Lephys

True, but Winter "2014" typically means that the release date will fall only within winter, and also only within the year 2014. It's like a search filter, with two criteria. The season will be winter, and the year will be 2014. Where those intersect, you had your possible release date. So, now, they've basically said "Okay, it's no longer going to be out by the end of the year 2014," and scratched that criterion off, leaving "winter" (although, they haven't actually said that it will definitely be before winter's end, now).

That's not entirely true. The second part, at least. You also have, eh... what should I call it? Mechanic analysis. It's the difference between a cinematic trailer (or even a gameplay trailer, oftentimes) and an actual demonstration of gameplay mechanics. Hype is great, but having people actually know they want your product is better. That's why it's great to actually tell people what it is you're working on for your game's combat, exploration, controls, etc. Hype tells you "Fully customize your hero! Travel across a vast realm with endless possibilities!" When you get the game, however, and it takes you 10 hours to explore the whole world, and you can only change like 4 things on your character... that does your game no good. It's akin to a lie. If you're coming over to visit, and you tell me you're bringing dinner, then you show up with like... a French fry, I'm gonna be a lot more upset than if you just said "Hey, we should eat something, but all I've got is this one fry." Or than if you had simply not even mentioned having any food in the first place. Anywho, that, and what Endrosz is saying, regarding the rest of your initial post. Advertising is important, in that if people who would want to buy your game don't know about it, then they won't buy it. But, honestly hyping something is probably the worst aspect of advertising. It's the "I made a product, and now I'm just going to try and make people want it, instead of making a product people want." Not that you have to make a product that 0 people want, just to be able to hype it. But, hype is just a nebulous, almost emotional-"adrenaline"-based thing that makes for some nice up-front sales numbers, while all but guaranteeing a lot of disappointment once people get their hands on the game.

I suspect they aren't yet finished with the finalized 'splosion animation. Same with other spells.

Well, then it's even MORE rewarding if it is fun AND you gain XP from it AND you gain stat points from it AND you gain new abilities from it AND you gain gold from it. Where do we draw the line on that train of thought, I wonder? Indeed. Look at first-person shooters. You fight like 800 guys, THEN find a new weapon or an upgrade. Hell, you don't even get any loot from kills in those games. You get ammo replenished. That's about it. And yet, you don't see people saying "HEY! There's NO point in me fighting through all these dudes, 'cause I'm not getting extraneously rewarded for doing so!" Mario doesn't get any XP for jumping on goombas. Yet, you can still jump on goombas. You even have to use up combat resources (stars, fireflowers, mushrooms, etc.) in order to take down many of them.

Didn't even think about that, heh. Just reversing it. And yeah, I dunno exactly how well it will work with the current state of things. I'm just sort of rough-drafting things in terms of design goals, here. If they get it de-bugged, the current system is fine. It's not the end of the world if it doesn't change. But, there are a few things that aren't really ideal about it. Anticipating/gauging engagement/disengagement is probably one of the most difficult things in active combat gameplay, at the moment. Of course, again, that's WITH the bugs. Really, the most important thing is intuitive feedback regarding this. I still think a unique, quick animation, and/or some other indicator would be a good idea to show exactly when someone's getting engaged by someone else. Stopping's good and all, but plenty of things stop you in the chaos of battle.

Pointless? With so many images of sharp weapons, this discussion has more points than any other, by far. 6_u

I'm 28, and somewhere in storage, I actually have three Atari 2600's. I think the Atari was my first gaming console. Granted, I didn't get it when it was new, as I wasn't born... BUT, I started out with a lot of the good stuff, . On our first computer, I played games in QBasic, instead of DOS.

^ Agreed. Having differing starting money amounts as a result of your background choice is fine, but I'm not sure that directly takes the place of differing starting equipment.

@Cubiq: I appreciate the response. I didn't know the exact specifics of the current engagement system, because I haven't gotten to mess with it much. Seems like if it were working like it's supposed to, it wouldn't be too bad. It still just seems like it should be more intuitive when you're actually disengaging and when you aren't. To clarify, what I mean by the term "disengaging" is simply "the leaving of the engagement status, whether or not an AoO is provoked." In other words, if you never disengaged, you would simply remain engaged forever. I guess I should clarify by saying that I'm talking about ending engagement via movement, and not via killing your foe, or anything else that technically makes engagement no longer sustainable between two characters in a battle. So, okay, couple more clarifications... when I asked about Fighter Steve engaging the goblin, then the goblin knocking Steve down, I meant to say "what if the goblin knocked Steve back?" Because, then, the Goblin wouldn't be moving, but Steve would. So he would cross the threshold and disengage. Does he provoke an AoO WHILE he's already in the midst of being attacked? That doesn't seem to make any sense (and not from a simulation standpoint, but from a context of this combat system standpoint). The purpose of the system seems to be to allow melee combat to not just be something you can easily waltz past and constantly avoid via simple movement. An AoO every time you knocked someone out of your own circle would just be free bonus damage on your attack. You JUST swung your weapon, and that person is falling down, away from you, and somehow you get a free, immediate attack on them? Even though they didn't gain any advantage, because they're being involuntarily knocked down. I know that's just one situation. The only other remaining issue I have is that it feels like it should be a lot more intuitive, knowing when you're going to engage someone when you're trying to run someone across the field. It's just an ideal, really. And this is simply me wondering "is there a better way to do that?" I'm not saying you simply can't play the game if you don't intuitively know where to move someone without engaging stationary foes. I mean, I would assume no one's melee engagement radius (Danger Zone) is like 30 meters. I'd imagine they're pretty small, or they wouldn't be "melee" anymore. On that note, do they vary in size? I remember one of the earlier design descriptions being that they did, but I don't know if that made it into the actual game. Because, in that case, someone with a polearm or something would be expected to have a larger radius than someone with, say, a dagger. Annnywho... Yeah, I was only proposing the actual-sticky mechanic (move only within currently-engaged radii until you choose to do otherwise) as a way of making it a lot easier to move while engaged (which the current system already allows you to do, right?, so the intent can't be "YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO MOVE AT ALL WHILE ENGAGED!") without disengaging. *shrug*

True, but, at character creation, you're still limited to what amounts to the same thing. For example, if you have 6 stats, and you want a value of 5 in each stat. That costs 30 points, in a a regular point-buy system. With escalating cost added, (let's say the cost is the value you're raising the stat to, just for example -- 3 costs 3 points, 4 costs 4 points, etc.), a 5 in each stat would cost you 90 points. Then, when you want not-just-all-5's, there are obvious differences: That same 30 points can get you a 6 in one stat, with 5's in the rest and a 4 in one of them. Whereas, the 90 points (escalating system) gives you back 5 points if you drop one of your stats back to 4. That puts you one point shy of being able to raise anything to 6. Etc. So, it's interesting, but it's really just different math. But, the other point being, once you've balanced all that out however you'd like, at the end of character creation, you've still allowed for some maximum possible stat distribution, with however many points you've allowed. THEN, the only difference is what stats you're able to raise as you level-up. So, the only difference escalating cost makes at that point (if you were to gain +1 point per level-up), is that it allows you to raise lower stats more frequently/a greater number of times than higher stats. Which, again, is different, and interesting for what it is, but if your goal is just "make sure stat increases after character creation are rare," it doesn't really impact that goal very much. Actually, if you dumped some stats, you'd get to raise those like 5 or 6 times, because lower stats would cost less to raise than higher ones. So, that would be kind of a weird thing. "Oh, just go ahead and spend those points up-front on your higher stats, and don't worry about those others being too low... you'll get to raise them like every level-up." Etc. It introduces a weird dynamic, towards the goal of simply making sure stats don't increase a bunch after character creation. There's nothing wrong with an escalating-cost point-buy system. I just don't think its benefit towards controlling level-progression-based stat increases is pretty negligible. So, unless it's there for some other reason (the whole game's built from the ground up around that system, like Shadowrun,) I think the best thing would just be to limit stat point gains to whatever you think is reasonable in a 12-level span.

No worries. Like I said, I wasn't trying to suggest "that's POCKET change! 8D" or anything. I don't really have any experience outside the US, so yeah, I can only admittedly make evaluations from the context of living here. But, I just thought I'd mention it, in case, because I so often hear people talking about how they can't get a new computer for gaming, purely because they think it'll cost $600+ just to be worthwhile. Sorry that a mid-end PC is much less cheap where you are, 8(. Hopefully, they optimize the game pretty well by launch. It may not be quite as beautiful, but I'm confident your current machine'll handle it, ^_^

Such as the powers of stat-loss, and vomiting!

Since there's no quote, I'm assuming that the "you" who misunderstood is supposed to be me. I don't think I did, but I apologize if it seemed like I was just talking about hand-holding. I was't trying to. Also, I'm not trying to dispute specifically about Wasteland 2. The physical copies have been delayed, so I haven't actually gotten to sit down and play it yet. Anywho, I'm just sort of questioning the necessity of a certain quantity of "interesting" stuff within the first few hours of a game, is all. Again, there's a wrong way to do it, definitely. But I question the "not enough" part. Would tossing in "some more" really do it any good? Or is it just the nature of the design of that first bit of the game that's bad, simply because it wasn't done well enough?

Hey now... the games available to teenagers now don't give 'em much else to hone.

Heh... I'm gonna call those people bizarro trolls.

But... don't you get a Reflex check when you trigger a trap? If so, then you don't really get to control the dodging of traps. Even if you intentionally walk your character directly into a trap, he might still dodge it without your consent/effort/action. That's a double-standard. Hell, pathfinding in general is wrong. It should be up to the player to make sure their character doesn't just run into that column and continuously try to fun forward in-place. To manually maneuver them around the obviously-right-there-column. And if you command your character to move backwards, they shouldn't just automatically turn around. They should run backwards (most likely incurring a chance to trip), until the player exerts his control over the character to make them actually turn around. Seriously, though... it should be toggleable, so that you can actually intentionally trip traps in order to catch pursuing enemies in their fire. That could be another advantage of move speed bonuses. You run your last and fastest party member over that pressure plate, with some foes hot on your heels, and that character is fast enough to get out of the way before the fire jets (or giant squishy spikey things, etc.) do their thing on the now-right-in-the-crossfire foes. ^_^

It might just be a temporary fix until they can fix their transition code, Sensuki. In which case, we should probably just... bear with them. 6_u

Hanging corpses are so cliche. I want to see levitating corpses. o_o

It's all relative to the "normal" time for an encounter. IF the average combat time is intended to be 20 seconds, then 10 seconds would be a decent max relative to that 20-second combat time. If 20 seconds isn't an appropriate combat time, that's a whole different thing. Obviously, factors need to be adjusted such that combat doesn't regularly last 20 seconds or less.

To be fair, a game is generally a simulation. It's just not a perfect one. You pretty much can't make a game that's perfect simulation, because there's always going to be some more-nuanced factor that your game isn't actually taking into account/representing. So, yeah, a game's always got lots of abstraction going on in it, but it isn't just 100% abstraction. Anywho, the main issue with something like looking at the general XP system for cRPGs, then going "See, the act of combat should award XP!" is that it isn't consistent. The entire system isn't even remotely claiming to be simulating the application of actual, first-hand experience with something towards the improvement of related things. You earn XP, then you get better at pretty-much-everything. So, the idea that that system must represent XP earned from what amounts to practice or it's doing something wrong is just plain wonky. That's my biggest issue with this whole "should combat XP simply be tossed into this existing system?" debate, and the "OF COURSE!" people. As for fun, yes, a game has to be fun. But, it also has to make sense, first. I would say that fun is actually the second most important thing for a game. Being an actual game is the first. Clicking a button and having your character level up and gain oodles of gold and loot every time you clicked it could be interpreted by human brains as enjoyable. However, that's not even a game, at that point. That button isn't functioning as a game. There's no challenge, no chance to fail, no chance to do better or worse based on your actions, etc. So, "I want to receive some enjoyment" applies to the entire game's design, overall. You can't just pluck random things out of that and say "Well, I think getting XP for every footstep my character takes would be fun, so that should happen." No. The whole game should be fun, together. Dying in combat isn't fun. But being able to die in combat and then avoiding that unfun thing with your skill/effort is quite fun. To be clear, I'm simply commenting on the sub-topics that were brought up. I'm not trying to suggest that I'm arguing the polar opposite of your (CaptainShrek) or anyone else's specific words here. (I know sometimes that's unclear, so I wanted to make sure it was clear, here. I'd quote someone if I were arguing against someone's specific argument/point).

@CaptainShrek: The only other issue I have with the TES-style system is that you still don't really even have full simulation. You can't pick a lock, then re-lock that lock, and simply practice your lockpicking skill over and over and over on one lock, which, realistically, you would be able to do. Yet, inconsistently, you can just constantly jump around like a maniac, and your Acrobatics will continue to improve, every single time. Which ALSO doesn't really simulate effectively, because no one ever became a member of Cirque de Soleil by jumping 5,000,000 times in the same spot. You don't gain Acrobatic skill from that. You just gain conditioning. Maybe balance. That being said, I have no significant problem with the system itself being implemented in a game. But, if I were going to use it, I would definitely make every particular action produce diminishing XP. Like... jumping. If you're just jumping, you should only improve certain aspects of the entirety of something like Acrobatics. Ideally, it's broken down into those actual aspects, and that's how it works. But, if not (understandably, due to sheer complexity), then, at the very least, jumping/falling should only improve your acrobatics by so much. Annnnnnywho... I don't want to derail this into a giant dissertation on Skill System Design. Heh. But, I could analyze and discuss that for pages and pages and pages, if you'd like (and enjoy the crap out of such a discussion). Maybe in another thread... *shrug*

For what it's worth, you'd be surprised how good of a PC you can build, now, for like $300. I know that's still $300. But... *shrug* When Starcraft 2 came out, my friend wanted to play it, but his old PC could barely handle it. So, he got a barebones kit, plus a video card for like $400, total, that ran the game on ultra settings, with ease. Just thought I'd mention it, because some people think you have to pay closer to 7-or-800 for a decent gaming PC.

I did enjoy the Arcanum ones.

If you had a reason to employ an escalating-cost point-buy system, sure. But, if not, the easiest thing to do would be to simply grant +1 attribute points every 6 levels. The result is the same. The only difference would be that, if you had lower stats, you could increase them by 3 points after 6 levels. But, in the end, you'd still be limited to whatever degree by the maximum point-buy allowed by the system, based on how many total points you could get.

I may not have been clear enough. The fighter should still be able to engage up to 3 people. But, if the Fighter's just been commanded to run to a point 80-yards across the battlefield, and other people have been commanded to run to a point on the other side of the fighter, everyone shouldn't all suffer disengagement attacks from simply passing one another. They aren't even stopping, or attempting conflict in any way, shape, or fashion. "Instant" disengagement attacks are fine. I get that. I'm not trying to say "That doesn't simulate actually having to attack someone that's running past you!" What I'm saying is, that doesn't make any sense from the purpose/context of the engagement system. The point of it is so that, if one guy's all "COME AT ME, BRO!" and ready to fight you, you can't simply go "Nah!" and run away from him, THROUGH his melee proximity, without any sort of penalty. The other thing is... in that particular scenario, how the hell do you even tell WHO was engaging WHOM? If it's your Fighter running across the battlefield, and three goblins running back the other way, past him, does he suffer 3 disengagement attacks for disengaging from each one of them, while they each suffer 1 for disengaging from him? Annnnywho, to further clarify, take the same scenario, but imagine that your Fighter was told to attack-move. Or was told to run out to a point halfway and stop, or you see the three goblins running toward him, and you select him and just press the "stop" button... take your pick. Well, NOW they're simply trying to move through his engagement area (I'm just gonna call that the Danger Zone from now on), while he's totally prepared for some can-openin'. SO, they'd all both stop AND become engaged by him. Or, the opposite would occur, if he was the one trying to just run past them, and they stopped and/or directly pursued/targeted him with an attack command. Now, as for the extra button/command/what-have-you for disengagement... I know it's not ideal, in isolation, to have one more thing you have to actively order, but I don't really know of any better way to do it. If you don't have that, then stuff starts making a whole lot of no-sense again. First of all, how do you keep up with who's disengaging? If Fighter Steve is engaged with a goblin, and they both happen to have the same Danger Zone radius, and the goblin just decides to run away, then, when he crosses the Danger Zone threshold of Fighter Steve, Steve is simultaneously "leaving" the goblin's Danger Zone. Maybe you just say "Well, STEVE engaged the GOBLIN, so... Steve can leave at-will and be fine, and only the GOBLIN is susceptible to an AoO." But then, what if the goblin knocks Steve down or something? And why should Steve be able to simply turn his back on the goblin without penalty, while the goblin has to watch itself, JUST because of who technically engaged whom? Questions like that crop up. So, like I said, when you use Get Out Of Danger Zone Free cards (disengagement abilities like Grimoire Slam and Escape), you're actively disengaging, just without penalty. So, it's not that much of a stretch to have ot actively disengage even when you're doing so with an AoO occurring. Also, I mentioned that it doesn't have to be some other button you have to press. It could just be a move double-click, which is easy enough. "Oh, I stickied to some enemy, even though I was trying to move across the battlefield? Well, I don't care if he hits me for free, 'cause I have URGENT BUSINESS elsewhere! *double-click*". It's not exactly a huge hindrance. That, and the question remains: How the hell are you supposed to move around within someone's Danger Zone without disengaging? Very, very carefully? I don't think the trouble of having to actively disengage really warrants the complete neglect of the very real possibility of moving around within a Danger Zone radius without disengaging (easily). Just watching radii indicators and having to manually ensure that your character never leaves that circle as you move them does not seem like a very effective system. Lastly, as far as engagement indication goes... what if there were a simple animation that played at the moment of engagement? A simple "lock-blades"-for-a-moment animation? That's how you'd know, intuitively, that you were engaged, and with whom. You stop, that goblin stops, "ting." Especially if no other ability/attack uses that same animation, it would be very distinct. Dunno how easy that is to add/do, or if it is, indeed, unique. If not, then maybe something similar. OH, and if engagement was more of a status, like I'm proposing, instead of just a location-based happenstancical condition, then two engaged entities could be made to move about while always facing one another. Another very intuitive visual indicator of who is and isn't engaged, and with whom. "When I move Fighter Steve, he appears to be circling that spider, and the spider's always facing him. Clearly, they are engaged." I'm confused, here. I think you might have misunderstood me on yet another facet. In my proposal, it would never fail. If you decide "I'm going to get the hell away from this guy," you take an AoO. No "but wait, I'm dancing around the threshold of his Danger Zone... WILL I cross it? Find out on the next episode of... MELEE DISENGAGEMENT!" Just "Yes, hit me because I don't want to be stuck to you anymore." The thing is, Josh's initial description of the system (in the initial update that presented it) was that it was sort of a "sticky" system. But, all it really does is stop you ONE TIME, then the whole disengagement process is a purely-location-based mess. Oh, you can just move regularly after you stop that one time? Well, what if you don't WANT to disengage, but you want to move a bit? *shrug* I know it's not perfect, but, like I said, active disengagement seems to come with an awful lot of benefits. The only thing I don't really have ironed out is exactly how to handle re-engagement after someone's disengaged (specifically in regards to active pursuit). If it's "did they leave your Danger Zone circle? Then they've disengaged," then you can just have re-engagement occur when you catch up to them and they cross back into your circle. But, if they can disengage INSIDE your circle, then there'd need to be something akin to a cooldown/recovery on the ability to re-engage them. Otherwise it would always instantly occur because they'd be inside your Danger Zone already. *shrug* That could get complex, I suppose. Suggestions are beyond welcome.