Jump to content

the proctophantasmist

Members
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by the proctophantasmist

  1. I think the mouse wheel is a better idea, especially with the "click to select spell then click on target" , IE style way of doing things (which is better than radial menu anyway, especially for AOE abilities) .

    Mouse wheel functionality would be contextual (would change once you've selected an AOE spell), but you could always get the original function through a modifier, i.e. ctrl+mouse wheel. 

    You would have two different interfaces for targeting and size of AOE, faster and less error prone than putting everything on mouse movement and click I think.

     

    Of course all this would work much better in a TB game :-D

    Yeah, it doesn't HAVE to be click-and-drag, but, I was just thinking of something that still maintains mouse-wheel zoom functionality, in case you had zoomed in some, and needed to zoom out to see better to plan your AoE target. *shrug*. And the only reason I'm not a fan of the click, adjust size, then click again to set size is that it's mildly more clunky if you want to fire off an adjusted-size AoE spell on-the-fly/real-time, rather than pausing.

    Of course, options could always be available.

    And yeah, gotta say I'm not a fan of the "your bonus area only hits allies" thing. It just seems like a compromise between two things that achieves neither. If my allies aren't going to get hit, I'd rather it be because of the type of spell I use (not a radial explosion, but rather a "targets-every-enemy-within-this-area"-type spell, for example), or because they've been warded against it first (by whomever), or because of something they're doing, defensively/evasively.

    If we're to be able to hit only enemies, then I'd want it to be because of tactical capability (the ability to cleverly remove my allies from harm and/or not-strike them) and not because I have a supreme amount of control over my spells, but still want to use one big explosion/effect instead of a bunch of little ones. If I'm a Wizard, and I possess the ability to make a big frost nova, but have it completely dodge my allies, then why wouldn't I just use that level of magic control to make a bunch of smaller frost novas on all of the enemies I want to strike, or just fire ice missiles at them or something?

    • Like 2
  2.  

    I would also pose the question of what if players cannot continuously travel back to town or continuously repair?  Would it change the mechanic in your opinion?

     

     

    I think the question is: does the decaying mechanic fits PE?

     

    And for now, I'd lean towards no. Decaying mechanics make sense, both gameplay-wise and thematically, in a "survival", gritty RPG. That doesn't seem to be PE. I'd welcome a few dungeons where you'd get that feeling of scarce resources and having to fight for survival, if it is not at the heart of the game, such a global design choice seems out of place.

     

    Now if we were in a low magic setting, playing a down on her luck adventurer, trying to scrap a little money by risking her life at the border of civilization it would be fine. As you mention in that case the game could afford making "survival" mechanics a central part of gameplay. Here not so much, from what I have read. And thematically and story wise the same problem occur: how is it gonna look at the end of the game, when having looted an ancient treasure of inestimable worth you are gonna spend a fair amount of it sharpening your +15 sword of destruction? Because as far as I can see, if it is gonna work as a money sink until the end of the game, the cost of it will have to follow the curve of the protagonist's wealth. It will feel silly.

     

    As of now this feels like it was tacked on the game, with little regard for consistency. I'd much prefer Obsidian found money sinks that brought something to the game, from a mechanical point of view and story wise.  As was mentioned multiple times, paying to get access to some quest, or to have some sort of effect in game is fine, and can be well done (think spending money to mount an expedition, or founding an orphanage in one of the cities, whatever…).

     

    Outlandish prices for things coming from faraway regions are fine too. And so are low selling prices for the player. Those who would make the big bucks would be the merchants, not the adventurous individual. Think of the spice trade (or cocaine): the enormous money involved came from its remote origins and the number of times it changed hands. If PE has adventurers looking for hidden treasures in dangerous dungeons, then it should have an army of merchant with caravans, exclusive access to the customers, guild rules, assassin enforcers, etc, making the real money from that trade.

     

    Some players will find ways to accumulate money nevertheless, always looking for the best price, spending little etc. But it will be their choice and probably because they enjoy it. No problem there.

    • Like 2
  3. Take a good long look at the "Where is everyone from?" poll. It's obvious that non- English speakers are a negligible force on the Internet. Non- English speakers will probably read their gaming magazines and look at the shelves in their stores, and they won't ever even hear about Project Eternity. Why should the game then be translated?

     

    There are plenty of articles right now on the internet about Project Eternity in Spanish, German, French… From the demographics on an English only forum, you infer that all the Internet is in English? Don't you think your argument is slightly flawed? It doesn't take the same competency in English to play through a text heavy game, to discuss a game on English boards, and to click on two buttons to make a donation.

     

    One thing right now slowing European funders is the absence of a paypal option. Kickstarter is in dollars, and Europeans pay high conversion fees to their bank when giving there (I'm among them).

    • Like 3
  4. Narration in CRPG is generally extremely linear (yes you might be able to choose the order of the event, but they unfold chronologically, the narration itself is linear, even if the game is not) and almost totally main character centered, I get why. As a rule of thumb you should avoid anything that might make the players feel they are less connected to the (main) characters they are playing. But it is a little disappointing to me, it lacks flavour and variety.

     

    Even something like temporarily controlling one of your companions or a team of companions when they are away from your character apparently sets some people teeth on edge.

     

    The paradox is that games in order to escape this linearity have used out of gameplay narrations . Cutscenes of course (all the IE games had them). IWD had a frame story, but minimal, not a playable one, just enough to sew the story together. I think that is a shame

     

    Dream sequence, death mechanism (think going to hell) can be, and have been used to toy with that linearity (Planescape of course comes to mind). I've never played in a precognitive dream for instance, could be fun. Variation and repetition and what not.

     

    Flash backs seems like a perfect mechanism, they actually give you more control over your character. Obsidian has done that a little if I recall correctly. Imagine meeting one of your future companions, or arch-enemy, starting a conversation and discover that you actually met before… and play through the recollection. Your action in the flash back having consequences when you come back to the present.

     

    Maybe hiding something in a flashback, that you then know where to look for in the present. Or, I don't know, having the option to mention that you are arachnophobic in a dialog with a companion. Then being confronted by a huge spider, taken back to the event in your childhood that triggered the phobia, actually do something significant for the rest of the story there (that might or might not have anything to do with any spider, but resulting for the short term in malus , or not, for your present day combat with the monster), etc. OK this example is stupid and needlessly convoluted.

     

    Anyway what do you think?

  5. Another usefull feature could be an option for synchronizing actions.

    I.E: do I want to move my melee fighter in a safe spot before my mage casts an AoE spell? Well, I keep pushed - let's say - shift, then I select the target for my warrior, the spell and target for the mage and finally I release shift. When I unpause the game both my characters will act with perfect coordination. How does it sound?

     

    Interesting, king of like action queues ranging over the multiple characters of your party. Or triggers, from the completion of one character's action to an other starting something. I don't know how practical this would be but it is interesting. It is also pretty close to having some kind of system to describe and trigger combinations, like you have in team sports, but more of an on the fly thing (which might actually work better). Reminds me of some discussions we had at the start of DA:O development. Let's be nuts: an approach that would combine the two might be the most efficient: ie build a tactic before hand: « Warrior will retreat, and when she is clear, Sorceror will cast fireball on pursuers ». Then during combat, select the combination then the exact places where the warrior will retreat, and where the Sorceror will cast the fireball. Again maybe not to everyone's taste, but I would enjoy some kind of option like that I think.

     

     

    To me the biggest advantage the IE games had over say DA:O, or even more so NWN2, was the ease with which you could switch from one character to an other when giving orders. This is a point where isometric games shine, no change of perspective, everything can be fluid. And it is related to the previous point: look for anything that can make the player more efficient and precise when controlling her/his group.

     

    Agreed about the ruleset, though, if I understand you correctly, I feel that the problem with active skills and cooldowns are attenuated if it is easier to switch from one character to the other, and as a consequence have less meddlesome AI. After all, one off abilities with a set duration usually work quite well, because in this case the AI never interrupts the ability. It's a fine line between less meddlesome AI, and having your warrior getting massacred because he didn't switch from range to melee though.

     

     

    About AoE spells maybe, the player should be able to decide weather the effect will be instantaneous (i.e fireball, casting time and target selection is an other problem), triggered (trap like), and/or lasting. Considering the challenges of realtime tactics the flexibility might add to the game.

  6. Dan, as far as inflammatory posts goes, yours are very polite, thank you for that. But, really, do you expect any Linux user to agree with you?

     

    My whole point is just design the game for the most common OS and call it a day.

     

    Yes, that is your whole point. I could answer "just design the game for the freer/cheaper/better OS and call it a day." The only difference is that I would be pissing off the majority instead of a minority. OK, you expect us to surrender to your wisdom, I even understand your arguments, it so happens that I have other priorities.

     

    Obsidian isn't about to dislodge Microsoft with essentially an indie game, which is what most of the people supporting a Linux version seem to want.
    . Hum, no, I'd really like to see Linuxes overtake Windows, but I don't think it will take Eternity for it to happen.

     

    I want to play this game on the OS I use everyday. I even have practical reasons for that: Debian is on a ssd, while Windows is on an old drive. I might want to keep some stuff open while playing, like for instance the servers that run on my box. If moding is possible, I would very much like to be able to do it on Linux, with a suitable environment. Also, I don't like to reboot.

     

    And yes I feel that every piece of software that comes to Linux is a victory for the good guys. Unless it comes with a DRM :banghead:

     

    Relax, depending on the choice of the engine a Linux version can be a relatively simple thing, Obsidian wouldn't have put it in the stretch goals if they thought it was impractical. Plus, they think (with solid evidence) that it will bring more funding to the project, so why aren't you be happy: the Linux version will bring more content for you.

  7. I'm sure Linux has its advantages when it comes to programming or whatnot but why on earth anyone would really care about what OS they're running while gaming is really beyond me. How can staring at the homescreen of one OS vs another for the 2 minutes or so that it takes your computer to load up and shut down possibly affect your gaming experience in any way?

     

    Damn! I never thought of that! You are right! So it is settled then? Shall we go for a Linux only game? After all, it is free (and it is free), and you can install it on any computer, so it shouldn't make any difference to you. ;)

    • Like 4
  8. Well, I would definitely love to see him return. Mask of the Betrayer was excellently written. The question is, how much money would this cost? While it would be nice to have him on board, there are a lot of other things which one might want to consider spending money on before getting him back, especially seeing how we already have some top notch writers.

     

    As the stretch goals are reached and the project expands, Obs will need more people to work on it, so this is not an either/or situation. George wouldn't be a feature, but an asset on this project, not the same column ;).

  9. Starting from the ground up Obs should be able to design a combat system that would be more interesting overall (melee , ranged, magic) Will Eternity play like turn based? No, but it can still be very fun, and the best RTwP tactical RPG game we've seen yet.

     

    Surely good real time tactical games (with or without pause) exist: Myth, Dawn of War 2, Total War (during battles) et similia, and hopefully Project Eternity will be one of them, but the point nailed down by Catmorbid remains true: if you have a party of 4/6 characters with a large number of abilities, spells and active skills, you need a lot of pauses to handle with them; so what's the point of having a real time system? You don't gain the fluidity of a real time system anyway, and a turn based system (with an high killing ratio for both party members and mobs) can assure you a faster pace and an unmatchable control over the action.

     

    To be honest, I can't find a single reason to prefer RTwP in RPGs (but still, I never unistalled Darllands from my HDD in the last 10 years :). Is it just a matter of presentation? Does TBC "feel" too slow? The new X-com doesn't...

     

     

    I probably overemphasized my defense of RTwP, it wasn't very clear but I tend to prefer turn based too. At this point though, I think it would be more constructive to think about what can make a good tactical RTwP system, since there is no chance they reverse their decision (as it is set in stone in the Kickstarter description).

     

    What you gain with RTwP is synchronism of actions of all the participants, fluidity might be a consequence of it, but it is not the core question. To many players turn based feels disjointed, one acting after the other. I know there are ways to introduce a measure of synchronism in turn-based system, separating movements from other actions, etc, and that it results in more fluid games, but in the end they are just variants.

    This is, I think what people means when they say it feels like a "chess game", or it is less immersive.

     

    How can one introduce finer controls in a RTwP system? This is I think the more interesting question for this game: what tricks or variants could be introduced to allow for richer tactical elements and finer control. In many way the questions are the exact mirrors of those you would ask for a turn based system.

     

    Queued and conditional actions on one hand, and contextual auto-pause trigger on the other (think an enemy as entered my threat zone, giving me an attack of opportunity) might be avenues to explore (not saying that what you will discover will necessarily be interesting to everyone).

  10.  

    Don't forget that Steam will be on Linux and out of beta by the time you ship.

     

    I am all for a Linux version, I use Linux everyday, Windows rots on my main computer's harddrive in between occasions when I need it (generally because I want to play a game). But I have to ask: is this really what we wanted? Steam on Gnu/Linux? (yeah I just went all Richard Stallman on you there) .

     

    Sure, Obsidian, make a Linux version, but please make it as close to the free software spirit as you can. You wont gpl Onyx and the tools

  11. Here is my problem: after T3-M4 opens the way to the mining tunnels and gets shot, the new scene loads, but without the main character, instead I am still T3-M4 (though I am adressed to as the main character in the dialogue). I can't go to the mining tunnels, the transition won't happen (probably for lack of the right varibables being set on the character). I've reloaded the game to a save before opening the hatch quite a few times, no luck.

    Any suggestion would be welcome

    Thanks

  12. Mabe there would be an option sort of thing where TSL reads your old KOTOR save data and makes the appropriate changes according to that, of course it wouldnt apply to everyone but it may be an option, just a thought ;)

    Apparently Obsidian has decided to stay away from that solution. I think that is a good thing: imagine you do not have a save game to feed KOTOR II, then what? Should you be stuck with the default history? Should it be random? Obviously either would be highly frustrating for the player. Using the save game is fine for an expansion, since you expect it, not for a second opus, or in a very limited and inconsequential fashion (golden pantaloons in BGII).

    The approach they seem to have taken is much better in my opinion, the difficulty being to integrate it into the storytelling and gameplay. A Q&A before launching the game would be rather lame, not that the developers ever considered that as a solution.

    EDIT: if you suggest the use of the savegame as an alternate way to import the information, while using the in-story trick as the default mechanism, the problem would be that if you have integrated the second option in the story in a natural manner it becomes difficult to skip it if a save game is used. You could transform it into an ingame cinematic I suppose... urk.

  13. How would he appear in the lightside version? He wouldn't wear a mask, and it would be impossible to select one face for him.

    I'm not saying that it will happen, it's actually very unlikely, since it would require some specific work/interface to get it done, but something like this would be possible:

     

    At the beginning of the game you are contacted by an official of the republic. The identity of the Sith Lords is unknown, but logically Revan is suspected. Problem is, there is nothing much but rumours about his/her appearance. Since you fought alongside Revan, the official wants you to identify him/her. He gives you a few photos of individuals who might be Revan. Those are the heads you could pick for your character at the beginning of KOTOR I. Declare that one of them is Revan, done.

     

    EDIT: thinking about it, it is starwars, so we'll go with holograms instead of photos. Spawning a few floating heads and allowing you to click on one of them to "identify" Revan should not be overly complicated.

×
×
  • Create New...