Lephys

I believe the "broadcasted and explained" part was meant only in regard to the knowledge of the risk of contracting a disease, and the disease's effects, before you ever get it. I don't think there's anything you should have the ability to avoid without knowing that you have the ability to avoid it. Sort of "You could've been careful, if we had actually told you what careful was."

I'm on about the flawed logic of "Some people hate this, so it obviously has no reason to ever exist." What happens to be your opinion is also true, as an RPG can be made without lockpicking and it remains an RPG. Hell, you could make a game set in a world without the invention of locks. Do you know what's equally non-integral to an RPG? A lack of complexity in lock-picking. Half the people playing RPGs probably don't want to bother with a specific class, no matter how fun you make it. It obviously doesn't follow that we should only implement classes if more than 70% of the player populous wants to play them. Every class isn't integral to an RPG, and yet various ones get implemented in various games, and no one decides that their very existence has ruined the whole game while they play through without ever having to play a given class that they dislike.

I suggested almost the same thing above, in case you missed it. Only, with a spherical area that could be placed around the door (basically to trap sound), rather than an effect specifically targeting the door. *shrug*

I was. ... You were being sarcastic with "These forums lack a good sarcasm emoticon"? Or you were being sarcastic with "I don't want people using a metaphorical hammer in ways a hammer can't feasibly be used."? Because either doesn't really make much sense. Are you sure you were being sarcastic? o_o. I mean, I could just still be misunderstanding. *shrug* YES! I finally got an official permission! It was actually just an observation that permission wasn't even required, but you most likely already knew that. In which case, "Hahaha, good one! Ya got me, ^_^" Well, think of a Wizard's magic as a shield (a physical, equippable shield.) Pretend a Wizard is just a guy who can't NOT-wield a shield. Well, obviously, a devastatingly large, sharp sword would be a much more effective weapon, but you can't really use that, because you can't put down this shield that you've always got and can't not-have (your magic). BUT, if someone gets in close to you, isn't it a bit silly to say "Well, all you can do with that shield is block stuff. Arrows... sword swings, etc. You want to attack? You can't, because you've got a shield." Why not let the guy with the shield bash people in the face, when he gets the chance, even if it's less effective than other weapons (metaphorically -- even if the Wizard is less effective at melee hitting than the Fighter)? And why should he be allowed to wear heavy armor? I don't know. Why should the Ranger be allowed to switch to a sword instead of a bow? Why should the Druid be able to do anything while not in animal form? A Wizard is limited to magical specialization. That much is a given. But why limit his tactical role when no one else's is limited, really? If he wants to use close-quarters magic, and wear heavy armor, and take the penalty to casting times as a tradeoff for the extra attack resistance from the armor (and probably the slower, but more accurate spells because they're so close-range), why not let him? He's still a Wizard. He's still doing Wizardy things. The Heavy armor is so that he CAN operate from closer ranges, with more exposure to damage. Not so he can become a Barbarian and wade through dozens upon dozens of enemies using purely his fury and a jagged piece of rusty metal. You're acting as though the sheer POTENTIAL for a Wizard to wield a melee weapon with more skill than a toddler, or to wear heavy armor for increased damage resistance would automatically make him some kind of uber-tank. He'd somehow automatically gain +7,000 melee damage, and all kinds of cleaving attacks, and would completely abandon his magic and just run about, engaging everyone in direct swordplay. Maybe he'll start grappling people and ripping their eyes out with his thumbs, and drink from their freshly-severed arteries. No. All people want is some tactical versatility with their casters. Even if my Wizard's supposed to be a gun, I want to be able to decide whether or not he's a sniper rifle or a sawed-off shotgun. And if he gets in trouble, I want him to be able to rifle/shotgun-butt something in the face, and fire off rounds at point-blank. I don't want him to be limited to having a restraining order on all the enemies, and just running off to call some law enforcement whenever they come within 50 feet of him. That was one of the most enjoyable parts of making a touch-spell-focused Mage in DnD. Sure, you had to get in close, but your spells almost never "missed." Then, when you got to a foe that was so strong that even the Fighter had to be really careful around him, you had to deal with it accordingly. That's the best way to implement that, I think. Dragon Age tried to base it around how much spells cost whilst wearing armour and it ended up being easily ignorable. I think it will also add variation within the play style as it will mean a choice between how much casting you want to sacrifice for survivability. Yup. Mass Effect did pretty much the same thing with weapon loadouts and ability cooldowns in the 3rd game. You could make a full-biotic with a shotgun, a sniper rifle, and an assault rifle, but your ability cooldowns would be 200% base. OR, you could make one with just a light pistol, and they'd be 50% of base (something around 2 seconds). So, you could pretty much "spell"sling like that, but you had almost no physical firepower, OR you could rely heavily on your firepower, and you'd have to wait upwards of 12 seconds to re-use abilities. Potency was not affected by weapon loadouts. Only cooldown. It worked very well, though.

^ So, basically, we need a thread about inflatable pools? o_O . I jest. *Jest... jest jest*

Someone mentioned character creation, and it make me think of this tidbit: Could you make sure there's variety in the properties of the different choices? That seems to be an area in which a lot of games' character customization falls short. What I mean is, there might be 900,000,000 different hairstyles, but in all of them, the hair's either 2 inches long, or 1 foot long. The game seems to say "In this world, no one ever has hair longer than chin-length! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!" You see it a lot with beards, too. Guild Wars 2 actually put in some interesting tweaks you could make to your character's features (like the horns on the Charr, or the crazy glow-bud/branch-like ears on the Sylvari) that let you basically make almost the exact same character (with the same distinct aesthetic options selected), but STILL have them look completely different. A Charr with maximum-length, angled out horns looked different from the same Charr head with the same horns set to minimum length and angled back along the sides of their head, for example. It's almost like turning each option into 20 different variants. Of course, I realize I'm referencing an MMORPG here, and they quite possibly had a much larger budget for just character creation. *shrug* Basically, could we please make sure that the variety of options aren't strangely all the same in a way (facial hair length, hair length, face shapes, etc.)? If there's a technical reason for it, then I'll understand. Just thought it was worth pointing out. I just can't even count how many times I've been at character creation, and thought "Man, I like this hair WAY better than all the other hairstyles, if I could JUST make it longer!", or "I want hair with a ponytail on my female character, but I can either go with 5-foot non-ponytail hair, or 1-1/2-foot hair with a 4" ponytail nub. If there's a 5-foot hair option, why can't I have 5-foot hair up in a ponytail?!" 8P

But of course.. I never said otherwise. Of course. . I wasn't meaning to suggest you did. I was more just thinking "out loud." It's hard to consider all the possible ramifications of a "starting" weapon being upgradeable to the point of an "ending" weapon, and the potential needs of the system (depending on how it could be designed), all at once. So the best I can come up with is a "maybe" that I feel is worth investigating to the best of our ability. New idea-sprout that was sparked in my head just now: IF you're going to let an item be pretty upgradeable with echantments (even minor ones; IF you want to ever, eventual, have the potential for a greater quantity of enchantments, or more potent ones), maybe the item's enchantability could be governed BY the familiarity, somehow? Obviously, while familiarity (weight, balance, etc.) has basis in reality, this idea would not. BUT, there's some fertile idea-soil for it in all that fictional soul lore (Bleeding effects into the weapon after you use it so much, so that it can actually store a bit of soul-power?). Essentially, here's what I thought: In a lot of games, you like equipment for reasons beyond simply its numbers. So, in some games, you find a new thing, and go "Awwww... I really need those improvements from the new thing, so, goodbye old thing that I loved a lot more than the new thing! T_T". And in some games (mostly MMO examples come to mind), they decided, "Hmm... let's let you keep the skin of the old thing, and still get the improvements of the new thing. Aesthetic customization, FTW!" But, that's just aesthetics. It's not actual, mechanical customization. And sure, you can say "Alright, we'll give things upgrade slots, for enchantments or enchanted gemstones or whathaveyou...", but then, like you said, Trashman, the awesome base weapons tend to get more slots. So, it's like saying "Yeah, you can totally put like 2 things into that Copper Pirate Cutlass, to make it better than a base Steel Pirate Cutlass, BUT, you can put like 7 things in the Steel one." So, that doesn't really change the fact that the only way to keep up with the Joneses (aka the enemies' defensive capabilities) is to get entirely new weapons. So, what if a weapon's enchantability were based on familiarity? (this doesn't change the weapons you find that are already magical, nor have any bearing on how scarce they should be, OR on the physical upgrades/customizations you can make to weapons, etc.). It would probably need to be balanced so that not immediately switching to new weapons as soon as they were available (via loot drops OR merchants) would produce a smallish sacrifice/detriment (while your old weapon still hasn't quite gained enough familiarity XP or usage or however you measure it, just yet, to actually improve, so the new weapons are a decent bit better in some respects), but could be easily better (and simultaneously more unique) than the newer stuff after a short time. In other words, if (purely for example) you gain an enchantment slot after every 10 kills with the weapon, and you kill 60 things before you find/can-purchase a better-quality base weapon (that will have 0 slots until you become familiar with it), then there'd never be any point in buying the new stuff, as it would be guaranteed to be WORSE than your current weapon that you've obviously used in your progress to this point in the game. *shrug*. Anywho. Just thought it might be a good system, with the right balancing. Brevity - 829; Lephys - 0

I don't believe anyone was debating how spell "ammo" would be handled. Shadenaut was referring to a specific system (Arcanum's) in which there was a maximum number of maintainable, on-until-you-deactivate-them buffs that was based upon the INT stat. Simple misunderstanding.

Like HELM they do!

Throw in a heart one and you've got CAPTAIN PLANET! But, in all seriousness, I think those are just meant to be some examples, and not all examples. I could be wrong, *shrug*. Perhaps, though, the touching isn't limited to elements. I mean, the features he listed weren't elements. That leads me to believe that elemental aesthetics/themes are simply a handful of options amongst the full set, rather than the four corners of the full set. Haha. Splendid! ^_^. I wish Mastercard really used it as an ad. They could air it during the show. 8P. I bet it'd be excellent PR.

We heard an awful lot about rigs in this update, but nothing about Murtaugh! Puns aside, thanks for the update, and all its technical, technical glory! I'm studying up on 3D game math right now, for I am but a nublet. Love the concept for the godlike! Keep up the good work! (No, seriously! *whip crack*! o_o... I joke, ^_^)

Precisely the point. Why not just make sure the integral lockpicking is ultra easy (or uses keys), and the optional lockpicking is the only bit that's actually more complex and tricky? If you want potatoes instead of broccoli, why would you demand that broccoli be on your plate, but that it taste as much like potatoes as possible? Also, if someone inherently is more interested in combat than they are in picking locks, then "Because it just so happens to not be interesting to me" is not a reason why it shouldn't have any depth in a game that's going to be enjoyed by oodles of people. One's opinion or preference is not wrong. Pretending opinion and preference are valid reasons for the way things must or must not be? So pointlessly, pointlessly wrong.

Didn't say you did. You were arguing against the necessity of magical things, on the basis that the same effects could be achieved via non-magical things. Recap: Since no one (whose post you were addressing) said "Things simply MUST be magical for people to want to use/wear them!", I don't know what I'm supposed to take from your "There's no need for magic to do that" other than "Since we don't need those magical things, we shouldn't have them." So, I simply pointed out the fact that there's a reason, beyond sheer necessity, for things to be incorporated into the game, just like the color of the cloak. "Things" being specific magical items, just like the ones in the quoted example above. I wasn't claiming you were arguing against the existence of magic in P:E. I was merely rebutting the usefulness of the existence of specific magical items, which you argued against on the basis of necessity.

I think dialogue should also just take one click. They should just tell you all the things they can possibly say, because you're just going to ask all the questions and get all those responses anyway. Same with a lock. Why must we complicate things with mini-games? All they do is delay things. Just give us the outcomes! Combat? I think the only roll we should have is a collective, party "to-win" roll. And if that beats the enemy group's to-win roll, we win and they all die, and we get all the loot, and it's instantly sold for us, and all the stuff we were gonna buy with it is instantly purchased, and then we win the game. Pssh... slowing stuff down with complexity and whatnot. It's just a waste of time, and it makes no sense, u_u

Yeah, I don't think 0 limitations on ammo quantity are the way to go. BUT, just to be clear, you can do per-encounter ammo limit, then have the replenishment be unlimited. Which is basically what it is with purchasable ammo quantities. Except, with that, you run into that whole "I can only keep 30 arrows in a quiver, really, but now the game's abstractly letting me fire 700 arrows in one bout of combat, when really I would've just used like 30 and retrieved most of the ones I fired when combat was done." Basically, I don't think something that gets used so often needs to have limitations that are enforced by funds and merchant availability. There are probably better ways of limiting it.

I wasn't really talking about enchantments, but I didn't make that very clear, did I. Doh! 8P My main point was that you could only do so much to improve a furniture leg. You can't melt it down and reforge it, because wood doesn't work like that. If you had iron, you could probably make a lot more changes/improvements to it, purely because of the quality of the material and it'll hold up through. *shrug*. Maybe there could be a lore reason for certain things holding enchantments better than other things? I have no idea. And, depending on how the system is designed, it might demand some mechanical need for pacing regarding enchantment "slots" (or maybe just potency instead of quantity of enchantments *shrug*). Then again, maybe there's no need for it at all. Which is where your good point comes in. I agree that they should all maybe have the same amount of enchantability. For what it's worth, I'm thinking of a system in which you don't start with a furniture leg that does 7 damage, and end with a WraithSteel Longsword that does 173 damage. I think MOST of the increase in damage your characters get should come from their progression and ability to use said weapons more effectively. The weapon numbers should really just be a base, and should be balanced against one another (such as a heavy axe being more damaging but slower, and a dagger being less damaging but faster, etc.). Just thought I'd share my thoughts on the system context. I definitely think things should be balanced in such a way that the furniture leg is never better than something you have to be level 20 and trek through 17 optional quests to acquire. Basically, I think the weapons should be tiered, for lack of a better word. So, maybe that Masterwork Steel Longsword can be quantifiably comparable (with you going out of your way to customize and upgrade it) to the Holy Blade of Metriall, but that rusty pitchfork you found 3 seconds into the game cannot. I just don't think the option should be "rely to SOME degree on the improvements in quality of found/purchased items, or completely ignore that and just make a ragged piece of rope into a legendary weapon by the end of the game."

I wasn't being sarcastic, if that's what you were suggesting. If it's not, then I am clearly lost. When... . The fact that you could be called a purist is fine. You're allowed to like such specific class restrictions, and that's totally fine. Doesn't make you wrong or crazy or stupid. But, what it also doesn't do is change the fact that you can change up the class restrictions and the game will not be inherently, logically broken (unless you do it wrong). Good. You agree that the hammer can feasibly be used in multiple ways. Any time you give wizard heavy armor it gets broken. Hence tankomages. False. Sometimes when you give wizards heavy armor (like when you do it how Dragon Age: Origins did it) the system gets broken. Hence Dragon Age: Origins tankomages. In a completely unrelated literal humor note... It takes two to tanko.

No no no, o_o... I apologize if my description was confusing, but all I meant was that mechanically they would supplement your skill with a modifier (+5, +10, etc.) instead of just having a hard-coded roll that was always going to be better than yours. In other words, if I'm trying to bluff my way into a VIP room at a tavern, and I fall short (45 out of 50 or something), THEN I want my companion to come in and say something like "We REALLY don't have time for this. I'm going to have to have a talk with Savinn (the establishment owner)..." And now, the mathematical equivalent is like 55, or 60, so your collective bluff attempt passes their, er... believability check? The benefits are two-fold: 1) Your main character's dialogue-related skills/stats will never be redundant, even when a companion's are higher. 2) A companion can actually boost your skill higher than his/her own individual roll could ever go. In other words, if your skill is 50, and your companion provides +15 if you need it (based on their level of expertise, etc.), then you end up with the capability of surpassing skill checks up to 65. Whereas, if you level up some, and you boost your skill to 75, now they can get you to 90. They become useful even when your skill is higher. Granted, I'm not saying there should never be any times in which your companion completely handles something in place of yourself. I just don't think the game should be limited to that scenario in terms of how your companion can help out. That's why my thought began with "maybe they should...". I just think that, at the very least, there should be some form of both. I mean, if your strength is 16, and a companion's is 19, and we're able to bash doors in P:E, then you'd think any wide-enough door should allow both of you to charge it/kick it at the same time for a boosted roll. Same with dialogue checks, really. Two skilled liars/diplomats are better than one, I would think. *shrug* Hmm... How to handle the difference. Maybe if your skill is less than half of theirs, they simply take over for you (IF they are loyal enough or desire to do so for whatever reasons/factors)? And above that, they add a modifier? Maybe the maximum is... I dunno, +20 if their skill is twice yours, and the minimum is 5 (down to their skill being half yours)? I dunno. That's still a bit messy. *shrug*. It was just a thought, really. Worth investigating, I figured. It might not be feasible.

I'm not really sure why the limitations are quote-unquote limitations, rather than actual limitations. You wouldn't make a real-time PnP game, but you can easily make a real-time cRPG. 'Nuff said. A PnP ruleset for P:E could be pretty cool, but I'm sure they wouldn't dedicate time to that until after P:E is finished.

^ Strangely enough, after getting its fill of blood, a Bloodsteel weapon would then cauterize the wounds with its heat, would it not? I mean, at that point, it's already "fed," so it's not really a flaw or anything. Just thought it was kind of funny, in a way.

Cool beans. Neither do I. o_o Classes are perfectly realistic. Just, in reality, you don't start out in the middle of life. So, picking your class is unrealistic, and is only required by game mechanics. But, hey, make a game where we play from a fetus all the way up to where the story begins, and you'll have eliminated the need for that. And yes, classes are inherently about limitations, just as boundaries are for land. And yet, all land boundaries aren't exactly the same size. So, no, the existence of limitations doesn't say anything about the exact "coordinates," so to speak, of those limitations. In short, you're bringing up valid notions and points, but none of them suggest that a Wizard shouldn't be able to hold his own with a weapon, if he so chooses, while a Fighter is always better than him with a weapon. Basically, a Wizard who chooses to "hybridize" as far as he can towards a Fighter should ALWAYS be more skilled with magic and less skilled in melee weapon combat than even a Fighter who "hybridizes" as far into magic as he can. That's a good starting point for balance. Going back to the hammer example, the hammer's infeasibility as a ranged weapon has no bearing on its ability to still be used in multiple ways.

I think Tsuga's point was awesome regarding ammo management. In reality, an archer brings enough arrows to get the job done (relative to his skill), and knows how to retrieve them and such between battles. It is only through abstraction that this doesn't occur. So, it's folly to abstract away the ability to replenish arrows and such AND require ammo quantity management, on top of that. Besides... in the context of all the soul-ability lore, I don't see why the typical "purchase arrows/bolts/bullets that have already been enchanted, individually" is really necessary, or that it even fits very well. I definitely think ammo management should be handled differently. And, of course, I'll shutup now, as this was addressed in that Archery thread to which TRX so kindly linked us. ^_^

I think there's a perfectly valid idea there, in moderation, without necessarily designing it purely to negate the loot-advancement system. Obviously, that piece of furniture leg you started the game with as a makeshift club probably shouldn't become legendary and help you fight a dragon, or be reforgeable or upgradeable (I dunno, maybe you could hammer some nails through it, like the spiked bat in DeadRising 2? heh). BUT, familiarity could still apply. I mean, an oak staff is just an oak staff, but people who are super familiar with it can outfight people with swords and axes. Which is along the lines of proficiency, I know. Anywho, familiarity should simply allow for small improvements to weapons you actually stick with. Maybe critical chance, or weapon speed, etc. You should simply get a bit more effective with them, if anything. THEN, on top of that, the higher the base material quality of your equipment, the more improvements I think it should be possible of gaining (physical/enchantment-based improvements, SEPARATE from the minor bonuses of familiarity.) So, maybe that furniture leg can have some nails hammered through it or something, and that's about it. Maybe an iron sword can have a minor enchantment and a couple of improvements. A steel sword could have more improvement "slots" than that. Some legendary metal, and/or masterwork versions of any-material weapons (you obviously wouldn't have a "masterwork broken furniture leg" though) would have more improvement slots (or more potent/varied improvements than their basic counterparts). The best part of this whole idea is the allowance for more player choice in weapon progression, rather than "find something with better DPS, swap out." The fun in finding better weapons via loot isn't the ONLY fun to be had. There's fun in improving your weapons (via any means), AND in finding useful things in loot. Direct improvement from a found, entire weapon is simply one means of equipment improvement (which should be used well and in moderation, just like any other means.) Everything you find shouldn't simply be inherently better or inherently worse than what you already have. It should have varying potentials, which a weapon improvement system (and some form of familiarity system) provides. Basically, you can implement a mix of all the desired means of weapon improvement without having a rusty pitchfork be a feasible weapon at the end of the game. Moderation and balance are our friend, and no system is unflawed without the the proper application of both.

However this is handled, I think ammo should either have finite quantities (which are purchased) only if the different types are kept quite simple, and should be handled "automatically" (replenishment; maybe per-encounter/per-rest limitations, like other spells and abilities, but with swappable quivers or something) if the types are going to be complex and numerous. I don't want to have to keep track of how many arrows of 17 different types I have on my person, and decide how many of each to put into my quiver. That gets a bit silly in the midst of the rest of such things pertaining to combat being decently abstracted.

Okay, 1,000 Lotus Blossum Celestial Brevity Technique, GO!!! The solitary flaw that still exists in what you've said up there is that the only two possibilities aren't: 1) You are literally not even able to walk on the grass, or 2) You can walk on the grass AND get a shiny new Lexus, purely because you walked on the grass. The third possibility of "You are free to roam all over the grass, as much as you choose, but that action, alone, doesn't get you a shiny new Lexus" is there, and doesn't, in any way, limit player choice. Note that I'm not suggesting walking on the grass should never get you anything. But, yet again, there are more options than "nothing" and "a shiny new Lexus (aka XP)." I don't think anyone in this entire thread (or the previous one) wants you to not be able to walk on the grass. It's simply pointless to provide an incentive to step on as many blades of grass as possible, rather than only providing an incentive to actually achieve something (whatever your choice on WHAT to achieve) by traversing the grass. That reasoning holds true for everything in the game you can possibly think of. Sneaking doesn't reward you. Accomplishing something via sneaking rewards you. Killing doesn't reward you. Accomplishing something by killing rewards you. Traveling doesn't reward you. Accomplishing something by traveling rewards you. Talking doesn't reward you. Accomplishing something by talking rewards you. Obviously, the balance is in deciding the level of accomplishment. But, while you can say "killing something IS an accomplishment," you could say that for ANYthing (a footstep, simple respiration to provide energy to your muscles, giving someone a paper cut, etc.), which is why some reasonable basis is needed to decide what is and isn't a reward-worthy accomplishment. And "because something died" is not reason. It's a decision based on the idea that the range of time/effort required to cause the death of a hostile thing is an acceptable range for variable XP rewards. It is not a decision made because it is the only feasible decision. And that's all there is to it. Again, kill-XP is fine, but so is objective-XP. And since they're using objective XP, it's wiser to evaluate its potential implementation in a constructive fashion than to focus so hard on the fact that there are ways in which it could be horribly implemented, and sit around pointing out all the flaws in said horrible implementations, which we could simply opt not to use.