.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Somna
-
Posts
263 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Somna
-
-
Umm, nobody said that the entire game would be level scaled, because Sawyer himself never said that. Just the main campaign, comparable to NEW VEGAS. I have even written that myself somehwere in this thread.
Anyway, that was how things stood for a few months.You clearly haven't been keeping up on the thread. Regardless, I put that in because people have issues seeing anything but black (there's Level scaling) and white (there's no level scaling). The grey (there's some level scaling, but it's not everywhere) just can't click.
But now it has been confirmed. NO LEVEL SCALING. The end. Thank god.
This is a stupid argument anyway, I refuse to respond anymore. You comprehension skills either lack substantially or you are a troll. Choose one. Buh bye.
Case in point. Because there's a limited level scaling during the main campaign, the way you chose to interpret it is that there's NO level scaling at all.
-
2
-
-
[...]
You do know that the design for this game is not set in stone yet, anything can change. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he meant something else. It is hard to say. But like I said, who cares. No level scaling confirmed. The end.
If you are mad or something about this thread then open a new one called "all teh winers about teh lvl skaling r 2 stupid" and go and flame there instead.
I'm not mad. I'm just feeding your trolling and your lack of comprehension. It might be what keeps sucking you into the thread and re-editing your posts. right?.
lol. You are the one who is trolling and flaming (because you are mad or something). Sawyer said in that quote that the game would be level scaled no matter what you say.
Anyway, you mean our lack of comprehension, right? Or did you want to say that EVERYONE in this thread (except for you and Sawyer of course) is a retard because we understood what Sawyer said differently?
Especially when it comes to optional content and general exploration, there will be no level-scaling.
Failure of reading comprehension is failure of reading comprehension, no matter how you try to spin it. Part of the game being level scaled does not mean all of the game is level scaled. Some parts of the game not being level scaled does not mean all of the game will not be level scaled. The thread starter even said a summarized version of Sawyer's original statement on the first page of the thread,
Edit: dropped a "not."
-
[...]
You do know that the design for this game is not set in stone yet, anything can change. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he meant something else. It is hard to say. But like I said, who cares. No level scaling confirmed. The end.
If you are mad or something about this thread then open a new one called "all teh winers about teh lvl skaling r 2 stupid" and go and flame there instead.
I'm not mad. I'm just feeding your trolling and your lack of comprehension. It might be what keeps sucking you into the thread and re-editing your posts. right?.
-
My contention is that people completely ignored the first two lines and ignored what "might" means. "Might" does not mean "is," which is how you chose to interpret the last sentence. You MIGHT choose to keep quibbling over this when he's clarified that it's not. Are you?
Mmm, sure. If Mr. Sawyer says "the main campaign will be level scaled and New Vegas might be a good comparison" then that of course meant that the game will not be level scaled at all.
lol
You might have thought that, but that doesn't mean it's correct.
-
Again. He's said it before. He just didn't give examples.
Again, as I have already said, his description was very unfortunate if he meant otherwise. Read this:
In this regard, Fallout: New Vegas might be a fair comparisonThe entire main campaign path New Vegas was heavily level scaled you know.
But why are we even arguing about this? Sawyer has just confirmed that the game will not be level scaled so who cares.
/close thread.
When you choose to start quibbling over details, this is what results.
My contention is that people completely ignored the first two lines and ignored what "might" means. "Might" does not mean "is," which is how you chose to interpret the last sentence. You MIGHT choose to keep quibbling over this when he's clarified that it's not. Are you?
-
No, he said that the main campaign will be level caled similar to what we had in New Vegas. If this is what he meant from the beginning, well, then he should have been more specific and not have chosen such an unfortunate description.
Full quote from the PC Gamer article:
“We will have very little level scaling and almost entirely in critical path areas since there’s a lot of variability in when players approach them. Especially when it comes to optional content and general exploration' date=' there will be no level-scaling. [/b']In this regard, Fallout: New Vegas might be a fair comparison.”Again. He's said it before. He just didn't give examples.
-
@Helm: He's said it before; he just didn't give specific examples. It's why the whole "OMG LEVEL SCALING BAD" drama going on in the thread is ridiculous.
-
As long as you can afford everything you want by the end then I don't really care what they do. DA/ME (after the first one) were annoying as **** in that regard.
I don't think we should necessarily be able to buy "everything" we want by the end of the game. If money is more scarce, or prices are higher, then we'll have to choose among several similarly attractive options, but be unable to buy them all.
That's what I'd like.
I'd also like some game not to use an anachronistic decimal currency. Why not have 20 coppers per silver, and 15 silvers per gold, or something other than the horribly contrived 10/10/10 we see everywhere now?
Easier to store and play with the variable. Someone with 10p 9g 5s 4c has money = 10.954 and not a separate one for each coinage.
-
For players, the Health of their party members is a tether that makes them consider how far they are willing to venture from a safe resting spot. Though Health is typically lost at a lower rate, when the PC or a companion hits 0 Health, he or she is maimed (in standard play) or killed (in Expert mode or as an option in standard play). Magic may help mitigate damage to Health and slow the tide, but once characters have died (in Expert mode), there is no known magic that can bring them back.
That's pretty unequivocal IMO -- you're only killed in Expert mode or as an option in standard play.
AFAIK they haven't said anything about what "maimed" means in terms of mechanics, nor what, if anything, you can do to fix it. Again, perhaps they haven't even decided yet.
I'm sure it's just a flesh wound.
-
I think I'm a bit lost, has the proposed system been amended since the initial description on page 1 of this thread?
Yes.
They're considering having it so that if you don't hit, you glance unless you missed by a LOT...then you actually miss.
And then throwing in the possibility of moving that hit range up and down based on various potential abilities.
-
Time-limited pauses would only be valid if it was going to be a multi-player game, because endless pausing when there are other people is incredibly annoying.
Since there is no multi-player...
-
So no one likes to channel their inner Kitana and dual wield battle fans?
-
1
-
-
Seriously, whatever merits can be found in all of your posts as a whole, you just argued about 4 times in a row how bad down-scaling to the player's level would be, when Junta literally emphasized about 4 times in a row that he did not advocate such a mechanic.
And how would a system where you only level scale up without level scaling down look like?
Imagine a character that is level 5 and then a character that is level 12 who face a monster that is only supposed to "up-scale". Tell me.
Wizardry 8 on a speed run.
-
Maybe you can dual-wield two grimoires.
Everquest Style. I like it.
Bash them twice, then page flip for papercut damage?
Someone hasnt played everquest.... :D.
Pfff, I never like their ornament status there.
-
Maybe you can dual-wield two grimoires.
Everquest Style. I like it.
Bash them twice, then page flip for papercut damage?
-
[...]
I was being sarcastic. I meant that Paladin weren't anything special in D&D. I felt Clerics did everything better than them besides the ability to used Martial weapons from the start and the use of holy avenger.
And the lower THAC0 or better BAB (depending on version), and the better saving throws via Divine Grace in 3rd ed onwards. Clearly you weren't thinking like a Fighter!
Pathfinder's take on the D&D Paladin seems a little bit more interesting though, in making them more unique.
-
[...]
Unless it's the kind of illusions where the magic user directly manipulates light.
Is that possible? Can you mess with the Light sources in the game somehow with abilities?
He's not talking about light sources. What he means is that some kinds of illusions create a visible illusion instead of one that's a figment of someone's imagination. Creating a rainbow would be considered an illusion that manipulated light, for example.
-
I explain that it isn't the "Dance" I am curious/interested about but the changing of the environmental aspects. The Spell Effect.
But you're not talking about illusion magic at all, then, you're talking about the Geomancer (or Feng Shui Knight, for an accurate translation, Feng Shui falling under the Western category of Geomancy anyway,) class/Geomancy ability like in FFT. The character you're talking about filled the role of Geomancer in FF6 which had no class system.
Which wasn't illusion magic. At all. The idea of Feng Shui is sorcery based on spatial positioning/orientation, whose power is derived from the four cardinal directions and the center, these each being associated with an element in Chinese and derivative civilizations (Japan, Korea.) http://en.wikipedia....e_constellation In this case the five Japanese elements being relevant: http://en.wikipedia....ese_philosophy) .
I think you are over analyzing what he is saying. All Osvir wants is to see illusion spells that can make the world look different from what it actually is. IE: A killing illusion that kills by making the opponent think they have been trapped in a deep pool of acid. Even though it is all in their head there can be an "effect" that makes it look like the dude has fallen in a river of acid. The problem with illusions for the most part is just that though, unless the player themselves is under the effect of the illusion you technically should not be able to "see" it since it literally isn't real and is purely in the mind of the afflicted.
So in a nutshell, he wants a Hallucinatory Terrain that can damage you.
-
1
-
-
After the latest cool update (#36), I began to wonder what the role of priests should be with regard to undead. It's traditional, and significant, for clerics in D&D to have a turn undead capability (or rebuke undead with 3e). But is that necessarily relevant for the PE setting? Should priests be required to cast spells to repel or command undead? Or should that ability be restricted to wizards? Perhaps the ability to manipulate the undead should be limited to priests of certain deities? Maybe a turn undead-like ability should be weakened somewhat, starting with a "hinder undead"-like ability that just makes the walking dead more hesitant to attack (for an attack/damage penalty)?
What do you think?
Why would they "command undead"? Priests aren't necromancers, they're the opposite. They're the antithesis of necromancers. Priests should be consecrating the defiled corpses perverted by necromancy, or attempting to save the souls enslaved by necromancers if that's how necromancy works in a given context.
I don't know much about priest in PE, but I'm pretty sure clerics had the ability to control and create the undead in D&D. Some evil clerics were basically divine necromancers depending on their skills and domains that they picked. I'm assuming their going to based Priest from this game off the clerics from D&D 3 and 4.
They're already said that Priests would be more like a D&D Paladin.
Weren't D&D paladins clerics with less spells anyway? That's basically what I remember.
Only if all you focused on were spells and spells only, and even then it's not correct.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm
-
After the latest cool update (#36), I began to wonder what the role of priests should be with regard to undead. It's traditional, and significant, for clerics in D&D to have a turn undead capability (or rebuke undead with 3e). But is that necessarily relevant for the PE setting? Should priests be required to cast spells to repel or command undead? Or should that ability be restricted to wizards? Perhaps the ability to manipulate the undead should be limited to priests of certain deities? Maybe a turn undead-like ability should be weakened somewhat, starting with a "hinder undead"-like ability that just makes the walking dead more hesitant to attack (for an attack/damage penalty)?
What do you think?
Why would they "command undead"? Priests aren't necromancers, they're the opposite. They're the antithesis of necromancers. Priests should be consecrating the defiled corpses perverted by necromancy, or attempting to save the souls enslaved by necromancers if that's how necromancy works in a given context.
I don't know much about priest in PE, but I'm pretty sure clerics had the ability to control and create the undead in D&D. Some evil clerics were basically divine necromancers depending on their skills and domains that they picked. I'm assuming their going to based Priest from this game off the clerics from D&D 3 and 4.
They're already said that Priests would be more like a D&D Paladin.
-
I miss portable holes.
-
I think level scaling is potentially good when you mix it in with other things.
For example, let's say you have to gather three parts to create an item to advance the plot and they can be done in any order. It could be implemented like this:
The first choice should be business as usual, you go to the location and get the part you need.
The second choice can throw in the fact that there is an opposing faction who is ALSO gathering these parts, and introduces the party to an opposing party that is level scaled to you (because they're overcoming the same challenges the party is). This would probably change the general layout as I'd expect either the opposing party (or you!) to be setting traps to slow down the others.
The remaining choice then depends on the result of the 2nd choice. If you failed to get the 2nd part, it has you going to that opposing (level scaled) party's base instead of the third item's normal location -- because the opposing party already cleared the original 3rd part area out while you picked your first part. On the other hand, if you were successful in getting the last part, the opposing (level scaled) party actually assaults the location where your parts are stored instead and they fight on your turf instead.
-
Well, dispelling illusions should be intelligence checks and once someone succeeds it should be charisma checks to help your party members figure it out.
Obviously dispel magic works just fine and is the principle method of removing illusions in many games.
I think that illusion is thought of in a very mechanical way these days instead of a conceptual one. So if you look at modern D&D, an illusion spell either makes a creature run away from the caster or attack an ally, something specific like that. These are really easy to put into the game since they are limited in scope and very specific.
Conceptual illusions are very vague and require detailed artwork to really appreciate what is happening, either to visualize the illusion or have reaction animations on the victim.
I see an illusionist as a controller, someone who doesn't usually kill people but tricks and disables them. I guess you could trick someone into running off a cliff in fear of an imaginary monster but usually you would mess with their minds and then walk right by them to your destination. Maybe if you were really sadistic you would make yourself invisible to the enemy and slowly kill them with your dagger and relish their frustration as they tried to figure out what was attacking them, or laugh as they assume they are being attacked by their greatest fear.
In a combat oriented game, illusions are not really the best thing to load up on. They also have a flaw of being useless against some enemies or some situations where direct damage spells are more universally effective.
Sounds like you might like this for a read (as long as you don't hate Skyrim!):
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/08/09/an-illusionist-in-skyrim-part-1/
-
I wouldn't want Turn/Rebuke Undead itself but I think the mechanics of it could be used.
For example, your Priest picks a race. That race is the type that you can use the equivalent of Rebuke effects on. All other races and creature types you can use the Turn mechanics on. Both effects affect things within 60 feet. They would, of course, have to tone down the "Destroy" and "Command" effects a bit, so the results could be something like this:
Rebuke results:
Awe/Inspire - Affected beings have an easier time doing things in your presence (bonus to whatever)
Zealotry - Same as Awe/Inspire, plus a large bonus on one action.
Turn results:
Menace/Cower - Affected beings have a difficult time doing anything in your presence (penalty to whatever)
Bane - Affected beings can't approach the Turn area or target anything in it.
I didn't put too much thought into the balance aspect but something like that.
Anyway, that was how things stood for a few months.
Josh Sawyer on Miss and Hit
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
I don't think he's explicitly said it, but it sounds like he's implying it here.
People do that because P:E combat is "close to BG2/IWD" which uses the AD&D combat rules...mostly.