Hormalakh

Oh wow. Thanks for the link JOG. Very cool! Now I don't care if they don't. But, eh it'd still be nice.

With pause, you can make the game turn-based anyway. I actually like real-time with pause more than any other mechanism.

Not sure if the developers have seen this movie, but when I saw it, I thought Glenfanthan immediately. Devs, you should see this movie - it's pretty awesome. Obviously, your graphics aren't going to look anything like it (unless you have monks writing books!) http://newvideo.com/secretofkells/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0485601/

This is a grat website. If they allow us to import in images, this would be a great site to go to if I can't find an image that would fit my character. It would be wasteful for them to actually create this again in-game. Why not just use this one?

In the beginning of Arcanum, your first companion, Virgil, can be allowed to speak for you. The conversation option is [Let Virgil speak] and it was a great way for another character to speak. Of course, maybe you'd like the party member to say something else than what they've been programmed with. In any case, these sorts of things have been done in the past and can be done again. And done well.

Actually, real balance is an undesirable state. Real balance means that everyone has an equal chance at everything, everyone does the same damage, etc. Real balance means everyone is equivalent. Which makes for an *incredibly* boring game. The ideal situation is controlled imbalance, it's when people can excel at things through the choices they've made and manage something every other choice couldn't have done. But in aquiring that ability, a tradeoff was made that puts some other choice above them in other situations. Mage vs Fighter is a good example. A Mage is ideally able to achieve a great variety of effects and intermittently deal a great deal more damage, but in exchange can absorb very little punishment and has finite resources. A Fighter is limited in the things he can do, but deals more consistent damage, has infinite resources, and can absorb large amounts of damage. Are they balanced? Never have been, but they're generally controlled imbalances until some later factor is introduces (Kensai) or some basic rules are not implemented (CRPG Rest Spamming because there's no restriction on resting). As far as power-gaming goes, there's no way to eliminate it unless you implement a "Real balance" game system, which again is incredibly boring. Unless everyone is absolutely identical, every reward is absolutely identical, there's a way to Powergame. Being identical doesn't equal "game balance". A balance is a metaphor used to describe two very different builds having equal viability and only losing viability due to player skill or knowledge of that build. A good example is Starcraft 1 or 2. I know these aren't RPGs, but they are games renowned for their balance. There are three completely different races (zerg, protoss, terran) which all play completely differently (different builds), but each race has an approximately equal viability on each map. The difference between winning and losing doesn't come from an innate strength or weakness in the race, but rather the playstyle and strategy of the player. My argument is that, by definition, an RPG is a game where different characters are created to journey into a world. These characters and builds are created by the player - within specific limitations created by the game developer. While there are some so-called "builds" that aren't strategic, a majority of character builds should be equal in viability (even though they may be different in play-style). Ultimately, it should be the player's skill that determines victory or loss, not a randomized variable. This equality in viability of different actual character builds is the definition of balance. There is another aspect of balance and that has to do with player builds being balanced against the "gameworld" itself. This usually isn't a problem in RTS because the "gameworld" is ultimately another race/similarly balanced enemy. But in RPGs the gameworld is very different from the characters built at the beginning of the game. A player character that becomes so powerful so that there is no challenge left in the gameworld usually means that either 1) the player is at the endgame scenario 2) the player has surpassed the challenge rating for that particular area and is now enjoying the boons of his character's (and the players) hard work - thus you can completely destroy 100 of those enemies that kept giving you grief much earlier in the game- or 3) the player's character build is unbalanced against his enemies. #3 makes a game feel like a chore and is called "grinding." It might be fun for some people to kill innummerable numbers of extremely weak enemies for a short period of time, but the lack of challenge makes these games incredibly unsatisfying over long periods for most players. A game that has no challenge, isn't a game. It's a chore. Balanced games make those games 1) fair and 2) rewarding when the player beats it. This is because the player knows that his/her victory was not a matter of chance but rather actual skill. Of course, there can be a partially random aspect to the game, but minimizing this is best. This is all completely off-topic because none of this has to do with "power-gaming." Which brings me back to the previous comment that I made. People are using different definitions of power-gaming in this thread. If by power-gaming, we're talking about finding the best strategy towards a certain build, then I wouldn't even call that power-gaming, I'd call that strategizing. But clamoring that there should only be one character build in the game that destroys everything else without any strategy coming into play isn't powergaming, it's gaming the system. Why even give the option to players to make their own character's at that point? That isn't fun for any player. The challenge is no longer in the adventure of your created character build; the challenge (and ultimately the game) has become "can you figure out which singular build the devs were thinking you need for this particular game?" The adventure portion is just a simulator to see if you got the right answer. Hope this makes sense. Sorry it was long.

I know it is really early to talk about this aspect of the game, but I've been playing some of the older games and I wish that some of these shortcut keys were a little bit more logical and made playing real-time easier, not harder. One example is the quickcast in Baldur's Gate 2. It was not a logical approach, and I really doubt most people would use keyboard shortcuts for quick-cast. Anyway, I'll talk more about this when we have some engine mechanics fleshed out, but I really wish that the shortcut keys would be implemented in a way that allows for "RTS-like" play. Like I said, I can't give a good implementation of this right now, but when I see more of the mechanics, I think I can give a better layout. Also, please allow us to utilize Shift+click, Alt+click, and ctrl+click.

Arcanum does this very well. You give your party members two options: "wait here for a bit," and "I think we should split up." If you split up then answer as above. If you make them wait, then they'll wait for a certain amount of time before they leave. That's one implementation method.

I don't think everyone is using the same definition for powergaming, so I'm not going to bother with those arguments for or against PG. Regardless, I do have to say: No specific class should ever be weak in and of itself. If it's a "weak class" they sohuldn't even bother with the development time. Why bother with all these extra classes and different options if they're inherently weak? What's the point? Making sure that character classes and options are balanced always makes for a good game. Nor should there be a weak skill. If it's weak, as the devs have already said, they're not going to implement it. The best games always have balance...

I'm sorry: I thought you meant that there should be only one "most efficient" build and multiple "efficient enough" builds. I was arguing that you should have multiple "most efficient" builds, not just one.C Carry on.

Telling us now that it's going to be delayed will go down a lot easier than telling us in April 2014. They have reasons now. In 2014, it might sound like excuses.

There are other reasons to have casting time other than interruption, namely action time. It shouldn't take the same amount of time to cast 10 level 8 spells as it takes to cast 10 level 1 spells. For example, if it takes the same amount of time to cast magic missile and meteor storm, for example, then lower level spells are no longer worthwhile (until you use up all your upper-level spells). Timing should be a consideration for battles, especially since this is a real-time with pause based game. Edit: As for interruption, I don't have any qualms about implementing a concentration check or method to limit spell disruption.

The problem I think isn't that there shouldn't be efficient builds, it's that in an RPG you would want many (not infinite) different kinds of builds, all of which either complement each other, or are just as efficient as other builds. The problem lies in limiting builds to only 1 or 2. In your example, would you call an RPG a good one if the only viable fighter build was a dwarf as you described? I wouldn't call that game an RPG, I'd call it an action game. What's the point of building your own character if there's only one "most efficient" build? There shouldn't be unlimited builds, but with strategy and thought, you should have a good number of "most efficient" builds in any RPG. That makes the game worth playing again and again. Edit: Grammar

Honestly, I wish they'd say it would be out Mid-summer 2014 instead of what they're saying now. Just give it a few more months of QA testing and get it perfect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Muslim

Yeah, I don't mind if law and order is implemented correctly and somewhat realistically. I just think it should have some sort of internal logic.

I guess my issue has to do with merchants being hostile, meaning that they attack me and then die. And then I also have to deal with guards. Or if a pickpocket robs me, and then runs away. I should be able to kill him (if I catch him) without insane repercussions (50 guards attacking me? Where were they when the pickpocket was having his way with my gold?) I don't think that everytime I do something the NPCs don't like, they should attack me. If I have an argument with them, fine ignore me. But a merchant should know better than to duke it out with a party of adventurers. This happened quite afew times in BG2. I'd go in and kill the Harpers in their hideout, then the beggar on the side of the street would always be hostile toward me. Really?

In BG2 and possibly some other games, whenever you robbed someone or killed someone, guards would appear out of nowhere, become hostile against you, and if you ran away (maybe to the next map or something) would stay there until the end of the game. Whenever you returned to that area, they would never leave and sometimes that locked out whole areas for you, just because you stabbed a measly pickpocket or stole some coins from a merchant. Can we safely assume that this will not be the case? Guards will disappear after a day or two? Please?

Like I said, it *might* be the case that the town has a "sheriff," but that doesn't mean that you can't defend yourself. Ever played BG2? You couldn't cast magic in Athkatla without a permit, but if you did, you just had to deal with a party of mages, you didn't necessarily get imprisoned or anything like that. Once again, it was just one possible scenario. The main idea is more important than these details.

Well, the time stop argument doesn't really work, as it was (together with Improved Alacrity) an end-game "I win" button basically, There is nothing anyone can do against that, so strategy/tactics do not apply, and it is irrelevant to the argument at hand. But low level spells like Magic Missile would indeed out-perform stuff like horrid wilting and meteor swarm, because once we removed each other's spell shields, i could interrupt your casting of wilting/swarm with a faster MM. I haven't played SCSII or other mods like it, but if they address the problem I brought up about low level spell abuse, no one has mentioned how so far, in terms of actual mechanics. The problem seems to be that many people "feel" like casting time adds a layer of strategy to combat, but ignore the fact that it also leads to very cheesy exploit-type gameplay. In throne of Bhaal there were enemies, bosses I grant you that, that Time stop didn't affect. It sucked when the rest of your party was sitting ducks and it was 1v1 against Demogorgon for example. Ouch.

Update today, Adam?

What??? He attacks me and I don't have a right to defend myself? What kind of ****ty law is that? Some laws are quite ****ty. Laws aren't always fair. This was just a scenario in any case. The main point was whether you'd like to see some characters demand something before they leave, whatever it may be. You can kill them if you disagree, but you'd have to lose something in that process (other than a companion): a 5 on 1 is kind of over-kill isn't it? I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. If a companion makes some imaginary agreement up (AKA: There isn't a legibal contract that I signed promising them something) and is able to attack me and I'm not able to defend myself, that's stupid. That doesn't add to the games complexity, unless you think bad, nonsenical mechanics do that. That doesn't add to the games variety, unless you think bad, nonsensical mechanics do that. That doesn't add to the story, unless you think having a town, or hell who country (whatever area) built around ridiculous laws adds to the story of the game. In which case, I should also be able to take full advantage of the stupidity of these laws. Which I can pretty much guarantee they won't do. The only way you could possibly do this from a story stand point is having a companion who can do forgery who signs your name on some such contract and the area you are in holds such contracts in high regard and the person who overlooks it fails to see the forgery in which case all this would boil down to is a noob trap that screws people over on their first play through. This would be no better than having three random dialogue options at a certain point in the game and if you choose the second one you randomly get a permanent -6 strength modifier with your character. Who said you couldn't defend yourself?

What??? He attacks me and I don't have a right to defend myself? What kind of ****ty law is that? Some laws are quite ****ty. Laws aren't always fair. This was just a scenario in any case. The main point was whether you'd like to see some characters demand something before they leave, whatever it may be. You can kill them if you disagree, but you'd have to lose something in that process (other than a companion): a 5 on 1 is kind of over-kill isn't it?

And then if you're an evil character, you can get arrested and thrown in a dungeon for the rest of the series, while people in later games give passing mention to how wicked you are. /sarc Seriously, why do some of you want to see other people's characters and gameplay choices wrecked just so your playstyle and your particular take on good and evil can feel validated? My post was made with quite a bit of snark. Don't worry, your level 12 player will live on in our hearts and minds regardless of what I say.

Yeah I didn't like how I wrote the poll either. I didn't want it to be just yes/no though. Anyway, I'm not pushing anything. Just want to see what people think. Chris Avellone talked about interesting relationships in this game, and I thought this was an interesting mechanic which I don't usually see in games. I don't see why one or two companions can't be able to do this in game: it builds realism and makes the player actually care about what they do in-game and not be psychopaths to everyone they meet. If you don't like it, don't pick those companions. It isn't about "letting you play your game" (I don't understand what that means really) it's about making the game interesting. If you don't think this is interesting, fine.