Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Azrael Ultima

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    167

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Azrael Ultima

  1. Azrael Ultima
    Yeah, the question doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This game is intended to evoke the look and feel of the IE based games, not the AD&D ruleset.
  2. Azrael Ultima
    Mighty wizard doesn't sound particularly odd to me, but it doesn't make me imagine a body builder in a robe. Might doesn't refer to physical prowess, but to power in general. A mighty warrior can axe things good. A mighty wizard can lightly toast entire armies at once. A mighty healer heals mighty quickly. (and this is starting to sound a mightte ridiculous) Or a mighty politician for that matter. I wouldn't expect him to pound people with a waraxe, though he might have henchmen to do so for him.
  3. Azrael Ultima
    Yes, unrelated. One is a GUI issue, the other an issue with the items themselves. They happen to magnify the effect of the other, but they don't actually have anything to do with each other. Making item stats more engaging will not solve poor presentation, and making the 'tooltips' easier to read/more visually pleasing won't make item stats more interesting. I'm also not saying you shouldn't mention your concerns, just that they should probably be in a seperate topic.
  4. Azrael Ultima
    How is Breach more complex? It's a quite simple spell with a very long tooltip, mostly because it lists every spell it affects. Since in BG2 magic users were basically invincible without dispelling their protection, you just Breached every caster you came across, no thought required. MGI on the other hand requires you to consider whether your target has anything possible copying, whether doing so is actually useful to you and what the risks are of getting what is basically a magical dud. "MGI successfull. You cast Magic Light" So it is not only more complex, but also has more depth. Also keep in mind that adding more complexity first and foremost adds more tedium, but not necessarily more depth. Adding complexity for complexities sake is not a good idea. E.g. take two Radios with equal capabilities, one controlled by repeatedly pressing the same button in certain patterns, the other having a seperate button for every function. The former is far more complex to operate, but all that increases is how annoying it is to use.
  5. Azrael Ultima
    Well, i don't think the accomplishment should be in swinging the hammer, but in getting the components. Can't make a dragon scale shield without dragon scales. If you can just churn out enough +5 arms to equip your entire stronghold in a world where they should be rare, the gal or guy responsible for crafting or distributing crafting mats messed up and made them to easy to create. After all, if you can do that, why can't anybody else?
  6. Azrael Ultima
    That sounds more like a balance issue than a systemic problem. +1 attack/round on a +2 sword seems rather overpowered for AD&D. This thread also seems to conflate two unrelated issues, one being bland presentation of items, the other being item bonuses not being particularly interesting or engaging. The latter of which is hard to really judge accurately based on a limited content beta. "Interesting" stuff tends to be more error prone as well, so it might have been omitted for now for the sake of the Greater Stability.
  7. Azrael Ultima
    That was basically the point. It just so happens that that increase is exactly the relative damage gain from the attribute, precisely because they are multiplied. To be specific, it is due to multiplication of real numbers being commutative. It doesn't matter which part of the calculation sees a relative x% increase, it will increase the result by x%. I think the high gain range for Dex could stand to be a little larger, but it is by far not as weak as it looks at first. Your calculations weren't wrong, as such, just incomplete.
  8. Azrael Ultima
    That would only be correct if (1)Total Damage = Base_Damage*(1+Might*2%) + Base_Damage*Acc_Modifier or some variation thereof. (yes, this would result in double base damage, but this is merely for illustration, i'm only interested in the damage differences when changing stats) For (2)Total Damage = Base_Damage*(1+Might*2%)*Acc_Modifier it's the other way around. Don't get to stuck up on the absolute values. For an example: 100 DPS base, 0 Might, Acc = Def (1) base: 100*1 + 100*0.75 = 175 (1) Might +1: 100*1.02 + 100*0.75 = 177, 2 damage increase (1) Dex +1: 100*1.02 + 100*0.765 = 176.5, 1.5 damage increase (2) base: 100*1*0.75 = 75 (2) Might +1: 100*1.02*0.75 = 76.5, 1.5 damage increase (2) Dex +1: 100*1*0.765 = 76.5, 1.5 damage increase Despite the gain from Dex being seemingly lower, the actual damage increase is identical. On a high evasion enemy, increasing Dex is likely much more valuable than increasing Might. What your diagram is missing is a graph showing the actual damage gain from the Dex increase. In other words, it's quite likely people are currently heavily underestimating the value of Dex.
  9. Azrael Ultima
    Are we missing an attribute, or are we just missing an entry in your char description where you can put how much muscle mass your char has? I'd say it's the latter. Do you really need the game to tell you that your scrawny mage is physically weak? Mind you, weapons generally aren't terribly heavy because people are intended to wield them for extended amounts of time. Modern assault rifles are actually heavier than most swords.
  10. Azrael Ultima
    We probably shouldn't run around with the truly legendary stuff, but i don't see the issue with having a bunch of unique endgame weapons, as long as availability(but not variety) and power stay in line with the limitations of the setting.
  11. Azrael Ultima
    You realise that this would merely increase the base value by some amount, but have no effect on your clicking whatsoever? Whether your stats start at 0 and you have, say, 20 points to distribute or they start at 10 and you have 20 points to distribute, you still have 20 points to distribute and need the same number of clicks to do so.
  12. Azrael Ultima
    Is that correct though? That would be an awfully complicated way of applying the bonus. Any reason it wouldn't just be the much simpler 1.30 * base damage ---> 1.32 * base damage? (for 15 MIG to 16 MIG) EDIT: I might understand what you're saying - you're calculating the percentage damage increase an additional point of MIG gives you from your previous MIG-adjusted damage. Fair enough. But the same thing would apply to the increases in damage from DEX/Accuracy (I'm pretty sure) so I don't think it makes a difference. The values I've calculated for Accuracy dps increase are relative to base, as is the 2% value for MIG. So MIG is still 2X the damage increase of DEX at the 5-45 point disparity mark and 1.33X the damage increase of DEX at the <5 point disparity mark. Actually, it's far more important than you realise. At Acc = Def, increasing Acc by 1 point is a 76.5%/75% = 2% gain. Sound familiar?
  13. Azrael Ultima
    It would only confuse people used to D20 or similar. There's plenty of systems where 0 attribute = 0 bonus. And IMO, that makes a lot more intuitive sense.
  14. Azrael Ultima
    Seems to me like it would be easier to just leave Might as is and drop Resolve(or give it a better defined role). This increases complexity without adding much in the way of depth from what i can see with the added downside of making resolve worthless for physical characters. Also, unless you're royalty or have been appointed as speaker for a group, drop the "we". No. If i am of different opinion, i have to speak up so people don't get the mistaken impression that it really is the majority consensus. Just keep in mind that people are generally far more willing to get active to complain about something than they are to praise it. If you see equally much praise and complaints, the majority is happy with things.
  15. Azrael Ultima
    That's still a lot compared to the many dev studios that flat out don't talk to their "customers". And i can't say that they do it without reason. More on topic, since this intended to be a fairly combat centric game, i think there should be XP for every defeated enemy. Though i don't think defeated should necessarily mean killed. I'd also like to see appreciable rewards for exploration and special feats(winning "impossible" fights, solving soup cans without help, unlocking an open chest etc.)
  16. Azrael Ultima
    I think this is what it ultimately comes down to. In the end, we're dealing with a completely different world here, with it's own climates and languages, so boreal might well simply be the closest translation of the term that can be mustered in english, with the "correct" denomination simply not existing in our languages because we have never encountered what they refer to. Or would you rather have "southern equivalent to boreal" dwarves? That would be rather... unwieldy, and people would probably just contract it to boreal dwarves anyway.
  17. Azrael Ultima
    I doubt it. You should think less about the missed opportunities and more about the limitations a console conversion would have to impart on the game. It also seems that you significantly underestimate the amount of work and money required to do so at this stage of development. It wouldn't just need a new control scheme, but the entire game was made under the assumption that you have both the control options, interests and time limits of a typical PC player, not those of a console player. You might have to retool the entire game simply to make it work.
×
×
  • Create New...