Mayama
-
Posts
550 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Mayama
-
-
2) It makes every quest-related NPC effectively untouchable even if you have more than enough RP reasons to immediately introduce them to the sharp end of your dagger.
Ok I take the bait, you can kill all the quest-related npc's in the beta that would give you a role play reason to do so. It doesnt break the quest it just alters the outcome.
-
I think you are wrong with your basic assumption that PoEs combat is inferior to that of any other IE game, and nothing what you could say is going to change that. Shocking, I know.
Sensuki asking Josh Sawyer about the quality of PoE combat in his RPGCodex interview:
Josh: "Honestly, I think it will take us a while to exceed the complexity of IWD2 fights. IWD2 and BG2 were built with a lot of tried-and-true scripting functions that programmers and designers developed over previous titles and expansions. Like any other feature, AI in PoE is being built from the ground up, so we have to add layers of complexity over time."
Yeah all those people saying herp derp they had better AI in BG2. Why is the AI so ****ty in PoE 15 years later. Its like saying herp derp why cant you build a proper moon rocket... they build the first one 50 years ago!
-
1
-
-
Let your characters attack each other and you will notice that almmost everyone attacks every 6 seconds. Its actually slow it only feels fast because in a 5v5 fight you get confused and can't tell anymore who did what.
-
...Let's start with making the Elves shorter and uglier than humans"
I really don't share your concerns but about elves being shorter than humans, that's frickin' D&D canon. It always has been. I think the only exception is the Dark Sun setting which is so not representative of your standard fantasy setting. So don't be a purist about something that never was.
Elves from Faerun are as humans.
Uglier? Well, 3rd edition made them a bit alien, which had it pros and cons. PoE elves don't look uglier than humans but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Werent elves always smaller in AD&D than humans? Like by a lot?
-
People are allowed to cherry-pick the aspects they find the least believable. In fact, that's generally a good place to start.
I wouldn't mind line of fire being an issue with ranged weapons/spells, but that would probably work better in a system where positioning and firing is more controllable (ie. TB), and I do find dual-wielding axes to be somewhat .. hm.. when compared to dual-wielding, say, a sword and a sword-breaker. Dual-wielding is a case of exaggeration, though, not a case of abstraction.
Should arrows/ammo be a [per encounter?] resource, thus making it internally consistent with camping supplies, torches, spells etc.? I think so.
Making mundane arrows magical by having an infinite supply, and magical arrows mundane by having a finite supply makes little "realistic" sense to me. If anything it should be the other way around. But there is also the fun/balance aspect, ofc.
It's not as if bows requiring arrows is impossible due to technical limitations of the medium. I'd rather they refined the way it worked in the IE games by applying current mechanics such as per encounter, weapon/quiver sets, class talents, etc. There should be plenty of stuff to pick from to make it mechanically interesting and [sufficiently] believable...
In my oppinion that whole discussion is rather absurd, we talk about bows that have a max range of 10 meters and need like 20 arrows to kill someone from point blank range.
No, we're not talking about that. Nor is this a discussion of the relative merits of the English Longbows at Agincourt, or what exact DT value they should "realistically" have ingame.
We're talking about bows that do not require arrows. That's not numbers exaggerated one way or that other for the sake of gameplay/balance. That's abstraction, when torches aren't.
Furthermore, I think it's a missed opportunity for some potentially interesting ranged weapon/class differentiation and gameplay.
(Yes, in IE games it was pretty much impossible to run out of arrows. I know.)
But please, go on thinking any discussion on how less developed* aspects of gameplay might be expanded upon is absurd. (*or at least seemingly so, due to lack of consistency.)
Let's instead have a twelve billion page discussion about the quality of the character models, and the size of doorways. Or maybe it's time for another poll about selection circles?
Its absurd because everything in this game is an abstractum so nitpicking on one specific thing calling it "unrealistic" or "immerson breaking" just points out how biased this whole discussion is. Its also not up to you to decide what is discussed (and how) in this thread because last time I checked you are not more important than anyone else. The amount of arrows required is a number exaggeration, zero, random amount of and infinity are numbers, at least thats what my math prof told me years ago but I guess you are more experienced with numbers in general because a daper guy like you wouldnt allow himself to talk like a utter arrogant prick if he wasnt right, right?
-
People are allowed to cherry-pick the aspects they find the least believable. In fact, that's generally a good place to start.
I wouldn't mind line of fire being an issue with ranged weapons/spells, but that would probably work better in a system where positioning and firing is more controllable (ie. TB), and I do find dual-wielding axes to be somewhat .. hm.. when compared to dual-wielding, say, a sword and a sword-breaker. Dual-wielding is a case of exaggeration, though, not a case of abstraction.
Should arrows/ammo be a [per encounter?] resource, thus making it internally consistent with camping supplies, torches, spells etc.? I think so.
Making mundane arrows magical by having an infinite supply, and magical arrows mundane by having a finite supply makes little "realistic" sense to me. If anything it should be the other way around. But there is also the fun/balance aspect, ofc.
It's not as if bows requiring arrows is impossible due to technical limitations of the medium. I'd rather they refined the way it worked in the IE games by applying current mechanics such as per encounter, weapon/quiver sets, class talents, etc. There should be plenty of stuff to pick from to make it mechanically interesting and [sufficiently] believable...
In my oppinion that whole discussion is rather absurd, we talk about bows that have a max range of 10 meters and need like 20 arrows to kill someone from point blank range.
-
One of the 3 guards outside should have the key
I though he meant the first one with the giant pool of blood in?
If it's Wymund's chamber then yeah, one of the guards has it.
Maybee he has the key already and didnt notice it because it went straight to the quest item stash.
-
Always the clash of GNS. The venn diagram never intersecting on an area everyone can agree upon.
With PS:T, the focus was clearly on the narrative side. A focus that served it well. It did very little to address the gamist and threw the simulation aspect on its head. It served as a vehicle for narrative, and a clever take on simulationist mechanics. Not for everyone. The narrative was a cut above the rest, however.
ps:t were our favorite crpg. being our favorite does not mean that we cannot recognize flaws. one glaring flaw were the xp mechanic. wisdom, a stat which were the prime attribute o' no playable ps:t TNO class, were an xp Multiplier. not only were many quest rewards tied directly to a minimum wisdom score, but having a high wisdom resulted in potential more than 33% improvement in all xp gained in the game. playing as a high strength and low intelligence/wisdom fighter, as were a viable and enjoyable build in all othe ie games, resulted in a player not only missing a significant amount o' wisdom specific content, but it created an xp penalty for those players foolish enough not to boost wisdom. ps:t, as much as we loved the game and still frequent replay it as a high wisdom, high charisma player, were a classic example o' developer schadenfreude. you wanna play a vanilla fighter in ps:t? HA! joke is on you, 'cause not only does ps:t combat suck, but you is getting a functional xp penalty for playing as a traditional fighter build.
great game, but with some bad mechanics. nothing precludes a great game from having some flaws.
HA! Good Fun!
Honestly I would call Ps:T a adventure game with rpg elements. Most people played with max wis/int/char anyway
-
For me the perfect cRPG would not allow any kind of cheese/exploiting because the AI is good enough to deal with it.
-
1
-
-
Just a point I'd like to make about metagaming and the rewards in this game. Loot is hand placed so it never changes and never moves so if you're not into crafting saying loot is an incentive for exploration and combat may hold true to some but I'm confident others will just wait till great people like Sensuki and others find everything and share it with us as they are want to do, then just go to the specific area's and get the specific things they want. The beastiary is a really cool Idea but again all of it will be up on Wiki in about a week or two and then why would I need to fill it out. That being said I am still really excited for this game and want to play it. Just think it could do better but that's my opinion.
Well yeah people will metagame around items, josh stated that their are also special unique skills that you get from questing so thats another thing people will use for meta character builds. Most people replay RPG's to try out different class combinations.
-
One of the 3 guards outside should have the key
-
I think the wizard feels less useful than the other casters because it is both limited by spell choice AND number of casts. All other spellcasters have one or the other.
I guess he might be the most flexible in the end
-
So I see no reason to think the only way to build a fighter is a build that forces it to take all the parties damage, honestly it sounds like a lack of imagination and that you've spent to much time around MOMOs and other games where that is a fighters only role.
Maybee you spend not enough time around mmorpg's because I cant name a single one which doesnt have a dps fighter.
-
True, but as things currently stand you can use a barb as a pawn to control space with very little more micromanagement. OK, deflection isn't as high and the engagement limit is one lower so you will need to watch his stamina a bit, but that's only a little more micromanagement.
There's nothing actually wrong with the fighter, it's useful and all; I just think it's somewhat boring and extremely role-limited. I'm sure there are people who like that sort of thing; I do not belong in that group however.
I wish rpg developers would play a bit guild wars 1 and learn. They had so many interesting ideas, like the gw1 necromancer he could transfer debuffs around and for example consume them from allies to heal himself. They had dozens of those really cool and fresh ideas.
-
That's hardcore. And, how is duelweilding 'useless' in RL? That's laughable. And, how does that connect to the discussion being had, anyway?
Dual wielding two full size one hand swords doesnt really work in reality. He just pointed out that people here argue about that no arrows breaks immerson but at the same time their are tons of other unrealistic things in the game people accept without question.
-
1
-
-
I certainly have nothing against adding in some cool abilities for Priests to add in some spice but I guess I always viewed Priests or Clerics as the buffs/healers of the group...it's the "roll" they are meant to play while adding in additional tanking/offensive ability when you can. Sort of a necessary evil if you will. I also tend to play no-reload on the most challenging content possible...so I tend to find it less monotonous...
The stam/health ratio needs tweaking though. 1:4 is too punishing. I'd try 1:8 to see if it's too forgiving.
Warhammer online had one of the coolest priest concept ever, guys that wade into combat and heal allies with the damage they deal.
-
2
-
-
"Developers tend to do the later not because they believe that missing a lot is boring they do it because the majority hates systems that go like this: Miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, crit dead, reload..."
If this were true DnD and all its copy cats wouldn't be so popular. Hilarious!
We talk about computer games here.
I'm confident that I'll adapt to any system. But I sure as hell won't roll a caster character in a CRPG where I don't have access to my spells whenever I need them. Cooldowns are OK (in moderation) but a mage who is constantly out of spells is just pathetic.
Its called resource management.
-
Resting wasn't a chore and a pain in IE games only because you could rest almost anywhere anytime. When you're one keypress away from regaining your spells it's not so bad. In PoE it can be much worse, if bonuses from resting in an inn prove to be significant after some balance passes.
Thats the whole reason why they try that system because "resting wasn't a chore and a pain..." the only thing that balanced mages in AD&D was their spell limit. Rest-scuming (and people call it that for a reason) negates that whole balance aspect and is one of the reasons why mages were so OP compared to any other class. It adds depth to the system if you cant engage with all spells constantly.
-
3
-
-
Hmm, what's the role of a tank is not to be the one to get ****ed up instead of others?[..]On the other hand, if you're letting your one tank get f*cked up constantly, that's kind of your fault.
I mean you might not agree with the need for a tank (which I have no problem with), but once you allow that path to be taken, then that's pretty much their role? I mean, fighters have nothing but talents dedicated to do just that, soaking up damage and get ****ed up constantly. The more you use resources to "CC" and "prevent damage", the more useless they become at their one and only role in the game...
...so it's not a failure or a fault if your tank gets ****ed up really, according to the game design, at least some of it, it's actually a success if the tank is getting hit constantly, because that's what everything in the class is designed for...except the Health system...
Do you like any RPG with more than one character in your party? I guess not because I cant think of a single exeption to the frontline tanks, backline nukes scenario. The HP of your tank(s) is basicaly the HP of your whole party. The armor and HP of the backline is their to have a time buffer if things go south. CC'ed enemies that dont hit the tank are equal to extra HP for the tank. Also who said that fighters do not deal damage?!
-
CC should be king because otherwise its just a damage race. Heavy CC on both sides makes combat much deeper than spamming your most damaging abilites.
-
2
-
-
Speaking of old games, I would do many bad things for some proper wizardry remakes.
-
Earthdawn haha i remember it, I still remember the day when me and friend of mine both made some kind of rogueish characters that could use polearms. Well the important thing is you could backstab with polearms in earthdawn, combine it with min/maxed characters its comletly game breaking. Of course our dungeon master was new to the system but good times :D
-
So...soundtrack! This makes a whole lot of difference! In my opinion Baldur's Gate 2 had -hats off - the best original soundtrack actually created for a PC game , except of course Valve's incredible -and unexpected -, given the pc gaming dark age we're living in, made of $$$ hungry publishers and targeted advertising, Turret Opera, placed at Portal 2
Personal taste, personal taste, personal taste... imo while good the baldurs gate 1/2 soundtrack is also rather generic. Its what you would expect from such a game.
-
Binding Web: should not slow down/hold spiders.
Ehhh, spiders can get stuck in their own webs if they forget where they put the sticky strands. Webs are made up of regular strands and sticky strands. Spiders don't get stuck in their own webs because they know which ones are going to get them stuck.
Fun fact: Theirs a kind of wasp that pretends to be stuck in a spider web and when the spider comes out and tries to kill it, it geats eaten by the wasp.
EDIT: Theirs also a kind of wasp that preys on jumping spiders, it paralyzes them with venom, injects its eggs and cuts off all its limps. Wasp are truly evil.
-
3
-
Do you want experience from combat?
in Backer Beta Discussion
Posted
Break the egg, gather the remains, bring it to the girl, girl gets grumpy but says she can use the stuff you have and gives you loot + xp. If you cannot be bothered to visit the bug forum when using a beta version of the game its your goddamn own fault. Also its not the first time that you use that example and people pointed out how to work around the quest-log bug. By ignoring it for the thousands time you only show that you just try to play dump to find arguments.
Again you are playing dump to pretend that their are "road blocks" and quest dont give you xp if not done correctly. Beside the thief quest which has one option that doesnt give you xp because you will get it later in the game their is no way you can end a quest without getting XP in the beta.
Again road block road block talking about something that doesnt exist. Its a well known bug... seriously. If their would be kill-xp the combined kill and quest xp would be most likley the same for a dungeon as the quest xp we have now.
That road block argument gets seriously old...
Its called decissions, failure will result in other outcomes but does not result in you getting behind in XP. Their are TONS of ways to get the grappling hook + rope in the beta.
You make it sound like side quests are a chore and people dont like them. Usually people want more and many optional quests in RPG's just because you want to rush through the game as fast as possible doesnt mean everyone wants to.