Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

curryinahurry

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    629

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by curryinahurry

  1. curryinahurry
    Nice update. Love the maze and other improvements to the stronghold, except the stronghold wall and particularly the battlements. Please fix these for the final. It may seem like nitpicking, but that is the sort of thing that will drive people like me nuts.
  2. curryinahurry
    ^ Actually, if you wanted to wreck a building and re-use aspects analogous to your sword reference, you would likely do an architectural salvage first; stripping out all of the valuable components (mouldings, copper pipe, display windows, etc.). This is more expensive and time consuming. Since time may not be a feasible constraint, you could at least tie expense to the matter. That is, you would have to both do the stronghold and invest in an alchemy lab to be able to de-construct objects, but also invest gold (as an abstraction for resources, or in place of a philosopher's stone) and have the requisite skill level for what you're attempting. If Obsidian wanted to make this system really robust, they could even have a pre-requisite talent to de-construct magical items. Personally, I would really like to see an alchemist type character path as viable within the game so this type of depth to crafting would be interesting to me. Also, I like the idea of research and would really like for some quests to be associated with crafting / alchemy.
  3. curryinahurry
    Nonek, I don't think it's necessary to re-name the rogue into something else, but the point you make is certainly valid in my opinion. The rogue is de-facto a dex-based fighter in terms of combat. The fact that it maintains other aspects of it's previous portfolio (stealth, mechanics, etc.) seems to be secondary to the design philosophy of making every class equally viable in combat. I'm not sure of the wisdom of this type of design, and I personally would prefer the rogue to be a less direct damage dealer in terms of toe to toe combat. That said, we still know very little about how deflection and critical threat range is going to work. Threat range might be awarded to the rogue for finesse type weapons, but only available for large ones if rogue takes certain talents at the expense of a more traditional thiefly build (forgoing trap setting or advanced stealth talents for example). Also if a rogue can destroy un-armored opponent but runs into difficulty the moment armor is introduced, that could be fine as well. Although it would still annoy me that any class could do more base damage than a fighter; except maybe a barabarian The problem is that this starts describing a rock, paper, scissors type of dynamic; rogue beat wizard, wizard beats fighter, etc. I just hope that we will have the flexibility to build a rogue that is less of a dps machine if we so choose.
  4. curryinahurry
    Yeah, I forgot about this one...maybe I tried to block it out subconsciously. I'm going to be really annoyed if orlan rogues are crit-ing for 200 damage with daggers while an Amauan fighter with a claymore is maxing at 120 on his / her crits. This is one for the thread on immersion.
  5. curryinahurry
    Post #25 of this thread, 3rd quote which is from Something Awful and there are probably 4-5 similar quotes on there, formspring and even here I think. They probably don't do higher base damage (but they might?), but they have Sneak Attack which is a percentage bonus to damage based on flanking, crit more often and most a lot of their abilities are very focused on doing more damage to one target. According to Josh rogues require moderate micromanagement, so you will have to do a bit of re-positioning and whatnot. Fighters do reliable per hit damage. A Fighter and a Rogue with the same attributes, the same level and the same weapon might do the same per hit damage just standing there, Fighters will hit slightly more often but Rogues automatically have a higher DPS just from the crit bonus. All a Rogue has to do to get the edge is flank, or switch on an active that provides higher damage. Ok, I had read that, thanks. Its a bit open to interpretation base damage wise and sneaks don't bother me too much, especially with deflection counters. More crits than fighters is a bit of a problem as a fighter, in the way I think we all understand the term, should be the class most proficient and well trained in martial weapons. Rogues really become squishy killers in this system it would seem; a dex based fighter. meh, I hope they develop these classes in more interesting ways, or that elective talents allow us to do so.
  6. curryinahurry
    Do you have a specific source for this? Base damage, not spike or enhanced damage vs deflection etc.
  7. curryinahurry
    Yes. Positioning sounds really key, specially with the Mind Wave. I am curious if Ciphers will have any ability to "conceal" themselves somehow, because that'd be a great utility to take down grouped units on the back-rows (grouped up Archers for instance). So thus far (IIRC and some self-inserted thoughts/brainstorming/analyze): - Fighters soak up damage from multiple melee sources - Rogues deal most single-hit melee damage - Barbarians overwhelm, good at dealing damage to several targets(?) - Ciphers deal some single-hit and some magical-multi-hit damage As for Cipher build speculation and inspiration and question: - Purely close-combat, Psionic Assassin (Single-Target Build/DPS or Close-Combat Debuffer/Psionic Status-Effects) - Purely mid- to long-range (Wizard Range) Psion Caster (Multiple-Target Mind Mage) - Combo Is there a chance that Classes will have "Multi-Paths" (variations within their own Class, the example above) instead of "Multi-Class" (variations with other Classes)? I was also thinking of Ectopsychic Echo and Soul Shock as sneaky ways of catching opponents on the battlefield. Btw, since it seems that skills like sneaking won't be class restricted, I'm assuming that will be the case for hide in shadows type abilities as well; so yes, I think one could create a really cool stealth / ambush build with a cipher.
  8. curryinahurry
    The cipher class sounds interesting; especially the melee to fuel magic aspect. It makes me think that tactical placement is going to be very important and that Ciphers will act as a strong "second line" alternative to archer types. That is all very good in my opinion. With regards to the Vithrack... the art is a bit hodge-podgy. The hands are a bit odd looking as the attempt was obviously to do something that was alien and dangerous, but not overly powerful; sinewy, and athropod-like. But they come across as looking like withered branches. Also the whole pose strikes me to much like a magician and not alien enough. I know its nit-picking; but this is the first creature that has struck me as meh.
  9. curryinahurry
    As far as intro / cinematics go; I think Icewind Dale pretty much nailed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67FuWzixduc (I hope posting this is ok) Given the limited budget, I would rather Obsidian spend the money on a really great narrator, and keep the cut scenes and cinematics on par with the scripted events.
  10. curryinahurry
    Hmm, this got me thinking...is it be better to include several variables(like one save, limited resting, etc,) and allow players to create their own "Ironman" modes than to create a certain set of conditions and label it "Ironman"? I believe it is. I think Ironman Mode should be defined by the developers as a standardized challenge mode. However I think it would be interesting if expert mode had enough toggles to create custom challenge modes that would serve the same function of what you're describing. It could lead to some interesting challenges and mods from the community.
  11. curryinahurry
    @ Sacred Path The point I was trying to make (with a belly full of rye whiskey I might add), was that if the designers are putting children in the game for immersion, then extending the logic becomes a matter of managing resources weighed against believe-ability of any given situation in which one might encounter them. I'm not against kill-able npc's, adult or children, especially if they are collateral damage in a fight. But if they are made vulnerable, then the design team need to account for reasonable repercussions of such actions. then it becomes a matter of, to paraphrase Mcmanusar, how far should they go vis a vis player agency and how should this be treated in game. To be done to the standards found in the rest of the game and accounting for factions, this may turn into a great deal of additional work for the benefit of only those hardcore players that want this type of game-world responsiveness.
  12. curryinahurry
    Probably immersion purposes. You know, the same reason why you want towns that actually have buildings rather than a few NPC's standing out in the open. Let's consider the immersion aspect of this for a moment... If you're a villager in the Dyrwood and the most valuable things you own are your family and your farm animals, and you see a group of well armed adventurer / mercenary types riding into your town, would you, even for a moment, consider leaving any of them in harms' way? No, because it is likely that powerful looking strangers, even those that may look righteous, might bring problems ( and enemies) along with them. Truth is, if immersion is what you want, when you head into most towns (at least until you've garnered some fame), most people would treat you and your party with a good deal of suspicion; that likely points to children out of harm's way and the capacity to only talk to the village leaders. That could get tiresome very quickly.
  13. curryinahurry
    I like the progress with the Scripted Event art and frame; definitely an improvement over the first. Also, the concept art for Defiance Bay is very nice. Cheers
  14. curryinahurry
    ^ Bird's Eye always makes me think perspective, but your point is made. Where the BG games all 45 degree rotation, I never checked, but that's how it seemed? I think PE is doing 30 degree rotation.
  15. curryinahurry
    Isometric 3rd person, similar to the all of the IE games (Baldur's Gate, et al.). POV will likely to be fixed but potentially zoom-able. There are some wikis on this page; you should check them out because they likely answer several of these types of questions. Cheers
  16. curryinahurry
    Hopefully Obsidian can expand on what they did with books in Dungeon Siege 3 where books where parts of quests (treasure room). They could be used to drop hints about locations for quests, legendary items, provide new recipes for crafting, food, etc., expand the player's lore in a manner that potentially gives points in that skill and also in driving the plot. They could also serve to give the player valuable information on critters or enemies. Finally, they could be incorporated into the stronghold; collect books to build or add to your library. Collect enough books and you might get certain bonuses to lore or crafting. Collect a number of rare books and your library could add to you prestige, which could in turn bring special visitors to the stronghold who would provide bonuses in relevant areas as per the recent update (63).
  17. curryinahurry
    Like others, I think making the stronghold plot related is the right move on Obsidian's part. The interesting thing to see however, is how it will be tied to different classes: There are only two classes that might be problematic for a stronghold; Barbarians and Druids. Barbarians may not be an issue depending on how they are defined vis a vis society and culture within the game. Druids are a bit more problematic; Why would a druid have a stronghold; and if they did choose to put down roots (hehe), what kind of stronghold would they have? This also leads us to think about the various classes and how a stronghold might be customized to fit; Would a priest have an abbey as a central structure? Would a Monk have a library or school or monastery? Would a paladin have a chartered lodge-house of his/her order? And then what effect might these structures / institutions have on the local populace? What if the PC's priest follows a different religion than that which is dominant in the surrounding lands? What if the PC plays a monk whose order has vowed poverty? I'm not sure these things will really be in the game, but I hope Obsidian is considering them, or at least devising a system that limits branching possibilities in a believable manner (fealty to a lord with specific requirements or care-taker status until a suitable lord for the lands can be found. etc.)
  18. curryinahurry
    Sorry, not buying it. For these traits to have any meaning, there has to be an omission of certain possibilities from the beginning of the game, otherwise it's just window dressing. It becomes too much like the alignment system, which is just awful. I don't mind the game tracking my choices and there being some consequences down the line for the choices made, but not before I've started actually playing the game. Also, based on your bow example, if there are speaking and other interpersonal skills that can model certain personality types that we can invest points in, I would be fine with that as well.
  19. curryinahurry
    Great update. I hope that we can get some art and narrative (by the companion) as reporting of companion adventures. I was wondering if such quests would be playable, but it sounds like it will take the form of reporting, so I would like some meat on that particular bone in the form of a art panel or three in the style of the 'scripted events' shown in update 54. Also I'm wondering if I can eventually sway some of the prisoners I take to my side of the conflict aisle by the end of the game. Sort of like Sarevok, but without having to kill them first, of course.
  20. curryinahurry
    While I like the idea of background traits related to upbringing, social status, prior occupations, etc.; I am not a fan of personality traits and would be opposed to their inclusion in the game. Primarily, I think that personality (and physical traits like clumsy) work against the idea of defining your character in game by creating a type. Then you have a choice; play as type or against type. It seems to lead to the sort of binary choices in game play that many (myself included) don't like. I think that using background traits limited to environmental and experiential parameters can hint to personality and physicality (and can even provide + and -'s along those lines) without being overly prescriptive.
  21. curryinahurry
    Almost every class in D&D back to 2.0 had activated or spell-like abilities with the exception of fighters, and thieves. And only fighters had no modal abilities. While not necessarily magical, in the case of Assassin's assassination ability, or Monk's quivering palm, These were essentially superhuman abilities given to high level character classes to keep them relevant in the power curve to spell slingers. By the time we get to 3.5, Fighters have access to things like whirlwind attack and manyshot and modal abilities like power attack. Add to that weapons that discharge electricity; fire, acid, or stun on hit; and you're basically delivering all sorts of magical damage while performing superhuman feats of skill. The point is that in a world were magic is fairly common and wielded to devastating effect, non-magic using classes are pretty much useless unless they can get their hands on magic or have abilities that can rival / counter what spell users have. Whether those be active, passive, modal, or tied to some form of equipment, I really don't see the difference. Honestly, what is the difference between a modal ability that regenerates stamina and a vampiric sword that regenerates stamina on hit? Chance, but since a fighter is going to hit his / her target most of the time, then it really is less of a real difference the one might assume. That said, from developer comments, modal abilities are going to be mostly like stances with respect to fighters, and active abilities are going to be mostly non-magical in nature. The issue will likely be more pronunced at higher levels, but since we are only going to level 12, the proliferation of ridiculous feats might be kept to a minimum. I think we need to see more of the system before understanding how these abilities might work.
  22. curryinahurry
    This is a good point, and I think that these issues generally go back to balancing (and making gameplay fun) non magic using classes with those that can wield spells. What we were looking at in games like DA:O (I didn't play the sequel) were essentially superhuman (spell-like) abilities in these activated modes and also in some of the crazy attacks like scattershot or "rain of arrows". Taken as superhuman, these abilties can make more sense, but there is no real reasoning for why fighters and rogues and do such things; unlike magic which relies on the fade as its source. P:E seems to be addressing this by making all powers related to the soul; thereby allowing classes not normally associated with magic to perform superhuman or supernatural feats as a substitute for spell slinging. For me, the fact that there is an internal, logical consistency in a system that has all special abilities originate from the same place, goes along way toward allowing a willful suspension of disbelief. I'm not sure how you might feel about this sort of reasoning, but seems to be the direction Obsidian is taking with their modal abilities. They are at least trying to ground these abilities in some rationale.
  23. curryinahurry
    @Chilloutman I think that it was mentioned that overland exploration would be somewhere between BG & BG 2, but I'm holding out for an SOZ type solution or SOZ (or any type overland travel where skills help determine encounters in both number and type) with with quick travel options.
  24. curryinahurry
    Red text is usually always a bad choice as it is notoriously difficulty to compress in both jpeg and video. Also, it could be an issue for people with color-blindness. The red text in IE games was pretty awful.
  25. curryinahurry
    Stronghold sounds like it is off to a great start; I really like the idea of being able to send your companions on missions. My question is, will we be allowed to play through these missions as our companions (possibly leading a group of npc hirelings, or in tandem), or will the mission events be reported back to the PC?
×
×
  • Create New...