Lucidbro
-
Posts
23 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Lucidbro
-
-
Anyone able to make an ocean folk version of this guy? Similar to what this (https://www.nexusmods.com/pillarsofeternity2/mods/47) mod did for godlike?
And/or if someone could watercolor these portraits (they should already be the appropriate size)
:
-
Can someone explain to me in a bit more detail how to change the pose of companions? I've tried replacing the "PersonalityID" numbers in characters.gamedatabundle with the ones I want, but that alone doesn't seem to work.
Would be much appreciated.
-
I seem to have run into a bug where Maneha doesn't trigger the conversation upon entering the Salt well. I've done this quest before a couple of times and this is the first time I've run into this issue.
Is there a workaround for this?
-
I tend go for ZE, simply because I find that usually someone in my party will run out of useful talents and Gallant focus begins to look very attractive. And since ZF and Gallants do not stack, I find I get more use out of ZE + Gallants than simply the ZF.
-
2
-
-
Nvm, I found it. It's "quest_item_rh_disguise", in case anyone will need it.
-
Does anyone know the item code for Berathian priest robes? I'm trying to change its appearance with unity but can't find it.
-
A game based on Vampire: The Masquerade, with Brian Mitsoda as a stretch goal.
-
2
-
-
I agree.
-
A reason I can see to dislike degradation (as it was proposed) is that it doesn't lead to interesting tactical or strategic decisions. You can only save some money in exchange for xp if you give your party a level or two of the craft skill (making it a substitute of the haggle skill). You could save money with delaying repairs on weapons you want to sell shortly IF sale price was independent of degradation. If not, the only way to save money would be to fight with some weapons or armour at durability 0% (which would prolong fights thereby wasting money again on the weapons and armour not at 0%). It would be *very* difficult for this to have a noticable effect on your purse even if money is scarce. Not in any sensible relation to the effort you would have to put into it.
Now for all this to work comfortably you would need to have a special (and not usable for anything else) interface where you would see all degraded weapons on your party. Alternatively buttons in the sale-interface, but that would be an additional burden as you would have to flip through every party member for maintenance. Also 25%-degradation-icons for every single weapon and armour piece (alternatively it might be possible to use a single overlay-texture for all pieces). And some programming to make it all work.
Now is it worth it? For tactical or strategic decisions alone? I have my doubts. The other two reasons for it are to make the craft skill have a use for everyone and as a money sink. The first reason is ok in my opinion, the second not that compelling. Mathematically the durability effect could be substituted one to one with a lowering of the price items are bought by vendors.
I don't mind if degradation is in or not, but I have my doubts whether it could have achieved anything it set out to do, and my greatest doubts were about the necessity as a money sink which was (for me) the most important feature.
Well you're really only bringing that same old argument we've been bouncing around for a few pages now. I don't believe anyone here is saying that the suggested system was perfect but the crux of the issue I have is that now, that system is gone entirely. And the reasoning for doing so hasn't in my opinion been sufficiently justified.
Mostly I've read how it's been a minor inconvenience for some while others feel it doesn't add anything to the game. But it seems this was enough for the community to rally a big enough of an outcry that Sawyer saw it fit to remove the entire system.
You know, I doubt there's ever been a system that no one has had differing opinions on, so all we're left with is reasoning, especially when the community is so evenly split. So in this case you have to decide is it alright to remove a system some people really liked for what they perceived as added depth and preparation before combat, because you think it's tedious to repair your gear while having no idea how frequent or big of a time investment it will actually turn out to be.
-
Ahh I think your misunderstanding me a tad bit. I'm definitely not belittling it by saying they're gold syncs. That is what they are, it is why they exist and I absolutely hold gold syncs as good features. They're important to keeping a constant-gold-flow economy from imploding on them selves. ME1 didn't have a single one, it was all items found (for the most apart) with a mass overflow of credits till you maxed out before the midway point of the damn game... it was horrible, that game needed less credit flow and waay more gold syncs.
I think a durability system is a good idea, I'm just saying its not believable, its abstract, just like are inventory systems. All I was trying to get across is saying it adds depth and immersion is silly as its unrealistic. Frankly what they had 'was' the middle ground and I would of been happy with it. I'd of also liked a maintenance kit to let us repair at camps instead of having to go to a black smith but that would remove the whole gold sync reasoning for it being there in the first place.
I like durability systems, I like gold syncs, but I think in this case they where unnecessary.
There's a few things here that I have differing opinions on but I don't want to seem like I'm out to nail you to a cross, so I'll just leave it at that. It's enough for me that you don't outright dismiss the system out of some unreasonable, assumed personal inconvenience.
-
@Lucidbro: I have, maybe not in that exact post but in the one prior (and in other threads). That's what the save throw is for, for stuff like rustmonsters and the like. Ultimately my point stands that the idea of a durability system is flawed outside of a money sync. If said thing trashes your shield it becomes crappy, 'if' you can still use it you will cause its maybe still better then no shield. No one is going to literally carry around 5 shields with them (per individual) just incase one brakes on them, it makes less sense then the crazy abstract inventory systems we use in RPG's. And just because we use crazy abstract inventories doesn't make it make sense to carry around a 'whole' other set of armor incase crazy demon guy punchs you in the chest.
The only thing I can think of that makes any real sense would be a sharpening system for edged weapons, at which point it would only effect edged weapons and would leave blunts and ranged stuff out of the system making it a bit lopsided. But ultimately some kinda sharpening system where you 'sharpen' the blade and that degrades over time till its blunt doing less damage. But like I said that would be edge weapons only. I mean polishing up your mace doesn't make it any more heavy or effective at bashing skulls... still good idea to keep it from rusting but that's about it really.
Durability systems don't make sense, they're not anymore realistic or believable. To do that would be kinda crazy which is why DnD has it, but makes it all fringe cases for why it would happen. DM has to be a **** to throw rustmonsters at you, or has something specific in mind to that where it wont cause to many problems for whats to come (though they're probably just being a ****). For gameplay reasons its just less of a pain for everyone if there isn't a durability system at all as far as im concerned. Less work for them, less work for us for something that is a made up thing to help with gold issues in vidjagames.
Well, there's a pretty good idea actually. Keeping a sharp sword versus the increased innate durability of blunt weapons. I like it (more of a reliable static damage versus a higher damage but deteriorating performance, then you add in the encounter specific weaknesses to further increase the layers of choosing your speciality). So here, you yourself gave a suggestion that would add gameplay depth and choice. But then you proceed to belittle that fact by stating that durability is only there to help with the gold issue..
About breaking multiple shields and such, I think I already stated that I think that's overkill and wouldn't endorse that. But can't you see any middle ground there? Between no durability system and carrying 5 shields out of fear of them all breaking?
-
snip-
I won't bother going through every single quotation. But the jist here is that you assume that there won't be any fine tuning of the durability system. I'll concur on there being little reason to break your equipment on the same enemy numerous times in a single fight, I think it's safe to say none of us want that. But you can make it sensible, by carrying a more durable weapon, adjusting durability rates or adding a 'breaking threshold' so if Satan crits you, your weapon/shield is in tatters, just from the top of my head. And a specific ruleset for magical weapons if need be.
Also you should keep in mind you don't have to solo this game, so against trolls, naturally you could use 'fire magic', or a party members weapon, not a big deal. The quote about Knights and Archers was meant to point out the fact that actual real people have used backup weapons to compensate losing or breaking your main one. Not, having different ones for specific occasions (which, of course took place as well.)
You have all these classes that do not rely on weapons and armor, which is something that people do not seem to be taking into account at all. How many characters' equipment you believe you'll have to keep in shape at all times? It's of course subjective, but it cannot be as big of a burden as people are making it out to be.
As a side note, what is the 'dual spec' you're referring to, because it almost sounds like something taken out of WoW, you having your tank spec and then swapping your spec at will to a different one, for instance? Or do you simply mean something along the lines of spreading your feats into multiple weapons as in DnD?
-
Well, I understand what you're saying but you're not taking the fantasy setting into account. It's not at all unreasonable to think you might come across something that could shatter and break your common weapons, much less armor or shields, something that you did not touch on. After all, it was not uncommon to go through shields even back in the Medieval period.
They could still implement the rough equivalent by allowing disarm-type attacks, along with damaged loot capability. But I suppose that would be "punishing" the player.
We want no part of that here, sir.
-
What it boils down to is... "What does it add to the game?" or "Is this the best solution to the problem."Unlike apparently common belief that all we said is "We hate durability. Remove it. Dur." it's the argumentation of what little it would add gameplaywise, and if the problem it was aimed to fix wasn't less bad that the fix, the 'medicine being worse than the cure' issue. That the argumentation of the team wasn't really convincing and just boiled down to 'we added it in to be a goldsink.'
That this addition wouldn't add interesting gameplay. Or increased depth (even if a lot of people are screaming "You hate depth. This is the reason we get shallow games today!"). That it was only put up for all the wrong reasons. If you fail to realise that, I'm sorry, but that's the underlying dillema at stake here.
Well, what you're referring to here is something quite different.
The reason you dislike the system still hasn't changed, in fact, you don't even mention it. Now, lets say you don't think it adds to the game, fine. Others think it does, no skin off of your back. Same for it being the best solution to whatever problem you perceive, what does it mean in practice? You don't like it because it helps keeps player wealth in check? So, the in-game reason for your disapproval of the system would translate to "I want to have a great amount of money"? So, your justification for depriving a potentially great system for a good amount of people is something that you could actually add to your save game by yourself in minutes (money).. No, I don't think so. I really hope you're not that selfish.
So, when you say that "the medicine is worse than the cure", that's why you don't like the durability system. But what does it mean in practice, I wonder? I'll be pleasantly surprised if you come up with something other than "I can't be bothered to go repair my gear, when it's damaged"
There is no dilemma in having a system in place for the 'wrong' reasons, as long as the system is enjoyable. I will say however that I think the system could and should have been further improved, but I can't agree with removing it entirely.
There's a big difference between making combat more strategical and interesting and difficult, filled with different builds and weapons and spells and abilties and enemies and the non-combat gameplay. You just said all kinds of combat stuff should be taken out since one out-of-combat 'punishment' got removed. Apples and oranges. Remember old adventures? When you could die if taking improper actions? Where if you missed an item you got stuck hours later unable to get them. And modern day adventures kinda find it bad when you do that? Doesn't mean the puzzles can go easier on you, or the game isn't made to challenge the player. They just taken out the frustration of finding out that you have to re-do 20 hours because the game's just build like that. So there's that difference between being difficult and punishing. The one trying to push you forward (this game is a challenge, let's give it my all to beat this fight) and the others is making you stop playing (So I needed the sword, now locked away forever in a firey pit of lava to continue the game and have to restart, screw that). The difference between challenging (pfew, I survived that fight) and annoying/punishing (oh dammit, now I have to do a quick-time event or do that fight all over again)What's annoying and punishing to others can be tactic and preparation to others, think potions in The Witcher. Perhaps the system suggested by Obsidian wasn't quite the same thing, but I was hoping for something along those lines. For instance preparing your gear before venturing into a many level dungeon.
Are you guys on purpose not reading it right?That's the entire POINT Cultist made.
The DA:O fans spoke out against it, BioWare stood their ground (like you guys want Obsidian to do). And DA2 was the result.
Incase that wasn't clear... which it wasn't, based on the replies...
Hah, well yes there's a mistake. But that's a somewhat of an incorrect accounting of the whole ordeal.. The thing is Bioware emphasized that they listened to "feedback", yet there was no such feedback, so they were actually working towards broadening the audience of the game, which is obviously not what's happening here. And second, the fans were actually only able to speak about all of the things that went wrong after they had their hands on the game.. DA 2 wasn't a kickstarter. So, It wasn't really a vocal minority versus Bioware as was implied.
-
1
-
-
I'm happy to see it gone but it 'can' add to gameplay. To me, though, I haven't seen a durability system that makes any sense and ultimately DnD doesn't have one. It has an HP system for weapons that only degrades if the weapons directly attacked via some method in which case the attacker has to overcome the weapons DR to cause any damage or theres save rolls involved to see if the weapon avoids being broken. And when its broken its broke, you get a new one... except im sure in some DM oriented situation where it was an epic blade and you go on an adventure to have it magically lego'ed back together.
And no, outside of rustmonsters it doesn't make much sense to roll into a dungeon with 3 swords cause one might break. That made sense in BG1 because all the ore making all the weapons where so heavily tainted they where ****ty and brittle and would break for no good reason. A sword or any other weapon should last you through maaaany battles. If it breaks in a battle its because of many, many years or some specific circumstance happened that snapped the blade, not because you forgot to smithy up it s'more everytime you hit town.
Maintenance of a sword and most other weapons is literally wipe it down, make sure its not rusting and sharpen it...presto your done. It's not throwing it back at a forge. The idea of hitting up a blacksmith to repair your sword cause you did some combat is a silly concept found in video games because they need a constant money sync. It's why it was in originally in PE, they took it out because folks here didn't really want it (its not in IE games, or DnD as a whole) and Sawyer just came to terms with either finding a new money sync or not worrying to much about the overall economy end game.
It's not some giant mark against creativity to remove an extremely common money sync but it could be used in some interesting ways to add more depth to a game (a very small amount of depth)... but outside of making you throw the weapon away or have it melted down and completely reforged the idea of its kinda silly. That or a rag n wetstone should be all you need to 'fix' weapons out in the field. But that ruins the idea of it being a money sync and then completely ruins the reason the mechanic has ever existed in the first place.
Well, I understand what you're saying but you're not taking the fantasy setting into account. It's not at all unreasonable to think you might come across something that could shatter and break your common weapons, much less armor or shields, something that you did not touch on. After all, it was not uncommon to go through shields even back in the Medieval period.
-
Well given that it is you guys who wanted the system out, the onus would be on YOU to provide the sufficient reasoning, in the first place would it not? But he has a point here, you have to admit. What this all essentially boils down to is, "I can't be bothered". Next thing we know you guys will want to remove inventory and party management. Since wanting "depth" has now been branded as invalid.
....I'll just go play shooters now.
Initial claim was that Durability will add to the gameplay.
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"
And please, no cheap demagogy,
"At first, they took our durability, then, they'll take our inventory! Adn then our Party, our children and our wives! STAHP!"
So, who won in Dragon age 2?It is ironic that you set DA2 as example. Because BioWare acted exactly like durability apologists wanted - "Ignore all feedback, stick with that idea of hack'n'slash interactive movie! they are just a vocal minority!"
I fail to see why durability could not add to gameplay. Surely you cannot have such a limited imagination as to not see at least one potential positive application of it.About DA2, as TrashMan already pointed out the changes that were made in development were actually not endorsed by the community. Bioware stated during marketing that they were trying to draw in different crowds. The end product is what it is. But do not make the mistake of assuming that DA:O fans had anything to do with it.Except practicly no one on the Bio forums was actually rooting the DA2 twitch-combat, awesome-bottun system.
The ones who did were a vocal minority - like the anti-durability crowd here.
Are you an idiot? Half the BSN considers DA2 combat better than DA:O's. Even here Karkarov and some others have said that DA2 combat is better than IE combat.
That you and i dislike it is irrelevant. Many people like it better.
That is a direct result of alienating the crowd it was originally meant to cater to. The grand goal of DA2 was to "press a button to see something awesome happen". The people who would have liked a slower paced and more ponderous combat are no longer on board, hence the shift in taste.
-
You act like a mother, who tries to persuade her child to eat food child hates, telling that "It's tasty! Don't say it's not because it is! Eat!".
I never said anything about mechanics that will satisfy everyone. But durability got axed for good because people voiced their disapproval. So there was an option - try to fix a mechanics that is, at best, not-so-annoying, or remove controversial mechanics completely.
We won.
So, who won in Dragon age 2?
-
"Durability is great"
"I rather had it 95% less likely to occur than the plan"
But hey if our arguments are so 'retarded' why don't you come up with good counter-arguments. Since I seen lacking few.
That you need 3 weapons for 1 dungeon to cope with breaking is not a good argument. That for you (and you alone) it illustrates weariness of your character does not make a good mechanic. Also the fatigue penalty (I hope it returns) is already there for that. That it's good in a infinite gold economy is not a good argument, since PE is *not* that.
Give me good arguments first, then you can complain about ours.
Well given that it is you guys who wanted the system out, the onus would be on YOU to provide the sufficient reasoning, in the first place would it not? But he has a point here, you have to admit. What this all essentially boils down to is, "I can't be bothered". Next thing we know you guys will want to remove inventory and party management. Since wanting "depth" has now been branded as invalid.
....I'll just go play shooters now.
-
I said that the people you hear the most, whichever side they choose in a given argument, are backers. In this case, all sides were backers, one side made good arguments and the developers agreed with them. End of story.What are you saying exactly? That the people arguing against the durability system represent the whole of Project Eternity backers?
Well, your words were "The backers are the loudest group" which is a bit odd, given that I was trying to tell you that Obsidian was only listening to its loudest backers.. But that's besides the point, as is your post. And If you don't want to reply to what I'm trying to say that's fine, but there is no "end of story here". What I have been trying to say here is that the marginal group that's being vocal here, as evidenced by the poll is in my mind, insufficient to warrant a change in design especially with a reception so mixed. People have placed their trust in Obsidian, not forumites.
Don't take this as me being against taking feedback into account however, but I do believe that it should always be more or less unanimous, otherwise you'll just end up with a game made by someone else.
-
What are you saying exactly? That the people arguing against the durability system represent the whole of Project Eternity backers? In case you misunderstood me, what I'm saying is that not everyone is constantly giving feedback or even paying attention to it, and that that groups wishes may get trampled on by the vocal minority without them ever getting a chance to realize what's happening. As has already happened.
And I say minority but who knows, I'm a dying species, might be there's just a few guys who think like I do. But I do feel cheated nonetheless. I have no idea how many pages of whatever thread Obsidian might have gotten complaints about this, but can you really implement that into design without effectively gauging how big the displeased audience is in relation. Something as rudimentary as a poll would at least give you a sense of the scale. Now it's just "we saw a few negative posts, lets scrap it".
I gave my money to Obsidian, and I have great faith in Sawyer and his vision for what a RPG should be. And now that faith is taken into another direction. If I wished for a game designed by some random forumite, i'd have given him that money instead. This is not a decision you can just half-ass, and go by feel basis.
Here is the poll you've asked for:
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64050-item-durability/
As for "we saw some negative posts, let's scrap it"; it is actually more a case of "we weren't so sure about durability to begin with so thank you for giving us a reason to remove it". Perhaps you should go back a few pages and read some posts?
I like the idea of durability, but only if the devs are willing to get it right. "Money sink" isn't getting it right.
Well thanks for the reply, I did read Sawyers post of course, that doesn't change the fact, that what was designed was changed by feedback, if that's the post you're referring to. What's odd here though is that the majority actually voted for item durability, yet it was removed? As well as back to what I was referring to, 120+ voted on this poll.. Out of ~74000 backers.
-
1
-
-
The backers are the loudest group.As for the durability mechanic, I'm not really sad to see it go. It felt like something that was tacked-on to make the Crafting skill useful for more than one character, and I don't really like that, it should be a system that exists by and for itself.
What are you saying exactly? That the people arguing against the durability system represent the whole of Project Eternity backers? In case you misunderstood me, what I'm saying is that not everyone is constantly giving feedback or even paying attention to it, and that that groups wishes may get trampled on by the vocal minority without them ever getting a chance to realize what's happening. As has already happened.
And I say minority but who knows, I'm a dying species, might be there's just a few guys who think like I do. But I do feel cheated nonetheless. I have no idea how many pages of whatever thread Obsidian might have gotten complaints about this, but can you really implement that into design without effectively gauging how big the displeased audience is in relation. Something as rudimentary as a poll would at least give you a sense of the scale. Now it's just "we saw a few negative posts, lets scrap it".
I gave my money to Obsidian, and I have great faith in Sawyer and his vision for what a RPG should be. And now that faith is taken into another direction. If I wished for a game designed by some random forumite, i'd have given him that money instead. This is not a decision you can just half-ass, and go by feel basis.
-
Absolutely ridiculous way to design a game. Whiny bitches on a forum which in no way constitute a majority of KS backers or cRPG players in general can make designers change something because they think it's "annoying" or "tedious".
Coming up Next on Project: Eternity - Reading what NPC's have to say and your quest journal is "not fun", quest compass inbound.
Hopefully they'll be something left of the character system before the game ships, before all the features get voted out by morons.
Yeah, I really feel cheated. I feel like the project that was supposed to be the "last hope" of crpgs has already been tarnished by casual gamers, just like every other game out there. I just had to make an account to state this. I haven't been to forums or kept up to date with the feedback, I just gave Obsidian my money and had faith that they'd nail this game. So it's really disappointing that they're listening to the loudest group without having a real idea as to what the backers really want.
For the first time I'm getting that pessimistic feeling about this game that I've had for so many years now about the gaming industry. At the very least look towards adding the durability mechanic on the more challenging difficulty levels.
Portraits V
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
These are just what I was looking for. Appreciate this a ton
