Lephys

^ Well... I think... er... didn't we find out that was actually an older layout than the one they showed us in the recent update? I mean... I'm not saying you can't still like it better, heh. They're still two distinct things. I just wanted to make sure I didn't blond out on everyone here by reading something wrong. And that, if I'm actually not confused and mistaken, that everyone realizes that what's shown is actually "v 0.5," and that we're still in for a version past 1.0 here soon. Reference:

Yeah, like Gaia/Terra. The spirit/soul of the entire planet (well, Earth, at least.)

Forearm guards? Those are like FIVE-arm guards! And I LOVE them! (And yes, all the other details, too.)

I kinda like how they did this in Mass Effect 2. Every time you played a new game "plus," I'm pretty sure you got to change your class if you wanted to (so basically make a "new" character), and you got to choose an additional "weapon proficiency," basically (because weapon types were class-restricted in that). So, in the context of that game, it didn't really make everything WAY super easier or anything, as you could still only ever use one weapon at a time. But, it DID give you another option throughout that entire playthrough. For example, my "Mage" (Biotic), who was restricted to pistols and submachine guns, got to use a sniper rifle, also, in my 2nd playthrough. Granted, I think the whole "You start at the same level you were when you ended the last playthrough!" and other such things are completely unnecessary in a cRPG. Also, I'm not trying to suggest that Mass Effect was a similar game to what P:E's going to be, or that P:E should look to Mass Effect for its general design in any way. I just think that, something as minor-yet-nifty in the context of P:E would be pretty cool. Maybe a bonus feat at creation or something? Or an additional background/trait? I don't think that would wreck the status-quo, and it'd be a nice little "Hey, you totes did much of this once before, all the way through, so here's a little something on the house to make going through this tale a second time a bit more fun." It could still be optional, of course.

See, they should just put "Sometime in 2027" on the Kickstarter campaign. Then, even if it takes 'em 'til 2015 to pump it out, everyone'll be all "WOW! That's TWELVE YEARS ahead of schedule! 8D!" Then, the media can spin that all around. "14-Year Game Releases In Just Over 2!"

Haha, typical Obsidian. The parts crucial to understanding characters are cut from the game. I'm not sure it's really fair to blame everything on Obsidian. Unless I'm mistaken, the publisher generally has something to do with many such decisions (whether it's specifically saying "cut that from the game," or requiring that the development team's focus be on other things and only allowing them a minimal amount of time to push all the content out into a released form.)

Well, we could just rename this thread "Ambient Sights."

Heh... what's funny is, even after decades of English, you occasionally stop and think, "Man... what the hell's up with that word? If I didn't have its pronunciation drilled into my brain, I wouldn't even come anywhere CLOSE to pronouncing it properly, based on its spelling!" Amusing link-example time!: http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/pronunciation-phonetics/40273-english-crazy-language.html

Well... not if it stays in quotey marks. ^_^

Sounds like they just need to hire Peter Parker.

Yes! With all kinds of stuff around the "arena" involving all manner of skill checks and such to most effectively take it down! Instead of just the usual "well, obviously you have to get it to kneel, then hit it in the head with this big death spike swinging from the ceiling, and it's invulnerable until you do that. And, doing that consists of simply leading it over to this thing, which you can ram into its heel (without fail), then pulling this lever to swing the death spike into its forehead (again, without fail). You just have to do that like 5 times, so it takes a bit. The rest of the time, you pretty much just dodge elaborate attacks in a survival-y fashion, until you can repeat the ultra-simple process of smashing this thing's forehead! 8D" I'd love to see a huge, elaborate creature fight with actual reactivity and dynamics, and lots of "non-combat" skills playing parts.

You mean in-development cRPGs made directly by a development studio purely through Kickstarter funding and bypassing a publisher all-together, with the goal of capturing the quality of olden, not-thusly-made games while refining out the impurities? Yes, those games have set many a precedent thus far... Just sarcasm with humorous intent, for extra emphasis, there. I actually greatly appreciate your second paragraph, which addresses this, exactly. I merely wanted to express my support of the "time will tell" sentiment. *thumbs up* Every time I read the whole "only for question" argument, I have to giggle a bit. A) The entire game is going to be built around the very idea of no-XP-just-for-killing, so thinking "Oh noes! Imagine all those enemies from that other game that wasn't designed with this in mind, and now imagine all those enemies just not giving me XP anymore!" is highly inaccurate, any way you look at it. B) Even those games, and even the most generic of quests within them, didn't, in any shape or fashion, completely separate combat encounters and quests. So, I fail to see how simply not having a game with a bunch of things arbitrarily roaming around for you to kill for pretty much no reason other than that you want to gain some XP, automatically means that overcoming ANY combat challenge is somehow rendered completely and utterly pointless. Did I miss some update for P:E in which they announced the story/quest system will be specifically devoid of any and all combat? o_o *blink blink*...

Half-capes, FTW! And brooches, too! Cloak security, YEAH! *vertical atmosphere punch of excitementnessitude*

I think something along the lines of Intelligence/Intellect probably works better than Knowledge, really. I mean, one can be a genius and never have read a book in his life. That's the whole point of these attributes, I think. They're abstractly-quantified values of a person. Intelligence dicates how well your mind can take in information and make sense of it, and, to some capacity, how much it can juggle at once, and how quickly it can act, etc. This is regardless of whether or not you've read books or studied things, or just figured it out on your own, or haven't figured it out at all. It's not the amount of stuff you've figured out. It's your potential to figure things out, basically.

Aren't all games silently delayed? Some small degree of that is kind of expected in development. It's a bit like trying to hit the most distant target you're able to with an arrow on a mildly windy day.

Yup, because what's there to do in an RPG if you can't run about collecting experience, like coins in Mario or Rings in Sonic The Hedgehog? *sigh*. Guess we'll just have to play an empty game. There'll be no reason to talk to people, because you won't be able to kill them for XP. And there'll be no reason to discover anything, because you won't be able to use it to kill people for XP. And there'll be no reason to kill people in situations that can only be resolved by killing people to get XP, because we won't actually be getting the XP for killing the people, but instead indirectly through the actual accomplishment of something that the killing happened to facilitate. Drat... *kicks a pebble*

Everyone knows that true gamers don't read manuals, u_u.

*cracks knuckles*... Allow me to take a very noobish, hardly-educated guess: I think it has to do with the dynamics of the thing. When you animate an arm, you've got a shoulder, and an elbow, for example (pretend there's no forearm, for now), and everything in between is "static." Only when the elbow moves is the bicep/tricep region going to move, and it's only going to stay directly between the shoulder and elbow joints. But, with a cloak/some hair, pretty much the ENTIRE OBJECT is joints. It's like... a joint field. So, I mean, mathematically, it's just that much more complicated to handle the animation than, say, a people. Granted, I'm not saying that "joint" is the actual terminology used in actual, technical animation (which I'm going to start learning very soon so that I can stop being a noob and actually start working on making game things, if not a game, itself), or that cloak/hair "joints" function no differently than a people elbow. But, I think that's functionally why such things are so hard, in an oversimplified fashion. That and, you've got to make sure they move freely, yet don't get stuck on things and just hang in FRONT of the person's face/person the whole time, or simply wrap around everything and stay there. So, it's almost like you're attempting to code a paradox. "Be affected by the wind, but don't move like this or this, even though moving like you're affected by the wind WOULD have you move like that!"

For what it's worth, that was emphatic exaggeration. If you didn't know, I tend to favor its use. 8P I wouldn't worry, really. I know there are at-a-glance similarities, but I think the main difference is that, in MMOs, these very generalized descriptions are the entirety of the class mechanics, whereas in P:E, they're actually just structuring the basis for a much more-tactical mechanic. In other words, a Rogue won't have a lot of abilities that strike 15 people, because his specialty doesn't involve striking 15 people all the time. He'll have a lot of 1-on-1 abilities that, if properly utilized in a tactical manner by the player, will result in more effective strikes that often bypass weaknesses (a la "cheat and take advantage of the situation") than other classes. The key being that it won't be overly simplified like in an MMO. A level 1 Rogue isn't going to have 10DPS, versus the level 1 Warrior's 7DPS, and he's not going to simply gain 15 abilities between then and level 10 that strike more often than the Fighter's abilities, resulting in 50DPS to the Warrior's 35 at level 10, and that's that. The effectiveness of class mechanics will rely much more on FAR more factors than simply how much damage and attack speed they get, and whether or not they possess AOE capability or not. At least, that is what I suspect. I guess we won't know 'til we see it in action, but I have faith in Obsidian. I mean, look at the games they've made already, and take out that publisher "let's just add boobs and explosions and make sure 3-year-olds can play it so that we sell more copies" influence, and what do you think we'll be left with? A game that's MORE like everyone's-trying-to-get-in-on-the-profits MMO casualness? I highly, highly doubt it.

I think the brunt of increases in damage-output-ish effectiveness should come from increases in tactical utility and ability repertoire, rather than passive bonuses. What I mean is, if, at level 1, your attacks do 7 damage with a basic sword, then, at level 10, they don't need to do 50 damage. Why? Because at Level 1, you probably have 1 or 2 active abilities to supplement your "passive" normal-attack damage/frequency. But, at Level 10, you've got probably 7 or 8 different abilities at that point. So, maybe from minor "you're just better 'cause you leveled up" abstracted bonuses and better equipment, your base damage goes from 7 to 10 or 11 or something. But, now you can hit 7 or 8 different enemies with active abilities (or 1 enemy with 7 or 8 active abilities) instead of the 1 or 2 you had before that. And/or, you now have more per-encounter and "infinite ammo" abilities that were previously per-rest. It's kinda like an archer with ammo. Let's say that, at level 1, you only get 3 arrows. Well, at level 10, you might get 20 arrows. So, if it took 3 arrows to kill something at level 1, and at level 10 it takes 20 arrows to kill something, then, boom. You didn't need it to take arrows that do 17 times the damage AND more arrows, both. Plus, you've got factors like armor penetration, etc, that increase the effectiveness of abilities without increasing their base damage. So, a level 10 creature might have 10 more points of armor than a level 1 creature, making it tougher, but maybe you've got abilities that allow you to penetrate armor BETTER, now that you're higher level and a more experienced combatant. Not to mention the better equipment, etc. So, yeah, I'd like to see your power attack maybe do a little more damage per level, because you're simply getting better at using what you know. But, I'd also like to maintain the effectiveness-progression with more than increased base damage. It's pretty much just inflation, at that point. "You have more health now, but the enemies do more damage! But you do more damage, and the enemies have more health! And THIS sword does like 50 damage now, and the sword 5 levels above IT does 100 damage! 8D" I don't think things need to be that steep.

True. Although, technically, 1 and 2 are relative versions of the same thing. Example: Does this sword inherently provide a -10 to hit, and Barbarians gain a +10 to hit with it, or does it inherently provide a 0 to hit, and non-Barbarians gain a -10 detriment to hit when they wield it? It's really just a matter of whether you're assuming the Barbarian's stats are the default, or the non-Barbarian's stats. 8P Just FWIW. You're very much correct in that there are a variety of ways in which to implement a difference for a specific class/class group like that.

Thank you very much for the elaboration, Josh. Consider my concerns assuaged. I don't mind the Paladin having less 1-on-1 utility than other classes. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't going to be a "well, we balanced for the potential for you to be granting passive bonuses to 5 other people, so, one-on-one, you're literally 1/5th as capable as any other class of character" situation or anything. Even that wouldn't be that big of a deal. But, I wouldn't want my Paladin to be hitting for 7 damage just because he's the last one standing in a fight, when my Warrior would've been passively hitting for about 30 and holding his own 70 times better. All-in-all, it sounds like a very good class design. I'm sorry I worried unnecessarily, ^_^

A fair point. Clear terminology, FTW! Sorry about that. Also, I wasn't meaning to suggest you were adamant about a fixed, full-24-hour limit. I just to feel I owe it to everyone here to respond with actual reasoning behind my seemingly-arbitrary claims, rather than saying "It shouldn't be 24 hours," and just leaving it at that. For what it's worth, I recently got Betrayal at Krondor on GOG (it's totally on sale right now. Or it was...), and I've been playing it again. I think it's from 1993? Anyway, it's system rudimentarily mimics the system you're suggesting (except everything's sleeping/camping, with no distinction between that and resting). And, I have to say, it really works out well. Of course, it's turn-based combat, and there are other differences between the games. However, this makes me think of another point (along the lines of your "this stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum" point) I think is worth stressing to those concerned about all this: Games in which you can rest with lesser-or-no limitations have combat encounters that are specifically balanced with "as long as someone has like 1 hitpoint left at the end of this, you're fine to push forward" in mind. If P:E is designed around rest limitations, then the likelihood that one bout of combat will take you down to 20% health will be extremely slim. Not saying some encounters won't be significantly tougher than others, but, the overall scheme will not be "okay, just duke it out, and you're expected to take like 50% damage if you're careful, and 80% if you're not." This is specifically a sentiment they spoke of when talking about the Stamina/health system. Health is specifically designed to viably last you the duration between camp spots. They're not just taking an old IE game, then tossing in a new limitation and calling it a day.

Game quality trumps narrow-mindedness. Fixed.

Negatory, Ghost Rider. You see, the game's abstraction of "health" has already defined the state of "death" as the displacement of the entire, variably-sized health pool. Therefore, if a spell simply produces death, it deals infinite damage. As opposed to a spell that only deals 50 damage, and, therefore, only kills things with 50-or-fewer hitpoints. Ignoring the fact that the damage can be mitigated/altered between the casting of the spell and the actual application of damage. So, a spell/ability whose description is "If saving throw is successful, nothing happens; else, target dies" deals infinite damage. I'm not sure what I'm ignoring. I've been talking about, quite literally, "save-or-die" spells/abilities this entire time. You've even used that term. I've been talking about the absolution of the effect of the spell, as well, and clarifying like nobody's business. It boggles my mind that you'd still bring up factors like "your initial resistance/saving-throw modifier can be different! And the spell could have other conditions! Etc.!" as if I haven't addressed them. Allow me to simplify: They're currently making a game, with God-knows-what abilities in it. These could include "a dice roll determines whether or not this kills you" spells. I think that's a terrible idea, thus I voiced this in a discussion forum. If you're talking about an ability that doesn't functionally deal infinite damage as its effect, then you're not arguing against me. It's really not complicated. Why do you keep saying "no such spell exists!"? Of course it does. I've played oodles of games in which something had a %chance to kill the target instantly, no matter how much HP there was between that target's current state and 0 HP. And even if there weren't, we're dealing with a game that is in development, and it's clear that the ability to implement an ability/spell like that is entirely possible. Precedent doesn't dictate what's possible. I've literally spent this entire time trying to make sure it was clear exactly what type of abilities I'm against, and exactly what type I'm not against, and you're all "THIS ability from THIS game is an ability you're not against, but I'm going to pretend you're against it, then ask you if we should remove it from the game, as if you didn't specify 73 times what your criteria were!" I can only assume at this point that you love argument for argument's sake. Good luck with that.