Cantousent

heh. I think they look scarier without the costumes. hahahaha

Actually, you're taking far more for granted than I am, Tale. The only evidence I have is the game itself. It works. It doesn't work universally well for all people in every way, but then what game does? I also have the advantage of knowing that the feedback for the influence system did change. Not only from NWN2 to MotB, but at some points within the development of MotB. Now, I'll concede that you may have the right of it. I'm usually willing to concede an alternate view. However, while people use non-verbal cues to communicate, those non-verbal cues often lead to confusion. If this is true in real life, during which we have quite a bit of experience in using our own bodies, wouldn't it be even more difficult in a game? You know, I haven't thrown out the idea. I'm simply saying that we have a method that works, and the arguments against the number based feedback have not, as I've understood them, focused on the ambiguity of the feedback. If anything, I understand folks to dislike the system because it removes the nuance of human interaction. If anyone is erring on the theoretical side, it's you. I don't mind accepting that your method might work. However, it is clear, whether folks want to admit or not, that the current system would require a significant overhaul to implement the sort of change you advocate. While we're in the theory state, anyone can claim anyone's idea is silly. Since we have two games to use as examples for the different philosophies (MotB and PS:T), I don't think I'm being silly in comparing the two to draw conclusions. Perhaps I'm being cautious about the idea, but I'm going to remain unconvinced.

That would be a waste, though. That badger could feed you spirit energy for a month just by itself. Or you could just stand next to it and force yourself not to feed. Seriously, though, I wonder if that counts as most folks favorite battle.

The camera is not hard to grasp when implemented because the feedback is immediate and occurs every time the player moves the mouse to look up or down. Changing the camera angle in an FPS is not the same thing as the influence system in an RPG. ...And there are folks, like my wife, who have the devil's own time with the camera angle in these games even though it is a far more intuitive as a concept than communication between two people. Virtually all folks can go outside and look up at the sky. Not all folks excel at personal communication. If there is a system for keeping track of something that results from dialogue but is not part of it, such as the influence system, then the player should know how that system works. The simplest way to convey that idea is by numbers. However, if the design team wanted to get away from numbers, then they could let the player know that the system exists and how it works. Kind of like FPSes have a key for the keyboard commands the player uses to interact with the game. The big thing for me isn't that they keep the numbers. The big thing is that they keep the influence system. I just see numbers as being irritating to fewer people, and to a lesser degree, than zero feedback. The influence system and the feedback regarding it is better in MotB than NWN2. What I'd really like to see is something that Gorth and Gambler suggest, and probably a bunch of the rest of you, such as facial expression and body language. From a design standpoint, I just think there will always be a struggle between something like the facial expression system combined with floating text and direct number values. One is more elegant while the other is more concrete.

Maybe I am biased. As I've stated several times, I prefer PS:T to MotB. However, numbers, however much you might hate them, are easier for the player to grasp. A lot of players will bypass much of the dialogue, no matter how well it is written. Now, I'm all for using less intrusive ways of dealing with player feedback regarding the influence system. The problem as I see it, and you can discount it as folks jumping on board "just 'cause," is that the influence system has been generally well received. I suppose I could turn that around and accuse you of being biased because it's not the same as PS:T, but I won't. I agree that PS:T's floating and dialogue text handled the nuances better than popping out numerical values. Nevertheless, the system must be transparent. By transparent, I mean the player must understand that how the system works and to what degree the game uses the mechanic. In that regard, the numerical feedback is much better than the text, even though the text variant is a felicitous approach. As regards the text feedback idea, I think we may both agree.

Whatever. I'm telling you, with the exact same system and everything cranked on both OSes, Vista 64 just plain looks better. If it's not DX10, then it's something else with Vista 64.

If they're going to video the ceremony, then there is some lighting prep and whatnot to do. As someone who has sold a lot of wedding photography (in one of my incarnations at least) I have to say that short ceremonies with long receptions are generally the way to go. As someone who has served as best man for three weddings, I have to say that short ceremonies with an open bar is ALWAYS the way to go. BTW: Got to the tiny Norfolk airport 2 1/2 hours early on Tuesday and was seated next to Glutton McPorkchop for the last leg of the trip. The guy acted like he was going to vomit the first half hour of the flight. I was forced to remove the pillow and blanket from the little baggie just in case he needed a barfbag really quickly. I knew I should have upgraded my ticket. I'm just glad I didn't spark up a conversation about the book I was reading in which the entire world lost power and airplanes fell out of the sky.

As long as they pay you for a full hour, it's all gravy!

Even WoW looks about a million times better with DX10 running on Vista 64 with an 8800 and 4 gigs of ram. Damn, those animations look good. Now I'm going to Install the orange box.

I like the idea of NPCs hiding their true intent, which is impossible with the number system. Subtle clues are fine, as long as they aren't REALLY subtle. Whether some responses are red herrings or not, the whole apperatus must be transparent.

Just having returned home last night, I've installed Vista 64 on my system. Now I'm installing WoW and soon I'll install the Orange Box.

Ultimately, it's probably better to have some feedback for the player in regards to influence. For most players, I suspect that having the information up front and easily referenced is better than an opaque system where the player really doesn't know where the PC stands in relation to the NPCs. Now, some of this could be handled with dialogue, I suppose. The response should give some hint to how the NPC feels about the PC's immediate statement and then general conversation could provide more subtle clues. It would be hard to convey all of the information that is largely intangible in real life dialogue, but the design team could probably handle much of it. However, while some folks complain, I think the theoretical alternative is worse than the current mechanic. Keep the influence system and then let the player know where he stands. Unless they dramatically change dialogue in these games (an idea I don't really oppose, by the way) the current way is better. By the way, numbers or not, folks will either read the dialogue or not based on their personal tastes. Taking out numbers won't make much difference and I don't believe including them does either. This is a game, not a conversation simulator, and the player must have feedback.

That's funny. I was like a broken record in terms of suppress and, under the right regimen, it not only allows characters to rest frequently, it demands that players rest at specific times under specific circumstances. After the initial curse begins, the character must go to the telthor badger next to the lodge, summon all available elementals, and have Okku in the party. You can do this without Okku, but he makes life sooo much easier for a suppression/rest approach. You Suppress and then rest in the middle of this huge bunch of elementals. Then you do the same thing repeatedly until you get more spirit energy from suppressing than you lose by resting. Get your craving down to zero and then, this is the important part, rest every time your spirit energy gets down to around 80. The reason for that is simple, in many places you'll be ambushed and you have to have enough of a reserve to rest a few times under those conditions. This works in every module until the final battle, where the PC is pretty much compelled to devour spirit. The last time I played that battle, I don't see how the PC could survive without using devour spirit. Suprisingly, since it uses up so much spirit energy, bestow life force combined with devour spirit worked very well. ...And I'm not saying that folks should play it all that way. I'm just saying that the player can use such a strategy to be able to rest.

Aside from the lively debate regarding suppress in the non-spoiler thread, I agree with you on two points in particular, Gromnir. First of all, while I consider the act of Suppression as inherently lawful, I think two points is excessive. I think the penalty should be one. Second of all, I use eternal rest about half of the time. I don't agree about the spirit eater mechanic. Keeping up spirit energy is a pain, but the bennies are actually better than the curse. That might be a design flaw, but it works the way it is now. Sure, it can be a pain, which it most certainly is at times, but it adds an extra dimension to the game as well. I think it has been generally well received, even though there are legitimate criticisms of the curse. Gorgon speaks quite passionately about the curse, as opposed to my "high brow hypotheticals." Anyhow, there were more heated arguments about the Spirit Eater curse than anything else in the game. I certainly made my own waves in that regard, and I was the lowest seniority tester. I'm glad they implemented the overall mechanic the way they did. As much as folks complain about it now, it would have been worse. The uproar is actually less than I predicted and generally complaining about the difficulty of the mechanic, also as I predicted. However, Devour Spirit should get at least one chaos point. Devour Soul should get at least one evil point. Suppress should earn only one lawful point. Bestow Life Force is completely broken in that the PC may invoke the power with the party at full health and reap two points towards good. (I'm actually not sure about that one. I bugged it and I think they left it. If they fixed it, then a party at full health yields neither a shift to good nor a reduction in craving.) I guess, from my perspective, everything other than bestow life force should only shift one point. Bestow Life Force should only yield shifts if it actually drains spirit energy.

I'm preparing to leave Virginia. I get to go home. I've been gone for damned near a month, and I'm ready to go home. It just seems that I'm never in one place for very long. Even home is just a place I go between travels, and I'm getting tired. Really tired. Today, I'll fly out of Norfolk at 5:45pm. I won't reach Ontario until after 11pm. Good-bye Atlantic. Hello Pacific. I'll be back again in March. Tonight, I'm going home.

I feel you, bro. I really do. ...And I'm happy to give you the last argument. No one at Obsidian asked for or wanted my opinion regarding this shift, and I didn't effect me. However, I know at least one person who railed (absolutely railed) against this outcome for alignment based characters. At the time, I agreed with him that it sucked, even though I continue to believe that it makes sense. The fact is, I'm not belittling your irritation. I've already stated my reasons for disagreeing with you, but I understand that you've made a cogent argument for your position, even if I don't share your view. Regardless, I can understand the irritation folks feel for being forced to switch classes because of alignment shifts.

Okay. You don't like it. Fair enough. There are other ways to deal with the curse, but you want to use one that denies personal freedom. Instead you want to impose a strict regimen upon yourself but not have it reflect in your alignment. *shrug* That's too bad. I'm happy that something so monumentally important of a moral decision has some impact on gameplay. The way the spirit eater mechanic works in MotB is good. Sorry you didn't like it. I did. I do. Suppression IS a decision. You have other choices. You want to make choices but don't want to have consequences. You're a good example of why the alignment rules are bad. After all, players complaining because they can't have their cake and eat it too come hand in hand with the system. BTW: You can even stay chaotic while suppressing, but even that isn't good enough. Suppression must not have any consequence. Devour soul shouldn't either, I take it? After all, we need to account for Gorgon's intent.

It's not a fundamental flaw in MotB design. It's a fundamental flaw in DnD design. Those are the alignment rules. At any rate, Starwars already told you that he went through the whole game using Suppress without shifting to lawful from neutral. It is, therefore, possible to go through as chaotic without shifting to neutral. Once again, by the premise of the game and under the rulezzzz of DnD, Suppress is a lawful act. Sorry. That sucks. I agree with you that having these sorts of shifts suck. It's still reasonable within the confines of the system and the feat as described. :Cant's shrug and conciliatory icon: Them's the breaks, kid. This is only an issue because you don't like what the game did to your warlock. At least that's what I'm getting. When I first heard the complaint expressed, it had to do with barbarians. Pretty much the same thing, neh?

It's not a hypothetical scenario. It is the exact same scenario the character faces regularly. The only stumbling block is that you wish to view the character's in game actions by the light of your desires as a player. Suppress and devour are inherently moral in nature and so therefore fall under the alignment rules of the DnD system. Hunger for spirit energy is not hypothetical within the game. Your character's actions in dealing with that hunger are not hypothetical.

No, if she can't find any telthor's, she gets hungry. At that point, she can find more telthors, feed upon herself in the form of Satiate, Suppress, or simply do nothing. Being hungry isn't a deicision. It's a condition. Suppression is an act. The character must decide to suppress. In terms of game mecahanics, the character will never accidently suppress. It is a conscious decision on the part of the character. Just as satiate and devour are active decisions. Not only are they decisions, they are actions. Your character might decide to suppress but not do so. That means she'll be hungry. She might decide to suppress but instead devour a spirit. That's another reason alignment rules suck. All of the underlying process of thought goes out the window. There's no getting around the fact that they made Suppress an action. If they'd made suppression automatic at a certain point of hunger, I would agree with you. You can think of it this way. The character is hungry and wishes to eat. She can devour a spirt, but none are available. She could satiate, but fears feeding upon herself. She could go hungry, but fears for her life. Instead, she sits down and concentrates on her dilemma and uses the force of her will (meditating of sorts) to hold her hunger in abayance. By that act, she has mastered, temporarily, her hunger. However, it is still a lawful act.

No, Gorgon, you the player have one motive. However, your character sure as hell doesn't want to "use his spirit eater ability for the day." The idea behind the spirit eater mechanic, for the player, is certainly not shared between the player and the PC. Suppress is lawful as evidenced by the text and mechanics within the game. Hey, I hate the alignment rules also. I don't think you should take a hit one way or the other, but that's what happens. Your response is an excellent example of why the alignment rules suck, by the way. You argue from an outside perspective about something with a far different perspective within the game. BTW, you didn't go from chaotic to lawful for using Suppress one day. It's the frequent use of suppress that will, over time, have a significant impact on your alignment. If you use suppress consistently, you're being lawful whether you want to admit it or not. At least as defined by DnD in general and MotB specifically.

Keep in mind, however, that either choice of action (devouring or suppressing) will result in the character's death. The only way to end the curse (or remain alive while embracing it) is to finish the game. Otherwise, the PC will die. Suppressing and feeding, in any combination, will never suffice to allow the PC to survive. Suppression is, as Tale notes, a supreme act of willpower. While our view of good and evil tends to be subject more to the underlying intent, the idea behind suppression is inherently lawful. On the other hand, devouring the spirit of a sentient being is evil. That the PC is forced into the unenviable position where he feels compelled to devour spirits to live does not change that fact. I just don't see how a computer game could implement alignment without these sorts of quandries. I don't even remember if Devour Spirit carries any penalty or alignment shift. Last time I played it, it didn't. The Spirit Eater mechanic, like most things in games, is open for abuse. For instance, I bugged the fact that the PC may invoke Bestow Life Force even when no-one in the party is wounded. He loses no Spirit Energy, as there is no wound to heal, but he gains two points towards good and, if I remember correctly, reduces craving. That's undoubtedly broken. I don't think they changed it, so all you Lawful Evil characters in Paladin's garb know how to work the system to stay completely good while retaining your Lawful Good status. The point is, we have all of these alignment rules and they simply open up more opportunity for exploit on one side and inflict irritation on the other. MotB handled the alignment mechanic very well, but the mechanic itself sucks.

Devouring spirits, as I understood it at the time, was supposed to be chaotic. However, as it's really no different than eating meat, I suppose, in that some folks find devouring meat distasteful but it's a ready source of protein. In much the same way, devouring spirits is a steady source or spirit energy and you'll die without it. The difference is that animals are not articulate, while many of the spirits that serve as food for the PC are. Ulitmately, I think devouring spirits should not carry any penalty or alignment shift. It's like eating, drinking, or breathing. I still don't think it's good to devour spirits, but in that sense I'm kind of like a spirit energy vegan. :Cant's tongue in cheek icon: Devouring souls is clearly an evil act. This was a source of some contention while I was there, since some folks wondered why devouring souls should be considered evil while killing the enemy was not. I believed then, as I do now, that devouring souls eradicated the victim and therefore transcended death. There is a lot of evidence in the game to support this assumption. I don't want to cite the examples in the non spoiler thread, but examples spring readily to mind. So, all that and I simply agree with you. Devouring Spirits is not necessarily evil, but some folks will view it with varying degrees of disdain, distaste, or even outright revulsion.

Suppressing is lawful. If we're going to use the terrible DnD alignment rules, we should recognize actions for what they are. Devouring spirits is not good. Devouring souls is evil. Suppressing is lawful. Anything that requires such a monumental amount of self-restraint is lawful of some sort or another. Rather than unleash your hunger, you subdue it. This is especially true of characters who follow a strict regimen of suppression. Yes, there are other ways to show your desire for unbridled personal freedom, but constant use of suppression isn't it.

Oh, I think my post was unduly harsh. This seems especially true in the cold light (dark really) of my early morning hangover. My 4:30 guilt demands that I atone for my boorish behavior. :Cant's wan smile icon: However, you hit the nail on the head about one thing that frustrated me. You said right away that you hadn't even used the spell and so I kept wondering how you could comment on it. Frankly, I completely agree about the difficulty level. If Vampiric Feast (or any other spell) is overpowered, but you never even saw it because you blew through the game, then there are other problems afoot. ...And, while I was definitely being a big meanie to you, I never doubted that you'd managed to put together a powerful party. The problem is that difficulty is relative. What's going to be difficult for some players will not be difficult for others. In fact, whether they've developed good instincts, crunched all the numbers, or are just plain lucky, some folks will breeze through a DnD game that stops others cold. This is especially true of a higher level campaign with a huge number of choices. You just know what you're doing better. ....And I mean that sincerely and without rancor. To make the game difficult for the best players will make the game damn near impossible for folks who aren't as experienced. I think that would be a legitimate design except that NWN2 comes with a toolset that will allow some folks to create modules that will test the mettle of more serious gamers. the commercial product should appeal to a broader group of people, and therefore it will have to find a difficulty balance that some folks find too easy. I've been thinking to myself, since I posted my remark, why I was so irritated with your responses. I'm ashamed to say that I think it's because I'd written that I thought most folks would find MotB harder than the NWN2 campaign whereas you'd stated that you felt it was far easier. You know, it's just stupid that I attacked you because I felt insecure about my personal review of the game. For that, I apologize. However, even if the game is supposed to be relatively easy (and I've said all along that MotB would not test the mental accumen of the best players) there are some things that are overpowered. I include Vampiric Feast in that mix. I also think Okku is overpowered. Bigby's Clenched Fist is way overpowered and, for folks who don't have a way to deal with it, is almost certain death. In fact, when Okku used to turn on the party in the Gulk'aush fight, I could cast it on him and he would virtually always fail his grapple check against it. You all know how strong Okku is. I think clerics are overpowered in DnD in general. Anyhow, enough of a rant. I should have been much more mature.