Lephys

Infinite Eternity: Perpetual Endless Forever!

I think beyond the parrying is the benefit of a defensive option somewhere between "use a cool ability to disengage flawlessly from the enemy" and "turn your back and attempt to run while getting your spine sliced open quite easily." Even just some abstraction of footwork in your melee-fightery would be nice. You know, "I'm gonna fight you off, but I'm not actually trying to go on the offensive and take you down... I'm really just trying to get over here to the window, so that someone outside has a clear shot at your head with a crossbow." A "controlled retreat," if you will. You're not trying to disengage, but you ARE trying to relocate, albeit much more slowly.

Yeahh... lemme see if I can recap the main points (my head hurts ferociously right now ): Basically, Iucounu, there is value in everything you said. But, I just wanted to stress the importance of going to far in either direction causing a problem, hence the value of moderated scaling. In a purely linear game, you have no options but whatever comes next. SOMETIMES, this is going to be relatively easy, sometimes moderately challenging, and sometimes quite tough. As far as combat goes, there, you might battle encounters below your level, at your level, and above your level. You have a mix. You just don't get to choose when you take on what, but the easy stuff is never hard, and the hard stuff is never easy. So, you decide "well, I don't want the game's story experience to be so restrictive. I want different things to happen, and different effects to be generated in various situations when you do things in a different order, or sometimes don't do certain things at all." So you throw some choice into the mix. Now, that thing that was above your level (for a reason) in the purely linear form of game suddenly CAN be below your level, if you take on all the options before you take it on. But, the choice you added to your game was never meant to make the tough thing easier. That was a byproduct of the choice you just injected, because "That guy's tough" wasn't a problem. Difficulty settings already took care of that. On easy, he was less tough, and on Hard, he was even tougher, for those hardcore players who have mastered the gameplay and still want a challenge. What reason, then, is there to say "since I can now do things that happen to level me up before facing this tough boss, it would somehow be a crime to prevent me from using my new-found doing-various-amounts-of-stuff-before-taking-on-this-boss powers to put myself above that boss in level."? There is none, that I can think of. So, my point of emphasis is this: The ability to change your standing relative to specific combat challenges in the game is not inherently owed to you as a component of expansive story/path choices. (That being said, I'm still not advocating 1:1 "no relative change, ever" scaling, as that becomes an "overdoing it" problem, even if it's not simply a "doing it at all" problem.) So, yes, you don't want the game to assume the would-be-hero isn't going to do ANYTHING but go straight for the next boss/story encounter, but you also don't want to assume the would-be-hero is going to do ALL of the other things before going for the next main encounter. It's just as you said. So, where then would the fault be in retaining SOME relative-challenge integrity amongst combat challenges? Is that boss supposed to be tough? Doesn't it aid the story that he's tougher than all the other things you've fought thus far? Would he be such a multi-chapter, ongoing threat if he wasn't? And why must he sit there and block a gate while you somehow fight wolves and bandits until you're easily better than him, doing absolutely nothing to improve his own power, which was apparently only a few days' worth of questing above your own? Again, I'm not suggesting that your own stance on the matter is in direct opposition to this. I'm merely pointing out the problem I find with the anti-scaling cases made thus far. It seems to me that a system that accounts for both the people who go straight for the boss AND the people who want to do all the quests they can is FAR more pro than con. I mean, to use an overly simplified example, a 1:2 ratio would mean that things level up 1 level for every 2 levels you gain. So, if you had a 4-level range during which to take on a given set of scenarios, then the one 2 levels above you COULD be brought down to your level, while the one at your level would end up 2 levels below you. You still gain 2 levels from your beginning relative stance. What need even exists to have EVERYTHING be able to be made easy that choosing "easy" from the options menu doesn't already fulfill? "I know that guy is supposed to be really hard, but you OWE it to me, game developers, to make sure I can be 3 levels above him if I want to!" Really? Do they? Oh, but then, you MIGHT, 10 minutes later, want something to be 4 levels above you? That doesn't make any sense. With scaling + path branching, all you do is make sure that some things stay relatively tough, some things stay relatively moderate, and some things stay relatively easy. So, the only situations that doesn't cover are "I wanted these WOLVES to be hard as crap, but for this crazy boss-fight guy single-handedly laying siege to this entire fortress to be EASY, dammit!" situations, and that, to be quite honest, seems a bit childishly silly. Want some things to be easier than others? Scaling doesn't take that away. Want tough things to become easier, based on your decisions? Scaling also doesn't take that away, either. Feel like your combat challenges, in general, are too tough (even though some are easier than others) for whatever amount of optional stuff you like to do before progressing the story? Difficulty options have you covered. Want that "fetch the kitten" quest to be super difficult, and that "take out the elite band of trolls" quest to be super easy? Well, A) that doesn't really make any sense, and B), I think it's a waste of the developers' time to ensure that's possible.

1) Perhaps not, for 3-line characters. I personally feel that I could practice enough to effectively deliver a couple of lines in a non-terrible voice. 2) Yeah, I suppose. I mean, some people make some pretty clear/awesome youtube videos now, with like $100 worth of software and equipment. So, I maybe wouldn't say that a professional studio and equipment are necessary... but you definitely couldn't just use Ventrilo and a webcam mic. 8P

Agh... lost what I was typing...

I understand, but it doesn't seem to really fit with the idea of a familiarity bonus, as with weapons. I mean, you know how to walk, and you know how to wear shoes, but the shoe causes an effect when trying to walk quietly (it produces noise), so, you either know how to sneak quietly with that shoe (how to "use" that shoe for stealth) or you don't. That's more a binary lack of proficiency, etc. The skill, or basic proficiency handles that. In other words, you don't use plate boots for a bit, then think "Hmm... I bet I could eliminate 20% of the noise by wrapping a tiny bit of cloth around it." Then, sneak a LITTLE more quietly, then after some more use say "Ahh, I bet if I wrap some MORE cloth around them, I could make them even QUIETER!" That doesn't occur to any gradual extent. You don't get better at stepping gently and quietly based on how long you wear some shoes, as you do with swinging/blocking-with a weapon. Sneaking with plate boots is like fighting with a dull, rusty sword. Maybe you know how to sharpen the sword, or maybe you know a different fighting style that relies upon blunt attacks, or you switch to thrusts, etc, but you won't just fight with the sword and cut better with it because you get acquainted with it. It's an immediate, static effect, and you either possess the knowledge to compensate for it, or you don't. That being said, I'm not trying to argue semantics here. Merely trying to convey my thoughts on the matter, as it pertains to designing such a system. So, if we were to use the tiered style of Familiarity (category, type, specific weapon, etc.), then the highest tier would essentially take the place of basic proficiency feats. So, you could have Familiarity with plate armor, as it pertains to your Sneak skill. But, you wouldn't gain more focused familiarity with a certain type of plate boot or something. You'd either account for the loudness of the metal, or you wouldn't.

True. I just can't say with certainty that there isn't some vector program/graphics-engine-component that someone designed specifically to take individual 2D components and create a shadow layer-copy of them, mathematically skewing them for various perspective angles, etc. Or some kind of mask over the 2D image, etc., and everything not under it gets shadowed. *shrug* Even then, if anything like that existed and made the process much more efficient/easier, it might still be not worth the resources. I mean, how the hell did they raise and lower water, fluidly (pun completely intended), on a 2D image? It seems like the whole "you'd need a completely different shadow for every single stage of sun/light placement" doesn't necessarily have to be that complex.

*Nods*. Miss the point you did. I'll keep this brief (for once): A) I said you should be able to tell males from females, just as you should be able to tell males from males and females from females. In other words, to use your own line of interrogation, why should you be able to tell males from males and females from females, all wearing the same equipment, and not be able to tell males from females and females from males? B) I'd like to see you extract a quote from this thread, authored by me, in which I state that we should be able to tell females apart from males "by looking at their boobs." The discrepancy between what you're arguing against and what I posted might explain why you find "my" argument so strange.

Why is that even necessary? Why is gender such a defining trait that it's super important to tell a man from a woman at a glance? Why is it OK that you can't immediately tell two male party members from each other, yet confusing a man with a woman must never, ever happen - even if it would happen in real life? I dunno. You'll have to ask the player who's controlling you and 5 other people, in the game of Real Life, why he has full control over your every action, yet has to guess for a bit, select you, THEN go "Ohhhh, that's Tom... I wanted to select Cedric," then select someone else, just because you thought there was absolutely no reason for you to be easily discernable from one another. And you totally missed the point. You want to be able to tell two male party members apart, also (when did I say otherwise?). How do you do this? Based on their visual properties. Why is gender such a defining trait? I dunno. Ask genetics why it shaped female skeletons, muscle structures, and organs differently than male counterparts. The portraits aren't enough for you? Portraits aren't running around the screen, waiting for you to drag a box around them and command them without having to first click on some piece of UI, then look for a selection circle, just to tell who's who.

True, which is why I said it might not be feasible. Also, what if you just had like 10 stages of shadow movement, instead of fluid 180-degree movement? That might still be too time-consuming and troublesome to do, but it would be a significantly smaller amount of information. *shrug* I don't claim expertise here. Only curiosity.

Because of their whole one-size-fits-all approach to the armor modeling they talked about in that Update 35-or-so, I'd bet that the female armor will mechanically work the same with either gender (the exact same suit/piece of armor will be equippable by both mans and womens), but with that being said, I really see no harm in having the appearance change a bit to better fit the female physiology, regardless of how functional it may or may not be (since the game code won't be representing the exact functionality of the precise size/shape of armor components, anyway). After all, it'll already be resizing itself to fit the physiological variance between races, so why not genders? *le shrug* Another point Obsidian brought up was that, if you've got a party of 6 warriors wearing full plate, and it all looks the same, how do you tell, at a glance, your female party members from your male party members? The same goes for the race differences. How do you tell which is your male Dwarf and which is your male Orlan, if the armor all looked exactly the same no matter who was wearing it?

^ True. I just remember Josh (I believe it was Josh) talking about the character models and answering some questions regarding that update about them (and the universal armor and such), and saying that they don't really see a reason not to take advantage of higher-quality, less-tiny models in your inventory/equipment UI (and potentially other such places in the game). So, I would just think that, it's likely we'll actually be able to see details such as eye color and such, in specific parts of the game (such as the inventory/equipment paper doll, and possibly certain dialogues, maybe? *shrug*), with the least-likely-but-not-impossible scenario being the "You'll just get to zoom in on your characters at any random point in the game to be able to see tiny details like eye color." Merely a best guess with the info we have so far. 8P

Different shoes do act differently. But it's an entirely passive, static effect. If you give a master Rogue cymbal shoes, and he's sneaking down a stone corridor, he's going to make more noise than if you gave him cloth slippers. No amount of time spent with the cymbal shoes is going to change that, because you don't actively USE the shoes to sneak. You use your feet, and the shoes happen to effect your steps. With a weapon, you're not just punching, but compensating for detrimental factors of the weapon. You're actually using the weapon, operating it in a different manner than you would an empty hand. Can you become more familiar with the static effects of things? Sure. But that type of thing would most likely be single-tiered, and would take the place of proficiency feats, at best. With a weapon familiarity bonus, it's not that you're simply overcoming static detriments provided by the weapon. It's that you're actually using them to your advantage -- using them to even greater effect -- because of your visceral experience in wielding them. Let me put it this way... if you're trying to sneak in plate boots, you're most likely just going to take them off, which would ALWAYS result in quieter steps. Whereas, you would never achieve a better effect with your sword by sheathing it, then attacking with your bare hand. The sword isn't simply affecting your abilities; it's PART of your abilities. That's all I was getting at. It wouldn't be impossible to have some form of passive-item familiarity, but, like I said, in the context of the type of system we've been discussing, I don't see it fitting in super well, or providing much benefit by being handled in such a way for that matter. I do like your multi-tiered familiarity system example, though. That's kind of along the lines of what I've been thinking. You know, you switch swords, and you're still more familiar with the general size/shape/effectiveness of swords than you are with axes, so you only lose a portion of your familiarity bonus with your previous weapon (only the difference between that weapon and your new one). I think handling it in a hierarchy like that organizes it pretty well, from a logistical standpoint.

I believe they have mentioned character/inventory screen "paper dolls" that will use closer-up ("larger"), more-detailed models. But, yes, you most likely won't see such details on the character models while roaming the environments and battling things.

Using the same logic, have they even said there wouldn't be puzzles in P:E? There's never been any evidence of such a puzzle not being present in P:E, so I don't see what reason there is for a complete lack of concern.

Not a bad idea at all. Of course, few ideas are initially conceived in their most spectacular form. We could always spin it a cocoon and see what emerges,

I wouldn't think moving shadows would be out of the question, since they've already got moving lighting effects. I mean, if you can dynamically alter a 2D pre-render, you can dynamically alter a 2D pre-render, right? I'd bet that's something they're already working on (that video being a work-in-progress and all), and they'll probably only not-do it if they are unable to do it (or if it ends up being too time-consuming).

Thanks. I should've thought of that back when I asked if cleavage was -OH WAIT I didn't. But kudos on unnecessarily stating the obvious in a mocking fashion, as if such knowledge set you apart from lesser mortals. Save up those cool points and you can probably redeem them for an extra shirt collar or something. I'd just like to point out that cleavage is only naturally-occurring in female humanoids, and not in armor. A chest piece that simply protrudes in a convex fashion across the entirety of the female bosom would bear no such cleavage weakness, but would still constitute "boob plate." Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got an important thesis paper to write about how cleavage isn't concave, u_u... *dips quill*...

I am not opting for levels to be displayed, like in WoW, no... not at all, heh. Also, I want to clarify that I'm not advocating the merits of level-scaling as the sole means of solving all dynamic-content-navigation problems. As you said, there's encounter scaling, as well as times when you're going to be fighting a different group of the same/same-type of enemies, and even amongst a group of wolves one should expect variance in size/shape/hp/damage/ferocity/speed, etc. I don't really have anything to say against anything you've just said. I really just see level-scaling as a single type of adjustment within the realm of encounter scaling, because nothing says you have to say "Wait, I want there to be a more appropriate challenge here, but there's NO WAY I can change this group of 5 goblins to be more numerous, or of a different makeup," just as nothing says you have to say "I want this fight to be a bit tougher because of how-and-when the player got to it, but ALL I CAN DO is up the quantity of enemies, rather than taking this group that the player never did and never WILL face and 'replacing' them with a group of slightly tougher-though-still-varietous enemies." Basically, I think it's equally silly to shun ANY specific type of adjustment to the combat challenge that's made before you even ever face the challenge itself. As long as it makes sense. Like you said... some specific story baddy? He should probably still be tough (however you manage that) whether or not you complete 7 sidequests before facing him, or complete no sidequests and rush straight to him (though there should obviously be a relative difference between the two). Because, how much sense does it make that you went out and fought some wolves and bandits, and explored a cave, and now you can just wipe the floor with this guy who even the entire local garrison could not cause to break a sweat? That sort of thing. It just seems as though so many view "scaling" as some kind of mutant change to something that already exists. If I throw a party, and 6 people tell me they're coming, and I go buy some food and drinks for the party, I might get more messages while at the store from 4 other people who are coming, and maybe I'll turn around and pick up some more food and drinks. OMG, I JUST SCALED MY PARTY SUPPLIES! Yeah, and when the party happens, the supplies will be appropriate for it. There'd be absolutely no sense in me just buying food and drinks for 100 people, IN CASE that many people come, OR in buying food and drinks for only 3 people, because I assume that few people will show up. That's the whole point. Presenting an adequately appropriate challenge. If you do that, and there's still a range of difficulty available (a bit tougher to a bit easier), then I don't see how there's a problem. "I should've been able to eventually stomp that really tough thing into the ground, just because I went and did a bunch of other stuff first and came back to it!" Well, what if the game didn't even present you with enough leveling opportunities to do that? What makes anyone entitled to being able to decide which specific things should be which specific level of challenge? That's what I want to know. "I want an angry group of peasants to be ultra hard, but I want Malforr the Malevolent to COWER BEFORE MY BOOT SOLE!!!"? Because, maybe it's just me, but that seems to make absolutely no sense, and that seems to be about the only "problem" caused by any type of scaling (assuming you don't blatantly implement it improperly). The only thing the player should get to decide is whether or not to make something easier or not. Not whether or not it should be easy, on the fly. And the game already allows you to do that by not being linear. You can go take care of these situations before you fight Malforr the Malevolent, thereby allowing you to be better equipped and a bit more capable when facing him, as opposed to having absolutely no means by which to progress before facing him or not getting to face him until you've done other things first, in a specific order (linear game). This in no way entitles the player to decide just how easy Malforr can become, relative to the player's party. That whole argument has absolutely nothing to do with level-scaling, or scaling of any kind, and everything to do with whether or not the game allows you oodles of (or even infinite) level progression whenever you so choose.

Understandable. I realize you may have simply been responding to the sentiment, but, just to be clear (because we all know I'm sometimes neglectfully cloudy), I only meant that whole "If you're against such-and-such" bit as a pre-emptive comment for anyone who even shunned a compromise, and simply hated the idea of darkness affecting gameplay no matter what. It wasn't directed at you, . And I agree that, even things that DO add interesting gameplay elements can be taken so far as to not be worth all the minutia they come with. But, with lightsources, I do think we can get oodles of benefit to gameplay while keeping the frustration manufacturing to a minimum.

It's totally chocked full of vitamins and minerals, and helps promote healthy gameplay development. Really, though, I think the possibility for some entity to take advantage of such a level of darkness and hide from/surprise your characters is useful, but the inability of your characters to see the ground 2 feet in front of them is not so much... Which is why I'm all for some manner of compromise for the good of gameplay, so that darkness can still representatively affect detection and such (and maybe the ability to discern certain details, even within terrain or inanimate objects), but doesn't ever completely hinder your ability to navigate simple spaces/paths.

I believe your dislike for these puzzles has a pretty... ... Sound basis.

I believe his concern (as "fear" seems a bit unnecessarily strong) arises from the fact that it IS at the whim of its creators, and not at the mercy of the natural forces of technological world development. Natural technological development is always going to be accurate, because it is itself. It is our attempted emulation of it in literature that can fail to do so.

Not that it's bad to ask about this at all, but I wouldn't assume too much from that video demo, as they specificed that it's in no way intended to be the finished product. They were just trying to show off an example of the environments and aesthetic effects there-in, mainly. To put it another way, I don't think our failure to point out the flaws in that demo would, in any way, lead to them going "Oh well, no more work to be done on character animations! *STAMP* DONE! 8D" But, I do think there's value to the discussion of how to handle terrain and footing, . Especially in combat. I think running across ice or the effects of a grease spell should result in not just stationary slipping and falling, but sliding into allies and foes, alike, causing further tripping, etc. Things like that. 8P

Yeah... I didn't think the female chest region was concave. Maybe he meant the contrast between the chest of the armor and the waist/hips being concave? *le shrug*