Jump to content

some guy

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About some guy

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  1. Got a quick, crazy question for Josh: Will armour-type be a factor in how engagement-zone will play out?
  2. Way-points are probably best and easiest answer such path finding problems. Or an "avoid engagement zone" party-AI toggle combined with holding an "show future path" key... or some such. I see were the concerns lays on how messy this could be if enemies and party-members gets randomly spread, and how hectic enemy AI will be on disarranging player formations. For me though, this is an interesting challenge in that it put focus on prevent losing a stable formation while disarranging your enemies'. Part of the reason why a lot of battles in most games becomes a mosh pit is, I believe, the sheer lack of restrains for moving around. Without a firm, basic way of creating a manageable blockade it's just bound to become a mess.
  3. I really like this update! It's systems like this that provides the gameplay with a bit of character. Just be careful not to give big, slow, hard-hitting brutes to many sticky opportunities as it's kinda given you should be able to run close, past them. Also: make your animators work their teeth off to make this look good!
  4. Issue here is, as an isolated thing that exists in a bubble of its own, I imagine people don't care. As a thing which takes effort away from other things when there is an alternative that completely negates the problem already in existance, it looks like a waste of time. I wouldn't argue with that except, I'm not buying the argument that it would actually take time to skip implementing this stuff. I can see them having licensing issues or steam giving a bigger cut if they accept constrains like this, which is all fine by me anyway. But as an time-wasting excuse? Nah...
  5. Your post did not display logic, and the straws were grasped by your own fingertips. Here's the logic that you're missing: It's irrelevant how many other versions there are without DRM. If DRM isn't needed somewhere, then that's called "good news." Here's another bit of logic which slipped by you: you don't speak for people who use Steam, and to say that people who use Steam don't care about DRM is, honestly, idiocy, and complete arrogance. And yet you managed to cower from my actual point and didn't even attempt to address it. Good job. Here's another point you won't be able to address since you haven't been around since the beginning nor paid attention: It was a big deal when Obsidian ended up in union with GOG because many users on this forum and on KS begged Obsidian to do so. Originally they were only going to do Steam (and the backer discs). GOG carries only DRM-free games. I'll put the two logic points together for you so you'll understand: People specifically asked for a GOG version equating that with DRM-free. When Obsidian and GOG finally made the announcement, it was all over Twitter and mentioned in a number of articles. It wouldn't make sense to offer two types on Steam and another on GOG when DRM is part of the reputed business model for both; actually adding a DRM-free version or whatever on Steam would potentially dilute business from GOG and that would be bad for their agreement with Obsidian, and frankly insulting to the entire effort to get the DRM-free GOG version in the first place. So again, why shouldn't someone against DRM NOT get the GOG version? Why would anyone using the steam version not want the game to work without steam running?
  6. I hope he find an interesting way to get that armor stuff working. I'm still a bit on the edge on how it's been presented so far, but I'm still confident he'll deliver in the end. Being more in favor of tactical differences than just damage-types I'm hoping for a more situational difference between armor-type based on surroundings. Say, light armor having an edge if you're in an open field with your back free from obstacles but gets you shredded once you're corned by some wall or other people and such. Making heavy-armored targets less prone to getting pushed out from formation would be another. I haven't really looked up all that's been said about combat mechanics, but I take it that since formations have been highlighted as an important factor they have some nifty ideas on how to shape the battlefield without it becoming a constant big pile of a random mess. I like the vision they are going for and it sure is fun watching hissing comments being thrown back and forth. I'm getting my moneys worth!
  7. I got a metal chest from the 1600's in our house (family heirloom) One of big-ass chests too.There is no way in the world you can bash it in. What about if you use a shotgun? Actually, since this game will have some early gunpowder rifles and pistols, have there been any mentions about bombs and such?
  8. I went with yes on doors and Knock Knock, but I'm not so sure about chests. Those rogues gotta have something to do after all.
  9. Just wanted to add I'm not against this type of system per see. It's all fine and dandy for what it is. And this is all a very small stuff in the grand scheme of things. And I don't think it will come into play more than just; a little bump here, a small bost there. It's just not something I'd like to place much emphasis on unless it bites me in the face (which was kinda its point anyway).
  10. Big brutes would have heavy armor. So what quality would you be looking for most in your weapon? (Crushing) Archers with low armor need to be cut down quickly. So what quality will you be looking for in your weapon? (Slashing) But you got archers with mail armor. Your sword does 10-15 damage, it has no armor piercing. Your mail-piercing dagger has 6-8 damage. Which one would you pick? (The mail-piercer). Well I don't really se that playing out as much of a intresting tactic as much as just a random mess. I'd rather try to focus on getting say my archer killer crazy guy behind enemy line than juggling weapons around for armortypes and such. It just tries to achive what i'm proposing but ends up puting it all over the place. Having a clear cut enemy type where the weapon shines is to me more tactical and straight forward rather than having something usefull against some fighter, some archers, some beasts and so on. In the end though this is all kinda depending on what skills you load up with and default enemy equipment and such I guess.
  11. Personly I think that having weapons that are extra effective against a specific enemy class would be allot easier to manage and prepear for. Say a sword that can take down archers very quick but fails against big brutes or whatever. Kinda abstract way of doing it but it lay down the rules very easily and gives your fighters their own target to go for and specialise against. When you randomly mixes armor with different fighting styles it kinda put all advantages and disadvantages all over the place. Edit: Actually, after thinking about it, it might not be all that abstract after all. Big swords or spears against the big guy feels more intuitive instead of a rapier or dagger because he wear some armor type or whatever. I think different armor types should really focus on what skills you plan to give the character and speed and such rather than trying to put some tactics into who attacks who and such.
  12. A camera option that, simular to Diablo, follows the player/group rather than waiting for the user to scroll the screen. Something that tries to incorporate both at the same time might work.
×
×
  • Create New...