Lephys

I can point out that raccoons and humans both have skeletons made of bone, and both have lungs and hearts and such. Doesn't mean I don't see a difference between the two. Honestly, I just think it's you who can't seem to see the similarity. "At this dollar amount, we'll add in trees," and "at this dollar amount, we'll improve the whole game" are no different, in terms of telling at-a-glance which one's meaningless. How many trees will they really add with that money? If they put 2 trees in the game, they've added "trees." Or, what if they already had trees in the game, and just said they'd only add them if we reached that funding goal? You have no way of knowing. Yet, just because we can't measure the exact boundaries of general improvements to the entire game somehow means they're obviously just making crap up to get more money. That is a baseless assumption. Was the goal vague? Yes. They could've provided little snippets about all of the major systems that would be improved, with such things like "There were only going to be about 15 weapon types, but with this goal met, we'll be planning on 20-plus types," etc. Not arguing with you there. That's the difference between the goals. Not "this one means nothing, and the others are all super meaningful and definitely not BS."

Ooh! What if... instead of simply having to prepare the appropriate counter-spell spell, you simply had to "spend" one of your spell slots to counter a spell? As in, you have 3 high-level spells prepared, buy you get hit with some horrible equivalent-level spell from an enemy (something that's just an effect, and not damage). And you get your Spell Craft check, as per your example (I've always loved that whole spell identification aspect in combat). And, if you succeed in identifying the spell, you have the option of spending a spell to counter-act that spell (not always to 100% counter-effect.). The result would be the same (having to use a spell slot to counterspell something), but it would be a lot less rock-paper scissors. Plus, if you'd already cast all your spells of the appropriate level, you wouldn't be able to do it. I know a lot of times when you first get Level X spells, you only have like 1 per day. So, if you get to a combat with something like Petrify, do you wait it out in case you need that spell to counter the Petrify? Or do you just cast that spell in the hopes that you won't need to counter Petrify? Opportunity cost. *shrug*. Just a thought.

Oh, yeah! Agreed. I just saw a lot of people (in this discussion and prior ones about AI) kind of trying to fix the problem of pattern-usurping by just further complicating the pattern. But, I think if you never have something that breaks the pattern "for no reason," it'll never really feel like it's making a decision. You have to simulate that second-guessing, or ulterior motives behind choices, and/or just-plain "this isn't the best calculated tactic, but I'm doing it 'cause I feel like it, and you can't calculate that" choices that humans make. Even with animals, they'd be a lot simpler in their template, but you could still have some seemingly "random" fixations, etc, as an abstraction/general-simulation of just various states of the animal. Maybe one wolf is starving, and another is not. The game doesn't have to display "Ravenous Wolf" when you mouse-over the target. Thus, when that wolf "randomly" fixates on a specific target when we expect it to simply go for the nearest threat, we don't really have to be told why it did that. Granted, yeah, even the random pattern breaks have to be well-thought-out. You can't just play action-roulette with the action tables in the AI code and randomly have them cast heal spells on themselves when they're at full health and such. But, it's definitely a factor that a lot of AI systems don't really take advantage of. Even the most complex one eventually becomes much simpler if you can just figure out how it "thinks" and cut it off every time, with enough effort.

I don't really understand this reaction. The option isn't presented as "oh man, experience is such a turn-off to me!" No pun intended (the option is to literally "turn off" experience, hah!). It's more, "wouldn't it be kind of interesting if you still GOT experience in specific amounts, but didn't really know how much you were getting, and you just leveled up when you leveled up?" By all means, you're welcome to find the option lame. I just feel like your reason for finding it so lame is kind of... not really matching the intent behind the suggestion for the option in the first place. Is Iron Man Mode lame because continuing after dying is such a turn-off for the people who use that?

Me too, but I'm also pretty tired of companies not-making isometric cRPGs. PoE is pretty encouraging when it comes to a lot of things we're tired of.

That sounds splendid. Gets rid of all that "why does the merchant have 1,0000000000 gold?" stuff. Makes sense, AND works well. On top, though, just as a cherry on the whipped topping, it'd be nice to have some sort of dynamic going on with the merchants (related to how much business you do with a given merchant, etc.? And/or some kind of pseudo-randomly fluctuating condition -- shortages, individual stock requests, etc.). Here's the main thing: If there's Merchant A, and Merchant B, and they're just static, then, it sort of feels like variety at first glance, but there's not really much different about them. If they both sell any particular item, there's either going to be a price difference, or there isn't. If there isn't, then why are there even multiple merchants? If there IS, then what's the cost, here, of simply always buying from the cheaper merchant? And, if there's only one merchant in each town that sells a given item, that's just a bit bland, atmosphere/lore-wise. I mean, not that NO town can only have a single weapons vendor or something. But... It'd just be nice if there were SOME kind of uniqueness factor going on with the merchants. A touch of personality, something. Maybe you can buy an iron longsword from both Merchant A and Merchant B, but Merchant B's broadsword deals more piercing damage than slashing damage, while Merchant A's focuses more on slashing than piercing. Just, representative of the subtleties of their handiwork. Just... something. The reason I think it'd be great for just a merchant, in general (doesn't necessarily produce any of the goods, just sells them, at the very least) to develop some kind of individual reputation with the PC is that, if they had any kind of price differences or special requests that yield special rewards, they wouldn't instantly be either the most profitable things, or just moot. As in the example I presented further up in the thread, Merchant A might give you 100gp for that equipment you found in that bandit camp, but maybe Merchant B will only give you 85gp, BUT will give you a discount on his selection as opposed to someone else's selection. You get another factor, other than just "what's better, 85gp or 100gp? Okay, go with that one."

Balance always gets such a bad rep. Even the amount of balancing, funnily enough, needs to be balanced. Full balance would simply be 1 class and no mutual exclusion at all, etc. No balance would be sheer chaos. It's a very general thing, that can either be utilized appropriately or, like anything, used very heavy-handedly.

Ahh. Apparently encouraging someone to broaden their perspective means that I lack the ability to differentiate between distinct things. I'll get that checked out, stat.

I realize you might've just meant "Planescape" as specifically referring to the game "Planescape: Torment," but, just to be clear, Torment: Tides of Numenera will be in no way related to the actual Planescape world/lore/rules/etc, and will instead be using Monte Cook's Numenera world/rules/lore. But, yes, it is being made very much in the style of the previous Torment game. Just a different world and such.

Indeed. A couple of interesting things I think, regarding such an early "I'm just known-to/with the main character" companions, are: A) Have the story just say "Okay, player, I know you don't really know this person yet, but, your character is like BESTEST friends with them!", then, when shyte hits the fan, have the two of you forcibly become separated. Now, you don't just have Best Friend Bill following you around all day, since the dawn of gameplay, commenting on how you already know him because he's your bestest friend. It's just kind of interesting. Or can be. B) Like you said, actually quickly allow the player to get a feel that they know this person pretty well. C) Have them be someone your character actually doesn't know, but just meets very early on (instead of having grown up with them, etc.). So that, even if you're feasibly sort of forced together and end up having to trust each other very quickly (or you both die, etc... that type of situation), you still don't really know each other, beyond that you can each trust one another. Then, you get to learn about them from the beginning of the game, just like your character does.

No worries. Even putting maximum points into your Perception and your Search skill, you must've happened to roll a 1. (Psst... those look like lovely games, ^_^)

I like how the Rogue's Sneak Attack is handled: If they land a hit within the first... what, two seconds of combat, it's a Sneak Attack? Or, that's one of the conditions that contributes to the "sneakiness level" of the attack (if enough are met, it could end up being a Lethal Strike or whatever). But, yeah, that's really the only major thing about the sheer "eliminate pre-buffs" mentality that I'd be concerned about: ambushing. Of course, a lot of this has to do with the fact that it's a video game, and the "start of combat" doesn't really mean the same thing as it does in reality. With that in mind, I'd honestly be fine if, say, if you were sneaking up on people, everyone in your party gets one ability's worth of action before the enemy actually detects/engages you. So that, even though combat "has started" the second you start casting a bunch of buffs, you could cast up to one buff per person before actually alerting the enemy to your presence (i.e. one of those 6 orcs drops to an arrow, and the others immediately know "Oh crap, we're being stricken by arrows.") Basically, it's still an opportunity cost, because you could've had everyone just run in and attack first (and/or cast offensive spells instead of buff-type spells, or even de-buffs); either way, you get that freebie "round" at the beginning of combat. I think that would be pretty nice. And the Rogue's Sneak Attack "catch 'em off guard" 2-second condition could be applied to that point, too, instead of the actual start of the very first action from your party (when combat mode "toggles on/begins"). *shrug* Functionally, just some sort of delayed reaction from the opposing "team." In a turn-based game, you'd get to go first when you sneak up on people. I think this pretty much applies in real-time, too, for the most part. You get to execute whatever you can in those first few seconds before you actually give yourselves away, whether that happens with a dagger in the enemy's shoulder or some kind of magical crackle sound/glow/shimmer coming from a buff spell. Some enemies could even be harder to ambush. If there were a bunch of archers on a wall, arrows nocked, eyes scouring the flora along the tree line, then you're clearly not going to get away with standing in some shrubbery along the tree line while you cast some spells and prep some stuff, then charge them; they're pretty much going to start loosing arrows the instant they see you. I know there won't be facings (at least, not planned, thus far) in the detection/stealth system, but... maybe simple states of alertness could at least count? Patrolling guards that stop to talk to one another, even if only for 5-10 seconds (at shift change or something?) would be slightly distracted from 100% on-the-lookout mode, and they could be caught off-guard a lot easier than guards who are simply staring at the place from whence you're emerging in the darkness, ready to swing/fire their weapon at a moment's notice. *shrug*

Aka... a JACK-SASS! BRB, I'm getting that trademarked.

Youtube is the bane of my workplace existence. -___- Thanks for sharing, though, and I'll eagerly check it out when I get the chance! 8D

In the MEA-DOW we can BUILD-A ROO-mannnce... and pre-TEND THAT he is IN THE gaaaaame... We'll say "ARE YOU really?", HE'LL SAY "NOOOmannnnnnnce, but I'LL BE there through MOD-DING just the SAAAAAME." Sorry. For whatever reason, the melody of that Christmas song needed to be applied to lyrics about romance, simply because people brought it up again in here. Needless to say, "romance" is a bit like "Voldemort" in this forum's lore. You probably shouldn't name it. Still, welcome to the forums, and it's really not as dire as people might make it seem. As crazy, though? Ehhhhh...

Meh... just 'cause Wizards use books doesn't mean Wizards aren't magical. It's a bit like a wizard sort of "summoning"/calling lightning from clouds in the air to strike people, instead of simply producing lightning bolts from his fingertips. Just because he's not actually generating the lightning with his own body/mana/etc. doesn't mean he, himself, isn't magical, and that just the stormcloud is magical. It's just a focus. In that way, it's very similar to a sword for a Fighter, as someone else already pointed out. Sure, the sword isn't magical, but the sword is only effective and/or only does what it does because of the presence of the Fighter and his skill. Maybe you like being powerful, and not a skill/technique nerd, when it comes to a Fighter? The Fighter has to study how to make the sword do what he wants it to do, to achieve great effects. Same with the Wizard. The Grimoire doesn't really produce magic. It's just the conduit, instead of Wizard bodies. I very much understand the preferential issue. I prefer the "I just channel/shape this magical energy with my bare hands" approach, as well. However, I really think it's an unnecessary exaggeration to pretend like the Wizard's mundane and the Grimoire is all-powerful. It's not a genie in a bottle. It doesn't grant wishes. Give a Fighter the grimoire, and even explain to him how to read the spells and such, and he still can't do anything with it. I will also say that, in a PnP environment, it's a lot crappier. You get captured or something, and get your stuff taken away, and suddenly you can't do anything at all. Not that that can't be implemented into a cRPG, but, it isn't just going to happen frequently. Most of the time, you're going to be dealing with a pretty "standard" combat template, in that you will be fully geared (you will have your focus in your possession). So, *shrug*. I don't think you're crazy, but I believe PoE wizards are far more than just nerds with bazookas that are disguised as books.

I'm right there with ya, CrusaderRabbit. 8D In the meantime, my FTL vendetta shall continue.

As far as I know, they last 'til the end of combat. I dunno if that means you can't shift back prematurely (voluntarily), or what. Also, I dunno if they take up a per-rest spell slot, or if they're just an ability. If they take up a spell slot, then... yeah... that helps a bit, I suppose. Still doesn't quite cover the "you're just what you were but better" aspect of things. Even if all that's the case, it's still a spell that lasts for the entirety of an encounter and gives you additional abilities at absolutely no penalty (if there's no disparity between your non-were form with full equipment and your were-form without the benefits of any equipment).

- deleted - Didn't see a previous post that already said what I was saying.

The funny thing is, your party literally does become "too wussy to deal with vampires," as per Volourn's exact words. ^_^

Sure, the differences don't have to be numerical, but they still have to be mechanical. You can't just get the player to love being Level 5, and have that suddenly be a reason for the player to intentionally not reach Levels 6-12. It's not just about giving them a reason to do something, but about them one that actually competes with the mechanical reasons for doing the opposite. Get the player to love that +2 sword, and the other sword is still +1 more sword. Maybe the player loves healing things, but he still has to damage things to progress. Damaging things doesn't lose its value just because other things can also be valuable.

I've said it before, but I think the best way to do this is to establish a pattern, then introduce a sprinkling of random "breaks" in that pattern. If 4 out of 5 times that foe always strikes out after the closest opponent, for example, but that 5th time, he simply doesn't, the player's going to suddenly become very aware of the fact that that tactic isn't ALWAYS going to work, and be much more prepared to react and adapt to whatever it is the foe is doing at the time, rather than just figuring out patterns and countering those same patterns every time. It's basically how humans do things. Look at the old example of two intelligent generals clashing on the battlefield. They know all the good tactics, so one uses an "obviously" stupid tactic. Well, now, is that "clearly" a feint? The other general KNOWS that's a terrible tactic, but he also knows that the general USING the tactic knows this. So, why is he doing it? If it's a feint, and he assumes it is, then he'll counter whatever ambush or mystery attack is going to occur. Or, what if that general actually hopes the other will think it's a feint? If that's the case, and it isn't a feint, then it'll actually be a good tactic, only because the assumption of its being a feint has changed the circumstances of the battle. We narrow things down to a list of feasible possibilities (no one's going to just strip their men of arms and armor and tell them to run in and try to punch the other army to death, for example, not even as a feint, because they'll just all die and not accomplish anything), then we choose what to do from there. But we don't always choose the same thing. With humans, we're always choosing for a reason. But, an arbitrary break, in the case of code, would simulate much the same thing. Plus, the human isn't going to be readily aware of the specific numbers used in the code; you won't know how often a kite tactic would work, and how often it won't work. So, even and every time you have the opportunity to kite a foe, or not-kite that foe, you have to guess, just because the AI follows a pattern less than 100% of the time.

*shrug*. I feel like you're neglecting the simple fact that, especially in a more realistic world in which you've got to actually fund causes and efforts such as the stronghold, it's 1,000% reasonable that you'd not say "Ohhh, man. All three of those orcs had really nice quality swords, but we're really just jam-packed here with all the feasible, non-illogical stuff we're carrying around. You know what? Eff it. I know those swords would be very useful in arming people in various factions/groups, or even just in our stronghold, or even just provide much-needed money with which to buy more trade goods/food, but, we'll just NEVER come back and get them, or ever send anyone to fetch them, or anything." It's pretty infeasible that you'll fight your way through, say, a Kobold Fortress (a la BG), and not find a crap-ton of actually useful stuff, and not just oodles of random candles and rolls of parchment and animal bones that, for some reason in the game's code, sell for 1 copper a piece. The only thing that makes it a "tedious, time-consuming, and illogical task" is when it's just scrounging literally everything you can pick up that no one in their right mind (in-character) would EVER make a trip back for. Thus, that's kind of related to what it is the game allows us to pick up, how much of it there is, etc. I hardly think it has nothing to do with that. You say inventory management shouldn't be ignored, but it isn't being ignored. You say the game shouldn't encourage you to do it, but it shouldn't encourage you not to do it, either. You should just decide based on completely legitimate reasoning, whether or not you actually want something, etc. That being said, I do agree that there should probably be an actual limit to the size of the stash. That would at least make a lot more sense. I mean, the benefits of PoE's system are already: A) Much more realistic individual inventory sizes for characters, and B) The abstraction of all that acquiring more than your characters would feasibly just carry out of some place. The "infinite" part isn't really necessary, as you could more feasibly abstract the process of acquiring that stuff without necessarily acquiring all of it no matter what. It really depends on a lot of things, but the limitation could be there, in whatever form. Maybe you can't actually access the deep stash until after a time limit (the abstracted amount of time it takes for you to actually get the items back to your stronghold). This time limit could be affected by how much you're trying to take from a given place. Thus, if you just check the "all things" box, and you get all the moldy cheese wheels and rusty daggers and pebbles, it's going to take a lot longer than if you don't do that. Limiting it, I'm fine with. But, telling the player he simply cannot go back to a cave that's 8 hours away and fill his inventory back up? What's the point in that? You might as well just force the game's design such that the amount of found loot and inventory sizes match up pretty well, rather than taking the super round-a-bout way of forcing the same thing. Even if the reason is urgency, you're still not really discouraging that behavior. There just happens to be a factor in place that greatly affects you the more return trips you want to make to a location just to pick up all the stuff. Again, the less stuff there is to pick up, the less disparity there is between any of these implementations. TL;DR: The amount of stuff available to be looted does matter, and, while the process of acquiring/transporting more than you can immediately carry from point A to point B is perfectly feasible to abstract, that doesn't necessarily mean making it limitless (whether the limit is time, or space, or both, etc.).

Yeah. I was gonna add a #3 to the OP's bullet points at the end: "(When applicable) have something happen/change even if you simply refuse to help with their problem. One of the biggest things I see as a concern with that is the ability to sort of put that off until later (there's usually abstracted time in game worlds, because it's pretty tough to have an entire world worth of stuff all marching to the exact same, constantly ticking beat -- there would just be so many deadlines, you'd hardly get to do anything). BUT, the thing is, if you, say, don't help someone raise the money necessary to pay their taxes or something (or help them somehow solve the problem on their own -- if you choose not to even tackle influencing that situation at all), and they get their whole house confiscated and they get thrown in the palace dungeon or something, then that's something that can still be dealt with in the future, and works much better than "Don't worry, if, in 3 in-game months, you decide to come back and help that person, they'll STILL just be there, frozen in time, because their lack of tax money never ever affected anything at all." AND the two are mutually exclusive, so: A) There's no feasible complaint about not-doing a quest providing extra benefits or something (you can't help them pay their taxes, AND deal with the later situation of them not-having-paid their taxes), and B) There's no "why wouldn't you always take on every quest/situation that exists in the world, no matter what it is or how much you disagree with it? If you don't, you're just missing out on XP and stuff." If a great many of the applicable quest situations worked like this, then the whole character-capability-progression aspect (leveling up, improving skills, etc.) would actually directly support simply choosing what to do and what not to according to your ("your character's") tastes/preferences, and not simply shutting a bunch of progression doors just because you're trying to play that way.

Sadly, I cannot access that video for the time being, so I'm not sure what it is I allegedly cannot do.