Jump to content

Iucounu

Members
  • Content Count

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Iucounu

  1. I think the Forumspring post by Sawyer goes towards that way. Previously posted by Infinitron. Now, it may still be possible to make very bad builds. But the intent seems to be for those being the exception. With valid concepts that are typically crappy characters, such as the intelligent weak fighter being viable. I guess it depends how you look at it. Very bad possibly not, but I'm satisfied if there is enough potential to make average and rather powerful builds. With the former, you could get problems on higher difficulty and small groups. Even if you can't make a weak because in
  2. It's being designed as a game where failure comes from failing to master the game's content rather than its systems. You don't lose a battle because you picked the wrong stats to improve. You lose a battle because you didn't use the right tactics and abilities. It's a different paradigm than the "system mastery" school of RPGs. Has Obsidian stated this somewhere? I don't think just because there supposedly are no dump-stats, you can derive that it's impossible to make very bad builds in P:E.
  3. So, no examples? How surprising. Kind of ironic that you were criticising my open-mindedness BruceVC. Perhaps you should at least reflect the general idea of the article yourself, and replace the word "science" in the article with "logic". Seriously, you are far more stuck in your worldview than me and the creationists I know.
  4. he doesnt have to... he may get a skill that allows him to use magic to buff up his physical attacks, adding thus a part of his power to the weapon damage, but not all of his power like a fighter would You could do that. However, I was referring to mental and soulbased attributes from the start which are explained within the world, not just some abstracted stats that are only made for the player. But I'm not saying that such a system couldn't work. Again, it's about simulationist vs. gamey. I get the impression, that the more you have to do with gamedesign, the more you tend to develo
  5. Lol, I'm not even a firm creationism believer myself, so I guess your smartass psycho-analysis sort of fails. I'm just going ignore the rest, as you haven't made a single argument in your post. So why are you rejecting the article and arguing against it? Please don't tell me that you aren't one of those people who just likes to debate a point that they don't really have a valid opinion about? Would it be possible for you actually post what you mean instead of wasting peoples time when they respond to your comments? No clue what you're talking about. Perhaps you could give me an e
  6. Two word and a senctence, to be precise. And I was prejudiced because I was lazy. I'm going to read the article soon, and should I be mistaken, I will gladly change my opinion about the author. And I have no idea why you think this. You already quoted me yourself: So please explain how you get the idea that I think science must prove stuff to be "true" to be considered science? On the contrary, it's the very opposite I'm arguing for the whole time.. I was referring to natural science, like physics, biology, chemistry and stuff. I've already admitted to you that ass
  7. If you mean me, I was just discussing a possible implementation of the system, not the one Obsidian will use, as I don't really know how it will look like. In any case, no reason to bitch around.
  8. Well, that for instance every wizard only causes base damage with his weapon strikes me to be a bit weird. But affinity with a certain skillset.. ok.
  9. Its still the same attribute, and attributes, at least that's my understanding, are your inborn abilities. That's what seperates them from skills, or not? They should depend on your race at best, not your class. And if you say, a goblin fighter can only have so much power, and a ogre has so much power, than the actual attribute or stat for me would not be the power, but the actual limitation of the power stat for a specific race with a certain class.
  10. And of course, an ogre mage would again have a power of 500, and a goblin wizard a power of 50.. For what do actually have stats then? If it is that way with this class, and the other way with the other class, it would make more sense for it to be some class skill.
  11. Well, asymmetric systems suck anyway imo. I want my opponents and other creatures in the world to be affected by the same rules than my pc, and this should be reflected in their stats. But I guess there is no accounting for taste. never claimed that.
  12. So that muscles aren't needed anymore? And the heart is perhaps only clocking to nurture the brain? Or lies intelligence in the soul too, so no brain needed? Well, at least that way we'd finally get a totally coherent system, when introducing HP inflation.
  13. If it was about this more specific form of creationism or not, doesn't really matter. What am I supposed to think, if it's an article concerning science, in the picture above in big letters is written "truth", "belief", and in the title "how people are fooling themselves on [...] creationism"? Well, I could have been unjustly prejudiced, in case the author was only referring to truth with regards to hard facts. If however, he assumes that creationism with a 6000 years old earth can't be the truth, I was right. And claiming natural laws were always constant is accurate? Accurate in t
  14. And with such a mental or soulbased set of attributes, how you're going to distinguish the attackingpower of, say an ogre vs a kobold? You'd still expect the ogre to have a higher damage output, because of his superiour body mass and muscle strenght. And if you implement these attributes for such creatures, you'd expect your pcs to have such attributes as well. Or are these attributes so insignificant to your pc, that they don't play a role at all? Doesn't sound very convincing. Or perhaps soulpower is the measure of strength for every creature there is, and muscles and body mass aren't impo
  15. Creationism in the broader sense, is just saying that humanity was created by some other intelligence. Even if it were possible to prove that mankind and dinosaurs didn't life at the same time, that would not refute creationism in general. Not even creationism in a Christian sense, because you won't find any concrete numbers concerning the age of the earth in the bible. But to answer your questions: Yes, even then, it's still a matter of interpretation. You could for instance, assume that the natural laws, how we know them, were always valid, even in the distant past. That would be a natural
  16. That would be rather uncommon for a person with scientific backround, so I assumed the contrary. By writing people are fooling themselves on creationism, he implies that creationism is wrong, or going after picture above the article, not 'the truth'. But in the end, nobody can know that. There are some hard facts in form of fossils, basic biology and other stuff, that can be considered as truth, but if you believe in evolution or creationism, is dependent on your interpretation of these facts, and not the facts themselves. If the author fails to take this into account, it's probably because cr
  17. I stopped reading. The author is probably fooling himself.
  18. Well yeah, the examples I brought are more passive in nature, meaning they involved only passive bonuses without player involvement. Storm of Zehir didn't went much further with that idea. Although the team-sneak-feat is at least situational (character must attack from behind, while target is engaged by other character), and requires some "active" teamwork to be pulled of. In any case, of course there could also be active abilities or at least modes, that you could utilize in certain situations. I guess for some of them you could cut out the extra feat completely and just call it maneuve
  19. By “teamwork feats” I mean feats, abilities, whatever, that affect several characters instead of only one, up to the whole party, and that have certain requirements for every party member or participant. NWN 2 Storm of Zehir had something like that. In the Adventuring Guild, you could learn such abilities for money. One party member was the “specialist”, who required the highest prerequesites for the teamwork feat, and the other party members needed only a few skillpoints at best. For example, I think the ability “rush” requires the specialist to have a survivalskill of about 12, and the tough
  20. ?????????????? I played Dragon Age: Origins on Insane difficulty on my first go and the combat was so **** it made me never play the game again. Pretty much involved cheesing your way through everything. Every encounter was 10 archers with knockdown arrows trolling u hard (yes I finished it). Combat was also ridiculously boring. The hardest fight was definitely against Ser Kauthrien in my opinion, to beat that (insane, v1.0 of the game) I had to cheese the resurrection timer/distance and doorways. You know that you were actually "supposed" to lose that fight, do you? That was the
  21. I've always found the whole 2E system unimaginative and static. But looking back, I had more fun playing 2E than the much more dynamic and number-heavy 3E. If I had a clue why, I'd probably gain a deeper understanding of the universe.
  22. Macros, definately macros, especially for buffs. I don't know how heavily combat in P:E will rely on buffs, but in IWD and NWN 2 it has always been a chore. The buffing up before tough battles took 4 times longer than the actual fight, and when you play on high difficulty, every battle is tough. That isn't fun anymore.
  23. Really like the idea with the skill pool. That brings a new dynamic into party based rpgs, how it should be. If I have a group of specialist wizards, then I expect new spells and rituals for research, unavailable to just one wizard. The same with crafting items, and enchanting.
  24. It's true that points in crafting that are given to more than one character are usually wasted points (now that I think about it, it's the same with social skills). But what's the solution to this problem? Everybody repairs the stuff he wears himself, and this is abstracted into some form of durability of items that is determined by the crafting skill of the wearer? Certainly better from a gamist point of view, but also kind of artificial. I really have no clue if I'd like that or not (which I don't have most of the time). But it certainly doesn't cause any euphoria. In any case, I think
  25. Gathering information about the enemy, could be a bigger part in the game. Divination spells of any kind, that scry the enemy or gather information about them by other means, without being detected if skillful (in all IE games, with the exception of perhaps BG 2, divination was the weakest magic school), the ability/skill to estimate how able opponents are and what weaknesses they have, before the fight even starts (could be an important ability for more tactical oriented fighters, and also rogues). Ranger knowledge, to estimate the strength of certain beasts. Also, magical equipment should be
×
×
  • Create New...