sufficiently differing ways:
1) Long term planning
2) Short term planning
The requisites of decision making are typically information regarding your own position and supplies and the enemy’s position and supplies. In rare occasions the enemies movements (plans) are also known. Given this information a manager/general needs to decide how to control the production of supplies, how to expend them and how to move units.
Whatever can be expended(used) and produced is a resource.
Long term planning typically involves allotment of resources and unit movement. But its salient feature is that it also involves resource production that takes time to be available. This kind of planning is called as strategy.
Short term planning is typically limited to resource handling and unit movement in a very restricted area and in most cases as a direct response/preemption to the opponent planning. This is called Tactics. Thus tactics can only allow allotment of available resource. Not all resource types may be available during tactical maneuvers. The ones that are or can be made available are called as tactical resources.
Please understand that strategic resources are always being produced and allotted EVEN during tactical maneuvers. But that is by definition considered a part of strategy. Thus tactics always deal withlimited resources.
In computer games, the most usual tactical resources are:
1) Units
2) "Health"
3) mana / stamina / fury etc indicating a resource to do special actions
4) Choice of weapons and armor
5) Spell's / special ability
6) Stances
7) Potions / grenades/ traps (grouped, but serve differing functions).
Time
9) Positioning of units
It is not too difficult recognize these obvious resources. Since in video games, you are playing in a semi-rigid scaffold, the job of a good designer is to manage encounters and provide resources to implement combat as targeted towards a requisite group.
This brings us to the question as to what is tactical depth.
Tactical depth is essentially a measure of how many viable options in terms of the above mentioned resources can one use at any "point of time". The quotes are purposeful, since the concept of point of time differs according to how a game is implemented. In Real Time games without rounds, it is indeed possible to perform more than one option and sometimes unrestrained number of options depending upon the resources available at the same "point of time". This indirectly serves as a measure of TIME spent as resource. In Round Based games the numbers of options one can utilize are hard coded, only to be modified by "free actions" or special conditions. In Turn Based game a similar restriction based on context exists, although it tends to be much tighter. Tactical depth is NOT the number of options that you can perform per unit of time. It is the numbers of options that are available. It is desirable than many such options be there (how many?), since that quantifiably increments the quality of the challenge. The larger the number of such options and more balanced (?!) the number of winning options amongst these determines how well implemented tactics in a game are.
I guess you chief point is:
But what I do maintain is that there's got to be a balance point, where both concerns can be addressed to a degree. Players should be able to make strategic decisions that give them an "unfair" tactical edge - that's part of the legacy of the IE games, it's part of the genre, and if we're being totally honest, it's just a thing that makes nerds like us happy (going in with a knowledge-based edge is very chic in the dedicated PC gaming crowd, and we all know it). But at the same time, saving your resources for tactical decisions shouldn't be objectively inferior, because that's no less degrading to play than the alternative.I really doubt pre buffing is unfair. If it is, then it is a design failure for the Encounter. Any encounter that does not take into account what the potential skill of the player is a bad encounter. At the same time, it is an AI failure. This is sad because BG2 happened 10+ years ago. If the enemy can not even try to nullify your pre-buffs that would be terrible, no?
-
Health - endurance system is copied with some modifications from Darklands
Firearms role in game is inspired by how they worked in Darklands
Event screens (or what ever they call those screens where you can decide what you do) have drawn their inspiration from Darklands.
The HP/Endurance system in Darklands is now more like the one in PoE as they now do not regenerate stamina. Although that was never a charming aspect of that game, you are right. Firearms "role" is pretty cosmetic as the mechanics are different. Event screens as I mentioned are really cosmetic.
-
Just a curiosity.
The developers claimed that they took inspiration from Darklands. Is that really true beyond the cosmetic things like loading screens?
The most awesome feature of Darklands was, of course, its skill system, the likes of which has never been reproduced. The second was its historicity, which has little relevance here. So what else is there from Darklands?
-
Hmm. Although I am not fully convinced, the point about combat "skills" makes sense. There *is* a leveling mechanics in place which pretty much determines your combat skills. I would still be happy about non-combat skills leveled that way.
As for one member one skill: Isn't that something everyone is doing anyway? There are like 6 skills right? lol. I thought this game takes inspiration from Darklands. They only took up the loading screen I guess...
-
Because the Elder Scrolls system is completely different from PoE's system. You can't just copy/paste. The skill system in PoE is nothing like in TES. Implementing that kind of system would require completely redesigning all of the game and skill systems from the ground up. Not gonna happen - the game was designed (like the IE games) with abstract XP and levels. There's nothing wrong with a skill-based leveling system, but it's not gonna happen for PoE (nor should it IMO because that would be a huuuge departure from the IE "feel").
Awarding XP for everything is almost the same thing. Almost, because in ES particular skills auto-enhance. That system actually makes more sense. However, I am not sure why you think it can't be implemented for PoE. Is there something radical I am missing? About a "huge" departure from IE games: This game is pretty much already that.
-
Indeed.
The most important reward to me is Acknowledgement through story. If I find a hidden door or a secret glade then I want to know what was beyond it and what is special about it. Giving me XP for it is pretty much pointless. I want my reward for combat to be well designed meaningful and tactically challenging encounters. Going through trash mobs is a punishment. Same for opening locks.bypassing traps. If I only am going to find crap inside a metal chest with locks like money and +5 swords, then it will be disappointing. If I bypass a trap then my reward ought to be knowing why was the area trapped and by who.
Then there is a question of character advancement: How do you handle that? Well, do it the Elder scrolls way I say. The more you do a particular thing faster it develops. Why not?
-
-
Indeed. An AI issue that was never fixed until now, Would be happy to have that. Same for attacks of opportunity. In NWN2 your party members deliberately subjected themselves to AoO. That should go.
-
I don't still this. So what has pre buffing to do with Attacking first? A buff can do a lot of things, you know. Like granting attack damage, attack accuracy, protection from effects, higher speed etc. So no, I would still say that your argument does not make much sense. As a counter, a monk with mage armour on will probably be benefitting more from it than an archer can as he mostly will be in melee. So it is entirely situational.
-
So... You are denying that ranged characters would get an advantage to prebuffing? Just want to make sure that is your assertion, since your response uses an ad hominem instead of an actual argument.
I am not denying anything. To do that takes something to deny. You have just made a statement without an actual argument and are now acting strange. May be correct that first. Give me a reason why it helps ranged characters more than melee ones. Then we will see.
. Enjoy! 
Time
Combat XP - What Just Happened..?
in Backer Beta Discussion
Posted
Exploration is an experience grinding mechanism for character progression /Josh.
But honestly, the word experience has little in meaning in RPGs. It makes very little sense that the experience gained from Opening a lock can be used for improving the Lore skill. Right now in this game the word experience is just a place holder for "a number that you can add to skills".