Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Bitula

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    35

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

6 Neutral

About Bitula

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. Bitula
    Voted the second option. Because constraining durability to weapons, chest armour and shields is too simplistic and unrealistic. I would have liked to extend it to much more equipment and items so it would be some significant part of P.E. world. However if it is too much effort, probably better to drop it and concentrate on other features.
  2. Bitula
    Degrading gear: I don’t find this a bad idea, it may play out quite nice, but not the way you plan to implement it. Namely, as some mentioned, if you plan a wear-off mechanics it should be more generic. Adding durability exclusively to weapons, armour and shield is a lame idea, it sounds like let it be, but let’s not spend too much implementation effort on this. It’s too simplistic and unrealistic. Why don’t boots and helmets etc. have durability? They should. Furthermore, staffs should have limited charges, mages should have expendable ingredients: all good money sinks. The idea itself, IMO, is fine, mostly for those who like RP. It is repetitive, but these sort of repetitions do add some atmosphere for slow placed players like me. Usually after a dungeon adventures I would anyway go to town, to rest in an inn and visit some shops, it then sounds a nice chore to go through my stock and replenish and repair stuff. Ideally I imagine, my gold would go down to a level, where I cannot afford a powerful weapon, which is nice, makes the game harder and more reliant on loots. So I would recommend to consider a more generic approach, or just drop it altogether, because this way it feels half-baked. What do you think?
  3. Bitula
    Unless it is a secret, may I ask if there will be undead in PE? Sort of a difficult to imagine a Fantasy CRPG without undead.
  4. Bitula
    I’ve always found RPing in a single player computer game far-fetched and sort of lame. Also I seem to lack this sort of excitement “feel superior by non-engagement” described by Ffordesoon, lol. Well, I hope it is just some sort of flavor and not a major part of the game. I don’t remember any such stuff in BG.
  5. Bitula
    I really fail to see why it is fun to sneak past foes (btw with a large party), missing all the fun a combat may offer. You really would enjoy this people? OK, I never played games where the goal is to avoid encounters via sneak, just games where you use sneak to take your enemy by surprise, but I simply cannot imagine that sneaking for the sole purpose of avoiding a combat is fun. So anyone care to explain what is so fun about it?
  6. Bitula
    Yes “it is not junk because of the economy” and it’s only “junk because of the economy”. But objectively a useful sword is not a junk, so calling it a junk will just make the issue more difficult to understand, I don’t even know by now whether we essentially disagree anywhere at all or not at this point.
  7. Bitula
    I wouldn’t mind the objective system if the battle encounters were inherently objectives themselves. It wouldn’t matter then too much, whether the developers reward XP according to the number and difficulty (ECL) of creatures, the difficulty of combat measured in a different way, number of loot, or significance of the encounter. This would still be close to combat XP. What matters is that it should never happen that a trivially challenging (or just not plain easy) combat rewards no XP at all. That is unnatural, unrealistic and will leave you forever unsatisfied: what possible game experience (not XP) and loot have I missed.
  8. Bitula
    I don’t know, but even if so. What would be the difference between objectives and quests? If objectives are just sub-quests then essentially nothing.
  9. Bitula
    it is junk when you look at what it could sale for vs the weight vs how long you have to carry it to sell it vs the quality of your sword and whether you have any use for it. Mind you in a game you don't feel the weight of the junk you're carrying, but that's why encumbrance systems exist, so that people don't carry everything that's nailed down because they either might someday need it or because they can get a shiny copper piece for it. In reality, though, people aren't going to carry 7 swords and 5 full suits of armor for 700 miles to sell. But the problem (IMO) isn't the inventory or the encumbrance system in games that encourage such action, its the economy. It is not junk per se. It becomes junk after you become relatively rich and lose interest in selling common stuff. So it depends on the overall progress of your story. It’s all function of in-game time thus. More difficult dungeons have possibly better armed foes, so it could scale very well and make your income progressive along with other attributes/skills. For example, I’ve been really fond of finding my first dagger or leather armor. I think this sort of progression in personal wealth is a strongly motivating factor which keeps diligent gathering of loot entertaining. And no one cares to remove furniture, I think that is a different issue, I would make those immobile, and no one would care. I think no one would lobby to be able to remove furniture, that is not fun.
  10. Bitula
    Well hope you are right, because reading the forums I find several opinions that quest only XP is a final decision, whether you call it objective XP or not. What’s an objective XP is still not clear though… Anyone care to summarize, what does that term mean? Edit: If you mean objective-based XP, that’s same as quest based, or what’s the difference between an objective and a guest? If you mean objective – in the sense of not subjective – then I don’t know what that means. Basically it's another term for quest, yes, that they neatly come up with trying to blur issues with it (and they succeeded to do so among a portion of the fanbase). Oh, there'll also be exploration quests - you visit some new area and you get XP for that. Ah yeah, these were my exact impressions reading the related threads. Thanks for the confirmation. I can now just hope that the developers will make up their minds or that the scarce official info regarding this issue was misinterpreted by the fans.
  11. Bitula
    Well hope you are right, because reading the forums I find several opinions that quest only XP is a final decision, whether you call it objective XP or not. What’s an objective XP is still not clear though… Anyone care to summarize, what does that term mean? Edit: If you mean objective-based XP, that’s same as quest based, or what’s the difference between an objective and a guest? If you mean objective – in the sense of not subjective – then I don’t know what that means.
  12. Bitula
    I think nobody would care to carry junk, it should be just there for the sense of realism and atmosphere. Related issue was: I simply do not consider a sword to be a junk. Even a simple iron sword is not a junk, unless it is broken or very rusty.
  13. Bitula
    I hope it is not a final decision. If the XP is only quest based, I probably won’t even buy the game. (I know, nobody cares, but probably there are others for whom it is a complete game/deal breaker.)
  14. Bitula
    Not that simple. This is a mechanics and UI change - and one that would affect game balance. Not to simple as a switch. Imagine myself? Would never do it.Think about it. I'm on a long journey in hostile terrioty. I have no idea what's wating for me behind the next bend. And I'm already carrying lots of supplies, armor, weapons and whatnot. Fighting will all that? Go ahead - take a big campers backpack, stuff it full of stuf and go do some karate fighting. Then add armor and weapons. If I would be taking anything at all it would be something who's weight/worth ratio is good. Small, valubale items. I'd only take a sword if I need a spare or backup. You should drop the backpack and then fight. To do this you would do some scouting to prepare for the battle. And then, you are not alone, so there are plenty people to share the weight. Even if some animations/mechanics are here not implemented and rather left to your imagination, it is still hundred folds more realistic than an unlimited stash. What the “hack” is that? You can’t even theoretically conceive any half-baked realism to support it…
  15. Bitula
    Defining a game genre by its title or a label on the intro screen or CD BOX is meaningless. I would just then say that the old goldbox games (like Pool of Radiance), BG, IWD etc. were not that much RPG as you would imagine. And I want those sort of games, not a game conceived from analyzing the words in the abbreviation called RPG. Oh? So the title of a genre is meaningless? How do you think genres get a title? Or do you think words and names are completley meaningless? So I guess a "horror" is not defined by it attempting to invoke fear/horror? You are just being an extremist now. What I say, that in the special case which we are discussing it is much more important to define what were BG-type games like, than discussing what is RPG, – a very broad term with many possible meanings -, about in general. Btw, mentioned games were not just RPG style, but also adventure, strategy, tactical, AD&D style etc. RPG actually wasn’t the essence of these, unless by RPG you mean character sheets, attributes, skills, XP etc., which mind you many people associate with the RPG “label” itself, which unless you start abstract word-analysis is a historical fact when connected to these old school games.
×
×
  • Create New...