Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Bitula

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    35

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Bitula

  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.
  16. Bitula
    Well I like the idea of having a cart. Why not, at least one member of the party would be specifically interested in the loot and plans his journey accordingly. Like in many of dungeon style fantasy books some characters are just interested in getting rich and since others need his skills so a compromise evolves. You can RP it “to yourself” since the developers will never go so deep into supporting this via mechanics. And so it happens that even without a cart you have seven members who altogether can carry quite a lot of weight which when exceeded, items of lesser value can be dropped. This is far more realistic than having an infinite stash, which just encourages meta-gaming and breaks the atmosphere. I don’t think that much of the weapons should become broken. Why so, that is not realistic. Maybe some are damaged, which just lower their price and effectiveness. Broken or damaged, it is crucial to have them anyway, just for the sake of atmosphere, there is nothing worse than encountering a mailed foe whose armor cannot be picked, then encounter another whose can be picked, just because the game designers decided so. Or you see the weapon in ones hand, but you cannot pick it: makes the game feel wrong and unnatural. Edit: regarding the issue, nobody will buy 10 swords. I don’t see why, it’s in any blacksmiths interest to buy usable weapons cheaply and sell it for a higher price or just use its material.
  17. Bitula
    I like compexity and realism. So the more complex and the more realistic is the better for me. I just wonder who else shares this view/desire...
  18. 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.
  19. Bitula
    I am talking about hostile territories like dungeons which comprise 90% percent of such game, not peaceful towns. Anyway a party would comprise at least one thief and one typical fighter/barbarian, so as a general consensus the party could opt to do battle as much as possible. It's quite realistic. Disagree. A thief wouldn't rush into battle just to rob a corpse of a few coppers. It ain't worth it. A thief also wouldn't pick up every single piece of scrap to sell it. Barbarians are not stupid either. They wouldn't burden themselves with unnecessary crap. When deep in enemy territory, you do scavenge IF NECESSARY. But you don't pick up 20 swords and carry them with you to sell later. "Trash" items have no purpose to boot - other than for flavor. I mean, how pathetic must your hero be to collect 100 pieces of old, smelly rags just to sell them for 1 silver? Ah but no, I am not talking about trash but the possibility to check any corpse for loot and take what you need. Actually even 10 swords which are in good shape are not trash, you would pick it also if you’d live in a world where it sells good or mediocre. Imagine yourself. Quite realistic. Also I am talking about cumulative decisions, maybe X doesn’t care for money but Y does so altogether it will be picked by someone due to compromise, well unless you make a party of 7 paladins or so. Edit: note, this is a party based game, I have the feeling that several people forget this, possibly because the newer genre games where you have one PC with max. 1-2 follower or so, which allows for very different mechanics and changes game play substantially. A classical large party based game is very different. I like this latter better.
  20. Bitula
    I also like Skyrim for special reasons. But who would care to buy an isometric version of Skyrim type game. Dumbing down both graphics and mechanics is too much. It’s like retro for graphics but modernization (“streamline”) for mechanics and game play. No thanks.
  21. Bitula
    Actually if enemies do not give XP AND do not drop loot would solve everything concerning “degenerate” game play, whatever that means. Then of course you wouldn’t have the urge to kill any foe just for fun. But that, – mostly the latter -, would be terrible in itself. Too far away from classical RPGs and BG style games. I know you mean that. But you admit that only sometimes. However I say, that the promise of fun should always lurk there in each potential combat. Removing XP and mob loot makes it less likely and achieves something like “aaaa, goblins again, that’s boring, lets sneak past them”. At the end you will end up in an adventure type game where the essence is in the story and in game choices/decisions. I’d say that’s not the aspect which made the mentioned CRPGS so attractive.
  22. Bitula
    I am talking about hostile territories like dungeons which comprise 90% percent of such game, not peaceful towns. Anyway a party would comprise at least one thief and one typical fighter/barbarian, so as a general consensus the party could opt to do battle as much as possible. It's quite realistic.
  23. Bitula
    PE is not advertised as retro game it's advertised as spiritual successor. Spiritual successor does not mean carbon copy. Like new Torment game which is set in different setting and will have different mechanics. I would wish some people to wrap this idea around their head. But I am quite sure that many interpreted it as at least semi-retro. Of course not a carbon copy, but not a complete overhaul as well.
  24. Bitula
    The way I see it, is that old school RPGS, BG, IWD etc. were based on combat XP (and Quest XP). The more we progress in time the more alternative RPG elements have been added, like dialogs, sneak options, which supplemented the core system and put some more color and mood into the game. However it should not happen in a game which has been advertised as retro to give the additional elements and colors so big a significance that they upset core mechanics. These “color” elements should in no way upset the good old core mechanics. There can be more and more of them, which is welcome, but don’t let them become the essence of the game. By the way, sneaking is actually a lesser mechanics and should be so in games where you have parties. Just imagine, how would you sneak past anyone with all seven members. Silly, awkward and not fun. Three of your members are not even controllable, so I would rather leave the sneak option as an in combat ability (eg.: backstab). I am mostly talking about dungeons and hostile territories. In friendly towns combat is a no-issue, feel free to implement crafting systems, guilds etc. Btw, would be nice to reintroduce the good old Training Halls, so you do not level on spot which is less realistic!
  25. Bitula
    Actually if enemies do not give XP AND do not drop loot would solve everything concerning “degenerate” game play, whatever that means. Then of course you wouldn’t have the urge to kill any foe just for fun. But that, – mostly the latter -, would be terrible in itself. Too far away from classical RPGs and BG style games.
×
×
  • Create New...