Lephys

Ehh, well, this is actually the first time you've "Spelled it out" for me. You simply stated something before without explanation. Which is why I asked for explanation, in case it was something I didn't think of or wasn't aware of, instead of just telling you you're wrong. It's exactly the same reason I ask questions like "Is this not the case?", etc. Also, I'm not sure dropping periods like birdseed in the park really has anything to do with spelling something out. *shrug* Ohhhhh, I'm sorry. I was so far off before. I've figured out the flaws in my thinking. The act of killing enemies is only a step. Step one for completing an objective: launching the game EXE. Step two: Clicking on the menu to load or being a game. Step three... Seriously, man. How ridiculously technical do you need to get with this? If Goblins have carried the maiden into a cave, and they're about to sacrifice/eat her, and you run in and slaughter them, apparently she's still not "freed." I mean, she's still got all that vicious cave air between you and her, maybe even a lethal rope! Only the players who enjoy the super huge additional "step" of moving their party 10 feet and interacting with the maiden are going to get XP. But what about the poor, poor barbarian elf who wants to slaughter everyone in the room, but could care less about his moving-10-feet-across-the-cave-room-and-interacting-with-the-maiden skill? Oh, man, he's totally screwed. ALL he did was kill the Goblins that were the only thing keeping the maiden from carrying on life in a free, non-captive manner, but he's got to go through allllll that trouble of ACTUALLY freeing her. Oh, wait, wait. I just found a problem. You see, the person who uses stealth to sneak PAST the enemies hasn't ACTUALLY looted the chest yet. Man, you're right. This system is terrible! Code blue, Obsidian! CODE BLUE! You're actually only awarding XP to the people who... *gasp*... perform more than one step towards a given objective! How dare you require us to interact with chests and engage in dialogue with maidens! Gyah! The nerve of these people... u_u Once again, you are unimaginably overflowing with absolute truth. The only possible objectives are those that killing enemies does not directly achieve. It is 100% impossible for the only obstacle between your group and the cat/maiden/underpants to be a group of enemies that needs a-killin'. I don't know why I keep thinking such silly things are possible. I mean, it's not like there are any examples of such things, like "prevent the Bandits from taking over the city." "Oh, you've killed all the Bandits because you love combat so much and not because you care about preventing them from taking over the city! Oh, but look, dead Bandits simply can't take over a city!" That's just... preposterous. That's gotta be like the only existing example of anything even REMOTELY close to possible (even though it's still completely impossible). Everything I know is false, and every character of text typed by your hands is another step on the road to enlightenment. 8D *Cannot contain his anticipation*

It sure doesn't. But killing hostile creatures is often a step in the process of completing an objective. You killed hostile creatures to complete an objective, and you got XP for the completion of that objective, therefore you gained XP for killing hostile creatures. So, let me get this straight... either the mere act of killing enemies must immediately grant XP, OR killing must in no way ever be even remotely affiliated with the gain of XP? Your barbarian who likes to kill will never ever be able to gain XP unless he tracks down cats (which can never be in any danger from hostile creatures) and eloquently parleys with nobles and sneaks past hostile enemies (which, again, either don't exist or pose absolutely no threat whatsoever, or cannot be engaged in combat)? Because, surprise surprise! That's the only way your concern isn't moot.

Indeed. I wasn't necessarily suggesting that a Rogue companion be a certain personality. I was only using that specific personality (because it was so simply, and therefore easy to think of) as an example to emphasize my point regarding the differences between one-dimensional companions and multi-faceted ones that at least simplistically simulate the dynamics of human thoughts and beliefs. It seems to be an important aspect that the more memorable, quality cRPG companions have in common. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain what you mean/what you're referring to that seemed "too heavy-handed."

I'll see your dive-and-roll-between-your-enemies-legs-and-stab-them-up-the-bollocks maneuver and raise you one dive-and-slide-backwards-on-your-back-between-your-enemy's-legs-and-forcefully-kick-both-their-knees-in-the-direction-they-aren't-designed-to-bend maneuver, u_u... (It's from the semi-recent Daredevil film, and it's excrutiatingly brutal to watch.) . Really, though, I'm a fan of the actual value of your position relative to your foe's that it seems will be a factor in P:E. In a lot of games, the Rogue's Reversal, as described above, would literally just be a counter with a cool animation, but here, it physically relocates you to the opposite side of your opponent, providing potential advantages for further ability use and general combat strategy.

It is not my intention to be snide here, but stealth is literally "the act or characteristic of moving with extreme care and/or quietness, especially so as to avoid detection." Sneaking is a part of stealth. I understand what you mean, though, about the difference between a Rogue's abilities and the other classes' abilities in that regard, and I agree. However... I would say that if anyone should be able to sneak to some degree, then anyone should be able to achieve some degree of greater concealment within shadows (unless, of course, the thing they're hiding from possess infrared senses, like some snakes and such.) I was actually under the impression, for what it's worth, that in at least one of the editions of D&D's ruleset, all classes had access to the "hide in shadows" ability. Or, if they didn't, they could still literally hide in shadows, and "hide in shadows" was simply the name given to the Rogue's superior ability to hide almost anywhere (and it was just implied that he always found the best shadows... naming style, really). That might've been all you meant, though. Also, I might be mistaken. But, really, even things like backstab (which is pretty much just a stealthy critical hit) were meant to refer more to the Rogue's superior ability to attack from behind in conjunction with his tendency to possess high dexterity (and therefore strike with finesse, more easily achieving critical hits). IF another class attacks an enemy from a blindspot, it makes sense that they should get some sort of bonus, as well, even if it's only to critical chance, or to-hit chance, or a slight damage bonus. Again, the Rogue should definitely exclusively get the most (in both quantity and effectiveness) abilities involving getting into a backstabby position, but I think the whole "Rogues are the best at critical hits and Dexterity-requiring activities" notion presents some problems. I mean, would not a master Monk be equally (if not superiorly) dexterous and precise? I'm sincerely asking and presenting all this so that I might hear your thoughts on the matter.

True, and firearms could easily fire various types of ammo. Perhaps certain rounds are comprised of material to cause them to flatten on impact in an effort to transfer force rather than pierce, and certain ones could behave much like flachette shells for shotguns, with small fragments designed to shred (or "slash") flesh on unarmored or lightly armored targets. Some could specifically pierce, like slugs and piercing rounds. I know they're modeling firearms and other technology after a specific historical era, but I think a fantasy world is plenty of excuse to take some artistic license here, especially considering all these types of firearm ammunitions are 100% realistically possible.

Yes. Without getting unnecessarily technical (hopefully), the Reversal ability essentially readies the dodge-180-degrees-and-execute-attack action. It's sort of a readied action (the physical relocation 180 degrees around the opponent) PLUS a counter-attack within a single hybrid "active" ability. I just wanted to reference it in this discussion, as it is official information, and there could end up being numerous similarly behaving abilities in the game.

Whoa whoa whoa... Look, nocoolnamejim... I understand your feelings on multiplayer, truly I do. But, the fact remains that you're basically betting on a pattern purely because you've seen a lot of bad implementations of multiplayer gameplay in a lot of games. That in no way makes the ability for multiple people to play a game an inherently bad thing. If every time I gave someone a carrot, they happen to stab someone to death with it, that wouldn't make carrots bad or dangerous. It just means that all the people I gave carrots to happened to use the carrot in the same manner. You said it yourself, that multiplayer tends to be an afterthought, tacked on to have multiplayer capability purely for the sake of multiplayer capability, no matter what it might mess up. But that only specifically supports the fact that, when it is an afterthought that isn't designed well, multiplayer detracts from games and is a waste of resources. That's all. And I doubt anyone would argue with you on that fact, as it is quite true, and quite frustrating.

My specific reference of the UI was merely contextual information. My point was that the slot-1 skill (within an MMO UI/skill system) in Guild Wars 2 happened to VERY closely resemble the auto-attack in almost any cRPG (a lore more so than any other MMO). Therefore, things like attacks, damage, attack speed, and attack effects crossover between the two. I think it worked a lot better in GW2 than in other MMOs, and the same general idea could work well in a cRPG (as the flow and feel of combat is a factor in both genres, regardless of UI). It was not my intention to make a point specifically about the UI, or to even suggest any pertinence between the UI and P:E.

I actually asked how killing something wouldn't constitute the completion of an objective, as you inferred that offering exp gain for the completion of objectives instead of per kill would cause problems for people who would rather kill things than not-kill things in order to accomplish some goal. I asked how they were mutually exclusive (as this is the only possible way in which someone would be incapable of both killing things AND still gaining experience). But, good hustle. To answer your question, No. It's actually simply called an objective without any quotation marks or apostrophes, since it actually meets the definition of the word "objective" rather than only mistakenly or allegedly doing so. How, exactly, is the situation of your barbarian elf "losing lots of xp" because he didn't feel like finding the peasant cat ANY DIFFERENT than in dozens of existing games that DO reward kills with xp? Either way, he's "losing" the XP from content that he chose not to tackle. Unless of course you're suggesting that all objectives should involve combat, or all XP gain should come only from combat? As always, I await your extremely reasonable response involving both the ultra-productive statement of my ignorance (despite the fact that I'm actually just asking you a question, rather than even claiming to know something absolutely) and the ferociously constructive dodging of my question anyway. ^_^

I don't know about swordsman, because we don't see many of those on a daily basis, but there are plenty of brawler-types in real life who are slow and highly un-agile but are quite strong and durable. They don't care if they hit you in the face or block your punches... they just keep swinging until you get tired, or your arm gets injured by theirs, or they take advantage of the fact that they didn't even worry about dodging or blocking your attack to now karate-chop your elbow in half when your punch connects. Low-dex doesn't mean you're a sloth. It just means you lack precision and nimbleness. A bull might have low dexterity, but it can still charge your arse and stab about with its horns quite speedily. Also, the only problem with the example of INT determining skill points (as it does in a lot of other RPGs, and I think in many of the versions of the D&D ruleset, as rjshae pointed out above) is that the characters who need INT for other reasons (magicky reasons, generally) will have 92-times the skill points of the characters who receive no other benefit from INT (warriors and such). So, you either have to alter the value of skill points for various classes (in which case warriors could STILL sacrifice STR and CON for INT and get even more skill points than anyone else possibly could), or alter the benefits of the stats for the different classes. OR just make the secondary benefit something other than skill point determination. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it creates a problem that must then be addressed somehow, and it's one of those "this tweak affects lots of other things within the system" puzzles. If you can find the right adjustments, then awesome, We actually had a nice little discussion of the possibilities of multiple benefits for the various character stats in another thread. I'll see if I can find it. Things were suggested such as DEX increasing your critical chance (with physical weaponry, as magic crit could be based on something else for magic folk) and INT increasing your critical damage (as you'd be able to make more effective critical wounds, despite how often you were physically capable of doing so.) It's just an example of an option and wasn't hashed out all the way to see if it created any other holes (or if something else might work better), but that would provide a decent trade-off for the sacrifice of STR and CON for fighters and the like. Likewise, you could have typically non-caster stats like STR and CON affect something like casting concentration (increased resistance to physical blows and effects, as separate from the mental speed and ability of concentration itself.) *le shrug* And @rjshae, I like the idea of having different stats/attributes affect skill points for different classes. It seems like either that would have to be the case, or you'd have to have something other than stats/attributes decide skill points. Maybe a set amount per level, OR even just the opportunity for a set amount per level. What if a level up allowed you to EITHER take 2 skill points and upgrade existing abilities or HP pool or something (basically "convert" the skill points into a different form of character improvement, so to speak) OR take 5 skill points and nothing else? This would still allow lower-skill characters with more ability variety or more focused damage or higher health pools, etc, alongside characters (of the same class and level) with higher skill focuses and, therefore access to abilities with higher skill requirements, as well as better skill checks, etc. To put it simply, you could have the stealthiest Rogue known to man with only a few extremely effective abilities (he can backstab you in the chest from 10 feet away with a throwing knife) OR a Rogue of the same level with a lot less skill bonus but many more abilities and more combat utility. Amongst hundreds of other permutations of character builds, depending upon exactly which instead-of-more-skill-points choices are allowed.

Unless you're suggesting that there's no way they could not have arbitrarily stationed enemies strewn about the landscape, Valorian, then how does killing things not complete any other objective, which COULD (and often will) have an alternative means of completion?

It actually isn't. Arguing about whether or not the developers have already decided on the matter would be pointless. Arguing (or, in this case, discussing) multiplayer and its effects when implemented in cRPGs (such as P:E) is actually quite non-pointless. Also, developers possess the incredible ability to change their minds due to various factors, so the possibility of multiplayer still making its way into P:E in some form isn't entirely gone, especially if it's a decision due to resource limitations and time constraints. For what it's worth...

I also hope they don't listen, 'cause they probably won't hear anything. Reading might be beneficial, though.

Well, I don't advocate definite change for every action or factor. Only potential influence and effect. In other words, instead of a party member simply disagreeing with you and reiterating their stance OR agreeing with you because you chose what was exactly in line with their stance, they should have complex enough thoughts to consider a new notion or perspective sometimes based upon what others around them are saying, the situation, and other nearby factors. That's what real people do. We sometimes doubt, reconsider, consider new information, second-guess ourselves, change our minds about things that affect other doubts and reconsiderations, etc. We have a core set of beliefs that essentially have a high resistance to effect, and we have less-imperative beliefs and perspectives that are increasingly more malleable, on down the line. So, there may only be ONE instance in the game that effects each character's stalwart, core ideals. But, having none kinda sucks a bit of the virtual soul out of the character. Your self-centered Rogue might never change his desire to take what he can at every opportunity, but something, at some point, should be capable of causing him to question his reason for doing so. Unless he's literally pure evil, encountering a noble (and at least slightly well-to-do) family who's been pillaged and tortured by bandits (whom he, perhaps, sees as lacking some form of honor or integrity within circles of thievery) might make him question tenants of his own creed, which he perhaps previously thought was 100% sufficient at handling all situations without conflicting with any other aspects of his beliefs. "These people have more than plenty of other people... does it matter what they've just gone through? Should I find out more about the kind of people I steal from?" I'd rather have a Rogue companion whom I can observe having a conflict similar to the above than one who just says "I love stealing... stealing stealing stealing... WEEEEeeee stealing!" every single time there's even anything that's possible to steal. Humans are not omniscient, and we want to have everything figured out, but we're constantly affected by new information. Even if, after the process of considering the new information, we still arrive at the same decision, the basis for the decision is not the same.

See, as much perfect sense as Josh's explanation makes up there, some people are still going to pretend this is merely a battle between two preferences: Enjoying the acquisition of XP for the act of killing, and enjoying not getting XP for the act of killing. You can lead a horse to observable factors and effects, but you can't make it consider them. 8P

I think you've got to give them deeper psyche's than simply splitting them up at a choice intersection. Kind of the similar thing I said in the villains thread. It's just... I don't know, inherently boring to the subconscious processing power of our brains to have someone who follows you around saying "I'm part of a holy order, and holiness is good, because yay holiness! You did something that was bad?! That's bad because it's not good! I don't like it 'cause it's bad!" And every time you do something that isn't directly within the walls of their holy creed, it's automatically bad. There aren't ever any other factors involved, so you end up with a huge string of binary switches. "Was it holy and good? Then I like it. Was it not? Then I hate it." It's extraordinarily one-dimensional. There are plenty of ally characters I've seen in games that I found interesting and likable despite their having certain beliefs and making certain decisions that I wouldn't have or that aren't my preference. Someone mentioned Jack from the Mass Effect series, already. She's pretty much a huge **** to everyone, but she has pretty good reason to be. She has a complexity of feeling about things that involves changes, doubts, re-assessments, etc. as things unfold. I think we need to be able to relate to the behind-the-scenes aspects of characters' beliefs and decisions, even when they're things we might do differently, personally. The character and how they're presented should cause you to want to at least imagine yourself in their shoes for a moment before judging them. They need to feel conflicted at times, because that's what people do. The fearless raging Barbarian should have something he's afraid of, even if it's no opponent in combat. The stalwart Priest who's 110% dedicated to his deity needs to be able to have his faith shaken by SOMEthing in the world. Etc. The effects that actions, circumstances, and events can have upon your companion characters is one of the most important aspects of their depth.

The problem with the typically loot-heavy means of income is just that the enjoyment and frequency of looting isn't in balance with the necessity of the money. You obviously want to do other things in the game, like progress through the entire story (to ultimately beat the game), and develop/progress your characters, and complete interesting contextual/exploratory content. Basically, in order to accomplish some of these things, you need to improve your equipment and/or obtain consumable items. These are obtained via money. Or, even if they're obtained directly through looting, it's usually a pretty random sampling, most of which is generally exchanged for money, which is then exchanged for precisely the items/equipment you need. When selling loot is 90-times better than any other provided method of making money, and you need some amount of money to acquire select items, you end up having to loot SOLELY to be able to adequately equip yourself so that you can continue doing things that aren't just killing and looting. A mutual exclusion is developed. Sure, some of your looting gets you items you need, and some of it is an expected part of the story and quests and exploration. When you don't have alternatives, you run into dilemmas. "I've been killing everything in sight. I really want to try to sneak past these foes and complete this quest objective stealthily, but then I'll miss out on the money I would've gotten from looting everything I kill!" Just one example. So, as I said before, there are a number of factors you can change and tweak. But, as long as money is obtained mainly through a single action in the game (namely killing/looting), and purchasable items remain important to game progress, the player has to kill and loot even when it's otherwise not necessary or even desired, specifically to get money, and therefore items, which ARE desired.

See, I'm really hoping you get enough progression development choices with "casty classes" that you can end up with a range from (example numbers) 50 weaker-more numerous spells per rest all the way to only 10 much-more-powerful spells with more specialized/potent effects (not just damage) per rest. Of course, it seems casty classes will have more depth than just auto-attack with a piddly weapon + a handful of spells. I think we'll have a lot more options with casters in P:E, so this type of consideration won't be only for fightery-types.

This. Stealth can range all the way from sneaking past a campsite with drunken, passed-out bandits at night without waking them up to stealing a key, undetected, from beneath a king's seat cushion in the midst of a royal banquet. Defensive stealth should be pretty simple for almost any class, even though it will still have a range of skill levels. But, offensive stealth (stealth that involves movement progression and/or targets and actions while remaining undetected) will most likely be where Rogues will be necessary, or at least highly valuable. It's just like Josh said about positional stealth benefits at the point of combat initialization. I don't think your full-plate fighter is going to ambush-flank a group of bandits from the trees without making too much noise and giving himself away before his attack is executed, but that doesn't mean he can't make his way gently into a shadowy area and stand very still until a suspicious guard passes him by in a castle corridor.

I know it's not exactly the same as what you're describing, but it's pertinent: (From Update #36)

I applaud him for stepping into the fray like that and providing insight to design decisions. With limited time like his, I honestly don't know how he puts up with all the flak so well. I'm really glad they've decided to scale certain things, and they didn't just look at it from an all-or-nothing perspective and toss out the idea all together. But then, they're smart people, those developers. They're crafty like that,

Blasphemy! Everyone knows the purpose of all internet forums is to tell as many people -- whom you pre-emptively believe are inherently beneath you and therefore incapable of comprehending your celestial words -- as possible how wrong they are about stuff and how right you are purely because you have a thought on the matter, with no basis in reason or any other such nonsense. u_u ...

This coming from the person who not only didn't read the majority of my posts, but also took the time to specifically state such. And example of a hypothetical RPG situation in which adjusting levels could be extremely beneficial is not the same thing as my specifically advocating that that particular example be placed into the game. All I ever said was "level scaling can be used in a specific implementation, rather than applied across the board like you're describing," and all I ever got in response was "LEVEL-SCALING IS INHERENTLY FECES, AND IT CAN ONLY BE USED TO SCALE EVERYTHING IN THE GAME DIRECTLY TO THE PLAYER'S CURRENT LEVEL!" So, yes, I actually advocate what Josh has described, and always have, specifically because it uses some level scaling, as opposed to all level scaling. The levels of certain enemies will be different, WHEN it is is beneficial, and they'll remain static when it is not. That is exactly what I've been merely stating is even possible this entire time. This is not even a matter of opinion. I'm not righter than you guys. Reason is right, and you're simply ignoring it. Level scaling is mathematical scaling of things that comprise character/creature/entity levels in an RPG that uses a level system. "Level scaling throughout the entire game" is level scaling that is used throughout the entire game. Saying there's no such thing as level scaling that's not used through the entire game is like saying that frosting isn't frosting if you don't cover an entire cake with it. So, yeah, it really does sadden me that a discussion on "Level scaling and its misuse" got twisted into this "You can only possibly be stating things which you're claiming will and should be in P:E, no matter what you say, and the phrase 'level scaling' automatically means what I think of when I hear it, which are entire games that are level scaled."

I just read this, heh. I was thinking "That would be really cool, in a way, but you'd either have to still include pausing (in which case lots of people would still just use that to make sure they had plenty of command-issuing time) OR provide slo-mo ONLY and piss everyone off when they needed to use the restroom." But then, not only did someone already bring this up and address it, but it was Josh Sawyer himself. . So, awesome possum.