Lephys

Not true. Once more than a certain number of people are at E3, seeing PoE, the building's fire codes will have been breached.

If only it had been a rapier or stiletto instead of a pistol, I'd've just called it Disa's Pointer.

Such pretty! So progress! Much awesome! I'm no expert, but it sounds like things are coming along quite nicely. I especially enjoy hearing the "and some extra stuff we didn't even plan on" in the status update for each area. Sounds like most of the content teams are beyond quota, I've gotta say... every time you guys show us some stuff in an update, the game just looks... beta and beta! EDIT: Also, anyone who likes pixel art and/or seemingly awesome RPGs should definitely check out Witchmarsh. It looks like it's going to be pretty great. I've been perusing Kickstarter as of late, and had actually already backed it.

^ Indeed there are. If not more than 2. Or, at least, functionally, you can switch weapons in combat.

You know... ruins always sink (realistically so), but, in a fantasy world (not necessarily PoE), I think it'd be interesting to have a previous civilization's ruins actually end up ABOVE the new civilization, due to some catastrophic alchemical/magical catastrophe. So long as the setting involved a lack of altitude-exploring technology, it would be infeasible to reach these ruins for quite some time. Or maybe there are even remnants of towers that will get you up to them, but no one really goes up there because of the danger (just like with going downward into dangerous/infested subterranean ruins.)

Even if you don't feel it's necessary, I'm still sorry. And, I must further apologize, but I honestly do not comprehend, at all, any of what you're saying here. Apparently I've been arguing with myself? Obviously we are on different pages here, so I'll not press the matter further. I bid you adieu.

^ Basically, I was just curious if any sort of melee attack, whatsoever, with a ranged weapon would be possible in PoE, since they're possible in reality (especially against a beast or creature that isn't parrying you, etc.). The added possibility of this attack's contribution to an easier disengagement was just something else I observed. If you really want to get into it, maybe it's just a chance to affect disengagement. If it doesn't work, then you've delayed your flight from the foe by standing there long enough to make a less-than-potent melee attack. If it does, then great. We already know about other classes getting disengagement attacks, and the Wizard gets to use his Grimoire for one. Who's to say the Ranger disengagement attack (for example) isn't a melee attack with a ranged weapon? *shrug* It's not really any more powerful than Grimoire Slam. It's not like the Wizard just gets to never be engaged. He gets to break engagement once in who knows how much time (a minute? A whole encounter?). Besides... if you're relying on a ranged weapon, and you freely disengage and run away, the foe's going to be hot on your tail anyway. So, the very next time you stop and shoot (most likely after reloading, since you probably haven't done that yet and probably can't do that on the run), you're going to be engaged again. Anywho, really, it was just a simple question, based on curiosity. I figured Josh has already thought about all this 7 times more than any of us have, since his day job is making this game. So, I figured just asking if anything like that was going to be in the game would be easier than presenting an elaborate analysis about it.

If I am, then I guess I'll have to... square off against my foes. (... okay, I've met my pun quota for the day. They're great for morale, but I don't want to derail the thread, haha.)

That's not the case, but I'm sorry that you feel that way. I wasn't claiming you used the word "exact." I wasn't quoting you with that word. My apologies for the lack of specificity there. Also, I appreciate the amount of time and effort you put into that visual aid. It still doesn't help me, however. Pointville isn't even listed anywhere in that image. Does The Point reside within pointville? Also, is North at the top of that image, or on a different axis? Altitudes would be beneficial, as well. I could appear to be mere inches from Pointville (once I actually find it on that map), but actually be 10,000 feet above-or-below it. Thanks in advance.

Will there be any form of "pistol whipping" with gun/crossbow butts? Not so much as an offensive maneuver, but more of a "maybe I can at least do SOMETHING to this guy who just got really close to me, so that I can disengage and/or move away more easily to facilitate reloading/further firing on my part." Just curious. And, as always, your time and design factoids are very much appreciated. ^_^

I'm gonna hafta get a bigger mug, in order to enjoy all that Varia Tea. Seriously, though. I'm very happy to know there'll be a good bit of variety. I don't know if this has been addressed before, but, will there be any form of "I want to wear Item A, but I want to use the appearance of Item B" in the game? It's not at all necessary, but it can be very nice. Because, even if you make all the gear/attire super amazing looking, personal preference ultimately prevails, and someone might find that Ancient Sorcer's robe goofy-looking, but wish they could use its awesome unique stats in lieu of their Piddly Apprentice's robe. *shrug* Plus, you generally have to actually possess the item in question, so it's not really like you're getting to just pick your appearance out of a hat.

I never saw those. Thanks, Sensuki! ^_^

@Mor: Yeah, I realize it's not as easy as "just put a different ship object there." I just honestly am aware just how much I don't know about what would and would not be feasible. I don't know how many objects will actually extend into 3D space, other than the players and character/entity models. I recall seeing some vertical collidable objects, like columns, actually being 3D objects "atop" the 2D background art, but still only possessing a single, 2D "texture" just on the front face of them (since the camera angle's never going to change in-game, anyway). I don't know if that's me imagining things, or if that's actually going to be used in the final game or was just something they were toying with or what. Anywho, I'm only evaluating the sheer concept. If there were any feasible way to do that, I value the approach of it. The city environments are ones you're going to see probably a lot more often than, say, a given forest area or cave or something. You're not going to revisit that same forest area 23 times throughout your travels, to stock up on things and talk to people, etc. So, it makes sense, to me, however you do it, to put a bit more TLC into those. Just a bit. IF resources allow, again. So, if having a couple of variations were feasible at all, I'd say a few subtle changes (like a different ship docked in a different place on the harbour, or a wagon cart in a different place, etc.) would go a LONG way. Look at the stronghold. There's going to be renovated forms of almost everything in there. That's directly tied to mechanics and player choices, but, still. Obviously that can be done. And, as I said, I don't know that it would have to be done that way or nothing at all. Maybe there will be a few actual 3D (even fi they're just 2D faces in 3D space) props that could be overlayed into the scene (like a goods cart parked beside a shop, etc.)? I don't personally know, in my mind, that that isn't possible, which is I why I still posit the suggestion instead of saying "Oh well, you're right, I'll just forget about that." I'm not trying to suggest what should be done. I'm only suggesting end-results that, if achievable, feasibly would be pretty cool, methinks. But, yeah... long story short, I think a lot of games tend to go "we don't just want a static world with NPCs standing around... let's make things dynamic!", and go a bit further with that than they really need to. Having a "scene" of a bustling city is a lot more important than having a bunch of Sims in that city, if that makes any sense, as you're never really going to notice that those people never do anything but create a bustling scene. With that bustling scene in place, you could even just have all the relevant/interactable NPCs be rather static, and it would hardly be noticeable or stand out at all. Why? Because the gestalt of the city are "things are constantly happening and changing here, throughout the day," and that hits your brain much more powerfully and intuitively than "Hey, why doesn't that shopkeeper's daughter ever wander off into town and run errands?" Good point about Skyrim/Fallout being a persistent world. It does make more sense, within that context, to focus more on having full schedules/behavior routines for the NPCs. Also, yes! RADIANT AI. I knew it had a name. Thanks. That was bugging me,

Sounds like combat's gonna get a bit... griddy.

The reason there are 3 E's is because it's the sound of excitement: "Eee! 8D!"

Speaking of that, I'm now curious about the existence/nature of grenade-type weaponry back then. What kind of stuff was commonly seen, and when did it start showing up, exactly?

Agreed, but that's a very narrow view of scaling. Sure, it's often used heavy-handedly like that. However, as I've pointed out before, the game already establishes a relationship between the toughness of enemies and the toughness of your party. At the beginning of the game, you're not fighting Balrogs and Dragons. You're presented with weaker combat challenges, conveniently, because your party is Level 1 and has pretty basic gear (if you even have a party... you usually just start with one person). Then, later on, as you understandably level up and acquire new stuff, you face tougher foes as you go. Thus, the game presenting you with appropriate challenges is clearly fine, in and of itself. The devil is in the details. Scaling could be used to merely make a tweak here and there. There's a difference between a given encounter becoming easier, signifying the relative power/skill you've gained, and it becoming a cakewalk simply because there's been a planetary alignment of factors. That's not really intentional, it's just part of the chance that goes with having such a variety of encounter factors thrown at a party that has such a variety of different build options. Seeing that you've got 3 Mages in your party, for example, and giving the enemy group 2 higher-level Mages (so that they get more magic defensive spells at their disposal) is just a tweak to take the combat from "HAHA I SPELL ALL YOU TO DEATH IN AN INSTANT!" to "Oh, this isn't a cakewalk simply because magic." Doesn't mean all your efforts were for nothing. Does two entities going from level 6 to level 7 account for that extra level and new equipment your entire party has gained? Methinks not. There's a ridiculous amount of room between "this encounter is completely static" and "this encounter matches me 1:1." Whether it's simply bumping levels, or adjusting other stuff really depends on what's going on. Also, for the record, a level rating doesn't really mean anything outside of context. It's just a rating to compare relative power/toughness between entities in an RPG. If you're level 3, and you see that something's level 6, you can expect it to be tough. So, the fact that you're scaling something's level is pretty moot, really, because all you're doing is adjusting that creature, such that it would be assigned a higher level rating. But, again, to be clear, I'm not really a fan of simply adjusting pre-existing entities that were definitely just standing around in the world, guarding something.

It's usually poorly handled in games... by using it to present a continuous, consistent challenge across the board. If the core of it was that, then how could it be handled poorly by merely being used as its core mandates? I get it. I used the word "exact" when you didn't. I shouldn't have done that, apparently, even though I wasn't claiming to quote you, or attributing the word "exact" to your argument. I'm sorry for whatever wrongdoing I have committed. Welcome to PointVille. Precisely. Why are you arguing against me by pointing out literally the exact same thing I expressed in the first place? How can level-scaling be used for consistency if even making the levels of all entities in the entire game uniform still doesn't provide consistency? Again, this is why the way in which this form of adjustment gets handled poorly is specifically by trying to use it to do just that (a la Oblivion). It: A) is arbitrary, because everything in the world definitely doesn't have any reason to be of a different level than it would've been under other circumstances, and B) Doesn't even really accomplish the goal, because different foes still possess oodles of other variable factors that result in inconsistent combat encounter challenge. I don't get what point you're trying to make by butting heads with my words, then repeating the same thing I stated. I'm confused.

I realize you said "at its core." And I said different words. We're talking about the same thing. What is present when something "merely exists" in a given game, if not its core? Also, consistency is synonymous with sameness. If you weren't talking about the challenge being the same by being consistent, then I apologize. But, your word usage suggested otherwise.

@Mor, you seem to be (the key word being "seem"; please be aware that I realize I might be mistaken) against the opposite of what I was vying for. However it ended up, the whole idea behind Skyrim's NPC system (I think it started with Oblivion? I can't remember what they called it... they have a proper name for it) was basically "ZOMG! You can actually follow someone around from dawn 'til dusk (and beyond, really), and it'll be as if they're a REAL person living in that town, complete with 24 hours of activities!", instead of just "whenever you see this person, they don't seem to just stand around and never change for months and months." I was pointing out that the emphasis on each individual person actually behaving like a complete, existing-for-24-hours individual with needs and a personality and whatnot should really be less of a priority than simply making sure the existence and behavior of that person in a given interaction/scene makes the town/city feel like an actual, populated place, with people who live there. I believe the ambiance is more important (and easier to achieve, I bet) than the fully-fleshed-out individuals-with-entire-lives thing is. I'd much rather the writing behind the NPCs make me feel like they're real people, than worry with their 24-hour cycle of behavior, should I happen to follow them around the entire day[/i] doing that job. Also, I realize that, especially because of the nature of their environments (baked 2D images), some of the stuff in my example may not be feasible to do. It was only meant as an example of the type of approach that I think is more valuable. Not as a definitive, specific suggestion. It's like a play or movie, with a bunch of extras. They don't have backstories and night jobs and whatnot. But, in the scene, they make a movie set feel like a real place. You intuitively think "Ahh, all these people are going about their business," even though they're not actually going about any business at all. Nor are they returning to any specific homes at night. Nor are any of them getting sick or moving, etc. And, they basically just hire people who are competent enough to throw a costume on and behave like a person in the setting in which they're placed.

That's not exactly true. Level scaling simply makes an adjustment for the purposes of challenge moderation. You could adjust a single rat in the entire game of 1,000+ foes, and you would still be employing level scaling. Also, as I've mentioned before, you could make any scaled foe go up 1 level for every 2 levels you go up, etc. Thus, its mere existence (level scaling's, that is) does not in any way provide a continuous, consistent challenge to the player. Not to mention the fact that, even IF everything scaled 1:1, throughout the whole game, a Level 5 Human Bandit and a Level 5 Ice Troll aren't going to provide the exact same challenge.

Nah, it's not a cheap shot. It's true. I mean, the point I was making was simply just that, if the state of your game nearing the planned completion date is definitively lacking in a way that nothing short of more time ironing things out will fix, then, at the very least, no delay = no improvement, and delay = maybe-improvement. Again, it's all conditional, and there's not really any one thing that decides it. But, if you were to rate your game's quality on a scale of 1-10, and it's at 4, then the potential to get it to a 7 coupled with the potential for it to go down to a 3 is better than just leaving it where it is. And while there isn't just one deciding factor, it IS heavily dependent upon the pre-production plan and the course the team is following. For example, if you're building a model, and you've got excellent plans, and you've figured out all great materials and quality assembly processes, and everything you've built so far is excellent, but you're only 3/4th of the way done with the model and you run out of time... well, the mere addition of more time isn't going to hinder anything. Some other factor would have to change to cause a negative effect at that point. For something like a game, a good example would be "we've ironed out 20 of the 25 weapon types, and we could really use another couple months to finish the last 5." If they simply take the time to follow a legit plan, then it's going to be helpful. They're not going to end up with fewer polished weapon types in their combat system. Even if they end up with 21 and not 25, that's still an improvement. And even if the game sucks, really, that's still a relative improvement, most likely. Delay followed by bad game does not mean the delay didn't help. It just means it didn't pull the game out of the suck zone. But, yeah... more often than not, the problematic delays are the "Okay, obviously our plan isn't working like intended. Let's spend 6 more months on this, and change our plan to come up with something that'll make this more fun/less problematic!" That's when you run into the gamble. You don't have all this prior support for whatever plan you've just come up with, and you have a lot less time in which to execute it, from conception to completion. SOMEtimes a team pulls that off just fine, but it's always a lot more likely when it was all planned from the get-go, and the time is basically just an extra bit of quantity of a resource necessary to get the game from unfinished to finished.

Yeah, it's like in films and fiction regarding modern firearms! You don't need to actually emply skill at all. You just sort of hip-aim in the general direction of your enemies, and then fire for the next 17 seconds straight. Because it's not like your 30-round magazine would be spent in about 4-5 seconds of full automatic fire, and your spray wouldn't be inaccurate as all getout from the recoil. Of course, then you've got those movies that overcompensate, with ALL 1,000,000 bullets fired in a given conflict missing all the targets, who are running as fast as they can in an open field to dive behind cover. 8P Annnnywho.

28.8?! Dear lord, man! You had one of the PREMIUM modems, didn't you... Also, I demand that all patches be individual files that must be run within a DOS prompt, and in the proper order.

Quite possibly. Either that, or they become somehow very much affiliated with one. All we really know is that we (the main character) witness some key, supernatural event. Could be that that event has to do with souls/stuff only a Watcher can witness, and it just happens to be something really crazy (like... a soul that's somehow an anomaly, or some action being taken upon a soul that was previously thought to be impossible and that has dire ramifications, etc.). Or, it could be that we're not a Watcher, but witness the death of one, but are imparted with important information before that death occurs, that we must convey to someone else, OR ELSE! *Shrug*. I'm very curious to know exactly what it ends up being.