mcmanusaur

Here we go... in a true "simulationist" RP combat isn't more important than "crafting" (rather the other way around, quite arguably). Whether combat or crafting is more "direct" is nothing more than a function of what a particular game defines as the objective (in most games along these lines, that happens to be combat). I personally hope that Project Eternity isn't automatically beholden to its predecessors in this way, but I expect that this will end up a combat-focused game.

TL;DR for this thread- anyone who wants bikini armor or boobplate is bad and should feel bad

Cleavage in armor is concave, and funneling blows in between projecting sections will always be a poor design decision from an engineering standpoint. The T-34 is not a good comparison because its armor is not concave in so far as I can tell. However if you are suggesting the cleavage in armor being sloped upwards, that would be even worse, as that would deflect blows into the neck, which is already quite vulnerable. But yes, for future reference now we all know that cleavage is concave.

Any armor that presents obvious regions of concavity (and therefore vulnerability, as these regions act as a funnel to blows and are easier to penetrate) is quite unrealistic.

Obviously a great character needs all of the things mentioned in the first question, and did you really think anybody is going to say that vaguely "complex" characters aren't the best? So yeah... cool poll, I guess.

Ewww... the three female concepts in the OP are just yet another example of terribly unrealistic fantasy armor that we've all seen before many times... count me out.

Wow, I think you've managed to figure out Obsidian's evil master plan. And they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for geniuses like you.

Not to be confused with rotund replay-ability.

I'm thinking it'll be about the same size as any other CD-ROM.

Am I the only one who notices that half of these suggestions could be construed as forms of PC/player ego stroking? Though I suppose after all that's precisely what many people play RPG's for.

So now that we've discussed meta-ethics, social ignorance, and the merits of feelings/emotions, where do we stand now with regard to the nuances of evil in Project Eternity?

So am I the only one who typically rolls my eyes when confronted with some newfangled version of magic that shuns the classical elements in favor of something theoretically more edgy and fanciful (but practically abstruse and nebulous) and focuses instead on hopeless abstractions? I'm not saying that breaking the elemental mold can't be done well, but too many games try and fail at this in an attempt to freshen a conventional mechanic that- in the case of magic- is often lackadaisical at best and overbearing at worst...

We're only expecting the devs to resolve issues where we as a species haven't resolved yet. Nothing more difficult. Devs? One already said examples weren't welcome and there have been none after....beyond that there is no further issue with the discussion afaik. Some people have been really sheltered and some of the less pleasant details of reality may be shocking. And the answer to the good and evil question is that the worst thing we can possibly do is presume we know it. I find it interesting how you assert that "the worst thing we can possibly do is presume we know [good and evil]", when you present your own account as revelations of objective "reality". Seems legit.

I think I'm beginning to lose sight of the point certain people are trying to make in this thread... Are we trying to argue that there is no such thing as good and evil, or that we can never know what true good and evil are? Or are we just ranting about our lives?

It's also a lot more complicated than you- by claiming that the alleged rapists are the victims- are making it out to be, but... let's just not go there.

There's a sliding scale between a basic good/evil conflict and a conflict between two competing parties with no moral overtones, and I'd love to see Project Eternity more toward the middle of that spectrum.

Which is why I ask agian - how is that different than a soldier with a grenade? How is that different than a mage redying a sell? You know what items/spell X does and you use it when the moment is right. A scroll could be a fighters tool as much a sword is. A) Yes grenades. And example of an item that has nothing to do with your soldier...and is still used. B) You seriously want to be competetive when DELIBERATEVLY choosing not to use powerful lequipment? When next? Will you refuse to use magical swords? Because..you know...magic?I mena, WTF were you expecting? In a world where magic is the the most powerful lthing, OF COURSE magic items can change the course of the battle. It's like refusing to use high-tech gadegtry because you don't want technology to overshadow your soldier, and then demand that your soldier beats the asses of everyone using power armor and laser rifles. A) All kinds of soldiers use weapons that utilize some sort of explosive (whether to propel bullets or otherwise), and there aren't really grenades made for every single situation that turn the tide of combat. Each character tends to get equal grenades, there's no reason why they favor certain classes, and they all have pretty much the same effect in most situations. Therefore it's not non sequitur or really so detached from the character. Plus FPS games are not about filling a distinct social role, even if there are multiple classes it's just not the same as in an RPG. B) The thing is this. If your character is a warrior swinging around a normal, non-enchanted sword, they suck. Which is bad, because that's the essence of the class. You have to use something external to the essence of a class to make that class balanced, that means it is unbalanced. If you had to use a sledgehammer to make a ranger class competitive, that defeats the point of having a ranger. But how can the ranger expect to be competitive if they deliberately choose not to use the powerful sledgehammer, amirite? Your reasoning is shortsighted and you fail to recognize that all of this is controlled by mechanics and design decisions. I'm arguing that the equipment is too powerful if it puts any characters who don't use it at a disadvantage even though it doesn't really make sense for them to use it. Historically the point of warriors was arguably that they didn't use magic, but now that everything has been unnecessarily saturated with enchanted +5 magical gear (to the point that a normal well-crafted weapon is worth absolutely nothing), warriors can no longer stick to their essence. What if a mage had to use warrior weapons and armor to be effective? This is probably realistic, but it defeats the point of a mage. While mages can use this stuff in Project Eternity, it's optional and I'm sure they could get along fine without it. This is because magic forms the essence of the mage class, not weapons and armor. Why shouldn't it be the same for non-magic using classes? So the abiltiy to use a magic scroll means your fighter is now a mage? You got to be trolling me. Yes, warrior classes without good items/weapons and proper equipment and preparation SHOULDNT be equal to mages. If they were, I'd never bother playing a mage. I'm sorry but the profession of a warrior is BY DEFINITION tied to equipment. The fact that a fighter is more reliant on magic than any other aspect of fighting means that your fighter is a mage, yes. Just see how far you can get without a magical weapon. My point is why are all the good items magical when only some of the classes supposedly are magic-users at their essence? The problem is that the "proper equipment" you refer to is defined as being magical, which is biased toward magic-using classes. If you want to argue that magic is at the basis of every class, that's fine. But I'm not sure everyone would be happy with that. And I think that the equipment should be tied to the profession, not the other way around. But yes, potions and scrolls are poor mechanics in my opinion. I'd rather magic be something that it took actual magical skill to use rather than being poured out of a bottle by anyone, but let the warriors and other still be competitive using their respective skills.

Exactly, I find both potions and scrolls to be terribly non sequitur to the rest of combat, especially when their use can single-handedly turn the tide. As opposed to a mage throwing a fireball? Potent items and tatical use of them can turn the tide of battle? Say it isn't so!!!!! The difference is that a mage has trained to throw fireballs, and that is what they enter combat planning to do. Now, I'm not opposed to having to adapt to the circumstances, but the character (or other party members' characteristics) should always be at the center of combat, not the random magical items you have, and especially not the one-use items like potions that really have nothing to do with the rest of your character if you are playing a warrior. Potions and scrolls just seem woefully disconnected from characters and the progression of things, and I'd say their use is a bit less than tactical... 1. Read Effect 2. Metagame (quite possibly) knowledge of which kind of enemy this would be good to use against 3. Purchase and stash in inventory (Anywhere from fifteen minutes to a few months later...) 4. When the time comes let it loose! This is why I call it a non sequitur. Perhaps if these items expire relatively quickly, require some kind of upkeep, or must be prepped before going into a battle, that could help a bit. It's also non sequitur with regard to the character in that a warrior is using stuff that they may actually have no direct skill in. But hey, if it's stored in a bottle or attached to a weapon, you don't need skill, right? a) So I take it grandes are poor and uninspired product? I dont' see why. Scrolls are not easy to make and they aren't cheap either. b) What makes you think you wouldn't be competetive. Adn your desire is a bit silly. You wan't to be competetive soldier without using big guns? A) Grandes? B) If these items are turning the tide of combat, that suggests that not using them is putting a significant dent in how competitive your character and/or party can be. If the big guns are all magical, then what's the point of trying to be anything else other than a mage? If developers want to make types of magic specific to warrior classes, fine. But currently all warrior characters tend to get in these games are one-use items and weapon enchantments that are ostensibly hand-me-downs from more magically skilled characters who have the ability to make them (with the seeming purpose of making these otherwise weak warriors capable of competing with mages). And to think some people have requested that society/all types of character be /more/ dependent on magic... You're overreacting IMHO. I don't see why you would be unable to kill a mage without magic - a sword to the throat should do just fine. But baring that, it is silly to want to be equal to poeple who can alter the fabric of reality while not being able to. Either magic is potent or it is weak. If its potent, then deliberately NOT using any of it SHOULD bite you in the ass. It would be the same as using swords only in the era of machineguns. If it's not potent then mages and wizzards are reduced to insignificant con artists and magic loses a lot of it's appeal. It's not really about killing mages, it's about actually managing to be something other than a mage dressed up as a warrior. I simply think that if warrior classes cannot be equal to mage classes without pulling magic out of a bottle (because they're too stupid to use it directly), or having their weapon magically enchanted out the wazoo (with little effort of their own going into this process of enchantment), then you have a class with an identity crisis, and also just an uninteresting class balance to begin with. Magic can always be made more costly (though apparently not potions because there's like no downside to using them), which would help solve the problem (as there could actually be reasons for a character to prefer the simple sword slashing method as it avoids the heavy burden of magic), even if this burden rewards users with great power. It's not so black or white, and I think some new mechanics could solve the problem. But the real question seems to be if the players who have always used wizards are willing to take the notion that their magic might possibly not be the be all and end all.

Since wizards will be able to use weapons and armor, there had better be some magical 'use' items for everyone, otherwise that would be a pretty dumb balance issue again, amirite?I dislike potion chugging as a practice employed by every peasant recruit in many ARPGs. OTOH if potions are a rare ressource that you want to hold onto as long as possible, that rewards good playing and adds additional choices. The same goes for scrolls, if they are rare (or better, gold to buy them is rare) they won't make your casters redundant. Perhaps. But if you take that too far, with wizards using weapons and armor, and warriors using a bunch of magical crap, then all the classes start to become the same. Besides, I think the thing with wizards using armor and such was that it was an option, not something you had to do to be competitive, and likewise you shouldn't have to use magic to be competitive as a warrior either. That's my point.

What's wrong with scrolls? Those things could be life-savers Exactly, I find both potions and scrolls to be terribly non sequitur to the rest of combat, especially when their use can single-handedly turn the tide. I generally find both to be poor and uninspired mechanics, as the former is literally "magic in a bottle" for whenever you need it, and the latter only differs in a half-assed attempt to attach a skill to them (that being Use Magical Device). It's fine if you have characters that focus on magic, but I personally want to be able to play a character who is competitive without magic, especially if they have no magical ability themselves. Otherwise, if potions and scrolls play a significant role in combat, and the only weapons that are competitive are those saturated with magical effects, then all characters evidently become dependent on the magic-users for their power even if they supposedly aren't magic-using classes themselves. You could even go so far as to say all the classes become mages that are simply dressed up as something else, and with magic typically being so poorly explained I'd just like the opportunity to play a character who doesn't need to pull magic out of their ass to survive.

Limited gold pools are only excusable if the in-game economy is more interactive than TES's sorry attempt at "investments".

Well, this thread of course teaches us that different things appeal to different people, no surprise. However, praising the "feel" of one game and not of another, and hoping that the feel of Project Eternity matches the former... that's not really ideal feedback. You have to be able to identify specifically what it is that gives the game this "feel", if there is anything remotely objective about it. For me, a big part of "feel" is immersion, and therefore simulating various dynamic aspects of the in-game society (culture, economy, politics, climate) is what could truly set Project Eternity apart from other RPG's (however such things could be seen as being unnecessary for a lightweight retro-cRPG by those who feel immersion is less important). Other aspects that I suspect contribute to a game's "feel" are linearity (linear games do feel more focused and intense typically, even if they are restrictive), and how the game delivers grinding aspects (because let's face it; there's grinding in every RPG, but in some games it's more enjoyable). And finally of course then you have mechanics and cosmetic considerations, but people are usually good at specifying their issues with those aspects. But yeah, given that the developers aren't simply sitting in front of monitor with sliders for "BG1 feel", "BG2 feel", "IwD feel", "PS:T feel", and "NwN feel"... we've got to try to be more specific.

I'd actually rather see a set number of magical utility items like this as opposed to every single weapon having to be saturated with stacked magical effects to be competitive later in the game. But not disposable scroll-type items, please; that DnD mechanic never did it for me. More words: Sigil, Grimoire, Talisman, Token, Trinket, Badge, Emblem, Insignia, Relic, Artifact

For the record, the currently prevailing scientific consensus is that, while one can be born with certain genetic predispositions toward sociopathic behavior, there still must be an event during the course of one's development (usually trauma) to trigger the expression of such otherwise idle traits. So it's not nature or nuture, it's always both to some extent. At any rate, "evil" for its own sake is a construct that makes both real life happenings and fictional narrative much easier for our minds to digest, and thus I am not entirely opposed to having truly evil characters (like Sauron, for instance) in Project Eternity. However more explanation of a character's past, whether the player character or the main villain, can never hurt.

I emphatically disagree. I think it's vastly more important that the game provides a range of narrative and emotional possibilities than it is that each option in the game appeals to all players. If a player cannot enjoy playing a truly evil character (even when they already get such things as the best loot in most games), then that player should simply stick to "good" characters. If you're really so desperate to replay the game a million times, then you can just suck it up that you might have to play a character outside of what you're comfortable with. The point of evil characters has never been for the player to feel warm and fuzzy, and it defeats the purpose to try to shove that square peg into the round hole. "Evil lite"... so you guys are really asking for diluted narrative? Moreover, the game shouldn't be tailored to players who are poor at fulfilling their character's role. Not to mention the fact that you're never stuck picking every evil option just because you choose one. While relating to characters is important, if you can't relate to an evil character then it's not for you. It's just a game anyway. This is really just a completely silly issue. The simple fact of the matter is that the only thing that could make playing "evil" characters more fun that hasn't already been done is making them less evil, in which case you're not playing an evil character. The idea of tailoring elements of gameplay to the players who don't like those very elements seems highly irrational to me. I don't like classic wizards/sorcerers personally, and if the developers spent their time trying to make those classes appeal to me, they'd probably no longer appeal to the people who like them in their current form, and in all likelihood they still wouldn't appeal to me.