Jump to content

Continuum

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About Continuum

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. While I'd certainly love to see more companions, more wilderness areas, more all sorts of things, I'd rather the dev team focus on delivering on all the existing stretch goals that came up in the Kickstarter campaign then keep adding more on. Save great ideas for more for expansion packs.
  2. Main story - no. Time limit to end game is just frustrating unless the game is perfectly linear and thus the time frames are driven by your plot progress. Individual quests, including those within the story - somewhat. It's ok for certain segments to string together, as long as it's done in a way that doesn't lock out side quests or exploration of a region or that makes it clear you need to finish up the area/side quests before tackling the next phase of the main quest. It generally just works best to have completion of key story tasks be the only thing that locks out areas in terms
  3. The concept of rogues as primary damage dealers has mostly come from games where players only control one character but group with or fight against armored warriors and magic users. If a lightly armored sneaky class can't do more damage than a heavily armored opponent, then they are completely pointless in mass combat. In a party based RPG, the rogue does NOT have to match the damage output of the warriors and spellcasters. The rogue just has to pull their weight enough in a fight to be worth having along for their various utility skills. The balance should come in how skills are all
  4. This is not the kind of thing we're afraid of in terms of kiting and pulling. We're talking about the kind of AI behavior you see in some RPGs and especially in MMORPGs. If we applied this MMO pull logic to your example, the Western knights and infantry would all be standing within 50 yards of each other. The Mongol would carefully edge closer - in full sight of the enemy - until he got to the exact distance were the two knights standing 25 feet away noticed him but the five infantry standing ten feet away from the knights. The knights charge screaming while the mongol backs up another
  5. Multiclassing is a D&D relic that evolved to deal with the rigidly defined classes. D&D required a certain level of simplification because a human had to track all the math and roll the dice. A modern CRPG should simply use a more open class structure if they want players to have the option to have thieves that cast spells or mages in armor or whatnot. Multi-class is basically just a cop-out to get around a class system that people aren't happy using. Prestige class can work when tied to progress. All fighters could start generalist and that at level 10 or what not prestige t
  6. I would like a form of tactical combat as a regular part of the game. I would like the default difficult to make combat interesting, but not so difficult that I have to retry battles a dozen times to beat them. I would prefer not having to rely massively on consumables. I think there should be an easier, narrative-focused setting that minimizes combat frequency and difficulty for folks who don't enjoy the combat in P:E, and a more challenging setting for folks who want most encounters to require highly skilled and precise use of their characters. Personally, I'm not interested in a level o
  7. PLEASE do not make kiting or pulling MMO-style an essential (or particularly useful) mechanic. It's one of the worst things about MMORPGs - the toughest challenge in most MMO fights is not actually beating the enemy but rather in getting a small enough group of enemies far enough away from the others to push the same buttons 30 times to beat them. Space enemies out appropriately, and design it so that they all react appropriately when they can realistically see and hear your party. And yes, the IE games had some awful, awful, awful pathing. Pathing is probably the #1 reason that I of
  8. I'm not saying yes or no because it really depends on the gameworld. I don't think guns are automatically a bad thing. But there has to be some reason they're balanced. You really can't have anything beyond primitive muzzle loaders in the same setting with medieval weapons and armor. The only advantage bows/crossbows have over guns is they are quieter if we are talking any sort of cartridge loading fire-arm. So unless there are some steampunk leanings, I'd tend towards no guns.
  9. I enjoyed BOTH Fallout 3 and New Vegas, although I did like New Vegas better. I don't get the Bethesda hate. If it was that they make buggy games, ok. But F:NV was just as buggy if not more so, since it used the same engine.
  10. There's a lot to be said for being able to kill all NPCs, with the following caveats: Don't let people kill quest NPCs that they'll need to advance the game. They will do it, and then they will whine and cry on the forums, and will just need to undo it with console commands or such. There should be always be consequences to random killing. Appropriate guards/factions should react. Killing people in towns should generally get you in jail. Reputation with non-evil party members and NPCs should take a severe hit. Good people do not randomly murder people or tolerate people who do. Make
  11. I would like as full and complicated an influence and relationship system as possible. What I do NOT want is a number, metered mathematical system like Dragon Age, with purchasable gifts to buy people off. Obsidian's Fallout: New Vegas was pretty darn good at this. I trust 'em. Yes, I know F:NV did have mathematical systems attached to companions and factions, but they were buried within the code and not metered out. Faction reputation was fairly transparent and had stated levels, but companion reputation was opaque and only revealed through conversations and quest options.
  12. Spiders are pretty much the only type of creature that irrationally scare me. It was ingrained on me by mother when I was a kid, it makes no logical sense to me, but that's why they call 'em phobias. I'm not disturbed by them so much that virtual representations bother me, but my mom (who does play numberous RPGs) is to the extent that she simply can't play some games solely because of the spiders. Spiders and snakes are incredibly common phobias, to the point you can find arachnophobia mods for many RPGs. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for developers to put options in t
  13. I don't really see the New Game + mode being very applicable to the type of game I'm expecting from P:E. An action game with RPG elements of gaining skills/stats/equipment (e.g., Batman Arkham Asylym/City) benefits from New Game + A hybrid RPG/shooter like Mass Effect 2/3 benefits somewhat from it. A party-based tactical RPG? Doesn't fit. It just imbalances the low levels too much, or party balance, or... just a PITA to implement in a useful way.
  14. One thing I remember not liking about many old party CRPGs was having to juggle party lead just to open up options in a conversation. If I have Merlin standing next to me, I don't want to find out that he could have solved the entire problem if I'd just let him be the party lead for the conversation. You're party of the group because of your expertise, that should be contributed in non-combat situations as well without me having to pass you the talking stick.
  15. It really depends on the quests. Quest markers are necessary if it's going to be really difficult to navigate to things. If the maps and layouts are simple and distinct enough to find things and quest instructions are clear enough, then they aren't needed. It's less of an issue with a basically 2D map than a full 3D map. Playing a game like Skyrim with no form of quest markers at all would be an absolute pain in the butt. Half the time I couldn't find the path to get to things that I could see on the mountains, let alone if my only guide had been "it's a book in a yeti cave on the sout
×
×
  • Create New...