Jump to content

Fluffle

Members
  • Content Count

    931
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by Fluffle


  1. I'm sitting in the same boat. :/

    Thought of making a thread about this myself ^^

     

    Well I guess some praise to the allmighty Lord Kerfluffleupogus wouldn't harm anyone.

     

    On the other hand He is not dead... so he doesn't need to be on a memorial stone... *sigh*

     

    Plus I do not know yet if I want to use my real name or my nickname for the game credits.

    *sigh*

     

    The problems of being a gold backer. Life can be so tough :/


  2. If you question the "one ring per hand" rule, why do you vote for a "one ring per finger" rule?

     

    I mean who says I can't wear more than one ring on one finger?

     

    Restricting one ring to one hand is the same mechanism as restricting one ring to one finger.

    Just as it is possible to wear multiple ringes on one hand you can wear multiple rings on one finger.

     

    So yeah I vote for 100 rings.

    • Like 2

  3. So after a long time of abstinence I came back to this forum.

     

    The strongold update brought me back and I wanted to make a few points.

     

    I am shocked how my points and those of a few others led to the derail of that thread.

     

    That was not my intention.

     

    I will enjoy the stronghold and I'm very much looking for it, but I wanted to try to see the other side.

     

    Those people who are reluctant about the idea of a stronghold. And I tried to understand

    and illustrate some concerns they might have. And I actually can see their concerns even though

    personally I won't share them as I am going to use the stronghold.

     

    I am sad and sorry that that debate went the way it did.

    In my eyes it was not a real debate, because the participants lack respect for each other.

     

    I even think that some people try deliberately to misunderstand/misinterprete the posts of other people.

     

    I have seen a VERY good signature of one of the members (the OP) here:

    "Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for."

     

    I will sincerely ask myself if I have heeded the advise of that signature.

     

    Now I will go "underground" again, avoiding debates here, just checking in for updates.

    Maybe take a break for a few months again.

     

    I don't wish anyone ill here as I hope nobody wishes me ill.

     

    Peace.


  4. If you as a player, don't want to be bothered managing the stronghold, your character should at least have a chance of losing some benefit that the stronghold would give . It's not about limiting choice. It's about making choices have meaningful consequences.

     

    So what are the meaningful consequences of refusing the stronghold?

     

    - "losing some benefits that the stronghold would give"

     

    And that's it? I agree that that would be one of the consequences, but wouldn't there be more to it?

     

    If you take over the stronghold and build it up you are going to influence what - hundreds, thousands or even more lives.

     

    If you refuse the stronghold:

    - What happens to the people that would pay taxes to you if you had taken the stronghold?

    Whom do they now pay taxes to? How do they live their lives when you are NOT their overlord?

    Does that person who they pay taxes now to get rich? Will that have an effect if you ever meet that person?

    - What about the merchants that would visit your stronghold and offer rare artifacts?

    Where do they go now instead? Where do they try to sell their stuff?

    - What about the economical changes your stronghold would cause if you had taken it.

    Without the influence of a new stronghold how does the economy develop in the surrounding lands?

    - What about the people you could put into prison?

    How do they live their lives not captured by you? Are you able to take them as prisoner at all without having a prison?

    - What about those enemies that would try to raid your stronghold and attack it if you had accepted the stronghold?

    Do they plan on attacking someone else? Who? And how does that victim react?

    - What about the people you could have as hirelings if you had the stronghold?

    What do they do now instead? Where are they?

    - What about the time the hero spends governing the stronghold?

    If he refused the stronghold, would he have more time for other adventures?

    - What about your companions that are not in your active party and who could go on adventures on their own if you had the stronghold?

    What do they do now instead when they are not in your party?

     

    In my eyes a stronghold has such a MAJOR influence on a region, its surrounding lands and LOTS of lives that there should be

    lots of "meaningful consequences" for both options:

     

    A) There is a stronghold

    B) There is not such a stronghold

    • Like 4

  5. I don't understand why something needs an alternative. If you did that with side quests, then we'd have an infinite number of side quests. "Don't want to help this old lady find her cat to get this Ring Of The Old Lady? Well, don't worry, there's SOME OTHER way to get the Ring of the Old Lady! 8D!"

     

    Great, and what if you don't want to do the other thing you have to do to get that ring? Well, then you should be able to do something ELSE to get it. And so on, and so forth, until literally everyone in the universe who COULD potentially desire the benefits of that ring gets what they're entitled to.

     

     

    Simply put: Because not everyone plays the way you do.

     

    And I think people want to feel that their way of playing is represented to a certain degree ingame.

     

    Does your argument work the other way around? When you do not understand that something needs an alternative, are

    you saying that nothing needs an alternative?

     

    Should we cancel all options ever - and on each and every occasion there is only one way, one solution to a problem?

     

    I do not think that you meant this, honestly. But I do neither think that everyone who wants some minor

    consequence of refusing the stronghold ingame demands that there should be infinite numbers of alternatives for each and every quest.

     

    This seems like exaggeration.

     

    In your example, that quest seems to be bound to characters that like to help someone else.

    That is fine. Make the ring only available to those.

     

    But maybe put in another minor sidequest, where only those who'd rather roleplay an evil alignment could gain an item.

     

    Or if you refuse to help the old lady, let her spread the word, how "rude" you are.

    Let it have an impact of some kind.


  6. Well does it make sense?

     

    Does it make sense that Renald is not able to find anyone else but you (if you are a thief character)

    to run Mae Var's guild (after he has been disposed of)?

    Would Renald just leave it empty?

     

    I actually find it quite interesting:

    What happens to Imnesvale if you are no ranger (or refuse to be its protector)?

    Shouldn't there be consequences for Imnesvale?

     

    If there are no consequences then being the protector of Imnesvale wouldn't have a point.

    Imnesvale only gets endangered (after the initial quest) when you choose to be the protector.

    Why isn't it endangered when it does not have a protector (once again, after the initial quest)?

     

    When you do not take over the de'Arnise keep for example, the Roenalds do.

    And this is what I mean. There are consequences for this refusal.

     

    And you could build upon this. You could expand on this idea.

    (Not on a large scale, just something minor)

     

    Maybe with the Keep in their hands the Roenalds would do something that may effect you or Nalia

    on which you have to react. This does not happen however.

    • Like 4

  7. Yeah, now we're talking ;)

     

    There should be consequences if you refuse it.

     

    The stronghold exists after all, even if you say "no".

     

    So what happens to it then?

     

    And these (hopefully not only negative) consequences would be something exclusively for those that refuse.

    (Once again, it doesn't have to be much, and certainly not as much as the stronghold itself)

     

    My fear is that if you say "no" that the game goes on like the stronghold never existed in the first place.

    • Like 2

  8. I don't think all options and consequences should be equal.

     

    I just think that a player should not feel that he has the "choice" between what he may perceive as everything and nothing.

     

    I will reiterate.

     

    I do not want a replacement of equal scale for a stronghold for those who reject it.

    That's not what I asked for.

     

    I only asked for that the choice is not between stronghold vs *nothing*


  9. That is not what I meant with optional.

     

    I know that it is optional in the meaning that you do not have to use it in order to beat the game.

     

    I rather worry if it's optional in the meaning of having almost the same enjoyable game experience, i.e.

    will two people, one of which hates the stronghold and doesn't use it and the other one likes it and uses it

    almost have an equally enjoyable game experience?

     

    My worry is that the option of NOT choosing to use the stronghold maybe so much less attractive that it is no real option, i.e.

    in the end you have to use it for either more enjoyable game experience, or if you want to train your characters well, more quests, etc

     

    Once again, I do not ask for the same amount of opportunity the stronghold offers you for players who refuse it.

    I'd just request that they do not get *nothing at all*

     

    There should be a little *something* exclusively for those who refuse it.

    • Like 3

  10. I'm not really sure what the reason is for this, but it seems that a strong majority of modern RPG players are consumed with two elements of modern RPGs which I find at best tedious and at worst loathsome: time-consuming crafting and strongholds.

     

    I was sure you were going to say "romances and strongholds".

     

    But back to topic:

     

    How can the stronghold be called "optional" if you have serious disadvantages when you decide not to use it.

    From all that I have read, there are major advantages using the stronghold.

     

    What do players get in return who decide to not use it?

     

    Please do not get me wrong I LOVE strongholds, but I worry for people who don't.

    They should not have a major less enjoyable experience of Project Eternity in my opinion.

     

    I understand that you cannot design an equally sophisticated game element for those who refuse the stronghold.

    But maybe you should not give them *nothing*.

     

    If someone refuses the stronghold this should impact the game too and I'd ask that this

    would not be only restiricted to a negative impact.

    • Like 2

  11. B) Invite your family to the experience. Reward your children by giving them the controller if they do their homework. The wife should like that (possibly). Oh, and help your children with the homework too for bonus points. Make choices in the game with the family. Take turns playing. Make it into an optional family "event" for those who are interested in joining in ("Game night" or whatever). Maybe even "Bedtime Gaming" for the children before bed, making it into a "Bedtime Story" but with the game instead of a book (I don't know the age of your children though, PE might be rather gritty, gory and dark).

     

     

    This seems to be the best option for me. Include your family if they want to.

     

    I remember growing up with games like BG(2), IWD and such and I value this experience very much.

    So to my eyes if you include your children under the conditions that:

     

    a) they are interested at all

    b) in a responsible way (balancing school vs video game time)

     

    you could actually give them a nice gift.

     

     

    On one playthrough you could include your family as NPCs from the Adventurer's Hall.

    Let your wife and your children create themselves as characters and ask for their opinions on certain ingame decisions.


  12. Love the update, one question though

    those upgrades, are the the same for everyone, or can you personalise your stronghold a little by branching upgrades?

     

    Maybe in regards to the classes. Maybe a druid for example would upgrade his or her stronghold differently than a pure fighter.

     

    Maybe a druid would as well choose a different way to govern the lands outside of the stronghold?

     

    In short: How much class, race and player related customization will and should be possible?

     

    Will there be some visitors/random events/upgrades that are class/race exclusive?

    • Like 8

  13. Oh I remember the overland map.

     

    In comparison to MotB SoZ was really underwhelming, but I did like the overland map very much.

     

    Granted they could have improved the encounters on it - and the secret maps that you could find.

     

    But all in all the idea was really great.

     

    So would you prefer an overland map like in Soz or travelling on a world map like in Baldur's Gate?

×
×
  • Create New...