Ganrich

I am going to be ironic and follow up Oerwinde's Devastator banner with a plug for Transformers: Prime. The show isn't perfect, but it is pretty enjoyable. It is one of my favorite Transformer series since the original. Coming from a G1 purist that means very little, but I like the show. I also enjoyed what little we received of the new Thundercats although I still love the cheese of the original. The new show seemed to be pretty interesting on their new spin on the old characters, and I read interviews on what would have happened if they continued and it would have been pretty awesome I think. I was pretty pissed when it got the shaft. The new TMNT is good as well. I hate many of the good shows are cancelled based on bad toy sales and or dumpy time slots.

I never said that streaming wasn't a reality. I was saying older competitive games aren't a priority and are a worse case scenario. The streaming feature is more for playing something like Kotor or any other older single player title that is unlikely to see a port. Competitive games typically become obsolete when the newer title releases. There are exceptions of course. I know a lot of Battlefield players that went back to 3 after the issues with 4 were very apparent. There are some older titles that have a solid group that still plays them, and they have windows machines capable of playing them. Arma players have a Windows machine and are likely to be happy at the desk. If they want a couch solution it comes at a latency cost or hauling your Windows machine to the living room. I would stay at the desk for the Arma games atm. Perhaps Arma 3 and DayZ may get ports announced at DevDays though. It's unlikely, but possible. That said, this system is being aimed at living room gamers, and that crowd is mostly on the consoles. They probably aren't aware of Arma, and if they are would they care about it? If they have a Windows machine is it capable of playing Arma 3 very well? Possibly, but not 100% guaranteed and teetering on unlikely. The console crowd is big on CoD, and that is the title I would be most worried about. On PC it isn't that big of a title by comparison, but on consoles it is different. Arma 3 is the game that will entice the SteamOS adopters to buy an Arma game (not the first 2 titles). So, if it isn't a native port I don't see gamers buying the system for Arma. PC gamers will stay at their desk for Arma 3, and console gamers, are possibly unaware of, or won't have a machine capable of running it well(or at all). Console gamers that 'do' have a PC capable of playing Arma 3 will stay at the desk to be competitive. They will still have access to the controller on Windows if they want to use it though. This makes it a worse case scenario as it isn't going to be the norm. Streaming will definitely be a major component of SteamOS for years and years, but I don't see many people using it for multiplayer competitive games. It is a legacy feature for older titles and more so for single player. I know there are other titles that might be looked at other than Arma, but that was the example used so I stuck with it. Edit: I read that they will have 400 Linux titles by the time the majority of these machines launch. It's possible some of these titles will be AAA.

I agree, PrimeJunta. I also wonder if they had plans to support Canonical in their Ubuntu Touch venture by having a store front that allowed for x86 based ports for when the phone is docked to a monitor, mouse, and keyboard. While simultaneously having games based on touch controls and UI. A game like Bastion (that is on PC and Tablets) could work on the go and on the dock. I expect when Valve has finished with their major hurdles in SteamOS they might start murmuring about littlefoot. I don't truly expect it any time soon (maybe years from now), but I was hoping for some clarification I guess. There are a lot of new phone OSes coming out of the woodwork at the moment. Sailfish, FirefoxOS, Ubuntu Touch, Tizen, etc. So, I was expecting Valve to be working with one of them. Ubuntu was the most likely to me because of Valve's initial support of Ubuntu when launching Steam for Linux. Sailfish could also be a good one as they are supporting Google Play and their own store, and their phones have replaceable backs that could be used for a steam controller attachment. Sorry, derailing the thread. I will stop now lol.

MS is definitely gunning at "competing" with valve on PC. That is pretty obvious. They hired Jason Holtman, former Valve employee involved with Steam, to help with their GFWL replacement as well. They were definitely heavy handed about it, and I think that scared many developers. MS is definitely looking to drown out Valve as opposed to competing with them on equal footing, and that has always been a MS tactic. The argument can be made that MS is making similar moves with windows 8 and metro/modern to the slow destruction of DOS. Which is why I said it is unlikely that they will lock their OS down completely, but I won't say it is impossible. Valve is going where MS won't though... To other OSes. After 30 years of being the top dog MS is finally getting competition, and it is on every front of their business. Browsers, Desktop, phones, Console, etc are all getting attacked in some form. Some weren't popular to begin with, but are having trouble competing. Since Valve is investing in Linux it is possible to have the system boot to a storefront selection screen allowing equal access to steam, origin, GoG, or whatever Linux storefront you would like. This allows equal footing. This is unlikely in SteamOS, but possible if a fork of it evolves or if a new distro shows up with those intentions. This isn't something Valve can do on Windows to fight Metro/Modern. Also, I remember when Valve first announced their "Steam Box" plans they mentioned Bigfoot (which is what SteamOS and Steam Machines are) and littlefoot (which was a mobile solution for Valve). I wonder when, and if, we will hear about a Steam Tablet or Steam Phone. I am curious about what they would bring to the mobile table. I was hoping to hear snippets from CES about Littlefoot, but understand the focus on Steam Machines. I also am hoping for some answers to support from Streaming services (Netflix and the like) and Valves Music venture as well at Dev Days. They may not be ready to discuss though. Edit: Yeah, most GoG titles I've used on WINE work with some tweaking, and they work well. I am fully onboard with native support though. That wouldn't fall to GoG with most their titles though.

On the note of "playing Arma with the controller over a WLAN". That is a worse case scenario. I think anyone using the Steam Controller for competitive games will be on a more even ground vs M&K than a standard analog controller. The point of the streaming feature is a temporary duct tape measure for games that haven't or won't be ported. The games that won't be ported (if all goes according to plan) are probably older games in a franchise and/or single player games. The most likely games to be played competitively will be newer games, and hopefully those won't need to be streamed. Thus meaning the players with a Steam Controller won't be as disadvantaged as they would be otherwise. The only games I could see being an issue here are EA games, Blizzard games, and perhaps a few others because they are no longer, or haven't ever been, available on Steam. I will hold on to scrutiny on what will be available for SteamOS until after the Dev Days conference next week as I expect to hear about some AAA support outside of Metro and Valve titles. If I don't here anything then I will start being a little more negative nancy about this. @PrimeJunta - I hope GoG gets on board with linux, but they seem rather resistant at present. I read a statement that because of their "if we can't get it running on your rig then we will refund you" policy that they can't see moving to linux because of all the different Distros and the like making that very problematic. I wish they would pick a couple Distros like SteamOS, Ubuntu, Debian, and/or Mint and say they support those, but anyone on different Distros won't get official support and are on their own. I will keep my fingers crossed.

I think the likelihood of MS locking down windows in an extreme walled garden is not likely but not impossible. I see Valve's moves as something similar to T-Mobile in the USA the past few years. T-Mobile's Uncarrier program has given them great growth because it is doing something completely different from AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint. Only Verizon had more growth here in the states in 2013. Just as SteamOS is doing the console business in a completely different way from MS, Sony, and Nintendo. Valve pushing SteamOS has a chance to cause disruption because a) you get comparable hardware for similar prices (slightly more power for slightly more money compared to PS4, and a $500 Steam machine is equal in price to the Xbone while having better specs), b) you have an attempt at a new controller paradigm, c) cheaper games, d) mod support, etc. Simultaneously, SteamOS will possibly challenge D3D with their OpenGL support. So, if SteamOS and Steam on Linux (more important than Steam Machines for the most part) are successful you may find Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft trying to squash it by copying some of its concepts, and/or being innovative themselves with the Console business model (which they really haven't had to do before save motion controls). On the desktop front MS might be forced to no longer lock D3D updates to their newest iteration of Windows in order to keep gamers upgrading Windows. This is what is happening with the USA mobile carriers with T-Mobile's shift to Uncarrier vs their former "business as usual" way of life. There is hardly any competition when all 3-4 major companies involved hold to the same model of business, but one vigilante can stir things up and benefit the consumer. IMHO why GabeN is pushing this is irrelevant because of the potential boon to the industry because of the competition. The why of it doesn't matter because it will do many things that are fresh for the industry. This will likely be beneficial to consumers in the long run if successful. Back on topic, Valve's Controller should play PE fine. I am more worried about being able to read the text on a tv than the controls.

Definitely going to go Chanter first. I am still debating on Godlike, but I am more than likely going to do it. With the parent race I am debating between a Dwarf, an Amaua, or an Orlan. I am leaning toward Dwarf at the moment. A Dwarf Godlike that spews out ancient words of power sound pretty amazing. I want the cliche Scottish accent to go along with the dwarf lol. A drunken Sean Connery reading lines from Beowulf sounds like a blast. J/k I definitely want to know more about the races, their histories, and their proclivities before narrowing the race down though.

Alien: Isolation reminds me of Routine which I am really excited about. Edit: This trailer is using the Oculus Rift btw.

Thanks for posting this. I am really excited about the Darlands type of scripted interactions. I think a mechanic like that will play insanely well into this type of game. I am just imagining the dream sequences in BG having some kind of interaction and I get excited.

This quote is from this thread fairly early on. We don't have specifics as to how to raise stats post character creation, but it'll either be through items and tomes, leveling up like 3E, or all of the above.

Eh, I was replaying a lot of aRPGs at the time. I must have gotten DAOs system confused with one of them. I was playing Dungeon Siege 2 at the time iirc. Sorry for my mistake. Let's not derail the thread over it.

I liked Arcanum for this in particular. With that many options you couldn't have everyone of them have meaning (or any real meaning), though. Really it is more and less meaning, or less and more meaning. I would prefer the former as the effects they tend to entail are pretty trivial in most games anyway. Although they can be pretty cool at times. I think character creation should have backgrounds and traits though. Backgrounds give some meaning/reactivity, and perhaps alter some stats/skills/etc. Traits have a bonus and a negative that flesh the character out further. My one gripe on Arcanum is that some of the Backgrounds seemed more like traits and others like genuine backgrounds. EG: Background = Raised on a Farm (increases Endurance), Son of a Preacher Man(High Resolve), Forest Rat (higher constitution). Trait = Eagle eyes (Increased Perception for spot checks at a distance, but decreased at close range), Hater of the Arcane (Lower Willpower, increased damage to magic users), Iron Flesh (Increased armor rating, lower dexterity score). This way you get your reactivity with a few backgrounds and your huge array of traits with little to no reactivity. Backgrounds could have negatives as well, but those can be overcome to some extent in Attribute distribution. This would require character creation in the order of Sex, Race, Class, Background, Trait, Attributes, Skills, etc.

I look at the intellect as the perfecting of knowledge and technique more quickly and that of course should play well with Perception and Dexterity. You are going to need more than one stat for sure, and I would go on to say most characters will likely have medium to high in 3 different stats while being being average (give or take) in the other 3. Do we know how skills are working? Will it be like 3E or 3.5 D&D where you get more points for investing in Intelligence? If so that could be a good way to counter balance things in your recommended amendment to the system, Lephys. Intellect brings skill points, damage, and healing vs Strength granting carrying capacity, health, and damage. This would still require diminishing returns for investing in both STR and INT. I doubt it matters as Josh said this was the system they are playing with for a while. I still think our best chance of changing things is a name change of certain attributes give players a more immediate understanding of their function (In and out of combat). I am still holding to: Body, Endurance, Dexterity, Mind, Spirit, and Resolve.

What? Why would I want them to siphon off resources for a completely unnecessary multiplayer feature? Generic combat-orientedness is bad enough even without this feature. It doesn't. Please no. That's so overly dramatic, I find myself completely unable to take it seriously. No arguments about that. Hate to disappoint, but it doesn't seem likely. Again, no arguing from me. You're just trolling. Right? ...Right? I'm going to be very eloquent about this one: wut? I quoted this because I feel that Aluminiumtrioxid's point needs to be hit home. At the moment I am pointing to the stands like Babe Ruth.

I have been mulling over this topic for a few days, and I agree with the video for the most part. I agree that realism, more often than not, is more mature than most "hero's journey" stories. However, there are times where I feel the "realistic" stories step back over to immature. I will just say before I go into any detail that I like the author of the video in question and his other works. I particularly love his look on ME3's ending and the prequel star wars movies. The Witcher series, although very good, has some sections that are incredibly mature and others that are not. I particularly enjoyed the Moril story early on in the Witcher 2 for its maturity. Not going to go into detail on it, but I felt for the character after all that transpired. However, the Witcher really trivializes sex, and although I have no issue with it morally, I do see it as fairly immature at times because of how it is handled. It is like a game within the game: Who can I bang? The Witcher is still doing more good than harm IMHO. It at least is trying to bring players to a more mature form of story telling by retaining some of those immature things that many players might enjoy. Many Bioware titles do this as well these days. I think the romances have become 'Leisure Suit Larry' in many respects, and are no longer tasteful. I think Tali's romance (ME2) was the last one that was well done, and prior to ME and DAO they had many decent to good romances that were more interesting. I believe completing Kotor with a romance between the player and Bastilla felt more mature than almost anything since. It wasn't the best story romance ever, but it was definitely handled in a mature way. Anyway, sex and violence (to the extreme) just to do them is immature in my eyes. Sex to the vast majority of audiences is the penultimate of a relationship, and that is because they haven't truly loved someone and haven't truly understood the power of telling someone "I love you" and what kind of vulnerability that creates. However, people enjoy sex and violence, they have always and most likely will always enjoy it, and who am I to discount that. I have actually never expressed this opinion on a forum, and if you do enjoy these things then more power to you. I am not here to judge. My 2 cents is that gaming for the most part is just out to make blockbusters with mediocre stories. Some will be very mature, some won't. Some will tell the Hero's Journey in a mature way, and others won't. Some will show realism in a mature way, and others won't. With the indie scene, and kickstarter, I expect we will start to finally get some indies to start telling truly Mature stories like the film industry has to offset their blockbusters. We will see. On the note of LOTR... Tolkien was writing what he knew and he was a linguist, a fan of history, and a soldier in WWI. So all of those traits come out in the story. You see aspects of Germanic tales, and a fictional history for ancient Europe. You see languages that are created for some of the different races and groups. You also have a WWI theme under all of it because WWI greatly affected Tolkien. I see those books as very mature, and would say the movies are as a repercussion although much less so ( some of the changes IMHO make it less mature). You can call them cliche, but they weren't when they released. Tolkien followed the world building style of Robert E. Howard (Conan) and H.P. Lovecraft while putting his own spin on things. Since then many lesser authors have copied and pasted Tolkien's themes into lesser stories or just retold his story with slight differences, and have since made the genre less 'mature' as a repercussion. There are a few authors that do well in the genre, but there is much more garbage out there than there is gold IMHO. In the end, maturity isn't something that I would put a label on. There is no "Mature" genre, but there are "Mature" games within most genres. The ESRB label of Mature has always struck me with a little bit of irony.

@Lephys - You are right. I didn't read Josh's post correctly, or I did and forgot. So, that changes things a little, but not much. IIRC this game won't use random rolls of the dice to determine stats like the IE games, but a point buy in like in the NWN games. Correct me if I am wrong with that because I cannot find where I read it (if I did as I could be imagining it). I just hopped into NWN2 to play around with stat distribution. On a human character you can have 5 stats at 14 and 1 at 10, 2 16s a 14 and 3 10s, 1 18 a 14 and a 12 with 3 10s, etc. This isn't including racial bonus' as I chose humans. My biggest issue with 3E and 3.5 are that the bonuses from stats come with every 2 points in the governing attribute, and I hope this isn't in the case with this game. If every point is valuable (and not just every 2 points) then we could have very diverse builds with this system. So, using NWN2 point buy system strapped to PoE's attributes again you could have a character that has pretty high Perception and Dexterity while still having points available to increase other stats to an extent. Like I said, it doesn't change much, but it is what it is. Oh, and I do realize you are advocating that STR and Int increase damage simultaneously, and it is something I am not necessarily against. I just worry that giving carrying capacity, health, and damage to STR that it will be much more needed than Int if we do that. So, other things would need to change as a repercussion. I do like keeping stamina and health separated like I expressed in Sensuki's other thread "Attribute Questionnaire." So, I can't say what I would do to keep STR from being the go to damage stat if that was changed. I still hold to the fact that bigger weapons will likely require a higher STR to use, and they likely have a higher base damage.

2 funny vids from a band called Red Fang. I particularly think the first one is good. There are other funny videos by them as well.

I would be fine with anything between 5 and 7. With more Attributes (over 7) you increase the likelihood of a dump stat. With less (under 5) you decrease build options. I personally think 6 is a fine number. DAO had 3 stats, and they were awful. Arcanum had 8 and there were more than a few dump stats. I am not saying using more or less than 5-7 is guaranteed to give negative results, but that it increases the chances. Weighing defensive stats vs offensive stats doesn't stop dump stats. Wisdom governs Willpower in D&D and it is one of the worst for being dumped (Charisma probably being 'the' worst). So I think the current system is better since it ties defensive stats to 2 Attributes instead of one. While each stat has something to bring to the table offensively or by increasing health/stamina. If you want a good Willpower save then you can't dump either Attribute that governs it. If you want a moderate Willpower you can have one attribute fairly low, but it might cost you. Etc 2 Attributes allow for more variety here. A high Constitution/low Strength character with the current system would be like a skinny endurance runner. In a fight he could potentially die fast, but he can stay on his feet from an endurance standpoint. While a lower Con/higher Strength character would be a burly guy who can take damage, but tires out easier. If you keep both con/str around the same area then you get a mix of both. If you tie stamina and health to the same attribute then class X with Y in said attribute have around the same health and stamina (not including items, spells, etc that could play a part here) across multiple playthroughs. Thus limiting build options. Fine with it. Some classes should be better at overall defense. A Warrior is going to be better at avoiding damage than a support, caster, non-military class. I wouldn't mind it, but it is definitely a tough thing to balance. This is an easy thing to make worthless or overpowered IMHO. Yes and no. An Attribute should increase what you carry for sure, but it doesn't have to be identical to IE games. It could increase the number of inventory slots specifically instead of carrying allowance like the IE games did it.

I'm not sure I'd prefer one over the other, but I think both (though with fundamentally different explanations) are much, much better than intellect. I really like Antioxidant's explanation for ferocity. On the other had I can see how Soul or Spirit, being more abstract terms, might fit better into already designed non combat skill checks, than say ferocity would. I agree, but would say I like Spirit more than Soul. The reason being that I think the attributes should all be different parts of the Soul and not the Soul itself. Ferocity is a form of Spirit, and thus Spirit can have different playtypes associated with it. A calm spirit, a fighting spirit, a playful spirit. It allows for variations on how you play. Ferocity kind of feels a little jailed in that respect. I have said previously that I would like Body, Mind, and Spirit to all be attributes. Current attributes and what I would replace them with in (). Strength (Body) Constitution (Endurance) Dexterity Perception (Mind) < to replace Intellect skill checks and allow for something more broad. Intellect (Spirit) Resolve In combat they would work just as Josh has explained with no exceptions. Body - Health and Inventory size Endurance - Stamina Dexterity - Accuracy Mind - Increased Critical Spirit - Increased Damage Resolve - Increased Effect Duration and AoE size. (Correct me if I missed something with that.) Out of combat things need to be moved around with Mind and Spirit. Everything else stays the same. Obviously, Intellect checks and Perception checks would be governed through the Mind attribute now. That leaves some non-combat skills/abilities needed for Spirit. My suggestion is to have intimidation checks governed by Spirit, and perhaps checks that could be governed by Wisdom in other systems as well: Philosophical stuff. Body would still cover breaking down doors, lifting a siege gate, etc. Endurance is lasting in tough physical circumstances. Dexterity is avoiding trap damage, speed checks, etc. Resolve is similar to Endurance but with mentally tough scenarios more than physical, and some dialogue. I would still have these stats play off one another in pairs for the other defensive stats as Josh suggested. Pretty much identical there. Body, Endurance, Dexterity, Mind, Spirit, and Resolve can all play into the soul theme. Dexterity being the weakest of them in that regard, IMHO.

Atmospheric music and really low light (requiring a torch or light spell to see well) would go a long way to making it scarier. This combined with the undead (middle level and higher) not being pushovers is what I would like. Atmosphere is something many RPGs miss when it comes to undead IMHO.

I would much prefer Spirit or Soul to Ferocity. Just because of PEs Soul mechanics. They fit the world better.

I am not, and won't, argue that PE's attribute isn't strange at first glance for many. To some it is strange at every glance. I definitely agree that the effects of some attributes are strange based on the name of that attribute. I still prefer Body to Strength because it doesn't imply damage, it allows busting down doors for out of combat checks, and it could imply a fat bartender and Conan the barbarian. It is a versatile name. I am still not sold on Ferocity as an Intellect replacement, but mostly because that requires moving out of combat checks around to other attributes, and/or changing Perception as well to accommodate the change. In other words, it may be too much work to change without changing everything.

We are talking about an attribute system: not PrCs, not feats, not a build where the sorcerer is a brute. Let's ignore the sorc and wizard for the moment then. I was over-exaggerating to make a point anyway. I want maximum damage in 3E on a dex/int based melee fighter without max strength. This needs to happen via the attribute system. No feats allowed. We don't know what feats are in PE so we have to keep a level playing field. On the note of the sorcerer and wizard though... In D&D you are right those classes are designed to work with charisma and intelligence. However, in PE at the moment there is a way to increase damage in melee without intellect and all classes are designed to work with those attributes. These are the rules of PE as they stand. You asking for a class in PE to get damage from an attribute not designed to give bonus damage is the equivalent of me wanting a Stupid Wizard in 3E D&D. This is regardless of what the stats are called. That was the point I was trying to make. I admit I was heavy handed about it, and didn't explain myself well admittedly. Too much tequila and I am sorry. I am wholeheartedly behind renaming strength to something that doesn't imply increased hit damage though. I still like Body, myself. I still stand by my build ideas as not being work arounds though.

It comes down to damage not coming from strength, and that is bucking a trend. Using 3E as a jumping point: build me a fighter with maximum damage in melee with no points in strength. This is basically what you want from PE in reverse. Anyone can tear an attribute system down by saying build me a character that has X capabilities without having any points in Y attribute when X is derived by Y in the attribute system. Build me a sorcerer that can cast his high level sorcerer spells in 3E that isn't charismatic. Build me a stupid wizard. They aren't possible in 3E unless you are planning a multi-class build that doesn't require high level spells. If you do make them then they will be useless characters. So here we are with "Build me a Brute with maximum damage that comes from strength." It is intentionally setting up this system to fail without using the other attributes to round the character. On the note of feats/skills/etc: we don't know anything about them in PE, and they could very well play a big role here as well. I don't consider my example a work around as it uses the available attribute system to build the archetype in question. That was the point of the example. The issue is just that strength doesn't make the character hit harder. By intentionally asking for a "brute that has strength increase his damage" you are basically requiring a "work around" in order to get any answer.

I understand your point as I understand Lephys's, but I don't agree with it. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I lack understanding or that I miss the point. The main issue many have is Intellect increasing damage while strength does not. Thus that the brute archetype isn't available. Yet it is. It is there plain as day. If you just say "STR doesn't increase damage so the Brute archetype isn't possible" and proceed to ignore the 3 other stats (not including intellect) that are capable of also increasing damage before deciding whether a build of that archetype is possible then I don't think it is myself that is missing the anything. I think many fear this particular issue because it bucks the trend. I imagine a brute as a barbarian type wielding a 2 handed weapon (maybe sword and board or dual wielding) and flailing as hard as possible. When he sees his enemy falter under his advances he takes advantage of openings in their defenses. This would fit into perception as a high crit build. I also imagine the brute as unrelenting in combat... Which fits resolve. His heavy hits may stun the opponent or cut deep into their bodies nipping their arteries and causing bleeding damage. Strength, Con, perception, and resolve are the stats that make up the brute IMHO. This could come in many variations of those stats. Whether strength increases damage or not doesn't mean that I just didn't build the brute archetype (with DPS leanings) with the system. You could also build a dexterous brute as I pointed out previously. Perhaps Strength does allow heavier weapons as well. You are right that we can't be sure.