Jump to content

cleric Nemir

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About cleric Nemir

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer

Profile Information

  • Interests
    healing & harming
  1. All hail Agiel, a Hero, a Legend. You have persuaded me to leave in a more flashing manner. There, considering how my "existence" here is obstructing the point of this forum, I will remove myself from it. Have a nice eternity.
  2. I would like more than anything for this to be the potential truth, but all so far indicates they don't die, just maimed and left at fixed value of 0HP until combat is over. Difficulty setting/toggle, or both, for the actual death option.
  3. I'm really more displeased here that "maimed being presented as an untouchable state" is not done as something similar to "maimed and slowly dying - needs to be stabilized". Look at Temple of Elemental evil and the combat in there. Elements of that game's combat system can be used as working examples, even if it's turn-based, there's existing ideas that are good, and can surely be implemented in some form to a RTwP game. There 's other ways to do this, I strongly think that there could be other solutions instead of those now planned. I would be perfectly fine with "revive his stamina" that is acyually "you stabilized his condition" for example, provided that the maimed is still vulnerable to AoE and can be coup-de-grace'd if rest of the party doesn't make sure he is out of danger. Fighter positioning near to distract, spells like Sanctuary and Resilient sphere,etc. I'm not saying that enemies should be scripted to continue attacking him while maimed; "KO all - then kill'em" would be fine model of AI behavior imo, but the feeling of real threat is lacking if the enemy cannot do diddly-squat to the PE's maimed one that is unkillable, in my perception of rpg combat. Bottom point is I cannot enjoy such a game, it's not a simple thing of toggling death "on" for me. Yes, you are trying your best to present me their design as a valid one and not all that different, but I cannot view it as such, because I immersion-wise feel better with the IE one's. I can only thank you for trying, and sticking with the debate, you and all others that did. Do you agree that we end this? I will be left to my worries until I see some videos on combat and then reconsider those worries under a video example, and we can go back to other topics. ("I thought you'd never ask" and lets wrap it?).
  4. I am not trying to get worshipers of "how grand and awesome me and my thinking and gaming is", I am trying to explain how and why am I shocked, I'm always open for discussion of my view, but I will defend it, not brick-wall in front of it. I will always defend a view of mine, and if someone doesn't want to debate because they don't give a fuk what I think, then I can be at peace knowing that. So, are you interested in a debate on my views or not? If not,then why are we typing this to each other, you and me?
  5. It's a game with a save/load system. And if I am reloading whole day like an idiot on vanilla, then the reasons it is so are pretty much clear. It is either the fact that I suck very much, or the fact that game is so "good" that it isn't my fault at all. Now,in all my plays and replays of the oldies, and I am not counting the noob period here, I have moderately-to-almost-none reloaded my saves in them on vanilla, but more important to me seems the fact that almost every time I needed to reload I found it reasonable. My spellsets were inappropriate, my positioning flawed, weapons and gear ineffective, my opponents - which I always welcome in a game - have been VERY strong, and I needed to think of what to do, how to approach the fight,etc. In my particular case, it rarely pissed me off that I had to reload a save in a game I consider good, but yes - there were plenty situations that I found to be a game's problem, or I can imagine them as a problem to some type of players. That sounds like it needs balance, not a "begin from scrap" design. Truth is,when the topic concerns those good old games ( trademark abuse? ), they are generally all viewed as good and are very popular up to this day, in and beyond this forum. Point of my posts,Lephys,is why is now a PE's vanilla being redesigned in such a strange way? I find the concept of toggleable death, death as an "ingame character death that we all were perfectly normal with in vanilla numerous times in oldies" death to be very, very - strange. I so far used expressions like absurd, immersion-breaking, nonsense, mayhap even thrown a curse or two, because I cannot comprehend their decision to change the game's design into one that is having unkillable player characters per se - 'cause it's a load of crap. Why is change going in that direction at all? I guess I never mentioned that I consider Dragon Age a load of crap also, have I? Nothing can ever persuade me that this direction is a good thing,Lephys. Because it's crap,sounds crap, and it will most certainly look craplike. "They made our PCs unkillable in order to balance the game, but if you're feeling mighty you can set so they can actually be killed". Does that sound crap or is it just me, Lephys? Try to say it to someone unfamiliar with the game development, but familiar with the oldies. Please. Do just that. Don't forget to show that person the announcements of PE before you do it, so he can hope some. One more thing - I am still not sure why do you people always take an example of "one/more PC died, continue the game and suffer". I never suggested such thing, because when I pick my party members I usually like them, making sure they won't die, and if they do - I reload. And try my best to make it not happen again, thus learning and getting better in the game. It's something quite normal for a game with save/load to have as a point of it. Are you people trying to count in the imaginary 1% "hardcore" players that would resist the urge to load a save, and are actually worrying they suffer for it? Which exactly of the old games had this in mind, ever? Why would any previous game address such "grand" percentage players at all? Who even mentioned such need here? Until there comes a gameplay video that can show me it isn't looking and feeling as stupid as it sounds, I will not be persuaded that things are fine. Because PE is currently developing around the stupidest thing I have ever heard - a disposal of the very idea of player character death in combat. Death's on Expert mode. If you do set it on, you are punishing yourself. In a fantasy cRPG that is to be a successor of old ones. I'm loosing link between PE and the oldies just by saying those sentences outloud.
  6. Well, lets think again, if you just reload after a death, you have an easier game play than someone who plays on with a maimed character. You agree? So something isn't right if the first play style is called the hardcore one. So either the developers didn't think at all when they made that comment or they were assuming that when you play with death enabled you really want death and don't want to reload. I.e. someone who reloads should play with maimed instead so that he doesn't need the whimpy reload anymore and really hardcore players turn death on. In other words, when the developers talked of hardcore they probably meant real hardcore, not the mass of players that were as whimpy in BGs times as they are now, including you and me. NO! You can have a maimed character that will EVENTUALLY end up dead if you do not ACT. You can have him slowly dying, in a sort of "bleeding to death" way we mentioned. But that turned into a "you could've had", because they decided to rip you off of means to stabilize that character's "bleeding to death" state and regenerate him enough hp that he can remain safe. This can be done different yet equally good in many,many ways, with your actions as a player and AI actions properly balanced, AND turn out tactically appealing. Plus,no - I am not against the penalties that would be applied to that character as teknoman2 believes, I consider that idea fukin briliant. I also only once specifically said that, in so far seen cRPGs, the death of a PC isn't necessarily a game-over situation, and that is bloody true - because you had means of raising that dead fuker back to life. Be it item, spell or a trip to the God's Pocket Monastery. Jesus. For all that is good and just, why is the main argument you two have a NO RELOAD paradise of a game ?? You cannot possibly mean to say that you expect a save/load system game, ANY game out of an sea of them you ever saw in your life, to be so friendly to you it challenges you in no way to reload a fukin save ? Really, guys ?? Dafuq??? Let me tell you how I as a long-term gamer react to such a game that makes me die on occasions. I say that sorta game is fricking awesome. And we all here died our share from BG's over IWD's,Fallouts and whatnot. Now, when I would sit to a game where I enter combat, get maimed and then watch as my character is invulnerable in that maimed state, I'd go fukin bananas. Because I am not playin an undying superhero that can go around and BANG/POW/KHA-SPLAT everything else to death like a Marvel character, I do not just keep calm and say "Yep, should'd hard-mode dis" ,carry on; I take that CD out and hurl it like a motherfukin diskos. Why? Because I am expecting a good and persuasive continuation to our beloved genre of games. Familiar one, at least. I am literally AMAZED that this forum isn't in a civil war-state over this. I truly and full-heartedly am a m a z e d. Also teknoman: I haven't even began to touch the subject of my OWN worries, worries over how the fist-fukin father of fuker am I to play my favorite class roll inthere and what will it look like. You wanna know how I feel when thinking about playing a priest inthere? I feel like there's a huge Obsidian foot up my ass. And you can feel free to guess why. I have managed my best to swallow these new concepts so far because I still (barely) manage have hope within me, but this is simply absurd. I can pull out one last straw here and say that I am prepared to wait and see some videos on this until "all my hope dies", because current state of their design will not make me feel bad or wrong about my opinion.
  7. For 99% it's the latter. Exactly my point, I question if people REALLY restart an game after spending 50 hours + playing just because they got killed. This would be the ultimate exercise in futility for me Of course that noone was doing that but a sadistic few, and I sure wasn't one of them. Is it late to mention again that we had various other ways to prevent permadeath in the games before this one, so you already had a set of chances in which you could prolong such a "nuisance" that dying surely is? There already was the "equivalent of three lives" all along,cmon. Cause there was healing & resurrection trough spells or items, and unique heavy buffing. So if it wasn't broken,why are they fixing it? (SIGH. No, I mean "broken" as in "non functional" - NOT "flawed,but operational"", and "fixing" as in "repairing" - NOT "starting from scratch") Why did the need to improve turned into a rework that looks like this: We added a new element, Stamina, and we thrown healing and resurrection out. Instakills? Vorpal swords? We consider them a nuisance, screw those. Wait.. with no healing and resurrection, how do we make actual dying situation less of a problem inthere? We'll remove it. And those "punks" that wanna get sadistic, NOT the imaginary 1% that continues the game when one of the companions is dead - but those punks that were perfectly normal with: (Sensuki again - he's better with words than me, ergo the quotes) "I do not mind reloading if a character dies, that has been the acceptable norm for me in games since I started playing RPGs. If a character of yours gets killed, it simply means that you made a mistake and need to play better. One could argue that a lot of the stuff in the BG & IWDs revolved around a bit of a dice roll (such as saves) but most of the time you had to interrupt casters casting save or die spells or prepare the correct protective spells in advance. Some people find this tedious but I just accepted it as the standard, I do not have a problem with it as such.",for those gamers we have a toggle of PC death/game mode that gives 'em their coveted reloads and immersion-friendly deaths, lulz, have fun healing that if you fail at the first go. "It's good that we have options.", Sensuki concludes. Though I generally support his post's view, I must add that we need to ask ourselves how far must it go? My previous, most recent post was a lame joke, but now I am serious. I do not think that developers are doing it right and that they can surely do better. Let me answer the jethro's question: So where do you see your very subjective "hardcore" in this mass of reloaders and raise-deaders? I DO NOT SEE IT. THAT WAS MY JOKE'S POINT. WHAT WAS ONCE NORMAL IS BEING MADE INTO A HARDCORE OVER THE YEARS. I even hate the whole - hard/soft core separations to begin with. But I didn't invented the damn separation, and the "evolution" of cRPGs is adjusting the slider on it not towards hard or soft in particular, but moving it altogether towards BAD. In My H fukin O.
  8. Hey guys, stop playing games wrooooooooong! I've grown to like Lephys's "slap both b*tches" style more than anyone else's, sorreh.
  9. Disappointed with the re-edition of Helsing, thrilled with the one on Berserk. I still consider Berserk as the one with the ultimate story. If just manga was released in a pace that isn't "chapter -lightyear- chapter"... Shingeki no Kyojin? I'm finding manga more dramatic than anime. Never stopped watchin One piece and Naruto, and whenever I feel funny about the fact that I'm bloody 29 y.o. and watchin 'em - one episode later and I'm crying/laughing out loud, deeply drawn in that magic. Recently watched a strangely appealing anime called Baccano !. I recommend dis, it is short, 13 episodes + 3 specials that follow to the story. Music is great also. Currently busy with Tower of god, a Korean manhva that has the classic left-to-right direction you read it. I cannot recommend this enough, it is brilliant. Good thread,btw.
  10. "maiming is like a less permanent death for the non hardcore gamers" . Oh,wow. So the Day has finally come.. Look on their work ye mighty, and despair; the legendary Obsidian made player character death a hardcore thing. I just know I'm going to have nightmares about this one. Death of the PC is hardcore now. Death of the PC is.. hardcore.. Death.. of the PC.. is hardcore.. Death.. PC.. hardcore..
  11. First Scenario: PCs get maimed when they reach 0 HP and are out of the fight. If the whole group reaches 0 HP, the game ends -> Reload. Summarize: Fail. Answer: When only one PC is at 0 HP there is no "game over" message. If the reduced group still wins the fight, this one PC obviously has got wounds that put him out of the fight but didn't kill him. No need to reload. (Does this answer anything you tried to say?) Not really. Two things: if only one PC dies in the previous games (opposed to what's now a "reaches 0 hp") , you do not necessarily have a game over, and I didn't started this by assuming that it does. Best example (most logical one) is that character is slowly "bleeding to death", imo. And you can manage to get to save him nevertheless. Second, it is rumored that when a main PC gets maimed,you do have a game over. That would be even worse (imo), and I want to get as many info on this as I can here. But - when all of the party is KO'd, it is equal to all party died/left to bleed. It doesn't justify their decision that an unconscious character is to be unkillable, or to sum it: I see no reason for a character not to be able to die, and yet they want to present a "vanilla" where this is the case. Summarize: Why no bleeding to final death then? Bleeding is a nice way to turn up the tension. The player gets not only the penalty of having to fight with one man less but also the penalty of having to disengage a second character to heal that one. And it breaks immersion. Answer: Difficulty can be adjusted. Tension will also be high if most of your party blacked out and your last man standing wins (or not). But sure, bleeding is a nice mechanic, beta will show how good PE works without it (but lots of other RPGs did quite well without it by the way). Immersion? Now this is really far-fetched. You don't blink an eye if your fighter is battling at 100% effectiveness while at 1 HP and is instantly out and bleeding like a pig when at 0 HP? But a guy passed out with wounds that would need a lot longer than a few minutes to kill you guy and therefore don't need to be simulated breaks your immersion? RPG combat is an approximation and people have no problem to turn a blind eye if it is fun. Select your eye (or select death, that's why it is an option) My point was to say that having unkillable characters in a fight is very immersion-breaking. Again-in my opinion. I never suggested that so far solutions (your fighter at 1 HP example) is something that I like. My overall conclusion to the devs decision to make dying a selected thing is that it is bad, and that I feel concerned that it will appear bad to anyone that plays it "vanilla" way. Surely there must be other ways to this,no? Summarize: I might want to play with death enabled, but the option menu is just one mouse click away and could lead me to change it to maim-mode. Answer: Really? What about going into options and changing the game to "super easy"? Same problem. What about "save until you succeed with the difficulty check" that gets you the uber-sword ? Same problem. What about reading in the internet which house you have to burglar to get that +3 amulet? Same problem. You have to deal with your weak mind yourself, as it always was in single-player games. You have a good point here. I mentioned it only because it felt like a "drop that spilled the cup" when I think of devs decisions. But you're right, nevertheless.
  12. So, (and this is now considered final,right?) by default the maimed character is ignored, and AoE can suck it. I know he doesn't just get up without suffering penalties,and that regenerating stamina can get him up, no HP regen, and I just wanted to be clear on the fact that, while he's maimed, he is beyond interest of enemies plus cannot be further damaged than that. Thank you. Now I can finally say that I find this very bad as a design - regardless of the fact that I can switch it on/off or just go play in Expert,since I don't like it in "vanilla". If that is what the perpetually discussed "goal" of the devs will look like when the game comes out and one sits to play it on Normal, then I don't like it one single bit.
  13. Anyway, if someone, anyone, can answer me how hostile environment reacts to a maimed character, I might get a better picture on what's worrying me here. If I can hear more details on that situation, I could draw my conclusion whether it is a good design against the problem of so-called "save scumming", because right know I am not convinced that it is. Thanks in advance? EDIT: This. The "-Death vs. Maiming" under "Combat options:". I would give my all right now to see more details about this.
  • Create New...