-
Posts
7237 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
60
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Lephys
-
So how old are you people then?
Lephys replied to Jarmo's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
I forgot about Nibbles!!! 8D! The original Phone Snake! Haha. -
Nope. That's something that would also be a strategic decision. But, "Hey, guys, this place is gonna have lots of fire, so we should probably go in with some fire protection" is a strategic choice, not a tactical one. You didn't react to the presence of fire, and make a trade-off decision based on the immediate circumstances. And making sure you've got a batch of ingredients in order to cast the spells you've already planned on casting is just a sub-set of the same strategic choice to be prepared with those spells in the first place. To conclude that from what we've discussed is folly. I've only expressed a dislike for one very particularly small portion of combat preparation, amongst a sea of others. That, and I've criticized the method of preparation, rather than the very act of preparation, itself. Not to mention, it's a factor unique to casters. So, are you suggesting that a party without a caster is incapable of preparation?
-
Oh, okay. Yeah, sorry, didn't take that from what you said. That makes more sense. Still, the skill is literally called "Brute Force." I mean, if it's just intelligently using force to get the thing open, wouldn't Demolitions fall under the same category? I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything. When you blow a door open with an explosive, you're literally opening the door with force. You're just not using your own self to generate the force. I'm not saying there's no way you could get better at using your own force to open things intelligently. Obviously, the skill doesn't represent your character just getting stronger, because that's what their Strength represents. And I agree that it's not worth over-analyzing the point of insanity. But, I hardly think acknowledging a mis-simulation is the same thing. It's a bit strange that someone with a billion Strength and only 1 rank of Brute Force would have loads of trouble kicking in a rusty door, while someone with 1 Strength (which, if the Rangers are all exceptional people, just puts them at the bottom of the upper range of strong people) and 9 ranks of Brute Force can kick the door in with ease. I don't think we have to pretend that's not the case, just to accept that the representations work just fine with gameplay mechanics, and serve a purpose other than perfect simulation.
-
So how old are you people then?
Lephys replied to Jarmo's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
I'm 28. I'm trying to remember my absolute first game... I think I actually started on Atari. Then we got a PC, I think? I can't remember. I was 4 when we got it. All I know is, my brother is 7 years older than me, and he and his friends used to play his NES all the time. I was their NES pitcrew, because only I could blow into the cartridges in such a way as to get them to work properly, heh. I think the first PC games I ever played were Gorilla and Donkey, in Qbasic. Then we got some games for DOS. Can't remember what I played first, there. We had Wolfenstein 3D, and King's Quest 6 (on diskettes). I played a few games on 5 and 1/4 floppies, but the only one I can remember is F19 Stealth Fighter. No, wait... I think Humans (very much like Lemmings, but with cavemen) was on there, too. I remember playing the original Duke Nukems (before 3D), and Commander Keen. Can't remember the formats, though. I also remember playing Betrayal at Krondor right when it came out. -
The Official Romance Thread
Lephys replied to Blarghagh's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Then why are people and creatures alike all getting engaged like there's no tomorrow? 6_u -
The Official Romance Thread
Lephys replied to Blarghagh's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
But a lot of romance occurs under things, AND in the dark. So, you'd think a place called the "Underdark" would be teeming with romance. -
I haven't gotten to play a whole lot of the beta, so I haven't really tested that particular thing out. But, when I did play, if I moved my mouse cursor to the edge of the map (in a lot of individual locations along the edge of a map), it turned into a different, world-map-looking icon. I didn't know why it would do that, unless to suggest the change in function a mouse-click would have at that point in time... the function being indicated by the changed icon. Kind of like how mousing over a hostile shows a sword. Was this, perhaps, in an earlier build? Or, perhaps the icon simply changed to tell you that was the edge of the map? (Weird, but okay.) Also, I ask because I remember Josh (or someone -- Josh is usually the one sharing tidbits with us) commenting on this very thing, if not answering a question about it directly. I'll try to find the quote. I'm pretty sure someone asked if we'd have to transition only at certain points, and he was all "Nah, it's just map edge." *searches for quote*
-
I never played Morrowind (started with Oblivion, sadly), but that sounds like a rather interesting approach to it. It at least represents the actual difficulty of taking different things from someone's person without being noticed, without just making it a slot machine.
-
Agreed. Well, sort of. I think that Might/Dex/Con should factor in somehow. Maybe there's a best outcome if you've got the Might and Dex as well, but still a good outcome if you've just got high Athletics? Dunno. But, Con should definitely determine your stamina/fatigue. Maybe Athletics could, for example, determine how fast you can run, but constitution would determine how long you can go without getting winded. *shrug* Maybe stats should apply modifiers to skills, too? That might work. High Might, Dex, and Con? Maybe you start at 2 Athletics (not including class modifier) instead of 0. Etc. Then, you can just set your DC values for Athletics checks with that in mind. "The highest someone could have at this point would be 6, so let's make 6 the hardest possible outcome, and maybe 3 is a pretty decent one. Less than 3 and you fail or suffer a negative effect." Something like that. At the very least, Athletics needs to have a specific purpose, and not just a "I'll decide random things that sort of pertain to athletics!" Also, I wouldn't be against random encounters, if they were done in an interesting fashion. Maybe if you've got high Survival/Stealth, for example, you get to "place" your party members on the battlefield before combat actually starts? To represent the fact that you actually had time to prepare for the encounter before you were set upon by foes. *shrug*. Stuff like that. If it's juts going to be "You have to fight some doods again... you have to fight some doods again... you have to fight some doods again...", then I wouldn't want it. I think Lore and Survival factoring into the frequency/makeup of your encounters is a good idea. However, you don't want to harshly punish people with all the most frequent, hardcore random encounters just because they don't have stupid amounts of Lore and Survival. Also, without arbitrary kill XP, there'd need to be some other driving incentive (with varying amounts of frequency, that is) for these random encounters. Loot is a good example. Just a "sometimes, this isn't just ALL bad", rather than "every combat encounter is a punishment/waste of your time, at the very least." But then, you don't want them to just become the optimal way to constantly slay stuff and gain infinite goodies. I'm not worried about people deciding that they like getting something beneficial from random encounters, and going out of their way to do it. I'm just worried about making that something that inherently makes the choice not to do it a silly one.
-
@Grufflehound: You'll be able to in the final game. I think it's just not a function in the beta yet (sending party members away).
- 290 replies
-
Please, No Lockpick or Trap-Disarm XP!
Lephys replied to PrimeHydra's topic in Backer Beta Discussion
Exactly. That's the very definition of objective-based XP, as opposed to unlock-disarm-or-kill-XP. Once you change the reward like that, you're no longer getting XP for the fact that you unlocked something. You're getting XP for what you accomplished by doing the unlocking. If that thing is no longer available to be accomplished (like "gain access to the inner chamber"), and/or can be done by some other means, then the single objective simultaneously covers all possible means AND prevents redundant rewards. All in one convenient package.- 118 replies
-
- 3
-
- experience
- xp
-
(and 4 more)
Tagged with:
-
I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but that's exactly why we're exploring a way in which to feasibly allow movement with the engagement mechanic still in. I agree that everyone being rooted in place OR ELSE SUFFER A PROBABLY VERY DAMAGING PENALTY HIT is banal gameplay. I also have to say that active repositioning is probably one of the most neglected things in this type of RPG. There're oodles of effects and abilities that knock enemies down, or root them in place, or otherwise incapacitate them. However, there aren't very many that give you much control at all over their relocation. I still think it would be neat to have some degree of representation of movement while engaging (more so in 1v1 engagements), a la the fight between Inigo and "The Dread Pirate Roberts" in The Princess Bride. You know, back your foe up to a cliff or wall, retreat yourself to a slightly higher/more open spot, etc. You could simply allow for very slow movement while auto-attacking, but I'm not sure off the top of my head how to deal with who gets to do the "driving," so to speak. In other words, what dictates when your foe gets to push you backwards a little bit, and when you get to push your foe backwards a little bit? I dunno, but that'd be a pretty cool thing for a Fighter to excel at, and the repositioning would impact party tactics a great deal. AND it would make engagement less "bleh." I really think Cubiq's onto something, here, with the adjustment of movement speed for the purposes of during-engagement movement. If you had to move really, really slowly, that would be your negative. That's kind of the whole reason engagement was put in, anyway: so foes couldn't simply sprint past your Fighter (and front line) to go freely slaughter your mage and archer, etc. If you're going to put yourself within blade-lengtho of a guy with a sword who's got nothing better to do than end you, and you're going to turn your back on him and/or not actually take his presence seriously, you're in for a rude awakening.
-
XP is the single biggest incentive, out of the purely-mechanical incentives offered by the game. Your example wonderfully demonstrates how XP does not overcome the results of alternative choices, but it doesn't say much about the situation when the alternative is nothing. I don't understand how the "you didn't need to do that" argument is relevant, since you don't know what you do or don't need to to until you do or don't do it and see what comes of your decision. The IE games were based on D&D, and in D&D, your DM's making up crap as he goes, essentially. So, I don't see why you're just suddenly supposed to assume "Don't worry, guys... we probably only need like 5,000 XP to be able to sufficiently beat the game." What's with applying hindsight to in-the-moment decisions? Hiro made an excellent argument regarding bestiary XP, in that, instead of encouraging the player to simply pace their creature kills, it encourages you to think "I don't know how many X there are in the game, so I better kill every X I see, for fear of missing out on this bestiary entry XP unlock!". So, I don't see why that wouldn't apply to any other unknown in the game. You can probably beat the game without ever using the Mechanics skill. Does that mean you're ridiculous if you see chests and want to unlock them to get at their nougat-y centers? Or, should you just decide "Hey, I've probably opened plenty of chests by now; I probably don't need to open any more I come across to beat the game, so, I'll just stop opening chests"?
-
I thought we already could. o_O
-
You're absolutely right. Never in my life have I ever criticized any part of the dev team's design, or refrained from brutally attacking someone who simply does so. That's why the boards are devoid of any examples of either scenario. You get a gold star, Monte Carlo. ^_^
-
Hmmm... well, if multiple people are engaging you simultaneously, it kinda makes sense that you'd pretty much be unable to move. However, if you're fighting a single target, there's plenty of footwork and movement that can go on, without every milli-instant incurring an attack of opportunity. In general, that's just one of those things that's always been quite rigid in cRPGs. Either that, or the absolute opposite. "You can jog around this guy all day long, and he can't do anything to you! 8D!" But... being completely locked in-place in such otherwise-fluid combat seems a bit counter-productive, if you ask me. I don't know how to "fix" this off the top of my head, and I understand that it's tricky, but I believe it warrants further evaluation and attempts.
-
A) That's actually strategy, not tactics, and... B) It's fine for preparation to be significant, but that doesn't excuse the process of preparation being boring. "Hang on, guys... We could really use some defensive bonuses in this upcoming fight, but I'm going to need to do some grocery shopping to be able to cast the spell I need to cast. So, TIME OUT FOR A SCAVENGER HUNT! 8D!" Heading into a volcano filled with elemental beings and wanting to simply be prepared for lots of fire/magical entities shouldn't be an ordeal of a choice. That's a simple choice. Now, if it was actually just a tactical choice, that'd be different. If some of your spells used money, for example, as the material component, or pieces of armor... that'd be interesting. "Oh crap... do I give up this magical robe so that we can all have a fire shield right now? Or should we try to stick it out against these flames so that I get to retain the benefit of this robe?"
-
Weapon Specialization issue
Lephys replied to AlperTheCaglar's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
They make sense on paper, I think. But not really in practicality. They'r far too rigid for an RPG, that stresses the uniqueness and freedom of character development. For one thing, it doesn't make much sense for you to gain a talent, after you've begun your adventure for the purposes of the game's narrative, that encompasses so many different weapon types. If you only got to choose the groupings at character creation, that would make a lot more sense, but it's still too rigid, since EVERY single character who's ever had training with weapon X ALSO has training with weapons A, B, C, D, and E. It's a bit contrary to the whole "you can also be a Wizard, but have completely different stats, a different fighting style, be from a different race, with a different cultural heritage and different individual background! Oh, but you can't ever be good with a longsword unless you're also good with a handful of other specific weapons, u_u..." I'd recommend splitting them all up into individual proficiency lines (or what have you), and maybe allowing the player to choose any given 3 (or some other number...) at character creation. Then, have unique talents become available as you go to build upon that. Very similar to the way D&D does proficiency, although... I think it'd be better if it weren't such a linear track. I'd like to see actual options for becoming different types of "better" with a given weapon. "Cause more bleeding," or "greater chance of knockdown," or "chance to overcome shield blocks with axes (by pulling the shield down with the bottom 'hook' of the axe head)", etc. But, that's just ideally. I realize there are constraints. At the very least, eliminating some of the rigidness of the groupings would be nice. I realize they maybe want people to always have sort of feasible proficiency combos, but I think that could be achieved with an individual selection-system by offering numerous starting choices and capping proficiency values by character level, etc. -
I think you misunderstand me. If you have 6 people, each with one stat maxed, you still only get to stat-check your main character, for the purposes of dialogue options, etc. So, imagine, for example, that there are 10 different opportunities for a max score in each stat, throughout the game. That's 60 total. And, no matter what, you only get to do 10. That leaves you 50 other chances that you can't take without replaying the game. This was a voluntary decision. If they weren't worried about replayability, why would they specifically design the game such that you can't simply use all 6 party members to check for dialogue options and the like? Now, maybe replayability's not the top priority on their list, but I don't think that precludes its significance as far as the design's concerned.
- 201 replies
-
- bg2
- quest location
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Well, as I understand it, currently, it isn't a "purely role-playing choice." Your background is supposed to affect things here and there throughout the game. I just don't know how many things, or exactly what. So, I'm just trying to evaluate what, ideally, these things might be. Also, I have to say that putting something in the game with absolutely no mechanical effect is pretty pointless. The whole point of roleplaying is the significance of the differences in choices. Imagine playing a session of D&D, and saying "Yeah, my character has studied animal physiology for 20 years," and the DM saying "That's great, but you encounter this animal, and know nothing more about it than other people do." What's the point in even being able to "roleplay" that knowledge if the game isn't going to represent it in ANY way? To put it another way, what's the point in choosing "I was a slave for a while" if you can never, ever, bring anything unique to a dialogue or scenario because of your time as a slave? "Oh, look, these people don't believe they can trust us, and they're slaves. I should be able to empathize with them, but I can't say anything to them that anyone else couldn't say. THANKS, GAME! AT LEAST I CAN PRETEND!" It's fine to roleplay stuff that just isn't even represented in the game. But, if it IS represented in the game, it becomes very ridiculous to say "Okay, I know that outcome was what it was, but I'm going to PRETEND that it actually turned out a different way." You might as well just have to kill everything in the game, and roleplay that you diplomatically resolved situations, and the people lived long, happy lives, instead of dying.
-
The Official Romance Thread
Lephys replied to Blarghagh's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Because people hate freedom. -
Yeah, but, then, is the system just trying to suggest that everyone in the world is no-less-than-average in any given attribute? If the purpose of a scale like that isn't to represent a quantified attribute as relative to an average, then why is it there? Why not just have a thing called "strength bonus"? That way, 0 would still just mean that you aren't getting a BONUS, without suggesting you're in the 1st percentile of people as far as strength measurements go. For what it's worth, the Shadowrun PnP ruleset (well, and the recent video game, for that matter) have your skill values being capped/limited by your associated stat values. It works rather well. Stats give you a raw bonus, but skill ratings are what give you the biggest chunk of improvement. You gain new abilities (both passive and active) as your skill rating progresses. That being said, I don't think WL2's focus is really on the extremely technical representations of roleplay factors. The very way that Brute Force works in the game is more of an all-in-one representation of your character's ability to overcome obstacles of the same type that are strewn throughout the game. Doesn't make a lot of sense from a simulation standpoint, but it works fine as a general RPG mechanic/option.
-
Please, No Lockpick or Trap-Disarm XP!
Lephys replied to PrimeHydra's topic in Backer Beta Discussion
It's not really so much that it promotes save-scumming. More just that it allows it. But, something like that's more of a question of "is luck maybe overstepping its bounds, here?" Because, it's fun to have a little chance involved in the outcome of something, but it's not fun to expend literally as much effort as you can towards maximizing your chances, only to have chance step in and hit you with that .5% chance to critically jam a lock. "Oh well... guess you'll just have to finish this playthrough, then start a new one and play the 30 hours back to this point to try this door again, and HOPE that you don't get unlucky next time! 8D" So, I think that's the lesson with things like critical failures, in regards to luck's involvement in things. This is true. at some point, they do have to not worry about what people will do. However, to answer "who cares?" regarding lock/trap XP... the problem is simply that nothing necessitates the design to award XP for these things. The link between XP and the player is already established as "you, the player, want XP whenever you can get it." Getting XP is never a BAD thing. And, as long as it's easy, why shouldn't you get the XP? That's the problem. Unlocking a door you don't even benefit from unlocking anymore isn't fun. Accomplshing something by unlocking a door is fun. "Oh, hey! we don't have to go around! My Rogue can unlock this for us! 8D!" Or getting something from a locked chest. Etc. XP, as a mechanic, is purely a benefit. There is no "Hmm... maybe I should wait and get some XP later, instead of now by easily just using a skill on this thing." It's one thing when there are infinite foes out in the wilderness, and you COULD go fight infinite foes, but you don't really need to. At least, then, you have to go out of your way to do it. And you don't need infinite XP. But, locks and traps might as well just be piles of XP lying around (some of them... unless you NEED to unlock and disarm every single thing in the game for some non-XP reason, in which case... I dare say that's a very linear/problematic-in-other-ways design). At which point, your game should not freely provide benefits, then say "Well, clearly, only a psycho player would just pick up all the piles of XP he walks past. I mean, you don't HAVE to pick them up." That's basically what it comes down to. If you have to go out of your way, as the player, to produce degenerative behavior, then it really shouldn't be the developer's concern. For example, the sheer ability to save the game and load the game, at any point in time, coupled with the sheer existence of meta-knowledge that is unbeknownst to the player until he plays the game at least once. If someone wants to reload, then take advantage of some "I know that THAT guy's actually a bad guy!" tidbit, and go back to NOT help him, even though at the time they thought he was a good guy, then great. That's not a problem with the design, because the design doesn't encourage you to replay an hour of the game in order to change the outcome of the present. However, if the game litters a forest with individual coins, and there's actually 1 million coins there, but you'd have to run around clicking on every single one to pick them all up... that's just silly. The design, itself, is presenting you with beneficial money, which you don't already have infinite of purely because of the design itself. AND, it's giving you a free-yet-very-unfun way of acquiring that benefit that has nothing to do with the rest of the game. The act of picking up a bunch of coins is not founded in the purpose of the game's design at all. Getting the coins for doing other things is what the game's about. Fight your way to a chest, and unlock it? Coins! Spend time and effort completing a well-designed and enjoyable quest? Coins! It's all about the design. The design, without lock/trap XP, says "Hey, if something's impeding you, or you want to get at the contents of something, try unlocking it or disarming it." Then, you throw on the XP, specifically for those tasks, and the game suddenly says "Oh, hey, if for no other reason, unlock/disarm things, because FREE XP!" Because XP is never not a goal. Unlocking things and disarming a whole room full of traps (that you've already gotten through and never need to go back to) wasn't always a goal, by design. The only thing making it a goal, at that point, is the XP. So why is the XP there? For no reason at all. So why, in a game built upon everything else happening for a reason, would you grant XP for no reason at all? I mean, when do you beat the game? When you play through the whole story, right? What if you just beat the game when you clicked on a barrel in the prologue? You wouldn't just say "So, some people LIKE to do that. So what?" It makes absolutely no sense, and is at odds with the design of the game. XP happens for reasons, except for sometimes. Why not just make it always happen for reasons? And if you're not going to have a reason for SOMEthing, why have a reason for ANYthing? Why not just toss XP out every time anything happens, ever?- 118 replies
-
- 5
-
- experience
- xp
-
(and 4 more)
Tagged with:
-
Weapon Specialization issue
Lephys replied to AlperTheCaglar's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
^ Indeed. Additional effects do add a lot to weapon choice/improvement. I don't mind simple modifiers to things, but it gets a bit disappointing when EVERYTHING's just modifying the same three factors of your attacks (weapon speed/damage/accuracy). Limiting talents and character customization choices to just modifiers of already-present effects neglects the potential for customization, if you ask me. -
I'm with you in hoping it's not too late. I'm no expert, but it seems like it wouldn't be detrimentally difficult to adjust the mechanic a little. Basically, change when/how the trigger for disengagement works, instead of it being "YOU MOVED AT ALL!". Really, 1 of 2 things needs to happen: 1) all engagement circles should be the exact same size (same distance from the edge of the actual character/entity model), so that engagement/disengagement always happens "at arm's length." 2) Movement should be allowed within an engagement radius without incurring disengagement, and it should be intuitive/easy to issue the "I want you to move a little, but not beyond this circle" without a bunch of "Move just a little to the OH NO YOU MOVED A PIXEL TOO FAR AND GOT HIT!"