Lephys

I actually thought the only commentary we were going to get was in the documentary "making of" sort of video. BUT, now that you mention it, it would actually be kinda cool to have a developer commentary mode, like some movies have on their discs. Or, at the very least, just have some bits of commentary accessible in-game, in context with the things they're referencing.

I've been trying to come up with something decent for about a week now. This is all I've managed: Ilandel the Skyweaver From afar came an army To deliver our fall From the wind came a shiver Acquiescing his call And preempting their parcel He awarded them death Forging crystalline weapons From their traitorous breath.

With the exception, perhaps, of legendary items. In which case, just don't make them look stupid. You know, "Ahh, this is mechanically the greatest sword you can find in the game, but its powers are based on the god of trickery, so its model is a giant whoopie cushion with a jester hat, 8D!" You know... that item design that's funny/effective for like 10 seconds, then you REALLY wish it was a bit more practical. AC 4 is a great example of this effect: The outfits that require the most resources/effort to achieve are the ones you can craft, and they all look like you just mugged a hobo (the whaling outfits and hunting outfits, etc.). I have nothing against a plain outfit, like a whaling outfit, but, for heaven's sake... there are like 3 of them, and they each look about 10% different from one another, and they just aren't much fun at all.

True story. However, I think the allowance of any magical class being able to simply slap 7 "non-magical" buffs onto the party before combat, while the magical classes have buffs to slap onto people but are required to wait until combat is in full-swing first, conflicts with the general idea of "Feasibility for all!" in their design plans. So, non-magical folks might be able to toggle a useful effect here and there, but I doubt we'll see much (if any) proper "buffing" going on from any non-magic peeps. There's plenty of modal stuff, it would seem, that, for all practical purposes, probably is just only active while in combat (it functionally activates the second a conflict arises.) Potions and items, on the other hand... that's the only thing I can think of that would probably allow any pre-buffing we'll see. But, I still don't see it being like 6 or 7 stacked effects before fighting. Josh seems to take issue with the functional aspect of stacking lots of bolstered numbers/effectiveness toggles before going into combat, as opposed to accomplishing the effectiveness of pre-buffs via more active means, in-combat. So, whether or not the effects come from spells, or items, or people's sheer force of non-magical will, seems to be a fairly arbitrary factor. And, in general on pre-buffing, and hard-passive-counter spell effects and such, and most of the stuff that's getting referred to as "cheap" or "cheese" in many above posts, the issue isn't with the sheer ability to bolster things about your characters. It's not about preparation, either. It's about the method by which effectiveness is achieved being largely passive, as opposed to active. The more things you achieve via passive tactics, the less there is to achieve with active tactical effort. If that Wizard now has immunity to arrows, simply from a duration-based spell, then he's not really having to do anything about arrows. It's not like you can use arrows in such a way that they'll be more or less effective. You can strip that protection off of him with the right magic, sure. But then you're back to square one. Whether arrows do 0 damage (because of full protection), or full damage (because of the lack of the protection spell), those are just static effects. You can instantly allow for active effort to play its party by simply limiting the protection. Maybe 3 hits within a certain duration allows an arrow to penetrate the spell's barrier? Or maybe the spell only covers a 120-degree arc in front of the character. Now, you've got an active challenge: get into the right position to allow your arrows to be effective. Because of specifically what you're doing and how you're doing it, effectiveness is achieved. With some kind of dispell, the spell's very nature is what generates an effect where there was none. There are still tactics involved in not dying before you cast it, and landing it, etc. But, you're not actively making an attack or option generate the effect of negating that Wizard's protection. The spell just does that if it lands. You're just toggling battlefield factors. Anywho, the point is, regarding difficulty and AI and whatnot, that what makes us us, and what puts the I in "AI" and makes it attempt to simulate us, is active adaptation. Taking the tools we have, and producing results. The more hard toggles you put into the combat aspect of a game, the fewer options are available, and the fewer options there are available, the less adaptation can go on. How smart can an AI really be if its only option, for example, is "negate that protection spell, or continue doing no damage and wasting combat resources"? To be clear, the mere existence of buffs and such (and even pre-buffs) doesn't ruin everything. Just... all things in moderation. Also, there's nothing wrong with enjoying the passive-tactic aspect of combat to the extent of stacking lots of buffs and having to negate others' buffs to achieve victory. But, the more of that that's there, the less active adaptation and problem-solving can really occur via active tactics, and a lot of people enjoy the active tactical aspect of things, too. Approaching the extreme on something like pre-buffs is very much like the opposite: making EVERYTHING active and extremely timing-sensitive. i.e., instead of being able to cast a spell or activate an ability that gives you an armor bonus for even 20 seconds, you'd have to in essence cast it at the same time you were being attacked, to "block" the attack. We don't really want that, either. So, I hope that puts the "I don't want to just boost all my stats and render 7 different types of attacks ineffective for the duration of some spells, then partake in combat" sentiments into better perspective, as they are not just "Buffs are dumb" sentiments. It's about how much is just taken care of by passive effects and the nature of the rules/abilities. Not whether or not anything is.

Likewise.

Using that as an example, I think the AI not only should use all of the tools at its disposal (or at least "consider" them... it shouldn't just use every single thing it has for no reason), but should also sometimes use something that, while feasible, isn't necessarily the absolute "best" solution. That's the human element. Sometimes, we don't necessarily think "Hmmm. If I get my frontline dudes to occupy these people, then cast this other spell, that'd be a few points better than using this Wand of Fireballs, and I can save its charges for later." Sometimes, we just determine that using the Wand of Fireballs isn't going to be a particularly ineffective tactic (that it's sufficiently productive, in other words), and we go all "I'm gonna fire a fireball, because I feel like it, and not because math deemed it the absolute best statistical option in terms of winning this battle under the given circumstances." A lot of AI's can even be "perfect" at calculating the most efficient path, but then, you've got that whole "what if I know you're going to do that?" factor, etc. I dunno. Complexly, it's that "wait... is this a bluff, or is he actually planning this?" thing. If you counter a bluff, then whatever tactic the bluff was supporting is far more effective. Yet, if you call a bluff when it isn't a bluff, then even a "terrible" tactic can suddenly become non-terrible. But, yeah, I just mean having the AI not always follow a predictable pattern in its decision-making, because that's the main difference between humans and AI: the ability to favor factors that aren't math/logic-based. It's more about breaking a pattern and simulating the human element than actually getting an AI to truly think like a human and specifically decide to do something for a human reason. Annnnnywho... (/endramble)

That's just what you WANT us to think, based on audible cues! You're just trying to lull us into a false sense of location!

One road isn't "faster" than another road of the same length, either. They're roads. But, when you're always accounting for roughly the same amount of traffic in an area whenever you take a trip to your destination (such as having to go to work, during business-hour traffic), people often say "Route X is always faster." What they really mean is, "with all the factors you're going to have to deal with in both routes, Route X typically has factor values that allow you to get to your destination sooner than if you had taken the other route."

No worries, Jarrakul. I took no offense by it. Also, my words tend to jump the fence sometimes, heh. I try to specifically word things as clearly as possible, but, precedent tends to lend a lot of inferred specifics to my posts, despite my best efforts. Also, your posts are quality, so, no worries squared.

^ Haha. "You and that serpent that could kill anyone with a single bite in a mere instant wish to have an audience with the king within his personal space bubble? Absolutely! ^_^"

'Twas a half-joke. But, I actually didn't think of that. Good point, This sort of came up some time back when people were talking about bows. The specs of military-type bows were being pointed out as problematic in some ways for proposed usages of bows and applications of Strength and whatnot, but then something along the lines of "maybe in a world filled with dangerous creatures and such instead of just armored people, adventurers would be a lot more likely to use hunting-type bows?" 8P I do very much like to think of the differing applications and designs that would arise in a world very similar to ours, but not quite the same. Sometimes all it takes is that one factor: a common enough threat that isn't "humans"/armies, a plentiful enough resource or process that wasn't plentiful/available in real-world history, etc.

Sorry, but ventriloquists are not allowed in this thread.

I think the main problem that typically arises with AI is that it's never designed to "guess." Humans, we try to weed out all the horrible strategies. But then, we also realize that the "best" one kinda depends on what the enemy does and whether or not they counter it. Sometimes, we pick a tactic that isn't inherently optimal, but that, under the given circumstances, forces the enemy to change either change what they're doing or allow this sub-par strategy to become above-par. I realize it's a bit crazy to try to code a computer to "decide" on something like that, but maybe it could just be what amounts to a smallish chance of it choosing something purely just to functionally mix things up. If that enemy that always tries to root your party in place, then close in to melee range to tear you apart, at some point just decides to root you, then start chucking stuff at you (even though its ranged attack isn't as good as its melee attack), then maybe you've just blown some melee defensive abilities preparing tactics for an assumed pattern. I don't mean have enemies just do completely random stuff whenever. I just mean, out of the feasible to do, don't make them follow an always predictable pattern. Or, maybe they choose slightly different approaches. Feasible tactics, but not always the absolute "best" one every time. Because, if you know to prepare for the exact same pattern every time, it's not really the best anymore. When AI plays like a powergamer, it becomes rather easy to not only stave off, but completely counter.

Darnit... *slumpy ears* <8(... I was close, wasn't I?

Indeed there will be.

What if each letter is in a different font? Might be a pretty big image file, then.

I fear you've misunderstood me. I had no intention of my post (bits of which you quoted and are addressing now) being a direct response to the OP. I was merely trying to address all that's been brought up thus far in regard to the handling of potent/special ammo. Simulating ammo to a T is clearly one of the extremes. The ceiling, if you will. It was merely for reference in observation of what gets affected when you stray nearer or farther from it. That being said, I'm pretty much on board with the rest of your post.

It's not that I'm in disagreement with the devs. I know they have reasons for doing it this way. I merely tried to state my case for the significance of their distinction (physical and magical capability/potency), especially in regard to non-combat scenarios and interactions, and was wondering how those might be dealt with in the current system, if not through some form of distinction (class check, etc.). Person after person jumped in on this topic, suggesting that any significance of the distinction between strength and magical potency was just some figment of people's imagination, so I found myself trying to correct that. I think others saw this and thought me to be adamantly insisting that the devs change their decision or something, like I was just arguing against it to be arguing against it. My only goal was to emphasize the things that suffer from the lack of distinction, for people who just chalked things up to "Oh, people just don't like change, I suppose," and such. So, I'm sorry if my motive was confusing. I appreciate your extremely reasonable post on the matter, and agree with it very much. Nah. I do appreciate that aspect of things, but it still doesn't quite cover the facet of distinction I'm getting at. The factors that form a character's strength stat value are definitely a bit abstracted (a 3-foot-tall Gnome with 18 Strength beside a 7-foot Orc with 18 Strength?), but they're still supposed to be a measure of your character's physical capability/potency. Which is why in PnP D&D (and other such rulesets that measure such things), breaking down a door is a Strength check, and not a Bashing-Things Skill check. There are plenty of people who never train in any sort of physical combat or weapons skill and are still quite strong, and capable of performing many a non-combat feat in a given situation. And the fact remains that there are feasible situations which can arise that have specific factors to render the generic "If a Fighter can bash a door in, a Wizard can just blast it open with a fireball" example. What if the room on the other side of the door is filled with precious scrolls/tomes? Do you really want to go blasting that door open with fire? Or, what if you're escaping a burning building, and some beams and portions of ceiling have collapsed across a doorway/passageway? I'm not so sure fireballs are going to be a good idea there, whereas having your merely physically-capable character (of whatever class) shoulder the debris and lift it long enough for everyone to get under it could be useful. By the same token, if you come upon a large, sturdy metal door, no amount of shoulder-slamming is going to get you through it, but maybe some precision hinge-melting might. Or maybe even some acid. Such things lend significance to your character distinctions. We don't NEED those for magic-vs-strength, but that's fewer significant character distinctions without them, is all. There are reasons for it, and I understand them. But, it's not as if separating them serves no purpose, is all. Obsidian has never said as much, either, so I'm not arguing against the dev team. Just, for what it's worth, it's a useful distinction.

@Brainmuncher: That makes me think of another common pitfall: Enemies that always under-estimate you. "What, this group of six killed ALL the guards outside our entire bandit hideout? Send more nameless guards to charge recklessly at them!" Honestly, it'd be refreshing to sometimes see people OVER-estimate my party. But, at the very least, it'd be nice to see people say "Wow, you killed all my guards, and don't seem to be in very bad shape afterwards? Alright remaining croneys... EVASIVE MANEUVERS!", instead of just "MOAR AGGRESSION! SURELY WE'LL KILL THEM WITH EASE!"

How's about a blade with a straight edge on one side (for slicing and general sword-cery), and a serrated edge on the other (for those pesky treants, or Druids/folks with something like Barkskin cast on them.)

I vote Thunderdome. I'm not sure we can put that together in time, though, so, as a plan B, maybe we could simply have a vote? If I may... you needn't necessarily kill the decoder ring (I understand if the resources are just better spent elsewhere, but... for what it's worth...). Simply put it somewhere in everyone's gameworld, as a quest or what-have-you, and have all the memorial stones be in the remains of what was once some specific civilization/village's graveyard or something. If people are interested in reading them, they can find the ring (it doesn't have to be some huge ordeal. Just, plain ole content just like any other quest/thing in the game). Maybe the people who backed at those tiers can start with the ring, due to an exclusive background or something ("this was passed down through your family," etc.). *les shruggles* Just a thought. The main issue seems to be that "you get to have your own custom engraved stone in the game!" seems to be a bit diluted by "and like 100 people might actually get to read it! 8D!". It's probably more than 100, but, I think you're pickin' up what I'm putting down. Okay, as for the stones... I dunno if it's even possible to do, but I think it'd be awesome to have them somehow bestow a clue to a legendary item or of some relevance to a quest or some secret info/ruins in the world. You know, "No one really knows what happened to Sir WhatsHisFace from like 1,000 years ago." But then, you find that particular memorial stone, and you can actually discover that it pertains to Sir WhatsHisFace because of some key word, etc., thus providing you with an actual clue as to where his tomb is or something, or how to open some door, or the fact that that cat you found is actually magical. *Shrug* Of course, not knowing about all the secrets in the world, I don't really know how to present a specific quote. 8(

I'd like to piggy-back on that, if you don't mind, with the suggestion of categorical knowledge-based identification. If all 6 people in your party have only academic knowledge of Elven History, for example (unlikely, I know), then you shouldn't be able to identify some ancient Dwarven artifact, just because of some vague, automagical identify skill or "lore" knowledge skill (it might as well just be called "Things and Stuff Knowledge"). That would just be pretty interesting. And, with 6 people, it wouldn't be as though you'd be screwed when it came to identifying stuff. That, and knowledge skills don't usually find much significance or even implementation into cRPGs.

You really, truly don't? You are honestly telling me that you don't comprehend how paradoxical scant armor is? Also, how does pretend armor lingerie look "awesome"er than any other lingerie? Obviously awesome looks are subjective, but, the reasons are not. If you think the characters look awesome because of exposed flesh, then the material covering what little flesh is covered isn't really of much consequence. And if you think the material itself looks awesome, then you probably want to see more of it, rather than a tiny sprinkle of it. No one sees a metal bracelet on a naked person and is like "Aww man! That armor is AWESOME looking! They're all decked out in that bracelet!" So, which is it? Flesh, or armor? Which makes it awesome? You've just quoted me on magic producing protection in lieu of armor, then subsequently requested that the source of the magical protection must, for some reason, be armor. Again, if a character fights un-armored, and simply loves to wear chainmail because its her fashion statement, then so be it. However, that still doesn't make it armor, nor should the game world in any way pretend it's armor. There's absolutely no reason to, whatsoever. You want protection? Magic. You want protection without magic? Actual armor. It's remarkably simple, really. Also, she probably wouldn't wear JUST chainmail, as it would be ridiculously painful. For the same reason that she wouldn't wear an inverted cactus bikini, she wouldn't wear strictly chainmail lingerie. And finally, if the goal is to just maximize the smexy factor, then why have her wear anything at all? Or, just have her wear the body-surface-coverage equivalent of like... 10% of a bikini, straying no farther than the very edges of her netherbits, and call it a day? Boom. And she runs around in all kinds of weather like that, as if that's even remotely feasible or believable in a character. The funny thing is, people like you usually feel like people like us are telling you you can't have sexy characters. That isn't the case at all. There are plenty of perfectly reasonable ways to have sexy characters who don't wear a lot of armor, but "just make them as naked as possible no matter what, and make sure the little they ARE wearing is made out of rigid metal, fashioned into the most uncomfortable garb possible!" is not one of them.

^ Thirded. To clarify, there's room for flexibility. Some people want to gather all the info they can in any scenario within an RPG, and some people prefer to play more run-and-gun characters, etc. However, if getting home from a hard day has you thinking "Man... I kinda want to play Diablo," then you shouldn't really mentally demand that you get to play PoE in the style of Diablo. You should probably just go play Diablo. I say that because a lot of times, the perfectly feasible "the game doesn't really need to cater to people who want something beyond the scope of the game, and there are other games for that" messages gets falsely interpreted as "If you don't like the way WE like to play PoE, then EFF YOU! GO PLAY (insert game name here that's supposed to imply you're simple-minded and can't do anything but push buttons and watch explosions happen)!" But, that's not the case. If you just feel like killing some dragons, then it's not PoE's job to just have a bunch of dragons lying around that you can just go fight, no quest-ions asked (pun completely intended), just so that your potential desire to merely fight and slay some dragons can be appeased. It doesn't make you some kind of simpleton or anything, but... as a gamer and a human, you're going to be in the mood for gameplay with some rather specific criteria at times, and it's not the obligation of one game to make sure all of those potential urges are always met no matter what you want to do. Specifically on the topic of quest-system handling in PoE, I'm all for the option between having explicit instructions/goals shown in a quest listing (stuff that it's understandable your party interpreted from the information available to them) and having to just read through stuff to kind of "figure out" (not that it's necessarily complex) what you're specifically "supposed to do" (or what the situation is, in a nutshell). However, there's no reason to go beyond that at all. There's no reason for a quest system to solve problems for you, and/or for the game to support laziness or something. Or, to put it another way, if you're too tired to go for a jog at the end of the day, then just don't go for a jog. It doesn't mean you're a pathetic lazy person. But, why would you put on athletic attire and attach things to the bottoms of your feet that simulate the impact of jogging, without actually getting any exercise in? You wouldn't. So why would you want an RPG to have a "skip aspects of this game that make this game what it is" toggle, for when you kinda want to play the game but don't really want to have to deal with the game? You wouldn't.

The thing is... in BG, for example, you already had 3 ammo slots. Which your character automatically changed between (whenever one ran out). So, what... you're just jogging around with a hip-quiver, and a quiver slung over each shoulder? That seems like it'd be pretty cumbersome. And why can you only put 1 type of arrow in each slot? I think it's decently feasible to have two quivers (ready-to-go, I mean, without having to stop in the midst of combat, dig another quiver out of your pack and/or refill one with arrows), but what happens when you want to put 20 regular arrows and 5 fire arrows in one, and 20 armor-piercing arrows and 5 lightning arrows in the other? Quiver management starts getting a bit ridiculous. And, even then, let's say you partake in a very attrition-like fight, and your character's completely focused all his offensive prowess into bows. You fire 50 arrows, and now you're useless. Oh, you can pull out that longsword, with which you have like 10/100 skill, but you're pretty much useless. So, really, what it comes down to there is, what's more important: Having bows be just as feasible a main/focus weapon as any other in the list, or simulating bows and ammo down to a T? Even IF we're accounting for each and every individual arrow used, It's still not really worth it to simulate the whole "there are only this many arrows in your quiver" aspect, especially when you start throwing in a bunch of different types of spiffy arrows. Which is exactly why BG just abstracted that whole quiver-swapping aspect into "you just have 3 ammo slots." At the very least, I think it should be handled something like that. Maybe you just have ammo type slots, and maybe you can buy individual arrows of any type beyond basic arrows (basic arrows could just be "infinite", abstractly -- you're never actually going to fire infinite arrows, so it can just be assumed you stock up and/or retrieve arrows whenever you get the chance -- and will probably scale in base effectiveness pretty well with your bow skills/talents/abilities). Maybe you get both options: A quiver upgrade/what-have-you that will enchant X number of arrows per-encounter (or per-rest) into a certain type of arrow, OR just buy the arrows individually. Individually, they'd be cheaper up-front (because you're not getting special ammo multiplied by every encounter you'll ever have), AND you'd be able to use those without worrying about your per-encounter limit from the quiver. And the quiver would cost more, but you'd be limited per-encounter (if you didn't also buy some backup ammo). Same with bullets and an ammo pouch, etc., for guns. It could honestly be the weapon itself, too, instead of the quiver/ammo container. But, yeah, I'm not too fond of the "you have a quiver, which holds 25 arrows, and that's it" approach. There was an SNL skit about that with Jeremy Renner, playing Hawkeye from the Avengers film, that went something like this: (Avengers): "Hawkeye, behind us!" (Hawkeye): "Sorry guys... I'm out." (Avengers): "... What?" (Hawkeye): "I'm out of arrows." (Avengers): "How many did you bring?!" (Hawkeye): "Like 20. I can stuff a few more in there if I try, but that can become problematic when I'm trying to draw them." (Avengers): "... There are like... thousands of aliens attacking the city!" (Hawkeye): "And I killed 20 of them... you're WEL-come!"