Jump to content

Lephys

Members
  • Content Count

    7,237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

Everything posted by Lephys

  1. This. Limits have their place, but it's hard to say "unlimited is bad" or "limited is bad" without knowing the context of the game. I think the loot systems in games have just gone the way of the "Well a large drink is only 20 cents more. So even though it's 70 more oz, and I don't need that at all, that's more drink for my dollar!" notion and gotten us used to making sure things don't go to waste. Again, because ANY Xaurip spear on the ground is a potential couple of CP for us to put towards something else. You don't really want the Xaurip spears. You want the value. I like that you ment
  2. Sorry for the delayed response, as I had a very busy past few days. Firstly, you've completely ignored anything I've said beyond the words "level" and "scaling," then just responded as if I said whatever it is you imagine anyone not saying "I hate level scaling and it's terrible" would have said. Nowhere, in any of this, did I even come close, to ANYTHING, that could even be con-SIDERED a suggestion to scale everything 100% to the player's level, all the time. So, I'm sorry... I don't even know how to respond to this without just repeating what I've already said probably multi
  3. *nod nod*. My favorite note on this is that famous quote by Henry Ford that apparently wasn't actually a quote by Henry Ford (some newspaper reporter at the time didn't have their facts, or twisted some words, or something, for a better story), but darnit if it doesn't illustrate the problem with consumers. I think it went something like "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would've said 'a faster horse.'" (in regard to his pursuit of automobile mass production). Game mechanics and the like are much like cookies. Sure, people know "I like chocolatey cookies," but they don't often
  4. You wouldn't, which is why I did not suggest you would. You have misunderstood my point by omitting key details from what was said. In my proposed example with the big bad dragon encounter, you want there to be a big bad encounter for the player, but you don't necessarily want it to be at the end of the game. You can either make several different encounters of various levels so that the player always has a relatively difficult encounter, just to technically not scale the dragon, I suppose. But this doesn't really meet your goal, because your goal wasn't to have 5 dragons in this particular
  5. Keep in mind that the lack of a different bonus is functionally a "penalty." That being said, it doesn't mean there's definitely no reason for Order penalties, but sometimes, the whole "you get a bonus, but also a malus" thing is less valuable, because the malus is redundant when just a "because you picked A, you don't get B, C, or D" penalty would've sufficed. Also, a malus is only useful in this type of balancing when it makes things more interesting. I'm always a bigger fan of "you can do this cool extra thing, but you have this kind of crazy, interesting malus" over "You get +5 to this, bu
  6. ^Meh... if it's all intuitively and concisely designed, almost any amount of complexity works well. You learn the basics of attacking in combat, then you learn of a couple of other things you can do to affect that, etc. Or, you even have things like Dragon's Dogma, in which a lot of the complexity is just discovering that X affects Y. It's not so much 730 different controls you have to juggle. Granted, a lot of the things in that game aren't very intuitive (like how pawn behavior works in accordance with the various dispositions -- it just doesn't tell you the rules well enough, and that syste
  7. If all mobs scale, sure. Even then, that's not exactly the case. Having the fireball spell as opposed to lacking it is not a direct mathematical measurement. Part of progression isn't direct power improvement. Also, the second half of that quoted portion is entirely false. Your party progression is a singular thing. Unless you adjust your power progression by X for one encounter, then by Y for another, you can't simply adjust power progression overall and somehow achieve tuned scaling adjustments for various individual encounters or groups of encounters. It's quite simple, really. In a
  8. You could still do that, yes. I think the STR/RES change is still valuable, though. Does it fix all the problems? Probably not. There's most likely more tweaking to be done. There are really 2 problems with the stat system issue: 1) People tend to think that if there can be any problem within the system, it's just broken (i.e. "well, this isn't perfect still, so see, we should just do the thing that I happen to like and not even worry about function/effectiveness") 2) People tend to think that if a change doesn't fix EVERYTHING, then it's fixing nothing. Granted, I'm not saying yo
  9. Probably the largest singular problem with the handling of romance in RPGs is that it's a thing that you can optionally do. Conflict between characters isn't a thing you can optionally do. Neither is pretty much any other emotional development. I mean, sure, outcome A or outcome B might occur between your party and some NPC depending on your choices, but you don't just get to choose "Nah, I'm not gonna have anyone be mad at me." Romance is just a part of the people-simulation of the world and characters. Generally, it gets crafted into the game as this weird, super-separate add-on (which i
  10. ^ Understandable. I've had this discussion before, . You are correct that 1:1 scaling is generally bad. But, again, that's a bad implementation of the idea of adjustment, which is all scaling is. For example, JUST by simply changing the scaling factor from 1:1 to like 1:2, you end up with a huge difference. Imagine a designed encounter is lvl 5, and you're lvl 10. With 1:1 scaling, the enemies are now all lvl 10, forcibly so. They're basically keeping up with you. With 1:2 scaling, when you're level 10, they're level 7.5 (I know that doesn't make sense... they'd be 7, I suppose. Unless you
  11. Keep in mind that the lack of a different bonus is functionally a "penalty." That being said, it doesn't mean there's definitely no reason for Order penalties, but sometimes, the whole "you get a bonus, but also a malus" thing is less valuable, because the malus is redundant when just a "because you picked A, you don't get B, C, or D" penalty would've sufficed. Also, a malus is only useful in this type of balancing when it makes things more interesting. I'm always a bigger fan of "you can do this cool extra thing, but you have this kind of crazy, interesting malus" over "You get +5 to this, bu
  12. Each player chooses the way he wants to play, but that doesn't mean that no build can possibly be ridiculous. The goal of the game sets the criteria for that designation. For example, the game is designed such that you have a limited amount of health, so that combat is SOME level of a challenge, instead of just a matter of time dealing damage greater than 0 and eventually winning all the time. That would be pointless. A "skip through combat and automatically win" mode would serve much better if never losing combat were a goal-option to provide to the player. Thus, if the game could allow you t
  13. Well, there are two types of people in the world: Those who adhere to reason, and those who do not. People can dislike things for any number of reasons, and every single person could dislike the same thing for a different reason. The only sensical thing to do is to adhere to reason. Look at it another way. If everyone's correct just because they think something, then everyone's wrong as well, because someone else always thinks someone's wrong. It makes no sense. Most SJWs have a good point somewhere that they're starting from, but they essentially become addicted to fighting fo
  14. Yeah, sorry. I was attempting to point out that, while the statement itself didn't directly pertain to the objective functionality of attribute mechanics, your point on top of the statement DID pretty directly (inversely, sort of?) apply to the idea of changing something that works just to not only make it more artistically/aesthetically pleasing, but also pleasing in accordance with someone else's tastes rather than your own. 'Twas hard for me to convey that without one of my usually walls o' text, and I'm trying to kill those. Haha.
  15. Fair enough, but "and then our party of adventurers swept over the land with the force of thousand suns and were met with naught but a mosquito's resistance" isn't a very exciting story. I dare say the struggle of a conflict is part of the stories they tell, And yet, by design, the entire campaign of the game has your opponents scaled such that the path you walk in the first 30 minutes of the game, when you're level 1, isn't populated by level 73 dragons, but instead by lower-level things that are feasible for you to face. The creators of the game world and campaign have literally
  16. While I'm 100% behind this statement, I find it somewhat of a struggle to apply it to attribute mechanic design. That being said, they do need to stick to their objectively-evaluated-to-be-good decisions more, and stop worrying quite so much about what people frivolously desire. Not that it's completely insignificant how people subjectively feel about the game systems, but it's 100% secondary to the objective value of said game systems within the context of the initial design Obsidian themselves have set forth. To put it overly simply, why shouldn't Deadfire be changed into a side-scro
  17. Sure, but if the first 50% of the sidequests are "wow, I can really feel the significance of these extra levels I'm gaining!," and the last 50% are "Anything I gain at this point is entirely pointless," is that really the ideal situation?
  18. Religeots are simultaneously pigeons, religious, and zealots. . They're so full of zeal, they fight with an extraordinary amount of GUST-o.
  19. For what it's worth, the forced avoidance of a cliche/stereotype is just as wrong as adhering strictly to one. In other words, saying "we can't make her interested in women, because that would be a stereotype" is just as ludicrous as saying "we have no choice but to make her interested in women, because all people with her characteristics are interested in women." If you don't let some characters coincidentally fit with some stereotypes, you end up creating weird Bizarro Stereotypes. Instead of "All people with short hair like donuts," (just as a silly example), you end up with "All people
  20. Religious pigeon - Religeon Religeon is evolving into... Religeotto!
  21. I understand this. I never said more simulation is always better. And it doesn't quite come down to what the devs want to portray, as much as what they want to do with the attribute values. This type of game is based upon the notions behind table-top gaming. That's kind of what makes an RPG an RPG, as opposed to something else. Your Pong paddle doesn't have stats. Your RPG character does. Why? So you can play a distinct role for that character that you built. The options and values and measurements are there to provide distinctions between characters. The world-building coincides with these va
  22. You make good points, Ninjamestari. All I'm really saying with the "a Wizard should be able to utilize Constitution" example (and the points I made surrounding it) are that the approach to the design of both classes AND attributes, and how they will work together from the get-go, is important. Just to illustrate, you said that there's no need to start forcing down new abilities just to make stat X a viable build for class Y. And that's precisely correct. But, all things in moderation. One should not force down an idea such as "well, you're a caster, so the entire idea is that you just aren
  23. Thing is... why are unslayable dragons or Orc armies not parked right outside the starting village, blocking your road to literally anywhere else? The only answer is "because your party can only feasibly handle wussier foes right now." Thus, wussier foes are in the early part of the game, and you conveniently don't encounter ludicrously difficult foes until you go elsewhere. I know it gets out of hand, but people act like the natural state of a game world just exists somewhere, and the developers who try to adjust anything in it contextually are unnaturally playing god. No, they're god alr
  24. Your wizard does self buffing so he/she isn't using pure physical power to lift tree trunks But riddle me this, Batman: How much physical power was he using to lift tree trunks? You can reasonably say "I don't care how much, I just care what he's doing and not how he's doing it," but you can't reasonably tell anyone the answer to that question, because there isn't one. If this were a math problem on a test, the answer would be "Not enough information." Might as well combine Intellect and Might into a single stat called Capability, then just say "Maybe the character is exerting en
  25. I get it, but it seems a bit heavy-handed. I mean... if you had some corrupt cops mis-applying laws for jollies, you couldn't just be like "We're gonna form a group to ensure this doesn't happen... so now, anytime a cop applies a law at all, we get to approve it. If we don't like an arrest, then it can't be completed." That's pretty dumb. You just wanted to fix particular cases/instances, but now you've given a group the power to sway things in the complete opposite direction. I understand the malicious situations in which "scabs" are hired instead of union peeps, but at some point in
×
×
  • Create New...