Michael_Galt

You need to read what was actually written, not read between the lines. Sawyer said that it would still be affected by stats, but that he would rather there not be a "speech" skill. So that still means if you have a very low intelligence or wisdom or charisma, your speech options will suffer accordingly (or vice versa). If all 3 of these are high, that automatically means more speech options. But speech options aren't ONLY limited to being influenced by those "stats", but also your others (strength, dexterity, constitution, what have you). So if you are a really strong character, you will automatically get more "intimidate" options, as you are physically imposing. If you have a high dexterity, perhaps you can make some keen observation to a dancer or juggler or something like that, about how they are doing something, because you can figure it out, since you are also very dextrous. So you would still be limited to the strengths/weaknesses of your character design, the difference would be that you wouldn't have a specific skill that you would be able to use to address that. I personally feel there needs to be a speech skill, that basically just amplifies the success probability of those pre-existing options and perhaps slightly embellishes them. So maybe having "mastery" in your speech ability gives the the equivalent of +2 to INT, CHR, and WIS for the purposes of speaking options. If those qualities are already maxed, it just makes it that much more likely those speech attempts will succeed (or maybe impossible for them to fail). Maybe being an "expert" gives the equivalent of +1 to them, with a smaller increase in you chance of success. If you did it this way, it would still have a significant impact, but not be an "insta-win". I believe this is what Arcanum, Torment, and F:NV did (or something very similar). I think his intent is to keep it from being like either Dragon Age or Mass Effect, where you picked "intimidate" or "inspire" (or whatever they were called). I wish that their level system had 2 tiers: combat and non-combat. Depending on your class, you would get more in one or the other. If you picked a straight fighter, you wouldn't get as many points for the non-combat skills. If you went with a mage/cipher, you would get far more. As a mage, you could still have a few combat skills, but not enough to stand toe-to-toe with a fighter. As a fighter, you might be a good gambler, or speaker, or trader, or __, but you wouldn't really have any other abilities that weren't combat oriented (or you would have a variety, that aren't very refined). You keep the class system, but give a little more flexibility to character development.

I loved Minsc- I pretty much had in my party every time. A big, affable, simple-minded "do-gooder" that is protective. Entertaining, especially depending on who else was in your party. I remember a certain party member trying to steal the affections of his boo (go double entendre!), which caused a small conflict, which was thankfully, peacefully resolved. I liked that while he made out to be "stupid", he effectively wasn't, since he just used Boo as his "voice of reason and logic", and so could actually be quite insightful at times. Hell, his opening lines in BG2 are just awesome, "These bars will not hold my wrath. Minsc will be free! Butts shall be liberally kicked in good measure." And then, I paraphrase, "Euuu, you trick me! Very clever, you make me mad to unleash my mighty warrior spirit!" http://www.minscandboo.com/quotes.php

Or, we could use the "Giant Flail of Troll Bashing +5" to mete out justice on them...

I must say- even with all the flames and personal attacks, this is actually pretty interesting. I truly hope the developers are reading this (and putting all sorts of timers in). Do I think it would be more difficult to pull off? Yes, but I feel that there have been relatively few CRPGs that REALLY have any sense of urgency to them where it actually matters IN GAME, whether you do something or not. Typically, you get some sort of lip-service (literally, as in, other characters referencing things you did), but you don't have actual game-playing impacts. I want things to actually alter in game based off of your decisions, so it feels more dynamic. And I want to be able to see the effects of my actions (or inaction) before the final credits. Again, when I'm talking about timers, I'm not talking simple "pass/fail" dynamics. I do think there should be some of those, but there should be a whole series of intermediate steps inbetween (unless it is something like- "Unless you rescue her within the next 2 days, she'll be sacrificed by the cult!"). I'm talking, is "harder/easier", less/more reward, factions/groups/individuals amassing/lossing power. Triggers for events. I think most of these timers have to be based on when you find an area/location, or are told about it, because "global" timers seem too stark and boring. Global would probably be appropriate for some large plot types of things, but probably not much else.

Yeah, I'm all in favor of time limits, and on everything. What I don't think is that every time limit has to be short or "stark". Some things might take weeks to "evolve" to the next stage if not addressed, others might take hours or days. The writers would obviously have to determine the "importance hierarchy" and adjust accordingly. Truly important quests that would be impacted by inattention would have the most "nuances"/"stages". So rather than 1 to 2 different progressions of what might change if you don't act "quickly enough", there are 3-6. For an unimportant quest, perhaps there are just the 1-2 variations, which might take some time to play out. This would result in everything being variable, but obviously they can't make EVERYTHING extremely variable- only the things that matter. The idea is that, in game, for the important stuff, you can see it changing as you are playing and that gives you a sense of urgency to address the issue. For the unimportant stuff, it isn't as immediately noticable, but it does make a difference, however slight it is.

I had a similar post, with a poll as well. It seems most people don't really like the idea of time limits (I will state right now that I didn't read through all the replies here). http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62132-game-response-to-protagonist/ Personally, I think, the more the merrier. I feel it creates a greater sense of urgency, and makes things "more realistic". I mean, most quests in RPGs don't have time limits in game, where it clearly seems they should. If someone's daughter/children/caravan is ambushed and taken hostage, they likely aren't going to be kept alive more than a few days, if that. But in most games, you could take a few weeks before getting around to looking into it, and you would find them alive and well. I generally think that quests should become more difficult, or have greater likelihood of just not being achievable, with increasing periods of time. Like in the case with of BG 2, where you could take your merry time going to rescue Imoen, and no matter if you rushed or not, the state you found her in would be the same. I would rather there was a timer associated with her quest (as with all others). So, maybe if you got to her within 3 weeks, everything would be groovy, besides a certain someone being able to accomplish a few things before you got there. Perhaps if you took 6 weeks, things would be worse. Maybe a few of her attributes would have decreased, perhaps she would be slightly hostile to you, maybe she would have lost some skills. Perhaps "rescuing" her would be a bit more difficult, with more traps, enemies, whatever. Maybe at 9 weeks, she would have lost a substantial number of skills, would not immediately recognize you and attack you out of confusion, and it would be substantially more difficult to get to her. Maybe at 12 weeks, the same as at 9, except she actually HATES you now, and won't stop attacking you until you bring her within an inch of her death, or you have really high charisma and manage to talk her out of her hostility. Maybe at 15 weeks, you're too late- she's dead. Or in the case of the keep, a similar deal, with an increasing number of trolls at set points of time, following your acceptance/hearing of the quest, with the trolls getting progressively stronger as a group as well. Maybe there are decreasing numbers of survivors left, with none left at a certain point in time. Perhaps if a mayor hired you to clear out a certain area of monsters, or a merchant to kill (or talk into going somewhere else) a pack of bandits plaguing his operations, you would get less of a reward, the longer it took you. So maybe if you did it within a few days, they would have given your "300 gp". But, since it took you 2 weeks, they lost too much money, and are only willing/able to give you 150gp. Maybe because you took a month, they are completely unwilling to pay you. Perhaps you could surmount some of that with a sufficiently high charisma, getting the full amount, or a less reduced amount. I feel employing a system like this would be difficult, in terms of all the scripting, but it would MASSIVELY contribute to the replayability. I mean, if knowing that the quest dynamics would change based on how long you took to "complete" it was understood, maybe your 2nd or 3rd playthrough, you would either wait longer or less long, just to see what the difference was. It would also make you think way more seriously about what you were going to do. Because if you had 3 active quests, and knew that they would all turn out differently dependent on how quickly you completed them, you would have to decide in what order to do them, and what quests you would possibly accept failure in, for taking too long.

I like prestige classes, provided it isn't easy to achieve. Meaning, it should take some sincere specialization and work. I honestly can't think of any good examples of how to implement that, but somewhat similar to how FO:NV did some of its perks, where you couldn't unlock them unless you had the proper prereqs first. So maybe your thief took "crafting" lots of "mechanics" skills, which then allows him to become a "trapper/bombardier". Or you went a different way and only focused on stealth and weapon proficiencies, which allows you to become an "assassin" or a ninja if you have sufficiently high "dexterity + agility" (or however they define nimbleness). The prestige classes need to bring bonuses to the class, of course, not just be some name that means nothing else. And you shouldn't be able to "abandon" your prestige class for another, because you don't like it. It would be better if you really had to think before deciding to adopt/join a prestige class. I do think you should have to get training to be granted it, though. I guess that would be similar to "master trainers" in Arcanum. Perhaps they could even overlap. Maybe there would be 2-4 different "melee masters" (or class masters, alternately), which would all belong to different prestige classes. That way it would be easier to find master trainers, but finding one might not actually help you get the prestige class you are interested in. That could be used to explain different schools of fighting, philosophy, magic, whatever.

This. I said this before, when discussion was going regarding super stretch goals. Most people don't agree. They apparently would rather modders add new content vice identify and fix issues. I would rather the professionals make as much product as possible, and then it gets "honed to perfection" by the thousands/millions of people that play it and identify bugs. But, as you said, not computer destroying bugs, but minor ones. If I can complete the main quest, I don't really care about bugs.

I am not really for this. I mean, unless you live in a vertical city like New York, you typically don't see a lot of people out and about, because they are working (whether that is inside a building, or out in the field, in the woods, in the sea). Weekends off wasn't really a common thing until this last 100 years or so. People might have taken the Sabbath off, but that was the exception, rather than the rule. And that obviously doesn't encompass a huge proportion of the world's population. I don't know if there is the equivalent in Hinduism or Buddhism, but I don't think there is... I would prefer people are just intelligently populated. Meaning, I go into a market place during midday, and there are people wandering about the stalls/shops. I go into a pub at night and there are people, but not many midday. I go to the docks and there are always people. Having homes that tend to be populated at night versus the day would be great too. Those people don't necessarily have to be "findable" in the city, as maybe they don't work anywhere of significance to you, the player.

What I would like would be serious "power gaming" advantages to them, in the sense of innate abilities or bonuses, but that would be offset by some major disadvantages. Meaning, people's reactions to them would vary GREATLY, more than any other race, and sometimes that could help, but a lot of times it could complicate things, by making them unwilling/afraid of speaking with you, or in awe, or distrusting, or something along those lines. Maybe some real significant natural weaknesses. Like, you might have advantages to strength as a certain godlike sub-race, but you would also have some sincere susceptibility to magic. So against fellow fighters, you would own them. But you would be very fearful of encountering magic users... Or, you could have automatic resistances to magic, but perhaps you automatically incur penalties to some of your other attributes (really doesn't matter, provided it is something important, like constitution, strength, dexterity, or intelligence/wisdom). Or maybe you get major wisdom/intelligence bonus, at the cost of constitution/strength. They have capabilities that you won't be able to achieve playing another race. So perhaps an elf can have 2 higher total dexterity than a human, while a __ godlike race can have 4 higher dexterity, but will automatically have less strength/constitution/intelligence/etc. Perhaps no other race can get innate magic resistance, and you want to become a "witch hunter", so it would make perfect sense for a godlike race character to follow that path. Or have the godlike genius cipher that is the equivalent of Sherlock Holmes. I guess I want them to essentially be "min/max" type of characters, where you can really excel in something specific, but only at a cost to something else important, so they are challenging to play. And for the game to actually recognize them as being different in concrete ways.

Soo... anybody have a link to the source for it possibly being a Christmassy thing?

Hmm, good. I had thought I had read something to that affect at some point, just wasn't sure. That makes me happy. I suppose the poll isn't necessary then, besides idle curiosity.

Okay, so I'm not sure offhand what the developers have said about this, but figured I would make a quick poll, to gather people's imput. Hopefully I don't miss anything. Personally, I hate forced party members. I recognize there are some developments in the plot where they "make sense" or can be justified, but also feel that there should always be a way to avoid it if you really don't want to take them (because you personally hate them, don't trust them, or someone in your party feels that way). So, please click away.

I do hate escort party members. They should NEVER be forced upon you, and if they are, they shouldn't displace anyone already in your party.

I'm all for "stacking", because that is just about organization and "classification". I mean, in regards to the gems thing, most gems aren't very large, so it really isn't "unrealistic" to imagine putting 100 of them in the same bag. When it comes to potions, who knows? Some might be highly "concentrated" and so, take up little space (like 5-hour energies...). I mean, "realistically", if you are organizing things, you tend to group them, since it just makes sense. I just feel this is the easiest "realistic" answer to the inventory question. I mean, 1 donkey + 1 cart = hundreds of pounds of gear. And you don't necessarily have to organize the same way to put something in a cart, vice a pack. If anyone has packed a pack before, you can get a lot to fit, but it is all about using the most efficient packing scheme to utilize all the space. With a big, 6'x8' cart, you don't have to do nearly as much mental gymnastics to make things "fit", since there is more aggregate space available. Plus, you hypothetically have bags you can place on the donkey/ram/water buffalo itself, which adds yet more storage. I'm not against "bags of holding", but that is completely dependent upon the universe. If they say that is a super common use of magic and even serfs have them, great. If they say that they are very difficult to make and are highly coveted... That obviously changes things. And if they go with the latter, and don't make "pack animals", we are now left high and dry when it comes to a "realistic" way to address maintaining manageable inventories. THAT is my fear. I didn't like ME2 for that very reason. I liked making my customized weapons and armor, which I configured based on the mission. If I expected to fight lots of tech-based enemies, I likely got ride of biotic defense, increased shields and increased accuracy and biotic damage. If I thought it was going to be mostly organic stuff, I did the opposite- decreased shields in favor of speed or damage resistance and decreased accuracy for higher firing rate and/or damage. And if I wasn't sure, then I split the difference to try to make sure I was able to deal with either contingency. It's like in BG- if you knew you were going to be facing a bunch of undead, you stocked up on level-draining protection, made sure your priests had spells to target undead, and distributed out the anti-undead weapons you had in your party as efficiently as you could. And then they made it simpler...

#2

Well then, we must keep bumping this thread until we have an answer...

I figured that was the case. I enjoyed reading their responses to lots of other subjects, however unrelated. Mainly the stuff about Arcanum...

Yeah, that is sort of why I am not necessarily concerned with the overall "reactivity" to specific actions, but more interested in the "passive"/"automatic" reactivity, where things will happen UNTIL you take action. I mean, if you don't clear out the bandits (or convince them to pick different targets, or whatever), it is only a minor inconvenience when buying stuff in that city/village becomes more difficult or restrictive. On the other hand, if you have failed to clear out the bandit groups near multiple cities/villages, it isn't just a minor inconvenience anymore, now it is downright frustrating. Maybe this even results in the "spawning" of a new "boss", who was a warlord/bandit leader that united all those separate groups, making them more dangerous. To provide another example- take the Eyeless Cult in BG2. Let's say that NOT deciding to go into the sewers to clear them out results in more of the cultists popping up all over the city. You reach a certain amount of time without addressing them and all the other sects in the "cleric's ward" (I forgot its actual name) start becoming less friendly. Perhaps the costs of their services go up. Perhaps certain sects just leave the area altogether, because it is too dangerous for their followers there. Or let's say you are playing a rogue type of character. The guildmaster requests that you assassinate/"talk some sense into" a local lord/sheriff/paladin which is targeting their operations because he is "losing good men" and it is "making operations difficult". The longer you take, the more expensive their services become. Perhaps you find fewer of their members throughout the area (maybe there was one in every pub/inn, and now there is only one in a single pub/inn) and then, if you never address it, they ultimately "vanish". Those are some pretty straightforward examples, and I don't think everything has to have a dire end result, just something where you recognize the results of either having done a quest or not having done it. Sort of like the end credits with the Fallout games, where they would enumerate what happened to some of the key players and areas in the game. But instead of having to wait until the end game to realize the impact of your actions, it would happen in game.

There is also this: You can sort it different ways, but it does have a fair amount of information in there. A lot of it isn't P:E specific, but I did see some pretty key stuff. If you haven't checked out the Unity software they are using, you should- it's pretty awesome. http://video.unity3d.com/video/6428539/unity-4-using-mecanim http://video.unity3d.com/

Yeah, I'm really hoping for option B. It just doesn't seem that difficult to accomplish, though admittedly more difficult than not changing anything, and it would be a nice feature. Hell, you even had the equivalent in Fallout, with your car. It automatically got parked (aka, "stabled") when you entered a city/village and it was obviously "followed" you as you traveled (provided you had enough energy cells). Addressing the "but it could get killed" thing, you could even script it to "run for the hills" if you are ambushed or attacked, and then return once everything is copacetic. That's even "realistic", since that is what I would train my pack mule to do, so I wouldn't have to worry about it in those situations. So basically, in the event of those things happening, you see it "run off the screen". After it's over, it saunters on back (perhaps an in-game hour has to pass first, and maybe you use the "wait"/"advance time" option to expedite that). Perhaps you could even have a "special ability" or "item", to help you recall it, so that waiting wouldn't be necessary- the equivalent of a bird call. I just really don't like the idea of all my party members constantly walking around with massive packs on their back. Would I do it if I had no choice? Sure. But if it was feasible for me to hire a porter or buy a pack animal, I would do that as soon as possible.

That picture is so awesome. Looks like that dude is living the life.

I really do want a mule. Or a giant turtle or something. That would be awesome. Or maybe a giant land crab, like in the Way of Kings...

Gold. The most precious of metals on Earth. But somehow, the most common metal found in Fantasy games everywhere. I wonder why the pro-realism people never argue this point? It's also very heavy. And yet we walk around with half a million gold in some games, with no encumbrance. How does that work? We, sometimes, also carry 5 full sets of plate armor, in addition to a bundle of 900 arrows. Seriously though, games are made to be fun. Like books--an escape, so to speak. Some systems aren't about being realistic. Most systems are an abstraction of reality, like landing a hit with a sword being a dice roll, rather than a meticulous calculation of striking angle, character background, skills, training, fatigue, weather conditions, and what ground cover you're standing on... If we wanted all the tedious details of real life in our game, we could just go fill in our tax papers in real life instead Well, when it comes to the gold thing, I don't think it is ULTRA unrealistic. Until 1900, most places in the world relied on metal currencies, gold being the most predominant. Of course, they also used copper and silver a lot, amongst other things. The common man wouldn't have a whole lot of gold, but the common man wasn't killing monsters for lords or raiding bandit camps or participating in other potentially lucrative, risky ventures like that. And while most people used metal coins, there were "banks" and money lenders where people could go to turn in their coins to get a slip, which they used when traveling, and was counted as currency, because it was understood that the money was actually available, if not physically present. So one can assume you are turning in your excess wealth to a safe place in exchange for some receipts that you can use instead. As to the weight thing, perfect opportunity for me to plug my old thread, which solves the "realism" problem: http://forums.obsidi..._+pack +animal.

I like the idea of crafting basic level things, like arrows, poisons, minor healing salves, etc. Fabricating entire complex items shouldn't be allowed by the player, as the level of expertise would be too high, and the requirement for equipment too much, as well as the necessary time investment. BUT, all those "special"/"unique" items (tailored suits of armor, specialized weapons, gas bombs, magical traps, etc) should be purchasable from specific parties. Whether that is a merchant, a local lord, a blacksmith, mage, whatever. And you should be able to either pay a sum which is directly correlated to the materials and quality of the item, OR bring many of the necessary components to them, for a reduced price. That way, you have the choice whether you want to go around searching for the stuff you need, or you can just sacrifice monetarily to get it quicker, without all the extra effort. And it shouldn't become immediately available. You should have to wait a few days/weeks, depending.