Lephys

Go look at numbers on Steam for purchases of Early Access games, versus the number of purchases after the game has "gone gold," then try to assume everyone who ever wants a game is surely going to give the developers their 30+ dollars 1.5 years ahead of time.

^ Apparently it's supposed to be this flawless beacon of glory in its alpha state, as well as its beta state? So much for that whole "so? people will understand it's not finished" sentiment people always express.

^ this looks like the proverbial reset button. I like "second chance" stuff like this. Prevents the degenerate save scummer in me from reloading the game Dunno if it's changed or not, but I swear the last time this ability was referenced (prior to this update), it was a temporary thing; your Fighter got back up with 50% Stamina, but would collapse back into unconsciousness after 15 seconds or so. Something like that. I interpret this to basically mean... perfect balance. In the long run, having lower health + higher defense will end up being exactly equal, survival-wise, to having higher health and lower defense. That's an impractically simplistic way of looking at things. "In the long run" a party made up of any classes is going to have the ability to beat the game, so it doesn't really matter what's different about any specific portions of the game, etc. The only way we can make the game good is to make sure some raw option cannot survive, and some other one can, right? Yup. Oh wait, or... maybe the entire idea behind "tactical" combat here (and pretty much every other aspect, ever, of an RPG) is how your specific choices produce your specific outcome. Basically, if every single encounter always had the exact same balance of threat types, attack speed, damage, armor penetration, etc., then yes, it wouldn't really matter "in the long run." But, the long run is made up of a whoooooole lot of very different short runs, and that's where differences matter. There are going to be times when your Barbarian's going to get smitten to death rather quickly, but your Fighter's going to be a whole lot more effective, and vice versa. If there are 20 little foes swarming you, your Fighter can't really hold his own against that many targets the whole while, while the Barbarian's effectiveness at taking down multiple foes might be much more valuable, since he can dispatch way more of them than anyone else could before they do too much swarm damage to everyone. What... do you want the number of times a Fighter is useful and the number of times a Barbarian is useful, throughout the game, to be drastically different for some reason? Hey, let's go ahead and make 90% of the enemies immune to magic, while we're at it. Because, otherwise, that Wizard might be "equally" as capable at hurting things as that Fighter. That would ruin the whole game, because obviously nothing can ever be different if someone isn't purely incapable of surviving/dealing with a bunch of stuff.

The biggest outrage was over the technical re-use of areas. The literal re-use of the same virtual content. The main notion brought up in here is the functional/interactive "re-use" of locations. Basically, instead of that village you interacted with and produced results in staying exactly the same for the rest of the entire game ("Oh, thanks! Those bandits are gone! And now we live in peace in our little 10-square-mile plot of the world, for all of time, ^_^"), things actually change in various places throughout the world as you progress through it and stuff (not always directly caused by your hand) happens and affects things. And it's not so much that every individual area, on a checklist, just gives you very specific reasons to return there at convenient intervals. "Oh, DIFFERENT bandits are now attacking our town!", or "Oh, it turns out our mayor is an alien!". Just that, stuff changes. There is some reason to actually reside there again, as opposed to no reason at all (everything's exactly the same, no one says anything different, there are no quests or pieces of quests or people who will supply you with any info whatsoever, and the vendors don't even sell anything useful there anymore.)

Soylent Gear is PEOPLE! IT'S PEEEOOOOPPPLLLLEEEEE!!!

That's not really true, though. If that were true, then you could just make a character with a value of 3 in every stat, and be just fine throughout the game. The elimination of "bad builds" keeps getting pulled out of context, time and time again. There are no inherently/absolutely bad builds. There's no decision to put your last 5 points into stat A that's going to be measurably horrible/useless compared to the choice to put those 5 points into some other stat. Basically, if there are X paths, then there's treasure along each of them. Doesn't mean it's just sitting there in plain sight, and you always get the treasure no matter what. It just means one path doesn't have no treasure available, while another has a chest o' gems.

It seems that, if they have a tank-off, the Fighter will win. But the Paladin can still do the job well, just not masterfully.

I'm telling you what multiplayer doesn't inherently mean, and you're telling me how it happens to be implemented a lot of the time. I don't see an actual disagreement, here. Allowing (the key word being "allowing") co-operative play has never prevented singleplayer play from occurring. Hypothetically, if every single singleplayer game ever made had an optional multiplayer mode that merely allowed a second person (if not more than 2 people) to also provide input to the video game alongside the first person, in the exact same gameplay setting/mode/scenario/what-have-you, then you'd never, ever have your singleplayer game compromised, and you'd never ever be required to partake in multiplay with anyone, ever. Did I mention "ever"? Seriously, though. I don't think some people grasp this. Especially when I point it out, and the retort is "yeah but nuh-uh, because look at this example of a game that didn't do that." I'm inherently advocating a specific setup, here, that's entirely possible and non-problematic, and people keep repeatedly inferring that, no, it's somehow not possible, because multiplayer is inherently encroaching on singleplayer's turf. As if the main menu having "LAN" on it somehow screws up your entire singleplayer experience of an RPG.

Gromnir, did you ever play Betrayal at Krondor? It worked very similarly to how you've described: your spellcasters' "mana" was simply their own stamina/health. Except, they were two subsets of the same "life bar." Everything that hit you only dealt damage to Stamina, until it was gone, after which Health took the damage. It was much easier to recover Stamina, though, than Health. But, spellcasters could cast spells (turn-based combat, btw) at adjustable potencies, spending between the minimum and maximum amount of Stamina. And, if they were out of stamina (or spending enough on the spell to surpass their total remaining stamina), the spell would cost health instead. It was essentially exertion, though still a little different. I always liked it, at its core, though. Regular physical attacks cost Stamina, too, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think they cost Health once you were out of Stamina, but, you dealt less damage with your attacks when out of Stamina, I'm pretty sure... can't remember all the specifics off the top of my head.

Fort Phorne. It could be a noble family name.

No argument there. I guess I just meant... well, imagine if the same person did something in charcoal, then did something else in fingerpaint. Obviously technical aspects are going to look different. But it could still even be the same artist with the same "style." That's all I meant. It remound me of the Eder portrait, is all.

Yeah... I mean, I don't want it to be a go-to stat. Ya know, "more damage always wins!" or anything. But, I simultaneously don't want to see it be like "Meh... you'll get like a 10% damage boost if you set the world record for number of points stuffed into a single stat. It's not much, but it's not nothing, either." I'm not saying it's 10%. That was exaggerative humor. It just seems like the examples that Josh has presented show pretty much the best-case/maximum effect of full Might (if 18 is maximum for the stat), and a difference of ~4 damage isn't really that much, unless it's with a dagger or something you can dual-wield. But that particular example was with a poleaxe, I believe, which is on the slow/hurty end of the spectrum. I mean, if I heard that maxing out Dexterity would only alter your accuracy by 4 points (as compared to average DEX), I'd be disappointed. That means this Most Dexterous Guy in the World over here is only 4% more accurate than this other, average-joe guy. It's seemingly lackluster, unless there's more to damage and the potential effects of Might that we don't know about.

And/or it should just be treated like any other aspect of reputation, in a seemingly good reputation system like PoE's. Romance tends to suck when it gets treated like some completely unique thread of events that's separate from the rest of the game world. "You can play the game... OR, if you want to take a break, you can romance! 8D!" Annnnnnnywho. I guess we've talked about it a few times already,

Fair enough. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That's quite a splendid argument against mandatory co-operative play, but not against the availability of co-operative play. Just because people don't always want to swing with other people doesn't mean we should only ever build swing"sets" with only one swing, in isolation.

Yeah, it's a percentage, right? All the stat bonuses/modifiers are, methinks. So, if there are other ways of upping your damage, maybe that would, as you say, synergize with that? I mean, I don't expect to double damage with a Might modifier or anything, but you'd think there should at least be circumstances under which giving your character 18 (or whatever the max is at character creation) Might instead of spending those points on another stat would be a significant choice. Seems like a poleaxe is probably a pretty damaging weapon (numbers wise), even if it's not the highest-damage weapon there is. So, if 4 points is all we're ever going to get from average to max Might, that seems a little... lackluster? Also, it seems like the very nature of the tactical combat would lend itself more to "under such-and-such circumstances, your Might modifier produces much more useful effects than under other circumstances," instead of just "you get this percentage of flat damage boost, and maybe some carry weight, and that's it." I mean, I guess it'll affect all manner of non-combat happenings (scripted interactions/stat checks). But... still.

I shall assign a value to all possible options, then roll percentile to determine, from my table, which party members to assemble.

----------- PROSE (little joke there): 1) The fact that Obsidian has full control/free creative license over this entire thing. I expect to see the goodness of their previous games, but on steroids this time. 2) Combat's tactical nougat-y center! I love that many abilities have multiple uses (like that Druid [i think?] boulder spell that crushes stuff, OR explodes into piercing shrapnel if it strikes a solid surface instead of a target first.) And a lot of them play with a lot more combat factors than just "where am I hitting, and how much/what kind of damage am I doing and/or am I applying some effect?", not to mention that a lot of other abilities actually play with the various effects. Engagement... the list goes on. 3) All new ruleset from the ground up. It's reminiscent of what we've known for a while now, but it's hand-crafted specifically for a cRPG, instead of just adapted from a not-quite-cRPG-friendly tabletop ruleset meant for a GM with free reign, etc. 4) Scripted interactions and the reputation system -- Extra choices and consequences/significance. 8D! 5) Wizards! Because sorcery. ----------- KHANS (now with 50% more pun!): 1) The amount of Debbie Downer negativity I have to wade through on a weekly basis in order to follow and discuss this game project. 2)... No Lightning Whip? *shrug* 3) ... ... Ehhh... the fact that there's probly lots of stuff they'd love to put in that lies beyond the scope of their budget, so it won't be in the game? 4) ... ... ... ... ... I got nothin'. o_o

I've seen real-life people with smaller eyes. Plus, they're in profile... maybe she has relatively wide, lazy-ish eyes? Who knows. Obviously everyone's welcome to their opinion, but it seems a little odd to me that, instead of saying "I dunno... I don't really like the size of the eyes, etc.", multiple people are all jumping on it as if pointing out a crooked doorframe. "Yep, that's definitely, concretely, flawed. It should be perfect 90-degrees." When the human anatomy allows for quite a range of proportions. I don't understand the extent of the issue being had with it, namely, the certainty of its straying from some very rigid set of blueprints. Personally, I just find it a little odd, and, for lack of a better word, "nitpicky," since it seems to be saying "a human female could not possibly look like that." It looks at least remotely similar to me. Eder's obviously rougher, but the general approach to the human looks decently similar. *shrug*

Sure, but as we learned from Secret of Mana, nothing quite beats the ability to pick up that 2nd controller with your friend and play as the other person in his party, while he plays what is otherwise the exact same game. I think co-operation has been a part of games since games have existed.

The thing is, not being able to make an inherently terrible character and not being able to ineffectively use a given build are two different things. You bring up a good point, but then you make it sound like if a player's cat runs across the keyboard at character creation, then he plays the game blindfolded, he'll still win. When Josh says that a muscle wizard isn't a bad character, he means that, with cognitive effort, you can put that build choice to good use. If you want to mainly toss AoE spells left and right, but you pump everything into Constitution, Might, and Resolve, you're not going to make much use of your stat choices. So, when it comes to any given option (in this case, stat) being not an inherently bad choice, I don't see that as somehow problematic. It's no different from the classes. You can't pick one class that just sucks because you picked it, and another that's awesome because it just is. It's all about how you use them. If you try to hold the lines with a Wizard, and have a rear line of nothing but Fighters with wands, you're not going to have a good time. Yet, each and every class choice is valuable in some way just not in whatever way you draw out of a hat. The bottom line is, there's no need for useless or flat-out inferior build options in order for good ones/a range of effectiveness to exist. The effectiveness of your choices is related to how you use them, not whether or not they inherently do as much as other ones. Eliminating the just-plain badness of build options doesn't make sure Billy Who Thinks This Is An FPS And Doesn't Even Comprehend Mathematics can fire up the game and succeed. It doesn't negate the value of effort and contemplation.

No no, I get that. A fair point about effective reach versus base reach. That doesn't change the fact that sometimes, effective reach isn't shrunken like that, and it does actually matter. Put simply, we know that polearms and the like will mechanically alter your reach, so we know there isn't just a single reach for all weapons ever. So, it's a curious question, now. Really two, I suppose, but they're sort of both answered at the same time: A) Do different weapons affect your reach beyond just "polearm gets reach distance B, all other weapons get reach distance A"? i.e. does a greatsword allow you to attack from a greater distance than a dagger? B) Does Carnage utilize your base weapon reach? Again, most likely they're both the same answer, as I don't see why a greatsword would grant a reach advantage, but then Carnage wouldn't make use of that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noob?s=ts Yes, perhaps it would. Maybe we could talk about the effects of experience amounts on gameplay feel some more, now?

I dunno... maybe? I suppose. Just, as Lawful Neutral, your motivation would be just that: neutral. You wouldn't be motivated to specifically ensure they were found not-guilty. You would simply represent them according to the law. Evil would knowingly seek out loopholes and/or push the bounds of the law in order to pursue a verdict of not-guilty. That's another thing about lawyers, though: Everyone WANTS someone who can "get them off the hook," but it's not really a lawyer's job to "win." It's a lawyer's job to legally represent you, so that people who know all about laws and such don't screw over some guy who can't even read. If you're guilty of a robbery, but someone was also murdered there, your lawyer's job isn't to make sure you're found not-guilty of anything. It's to make sure they, for example, don't try to pin the murder on you, what with the "He already broke in and is a bad person, and we know he was there. Let's just charge him with the murder, and sentence him to like 20 years in prison, even though all he committed was petty theft! 8D!" But, that's a different discussion, I suppose, The D&D alignment system isn't perfect. That's definitely true. But then, how do you simply sum up all of human motivation/behavior/being with a simple table? You probably don't, I suppose.

Homonyms are actually quite funny, indeed, as they serve the basis for many a pun. I dunno about dictionaries, though. They don't seem very funny. But, yeah, for what it's worth, homonyms are different words that sound the same, not just a variety of shorthand mispellings of the same word that someone's applied various meanings to. Just like... "puppy" and "pup" aren't homonyms. They're just two different versions of the same word. If they were going to be a type of -nym, it'd be synonyms. New players are considered to not really know what they're doing in a game, thus, it became a common insult to call someone a "newbie" or "newb." It's a lot like someone in any professional field calling someone else a "rookie" as a comment on their skills/knowledge. Then, people began spelling it all manner of ways. They didn't make up entirely new words that just happen to phonetically sound like "newb," as they all stem from the root word "newbie" and its meaning. So, yes, it's a little silly to pretend that various mispellings of the same word are totally legitimately established individual words with their own meanings. As if "thx" means something different from "thanks." Now, as lovely as that tangent is, I think the actual topic is much lovelier.