Lephys

I'm fairly certain they simply are. I don't see where you're getting the "aren't" from. Why does a magic spell have such an advantage over a better THAC0 or better armor? Because of the math programmed into that spell. If a fireball does 1,000 damage to a 30-foot area, and armor stops all attacks from dealing 10% of their damage, and enemies have 100 health a piece, then yeah, the fireball is oodles better. Change a factor, and it isn't. Armor stops 90% of damage? That's probably better, now, in the long run. Enemies have 7,000 health? Well, that fireball isn't as useful as it was. Maybe you can cast it 7 times, rapidly? Hmmm, now it's useful again. Everything is made up of those numbers, under the hood. Balancing is simply done using those numbers. The numbers don't exist purely for balance's sake. They just happen to make balancing a lot easier and more objective. Even the mage's unique option of manipulating the rules of their world is quantified via game code.

No more thoughts on the effect-quantity limiter for buffs ("charge-based" buffs -- thanks Moridin, ^_^)? (i.e. This shield blocks 7 hits, or this fire-weapon effect lasts for 5 attacks.) Anyone? ...Bueller? Blarg, I don't think I said it before, but I do like the idea of the DA:O style maintained buffs that are either off or on, and require upkeep while they're on. They just need to be done better than in that game (and DA2, for that matter).

Name: Ilandel Stormwinter. Occupation: Dragon Strangler. "Excuse me... did you mean to put "wrangler" here? I mean, that still seems doubtful, but... "... Nope. *glaaaaarrrreee*..." Oooh, ooh! If you're a Druid, you could do it with your bear hands.

A nice breakdown, jamoecw, . Made me think of this: What if barbed arrows/bolts/knives/spears could be used, and were more effective against people or things who lacked the intelligence to know not to yank them back out to get them out of the way? Imagine, an enraged troll gets a barbed javelin stuck in his torso, then cries out in pain and fury and rips it from his flesh. Little did he know (or really care, I suppose, until the additional burst of pain) that it has a rather hefty inverted barb on it, so it just tore the whole wound about twice as large during the whole journey back out. Now he's suffering pretty significant bleeding. Maybe, for mechanical balance (I know not of real life effects/properties), the barbed stuff actually did less damage when it struck enemies, so humanoids intelligent enough to know not to remove them and/or creatures incapable of removing the shafts wouldn't be great targets upon which to use that type of weapon. *shrug*

Seriously... if you put Osvir in a thinktank, and supplied him with a team of dictation-activated robots who could convert ideas directly into game code, we'd have 100 RPGs in a week. As for the companions and relationships thingy, it sparks some thoughts. I'm just going to list them, because they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. *shrug* I definitely agree that the whole one-dimensional "You're doing something even remotely affiliated with something I don't like? NEGATIVE 100 POINTS FROM GRYFFINDOR!!!" thing. I never finished NWN2, but who was the Dwarf Fighter who wants to be a Monk? I swear to GOD, every time you said "Hello there" to someone and passed them, he went all "WHY DIDN'T WE KICK THEIR TEETH IN?! *Hates you now*". Clearly there should be ways in which to cause your companions to dislike you, but every single thing shouldn't do that. Are these people 5 years old? "I'm a Rogue, and every time we don't steal everything in sight, I'm going to pitch a fit, rather than simply be mildly annoyed." Or yeah, Morrigan, in DA:O, with her "What? That guy who just saved all our lives is a Mage, so he's affiliated with the Mage's Circle, and you're just going to give him some bandages and bread?! I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DID THAT!" Anywho, I was thinking that maybe those same situations should evoke merely mild annoyance, and there should be other opportunities to appease their desires. Maybe even work it into sidequests, etc. You know your Fighter loves to brawl, so you tell everyone else to stand back and let the two of you handle some ruffians, McFisticuff style, when you COULD'VE just fought them with everyone more easily rather than going out of your way to allow him the thrill of a challenge. Your Rogue companion has been pretty awesome and useful lately, so maybe you can grant them first-pick of some chest you've found. The player has no control over what they take out of the chest, and maybe they don't even tell you. Then, later on, you find out they've got some cursed gemstone or something (inject originality and complexity at your leisure, as generic example is generic). Maybe how you help them deal with that further effects their relationship (and possibly those of other companions, as the events most likely relate to more than just one single companion's personality and perspective). Another thing I was thinking (that was touched on in another thread about companions) is that companions who aren't currently in your party should be able to do stuff while you're "all" out-and-about, whether it's city missions/investigations/gambling at the tavern or stronghold tasks/training/etc. Maybe who you take with you on which quests/segments can potentially positively affect your relationship with them (take the Rogue to ruins known to be filled with treasure, or take the Fighter to clear out a bandit encampment, etc.). I don't think they should necessarily be NEGATIVELY affected simply by not being taken, though. You'll just miss out on the positive boost you could've had by taking them on that particular adventure. BUT, you could maybe still let them do stuff they want to do (perhaps at the mild cost of such things being slightly less constructive, such as the gambling-at-the-tavern example? Perhaps they don't really find out about something in town you wanted investigated, but they return with winnings and share with the party? *shrug*) for more minor positive boosts. Sometimes you would have good clues as to who would like to do what, ahead of time. i.e. You're preparing to head out to investigate something deep in the woods of a little-explored forest. Maybe your Ranger expresses some kind of enthusiasm or interest in that particular area. Then, sometimes, you'll have no clue, really. Go explore some ancient ruins, and it just so happens there's ultra-cool Rangery stuff down there that your Ranger would LOVE. But, you didn't bring him/her (simply mutual-exclusiveness in choice for replayability. Maybe there are several different companions who would like to go on that particular adventure, and the situation is affected in various ways, much like the overly-simplistic "We couldn't get through this certain door because we didn't have our awesome Rogue" situation). It doesn't even have to be class-specific stuff. Your Rogue has a love for high-society things, or your Fighter loves botany (arbitrary examples of non-class-specific interests)? Take your Rogue into the palace when you go, and take your Fighter into the woods when you go exploring. Basically, you don't need any kind of artificial means to further relationships, like a lot of games do it. You just have the companion's personalities be a natural part of the game world, and react accordingly. Then, you give the player the means of basically getting to know them, if the player so chooses, so that he's equipped with the knowledge of what choices (sometimes completely optional, other times tough decisions that MUST be made) will affect whom. Lastly, while it should be entirely possible for companions to come to dislike you (and therefore deny you services/information/items/quest-content, etc.), I don't think it should be mandatory that they do so. I don't think you should have the most vile bastard in the world in your party, who simply wants all things dead, AND the Druid who wants nothing more than for all things to live. So, basically, gaining a positive relationship with one companion shouldn't automatically give you a crappier relationship with another, in perfect symmetry. On the other hand, I don't think that, at the end of a playthrough, you should be able to have a 100% positive, best-man/maid-of-honor relationship with every single one of your companions. BUT, you should probably be able to do so with several of them (maybe 5 out of 10, or something?), and, with a decent bit of intelligent effort, the rest should not loathe you or anything (they're just not super best buds or anything). Basically, the negative should be that their relationship is still "Meh," rather than that their relationship with you is "I WILL END YOU IN YOUR SLEEP WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT IT, but we're still traveling together for now, MUAHAHAHAHA!"

^ I had actually missed that. I think it's a very interesting idea, and it'd be pretty great. My only concern with it is that it's SO spectacularly complex, I'm not sure the Kickstarter budget is gonna do it for something like that to be in without sacrificing the quality of the initial game (without forcing it, basically). I know it was talked about in that thread, and I know people have different ideas when different words are used, but I really think it would make a very good expansion. For lack of a better example, think of Blue Shift (I think that's what it's called), the Halflife Expansion, where you play as Barney, the security guard in the same facility as Gordon Freeman in the original game. Basically same story, but different perspective. The difference with P:E is that it would be MUCH broader in scope, rather than 2 parallel/criss-crossing linear perspectives. But, yeah, I would like for New Game + to possibly somehow work its way into some changes in the world/story of the 2nd playthrough. Again, for lack of a better example (My example-thinking-of-ing skills suck right now, apparently), maybe something happens along the lines of your character's soul (from the end of the game) winding up being a part of the witnessed, supernatural event from the beginning of the game. "Time travel" cliche, I know. But, I DID say "along the lines of." The point is that the end of the game could interact with a New Game +, not that we need soul time traveling, heh. Also, I second your belief that the "supernatural event" they've described will involve some sort of multi-soul situation, for what it's worth. LEELOO DALLAS, MULTI-SOUL!

If creatively brainstorming potential physiologies for video game races is losing, I'm not sure I want to win.

No one's suggesting magic exists in reality, where physics dwells. But, when we imagine up a fictitious world, physics still exists within that world (people are held to the earth via gravity, heat burns things, ice freezes things, centrifugal force still applies, etc.), so why would we not take physics into account? Also, I don't think magic is the actual source of your concern, regarding the "things just involve some big supernatural event instead of just humans in conflict" bit. Plenty of modern, realistic stories revolve around nukes, or some new chemical weapon threat, and "humans in conflict" resolving their conflict. Doesn't make them inherently have awesome writing. Therefore, the quality of a story seems to be separate from the setting of the story.

Epiphany time! In Mass Effect 2 and 3, Tali's "Go for the optics, Chikktika!" is totally a tribute to Minsc. I agree, though, that frequency is one of the problems. I think it's a combination of frequency and variation. I mean, even if they only say something every 10 minutes, if all you hear is that one line every time they speak, it gets reallllly old. I think it would be cool if the majority of them were quite simple, and were actually dependent upon the situation. You know, things like "I'm not looking so good over here" when a character's been reduced below a certain amount of health, and/or taken a devastating blow, or "Stay on the move!" whenever someone sees that an enemy is casting some slow-yet-powerful AOE spell. Situational cues. But, I don't think they need to be fancy and personality-filled ever time, and they definitely don't need to be said every time a spell is cast, or every time a character is injured or knocked down or something. "Oh man, I guess I can't stay on my feet! Heh!" every 10 seconds... or "I fear this may be the end... Help me so it won't be!". Or "Looks like you're going to have some trouble standing pretty soon if you keep doing it in that same spot." I think brief, useful cues would be good for a lot of the reactive callouts.

I don't always post the fastest... but when I do, it's because I typed fewer than 900 sentences for once.

Hell hath no... ... Furry? ... Like a woman scorned by the genetic splicing of animal DNA?

Well, a simple one is "roll-over equipment." Or, maybe you get to keep just one item from your main character's equipment? Or, you could keep an ability that you had. Or, in the event of a different class being chosen for NG+, you get to pick a higher-level ability to start with. Another option: Start with bonus skill points.

Good point. And you're right, Jobby. The stuff shouldn't literally be broadcasted straight to the player. I wasn't thinking of it like that, but that's kind what the phrasing of the quote suggested. I think, oftentimes, something as simple an NPC who was supplying you with some amount of information simply catching your sleeve before you head out and saying "Watch out for the swamptoads... they do more than bite." is sufficient. I just think the player needs to at least know when there's something to be cautious about, even if he doesn't know all the details (and even if the NPC doesn't really know the details, either). I agree, though, that sometimes you shouldn't know certain things without checking in a book. For example, if you're out at some abandoned ruins, you can bet there won't just be villagers around who live in the ruins, saying "Oh, that's just a gemaflorb... here, I'll explain their physiology and abilities over tea, ^_^". So, you're probably going to have to find out about any dangers from old manuscripts and records strewn about the ruins.

No, I totally get what you mean. I often think that. Of course, I always fear that saying it will provoke all the "NO, THIS GAME DOES NOT NEED TO BE MORE LIKE ANIME" rage-sponses. Haha. But, yeah, I mean, the Zanpakutou in Bleach, for example, were pretty awesome. Some of them, at least. Like, ehh... what was it called, Wabisuke? It doubles the weight of things it strikes. So, it doesn't do any more damage or even have any more reach than other people's weapons, but it would basically render your opponent's weapons/shield/armor useless after enough successful strikes. Obviously the "double" part might have to be adjusted for a game like P:E, but the interesting utility of the effect (rather than potency) is the point here. I'm trying to think of others, now, and I'm blanking... There were like 8,000 characters in that show/manga, haha. Oh, also, I cannot see those videos right now, which is why I'm not responding directly to them. When I get home and can view them, I will gladly check them out. (I didn't want you to think I was just ignoring them, and/or pretending they were crappy examples or something.) But, yes, you've gotta give anime writers props for creativity when it comes to weapons/abilities. Oooh! What if some weapons simply grant the user a new, unique "spell" or ability? It would still fall under the per-encounter or per-rest thing, but the only way you could get it/use it would be whilst using that weapon/piece of equipment. Maybe it doesn't even do any more damage than a non-enchanted weapon, or provide any passive effects. Or, obviously, maybe a combination of passive effects and active, unique abilities (I stress the word "unique." I don't want a sword that just lets people shoot Wizard's fireballs, or use Barbarian attacks.)

Your filename response both frightens and confuses me. Firstly, I apologize for reasoning seeming so hard to be flawed, in your mind, that it has caused you physical pain. That wasn't my intention, and could I have foreseen it, I would have. Secondly, oh good, we're using our powers of imagination now, are we? Like the ones we use when designing things like video games that have virtual, non-existent worlds? Splendid! Okay, okay, challenge time! Imagine you'll sometimes have to go through a rather well-designed minigame (that isn't limited to only what other games have already used, code-for-code) to disarm only the most difficult traps or pick the most difficult locks on doors and chests. You'll enjoy the game, and be thankful for the developers' effort, and you'll hug your keyboard and mouse for allowing you to experience the range of difficulty inherent to lockpicking/trap disarming. Well, unless you irrationally want locked things and traps to serve the purpose of delaying/impeding you while doing so for as close to no amount of time as possible. Let me put it this way... I don't want my Rogue to take 5 seconds to pick both the simplest lock in the game AND the most complicated lock ever created in the entire world of P:E. So, rather than have complex locks have me staring at my character for 20 seconds, I'd rather be able to actually contribute to the speed with which they are picked. Look at combat. Sometimes you get those "We can't let you live *kill*" options in dialogue, and they're handled instantly. Why? Because all you're doing is slitting someone's throat. Same as a simple lock. Poke a lockpick in, and you're done. But then, what's this? Some ridiculously skilled adversary who's impeding my path? Well, my character knows how to fight him, but it's complex enough that the game turns control over to the player. Obviously combat tends to take longer and be more perilous, etc, than lockpicking ever should. So, is it really hurting anyone for some manner of tumbler interface to pop up when the lock is even a challenge for your skilled lockpickist, and require upwards of 10 seconds of your time? I mean, is that really so infeasible? And seriously, what's with all the "Do you really want to have to play a minigame 1,000 times, that takes 15 hours, and is super lame and dull and never changes?" responses? No. I could ask if you really want to fight NOTHING but rats the entire game, numbering in the millions, but I'm not going to, because it's so blatantly obvious that A) that's nowhere near the optimal game design for an RPG's beastiary/enemies, and B) the developers are obviously going to try for the best game design they can achieve. The same classic games you're referencing also have doors that aren't pickable, and either require a specific key or some mechanism or de-enchantment to open, and finding whatever it is you need takes WAYYYYYYY longer than a multi-second minigame interface does. Point out the flaws in other lockpicking minigames all you want, and let's constructively discuss how to make one that doesn't suck. Or, maybe that would be too irrational, because I'm such a Sophist.

Logically, if you are pursuing, taking an attack should slow you down briefly--allowing the defender to move out of your range. You would then need to catch up again. So it's difficult to see how you can perform consecutive attacks in that instance. I just think that's something that's needed balancing in a lot of games. There shouldn't simply be a 3-second cooldown on your ability to otherwise instantly stop, turn about, and effectively swing your weapon at your pursuer. Versus slower opponents? Yes. That kind of tactic isn't ludicrous or nonexistent, but it shouldn't really even be feasible versus another humanoid who's just as fast and skilled as you are. Running, then turning and attacking, then running again should really be a good bit less efficient (between time wasted stopping and turning, then getting moving again, to the ease with which the pursuer will strike you with a blow with oodles of momentum behind it, etc.). Obviously all that's a bit abstracted in the game, but there's a difference between abstracting a complex group of actions that all require various amounts of time to perform, and simply doing away with the amount of time required to perform any of them.

Crap! I was SO hoping for illogical character departures! . We'll just assume that's what MuseBreaks wants, too, and now you can enjoy double the hatred, 8D! Step 1: Assumption. Step 2: ... Step 3: Profit.

You're making a mistake assuming that "balance and mechanics", these little numbers under the hood, work in some sort of completely separate dimension from other design, like classes and what items they can wear. You're making the mistake of assuming that things like classes and what items they can wear aren't literally comprised of "these little numbers under the hood." Also, the whole hammer/shield comparison was metaphorical. The figurative shield-wielding Wizard was restricted to having to use his shield, but he wasn't restricted in simply hiding behind it. I'm fairly certain you knew that, and simply don't care.

I didn't forget. . It depends on where and when you find them along the way, which is a part of the balance. It really depends on what they are. I was thinking more along the lines of more base items that are simply higher quality than what you had. i.e. "I've got this furniture leg up to 2 enchantment slots, because I've been using it for so long, but this Damascus Steel Longsword I just found/bought is WAYYYY more effective against armor than this furniture leg, even with its flameyness and its debuff that makes people randomly fall down." And, I mean, you often have to go out of your way to get to some improved equipment, whether it be sidequests, pure exploration, or money accumulation in order to purchase something new. So, I'm thinking that simply found magical, enchanted things should be pretty rare (as in you don't find them very often, on the ground or in shops... not so much "There are only 1.7 in the whole game!"). So, they should be pretty rare, and decently useful at that (None of this +1 fire damage or +1 to attack... Again, I'd like to see utility, rather than any amount of pure number boosts). And the legendary stuff should be especially tougher to get, and thus rarer. So, yeah, definitely no familiarity building in regards to an increased enchantability, for legendary/unique weapons and such. And maybe the lesser magical weapons just have fewer maximum slots, since they're already holding some soul magic? Holy carp I'm lame. I was so busy typing that previous paragraph out, I didn't realize that you pretty much already addressed the exact same thing, *facepalm*. While I couldn't tell you the exact numbers to use without knowing all the rest of the game's design (I just know a rough estimate, like 10 customizable enchantments on a weapon is starting to get pretty stupid, so probably less than that, and probably more than just 1 would be cool), I believe we are in agreement on the principle behind the balancing. I'm with the group that's quite sick of the finding of a magical sword producing simply "Oh, another one of those. Meh, I think mine does like 3 more DPS, when you do the math. Oh well... I'll just sell it, and buy some more DPS for my current weapon, ^_^." I would like to see a return to a magic sword being all "Croikey! This thing's friggin' ENCHANTED! It's completely different from my current weapon!" You know... like hiking through the woods, and finding a pegasus. Not "Oh look, a big, different-colored horse that's way stronger and faster than all previous horses!"

Considering that's but a single example of a godlike, I'm not really sure how original they're supposed to go with it without leaving the realm of "this is a humanoid that possesses very nature-like features because this is supposed to be a nature-themed godlike." Not that you're not welcome to your opinion, but I'm just not comprehending how it's supposed to look if it's too cliche as-is. I mean, dozens of low-creativity results could've involved simply slapping horns on a regular human, and giving them different colored eyes, or just putting leafy clothes on them and calling it a day. Objectively, they seem to have merged together a variety of nature themes into a figure that clearly originated as a humanoid, but now is slightly non-humanoid, and quite well at that. Subjectively, maybe it's just not your preference. But objectively (i.e. "It should really be more like [examples on how it should be different]"), I think they did a fine job. If I dislike broccoli, I'm going to go on disliking it even when it's masterfully prepared. *shrug*

^ I've gotta say, I like your idea, Hormalakh. But, at the same time, I can't bring myself not to want them to be randomizable AND individually selectable, if anything. It just seems like 9 times out of 10, the player is going to find himself/herself going "Oooh, I liked those horns, and THOSE ears... I'll just hafta keep re-rolling until I get the ones I want," despite any initial intention to be fine with complete randomization. *shrug* But, yeah, a "randomize" option for each god-set of potential attributes? Hells yeah!

^ Sling, FTW!!! (No powder/packing required! 8D)

No worries. Just didn't want you to miss the existing Silence discussion, purely for your own benefit.

And yet it's serious artwork. It's not even meant to be... ... satyrical.

I actually agree with everything, except the flawed conclusion that magic is the problem. Since we make up all the rules for it every time we implement it within a game world, I don't see how it could be the reason it's "unbalanced and catch-all". I say make magical effects add more utility than potency (weapon fire being more useful in its ability to ignite things, which a sword edge can't do, rather than dealing more damage than a sword edge, etc.). And make the quality of non-magical weapons more significant. Not "I watched some people build a house with wood in a stupid way that didn't work well at all, and therefore we should all abandon trying to build houses with wood." An example that comes to mind, of how to take potency-based magical effects from existing games and make them more utility/tactic-based: Vampirism. Usually it just steals life relative to the damage of the sword. Basically, the more you hit things with the sword, the more health you steal. Well, what if a vampiric weapon only stole life upon a kill, and the amount of life (percentage, maybe, to account for tiny goblins AND huge trolls?) it stole was based on the number of times it was stricken by that weapon? You could use counters that increase the lifesteal percentage (for when it actually dies), or it could simply deal "vampiric damage" as a separate damage type. When the enemy dies, it could simply award life based on the total amount of vampiric damage it had accumulated. So, basically if you're fighting a 700HP troll, you're not actually going to get healed at all until you take it down (the more effectively you take down the troll, the sooner/more-often your weapon will steal health), and you're not going to get 30% of the troll's health stolen if everyone else did all the work and you just poked it once or twice with your vampiric weapon. Alas, the usefulness of the enchantment is based upon your character's martial prowess. Basically, I would love for magical weapons to do DIFFERENT things, rather than BETTER things. I think the non-magical base weapon quality, along with your character's skill (and the player's at effectively utilizing the character's abilities) should be the only things that determine the potency/effectiveness of weapons.