Lephys

I don't think it'd be a very good idea at all to allow the player to "make" companions feel/think a certain way. But, I also don't think that's quite what the OP's suggesting. Seems to me its asking a very reasonable question: If you can influence companions at pivotal points (when they're already vulnerable/questioning something), then why shouldn't you be able to do this in any direction you choose? Example, if they're torn between trusting someone (their order, family, etc.) and not-trusting them, why should you ONLY be able to say "I dunno, man... you should totally trust them!"? Do we want to just say "Hey, Mr. Holy Priest! I know you're all Holy and Priestish, but, I really think you should punt babies! 8D!", and have him respond, "Hmm... SOUNDS GOOD TO ME, 8D!"? Of course not. Doesn't mean we should have companions who are immune to anything but positive/benevolent encouragement.

Piggybacking on what Adhin said, Osvir, I'll point out that I think your ideas here are excellent in isolation (as a potential implementation for a given RPG), but I think they tend to inadvertently clash with PoE's health system a bit.

I don't think you got everything I said, since I specifically stated that I'm only cool with it being done in a non-shoe-horned-into-Od-Nua-arbitrarily fashion. My ideas were just top-of-my-head examples of the general approach I was referring to, not specific content that should be there (Like I know if there's a soul ether or not... much less if it can be disturbed ) As for "Where are all these things coming from/how-or-why are they going to Od Nua?", well, let's look at the board, shall we? (gets out an imaginary dry-erase board): - If the top levels of Od Nua are above ground, then displaced bandits could easily go "Hey, some ruins no one gives a crap about... let's use these as shelter while we pilfer the crap out of people! 8D! What? No one wants to come here because of silly superstitions? That's even BETTER! Less chance we'll have to deal with people discovering us/messing with us! 8D!". Is it quite possible that they couldn't do that because of the stuff already occupying the top shelf of Od Nua? Sure. Does that mean it's not possible that they could? Nope. - If it's a big set of old, old ruins, then obviously unknown-to-the-current-generation-of-people stuff is left down in there. Whether it be dormant devices/artifacts, or sleeping/dead stuff or trapped souls, etc. So, maybe something you take with you down into there, or something you do nearby in the world, in essence, activates or awakens something that was otherwise dormant. Is that preposterous? Methinks not. Better yet, let me just ask you this simple question: Would it not be just as preposterous for Od Nua to be completely unaffected by any and all happenings in the outside world as it would be for Od Nua to be affected by ALL the happenings in the outside world? Because... that seems like a definite "yes" to me. And if that makes sense as a point of reference, then what I'm suggesting is in the middle. Some things affect it, some things don't. That could be executed regardless of whether or not it tied into just the standing threats you'll face on as-yet-to-be-cleared/faced levels of the dungeon. I was merely pointing out that it was a possible way to handle the application of content "scaling" for something that's going to have such a variety of patterns in which it can be undertaken.

Curses! I've been saving up thought-power all YEAR for that plan! It was to be my masterpiece! Now I am ruined! RUINED I say! T_T (We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.)

They said multiplayer would be in, officially? I must have missed this... o_o

When en-e-mies, up-set yo' groove just stop...! ... Blunder-buss a move! *music*... *music*... JUST buss a move!

Or, since ghosts are pretty much souls, and this game revolves around a lot of soul lore, exercising ghosts/spirits could just be like Pokemon! "Now! Hit 'em with a Soul-ke-ball!" "CreepyDisembodiedVoiceMon! I CHOOSE YOU!!!"

I think this would be real cool! I think it's more likely to be an Easter egg than a game feature: I don't doubt that Obsidian will want to include fan service, but nothing that's too confusing to a general audience. If it's going to be more of a nod/acknowledgement (tiny easter egg) than a full-blown tribute (faction, etc.), I think it'd be hilarious if they used a bit of word play. Maybe some scientist/mathematician NPC is talking to you, and says "Oh, you've never heard of the Obsidian Order of Eternity? It's kinda like the Fibonacci Sequence... anywho..."

Erm, I think he was saying that in direct response to: *shrug*. 8P Also... We are in full agreement on the greatness of hearing from a dev. But, my point is not "No, you're wrong about difficulties, and there would only be easies!". I'm simply emphasizing the observation of factors that seem to be overlooked when deciding "See, this would be really tough and would delay things a lot." In other words, I don't claim to know exactly how much of an impact these beneficial factors will have on delay duration, in the exact same capacity that neither of us really has any idea exactly how much the negative factors will boost the delay. I'm simply pointing out things for consideration, not saying "and therefore no delay! 8D!" I love analysis, but there's just not much point in assuming one way or the other. And, I definitely wouldn't scoff at a developer coming in and explaining, with all their first hand knowledge, what factors fit in where, and how much they affect things. TL;DR version: I'm curious to know an accurate assessment of the delay we'd be looking at and what leads to it and what doesn't, but I can't say "there probably wouldn't be any delay" any more than I can say "there probably would be a huge delay," nor can anyone else, really, I don't think...

That's not quite as complex as you make it out to be. I mean, once you've got THAT much of a game designed, you can look and see what you DON'T have, and go from there. Same as with an expansion. Not having your entire game fully "manufactured" yet, so to speak, probably reduces the complication of working additional stuff in, if anything, since you can already modify things that remain unfinished before they're actually finished, instead of doing the initial work to finish them, then choosing between UNdoing that work to change them to allow for the new stuff or just limiting the new stuff to the unmalleable, fully complete already-in-place stuff. Example: I think they said somewhere recently that, while they've already got the concepts fully hashed out for all the companions, they haven't actually written any of the companions yet. Thus, if they were to add 3 more companions to have one for every class, it would be a LOT easier to work them in now, before they've gone and already written a bunch of other ones that might clash with new ones, than to wait until later and try to work them in after 8 companions are already written and done. Clarification: I'm not saying "Everything's just plain easier, and there's no additional workload/complication at all." But, you're making it seem like the state of the project can never ever have a positive effect on the ease of adding new stuff. Also, I trust them to not just be arbitrarily adding in stuff at random. They'll be adding in more wilderness areas where they think something might be a little lacking in the grand scheme of things, or companions in the same way (as in how they'd kinda like to have one for each class, and nothing more than that. Not just some arbitrary additional number of companions.)

^ Yeah, I mean, the whole point of the "no dump stats" approach (and the beauty of it, really) is not really that you need all the stats. It's just that they all matter. If you dump one, you're going to feel it. So, yeah, multiple stats are going to matter. And, I mean, there are mathematically only so many you can have be very low (unless the system lets you create a character without allocating all your stat points). If you just had the idea "maximum damage output" in mind, though, you'd really need at least 3 stats to be pretty high, and you'd kind of suck at other things. Your Constitution and Resolve, for example, would probably suffer greatly. And I'm not sure you'd be able to get 4 stats really high (Strength, Intellect, Dexterity, AND Perception). And those are just for damage. Anywho, the point is, you should have reasons for wanting every single one of the stats, even if your character goal doesn't want all of them. But, I really think Strength and Int should both play their parts in that. I don't know that it inherently causes problems to have raw damage bonuses, for example, split between Strength and Damage. Another thing is, when you first think about it, it seems like neither stat should really give you sheer bonus damage. BUT, that damage is NEVER going to be directly applied without first passing other factors (Accuracy, armor, weapon, critical damage, etc.). So, it's really just another factor, and not really a resulting damage bonus. It's not like "Oh, you grazed this enemy, AND he's strong against slashing because he's a skeleton, AND he has armor, so you only did 1 damage? ADD 5 DAMAGE TO THAT! >8D". Heh. As for skills, no, I'm not really sure as to the specifics. I think we've had examples of them operating in isolation, like Lockpicking and such. I think they'll go from 1-100, and checks will basically be against Difficulty Ratings or whatever, but I haven't seen any examples of exactly how skills will interact with combat (like... Swordsmanship, or Evasion or something). I don't even know what skills will exist, in that regard. But, yes, Intelligence affecting skill points (at least the idea) does make sense in that regard. I mean, I could list a dozen things that would fundamentally make sense and function in the proper manner, but I find it difficult to actually say "This one will work the best!" with the amount of information we currently have. Which is kind of why I'm pushing evaluations and general approaches to the system so much, rather than very specific implementations of mechanics. Of course, I DO love brainstorming. And lastly, I'm not going to say that no name changes are in order, or that the names are insignificant, because that simply isn't the case. However, I just want to re-iterate that, if you're representing something with a stat, you're representing something with a stat, whatever the name. The biggest example I can give for the system sort of contradicting itself is that Strength boosts your carrying capacity. So, basically, "You can hold lots more heavy things against the forces of gravity, with ease, but you can't smash anything any harder with that same capability." Which is... well, kind of strange. Again, there are even plenty of other ways to let Strength play its part in combat equations, even without just splitting Base Damage Bonus between it and Intellect: Armor Penetration, Knockdown/knockback/stun chance... heck, you could even let IT modify crit damage (as opposed to my previously mentioned idea of Intellect doing that very thing). Once you hit someone in a soft spot with your sword, strength is going to drive it further in, right? *shrug* In general. I realize this is not ALWAYS the case. But, there are only so many bases you can cover with an abstracted system. 8P

Agreed. I think the best approach is to essentially not allow any Perk (to use Fallout terms as an example) to duplicate a character creation Trait, and vice versa. They should be distinct things. Not "Because of growing up with your dad, you get +2 to Bow Accuracy," then later on, when you level up, some "Bow Specialization -- +2 to Bow Accuracy" option pops up. Not that I mean nothing else in the game could affect something that your Trait affected, but the Traits (character creation distinctions) should really be more significant than a simple augmentation to a number. I think the gender-based traits that are so common in RPGs now are a perfect example of at least how to use a unique criteria for an effect. For example, "You gain a bonus to reaction from females, but suffer a penalty to reaction from males." You might already have a stat, in this example, that governs your reaction from ALL NPCs. But, now your trait is doing something no amount of change to that stat could do. Or, if some Perk down the road gives you a bonus to Reaction modifier, your trait STILL sets you apart. I'm not saying make everything gender-based, haha. Just... it's a good example of the way to make Trait effects distinct amid all the other bonuses and options, both at the point of character creation AND throughout progression.

... Why not both? o_o I don't mean choose "bonus to undead attack attempts" at creation, AND gain a bonus to undead because of your developed-along-the-way hatred for them. I mean, why not allow for both types of bonuses, in general? Some things come from your character's background, and other things develop along the way. It's not as if the things you did before you were "adventuring age" are all significant enough to affect your character, but nothing in your extensive travels throughout the game's story is that extensive. OR vice versa. That's two separate quite-enjoyable aspects of RPGs: 1) What are you starting with, and how is it distinct? 2) What are you ending up with? Allows for an awful lot of tree branches of gameplay experience.

That just got me thinking... what if time-based fatigue (aka "It's been so long since you've rested" effects) just detrimented your skill/stat checks rather than your raw combat factors? So, if you're tired as crap, and you push your party onward, you can fight okay, but you're going to have a HELL of a time navigating that Corridor O' Traps, because your Super Perceptive person is so groggy? I know it's abstract, but, like you said, your body's going to compensate in a situation in which some sentient entity is actively engaging you in combat, by using adrenaline, etc. It's immediate survivability. But, "Hey, there might be deadly traps in this hallway and we should totally focus really hard to make sure there aren't" is a lot less immediate survivability, and would probably suffer a lot more, amongst other skill/stat checks. *shrug* Maybe that needs its own thread, if it's worth anything.

I think it's going to be the exception, rather than the rule. In other words, Stamina, in PoE, seems to pretty much just represent your capability to withstand all the external things that contribute to your collapsing into a heap on the ground, rather than the internal (I'm really tired from swinging my sword and jogging around a lot) ones. However, I dare say there COULD be instances of abilities/talents/what-have-you "burning" stamina as an activation cost. I mean, health, in almost any game, doesn't represent fatigue from your own actions, and yet plenty of games include a handful of abilities that "spend" that in order to function.

As others have said, as long as it's not like... 1, or 100, I'm fine with it. There are ways to make various numbers of stats work, within a reasonable range, so it doesn't HAVE to be 6. The exact number isn't as important as the way in which they're handled. Yes. At least to a degree. I don't think we need "Have absolutely no defense" vs. "Have absolutely no offense" options, but nor do we need bonuses to offense AND defense to be married in the same stats or anything. Two separate attributes. Provides a nice dynamic of "I can take a lot of punishment before I can even go down" versus" I can take a lot of punishment before I can't ever get back up, even if I go down pretty eaily." It's sort of like... how fast you can run at a sprint, versus how long you can sprint, or how long you can run, in total, in a day, even if you take breaks between sprints. Hmm... I dunno. I think at most I'd like to see a more minor modifier from an attribute, rather than have an attribute flat out govern Deflection (as in low Xttribute = 3 Deflection, high Xttribute = 40 deflection). *shrug*. I think most of the modifiers to this are best left to things like equipment (armor), skills (weapon/combat proficiency), and talents. I, too, am a fan of the "influenced, not governed" stance. I dunno... I mean, they're already handling inventory in a different manner, so it throws at least a tiny wrench into my general thoughts on this. But, I guess if we're talking non-Deep Stash stuff, yes? Although, maybe it could be affected by two stats? The key word being "maybe," as this is a rough idea. But, maybe Dexterity increases your inventory space (you can carry more things while still moving unimpeded), and Strength in creases your inventory weight limits? With encumbrance only coming from weight (space would be a hard limit), and only affecting action speed instead of movement speed? *shrug* Just a rough draft of a thought. Feel free to improve upon it, or change it entirely.

Yeah. Like, focusing on the effects of what you're doing while you do it, and building upon your current knowledge of your crafting processes in order to figure out new ways to do things via practice and effort. It's kind of research because you could actually focus your attention on improving certain aspects of things, instead of just doing stuff and randomly figuring out new things via trial and error. Also, as I said, more typical notes-and-paper research might fit into something like Enchanting, or Soul-magic-related stuff, etc. I really don't have enough info on the game's specific content and systems to be able to feasibly say what, exactly, should or should not have some form of research system/mechanic.

While I don't flat-out disagree, I will say that I think any differences we have here is more a matter of semantics than actual point-conflict. It is partially my fault, as I don't think I made it clear in that last wall of text I constructed that I realize that a total, mathematically abstracted measure of one's "strength" covers both "strengths" and "weaknesses" -- which is exactly why it doesn't denote one particular FACET of strength, and why one person can be 5'1" and be Bruce Lee and still have an RPG-statistic Strength of 18 or something, while another person is 7' tall and super muscley, and only has a Strength of 19 or 20. The point isn't to explain all the exact, simulation-y effects upon that strength, but to simply and abstractly measure the general physical-power capabilities of that person. Hence points in strength increasing carry weight (if that isn't a direct correlation, I don't know what is... Intelligent people could find more pockets and elaborate harnesses with which to carry things, could they not? And Dexterous people could balance things better, could they not? And yet, a lack of Strength is still going to limit your ability to carry. Even though the other things affect it, its abstracted to the most major limiting factor -- even if you can fit it in your pack, that additional suit of plate armor is going to wear you out in 3 minutes of lugging it around, and therefore isn't feasible to carry.) Also, in all this talk of "the engine may not be able to effectively apply that power" (and the like -- that particular point of argument, I mean), you don't seem to be thinking about the fact that the other stats already cover that. If Dexterity is already the ability to place your strike where you want it, and Intelligence is already the ability to know where to best want your strikes placed, then why would Strength be the ability to generate force and also effectively apply it? Really, all it can cover is a multitude of ways in which to effectively generate the force, as if you're missing, or intentionally striking in pathetic locations on your opponent, you're already not effectively applying that power due to Dexterity and Intelligence deficiencies. You can't miss someone (DEX) and have been aiming at the strongest possible spot in their armor in the first place (INT), and yet have your Strength rating STILL somehow represent the extent to which you're effectively applying the power your'e able to generate with your strike. What else is there, other then where you're aiming and where you're hitting? Knowing whether or not you're effectively swinging your weapon (as in, are you holding that warhammer right up at the head of the hammer, or are you holding it where you're supposed to hold it?) is already covered by skill/knowledge/weapon proficiency. Not sheer intelligence. Again, just because there's more to your actual damage output than Strength does NOT mean that it doesn't make perfect sense for it to represent the raw physical power you're able to generate with your body. Whether or not it's effectively applied is already handled by oodles of other mechanical variables. This is an excellent point. @Ganrich: I pretty much agree with that whole last post you made, . And no worries on the little Perception mistake. I only meant to correct the info you had, nothing more, and I realize that it doesn't change a whole lot. But, it DOES make me think... even without straying very far from a basis of reality, Perception would allow you to see/detect more of the best "openings" to strike for maximum effect, so it does make sense for it to maybe affect crit chance, then for intelligence to affect crit [/i]damage[/i], potentially (you might can SEE all the openings with good Perception, but you don't know the best ways to exploit them without good Intelligence? *shrug*). I dunno... the only issue I find there is that there seems to be a bit of a clash or blurry line, at least, between the role of sheer Intellect and the role of skill/knowledge/proficiency. I mean, if someone teaches you sword techniques, and tells you to stab someone in the heart for maximum effect, or between ribs or something, and you have really good eyesight and can see those spots, and are dexterous enough to frequently reach those openings, do you REALLY need raw mental power to be able to comprehend that this badass instructor person who trained you knows what he's doing? There might still need to be something like Intellect bonus caps, or... maybe some kind of Intellect X skill = crit damage modifier? *shrug*

I like that general idea, Osvir. There should be 2 ranges, really: - The difficulty of trap-finding/identification based on perceivable information available (perception check, for example), AND - The difficulty of identifying and pinpointing traps for avoidance/disarming, based on knowledge/skill Basically, a nublet might wander down a nice, clean hallway and not notice the little notches in the wall that mean a certain trap. OR, he might have plenty of perception to notice them, but fail to "detect" the trap because he has absolutely no idea that that pattern of notches signifies a trap, and just thinks it's some wall-stone pattern/decoration. Likewise, a professional Trappist (I made that up) might go down that clean hallway and EASILY spot those notches and know they're a given trap, and what kind of trap (basically the trap just gets hilighted and described for the player, like "ceiling spikes" as opposed to "wall spikes" or "dart trap at the end of the hallway that shoots straight at you so you can't really run past this like a wall-spike trap", etc., so that you can either avoid it or try to disarm it or whatever. Or, if you're in old, dusty Od Nua, where traps are still active but are coated in dust and cobwebs, it might be a much more significant Perception check to even be able to detect those traps, much less identify them. I mean, maybe your character detects a pressure plate on the floor, but doesn't actually know where the trap itself is or what kind of trap it is, etc. In which case, you, the player, COULD possibly deduce where the trap is or what kind it is, but at that point you'd be guessing just like the character would be, not superceding the character's ability to detect things (as with "my character has 1 Perception and no trap knowledge, but I can see with my player eyes that there's a trap there in the hallway, so I'm just going to click 'disarm' and then click on that, or avoid it, etc").

It's a good system. The alternative is to not balance the two, so that you can just pick 7 merits and -5 flaws and be an uber-person. Given the two choices, I'd go with balanced "merits" and "flaws" (whatever their names). The games that don't let you pick them separately tend to just pair them up anyway, a la Arcanum or Fallout. "You get this good thing, but also you kind of suck like so..." etc.

You mistake me. If no one votes for Call of Duty (for example), then that means they've only voted for the other options, which are valid options. Therefore, even if the devs intention wasn't for the poll to be serious, it's still providing useful/valid information, whether they do anything with that information or not. On the other hand, votes for Call of Duty (as 99.9% of them are just people being silly) in no way serve any function, whatsoever (with regard to the actual poll), except apparently to allow people to amuse themselves for some reason. Even though no one's gonna know who voted for Call of Duty and who didn't. My "premise" is simply the observation that the act of voting for Call of Duty doesn't really accomplish anything. Every individual vote for Call of Duty doesn't incur more laughter from viewers of the poll, because it's not actually going to affect anything. If it was actually a serious poll, it might actually be funny, in some regard, to cast votes in an anti-serious fashion. Especially if some decision was to be made from it. Like, if they promised that whatever got the most votes affected some choice, THEN it might actually be funny to vote for something silly. But, voting for Call of Duty, in this poll, in this case, isn't really doing anything at all. Any humor found in that act seems to be completely generated within the individual's own mind. It's kind of like making a joke with a punchline that has nothing to do with anything, versus one that's actually a play on words or something (the punchline actually has a correlation to something in the joke). *shrug* Anywho. It was just an observation. No one said you can't vote for Call of Duty for your own reasons and think it's funny. I merely voiced my lack of understanding as to why people are doing it and finding it funny, since there's nothing inherently humorously correlative about that act in isolation, as there is with things like actual jokes (such as the placement of "Call of Duty" on the poll as an option by the developers who clearly don't actually want their game to be like Call of Duty in any way, shape, or fashion.)

I'd still love to see it re-imagined. The problem with most durability mechanic implementations is that they are a chore. The problem isn't that durability is a chore. Hitpoints follow the same principle, and they aren't a chore. Status effects, too. Also not a chore. Ammo. Not a chore. Plenty of things in the game must be replenished, and yet we enjoy them. So, yeah, if done properly, it could be made an actual part of strategic/significant decision-making, as opposed to just something that always ticks down, and none of your characters so much as oil their own swords unless you manually tell them to do so, even though they apparently eat and go to the bathroom all the time, and bandage their own wounds and heal up when they sleep (all abstracted stuff in the game). But, every single attack contributes to your sword possibly cracking in half at some point, and you've got to manually fix it, which is just an extra thing you need to do and are never going to NOT do. Really, to put it simply, there's got to be some aspect to the mechanic that provides SOME situational benefit to not fixing your weapon, and/or risking damage to it as opposed to avoiding damage to it. Heck, even with Health, as it stands in PoE, you've got choices to make to better preserve it. Rotate people around, change tactics, etc.

It probably contains all the brilliant ideas he... "cooks" up. (This can easily be made a duel pun if Monte Cook is a co-author.)

What if, in terms of scaling the content of levels of Od Nua, the tie between the dungeon and the rest of the world/story was mainly that several things you do/choices you make in the world effect the powers-that-be in the Mega Dungeon? You know... in the story, you end up firing up some Animancy laboratory (or engaging someone who activates it, etc), and its energy disturbances to the ether (or the "plane" of souls, or what-have-you) affect entities sleeping within the mega dungeon. Or, you handle some big story situation, resulting in the driving-off of some group of bandits/creatures or some crazy researcher guy or something, and they end up with nowhere else to go but to the mega dungeon. Therefore, if you go to the dungeon BEFORE doing these things, there's less activity there (sort of like encounter scaling) and different threats there, for an actual story/lore reason. And if you go afterwards (when you've done more other stuff, and obviously at least leveled/progressed to SOME degree before attacking the next portion of dungeon), additional threats are there. I'm not saying just pepper the whole story with these, so that every 5 steps presents you with a choice to make sure the dungeon scales exactly with you at all times. But, I'm sure there's plenty of room for perfectly feasible instances of this relationship in the story, and the lore of the dungeon. Or, what the lore of a dungeon like that in a world like that allows for, at least.

This thread was becoming quite unimmersive, until you just said that. Now I really feel like I'm in a discussion about guns again. (Will that work? He covered guns, I covered immershun.)