Lephys

Everyone needs a quiet corner in which to sip steaming chamomille tea and read about new and improved torture and dungeoneering techniques.

Splendtastic breakdown! Yeah, the difference in most games is that we tend to see that rate bearing the difference, such as a Fighter gaining +4 Deflection and +2 Fortitude per level while someone else gets +2 and +4, respectively. But, everyone starts with much closer to the same numbers. I think it works a lot better when it's maintained, as you've pointed out. What else helps, though, is knowing that the starting values are much more significantly different. I think the concern over a lack of significance in the distinctive class-based values maybe came from the idea that the starting values would be remarkably close to one another. If a Fighter started with 23 Deflection, for example, and everyone else started with 20 (I know some would have lower... but, just for example's sake), and all classes gained the same +3 to all defenses every level, then the 3-point difference would be pretty miniscule. I think that was the scenario in question, which got me to thinking that we had only really heard concepts for differences in starting class defense values (and other similar values), and not any specifics on the exact extent of those differences. Maybe there were previous examples or mentions, and those of us in this thread simply missed them. Either way, I am very grateful for the breakdown. Just the example difference of 10 points between the Fighter's and Rogue's Deflection defense dissolves any concern as to classes' base defense values varying insignificantly from one another. Excellent design, ^_^!

I could've sworn that, very early in my playthrough, I spoke to someone, who then marked the location of a big city on my map (didn't see it there before they described where it was in dialogue). The only thing I hate about exploration in Arcanum is that, just in trying to travel to even Shrouded Hills from the Crash Site, you can potentially bump into anything from like level 1 pansy wolves to level 5 kill-you-in-one-hit enemies. I'm all for the randomness of weaker/tougher foes, but, especially where you HAVE to world-map-travel merely to progress the narrative, the range of potential toughness of the foes you can encounter shouldn't be quite so great.

Thanks for that, ^_^. So, yeah, a 3-point defense bonus, alone, isn't some kind of phenomenal end-all-be-all bonus that makes your Fighter uber Fightery compared to a non-Fighter. But then, it's not supposed to. I guess if he got a 10-point bonus, for example, PLUS all the other things that distinguish a Fighter from the other classes, things would get a little ridiculous. And, you've got those times when a few points DOES make a significant difference. Still, I can see the idea of some kind of rate or sectioned bonus appealing a bit more. However gradual. Example: Every other level, Fighter gets +1 additional point of Deflection. Granted, that's just looking at it in isolation, and such a thing isn't necessary. The Fighter's already going to be different via progression. I think it's mainly just that we're so used to seeing such stat/parameter differences playing out through progression, rather than being a permanent thing maintained throughout the character's life, from the get-go (i.e. hitpoints per level, attack bonus per level, number of attacks per level, bonus feats and their frequency, etc.). So, I trust that the +3, rather than being "insignificant," is actually an admittedly smaller part of the entire package of distinctive, significant variation for a given class. Or, to put it another way, it's good to know for sure that that isn't supposed to be any more individually significant than it already is. Makes sense to me. I was trying to think of any specific example of how it could even be significant, by itself, and I failed to consider the possibility of misses and crits shifting in-and-out of existence. And, again, that's just versus any other class that's built identically to a Fighter. So, thanks for the perspective, 8D!

Seems to me like the problem comes not from common things like money (that you can get elsewhere), but the specific things like "certain items and components" that we'll get from the stronghold, even if comparable but not identical things can be acquired through other means. Something being at all unique AND exclusive to a choice makes it feel, to some, like it's a necessity, simply because it's not directly replaceable. But, really, at that point, you've got "I shouldn't have to participate specifically in all this stronghold effort to get to this particular reward, since I put value in collecting all the rewards." But, this could really be said of LOTS of things throughout the game. Heck... there could even be specific items you can't even get without having certain skill/stat values, or having chosen a certain class, or background, etc. I think people mainly don't like the idea of specific rewards that they'd want being paired with specific efforts that they don't want to go through. Maybe.

Indeed, . For what it's worth, though, I actually prefer the specific dialogue/noticeability effects to the simple stat shift. Why? Because Charisma affects FAR more things than just initial reaction and things that would be affected by your "face." In the typical systems, at least. I think it's, in a way, more interesting when a trait actually affects specific aspects/applications of a stat or skill. A good, simple example is the effect on critical hits, rather than simply damage, or ranged weapon range, instead of pure chance to hit bonuses.

Haha. *creepily places hand upon shoulder* "You have a new family, now..." *lifelessly smiles*

Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to address so many posts, Josh. ^_^ I was wondering if you could, perchance, provide a little more detail on the new-character class bonuses, and how they'll potentially affect things as the character progresses throughout the game (in the grand scheme of things), as there was some concern that a simple permanent +3 Deflection for a Fighter (for example; don't know if that's accurate to the actual game's design) would be inconsequential when it comes to Attack-vs-Defense scales. It would be very much appreciated, if you have the time.

Yet another reason I like the sort of paced "world time progresses when you do" handling of time. Well, it could also be handled by "serious/crazy stuff happens whether you like it or not, after so much time passes," but I prefer the former, personally. But, if you can only collect taxes between major quests, etc. (or anything that's understood to, in the narrative have taken some certain amount of time to tackle), then there's no endless problem, as you've pointed out. Plus, it makes sure you can't just sleep for 5 weeks and fully upgrade the stronghold in Act 1, then play the rest of the game with mysteriously no more tax income, or anything like that. It helps pace, AND prevents endlessness. Basically, if you run around in the woods, camping, for 3 weeks, I don't mind the game simply putting a hold on time until you actually accomplish something in relation to the narrative, in lieu of the narrative saying "And then our adventurers spent 3 pointless weeks in the woods, camping." BUT, actual urgency would work, as I said. It's just going to lead to a lot of reloads when you "don't find the water chip in time." Because, at a certain point, taking too much time and the continuation of the narrative are going to conflict. As Valorian said, it's being infinite would really be the only major problem. Obviously it also can't yield 700,000 gold in the first week's collection, when you only need 500,000 to buy every upgrade for it in the entire game. But, I think it's a given that they're going to employ SOME sense and balance in determining the amounts, so that it doesn't functionally amount to an endless supply of income. Also, don't forget that the money you get out of it is going to go into upgrading it to improve its income generating capabilities. Think of managing it more like an investment. The amount you get out of it is somewhat proportionate to the amount you put into it. The further along you get, the more profit you're going to get on top of your initial investment, but as long as it never just gives you infinite profit, you just wind up with a decent bit of extra gold, in the long run, versus all the gold you could've had if you hadn't invested it all just to get the profit returns. As Josh said on the previous page, it's not intended to comprise a considerable amount of the income you'll need for all things of monetary value in the game. So, I'm not too worried about it being problematic, based on that. People just seem to be acting as though we'll have a stronghold button, that, if you sit around clicking, will result in nothing but extra money, and if you don't sit around clicking it, you get nothing. It's gonna be more like "Hey, have 10,000 gold to build up a nice marketplace... meanwhile I'm going to go off and do things, minus 10,000 gold that I could've really used on other things." Then, maybe days or a week later, you'll return to a stronghold with a Marketplace that is now actually allowing artisans to sell their wares, and other folks to buy them, and visitors to have a reason to visit. Now, you don't magically get 10,000 gold back, plus interest. You just get to generate revenue off of the business from the marketplace. First, you're just getting your 10,000 back. And only if you never improve anything else there are you going to simply keep that 10,000 and simply collect extra.

Maybe you can acquire the house within the strongholdish keep/settlement, and someone else (another faction, or just another NPC) can actually own/run the stronghold while you just take advantange of it as a safehouse? So you could get access to some of the stuff there (merchants and stuff), but you don't really have to run things. And yet, it can still have its place in the narrative, run by you or not. I suppose it's possible the house could be completely optional, as well, but I don't really see the lack of a simple lodging ever being really beneficial in any way. I guess maybe like the Druid example someone pointed out, with one of those "Even in times of trouble, I'd rather spend my time out amongst nature than bundled together behind the safety of any walls with some other people" types? I'm just not sure how far that can go before your Druid is basically disconnected from the entire narrative. "Oh, there's a threat, and it involves my interaction with PEOPLE and SETTLEMENTS?! Feh I say... u_u" being the extreme, heh. In regard to the questioning (from multiple posts) of the optional nature of the stronghold management: Just because a benefit's exclusivity hinges upon a given choice does not mean that one choice is automatically the right one, and another is automatically the wrong one. If you choose to play a party of Fighters, you don't get the benefits of any other class. But, had you chosen various other classes, you wouldn't get the specific benefits of a party full of Fighters. If you join one faction that another faction doesn't get along with, then maybe you miss out on the specific benefits of that other faction. If you don't use the stronghold, the immediate benefit is that you get to spend all that money/those resources on other things, rather than pumping it into stronghold upgrades and having to wait around, etc. If you think the benefits of the stronghold are worth it, then go for it, connect four! If you don't, then don't worry about it. The game doesn't inherently state that the correct way to play it is to 100% it. If you can get the items to build some potent equipment from the stronghold, and you can also get the items to build some OTHER potent equipment from not-the-stronghold, then you still get potent equipment. It's just like the class example. Both a Fighter AND a Wizard can take down encounters and get through the game, but each is going to miss out on something the other can do. If you deem that specific means important (just like a specific bit of potent equipment, for example), then you do what you need to to acquire it. IF that's too tedious and troublesome, then so be it. But, no one's making you go through it. Hence the optional-ness. I think an awful lot is being assumed about the tedious nature of the stronghold, too, since we hardly know how the messages and management is going to be handled over time. So, I urge people to maybe not jump to conclusions that arbitrarily set them against the system before we even know about it.

Alright, here's a dual one, a la Fallout: Familiar Face: You've got one of those faces. You could easily be that childhood friend someone hasn't seen in 7 years, or that distant relative that always gets drunk at the family reunions. People will often treat you much more amiably, because you remind them of someone. However, this doesn't keep to only the good someones. Sometimes you look like that guy who owes someone money, or that guy on that wanted poster, etc. You tend to catch people's interest (if spotted) more often than usual, whether for better or for worse.

One word: Hologram. Get on that! *clap clap!* o_o

Well, it isn't called "Defense." It's called "Defender." Also, the word "defense" merely suggests protection, but not the target of that protection. Defender allows the Fighter to engage more targets, thereby "defending" his allies against those targets' attempts to rush past him and attack said allies. *shrug* Anywho, back to the actual topic, I'm sure that, however all the mechanics specifically work together to affect things, the dev team has put (and/or is putting) careful consideration into how the starting differences are a significant factor in rolling a character. And I patiently await an official update on the matter, details and all.

To all the concerns of "Why does more prestige/better management get you increased 'taxes'?": I'm 99.999999% certain (as others have mentioned) that when they say "taxes," they're talking about the actual amount of collected funds that you get from your tax rate. And yes, while tyrants typically tax people for everything they own, because that's super selfish and bad and all that jazz, if you tax people 95% and all they own is potatoes because you're not taking care of your economy, then you're going to get 95% of several potatoes. If your shop owners can't afford to run their shops and forges and such, and get the supplies they need to create desirable goods, then they're not going to sell anything to anyone coming to visit (or anyone with any money, whatsoever), and they're not going to generate any income to tax from them. So, yes, the better you take care of your stronghold's economy, the healthier people's pockets will be to even collect taxes from, no matter what the tax rate. Even 1% of 1,000 gold pieces is better than 50% of 10 gold pieces. Especially in terms of being able to actually pay that rate for the foreseeable future (rather than running out of funds after a couple of weeks/months).

The Mongols were also greater than 6 in number, and weren't guerilla-fighting people/creatures they happened to come upon in the woods/underground caverns. The Mongols also didn't have soul-powers. I see the value in your Mongol example (I'm being partially silly, above), but I don't think we need so strict of an adherence to such things in a fantasy video game with tactical combat. You probably shouldn't be able to nail a bear square in the foot, at will, to slow/halt its charging progress. But you can, because abstraction. If you want to use a bow 24/7 in a game, then great. You should definitely suffer some circumstantial shortcomings. And if you want to use melee weapons 24/7, also great, and you should suffer some different circumstantial shortcomings. All things considered, the two options should be pretty equal, in the long run.

The key word there being "certain." My point is that possibilities can be omitted without their being over-arching things like goodness and evilness. And no, it doesn't have to be like an alignment system, because there can be multiple factors involved. How a choice that brings with it limitations any different from a class choice? Oh, you chose a Fighter? Then you won't be flinging about magic missiles to handle situations. If you wanted those abilities, then you would've picked a Wizard. So, you want to roleplay a kind and loving character? Then don't pick "Menacing Sociopath" as a trait, if that's even available. How is the completely voluntary option of this trait somehow restricting your ability to play the character that you want to play? Or, more specifically with regard to dialogue, how does any significant effect on dialogue not provide the omission of "certain" possibilities? You picked 4 Intelligence? You're not going to get some options, in dialogue, that other people are. You have 3 Strength? You're probably not going to be doing any physical intimidation any time soon. You can have beauty reactions, manners, intelligence (cleverness), lore/knowledge, a flat-out skill check, and many others, all affecting your dialogue options and their potential effects throughout the game. You can have a change to beauty affect things without making you flat-out "better." Sometimes you'll get unwanted attention, or people won't take you seriously, or they'll be jealous, or they'll be so distractedthat they'll provide information they didn't even mean to. Don't buy it, if you don't want to, but what you're arguing against is at a certain height on the bar of what I'm pointing out, not the whole bar, itself. And, as with all things, I don't think trait restrictions should be so extreme. Traits should affect your abilities, not your judgement. You can have the scariest voice ever, and try to calm someone down, and even succeed. Just means that if a certain person is really really scared already, you're going to have to take extra care to try to calm them, rather than simply saying "Don't worry, you're okay." Maybe you can't calm a specific person, because you have "Scary Gruff Voice" as a trait. Not the end of the world. There could be other ways to handle the situation, beyond just "calm them down or fail to calm them down." Not to mention, because of your voice, you GET the option to the-opposite-of-calm people where other characters with normal voices do not get such options. So, a possibility for a possibility. *shrug*

Oh, also: How exactly will time be working? Will it be in-game real-time, where you trek through a forest for "4 hours" (even if it takes 30 minutes in reality, player time), and 4 hours have passed in the world? Mainly I'm curious if you'll get messages about stronghold attacks and the like when you wake up from a campfire rest in the middle of the woods, or if time (for stronghold events and similar purposes) sort of jumps in segments, between quests/travel destinations. As in "if you just stand there in the woods for 30 minutes, nothing time-related is going to happen, but if you actually progress/transition between different areas or you rest, time will functionally pass." Honestly, I prefer the abstracted "time only passes when you actually travel between areas/complete significant scenarios, etc." method, as I'd hate to be halfway through some mountain corridor and have "BAD THINGS ARE HAPPENING BACK AT YOUR STRONGHOLD!" pop up on the screen, and have my every second spent in that mountain corridor tick towards the inevitable doom of my stronghold (exaggeration of just some bad things I could've prevented.) I realize the update stated that sometimes you'll have a decent bit of time to react to things, but, if it's real-time time, then it's either going to be some obscene amount of time (7 hours of gameplay time), that always gives you plenty of time to do several more things and travel to several more areas before you need to address the situation (if you wish to), OR it'll be an actual urgency-inducing amount of time, in which case you'll ALWAYS just want to go ahead and go back to your stronghold pretty much as soon as possible. Not to mention, even if you start with 7 hours, and it just ticks down, real-time, every time you rest or travel between areas, that "skipped" time is going to have to be factored in, is it not? So, you rest. Boom. The timer's down to 6 hours. Travel back to the city? Now it's at 4 hours. Granted, I don't think it'll be a real-time player-time timer, but rather a "you have three days to get home to defend your stronghold," where resting or travel shaves clusters of hours off of that. I just hope that time doesn't pass constantly, a la Harvest Moon, so that you checking your inventory and such more often means that you have less time to finish what you're doing AND deal with a stronghold event (or any other event, for that matter).

Suggestion: The ability to gather not-particularly-valuable/sellable weapons and equipment to your stronghold to be melted down by your smithy(ies) and used to produce upgrades/repairs (iron gate and/or reinforced portcullis, instead of a simpler gate; defensive cannons/anti-siege armaments; invention-type technological/mechanical improvements to things, such as a drawbridge, crank elevator, etc.). Or, maybe it even just gets used by your personnel and/or militia (if the walls are breached) to increase security/defense during an attack or other negative events. It would be great if your stronghold prompted more practical uses for some stuff that typically becomes "junk" in most games due to its only real use being sell-value, and its sell-value being relatively low.

I don't disagree that tripping "could" work as a passive skill. Maybe tripping was a bad example, because you wouldn't really just go for a trip whenever you felt like it. But, my point is the context of the skill. In P:E, the "In real life, this" argument goes out the window, because, in real life, you don't have soul-stemming power that can allow you to perform enhanced physical acts, such that you could feasibly trip someone pretty much at will (even if the actual trip "effect" could still fail, based on a check) with a voluntarily timed/performed leg sweep, etc. In other games, you're obviously not dealing with this scenario, exactly, and nothing explains the way in which some of the things are implemented. And yes, I'd agree that not being able to shield bash or trip someone except once per 20 seconds is silly. And it may be for that very reason that P:E isn't going with ability cooldowns. However, you obviously wouldn't (quite literally) constantly be able to shield bash. Even in reality, you're limited by the time it takes to shield bash (and be able to effectively shield bash a second time), AND the fatigue of shield bashing (which, realistically, isn't that much different from the constant fatigue of just-plain attacking with a weapon). So, that really comes down to questions like "are we going to represent fatigue?" The other thing, though, is that, in an RPG with tactical (to whatever degree) combat that's controlled by the player, it's only by the token of it being a game that the player is allowed to supercede the judgement of the characters. I mean, you take almost any active-use ability, and you could feasibly work it into a passive-use system. Such things are still going to be timed/limited in use, but the difference will be that they're automatically used at opportune moments, rather than being timed by the player. And, again, because it's a game, you've got to limit your combat resources or your tactical provisions suffer. I mean, in real life, you can only do SO much before you simply cannot lift your arms to any effect any longer. And yet, lifting straight from reality into the game's combat would be a bit troublesome there (especially with a full party of people). Thus, things are abstracted and simplified. You've either got mana/stamina, time-based cooldowns, or uses-per-period (day, encounter, whathaveyou). Now, the value from this discussion is that maybe, in the context of P:E, things like trip and shield bash be unlimited-use abilities (you could even put a small cooldown on them, just so they can't be horribly-infeasibly used back-to-back-to-back-to-back...), or even just a passive, statistical factor (like dodge) that gets used whenever possible, but is realistically spread out in its ultimate effective triggerings. But, again, that's the implementation of active abilities, and not the mere existence/activeness of abilities for classes such as Warriors/Fighters, in general. They have player-activated abilities because, if they didn't, what would be the point in tactical, party-based combat? But, the very fact that Fighters/Warriors have active-use abilities that are finite in use and are timed/managed by the player? That's not preposterous. If the game were real life, you'd just watch everyone dispatch everyone as best they could, and you'd have no say in the matter. If your Warrior is surrounded by 3 enemies, then maybe you don't want to shield-bash all three of them. So, you actively order him to shield-bash one of them, then attack another until it is dead. Then, you might try to shield-bash that first one again as it's getting back up, so that you can face the third foe without having to worry about the remaining one flanking you all the while. Sure, your Warrior COULD just shield-bash whenever the opportunity arises, but then, how do you get to make decisions about how you want to take on combat? What if one needs shield-bashing more than the other one does? Should he automatically prioritize targets, too? Again, at some point you're just a spectator. That isn't to say that AI behavior can't account for some of this. But, if there's no advantage to be gained from some manual player input and decision-making (including such things as when to use a specific maneuver, and on whom), then you don't really have tactical combat. You've got a movie.

First of all... EXCELLENT stronghold design thus far! I trust any and all tweaking and completion of this mechanic/design. WOOT! Secondly... Will we be able to name our stronghold? If so, I'm going to name mine FeebleGrasp. It shall have been passed down through a long family line of FeebleGrasps.

You seem to do a lot of wondering. The fact remains that, as long as some factors utilize the individual points on the 1-100 scale, it still serves a purpose without every single factor (i.e. Accuracy/Defense difference) affecting the scale at a 1:1 ratio. If Accuracy/Defense is the only thing in the entire game that affects the actual results of the miss-graze-hit-crit scale for a given creature/character, then you'd be absolutely correct about any other ratio being pretty crazy. And that is a possibility. However, I can only comment on possibilities, until I know. If that's the case, then it seems like an awfully potent ability, unless the attack speed decrease is quite drastic, I suppose. And I don't know anything about how the wiki has it. I was referring to update 44: That's +defense, +2 engagement targets, +engagement range, with only -attack speed as a cost. Just seems a bit heavy on the benefits for a single, modal ability, for what it's worth. *shrug* I thought maybe they had replaced the increased defenses with the engagement bonuses, which still sort of works as a looser meaning of "melee defenses increase," since engagement is directly related to melee combat, and I think you suffer a defensive penalty versus attackers with whom you aren't directly engaged (flanking bonus or something?). I dunno, though. I couldn't find anything beyond neat pairs in the Engagement update, so it may just be that additional attackers simply don't have to worry about breaking engagement when they move or switch targets. I thought I had read something about additional attackers actually getting a bonus, though (because you're not actually reading and responding to their attacks, because you're pre-occupied), but I don't know that I'm not mis-remembering.

Well said. It's all about the context. While all-abstract portraits would be a bit of a disconnect in a game (for example) that was using highly photo-realistic graphics, the problem mainly stems from the fact that the BG2 portraits in question were trying to be quite photo-realistic depictions of the characters' faces. I didn't say that very well in my post, as I was just seeming to say that photo-realistic is always better, because portraits. But, I meant portraits in the context of the game, and in what the portraits are trying to do in that game. @Trashman: The BG1 portraits aren't objectively "better," period... they're objectively better at achieving their goal. The general rating/comparison of the portraits from either game, overall, probably stems from the fact that, regardless of all other factors, there's a clear disconnect between the aesthetics of Jaheira and Imoen's portraits, and the other portraits shown, while the BG1 ones tend to be rather uniform in style.

Honestly, if the game's solid, it could be called The Chronicles of TurdSquiggle, and I'd do little more than raise an ever-questioning eyebrow at Obsidian's game-naming judgement. Now... if the main city in the game (or the realm) was called TurdSquiggle, and was mentioned through the narrative, that would probably affect my immersion. But, just the name? I would just guess someone lost a bet.

The only thing I disagree with here is the idea of their effect quickly fading into meaninglessness after the start of the game. I think a trait (or, at least, some form of character creation option that I'd like to see in the game, whatever you call it, and whatever else exists) should support something that makes your character inherently and permanently different. The more hitpoints thing isn't too bad of an idea, because that actually sets you apart for the entire game, to some degree. And the Biggest Kid on the Block bonus of +1 to hit is permanently supplemental, I would think. However, I'm not at all against backgrounds. I just think that maybe traits and backgrounds should be separated. Or, at least, that traits intertwined with backgrounds (personality/social traits being the most prominent there) should be a bit more extensive. Really, their potency is not an issue with me (as long as they're not insignificant, entirely). My only major insistence is their permanence. Things like "you start with 100 less gold" and such are things I'm not fond of in "traits." For that to be an inherent trait, it would have to be something like "You were raised by monks, and are adamant about always donating 10% of your wealth to charity," so that it affects your relationship with money throughout the game, instead of just at the very beginning. Granted, all of your examples DO bear permanent effects, so I'm not really saying they're bad. Just emphasizing the idea of inherent/persistent effects of traits on gameplay. I agree, in a sense. Though, I think maybe you're only referring to overly restrictive implementations. You know, like "You picked 'Good Guy,' so you can never threaten or attack anyone who isn't pure evil in conversation/scripted events." Something like that, I agree with. Something like Nonek's examples of (to put it quite simply) quite-logical versus quite-emotional works just fine, I think. If you're very logical, you could still play that character as one who struggles to emotionally connect to those around them. It doesn't prevent you from choosing to let your character care about things. It simply makes you less inherently-"talented" at it. In that sense, it's no different from any other fully-customizable factor in the game: If you have 50 Bow skill instead of 100, you aren't prevented from effectively using a Bow, but you're not going to make as skilled of shots as if you had 100 Bow skill. The only difference being that it's an inherent/permanent (after you've chosen it) shortcoming, rather than a mere lack of potentially-allocated-throughout-the-game's-progression points. Restriction? Do not want. Shortcoming? Sure! 8D

Careful... his sword MAY be a teen-romance-centric vampire. And he obviously was in such a hurry to get to battle that he forgot to remove his Celestial Nightcap of Heavenly Slumber +1.