Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Matt516

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1161

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Matt516

  1. Matt516
    First! ;D But seriously, everyone - this has been a passion project for the both of us for almost the last two weeks, and we're very excited to be able to share it with you. Thanks in advance for reading, and for your feedback. I'm Matt516 and I approve this paper.
  2. Matt516
    Regarding OP (haven't read discussion yet) : it is an interesting idea, but a very large change to the core game mechanics, and therefore probably not very likely to happen. Also, basing healing on something like experience or emeralds is basically the same as basing it on money aka camping supplies aka rest. Also, adding another resource system to govern various abilities is an unnecessary and complicating change in my opinion.
  3. Matt516
    Completely eliminating recovery time and tuning all values to match, including base damages and armor values, would probably result in a smoother experience. I am NOT 100% that it would result in a better experience though. Not saying I think its a bad idea, just that it would turn Pillars into a very different game
  4. Matt516
    Since Time is not a limited resource in the game, I don´t see how is not optimal, you may be ¨wasting time¨ but wasting a not limited resource do not change the value of a move. Thus it doesn´t change if the move is optimal or not.If your utility function includes real world concerns (like not taking 5 hours to do one battle) then yes, avoiding uneccesary pauses is optimal. Granted, I'm not suggesting that you would actually spend 5 hours micromanaging one battle - but the viewpoint you are seeming to represent would suggest that you would. There's a point at which the tradeoffs between playing more optimally and having fun become very unbalanced - and it would seem that for you, the line is very far off from that of even a typical "optimal gameplay" advocate such as myself. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you should probably realize it before trying to generalize your preferences for the entire community, as they seem to be somewhat of an outlier.
  5. Matt516
    I'm pretty sure that at least some combat abilities are instant or close to it. I could be wrong though.
  6. Matt516
    Basically though, all attributes are useful for all characters, dump stats don't really exist anymore, and the boni from the different attributes are distinct, serve their own purposes, and are appropriate from a role-playing perspective as well. At least, that's what we're aiming for. ;D
  7. Matt516
    Can you summarize your changes in broad terms? What is governed by which attribute, and how do you perceive the role of each attribute for the character? That's what interests me most - I believe balancing is possible for most systems (though finding the balance certainly is difficult), but not all systems feel "right" to me, so I'm curious what you changed generally. Sensuki is looking over the final edit and recording the video as we speak - all will be revealed in about 8ish hours.
  8. Matt516
    Sensuki and I are putting out a fairly lengthy paper sometime in the next few days that offers another solution (though one that we anticipate might be more likely to be adapted since it doesn't change Might) with plots and balancing ideas to back it up.
  9. Matt516
    I think Gromnir's point about renaming classes is right on, actually - though I'd say the worst offender at the moment is "Fighter". Let's be honest. That's a really, really dumb name for a class. All the classes fight! In addition, it carries with it an expectation of being able to do crazy damage like the ie fighters, simply because it bears the same name when it is not really the same class. I propose that "Fighters" are now termed "Defenders" or something like that. Then the issue people have with an ostensibly tank class having a name that suggests otherwise is solved. Of course, some people just would rather that we have a class that is like the ie fighter (since there isn't one at present). That's also a valid concern, though not one that a name change would fix. EDIT: If you want an alternate name for the Rogue, I'd put forth "Skirmisher" as an idea. Then with the Defender and the Skirmisher, we would have two non magical classes, both focused on helping the party, but one tanking focused and one dps focused. As they pretty much are right now - these would just be names that better describe the classes and don't confuse people by having the same names as what are basically different classes from the ie games.
  10. Matt516
    I think we should wait and see for the most part with this change. Giving different classes different Stamina/Health ratios is actually a suggestion that had been brought up in one of the Health discussion threads. As was giving different classes different numbers of allowed "knockouts" before they die. This new system, while not quite the same as those two, is very close to it. It also aims to address the "I have to rest because my fighter is out of health" issue, which was a HUGE bugbear for these forums (though I haven't seen it mentioned as a positive of the new system in this thread yet). I guess what I'm saying is: I think this could end up being much better than what we had before. Still not perfect, sure - but this change is in direct response to our feedback about the adventuring day, etc. And while it does add to differences between the classes (not really a problem imo), it also had the potential to fix a lot of the issues we've been complaining about.
  11. Matt516
    Reposting what I said earlier about this, which is basiaclly: you should be able to scale your AoE semicontinuously from min to max by using the mouse wheel when you target. Problem solved.
  12. Matt516
    When I first heard about this, I was a little apprehensive. Now thinking about it a little more, the idea is growing on me. Still not quite sure - but I've an open mind and I'm looking forward to seeing if it works.
  13. Matt516
    To be fair, Gromnir, there's nothing wrong with including a few intentionally weaker but funny/role play-ey talents in with the pool. Bloody Mess (I think it was called) in FO1 was purely for flavor - no problem with that.
  14. Matt516
    Making them NOT cost money would give a bigger advantage to people who don't use the OEI-written companions, since you could make a six-character party in the first town. You could also freely use them as fodder with no consequence. The adventurers aren't going to be outrageously expensive to hire, but we do want there to be some cost to them.Ah, the fodder bit makes sense. Now imagining an alternate PoE where people get free companions and send them in like rookies in X-COM. Probably a good call to give them some cost. xD That said, I'm kind of tempted to hire cheap lvl 1 companions as fodder now... Maybe for an evil playthrough. ;P
  15. Matt516
    I think thats refering to the Orlan being able of getting the same stats and class as the Aumaua and human but not the racial traits. Well, the language of the sentence makes me think they actually meant size - I think they were confusing the Godlike ability to be any class template as a universal thing. (Gaming)Journalism at it's finest. It's stuff like that that really makes me worry... I mean, if they got something that basic that spectacularly wrong, how much did they really play the game (or know what they were doing) anyway? Could just be a silly mistake though.
  16. Matt516
    OE will likely increase the rate at which we get talents. I'd bet... oh... 100$ on it. Yea..but like Josh was saying this is supposed to be the IWD/BG type of game so it isn't and probably shouldn't be realistic to have a complete character fully fleshed out in this game. I feel if we get talents too often it will become bloated towards the end and inevitably the talents in PE2 will be less interesting/useful(or flat out over the top). 9 or 10 feats from levels 1-20 should work IMO and then whatever they decide to do above 20 if it goes beyond that. Yeah I'd expect they end up going with 1 or 2 talents at lvl 1, then 1 every 2 levels from there.
  17. Matt516
    Currently, stealth applies to the whole party. Rogues would get a lot more interesting if stealth was individual and could be used during a fight for better tactical positioning. Seconded. Isn't stealth kind of broken though at the moment? With the sizes of the circles depending on not only your own stealth rating but the ratings of your other party members as well. Is this by design, Josh? If so, what's the reason for it? (no combative tone intended, just curious)
  18. Matt516
    I think thats refering to the Orlan being able of getting the same stats and class as the Aumaua and human but not the racial traits. Well, the language of the sentence makes me think they actually meant size - I think they were confusing the Godlike ability to be any class template as a universal thing.
  19. Matt516
    OE will likely increase the rate at which we get talents. I'd bet... oh... 100$ on it.
  20. Matt516
    I'm inclined to agree with Tartantyco - fun and balance aren't directly connected (I. E. neither mutually exclusive nor linearly dependent). Both groups have good points though. My own personal preferences are for games that are as fun and as balanced as possible. I do certainly think there is something to be said for balancing away the fun, but I don't think that that necessarily has to happen when trying to build a balanced game. It is true that balance is only really critically important for multiplayer games, but it is my personal preference for my single player games to be balanced as well. An elegantly designed game is beautiful because it is elegantly designed, which adds to the enjoyment IMO. Granted, unbalanced tactics CAN be fun in single player games, but that's more the exception rather than the rule. I like a good challenge, so generally when I find an easily exploitable mechanic in a single player game it tends to suck the fun out of it for me because I then have the choice between deliberately not trying my best to overcome the challenges and winning without any sort of challenge at all.
  21. Matt516
    Well, I'm up here in Canuckland, so we'll just have to all meet up in Oz and test out the local brew. I'm sure Sensuki has a couch available. Or a floor. Ah yes.. "Canada"... I have heard of this place. Haha that'd be cool though. Do they have good beer in Australia? I've only been to England and Germany (excellent brews), as well as Quebec (when I was in 4th grade - no drinking there).
  22. Matt516
    Also this: "If you want an Orlan with the build of a towering Aumaua, or a human-sized dwarf, you can." ..... Wat.
  23. Matt516
    Though I have no particular preference for TB or RTwP, one of the few non-negotiable things OE promised in the KS was that PE would be RTwP. So I don't see a shift happening, or much point in clamoring for it. IMO we should be focusing on how to make RTwP work as well as it can instead.
  24. Matt516
    I appreciate the support but I think you may have misunderstood my intent - I'm NOT in support of a de facto turn-based system for PoE. xD
  25. Matt516
    If you get this out on Friday, then I know what I'll be doing on the weekend. And if it's as good as I anticipate it will be, I may have to fly to Australia and buy you guys some drinks. Haha well we certainly hope it'll be that good. It's certainly long at the moment - just have to make sure we're hitting all the points we want to hit and not saying anything incorrect. Also, I live in Texas, if that makes the aforementioned drink-buying any easier.
×
×
  • Create New...