Lephys

I'm with Sensuki: It doesn't seem that they'll quite be "one shot per battle" or anything. It seems more like they just won't be very feasible to take stuff head-on with. As-in "I'll just run around with my gun, shooting everything." You'll probably be able to attack several times in the same combat. But, it's more that you're trading off all that time for the chance that your potent shot lands. Is it worth it? Against a bunch of heavily armored opponents, it might be well worth the time (and keeping folks from interrupting that gun reload time). Against a bunch of little, lightly-armored enemies? Probably not. By the time you've fired 3 shots, you probably could've killed them twice-over with some other combat means. Imagine the slowest crossbow reload time you can from any RPG time, then add a few seconds to it. It's most likely something like that. It's just not a very rapid attack rate, is all.

Yeah, but, even if Bill the Cop runs into the police station on PCP and starts attacking everyone, even if they believe from the get-go that he's not himself, they're probably still going to tackle/restrain him before suddenly deciding "Oh, he seems to have stopped attacking anyone... obviously he's fine! There's no longer any unknown! 8D!" Besides, the whole point is that they wouldn't decide instantly either way, not that they'd probably decide he's a traitor rather than wondering. Just, the wondering process would be more extensive.

At the very least, "stand thusly" formations would be great. It would, however, be pretty splendid if the formation system allowed for relative formations, rather than exact ones. If you're in a triangle, and you're going down a narrow corridor, instead of repeatedly trying to get in exactly the same spots they were in (thus adding to any pathfinding issues), the "size" of the formation could simply be compressed while in that corridor. Likewise, if you're out in an open area, and some... I dunno, crazy plant-creatures attack you with explosive spores that spread some status effect in a cloud, instead of having to just move everyone around by hand JUST to get them not-as-close-together so that your whole party doesn't get hit by a cloud at the same time, you could use some sort of "Scatter" command to simply have them spread out, while maintaining the same general formation. *shrug* Obviously something even remotely like that could be tricky/time-consuming to program. But, just something beyond "everyone pose like you were in this snapshot" formations would be pretty great, to whatever degree it can be done.

I will add that, while nice, I don't really think we need the feel of a fully populated city with people who will all interact with you. I think at the very least, though, it's just nice to have that ambient effect. I'm wondering if this wouldn't, in theory, be a good job for procedural generation? That bazaar's supposed to be really busy? Maybe you let a character-creation-style system roll up a person with randomized head features, clothing, and body type, at the edge of a "zone," then have them walk through, carrying some stuff or whatnot, maybe stop at a stall or something, or stop and have a fake little quick conversation with someone else (that you can't hear because it's just part of the bazaar din), then eventually just walk on out of the zone. That's just an example (you'd see a lot of people bustling about in a bazaar and such, but would you really ever stop to talk to all of them, or would they really even give you the time of day? They're busy enough as it is, and dealing with the same crowd you are.). This same approach could be used on some place where different things are supposed to be going on throughout the day. Say, a harbour/ "the docks." Here, you'd have roughly the same crew in a given day, working all day (maybe you could re-randomize a crew of workers on given days? *shrug*), but you could just change one thing in the scene. Maybe there's a different ship, being unloaded in a different spot, or some carts parked there being loaded on-TO a ship, etc. It wouldn't even have to be that many things. Sure, if you stop to focus on it and think about it, you'd realize the repeating different instances of dock-state. However, in just playing, the ambience would instantly convey a living, changing city. This is where I think games like Skyrim do it "wrong." The biggest value in daily-life AI isn't so much that each individual person actually does everything they're supposed to all day long in a believable manner. It's just that the people around you seem to be doing what people around you would be doing. It doesn't really matter if they're the same people or not, more often than not. Intently stalking one NPC throughout their daily life isn't much of a benefit in an RPG, anyway. If their daily life is relevant to anything, you could always code in behavior for the part of it that's relevant (i.e. they're being shady as of late, so you follow them at night to the church, where they seem to just go in and pray, but it turns out they leave messages under the pews, or they switch with a look-a-like on the way or something...). While nifty from a technical standpoint, it doesn't do me much good to be able to actually watch someone go use the privy, then go tend to some fields for 2 hours, then go visit their brother and have a conversation about how it's Wednesday, then go buy groceries, then head home and eat them, etc. It's enough that I sometimes see that person out buying groceries, and I sometimes see that person at their brother's house, and sometimes in the field doing their job, etc.

It doesn't, but it guarantees the potential for a better game. Basically, so long as the given state of a game needs improvement (or could benefit greatly from improvement), more time allows for that improvement, whereas, no-delay guarantees that the game remains as-is and gets released. I agree that people shouldn't see it as a guarantee, but that's also why most people generally say things like "IF you need more time, by all means, take the time." If time constraint is an issue, and resources allow, I'd much rather them take an extra 2 months than simply worry about getting the game out "on-time." It's conditional, not inherently absolute.

First of all, scaling is scaling. Its purpose is the same, overall: to adjust things that can be encountered in a variety of different circumstances. Sometimes it makes sense to adjust the level of a creature. Sometimes it makes sense to adjust the composition of an encounter. Sometimes both. Sometimes neither. They are different things, sure, but it's a bit arbitrary to split them up, like "No, we're ONLY talking about not-using-level-adjustments here!" Levels are simply abstract mathematical representations of a virtual entity's capabilities. Therefore, if you adjust that entity's capabilities and/or various factors pertaining to that entity, it's level would likely be affected, for example. I've said this before, but the mere existence of scaling doesn't beget a complete nullification of progress. For example, the goal in a given argument regarding this is to make sure a specific encounter doesn't become easy, not eas-ier. Lastly, even the intelligent/applicable use of scaling is completely circumstance dependent. I couldn't tell you what in PoE should be scaled, and what shouldn't. So, unless someone can tell me, with certainty, all the circumstances throughout the entire crit-path of PoE, I don't see much merit in arguing about whether or not PoE's content, specifically, should be scaled. This is never going to end if we do that. Someone points out an example situation which supports the application of scaling, and someone else counters with a variant example that supports the lack of scaling, and vice versa. So a bunch of possibilities get identified, and none of us is any closer to actually applying any of that to any specific situations within the game, since we're not the ones sitting at our desk all day every day, crafting this game and its encounters and leveling/gear system. There are plenty of reasons not to scale stuff, and there are plenty of reasons to scale stuff. The existence of one does not disprove the existence of the other, and making this a Thunderdome argument isn't productive at all.

I realize there's a lot of "Hollywood" twirling and "shaolin" stuff regarding staves, and I know I talked about using it as a double weapon. But, for the record, I just meant that I'd like to see that possibility. I'd like to see it be used in different ways (the quarter-staff grip, AND the half-staff, etc.). I would think the double weapon grip would be pretty effective in given circumstances. BUT, the main point was merely just that most of the cRPGs we're used to treat staves (and spears alike) as extremely simple weapons. Of course, some of the older games even treated everything as an extremely simple weapon, just having your character swing it like a baseball bat at everything sight. I just think it'd be great to draw a little inspiration (not necessarily simulate 100%) from reality (isn't that part of the purpose of this thread?) in order to season the game's weapon system with a bit of mechanical interest. I'd like to see circumstantial bonuses/detriments come not only from how the weapon is designed to damage (piercing, slashing, effect versus armor, etc.), but also from how you actually wield it and fight with it. That, and from other things, such as concealment (as you guys already brought up). The guards might take away "lethal" weapons, like swords and other bladed weapons, but probably wouldn't deny someone their walking stick. Especially someone who seemed to need it. Also, for what it's worth, Shadowrun (the PnP rules) had a Concealment system, with ratings for all the weapons. That was pretty great, in concept. It would be interesting if one of the trade-offs of carrying, say, a sword, as opposed to a dagger, was the fact that your foe would more likely notice you're carrying the sword than they would a dagger. You could even have more traditionally Rogue-ish armor/apparel be specifically made to better conceal various weapons, etc. *shrug*. Anywho, JFSOCC's right. We've been doing too much talking, and not enough showing of spiffy historical arms and armor.

It's not that we're specifically focusing on floating feet. We're simply noticing and pointing out, just in case. I'm almost certain any of the dev team observing their own handiwork isn't failing to notice such things. But, you never know. They're very busy. Maybe they got the floating issue fixed, and it just popped up again in like one instance. In which case, it would just be a bug. But, either way, there's no harm in observing it and pointing it out.

Hey, maybe someone has a really quiet keyboard.

And if you outfit everyone with heavy armor, and some of the human foes, upon seeing you, happen to sheathe their shortswords and pull out maces and mauls, do you feel like you're being denied all the hard work you put into purchasing/finding that armor, and the higher damage protection it offers? Just because you could be faced with an opponent who matches you doesn't mean you've been denied a power increase. For you to be denied your reward, everything would have to become just as additionally powerful as you had. It isn't reasonable to expect that your increased power applies to anything and everything. If you gain 10 new spells and boost your Intelligence, and you come up against an enemy who's magic immune, the same happens. Just like the armor example. Besides... being powerful refers to what you are capable of doing to your foe. Just because a harder foe shows itself to you doesn't necessarily mean he gains armor and HP equal to your increased damage output. Maybe he just has a couple extra spells, etc. The difficulty comes from not-dying, not from being incapable of harming him. It says nothing about your "powerfulness" rating. And, again, if a particular foe/encounter never existed in the first place, then it's not really "changing." It's only a perception. "If I had gone to that place and been attacked before I did all this other stuff, I would've faced a different opponent." That's two different realities. If there's just a dragon in a cave, and that's where it lives, and it's been sleeping the whole time, and you fight it whenever you fight it, then there's absolutely no reason it would change at all. If there's a cave with some treasured artifact in it, and, when you step on some switch, it triggers a dimensional alarm, and Baddy McBadderton and his henchmen go "A-HAH! Got them!", and teleport into that room to fight you, they can actively send through whomever they want. I doubt there's just one guy and his conveniently appropriately-numerous henchmen in all of existence, and he just happens to send everyone in his army through no matter what. He, being an intelligent, sapient being, can decide who to send and/or what tools they should have at their disposal.

You know what I'd love to see? A quarterstaff/bo staff actually used as a legitimate weapon in the game, instead of treated like a "Meh... I guess if you can't find anything else, you can always awkwardly swing this at the foe as if you have absolutely zero martial training whatsoever" weapon. I want to see specializations, and multi-hit combos, disarms, trips, etc. That would be great. I just thought of that in proximity to spears, since they're both similar in shape. Also... I love it when the equivalent of single-weapon "two-weapon fighting" (using both ends of a staff/spear.polearm, etc.) makes its way into the game, as a stance or what-have-you. Instead of just "spear thrust... spear thrust... spear thrust... spear thrust..."

That is, admittedly, a more accurate example, TrueNeutral. I've seen many a Kickstarter do that: Design-a-such-and-such contests. They are separate from the backer-tiers, true; you don't get to design one of the 10 $1000 characters or something, specifically, true. But, content is content, and the original sentiment expressed was, I believe, simply "sometimes it's a shame you don't get to help contribute some cool content unless you happen to, say, have a thousand dollars." *thumbs up*

Such high cell phone bills, though. 'Cause they were always Roman...

*shrug* Personally, I find such things fundamentally relevant to understanding and reasoning, even if they don't necessarily help decide any particular/current situation. Just because Obsidian isn't going to go back in time and change how they happened to do things doesn't mean exploring the factors involved in such a situation is "irrelevant." If you don't feel it's prudent to discuss it any further, then so be it. But that makes it neither a strawman, nor irrelevant.

The example's purpose is only to point out the factor in the whole equation, not to specifically be applicable to this very situation. And, actually, I'd say it is applicable. Is it somehow impossible for a Make A Wish kid to love Obsidian and their games, and be ridiculously excited about PoE? Either way, he is not misrepresenting your argument. Feel however you will about his particular example and its improbability. He admitted it was extreme. If it wasn't extreme, how would it be clear the factor he was trying to point out? If you just say "Suppose Bill the Dude is kinda broke, but really likes this game... would you turn him down for backer content just 'cause he didn't have the money?" I mean, that's pretty much the argument that was made already, and it was countered with "if you don't pay, you shouldn't get to do anything, 'cause that wouldn't be fair to paying people." The next logical step is a more potent example. That's kind of the whole purpose of that example. To emphasize that "angle," as he put it. Are there not particular circumstances in which "if you didn't pay, you don't get to design stuff" doesn't cover all the bases?

On that note, even when it's done through un-mundane means (typically magic), it's pretty ridiculous how, the SECOND the spell wears off, all the target's allies instantly forgive him, and he rejoins their ranks and turns on you. You'd think after 15 seconds of him trying to kill them for who-knows-what reasons, they'd put "finish him off" at higher priority than "ping him to see if he's sane again, and ask why he attacked in the first place, then work out our differences all in the midst of combat." 8P That's my issue with a lot of games in which they try to hype up all this dynamic, emergent gameplay. "Oooooh, you can distract people and make people fight each other!" Then you get the game and play it, and it turns out there are 2 spells in the game: Distract, and Frenzy. You don't dynamically spur anything. The function of the spell/ability is just "you do this, this guy fights his allies." I'd love a game that presented me with a bunch of dominoes, so to speak, and let me decide in each situation which one to poke, and let the rest fall how they will. Maybe they all topple, maybe only some do. Maybe someone notices and stops them and sets them back up. Maybe they start at one end, or in the center, and move to the other end, or the outside. Etc. If they allowed D&Dish utility spells like Ghost Sounds or Dancing Lights to be used, that would be amazing. Of course, I know that sort of thing starts getting really hard to do. Like, how do you let someone do really cool stuff with Dancing Lights without just coding that option into the game? "*Use the lights to make it appear as though a bunch of people with torches are marching down the path, and use Ghost Sounds to generate the sound of marching and banter.*" Well, now you didn't do anything spiffy with that. You just picked the idea that was already pointed out to you and conveniently coded in as an option.

^ Such systems (dark side versus light side completion) irk me, as well. The problem stems from the end abilities in any given "tree" being essentially a higher tier (or providing a higher tier of bonus) than the lower ones. Thus, if you get 10 abilities total no matter what (for example), you end up taking 5 from each of two trees, but then, those 10 aren't as valuable as having 10 from the same tree. The argument is typically "but you're more versatile now!". Which is true, but that shouldn't really have anything to do with the potency/value of that versatility. Versatility already comes with its price. For example, in D&D, as a Wizard, even if you ONLY had Level 1 spells, if you had 6 from one school of magic, versus 1 from each of 6 different schools of magic, you'd be trading something off either way. It shouldn't be "Oh, if you take 5 spells in one school, you get Level 3 spells in that school! But if you don't hit 5 spells in a single school, you just get Level 1 spells!"

Like... Firefly universe "shiny"? Or just make the game have a metaphorical sheen, from the metaphorical polish?

Do you? I'm emphasizing a possibility. Are you suggesting it's impossible? This is what I don't understand. I say "this should happen under the proper circumstances," which is a conditional "should," and yet you want to argue "Nuh-uh!" to that, based on the fact that those circumstances won't necessarily occur. Also, an entire fantasy RPG story (involving magic) in which there's NEVER -- not even once -- an active "Actively engage these people at an opportune moment" encounter? Not impossible, but highly unlikely, if you really wanna get into probability here. Even if it's one encounter the whole game, that one encounter should be "scaled" (a game term... in the game world, it would simply happen differently for sensical reasons.) It's not really the solution to "my" problem. It's the solution to the one you want to keep pointing out because you apparently frown upon people who don't want to do enough stuff in a playthrough to reach the level cap. It's been brought up oodles of times already, but "optional" content is called that for a reason. Besides, that's easier said than done. Again, 6 characters gaining even ONE additional level can make a HUGE difference in the tools at the player's disposal, depending on exactly what that level entails (spell frequency changes -- at-will instead of per-encounter, or per-encounter instead of per-rest, etc. -- talents, etc.). If the encounter in question is STILL that tough, even for that party with all that additional stuff, then telling someone "You can be a level or two below that, if you want. These quests and such are totally optional..." is a bit of a technicality. "It's not impossible to beat that encounter without doing more stuff, if you're lucky." Also, for the record, I'm not saying it's the game's obligation to make things easy on everyone. You seem to keep focusing on that whole "scale it down for the little guy" factor, but I'm more looking at scaling it up for the "big" (higher-leveled) guy approach. Again, where appropriate. There are more criteria than "Is it an encounter? Are you a higher level? SCALE! 8D!"

Po-tay-toh, po-tah-toh. A helper lad (or lass, though historically improbable) carrying a golf bag full of weaponry is a hilarious image, if you ask me.

... *slow clap* Seriously, though. You's good people.

^ Not really. It's merely an example illustrating the point that "you pay, you play" isn't the end-all be-all principle for deciding who should or shouldn't get to do something like partake in backer-content-type stuff. He's simply pointing out the exception to the rule. To be a strawman, it'd have to be arguing a completely different rule.

Thanks for the mental image. I now like to think that the Watcher uses a length of chain made out of eyeballs as his weapon. It's unique, so it's got some spiffy name, like the Thresher of Vigilance or something.

^ I'd rather slay 1/10th of a goblin, but have that be the most challenging Disembodied Goblin Hand fight ever. I jest. I'm in total agreement with you. I just recently picked up Dark Souls (I know, I'm late to the party), and while it still has plenty of abstraction and video game exaggeration going on, the premise of combat is at least a lot more that almost anything could kill you. It's most evident when you get attacked by like 10 of the little piddly zombie peeps. Sure, you might can kill them in one hit, but you still only swing so fast, and if they gang up on you, they can easily slaughter you, if you're careless. It's nice to know you can't just stand there and laugh.

...Said the physicist when confronting the thief of his stolen particle. "I'll have my ion, you!"