Lephys

True, they'd need a means of distribution, but that doesn't mean they'd automatically have to distribute the game just like all other games are distributed (to all the retail stores and such.) There are plenty of online stores nowadays that sell and ship physical items. And if all they're selling is P:E (and maybe P:E-themed merchandise?), it wouldn't be that extensive. It's not a preposterous notion, is all.

Well, technically I said "DragonBall universe," I think. Plus it was a joke. But, yes. In all honesty, I'm not sure if that comment is supposed to apply directly to that big quoted portion, or if you were simply curious. o_o

Awesome post, Umberlin! There is, indeed, a boatload to be considered when dealing with mechanics that affect each other within the entire scope of a game. It even heavily affects the efficient use of development resources. If these enemies don't really serve a purpose, then should we have spent more time and effort on a different way of achieving our goal? Or, does what we've spent time and effort on here work directly against something else we've already established? If so, which one needs to be changed? The fact is, you can't just have enemy A both give exp every time you kill it AND not-give EXP whenever you kill it and call it a day, feeling like you successfully made everyone happy. You literally have to go with one or the other and deal with the effects of that choice upon the rest of the game design, regardless of which players prefer what on that singular subject.

Ahhh. I see, I see, . Thanks for that. I assumed that I was meant to assume (upon reading the initial riddle presented by Nonek), and that was my mistake. So, yeah, to get back on topic, I think riddles like that might be a little outside of the scope of what the average player wants to be required to solve, just to progress in the game's story. BUT, I fully support them in optional content, so long as it's not completely standalone and clashing with the rest of the game world... like... "board this optional ship to take this optional voyage straight to majestically optional PUZZLE ISLE! Each puzzle earns you a Pat-On-The-Back +1, 8D!!!"

I don't think anyone wants there to not be a wrong party build. When they say "There shouldn't be a 'right' party build," it means, more-so, that there shouldn't literally be A correct party build, as far as why that particular phrase gets used. Obviously, there's going to be more than 2 party builds, one being right and one being wrong. But, the very fact that you have a system in which you can build 700 different party variants should mean that 600 of them shouldn't be completely out-of-the-question. Some of them are always going to be at the bottom of the usefulness range, but the goal is to design the game such that the viable-to-not-viable ratio is as high as possible. That's all. Your skill points and character development are like currency. If you have $100 to spend, you don't want the options of: A) This nuclear death ray, OR B) This toothpick. While the options you get aren't going to be perfectly even (unless your game has literally no variance whatsoever to allow for situational advantages/disadvantages), you don't just say "Oh well, they're gonna be uneven... who cares HOW uneven...". I think that's all that's being emphasized here.

Hahaha. Just... just to clarify, I was joking. I'm sure you probably knew that, but... I would hold myself personally responsible if anyone blew an artery at the thought that that was a serious suggestion. 8P (LOVE the reaction gifs! ^_^)

I want to patent the patenting process, just to see what happens.

The point of criticals is the exact same point of misses and evasion. They don't exist "because people like the damage spike." Do you see people reloading the game UNTIL they crit in combat? No. Is anyone arguing that evasion should be removed because the enemy could dodge, negating one of your attacks that could've been very strategic, and that that would be devastating to gameplay? I haven't seen anyone opt for that. So, I don't see a valid reason not to attempt to balance a critical chance mechanic, other than "it could sometimes be annoying to people," which is true of literally every single mechanic in the game. You say that weapon and armor breaks are purely a poor mechanic... Based upon what data? You're just assuming the worst-possible scenario for armor and weapon breaks. "Break" is a very non-specific word. Breaking one's armor could be simply putting a crack in it. There doesn't have to be a durability system in place, or a "you literally can't use that armor now until you fix it" system. That's the beauty of details. They can change, all within the giant umbrella of the over-arching idea. That's kind of what I'm getting at, here. If 1% is too low, then that can be raised, and the potency of the effects can be lessened. There are more factors involved than simply the percentage chance. I don't expect you spend all your free time working out JUST how armor and weapon breaks could work in this game. If you're not interested, that's fine. Really. That doesn't make you a worse person or anything. But, there's no point in arguing that it couldn't work when you don't really know it couldn't work. I don't know that it WILL work, but I know that it's possible it could work well, and I believe pretty likely. I understand how these things could be annoying if done poorly, and IF it so happens that they can't be done any other way than poorly, then I will gladly do without them. But, how much would you appreciate it if you found out Obsidian wasn't going to implement, I dunno... combat, because they just assumed it wouldn't work well in the game without annoying people, rather than actually working through all the details to see the results? There's just no need to discourage us from trying to figure out the problem purely because there might not be a good solution. But you have every right to be skeptical.

Yeeeeesssssssss *wrings hands diabolically*... I'd like to explore the possibilities of combat utility with all types of combat skills, if possible. It's part of the reason I advocate some kind of spell customization with magic. With weapon-skills, you might get Dual-Strike that gets adjusted based on which weapons you're using (sword axe, axe mace, etc.). So, with Fireball, what if you could sacrifice damage for impact force? That way, if I needed to help someone in combat, I could toss a Fireball specifically to strategically knockdown/knockback an opponent to help an ally out of a sticky situation. Because my spell is tailored to impact force, though, that means I lack the damage (or perhaps extra burning?) with it that I WOULD'VE had had I spent the points on sheer spell intensity or burn duration. PrimeJunta pretty much hit the nail on the head with "a system of mechanics balanced out to function differently in different circumstances." My example really just factored in customization to that. But, I hope we'll see a system that has various distinctive scenarios playing out for different players, even with the same classes of party members, even with the same skills or equipment to an extent. This, as opposed to "I did 50 damage with a COMPLETELY different animation than you did!," or from a different range, or to a different radius, or as a slightly different type of damage. There's definitely far more untapped depth available that's just waiting to fuel RPG combat.

Sorry Vargr. I didn't see your post before I finished mine, haha. Nailed it with the shield hooking, 8D. Sorry for technically copying you on some things, haha. But yeah, regarding how you don't want a fencing champion as a dual-wieldist, there are ways to be very, very aggressive (even berzerker-like) with dual weapons, yet, you're still using them in a tactically different manner than you would a single weapon. It's the same thing as being very precise and organized in your usage of a 2-handed sword or axe as opposed to using your strength and the weapons weight to basically keep so much pressure on your enemy that you don't really set up for formal parries and maneuvers. The number of weapons you use and how much finesse your fighting style uses is not mutually exclusive. Either way, it obviously doesn't equal just more DPS than before. You don't just run about double-karate-chopping at people with your two weapons. I'd LOVE to see P:E break from this with an awesome dual-wielding system. Also, I'd love to see a shield do more than change armor numbers and block percentages. Obviously it's a much more defensive piece of equipment, but I think it should be treated merely as a different off-hand weapon, and should get as much utility in combat as anything else (albeit probably less actual mortal damage). But, that's kind of the point... it's the whole reason it's called "off-hand" (with the exception of maybe daggers, or small swords if you're just a ridiculously ambidexterous person); the off-hand weapon supports your main-hand weapon, in general (you could obviously flip those roles for brief periods in battle to confuse the enemy... intentionally parry with your sword, only to focus on a powerful shield bash, etc.). That would be very simple to implement. It would just require a little more effort and resources than the typical system.

I wasn't directing my "This is why I'm against removing it completely" remark at anyone, in particular. I was just trying to emphasize the fact that the only good point that's been brought up against dual-wielding is that video games tend to do it badly, which suggests that it could be done better. Obviously developers have had a tendency to just stick with the super-simplistic "you get more attack/damage, but less defense/armor" model. I don't think it's been that they keep trying their hardest to add depth to the system, and it's just ultra difficult or something. Dual-weapon fighting allows you to do different things than single-weapon fighting. If anything, you're going to do less damage (in general), really, than with a weapon wielded with 2 hands, or with a single weapon. With two weapons, you'd have to worry about balance more, as an attack with the other hand has to be feasible. So, you can't go around swinging one arm as hard as you can. Also, using Junta's scenario of the double-daggers in a concealed scenario, if you're discovered and have to fight your way out of something with 2 daggers (and you know what you're doing with 2 weapons), you can parry Foe A's weapon with your left hand in such a way as to follow up by striking Foe B with your right hand. Another simple example that a friend of mine actually showed me with historically accurate viking weapons (he's a history buff and LOVES the vikings) is, if you're fighting with a sword and a handaxe, you can actually use the bottom of the axe blade as a hook to grab the top of someone's shield and pull it down, allowing your sword to bypass their shield defense. So, it's stuff like that. I think it should be a different method of fighting (just like using a bow is different, rather than simply more damaging, than using a melee weapon). And I really like Junta's example of it being more effective against certain foes (like humans being susceptible to feign moves) and being less effective against others (like a bear). I am wholeheartedly against the usage of dual-wielding sheerly for badass aesthetics and overly-simplified damage boosts. I just think that's reason to improve the implementation, rather than remove the mechanic.

I may be super confused now, but that solution was for the scenario in which it wasn't necessarily absolute truth that one of them did, in fact always lie, while the other always told the truth, correct? In other words, if they BOTH say "One of us always lies, and one of us always tells the truth," then that claim can't actually be true, right? I'm just making sure I'm not going crazy... I think I get that solution, in the event that you don't KNOW the claim to be true, and that you just have their word to go on.

Another problem with the patent system nowadays is that patents aren't used as intended anymore. If you came up with a specific design for a coffee maker, no one else is supposed to be able to use THAT design. They cannot literally copy your design. But, now, the patent office is RIDICULOUS. You've got like 72 million patents floating around, with descriptions like "A device that uses electricity and performs math" or "a device with a rectangular shape that holds paper upright." What the hell is that crap? You might as well just patent food, or levers, or the wheel. It's pretty silly. So, no, I don't have any pity for that guy who spent a bunch of money trying to patent the wheel, who's going around claiming that people are wrongfully stealing his design. (That guy probably doesn't exist... for the record.)

Seconded! You forgot "Construct large, wooden rabbit, from which your party leaps at night, catching the camp not only by surprise, but also totally unarmed!" (Seriously, though, awesome example.) You don't even have to worry about how much EXP diplomacy use gives as opposed to combat victory, because you're only giving it whenever a given situation is resolved.

Now a Kraken would be an awesome monster to face. Damn Shining Force. Legendary craftable item: The Kraken Leash. I do love me some sea-faring. ^_^ Assassin's Creed 3's naval bits are pretty awesome. I know it's not the same as Shining Force nostalgia, but there's just something about ships...

^ You misunderstood. Everyone in favor of critical effects is not suggesting that any potential status effect that might be caused by a critical would ALWAYS be able to be caused by ANY critical from ANY character/enemy. I don't even think anyone said "I want an enemy to be able to strike you, get a critical hit, and cause blind, knockdown, broken weapon, broken armor, bleeding, burning, drymouth, nausea..." So, let's imagine a scenario in which there's a 1% chance of criticals occurring. Now, imagine that only certain enemies wielding certain weapons can cause certain effects. It's even possible that after you hit that 1% chance and actually LAND a critical, you don't automatically cause any effect other than increased damage. Perhaps there's only a 33% chance that a critical will actually cause some extra effect. Would that really be so ridiculous? Let's assume you get attacked 1,000 times throughout the entire game, just for a numbers example. You'd have been hit by 10 critical hits, and roughly 3-4 of them would've caused a stun, or an armor break, or a bleeding wound. Since I'm just guestimating numbers to make a point of how they affect the game, I'm going to assume it could be better balanced than that. BUT, to some, it's exciting that that Ogre has the chance to stun you because he gets a lucky hit (because such things happen in real life, and thus we're familiar with the notion of not being able to control every single minute detail, and stuff happens), and to the ones for whom it ISN'T exciting, did that really ruin your game? IF (and I say "if," here) 10 lucky hits in 1,000 attacks is going to ruin your entire gameplay experience, then I dare say you demand too much control over the battlefield. Honestly, come to think of it, I'd almost rather see criticals being the thing that breaks your equipment than the numerical durability "Your equipment is simply going to suck worse and worse until you repair it, in between every single repair" system. But that's a different discussion, methinks.

I guess I'm okay with level caps. I think they provide a nice, proper, gentlemanly, disciplined aesthetic. I think we should probably still get to have crooked caps, though, to convey our renegade lack of respect for order and authority, u_u... Humor aside, , I'm all for scaling, really. I just don't like how it's often done. Problems arise when you're level 10 and have 1,000 hitpoints and do 125 damage, but little Level 2 Goblins still have 20 hitpoints and deal 7 damage (not including your armor's damage reduction). At that point, the Goblins are providing literally no combat challenge. You end up trying to make sure that anything that involves Goblins happens during the first few character levels of play, and then you NEVER see Goblins again (or as little as possible, because they're pointless.) I think this is part of why games start you off with rats so often, haha. You acknowledge that they'll get you to level 2, but you're never 20 hours into the game, thinking "Man, what ever happened to the rats? They had such a rich culture. Surely, in all my travels, I'd be BOUND to run into some more rats, right? Like a cave run by them, or a little wooded glen outpost, or maybe they'll ambush me on the road?" Haha. So, I mean, I think that just has a lot to do with balancing in a whole mess of over-arching parts of the game. But, in that same example (where Goblins were piddly excuses for nuisances after level 5-or-so), you could scale them (wait for it...) using only certain factors, such as equipment, rather than simply increasing their level. Levels are a nice organizational tool, but they encompass a whole cluster of adjustments. So, if you (purely for example) JUST scaled the Goblins' equipment (I dunno, maybe it's understood that only the awesomely-equipped Goblins are going to try to ambush your awesome party traveling on the road?), you could provide them with much better damage mitigation and damage output as compared to their Level 1-2 selves (so that they might take more than one thwack, or you might have to use certain skills/weapons to penetrate their armor, and the amount of damage they deal requires you to do more than cough in their general direction) without causing them to be directly on-par with your party. Obviously that would still not be perfect, but that was just one simple change. But, I believe in soft-scaling (Every time you go up a level, enemies beneath your level increase by the difference in your levels divided by 2, for a purely mathematical, overly simplified example.) This way you aren't forced to either do away with weaker enemy types after a few levels (or intentionally make all weaker enemies uninteresting and unmissed later in the game, like our dear friends the rats) or have them be 1/100th the fighting capacity of the player's higher-level party. Also, you can typically find good reasons for the "same" enemies (obviously they're not the exact same Goblins you slaughtered, but different ones) to be not-quite-so-piddly, and you can still have, say, a world in which Goblins live in various areas, rather than magically only living in the areas in which you're able to access at levels 1-3. Then, the areas you're able to access at level 20 are populated by DRAGONS! Everywhere... in the trees... in little burroughs, u_u...

^ Just because 5% is a bad number in your scenario doesn't mean that there's no possible way for crits to work. If there's a point at which they're too frequent, and a point at which they're not frequent enough, then there's obviously a point in the middle there (if not a range) at which they function properly. And crits don't add directly to your tactical ensemble because they aren't within your direct control. However, neither are misses, blocks, dodges, knockdowns, and any status effects that are based on percentage chances (blind, etc.). What these things are are factors. Chance provides a wonderful means of governing them, because they represent factors that are sometimes in play and are sometimes not. Sometimes you dodge a sword, and sometimes you don't. You must then formulate/adjust your tactics with these factors in mind. That's how they affect tactics. So, unless you want for all percentage-based effects to be removed from the game, regardless of what they are or what purpose they serve, then that, in and of itself, is not a good reason for criticals not to be implemented. Most of your concern seems to stem from instances of critical hits having been badly implemented in other games. Well, here, we have the opportunity of figuring out specifically why, and how they could be adjusted to work better. There's no need to take an axe to the A/C unit because you're too cold. It's got a thermostat adjustment.

Yeah, I'm 100% against eliminating the entire system, because dual-wielding is a perfectly viable means of melee combat. It's not something video games simply fabricated.

Ohhhhh. I'm sorry about that, haha. A) I can't access the site the original's on while at work, and B) I thought that question mark was one of those little mouse-over context-search objects from the original source that carried over from copy-paste or something. Yeah, "change" COULD possibly encompass aesthetics, but it doesn't necessarily do so, so you are most correct. My bad.

^ Well, I was just joking with him, because I figured what he meant anyway. But, all I was getting at was, IF it's true that one of them always lies and one of them always tells the truth (which is the established basis of the riddle), then both a person who never lies and a person who ALWAYS lies cannot both say "One of us always lies, and one of us always tells the truth." It'd be the same thing as if they both told you that 2+2=4. That's all I meant. 8P If it wasn't intended for the lie/truth absolute to be definitely in effect (like you said, how do you know that statement's true in the first place, just because they said it), then I apologize.

Oh. I was going by the direct quote of your previous post, with the transcript in it. Maybe it's a typo?

But never the world.

Regarding the "language as a skill" possibility, I'd much rather see it in a few tiers. Something like Novice, Adept, Native. Very simplified. I think the only advantage to having it be a 0-100 type skill is if there were literally instances of NPCs throughout the game who required "difficulty checks" at about every 4-5-point increment, in every language. I'm not sure we'd have very meaningfully implemented language skill effects at that point.

I don't know, but the food in Dyrwood sounds... DYRISHOUS! Okay, okay. Pun quota: met. It would be pretty cool if the languages you could speak could work to your advantage in certain instances. Maybe it would function a bit like the reputation system. If you speak only the Common Tongue, one NPC might simply say "Ah, yes, it is nice weather. Please excuse me." Whereas, if you speak something with which they're culturally familiar, maybe they react to you in a much more amiable manner, rather than dismissing you from the get-go. Maybe they have useful info regarding a quest, or some long-lost artifact, or puzzle info regarding a ruin, or trouble of their own, etc. The system would either allow you to choose which language to use to interact with someone and provide effective clues as to when that person might have more to say in a language with which they are more culturally familiar, OR provide the language-switch as a dialogue option based on your language proficiency. Maybe you notice their accent or something, and instead of just "Uhh... alright then.", you're also presented with "[other language] Please, I don't wish to pry, but you seem troubled by something." I think most of the non-common-tongue stuff (common tongue being the player's native language) should be implied, obviously. It's nice to have actual bits of various languages in the form of common phrases and/or meaningful cultural sayings or poems, etc. I just don't think the player needs to be forced to study the language differences just to partake in regular conversations with NPCs in other languages. All bets are off when it comes to puzzles, quests, and optional elements. Okay, okay, one more, 8D. I hope certain NPCs find your linguistic proficiency to be quite... EnDyring... *snicker... snicker snicker*