Jump to content

Lephys

Members
  • Posts

    7237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

Everything posted by Lephys

  1. I just want to point out that, without restricting the starting point of your character in the world/narrative to "you've literally JUST decided to become a Priest, without any prior thought or action on the matter," your character surely would have some amount of accumulated dedication to one deity or another (or even multiple). So, getting to make a selection of this sort at character creation may not be entirely out of the question. It just shouldn't dictate how you progress in your faith (class development), and/or how you worship said deity(s). I think it was mentioned in a George Ziets update how they were going about designing the deities, and that they'd each be representative of multiple aspects/qualities, as opposed to just one per deity. So, it's possible, if you're a Priest worshipping the god of life and prowess (random, probably stupid example), that you could choose to focus SOLELY on either prowess OR life, or blend any combination of the two. That's not yet even mentioning the possibility of multiple-deity worship (good idea, Eiphel!). So, I think functionally, we have to consider the fact that the Priest's deity is QUITE similar to a Wizard's school, or any other class's specialization line. While some pivotal point (or points) in the narrative that naturally develop to offer the opportunity to change deities (it could function similarly to prestige-classing, except you're going sideways instead of up), I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with the ability to simply pay 5 gold, or use some "Faithstone" or something and just swap deities whenever I (the player) chooses. I mean, a Wizard doesn't just get to say "Well, I know I've been studying Lightning magic this whole time, but I think now I want to replace all my lightning magic knowledge with Illusion knowledge." Which, since a Priest's specific powers stem from their faith in a given deity, would seem to be the parallel (they couldn't, I don't think, abandon all faith in a nature deity and simply retain all their nature-deity powers, for example). But, like I said, I think it wouldn't be impossible for a Priest to, in effect, "swap" deities, in a controlled and narrative-fitting fashion. Perhaps you lose most of your faith-specific abilities, and simply must re-spend those points from a new pool. There would have to be a lot of narrative/contextual support for your faith being powerful enough to do so, however. Regardless, I'm highly in favor of your faith progression (in whatever deity, even multiple) being a naturally-developing thing throughout the playthrough.
  2. Not to get greedy with your much appreciated time here, but, might I ask if there's an example of a class-based (even if optional) traditionally-non-magic class (Warrior/Rogue) ability that constitutes magic? Like a Warrior causing a sword to melt through something, or generating a wave of force with a sword swing (even without the sword making contact) that knocks foes down, etc.?
  3. Idea: sparked. How badly would it suck if one enemy, in P:E, could drain your money, instead of your health or mana/stamina?
  4. I've used some very good ring menus. Actually calling it a ring menu may be a stretch since it was rectangular. But it popped up all around the mouse cursor. Much like a set of context menus in fact. With good keyboard shortcuts all commands can be hit in two to four keystrokes. I'd recommend using asdf, qwer, 1234, etc. The menu is really just for backup when you forget what keys to hit or haven't used that option before. Radial menus are PHENOMENAL at providing easily accessible sets of options in a speedy fashion, then disappearing until you need them again. Spell selection, for example. Especially as common as multi-button mice are nowadays, you could easily bind a "quickspell" menu to a mouse thumb button or something, so as to simply pop up the menu, pick a spell (all within a VERY short distance of the cursor), then have the menu vanish and leave you to pick your target. Granted, these menus get used for some things that they don't really need to be. And/or, they get wayyyy too much stuff put on them. The entirety of the game's UI should not be squished into a radial menu. TL;DR: There's a time and a place for radial menus, but they can be quite awesomely effective. Regarding Orlans... Will they get a Racial Talent called "Always Land On Feet" that lessens fall damage?
  5. Methinks you are directing my words at an unintended target, good sir. I never pointed a finger at you, or cited any of your words. Being skeptical is perfectly valid, and is not drawing unnecessary conclusions. Skepticism is not a conclusion. I take no beef with your postings here. I was referring to the posts in which conclusions (especially negative ones) were being drawn about the godlike, of whom we know very little thus far. Also, I think I just figured out the "red thread" allusion. Like the thread they use in an investigation, to literally "tie" various things together (especially on a map of incidents)? Methinks I get it now.
  6. Well, at a certain point, it comes down to the setting. I mean, if you hate dinosaurs, there's only so much the devs of a prehistoric RPG can do to make sure your playthrough isn't saturated by dinosaurs. Not that P:E is just going to be a giant ball of magic, necessarily. But, it IS set in a world in which souls (something almost everyone in the world possesses) yield supernatural (natural being reality's capabilities) powers to a variety of degrees. So, it kind of comes down to the question "How much of 'magic' is simply 'supernatural' stuff?" Does a Warrior empowering his weapon to knock someone 40 feet constitute magic? If so, then, like I said, you can't really take out all the dinosaurs and still have it set in dinosaurland. But, if not, then it's perfectly feasible that the Warrior can, for example, be restricted mainly to very physical, personal-strength abilities that skirt the borders of the realm of magic, while other classes are more strictly magical.
  7. I'm... confused. I said drawing conclusions at this point is pointless. If you're not drawing conclusions at this point, then you're not pointless. Also, I'm confused partially because I'm not familiar with the "red thread." o_o. Please enlighten me, if you would be so kind.
  8. Man... that's like 10 times worse than FRESH heresy.
  9. What if being at the center of importance regarding the stronghold is merely one option? What if you can set up companions or even other NPCs to own/run the place (and be in the spotlight), and the specific goings-on of the stronghold drastically affect others more than they affect you? Maybe you just get a discount with merchants there, and/or some quests/situations to deal with if you so choose, or just free entrance to the keep/town/whatever-it-is. OR, maybe it's possible to not even possess the stronghold at all, unless you take it by force through some strategic coup that requires a deal of effort on your part? Basically, who owns the stronghold and what happens there would always matter, but you're not necessarily automatically the sole owner and controller of it, as railroaded by the story. Yet, it's not just a "well, if you don't go do anything with it, then nothing happens with it" kind of situation. So it doesn't revolve around you. The world simply changes one way WITH your influence, and another without it. It never stands still, though. A keep/stronghold is of strategic value to SOMEone, and it's going to be a factor in the narrative no matter what or how.
  10. I don't really see an issue with the mere concept of godlike in the world of P:E. And I'm not really seeing enough specific information on them to decide one way or the other how quality the fully-fleshed-out race is. For what it's worth, they did state that those elemental concepts (like, what... 12 updates back or so?) were most likely going to be more subdued before being complete. That's how you artistically brainstorm. You start with the first/best thing you can think of for "what would an elementally-infused person look like?" Then you keep refining it from there, using visual cues from what you've actually got down on paper. So, I'm not trying to be rude, but I really think that drawing some kind of conclusion based on what little we have so far on the godlike is somewhat pointless. Asking for more info isn't, however. Nor is discussing what may and may not be feasible possibilities for the factors and specifics we do not yet know. I just kind of feel like people are unwrapping a boxed gift, then looking at the box and saying "Hmm... this doesn't seem like a very interesting gift. It's a box." Except, you know... we can't open the box yet. 8P
  11. Role-playing is about having the choice to play different-yet-viable roles. If the choices presented aren't reasonably viable, then you've defeated the purpose of your choice-presentation in the first place. Therefore, balancing's role in all this is not to make sure that the classes don't have different strengths and weaknesses, but simply to make sure that one class doesn't have MORE strengths and weaknesses than another. When being a Warrior makes 80% of the game easy, and being a Mage (all other things the same) makes only 20% of the game easy, you have a problem. That being said, "balanced" doesn't mean 50/50. 45/55 might be fine, or even 40/60. It really depends on a truckload of factors. But, ideally, it should be pretty even. And it's the utility of things, not the specifics. If a Warrior can Great Cleave and strike 5 enemies at once with a melee attack, that doesn't mean a Rogue NEEDS an ability that can strike 5 enemies with a melee attack. It's what that can accomplish. If the Warrior can do that, and 5 other AOE attacks, and the Rogue gets 0 AOE attacks whatsoever, but all his skills/abilities/talents cost the same amount of points, then you've gipped that class. Figuratively, the Warrior spent a silver coin and got 5 bananas, and the Rogue spent a point and only got 1 banana. So, the Rogue's "balance" need not even be a melee ability, or an ability that strikes 5 foes. As long as the Rogue possesses the potential for SOME means of taking on multiple enemies (even if it's more control-based and/or takes longer, and is less about straight-up damage dealt or knock-around effects, etc.), then you've achieved your goal of balance. So, the balancing that needs to occur is more in fundamental utility and less in specific effects and actions (or how, exactly, that utility is achieved.) You don't go giving one class a minimum of 15-second cast times on all abilities, while giving another class all 1-second cast times on abilities, when the enemies (and the tactical need to cast quicker rather than more slowly) remain unchanged for both classes. That sort of thing.
  12. A) Vertical Slice totally sounds like something you'd see in a "Basic Moves" list in a fighting game. B) If it's a slice of bread, then it must be... thoroughbread. C) I forgot to mention before that the dungeon concept is splendtastic. The detail is AMAZING! D) Not that you can't make things pink and purple, but I'm fully behind the idea that was expressed regarding not defaulting magical/arcane things to pink and purple glows, and making unique/exciting effects for magic (I thought the "drain the color from the surroundings" suggestion was ESPECIALLY awesome). Basically, I just encourage you guys to be as creative as you can with magical effects, in light of those suggestions.
  13. I can't come anywhere even REMOTELY close to expressing my approval and enthusiasm for this update as that Robert Downey Jr. GIF does. Well played. (Seriously, keep up the good work! GO TEAM! Literally... 'cause you guys are a team... of developers... and you should go... figuratively... o_o) sorry, not at this time. No worries. It's not the size that counts. Don't feel like you need to change your image just to meet others' expectations. "Image"... *hearty chuckle*
  14. This is the only part I somewhat disagree with. What if your main character is a Warrior, tanky type, yet you wish to spend the most time micromanaging your main character's abilities to facilitate greater effect in combat? If he's naturally much more passive and neglect-worthy than some other class, you'd have to pick a different class, even if you want the TYPES of abilities that the Warrior has (you want a melee heavy). That isn't to say that their abilities might not be more modal (and therefore "passive" in effect) in general. But, that doesn't mean they should inherently be less tactically inclined than, say, a Wizard. I know you weren't necessarily saying that (hence the "somewhat disagree"). I just wanted to clarify.
  15. @jamoecw: You just made me think of awesome combo tactics! That enemy's only wearing cloth and doesn't really have any especially-conducive material on them? Never fear! Have your Rogue friend put a few throwing stars in them! And maybe in several other enemies! Everyone peppered with throwing stars now has welcome signs for your Chain Lightning spell! 8D Or, are those people lined up, maybe in a corridor, so you can't effectively hit more than the front person by chucking an alechemist's fire grenade at them? Never fear! Have your Ranger buddy take aim with Precise Shot at that grenade as it sails above that group, raining alchemist's fire down upon them as it shatters across the tops of their heads! 8D
  16. You're arguing sideways now. There are just as many ways to tackle "prevent that ability from ever hitting me," but that is the only option you have in tackling "not-dying to that ability." You cannot mitigate the effect of the ability by anything other than 100% or 0%. And the effect of the ability, itself, IS infinite or nothing. With a really strong foe, its attack simply deals a larger quantity of damage, and/or a specific type of damage. Therefore, you can choose to have character A take hits from that enemy (while delivering his own), to lower the damage output to a non-killing blow, as opposed to having person B take hits from that enemy and taking enough damage to cause their death. With an insta-kill ability, it throws all those factors out the window. Your health? Meaningless. Your armor? Meaningless. Having combat reduced to "don't get hit or you die" is about as much fun as having it reduced to "don't let that thing within 20 feet of you or you die." Imagine your party just all running around, trying to stay out of a given radius, just to not die instantly, no matter what. I'm just... not really sure how to emphasize this any more clearly. The whole point is the "no matter what" part. Everything else in combat matters what, even when you get hit, or are in the wrong place, or use the wrong person, etc. You can come out of it better or worse, while still coming out of it. With insta-kill, you just don't come out of it. It's literally the two most extreme points on the spectrum you can have: You literally suffer NO ill fate whatsoever (not even a low amount of damage that simply ends up being negated because of other factors at play), or you suffer the illest fate possible (death), completely removing that character from the tactical equation. Imagine you're in a dialogue, and you say a certain thing to a certain someone, and instead of having to fight now as opposed to not-having to fight (a different outcome to the dialogue), your whole party just dies. You're not presented with "well now you get thrown in the dungeon and must go from there, as opposed to talking your way out of being thrown in the dungeon and progressing from a far better standing," etc. That would suck, would it not? Better yet, what if a dice roll determined whether or not you all instantly died and had to reload your game, even after choosing the best possible dialogue option. Yeah, that would suck. What happens when you fail at disarming a trap, though? Does the trap KILL you? No, you simply fail to alter the factors involved with traversing that trap-laden spot. Even after you disarm that trap, you still have to make your way down the hallway. There could be more traps, or enemies. You don't roll to see if you make it down the hallway or not. You roll for one thing at a time. Not to mention the perception check to see if you even DISCOVER the trap. There are many, many layers to the effects of a trap upon your party. If you see it but can't disarm it, you can potentially sneak around it. You're not FORCED to disarm it, OR ELSE. Once again, with a hostile thing chucking insta-death at you, you're forced to respond. Again, you're missing the point I made. The point isn't that you can't apply the word "binary" to anything else in the game. The point is that you're dealing in binary within the combat system, which is supposed to be tactical. Binary and tactical are oil and water. Better yet, binary + chance and tactical are even worse. Actually, the very fact that he goes from "small number of hits" to "possibly one" implies that he's referring to insta-death as a result of circumstance rather than insta-death as an absolute. "...if the enemy is powerful enough" is a condition. Just like "This thing will kill you in one hit, if you're not wearing any armor," or "if you stand around like an idiot," or "if you don't get away from it within 5 seconds when it starts glowing purple." That doesn't mean it's power is designed to produce instant death. It means that, given the right circumstances, there's nothing in the game to prevent something from happening to deal enough damage to a character in a single hit to kill that character. Not that I know for a fact that's specifically what he was trying to say, but his wording (along with the context of his statement) does imply that. Why would he say "No, save-or-die mechanics are not tactically interesting," then follow that with "But man, I sure love save-or-die mechanics! 8D"? I believe Josh Sawyer to be neither insane nor paradoxical. *sigh*... Sideways yet again. My point wasn't that the quantity of save-or-die mechanics is a problem, so saying that "likewise" you wouldn't argue that a game should ONLY ever have save or die is completely beside the point here. My point is that save-or-die mechanics, by their sheer nature and existence in any quantity whatsoever are problematically extreme, and conflict with the tactical offering of the rest of combat. I would never argue that something shouldn't be in a game if it were simply a matter of quantity moderation. "There are too many enemies in this area of a game due to balancing neglect, therefore WE SHOULD REMOVE ENEMIES FROM THE GAME!" So, please, if you'd like to argue how save-or-die isn't binary and doesn't provide the problems I've pointed out (and not invented with my imagination), then, by all means, go for it. I'm all ears, truly. I'm not convinced I can't be wrong. But, if I am, I do not yet know how. But, please stick with the context of statements. If you take my statements out of context (like with the quantity of save-or-die argument above), they're ALWAYS going to be "wrong." I can't cover all valid points in existence with one statement.
  17. ^ I think I'm... groa'n on ya. *ba domp, TSSssssss!* (Seriously, that's the last one.)
  18. What he's saying is, if you like it then you should'a put a ring (of health and mana) on it.
  19. I didn't say it negates all tactical aspects of combat, whatsoever. Just that it adds in exclusively-binary gameplay. With other things (such as high damage, or high armor, or high movement speed, or fast attacks, status effects, etc.) in combat, there are oodles of methods available for dealing with those factors, specifically. With insta-death, there is only one method of dealing with it: You either go all-in and stop it, your you don't and it kills you. Sure, there's tactical combat, but at some point in the midst of tactical combat, you've got this bubble where you're dealing in binary. It's out-of-place, to be honest. ^personally, I support this completely. Do you? Your posts suggest you don't, since in a scenario like this (where the enemy can kill you in ONE HIT), tactics are not determining the result of the fight. Your "armor rating" or "choice of weapon" is not helping you. Nothing is. Why? because the Only deciding factor in this scenario is the sheer power difference between yourself and the enemy. The key word there being "possibly." Based on factors, as in more than one. I.e., if the enemy is super powerful, he does some high, though finite, amount of damage. Therefore, if you send someone who is too weak in to slap him in the face, you die. Yet, you have other means of mitigating this ultra-powerful foe's attack. You have higher armor values on more heavily-armored characters you can send in, and you have spells that can temporarily absorb incoming damage, and spells that can weaken this foe, etc. Yet, he can still strike people, and, due to your efforts, still deal damage while failing to instantly kill someone. Simply put, there are more than 2 outcomes with almost everything else in the game. But, with insta-death, there are only two. Having two options isn't exactly running the gamut of tactical possibility. To clarify, with insta-death abilities, the only factor you're dealing with is "did this strike me"? With non-insta-death abilities, you have "Who did this strike?," "how well did this strike me?", "How much damage did this deal?", "What was I doing at the time?", "What kind of armor did the person this struck have?", "What kind of ailments was the person who did the striking suffering at the time?", "How much health did the person who got struck have?", etc. None of that stuff matters with the insta-death spell. Hit = death. Miss = not-only-not-death-but-also-absolute-no-effect-at-all. That's all there is to it. I think we can agree that that sort of spits in the face of tactical combat, to an extent. Also, I never said tactics were the "*only*" factor in a fight. I specifically stated that chance and rolls have their place. I just don't think their place is to determine between someone dying-no-matter-what, and someone living and suffering no effects whatsoever.
  20. ^ Excellent possibilities, Sannom! Also, topic name = mental image of godlike piloting small submersible craft and hurling turtle shells and banana peels at each other. 8P
  21. This is only true when you establish magic as both exotic AND mundane, simultaneously. Look at the movie Looper (if you haven't seen it, I HIGHLY recommend it). They mention at the VERY beginning of the movie (basically the prologue, explaining the background of the film's world/setting) that it's become common for people to possess telekinesis. Yet, throughout the majority of the film, you pretty much forget about the existence of telekinesis at all, except that everyone's ultra-worried about some uber powerful telekinetic. Why? Because telekinesis is just something people in that world can do, just like people in reality can lift things. And, while that's interesting, it doesn't exactly upset the balance of the world or anything. But, when someone can move a car with their mind (just like in reality when someone can lift the front of a car with their arms), everyone's shocked and surprised. Basically, you make magic mundane, and certain bits of magic special. But, it's still interesting because it's a skill/ability that isn't existent in our reality. If someone can start fires without flint and steel, that makes interesting changes to the world. However, that doesn't mean everyone can hurl fireballs or summon giant firestorms. Same with any weapon, really. Oodles of people can be archers, yet few people were extraordinarily skilled with a bow. Those figures stand out in historical accounts. It's not what they can do, but how well they can do it.
  22. The only strictly gamplay-design type problem I see with different party members just always making skill checks when needed is that, between 6 people, you're probably going to have a high value in every single necessary skill/trait. Got a Warrior? Well, you're set on Intimidate. Got a Wizard? Well, you're set on Arcane lore, etc. Got a Rogue? Well, you know when people are lying, and you're set on bluffing. Got a Ranger? Well, you know all about Wilderness lore and Tracks and such. I only worry that, potentially, you'd run into a "there's no such thing as a bad skill check for my party" situation with the entire playthrough. I think it would be interesting to maybe add an additional layer to that system (because I'm all for a Warrior getting to intimidate, even though he's not the player's main character), such as group checks. Maybe having 5 highly-intimidating people will be necessary to effectively intimidate, say, a group of bandits (I mean, would 1 burly Warrior REALLY be THAT scary to 5 even decently-burly Bandits?). Or, if there's some ridiculously elaborate rouse going on between several people, maybe each skilled-at-Bluff/Sense Motive person in your party allows you to discern yet another clue/detail about what's being lied about and why (such as, "I noticed he seemed to flinch every time the word 'mansion' was mentioned," or "I think he's trying to make it seem like we've figured things out, so that we'll remain confused... it's a tactic I've used a lot," etc.) I just think a range of effectiveness needs to be maintained somehow. Not in EVERY scenario, but throughout the game, in general. So that, there are SOME situations that require more than just someone who's skilled at something to effectively skill your way through. I would even go so far as to say it might be neat if there are some locks/traps that require multiple skilled lockpickers/trap-handlers to disable/bypass. But, that may be pushing it, heh (the idea interests me is all).
  23. Only if they worship the Deity of the Internet.
  24. ^ Even with such systems, the flaw I've found is that everything is an overly specific spell. It's just my viewpoint, I think. But, I mean, with a sword, people come up with COUNTLESS styles and techniques. All with the same tool. But then, you're wielding arcane power, and someone discovered a specific "formula," so to speak, for creating a fireball and hurling it at someone, and now that's the ONLY thing you can possibly do. You can't make a bigger fireball, or a smaller fireball, or a hotter fireball, or a fire scythe, or a fire unicorn, or literally just an orb of magma that you control about and melt through things. Nope. Some dudes invented fireballs, and now that's a spell. You can either use that, or you just can't magically do anything with fire at all. That part just always seemed a little strange to me, ESPECIALLY in the context of games. In static stories and literature, it's not quite as bad, but it still doesn't make for an incredibly believable world. I mean, however you're making a fireball, you're obviously still manipulating physics. The fire's burning oxygen, is it not (even if you can magically create the oxygen in an oxygen-less environment), so why can't you adjust how much oxygen it burns? You can ignite the air itself, and shape it into a "ball," but you can't shape it in any other way, or make a bigger or smaller ball? Why not? Seems like wielders of magic should really have a lot more control over magical energies than they do in the "Gotta Catch 'Em All" magic systems of countless games and fictions. *shrug*
×
×
  • Create New...