Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'combat'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Obsidian Community
    • Obsidian General
    • Computer and Console
    • Developers' Corner
    • Pen-and-Paper Gaming
    • Skeeter's Junkyard
    • Way Off-Topic
  • Avowed
    • Avowed Speculation
  • Grounded
    • Grounded: Announcements and News
    • Grounded: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
    • Grounded: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Grounded: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
  • The Outer Worlds
    • The Outer Worlds: Announcements and News
    • The Outer Worlds: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
    • The Outer Worlds: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
    • The Outer Worlds: Character Builds & Strategies (Spoiler Warning!)
    • The Outer Worlds: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
  • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire
    • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Announcements and News
    • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
    • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Characters Builds, Strategies & the Unity Engine (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
  • Pathfinder
    • Pathfinder Adventures: Announcements and News
    • Pathfinder Adventures: General Discussion (No Spoilers!)
    • Pathfinder Adventures: Characters Builds & Strategies (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pathfinder Adventures: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
  • Pillars of Eternity
    • Pillars of Eternity: Announcements and News
    • Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
    • Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pillars of Eternity: Characters Builds, Strategies & the Unity Engine (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pillars of Eternity: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pillars of Eternity: Backer Beta
  • Pillars of Eternity: Lords of the Eastern Reach
    • Lords of the Eastern Reach: Announcements and News
    • Lords of the Eastern Reach: Speculation & Discussion
    • Lords of the Eastern Reach: Kickstarter Q&A
  • Legacy (General Discussion)
    • Alpha Protocol
    • Dungeon Siege III
    • Neverwinter Nights 2
    • South Park
    • Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords
  • Legacy (Archives)
    • Alpha Protocol
    • Armored Warfare
    • Dungeon Siege III
    • Fallout: New Vegas
    • Neverwinter Nights 2
    • South Park
    • Tyranny


  • Chris Avellone's Blog
  • Neverwinter Nights 2 Blog
  • Joshin' Around!
  • Adam Brennecke's Blog
  • Chapmania
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Site Blog
  • Pillars of Eternity Support Blog
  • Pathfinder Adventures Dev Blogs
  • Obsidian Marketing and Market Research Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start




Website URL





Xbox Gamertag

PSN Online ID



Found 113 results

  1. I've noticed some people asking about how much damage increase a point of Accuracy is worth. I've also noticed some people making incorrect arguments based on incorrect information. So I figured "Hey, I'm an engineer. I'll do some maths." So I did. Here's the maths. It's a plot of your average dps (relative to the base damage) versus your accuracy. Calculated using the rules given in the wiki for combat rolls as of today. . This can be used (among other things) to tell when (if anywhere - hint, it's nowhere) DEX gives you more damage than MIG. Summary below: Accuracy/Deflection within 5 points: Marginal gain/loss for 1 Accuracy: 1.5% dps (relative to base dmg) Accuracy/Deflection within 5-45 points: Marginal gain/loss for 1 Accuracy: 1% dps (relative to base dmg) Accuracy/Deflection outside 45 points: Marginal gain/loss for 1 Accuracy: 0.5% dps (relative to base dmg) There are the numbers. All other things being equal, the Accuracy bonus from DEX always gives you less dps increase than the damage bonus from MIG. When fighting enemies with Deflection much higher or lower than your Accuracy, each 2 points of Accuracy is equivalent to 1 point of MIG (where dps is concerned, that is. dps isn't everything of course). Please take this math into account when making arguments about stats, power, the value of inherent Accuracy bonuses (boni?), the value of DEX relative to MIG, etc. I'm done mathing for tonight. Peace. PS - Source file for doing your own maths: New Excel: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29325716/Pillars%20of%20Eternity%20DPS%20calc.xlsx Old Excel: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29325716/Pillars%20of%20Eternity%20DPS%20calc.xls EDIT: A quick note about why DEX, while giving less damage than MIG, isn't unilaterally inferior to it. DEX affects Reflex save instead of Fort save. This lets you dodge AoE attacks. Also, the % increases in dps I've calculated also apply to spell/ability duration increases/decreases on graze/crit, which aren't affected by MIG at all as far as I know. So for scripted interactions that take DEX, characters who want to dodge AoE attacks, and characters who are more interested in getting long duration abilities/spells by critting with them, DEX is better. There may also be one-off abilities/passives that give bonuses from DEX as well - I'd imagine the rogue will have some.
  2. Old thread. In the red corner, we have people who want to stick with the tradition of Infinity Engine games. Over in the blue corner, the wide eyed idealists who want fair XP distribution for all players regardless of playstyle. And apparently there's a few people who lept in and started painting another corner yellow advocating for learn-by-doing. Still have plenty of corners in this ring, it's not a triangle. So give your feedback. But I want a nice clean discussion, no low blows or personal attacks.
  3. Ok... here's the thing.... I really, really do not like the interrupt mechanic as currently implemented. Not as something that can happen from any attack. Interrupting spells in the process of casting - fine. Interrupting attacks, but using a spell or ability - fine. But this whole "any attack can interrupt any action" mechanic? Nuh-uh. Nope. Bad mechanic. And here's why, from a game design standpoint. Interrupt, as currently implemented adds RNG to battle, but in a really unpredictable way that is hard to anticipate. Good, rewarding mechanics are all about giving the player various tools to make intelligent decisions with. Making an intelligent decision about interrupt is extremely, extremely difficult. As I've gone into more detail about here: (http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67761-dps-vs-accuracy-deflection-heres-the-maths-enjoy/?p=1493755), actually figuring out how interrupt affects your effectiveness in combat is highly nontrivial. Interrupt (and by extension the current version of RES/PER) is extremely difficult for a player to place a value on, which means that any build choices regarding interrupt aren't because the player knows what they're trading off, but more based on a qualitative "feel" for which they like better. And don't get me wrong - I'm not knocking qualitative feels. Despite what my math-focused posts may lead you to believe, I am not a powergamer or a min/maxer. I like doing the math and knowing what my choices are, but I rarely derive any enjoyment from simply choosing the most optimal thing. I like to RP in CRPGs, and my choices about stats and abilities and weapons and armor are often affected by that. So don't misinterpret me here - I'm a fan of qualitative choices. And many players are. But that's no excuse for bad design. Even if a player wants to make a choice based on what they qualitatively prefer or find more fun, that doesn't mean they shouldn't also have the tools to know what the implications of their decisions are. So to summarize - I think interrupt (as currently implemented with anything able to interrupt anything) is a bad mechanic. I think the game would be better without it. What do you think? And to round off my argument with the final nail in my web of logic and reasoning... Boo interrupt. PS - Remember that it's still early enough to potentially make large changes to the mechanics. And while I don't think interrupt ruins the game or anything, I think it would be undeniably better without it (at least without the current implementation.) If people agree with me, maybe OE will see it and think about improving it. If not, then OE doesn't need to change anything because the majority of their testers don't care.
  4. As I understand they've said they just want combat to be for the fun of it. Taking away experience rewards from enemies just seems like it will leave the combat a bit unrewarding. I feel like I will skip even trying to get in fights because there's not much benefit and mostly detriment. You risk your characters getting hurt/knocked out/killed for what, beating enemies juts for the fun of it? There's always a balance of risk vs. reward in these kinds of games and it seems that balance has been upset. Sure some enemies may drop items, but that'll be the only reward of combat? I think it's a mistake for them not to give any exp. Perhaps cutting the exp gains from enemies down so that you don't gain a ton, but none? That means the only point of the game is to just grind through quests as fast as you can with no reason to kill enemies and skip all unnecessary stuff. It pigeon holes players into playing one specific way. What if players don't want to do many quests? The only way to play if you want to get anywhere is by questing now. There's no just going out and adventuring around killing things as a form of progression. Let's face it, players want to be rewarded and they want to get that reward via the fastest means possible. That means is going to be skipping unnecessary combat and leaves combat in general feeling like a chore that you must do along the path to grinding out these quests. I haven't played the beta myself so this is just as I understand it from what I've heard and read. Just wanted to get my thoughts out about this.
  5. In Project Eternity Update #12: Reddit Q&A with Tim Cain, Tim mentioned that there would be an option that would auto-pause when a character had a new ability or action they can do, basically when the characters next 'turn' starts. Currently we have a lot of pause options but there isn't really one equivalent to this one, which I think would be the most useful one there is. I am just throwing it out there because I don't want it to be missed as I find it extremely important. For reference at about 5:25 seconds : http://youtu.be/1Uyzap5FcgI?t=5m25s
  6. As it stands right now in the bb 257 I find combat too cluttered/chaotic to be playable. Being able to rotate the camera view would be extremely helpful but so would making clicking or moving the cursor over a character/enemy's health bar select/give info on the object/character. The health bars seem to find a way to be seen unlike the actual character, and if you could highlight the selected character then combat would be considerably less chaotic.
  7. I´d like to be able to put the Combat log, quest log, character information, inventory and such and drag it over to my second monitor. (like playing the game in window mode and placing the info tabs on the other monitor) This might not be possible with the current engine? ,but maybe on a stand alone application? This might not be possible but I'd sure love to see more advanced options like this. What crazy dream features would you guys have liked to see in the game? PS: This game will look awesome on a 4K monitor
  8. When using skills, draw an arrow from caster to target. Like in this image from Dota 2. It can be improved upon from Dota - if cast target is so far away you need to move, make the target cursor or arrow yellow. If moving will provoke a disengagement attack or will move you into engagement range of an enemy when casting, make arrow or cursor red.
  9. Seriously, its hard to keep up with conversation when there are three threads on same subject...
  10. So.. I fully understand the concept of melee engagement, and I like it a lot. What I'm not quite clear on is why it has been implemented NOT with the traditional "attack-of-opportunity" implementation, but instead a "cannot leave without special abilities" implementation. Is there some reason for this? I sort of understand the mechanical reason for it (allowing frontliners to CC enemies) but I'm not clear on the rationale... if you're fighting with someone, nothing's stopping you from running away except the fact that you'll be turning your back on them (hence the traditional "attack-of-opportunity").
  11. hi , after 1,5 hours i have find -with certain spell the mage go close to enemy and hit everything ( like with fireball or acid cloud ) this happened when the party is in a small zone -i not understand why mage/cleric/druid don't cast spell occasionally but instead go in closecombat -the game cursor vanish and appear the classic window cursor -godlike don't have the head slot ( maybe is intentional ) -when ranger use "cripple Shot" enemy are stuck but continue to attack my party member even if they are far
  12. A suggestion for the UI when in combat when there are many enemies and it gets really crowded. It would be helpful to get a UI bar with a roster of enemies so it is easier to aim and allows easier monitoring of specific enemies. Not sure if anyone else feels the need for it, but I feel it would make combat management easier. Thanks, keep it up.
  13. Here is the list of things I know\suspect to effect attack speed: * Monks and probably other classes can gain bonus to their attack speed through abilities. But does all class has the same base attack speed? * Each weapon type has its own attack speed, implements are the fastest, swords faster than great axes etc, right ? * Certain attack styles (and maybe talents?) can increase attack speed, for example attacking with two weapons is faster than with one. * Armor with higher protection rating slow you down. Any ideas?
  14. We have been given a lot of info on how Stealth work outside of combat, but I don't recall any specifics about how would it work during combat(i.e. rouge hide in shadows), I don't suppose its a non-combat skill only so any thoughts? We have the alertness states (creatures will investigate if you move in too close and cry out an alert and attack if they find you) maybe they will play a role during combat as well e.g. alerted/engaged creatures will have an increase detection radius and thus far harder to fool. Or maybe there will be a check for entering stealth during combat, because if now everyone can sneak, then it will be too simple to just pull a Houdini during combat and or troll path finding with the act.
  15. After reading the recent update, there's something that's been gnawing on my mind. Most classes seem to have a fairly obvious preference for melee or ranged combat, while others can go either way depending on preference. A Fighter seems to have a melee bias, a Ranger would likely use ranged weapons exclusively, and a Rogue could put either option to good use. So far, so good. This distinction makes sense given the combat roles of each class. The thing I'm not sure about is when it comes to different weapon types in the same range category. A typical example would be a melee Fighter vs a melee Rogue. Assuming they're both interested in dealing damage, an archetypal fighter might choose to go with a big greatsword to cleave his foes in half, while a typical Rogue would be more inclined to grab a dagger in each hand for quick, precise stabs and slices at the enemy's vulnerable spots. Something similar can be imagined for ranged weapons, where you might have a choice between an arquebus (high damage but hard to reload and not accurate at long range) or a longbow (less point-blank damage, but better range and speed). Does Eternity have such a distinction? Is there any reason to pick one weapon type over another, or will there be a "best choice" for every situation? For example, D&D somewhat simulates this situation by giving the Fighter a higher damage modifier when having high strength and using a two-handed weapon, while the dual-wielding Rogue won't miss that modifier since he has lower strength and would rather get extra attacks to apply his sneak attack bonus to. Note that I'm not necessarily talking about damage types (like a club doing crushing damage vs a sword doing cutting damage), but more a general sense of choosing what weapon type your character will specialise in. In some games there is a clear "best choice", where for whatever reason one weapon type is simply more efficient in any given situation. For the sake of this question, I am completely disregarding the fact that many players simply choose their weapon type for flavor reasons. While that's of course a very valid way to pick your preference, it's not really relevant to the mechanics of the game. The way I see it, looking at the various games I've played in the past, there are factors that can influence what is "best" and often multiple of those can play a role at the same time. A few examples include: All classes have a default preferred weapon type, which means they either can't use any other weapon types or they simply get artificial bonuses to one type that make other types less desireable. This is a very simple to understand and straight-forward system, but does tend to restrict player choice. Even if it's just a bonus or penalty to certain types, it still feels restricted and artificial because it's just some arbitrary modifier that isn't based in the rest of the game's mechanics. Some weapon types simply have better options available. Like there are some awesome magical spears in the game while the best mace is kind of lame, so specialising in maces is less desireably than spears. While this makes sense, I feel that it rewards "spoilers" (how else would you know about those spears when you make your character) and penalises players for making choices that they have no way of knowing that they are bad for the endgame. Weapons have different damage types. For example is the game has many enemies that resist piercing damage, this will make spears a very undesireable weapon. On the other hand this tends to be one of the most frustrating options, like when your strongest character specialises in spears and you are in an area with many enemies immune to piercing damage. Suddenly your main source of damage is useless and the game becomes much harder than it would be if you chose to specialise in axes. Mechanical differences like attack speed are in my opinion one of the more interesting options. A light dagger can swing faster than a heavy axe even though it deals less damage, so you have to choose whether a character needs to hit fast or hard. However this can also quickly devolve into a simple DPS race, where an axe does 12 damage every 3 seconds while a dagger does 5 damage every 1 second, so the dagger ends up having a simple statistical advantage and there's no real reason to choose the axe. In some games, all weapons are more or less equal (with minor penalties in one area roughly evening out against minor bonuses in other areas, for example damage vs accuracy) which offers the best options for character customisation (you want a Rogue with a giant mace and a Wizard dual-wielding hatchets? There's no reason not to do it!), but makes some sacrifices in terms of variety since all choices end up feeling very much the same. So after all that text, my question is simply how does Eternity handle the differences between weapon types. Does it encourage a certain weapon type to be used with certain classes or play styles and if so, how?
  16. I'd like that sometimes critical hits mean a "permanent" effect, like a scar, a missing finger or eye, a leg injury and the like. Some of this effects could be heal with powerful magic o healing skils, On the other hand the most severe may be permanent, but it's consequences may halved with the appropiate means.Other ways to make not all severe injuries permanent would be healing them with a mission (to recover a very strange and rare herb that grows in a certain place, or finding a long lost legendary healer,...), or using some items that are limited (meaning that you have to decide using it in one injury or in another). This could also affect to NPC members of the party, and the main character could heal them easier. That could mean that a NPC of the party must retire eventually due to his grave wounds, but since there are more NPC who may substitute him it doesnt mean that the rest game is affected. This would encourage that more NPC are used during the game and make each encounter more intense.
  17. I feel that fighters are very often mishandled - classically the most monotonous and boring class, specially in d&d games, where they're very often just part of some dual or multiclass character or dipped into for some bonus or other. Conversely other games try to fix this by giving them abilities that are practically magic - various agro and pulling mechanics, random invulnerabilities, special super attacks etc. Now PE seems to be taking a more grounded approach (or that's the feeling I've gotten up until now), so I guess that won't be happening here. I think one problem with fighters is that they are covering a very wide selection of archetypes, compared to other classes. A wizard is usually the old bookworm guy with the beard and pointy hat, a paladin the goody two-shoes religious zealot, the rogue the shady thief/assassin. But fighters, they can be mercenaries, weapon masters, samurai, knights, duelists, gladiators, generals and peons, pirates, archers,... So a fighter needs to be able to evolve into any of these which I think can result in either a lack of options or lack of direction for the class. This would be some of the traits I would attribute to fighters, also in the interest of keeping the flavor different from other warrior classes: discipline, learning, fulfilled potential, constancy, reliability, focus. A fighter is supposed to be good at fighting. The best in fact. Not the strongest or most resilient/determined/flexible, just simply best at what it does. When I say reliable I don't mean mediocre or boring, I mean that its risks are measured and mostly successful. Its strength would lie in the mastery of a weapon. Now considering the class abilities tidbits we've got before the holidays the thought might have occurred already, but I think having various modes/fighting styles would be a good idea. Something akin to lightsaber forms from KOTOR2 - bonuses and penalties to various stats. At the lowest levels the way a player starts building the character would be determined by gear more than abilities, with them gradually becoming available through the lower levels. Certain modes could exclude others or provide small synergy bonuses, as an incentive for a player to specialize - providing a clearer focus for the class and reducing the power potential (i.e. you can't be the best in every situation). As fluff, this could provide other benefits. It would represent something you learn through drill or a rigid technique that is passed down as a certain way of fighting. It could also offer some visual candy in the form of changed animations, gradually, completely or perhaps just for a specific weapon. The standard +1 to attack passive ability type has gotten a bit boring in my opinion. While you can't really change the function much, I'd like to see a bit more flavor injected. For example learning weapon specialization would instead of adding a static +2 to damage with the chosen weapon make the fighter use the upper half of its damage spectrum more often. The fighter is not hitting any stronger with the selected weapon, just utilizing it better. When using a shield he/she could use it in such a way as to deflect the attackers' weapons to the side, leaving them more open to counterattack. Using armor so that it gets hit more often - less damaging attacks, more glancing blows. So on in this vein. Some active abilities are definitely needed, we want to enjoy the gameplay, not just character building. I would really like these to stay somewhere in the realm of possibility. I think some kind of combat maneuvers would fit. Sort of what like the rogue got, but less movement and more combat oriented. There was something written about a charge ability, that sounds good. There could be some abilities that focus on attacking certain body parts, unbalancing or disarming the opponent, or even using them for cover. Thoughts?
  18. I was wandering and I believe it hasn't mentioned before, but do we have any idea about the enemies' health condition indication? Will it be like we can see their remaining hit point or maybe, like the IE games, a description of it (uninjured, near deth etc)?
  19. I wanted to talk about the difficulty of P:E. I skimmed the first few pages and couldn't find a topic about it, so I decided to create one. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but here we go: I've been replaying DA:O on nightmare and couldn't help but notice how easy it is. When I played it for the first time I found it was more difficult than other games this generation, but that feeling went away when I got used to the mechanics. Now I just wail on the enemies and wait for them to die. That's not good combat. I know Obsidian is trying to capture the IE games, but those weren't *hard* per se, just obnoxiously luck based. I want to use tactics and all tools I have at my disposal. You should be punished for memorizing only damaging spells on your mage etc. The question is: How badly should you be punished? How difficult should the game be? How different should the experience be between normal and hard? How do you define difficulty in RPG's in general? Should anything be designed around luck? I have no idea where to even begin answering those questions, so I'll refrain from having an opinion before I read some of yours.
  20. Hail, elves. It's been a while since we've had a mechanics update, so I'd like to cover a variety of topics today: the basics of our "non-core" classes, our cooldown system (or lack thereof), an update on how attacks are resolved, and another update on the evolution of our armor system. I'd also like to show you a dungeon tileset test render and some sweet shakycam of some of the combat basics running in engine. Non-Core Classes We've previously discussed the design of our "core four" classes: fighter, priest, rogue, and wizard. The non-core classes are the other seven: barbarian, paladin, ranger, druid, monk, chanter, and cipher. Like the core four classes, the non-core classes all start the game with two active or modal abilities and one passive ability. When it comes to the balance of active/modal and passive options, the classes generally reflect their D&D counterparts, with spellcasters having more active use abilities and weapon-based classes being oriented toward more passive or modal abilities. Even so, it will be possible to push a spellcaster toward more passive talents and to optionally buy more active/modal abilities for traditionally low-maintenance characters. While all classes will have many more abilities as they advance, here are some basic elements for each of the seven classes. Barbarians can use Wild Sprint a limited number of times per day, allowing them to rapidly rush across the battlefield to a distant target while ignoring hazards along the way. Paladins have limited healing capabilities, but their Revive command allows them to instantly snap an unconscious ally awake with a large Stamina boost. Rangers' animal companions are so closely bonded to their masters that they share Stamina and Health pools, which can be both a blessing and a curse. Druids can Shapeshift into animal forms, gaining natural -- and some supernatural -- abilities associated with those creatures. Monks absorb a portion of incoming damage and convert it into a Wounds resource they can use to power their soul-based abilities (such as Stunning Blows) through any weapons they use, including unarmed strikes. Chanters begin the game with a number of phrases they can arrange to form songs with different effects. Aefyllath Ues Mith Fyr is a phrase that causes allies' weapons to emit magical flames. Cipher powers often gain intensity as they maintain focus. Their basic Mind Jab starts as a minor irritant but can build to inflict devastating damage. Cooldowns Early on, some folks asked about cooldowns and both Tim and I agreed that we weren't opposed to using them in some form if it made sense for our mechanics. To be more explicit about it, the only way in which we are currently using anything cooldown-like is for per-encounter and per-rest abilities. Per-encounter abilities can be used a number of times in an encounter and are then disabled until combat ends. Per-rest abilities can be used a number of times after resting before you must rest to recover them. We've previously discussed grimoire-switching for wizards possibly invoking a cooldown. It's more likely that grimoire-switching will be limited through the inventory system and not by a cooldown. We also have modal abilities that can be turned on and off at will, with some abilities being exclusive to others, meaning you can only have one active at a time. Attack Resolution I've talked about this a bunch on the forums, but not in an update. All attacks in Project Eternity compare the attacker's Accuracy value to one of four defenses: Deflection (direct melee and ranged attacks), Fortitude (body system attacks like poison and disease), Reflexes (area of effect damage attacks), and Willpower (mental attacks). A number between 1 and 100 is generated to determine the attack rules. If the Accuracy and target defense are the same value, these are how the results break down: 01-05 = Miss 06-50 = Graze 51-95 = Hit 96-100 = Critical Hit A Hit is the standard damage and duration effects, a Graze is 50% minimum damage or duration, a Critical Hit is 150% maximum damage or duration, and a Miss has no effect. In a balanced Attack and defense scenario, the majority of attacks wind up being Hits or Grazes. If the Accuracy and defense values are out of balance, the windows for each result shift accordingly, while always allowing for the possibility of a Graze or a Hit at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Damage Type vs. Armor Type We've previously talked about how different weapon damage types (Slash, Crush, and Pierce) fare against Damage Threshold (DT) in the game. We implemented that system and found that while it worked well on paper and scaled well, it was unintuitive when put into the game. It was not possible for players to make informed decisions about what weapons to use against a given armor type because doing so required making relative damage vs. DT calculations for all weapon types, i.e. having a spreadsheet open for comparison at all times. In light of this, we are going to try a more explicit damage type vs. armor type model where armor, regardless of its DT, has a familiar weight classification: Light, Medium, and Heavy. Damage types are either good or bad against a given weight classification. When a damage type is "bad" against an armor type, it does half damage before DT is applied, making it very inefficient. Within the "good" types of damage, there's still an efficiency curve against DT for meticulous players to figure out, but it has less impact than avoiding "bad" damage types in the first place. Energy-based attacks (like most spells) oppose a different characteristic of the armor, its substance type (Natural, Armor, or Spirit) and like damage types, have good and bad opposition characteristics. Weapon bonus damage that is energy-based is applied to the target separately, but at a fractional DT value matching the bonus damage. E.g. if a sword has a fire effect that does +15% the sword's damage, it is opposed by 15% of the target's Damage Threshold. Tileset Trials and Tribulations Environment artist Sean Dunny has been experimenting with building tilesets for our dungeons. "Tilesets?!" you may be saying (or thinking). It may be a surprise, but many Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment levels started from a tileset or modular unit base. We use these tilesets to generate basic renders for testing layout, navigation, and combat. Once we like the basic layout, we refine it by adding additional "meta" (special) tiles, modifying the tiles individually in the layout, adding lights, and of course having an artist do a 2D touchup pass. That's all for this week. Thanks for reading! Update by Josh Sawyer
  21. Obsidian has said that they are going to separate out combat and non-combat skills, so that the same resources are not spent on both. This has lead to some cheering... ...as well as some concern. The concern seems to chiefly come from those people who, at first glance, you would assume would be happy about non-combat skills getting to not be overshadowed by combat skills. I know I was. But it became clear - one cause for worry was the possibility that there'd be no way to make a more non-combat oriented character (or a more combat oriented one, for that matter.) And this makes a kind of sense - that is a possibility, that the character creation becomes so cookie cutter as to be "choose you weapon style, choose your source of power, chose your non-combat skill" generic of a template where the choices are different but the characters are essentially identical sized and shaped lollipops of different colors and flavors. Many players want to have one character a lollipop, but maybe another a tootsie pop, and mayber a third a popsicle... eh, let's abandon that metaphor. The question remains - will players be able to make a more non-combat oriented character now that you can't spend the resources put aside for combat on non-combat? Now this is potentially (in my mind likely) a non-issue - Obsidian will design a great system and we'll all love it. Unless their intent is for combat and non-combat to always play equally. And maybe that's still the problem, especially in getting to design your own character. Balance, I'd argue, is important. Any race or class or combination of such should have the same maximum potential - you don't want one class choice to be gimped as compared to another. Some RP'ers who aren't trying to "win the game at all costs" won't care that their RP choice is not the most effective on a spreadsheet via statistics. But many players will be concerned, and this should be a worry - hence balance. Again, any race or class or combination of such should have the same maximum potential... and I'd argue the same minimum potential. But there's this whole range inbetween for players to customize their character, where you can make purposeful (for challenge or for RP) "less effective" choices. And inside of this thought process I found one (of I'm sure many) potential solution to the concerns of those worried about the dividing of resources into combat and non-combat skills. (yes, here's the point I'm getting to) When creating your character, regardless of race or class, one part of your shaping process could be chosing if your character is combat oriented, skill (what I'm going to call non-combat from this point forward) oriented, or balanced. Think of this like have a choice of one of three traits at creation, a la the Fallout series. If you choose the combat oriented trait, you get fewer skill points but more combat points (however Obsidian is going to divide up those abilities). Your character is now better at fighting but less good at the not-killing-things, not-absorbing-damage. And figure your thief or mage or cleric (or whatever classes) abilities are similarly divided into "fighting abilities" and "non-fighting abilities" for the sake of this discussion. If you choose the skill orientend trait, you get more skill points but fewer combat points (basically the reverse of combat oriented.) And, clearly, chosing the balance (or maybe default or no trait) will keep the distribution of those resources at the base, normal, average level as considered in the game world and mechanics. These traits could even simply be a few of the options in a Fallout style trait mechanic overall, in fact. Well... would this solve those concerns, and would you like this idea implemented (or at least something like it)?
  22. Edit: Jesus christ, reading comprehension, I want a fighting style for the monk based on acupressure attacks, a crystaline tank, and mabe a ****ing shadow entity AS SECRETS, hidden abilities and techniques that part of hidden quests, not mainline or readily availible level up options This is me just spitballing an idea, but what if over the course of the game there were hidden subquests to trigger which led the party to learn a secret fighting style, kinda sorta how DA:O led you to discover the Archane Warrior class except more subtle and hidden. a simple example where you go find a clue which leads to a quest where you decide the outcome of some mundane event that ties to karma or some such, and depending on your action this leads to another clue where at the end you find a hidden passage under some waterfall where you find a wisened old man who puts you through a final test, and if you pass you become the next successor to that style of fighting. again, very simple example trying to get my point across and I think there should be level requirements as these styles should be very powerful. Basically, the idea hit me as a way to shoehorn HnK fighting styles for the monk, because I think it would be cool, of course there would be penalties associated with the styles, but it would be a very specific disadvantage... the point is because there are so secret, they need to be powerful to justify the time you spend finding them and there can be different secret styles for different classes Feel free to add your own/make suggestions/comment on but these a the few i'd like to pitch Monk: "Hokuto" Style (will be called something else, but deals with pressure points) ---Advantages: All styles deal superior damage to other martial styles, high kockback potential, multiple strikes, damage taken by hits is multiplied by (it's the pressure point hits) 10 (or some other number to make it super damaging) after 2 rounds, innate damage reduction, and special moves and enemies with struck power points explode in spectacular fashion. no crit fails ---Disadvantages: Works only on humanoid targets, monsters still take damage but no pressure point damage is added, style is locked in as you are the successor to the style, no crits, also hardship will follow your party, prepare for feels. (where Hokuto goes, chaos follows) --- Learned from three masters --- Heal Type (Toki) focuses on fluid motion and calm but accurate strikes, deals high damage to single targets, moderate AOE, weaker strengh, can heal party members with accupressure but must be out of combat, cures everything. --- Damage Type (Kenshiro) focuses on fast strikes full of damage, strikes faster and with higher base damage, great AOE, weaker defense --- Strength Type (Raoh) focuses of brutal strikes which knock back targets further, chance to crush enemies, high single target and AOE, slower attack speed, greater defense ^^^may restrict styles to alignment type^^^ "Nanto" Style: slashy cutty style Advantages: free flowing and deadly, this style allows the fighter to move across the battlefield with lethal grace, higher movespeed in combat, lots of attacks, added slashing or peircing damage, depending on sub style. characters using this style are harder to hit. Disadvantages: slightly lesser single target damage, style locked in, the more damage taken by the character, the slower and easier to hit he gets. Certain actions cannont be taken (star of Justice cannot let innocents suffer)((maybe)) --- Justice style (Rei) Characterized by extreme mobility coupled with massive AOE damage, baring special moves, single target damage is good. can not do or abide by evil actions --- Martydom style (Shin) Characterized by lightning quick puncturing moves, super high single target damage, moderate AOE moves. unable to make varied choices (tunnel vision) (might replace with Shuu's technique) --- Command style (Thouzer) Characterized by zero defense, lightning offense with brutal cleaving strikes, high damage all around, lowered defenses, cannot make emotional choices. (vvv these ideas are a little less fleshed out vvv) Warrior: Crystaline symbiote: You allow a crystaline entity to mesh with your warrior, giving you the innate mystical power of crystal and the toughness of a gem (your warrior is now DIAMONDS) Advantages: medium strength spells related to crystals and gems buff your party and deal damage to enemies, you look fabulous with your new crystals and gems popping out of your skin. obtain a crystaline blade of enerring quickness and razor sharpness, abilities include the ability to fissure the earth and ever increasing armor when healed from wounds. immune to slashing, heavy magic and peirce resistance Disadvantages: super weak to shatter or crush, Health is frozen at current level, immune to heal magic, only specific self heal can restore health, lower dex and char (you are a disfigured hybrid of flesh and crystal) unable to equip armor (may add ability to choose crystaline weapon according to pref) Rouge: Shadow infused: Despite what other rouges might bluff, you have actually are infused with the essence of shadow and as such can manipulate shadow to your will. Advantages: Characharized by massivly damaging pericing and slashing strikes, you stike with absolute percision and damage increases depending on the amount of shadow available. While cloaked in the night, you are perpetually stealthed and unable to be hit with physical attacks unless... Disadvantages: Useless during daytime, unless standing in shadow (in the shadow of a building, or inside a cave) Torches, flame arrows, or flame spells will deactivate your shadow power, making you hitable I still have a few ideas laying around, just too tired to write them all now, tell me what you think?
  23. Since the Degenerate Gameplay thread is starting to... degenerate, I thought I'd raise one substantial point that came up in it. For those who missed the fun, background. It's been established that P:E will only have quest XP, rather than combat XP (à la Infinity Engine) or XP for doing things (à la KOTOR1/2). One substantive objection has been raised about this: "Assuming that combat consumes resources and stealth/non-combat doesn't, won't this create a systemic incentive for avoiding combat?" The answer to that objection is "Yes, it does," of course. And that would be bad, not to mention contrary to Josh Sawyer's explicitly stated design goal of crafting a system that does not systematically favor any approach over others. Which is why I think the problem should be addressed. For example, you could have minor loot drops that would roughly compensate for typical resources used to win that combat. Or you could impose resource costs on stealth and other non-combat activities. Here's a sketch for a stealth system with resource costs, as an example of how it could be done. 1 Moving while stealthed uses stamina. It regenerates when standing still. 2 Any character can enter stealth mode. 3 Any stealthed character has a chance of being spotted. 4 Heavy armor makes you easier to spot and increases the stamina cost. 5 Being a rogue or adding points to your sneak skill will make you harder to spot and will reduce the stamina cost of stealth. 6 Consumables exist to temporarily boost your sneak skill. These are used up when consumed. 7 Magic exists to temporarily boost your stealth. These take up your spell-caster's spell-casting capability. 8 Sneak buffs are incompatible with combat buffs. Use one, lose the other. Consequence: a party who decides to sneak through an enemy-infested area will have to do it pretty carefully. They'll trade off combat spells for stealth spells (7), have to acquire and use sneak buffs (6), forego combat buffs [8], and have to use light rather than heavy armor (4). Since they're avoiding combat, the cost of failure is very high -- if they're spotted (3), they'll very likely be in a tactically poor position, low on stamina (1), lightly armored (4), and un-buffed for combat [8]. If implemented this way, would stealth still sound like the systemically favored way to solve problems? If so, why? Would this kind of system be fun to play? Why or why not? Any other ideas? Discuss.
  24. During pause, being able to cast a spell or have an UI mechanic that let's you [scry] the battle outcome. Being able to move characters in a sort of "Directive" mode. 1. There's 3 guards ahead 2. Pause 3. In Ghost-Form, you move up your Rogue 4. Enemy Ghost-Forms notice you~Ghost-Form dissolves. Still in Pause, if Enemy Ghost Form doesn't notice you go to (6). 5a. If Ghost-Form could be used as an ability: Twice a day use or Once a day. 5b. If Ghost-Form could be used abundantly, start over at "3". 6. Continue with the Ghost-Form through the level until you get noticed. What this allows for is, the player can go about "Will I be detected if I go this path?" during quests and would be less time consuming than "Save+Reload" (Loading screen when you reload). Send forward your Rogue in Ghost-Form, and the enemies also has Ghost-Forms that reacts in this [Paused] Ghost-Mode without consequence (except time consuming). I think this could be a great tool for a stealth approach, being able to see what will happen if you go into a certain direction. Finally when you've found a successful path forward, un-pause, and now it comes to the test of actually doing it. Generally, I think it could help in a "Collective" Scout Mode for any class/race and help in a stealth approach a lot as well with some sort of harmless scout mode. The only thing I could think of was this "Ghost" thing.
  25. Any thoughts on allowing players to ford streams/rivers or underground areas that are knee/waist/chest deep in water? Apart from it being visually interesting and possibly scary at times, it could allow for a variety of aquatic encounters to take place. For example, if the party has no choice but to cross a waist deep stream on foot, they might become targets for electric eels, snakes, and "bitey" fish like piranhas. Or in subterranean lakes, aboleths, aquatic undead, frog-men, and all manner of amphibious creatures. Obviously, the engine would need to handle the visual complexity of water and water-combat, but it could open up additional adventuring possibilities previously unavailable in IE games. Do we need this in P:E ?
  • Create New...