Jump to content

Shevek

Members
  • Posts

    1,162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Shevek

  1. I hate that these soulbound weapons only bind to certain classes. All weapons should bind to and have effects for all classes.
  2. This isnt a MMO. You can build a fighter in a variety of ways and wont have to worry about not finding a group if he cant solo tank a dragon or hit 2k dps.
  3. Well, after a user's third suggestion, I just ignore the rest. I also ignore anything that has zero to do with gameplay. Okay, but you're not a developer so why should we care? Why should anyone care about anything? I suppose it could be because I made the thread asking for feedback because I was curious and wanted to get a handle on what people's top 3 suggestions would be. I mean, what kind of person just jumps into a thread and starts posting without even reading or giving a darn about the original post or the reason for the thread's existence? I guess you.
  4. Its an economy of ideas. If you have to pick three things, you pick three things that really matter to you and you, hopefully, have concrete details to support your salient points. If you have no limit, you start listing every little thing you would change to make the perfect crpg that only exists in your brain. This also legitimizes the data to a degree since all respondents have a ceiling and cant monopolize the input by listing 30 things to some other dudes 1 or 2. Also, by limiting folks to 3, its much easier to use established means of qualitative research to yield quasi quantitative data . The data set is manageable and you can start sorting data rough categories. This means you can see what aspects of the game folks feel needs to change and what, if any, is the consensus around how to do so. Of course, this isnt perfect. People veer from the format and ignore directions. But I just ignore crap that is actually more about world building, narrative design, level design, etc (like ninjas and airships) or people that list 30 things when only 3 were asked for. The problem is when a captain obvious or someone who isn't that bright has 3 ideas which are still added to your list, and someone who is a budding game design genius has 5 great ideas but is pressured to only say 3 of them, even though the 2 he left out are leagues ahead of the other person's 3 subpar ideas. It doesn't matter how professional your quasi quantitative data appears when the means to forge it diminishes the usefulness of the end result. You sound like you care more about stroking your epeen by collating data instead of making Pillars 2 a much better game. The game isnt made for just game design geniuses though and I doubt that the sample that OE wants is a bunch of arm chair game designers who look at titles with an entirely critical eye. Also, who is to judge the sub par idea from the great one? Most research on sampling suggests that the public as a whole tends to be pretty darn good at estimating value, recognizing issues, etc. Also, it generally stands to reason that if a massive plurality of individuals take issue with a specific gameplay system, then it should be looked at. So, that data alone would be of value to OE. The specific suggestions will be allover the map but any commonalities in what people as a whole want could be of value as well.
  5. Its an economy of ideas. If you have to pick three things, you pick three things that really matter to you and you, hopefully, have concrete details to support your salient points. If you have no limit, you start listing every little thing you would change to make the perfect crpg that only exists in your brain. This also legitimizes the data to a degree since all respondents have a ceiling and cant monopolize the input by listing 30 things to some other dudes 1 or 2. Also, by limiting folks to 3, its much easier to use established means of qualitative research to yield quasi quantitative data . The data set is manageable and you can start sorting data rough categories. This means you can see what aspects of the game folks feel needs to change and what, if any, is the consensus around how to do so. Of course, this isnt perfect. People veer from the format and ignore directions. But I just ignore crap that is actually more about world building, narrative design, level design, etc (like ninjas and airships) or people that list 30 things when only 3 were asked for.
  6. Well, after a user's third suggestion, I just ignore the rest. I also ignore anything that has zero to do with gameplay.
  7. Essentially, make the pet optional to the ranger or remove it is basically a bit of feedback/suggestion having to do with a singular aspect of the gameplay - the ranger's pet. But, hey, you want to leave one suggestion, thats fine by me.
  8. You just made what amounts to a single gameplay suggestion. Care to reformat and add 2 more?
  9. Its not about commenting on my suggestions. Its about giving me YOUR suggestions about anything gameplay related. Your top 3.
  10. I am trying to see if I can collect and categorize gameplay feedback/suggests for PoE2 to compile. Chances are this will probably be ignored but I will have a bit of time off in coming weeks - so I am taking this as a bit of a side project. So, basically, give 3 specific suggestions to further improve PoE gameplay for PoE2. Suggestions beyond the first 3 will be ignored as will anything that is not gameplay related. I will collect feedback over the next week or so and then start to compile it. Heres mine: 1. PoE2 should do more with its injury mechanic. Theres untapped potential there. Instead of just having major injuries resulting from failed athletics checks, minor injuries could accrue from being knocked out, hitting certain traps, allowing certain effects/poisons to go uncured, getting critted by certain powerful/named creatures, etc. This could both incentivize better play and add a further drain on rest resources. 2. Something to disincentivize just trekking back to buy more camping supplies when you run out. This could be carrot (xp or stat bonus accruing over x number of fights that resets on rest, etc) and/or stick (partial respawns when you leave an area, etc). 3. More interesting spell mechanics for Wizards. This could mean metamagic or spell sequencers/contingencies/etc. This could also mean something to promote Grimoire switching. Perhaps different Grimoires could give bonuses to different kinds of spells - thereby incentivizing the maintaining of different spellbooks.
  11. They are the answer to folks who might have been upset that they backed off their original intent (in the early part of the KS) of having some form of m/c. It is a weak answer.
  12. Why would you sat that? (T_T) They're not meant to be ultimate moves, they're more for adding variety to builds.They suck compared to any multiclassing I have seen in any rpg system ever.
  13. Its not that PotD values are inflated. Its that regular enemy values are deflated. In the regular game you can ignore enemy defenses and brute force everything. In PotD, you actually benefit from flanking' exploiting weaak defenses, using abilities to take down other defs and so on. PotD is the real game.
  14. Again, that thread would have been retardo'd in time (probably as soon as you published the review). Its a war of wills there at times. Its one you would have easily won with FP as coauthor and the strength of the text you wrote. You dropping the review put the kibosh on that.
  15. I'm not interested in revenge. I'm disgusted, bitter, and hate the idea of even looking at that text. Is there something I want? Yeah, actually, there is. It's completely unrealistic of course but it's there. I want the Codex to draw a line: to acknowledge that publishing a draft without the author's permission is not kosher and declare that it won't happen again. Despite everything I think the Codex does have something of unique value to offer, and I don't think completely unrestricted asshattery is it. Sadly, that unique outlook the Codex brings (along with the well informed opinions, etc) is in part due to the asshattery. Folks are constantly testing eachother there and that leads to the sharpening of their salient points. While I agree that Sensuki's actions were pretty low by any standard, admin can't really punish stuff like that because then it would cease to be the Codex (slippery slope, etc). The only way to punish Sensuki, would have been to do so yourself. They self-police there. By putting out your review, you show him to be an ass and you gain enough respect to further berate his antics at your leisure. Caving to this sort of thing legitimizes it, fosters further such actions and promotes that completely unrestricted asshattery that you hate so much. But, well, we are talking in circles now. I will just say, that if you want a rpg site that is carefully moderated, there are sites like that in abundance around the net. But that just isnt the Codex.
  16. PJ: The best revenge would have been releasing the review. Caving to the troll is not success. TheisEjsing: I don't think he has much to offer TToN. Thats a text heavy, combat lite, TB game. That is as far removed from BG and IWD as you can get. His insights might have had more impact on Serpents in the Staglands since its RTwP.
  17. I dont think Codex admin approved. They just let people be jerks if they so choose. That is not the same thing. The Codex is an odd place. They exist to let people speak in fairly unfiltered ways with eachother. You could have easily shut him up and his cadre of fools simply by finishing the review. If you would have ignored the thread, it would have been retardo'd, the review would have been front page material, you would have farmed dozens of brofists and Sensuki would have looked like a chump for trying to stop such an epic review (it really could have been quite good with more comments from FP, some screenies and some editting). I suppose he deserves this victory though. Seeing as he wasted years of his life trying to force a development company to make a game his way and they largely laughed at him, made snickering remarks around the office about him ("in the Infinity engine games..."), ignored him and put out their title their way to wide critical praise and financial success. In a basement somewhere in the wilds of Australia-land, a sad man has at least salvaged for himself one small shred of dignity in this small and insignificant triumph.
  18. Permission to post it so as to not get banned is not the same thing as being forced or even asked to do so. His actions reflect poorly on the Codex. As a proud Codexian Gentleman, I am somewhat displeased by this sort of thing. Real Codexers should have it out in the marketplace of ideas not by this sort of backstabbery. But, at least there is drama.
×
×
  • Create New...