Lephys

It takes more effort to make a detailed map and therefore more money for the artist. I don't follow. Are you merely stating a fact, or are you suggesting that the more effort spent on any one thing -- regardless of any kind of cost-benefit ratio -- the better? As in, if they spent 700 hours and $400,000 on the world map image, that would be the best option? My question was simply "What constitutes that image's need for more detail?". In other words, can you not tell what's what on that map? Or maybe there's another reason? When picking locations to which to travel on a macro image of the world, you have trouble doing so without being able to count the stones in the icon representing a castle or keep without zooming in? I'm just not gathering why less detail (not zero detail, but less) is inherently bad, or why more is always good.

Maybe there should be "more skills" in the form of sub-skills. Basically, you don't really have to code in and represent all new skills throughout the game, but it could be a little more interesting. You'd have Mechanics, but under that, you'd have Traps, Locks, and I dunno... Industrial or something? (machines that are neither traps nor locks). Basically, if you put a point into ANY of those, you're still putting points into Mechanics. So, every X number of points, you go up a rank in Mechanics. But, this way, it'd be a lot easier to check for specific, specialized knowledge/skill within the Mechanics skillset (You could have a check that requires 5 Traps, OR 3 Mechanics... basically, the Traps check only requires 5 total spent points, while 3 Mechanics would require 3-times-X points in either Traps, Locks, or Industrial, to achieve the rank of 3 in general Mechanics skill/knowledge. So, you either need a decent bit of specific Traps knowledge, OR a heck-of-a-lot-more general Mechanics knowledge. I dunno. Maybe that's not a feasible change at this point, but I think it would work, and other than restructuring, it seems to pretty much fit the current system and representations. You'd just have to change the point structure, skill entity list, and you'd have to go through all the skill checks in the game and sort of mulligan them with the new structure. Which... now that I list all that "aloud," it sounds like it could be pretty troublesome.

I understand that, but at the same time, this is just something already-in-the-game occurring (modifier/bonus, on a spreadsheet somewhere). The trap disarming skill is already in (Mechanics), and checks for it are already in, and modifiers already exist for such checks, etc. It wouldn't exactly be that tricky of a thing to implement, technically speaking. Time they may not have, but resources? It doesn't seem very resource heavy.

I think it just is indefinite. I mean, that's like asking what friendship means, or rivalry. I think romance encompasses pretty much anything that involves two (or more, I suppose?) people seeking a love-related connection on any level. Now, what love is or isn't (just chemicals, something else, etc.), and whether or not any given instance of romance is long enough, or ends right, or has sex in it, or is good or not, etc.... that's kind of up in the air. That's the thing. These games typically represent romance, on a technical level, but it's not just one specific formula that you either follow or don't. How you do it matters, just as with any other character interactions or story or quest writing.

I think he knows whether or not he's implying something. Just FYI. Maybe we could focus a little more on the actual topic of discussion, and less on post-typing scrutiny? I mean, at the very least, nothing beyond "Oh, well, when I read it, the way you worded it made it seem like you meant to imply that. If that's not what you meant, then okay" is constructive at all. When you reach the point of deciding what someone else is meaning to say, in spite of their "No, that's not what I'm meaning to say" responses, where does that end? Nowhere. That's where.

My reaction as well... Honestly, I just call horribly mistaken person. IF it actually is a troll, then they'll get off on the recognition that they're trolling. Thus, it's probably prudent to simply say "Hmm, that's odd, 'cause 4X games are typically ludicrously complex for newbs" and move along. Although, I'm not really sure anything's "best" when dealing with an actual troll. 8P Except fire (gotta stop 'dat regen!)

I am a HAM. Humanoid Autonomous Metaconstruct. Please state directive. Please state... *spark spark...* (I don't know how one can be a metaconstruct, but it fit the acronym, so... u_u)

I'm sorry, but all I'm getting from that is "I'd prefer it to be detailed." Nothing more. Plenty of art isn't photorealistic, and is still art. If uber-detailed was the only type of art in existence, the world would be a pretty boring place. Just noms for thought.

That's only two letters away from "thinking". Close enough for me.

^ Agreed. Except, I don't really know if it's too late to add it or not. I realize it could be, though.

If I may ask... why exactly? Or... in what capacity is that map image inadequate? I mean, if you just like higher detail images better -- you find them more pleasing to your eye -- then that's fine. I'm just wondering if there's some other reason attributable to game design necessity.

Yes, but who's to say in a fantasy magic world physical limitations have to be the same as in the real world. It's almost a staple of the fantasy genre to have characters whose physical skill level is exaggerated almost to the point of being supernatural. And/or, you can have people who utilize magic to amplify their own abilities, solely. I'm not saying there's no room for a more realistic take on physical limitations. I'm simply saying that it's not mandatory. Likewise, magic does not need to be the most ridiculous power in the universe. There are plenty of fictions in which magic is handled much more like physical limitations are (telekinetically moving a large boulder is more straining than moving a smaller rock. Moving something farther away is harder than moving something close-by, etc.). Nothing says you need to be able to utter the proper words and perform the proper ritual, and have the moon cease its existence. On the basis of principle. For the same reason that a restaurant doesn't give you half the food you ordered, then say "don't worry... the NEXT time you come in and eat here, we'll give you 5 plates of food! 8D" and that's somehow okay. Then I suppose you don't see any differences at all between PnP gameplay and cRPG limitations. *shrug* Not at all. I think slapping a power difference percentage on anything is just as folly as trying to get them the exact same. You could even have a Warrior and a Mage be quantitatively identical in "power" (do a bunch of math to get their DPS the same, etc.), and still have them function very, very differently and have their situational usefulnesses be quite varied as well. Just for what it's worth. It depends on what you mean by "sucking." By definition of a game, lacking in capability compared to the standard capability of the rest of the game is un-fun. It is inherently un-fun, in the context of a game, to play soccer with a bunch of people who can fly and you can't. Why? Because the fact that you're specifically playing a sport with rules and specific challenges to overcome means that there's something about that that you enjoy. Otherwise, you would just enjoy getting your butt whooped at soccer by people who can fly because you can never even get to the ball, and they can block all your shots. To an extent. As does anyone. Even a Cleric likes to feel powerful, right? How fun would it be if you could only heal 1HP per year? Not very. On the other hand, how fun would it be if you healed infinite HP for everyone, every time you blinked? Pretty dumb. Challenge is a bell curve. At a certain point on the low side of capability, you're not even contributing significantly enough to constitute usefulness, and at a certain point on the high side of capability, you're incapable of being anything but maximally useful. And that's a curve spanning an awful lot of different factors. There's no one factor that determines it. Which is why I think it's silly to kind of just go by power, alone. "Well, you'll just be really weak at the beginning. Then later on, whether you like it or not, you'll be stupidly powerful." D&D and other PnP worlds have all kinds of stuff in them that go a bit crazy, like "get within 1 mile of this thing, and you TURN TO SANNNNND!!!... unless you pass a Will save!". BUT, it's a PnP environment, specifically designed to have all its lore wrangled and aimed by a DM. That's what makes it not ridiculous. If your DM was all "Suddenly, you're surrounded by 7 Tarrasques! FIGHT!", you'd probably just flip him the bird and walk out of the room. That's why he doesn't do that. He typically handpicks/adjusts factors so that the situation allows for you to encounter a Tarrasque and actually have some chance of doing something other than dying. A lot of this does vary from person to person -- the specific factor values and such. But, the general idea doesn't. Nobody plays a game for the challenge that isn't even possible to overcome. That doesn't make any sense. You play games to pit capabilities against limitations, in whatever form or fashion. That is what challenge is born of.

Ideally, it's not so simple. Instead of "not-doing" the quest, you simply find out about some situation, and you handle it completely differently. "Oh, please rescue my daughter!" Okay, so you go on your merry way, and you encounter dude's daughter. You "rescue" her, maybe, then hold her ransom yourself. Or dispatch of the kidnappers, and pretend you were unable to rescue her, and make the guy think the only option is to pay the ransom to "them." And you agree to deliver it to them, taking it for yourself. That's not the absolute greatest example, because it doesn't really illustrate how you could "not-do" something to some actual significance. But, the point is, there are a lot of ways to make "not-do-that" an actual "quest" choice. A quest doesn't have to be so simple that it's just "do this one thing and get XP, or do ANYTHING but that one thing and 'miss out' on the quest."

This kinda depends on what exactly is meant by "quality" by both of you. It could be referring to the actual realistic fidelity/tech-level of the graphics (like PS4 versus NES), or it could be referring to the execution of whatever level of graphics you're dealing with, OR both, even. It seems like Sheikh might be trying to say that you don't need high-level graphics to have quality graphics (as is evident with the recent influx of pixel-art indie games and such). I could be mistaken, though.

No worries, really. Just, if something someone says seems to come off a certain way, there's nothing wrong with simply asking them. It's easy to misconstrue things in an all-text environment, with no tone or inflection, etc. Not being psychic doesn't make you dumb or anything, . I don't know exactly what people mean a lot of the time. I'm not trying to attack you or anything. It's just, jumping to these conclusions so quickly isn't helping you, either. The most useful thing to do is always to make sure you're clear on someone's meaning before deciding what they mean, or what they're implying, etc.

I don't so much mind a story being linear (although it's nice when there's enough variance to not have the exact same playthrough every time), but what I can't stand is gameplay being linear. Always do the same areas in the same order, every level is basically one big corridor, you always get this upgrade after this other upgrade, etc. Well, now that I say that, I realize that pretty much every Legend of Zelda game is like that, and I enjoy those games for what they are. So, I guess everything really has its place. But, when it comes down to actual RPGs (and not just action/platformer/puzzle games with RPG-like progression), I much prefer dynamic gameplay, even if it's accompanied by a heavily linear story.

I'd encourage you to take a deep breath, Sheikh. I feel that there is a language barrier here. It seems like he's saying that it might be cool if you focused on the lore/knowledge aspect of bonuses with traps, instead of XP. So, disarming traps that may have been optional will help you disarm similar traps in the future. I don't know why he didn't post this in the backer beta discussion forum. Maybe he isn't playing the beta at all? I'm not sure why the conclusion you would jump to is "oh, are you a pirate?!", when he hasn't even cited any direct gameplay. He's merely referencing conceptual design information that has been made known via updates and such.

You already can exit from edge of map (wherever you can reach), at least in the village. You simply can't get to the edge of the map in most places. But, there's not just one stationary spot for the transition markers. They move along the edge of the screen, depending on where your mouse-cursor meets it. Now, I'm not trying to be silly, here. If people would rather just be able to have the ability to exit from literally any point on the edge of the map (instead of just the areas where your characters aren't blocked from reaching the edge in any way), then that's understandable. I just wanted to make sure people knew that (at least in 333) there weren't just specific, static locations in which there were "leave the map" markers to click on.

Methinks the point is more "behold the effects of but a single factor tweak, then imagine how easily so many other factors could be tweaked, as well as the results such tweaks would produce." Many here tend to refuse to separate causes and effects. Kind of a "great, you changed that, now THIS happens. Better just undo everything." Instead of "Now this occurs, time to address THAT now," and go on down the list until everything (ideally, but probably just mostly everything, realistically) has been tackled. I don't know why that's a crazy concept. Engagement, for example, isn't a problem simply because it makes something occur when people attack one another in melee range. It's a problem because of the specific values of factors involved with it. It doesn't need to be removed because it has some problems, any more than attacking needs to be removed, all together, simply because damage numbers are out of balance currently.

For what it's worth, this could probably have just gone in the existing topic, entitled "What You See is What You Get Loot System." If we start responding to topics with other topics, it sorta defeats the organizational purpose of topics in the first place, 8P

... I'm confused. So, you're saying "yeah," as in "they did remove Interrupts from the game," but somehow the interrupts, while removed from the game, are still in the game, just no longer affected by stats? But that, it's probably safe to assume they'll be removed from the game entirely, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever?

I dunno... maybe the discussion's more heated because people are so cold this time of year. 6_u (I accept that this joke relies upon my geographical location, and is not globally true.)

He would, most likely. But, what I'm getting at is, depending on how the classes are designed, multi-class either fits well or doesn't. I don't think one's the right way to do it and the other's the wrong way to do it, but you can't really do it both ways. Either the classes get significant bonuses right from the get-go, or they're all just kind of loose templates for progressive abilities. The latter works great for multi-classing (if you don't multiclass, you just keep building upon your one class with further unique bonuses, etc.). The former, not so much. But, the former makes classes a lot more distinct from the get-go. *shrug*. With PoE, I don't think it's as simple as "multi-classing's nice, so there's no excuse not to just t slap it into the already-in-place systems," is all. A level 1 Wizard gets a Grimoire and, what... 4 spells? So, the second you level-up and take 1 level of Wizard, you get that much stuff, whereas a Wizard who simply levels to 2 doesn't gain 4 more spells. Ideally, to structure the system for multi-classing, you have to look at the balance of any given level in any given class versus that of any other class. Otherwise, you get some really lop-sided choices. "Take a level in THIS and gain three new awesome useful things, or just take the exact same XP-worth of a level in another class and just gain a few passive boosts."

What?! You mean the dev team doesn't just have one big adjustment knob that ranges from "bad" to "good," and whenever a problem arises, the answer isn't to simply turn it back in the other direction?! They can actually tweak individual things to fix individual problems?! What madness is this?!!!!!