Jump to content

Mayama

Members
  • Content Count

    550
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mayama

  1. I agree that you can give out free knowledge with wisdom or warn them if they do something stupid but imo it feels a bit to detached from roleplaying. I think the problem is that we all now how a strong, dexterious or someone with a high endurance behaves because its something you can observe but thats impossible with the other attributes. It always felt strange to me when a player constantly acted stupid and the game master corrected his behavior constantly because the character was actually very intelligent.
  2. I always thought that intelligence, wisdom and charisma are weird attributes for, at least, a PnP rpg. A character cant be wiser, smarter or more charismatic than the player that controls him.
  3. Just nitpicking here but in AD&D melee always hits
  4. I think that you need both if you want to make a deep system. Both work for a cRPG and I guess you dont need more than one in a computer game because the character development isnt that great, it usually suffers from the problem that the PC is a blank sheet of paper. Alignment shows you what you are and reputation, well... its reputation. For example a well adapted sociopath that does good things to hide what he really is would have a lawfull evil alignment but a very nice reputation. I think the concept of alignment has a bad reputation (lol) because most D&D settings use it in a cheesy comic villian way. All evil characters are cruel and sadistic etc etc.
  5. I agree that both would be the best and the alignment system shouldnt be so strict. The real problem with the AD&D system was imo that it portrait evil in a very cheesy way, their was no real grey area. You had the psychopath (chaotic evil), the generic fantasy enemy (neutral evil), and the well adapted sociopath (lawfull evil). Its very hard to create enemies that do evil things for alturistic or understandable reasons whithin this system because everyone that does evil automaticaly slides down the good/evil scale and turns evil over time.
  6. This is getting ridiculous, you are still insisting on telling me that its a fact that the change to the alignment system was an improvement? That its fact that the new XP system is dumped down? Answer me one question, how did you measure it? Dumped down and improvement in the same sentence as fact is a paradox if we speak about design. You are still trying to sell that as facts. You might think that its better but that does not make it a fact. Because a fact has to be objectively better and thats impossible if you cant measure it. This is not natural science which is based on facts, its design and that has only opinions. Edit: You also backpedaled a lot in this post from the previous ones, toning down the "this is fact part" so you sound more reasonable. You should also keep your tongue in check, saying someone else argument is weak or his premise is wrong only makes you look arogant. Also you edited your post because I quoted it both times and second one is way longer. Best part is this: ...so your COUNTER argument for my "weak" argument is that the alignment change was good while the xp change was not? Ok please tell me how do you proof it? You cant its your opinion. Its basicaly your opinion that my opinion that both changes are equaly important is not right... and thats well only your opinion. Its not a fact no matter how hard you want it to be one. You are basicaly behaving like those people I was characterizing in my first post. That "just so you don't bring up..." part reads a lot like "shut up my opinion is right". Seriously grow up.
  7. If you really want weak but powerfull wizards you could easily do it with the skill system. Give the option to choose negative skills at character creation like "weakling" you do X% less damage with bows and melee weapons. Choosing them should give you a extra positive skill or something similar.
  8. My problem is that if attributes only marginaly alter a class than we need more skills than now and also skills that alter how the class plays.
  9. I really think that we need way more skills like one skill per level for every character so its possible to make more diverse builds. Its basicaly BG1 all over again where the character progression was really dull and I dont think that more diversity in later instalments in ther series is a good excuse for it.
  10. I think those "dead levels" shouldnt exist, it always felt so dull if you leveled up in AD&D IE games and couldnt choose anything. More skills would be really neat to flesh out characters and builds. I dont think that we get it but I really hope that its possible to mod them in later.
  11. Imo it would be nice if their was a warning when I select a companion portrait for my PC.
  12. It would be interesting to know how much ram those maps need, multilayered high resolution pictures can swallow a massive amount of ram.
  13. Yes that what I basicaly posted in my first post, all those hundreds of posts where people desperatly try to present their opinions as facts are wasted space.
  14. Like I posted somewhere else the aligment system was a huge part of most IE games but their was no outcry after they said that they dont have something similar in the game. Why? [/facts] <Your Opinion Follows> Because it was a shallow mechanic that they improved on.. Instead of axing it. The xp system isn't being improved to provide more granularity in xp rewards.. it is being axed and clumped out at key points because balancing is hard! Just so you don't bring up another weak argument.. The alignment system wasn't removed.. it was transformed into a much more complex C&C system where your actions dictate a wide scope of different traits that people perceive you as.. Instead of just picking some generic trait at the start of the game.. AKA 1 choice and shallow consequences. There was no outcry because that's a good system.. better then anyone thought of back in the day.. You think if Bioware asked us during BG 2 Development if we could have one or the other anyone would say "go for the shallow crappy system that's easier to implement" I love your apple and oranges comparison.. Alignment system and xp system aren't even close to the same situation in PoE. Can you stop making weak arguments if your gonna take the aggressive stance that you do? Why don't you bring up blood lines while your at it.. since we are gonna be comparing toasters and chickens all day. Make a new post instead of editing. You say its a shallow argument, so you basicaly want to tell me what was part of the IE experience and what is not? Its a changed system, they changed it. That means it isnt the same as in the IE games. Everyone can decide for themself if its an improvement. You seem to think that you have the right to choose for everyone whats an improvement and what is not. As I said this are all arguments about opinions and at the very moment were you present an opinion as fact you make your self look like an arogant prick. You can think whatever you want about my opinion but it does not make your opinion worth more. See I personaly dont care much about how they give out XP in an RPG because for me its just a way to level and if its not a dungeon grind fest I dont care if I get xp for kills or whatever. You make the mistake of assuming that your opinion about game system and parts is shared with other people. As I showed you in that XP example their is at least one guy (me) that does not share your opinion and because those are all opinions their is no absolute right or wrong. TL/DR stop presenting an opinion as fact. EDIT: Its also funny that you made that editing of my post "your opinion flows" not realizing that well your post is also just an opinion. No matter how desperatly you try to make it sound like fact.
  15. You cant be objective about taste and factions is not the same thing as aligment. All those debates are about personal taste and/or preferences. Their is no right or wrong.
  16. Like I posted somewhere else the aligment system was a huge part of most IE games but their was no outcry after they said that they dont have something similar in the game. Why? [/facts] <Your Opinion Follows> Because it was a shallow mechanic that they improved on.. Instead of axing it. The xp system isn't being improved to provide more granularity in xp rewards.. it is being axed and clumped out at key points because balancing is hard! I love your apple and oranges comparison.. Alignment system and xp system aren't even close to the same situation. Can you stop making weak arguments if your gonna take the aggressive stance that you do? Why don't you bring up blood lines while your at it.. since we are gonna be comparing toasters and chickens all day. Its not apple and orange, nobody can decide WHICH part was important because thats something everyone has to decide for himself. Sayin A was not important and B is, is just extremly arrogant. You cant rationalize personal taste. Its not up to you to decide WHAT is shallow its also not up to you to decide for everyone else what is good or not or what improves the game. Speak for yourself, grow up and stop beeing so full of yourself. You know what pisses most people off about those "pro xp people" that exact attitude.
  17. Like I posted somewhere else the aligment system was a huge part of most IE games but their was no outcry after they said that they dont have something similar in the game. Why? Because most people hated it. But you cant deny that it influences a lot that you do in those games. Thats my problem with people that say that removing X makes it not a spiritual successor. They are all very picky about what is a must in a IE like game. They also usually tend to think that their view on that topic is the right one and what do we call people that believe in a absolutly right answer in a abstract philosphicaly debate? Fanatics. So what is actually the best of the IE games? What is it for you. Or what is the worst? For me the worst part of all IE games was the combat because I think its a mess with a weird forced turn based game play under the real time hood. So for me its not a part of the "good" IE stuff.
  18. My guess people didn't really understand what they were voting for. Now they do. Then they should have put some points into reading instead of maxing all combat stats
  19. Seriously I think stuff like "uh I cant play a weak fighter/barbarian" can be ignored because they are extreme cases. Those guys fight for their living, its basicaly their job. Its like saying "u I want to play a carpenter, but he is really ****ty at working with wood". Even the weakest guy in the army has decent strength. A weak fighter is almost a paradox.
  20. Well the gw2 approach could work if you do it right like making every class the master of one thing or give it a special way to deal with situations. IMO they stopped half way through the design process for whatever reason. Technicaly every class in gw2 is specialized at one thing but for whatever reason they decided to remove half of it in the release version. In the beta releases the had way more distinct class features, necro was really the king of conditions etc..
  21. Its the typical problem of every system that only works with a game master that shows you the finger if you want to do rediculous stuff like resting every 5 min in a dungeon.
  22. It's more logical, and remember, AC in D&D is not always hitting something, but penetrating the armor as well, which fits strength to some degree. Plus you could go DEX and instead really on precision/finesse striking (which actually is hitting with precision, not penetrating the armor). Once you accept that there are no actual physical Strength factor whatsoever in PoE and it's about Souls, it's all good. Of course, all good means you're ready to accept that a spiderling soul is potentially more powerful than you, the "watcher" and main character. And then you're really ****ed because you start to realize that the bigger mobs are, the bigger their Might attribute is, which turns the entire logic around, making it totally meaningless. But hey, who cares right Yeah in AD&D melee fighters always hit. Its one of those weird decisions where you ask yourself why? But well it was one of the first systems ever made.
  23. so strength showing how strong someone is AND how good he is at hitting things was better?
×
×
  • Create New...