And people normally die when they are impaled trough the head with a metal rod... yet some live trough that and walk to the hospital in that condition.

Humans are both incredibily ressilient and incredibly fragile. A milimiter can make a difference. So without knowing how deep the arrows went and what they hit exactly, you can't say impossible. Improbable? Sure. But stranger things have happened.

You clearly see how long those arrows are, we see one being drawn in fact. Their lenght is more than sufficient to have penetrated very deeply.

I don't think they ever mentioned multiple EXP pools. Just that, when levelling up, non-combat skills will not compete with combat skills.

Mayby, but still he don't have to much informations about that system so i don't argu.

 

 

So yea, a character CAN be head and shoulders above others in skill, but still die to 5 lvl1 bandits. A skilled fighter cannot be everywhere at the same time. He cannot defend from every angle. Skills/feats give you more combat options and advantages in combat (especially 1 on 1), but at the end of the day you're still just one man.

So, you wish LOTR had said "And then, Sarumon sent 200 level 1 bandits at Aragorn and his group, and they all died because they were so normal and not OP. The end!"? Also, if LOTR is such a good example, then how come they can fight 8 billion orcs at once and come out of it just a bit bloody and fatigued? Isn't that a bit inconsistent?

 

More strawmen?

 

So are you saying you want your party of 5-6 to totally wipe the floor with 200 opponents? That's almost 40:1 odds.

 

I like how you accuse me of strawmannery for simply asking what you had to say about an example that seemingly followed your "Skilled adventurers should be easily slain by 5 or 6 Lvl 1 foes" line of reasoning, THEN you immediately pretend I said "You should regularly fight hundreds upon hundreds of foes at once in P:E and EASILY dispatch them! *jovial laughter*"

 

But, since you brought it up? Yes... I believe 200 rats (who are OFTEN represented as Lvl 1 foes) should be easily dispatched by a party of 6 people, some of whom can summon fire with their minds. So, I believe it is possible. Of course, that isn't to say 200 of anything should be taken on, or that I even think you should ever be confronted with 200 rats.

 

Also, Aragorn and the other heroes of Middle Earth fought in the middle of giant battles (such as Helm's Deep), and never took an axe to the back or an arrow through the neck or arm, much less died. Are they so skilled that they can literally track 50 different archers all around them, and 10-15 orcs/uruk-hai within 5-10 feet of them? For hours on end? Also, even fighting against mythologically stronger/fiercer-than-men beasts, they simply fought on without fatigue stopping them.

 

*shrug*. Just things worth considering, methinks. It's either relevant or it isn't. If it isn't, then simply correct me. I'll be happy to have a better understanding of the matter at hand.

I don't understand why we are even using real life situations in PE. IRL, a knight could not call upon the power of his soul to heal himself, strengthen his attacks, or move at greater speed, unless I missed something.

 

Multiple chest hits which clearly penetrate all the way to chest cavity, possibly to lungs...
Normal person is busy choking to death in their own blood after one or two.
Boromir took what... Half a dozen?

 

More like 4-5 arrows.

And yes, it is possible to get up after that...you'll still die. And dont' tell me how deep they were in or exactly what kind of internal damage they caused. You do not know, so don't pretend you do.

Like I said - people in real life SURVIVED seemingly impossible injuries. So no, I don't think it's far-fetched for a guy with 4 arrows in his chest to manage 2-3 swings before he dies.

 

 

 

Do YOU have any evidence that your view is supported by more than your own persona?
My authority comes from looking at existing RPG-games on the market which are successful and actually sell.
Your view is more along lines of niche indie games, which tend to never be financially profitable.
I want to see more than one PE, but if sales tank then there won't be more than one.

 

It is YOU who makes the assertion that a differnt mechanic cannot work, so it's up to you to prove it.

And you have no authority.

X being sucesfull is NOT a proof in any way, shape or form that Y cannot be sucesfull - especially not since something similar to Y also sells well.

 

PE is in a way a niche game. If you are so worried about sucess, then why aren't you advocating going for the Lowest Common Denominator? After all, that would guarantee even MORE sales. Except of course, it wont' be the game you want anymore....

 

 

 

Tell me tales of ordinary people.
Problem is that when people do extraordinary things, they are no longer considered ordinary people.
Audie Murphy is not considered "ordinary guy" by many americans for example.

 

 

Plenty of heroes are rather ordinary - at least in terms of capability. I think mine and your definition of extraordinary is completely different.

 

 

 

 

Thinking "outside the box" is not necessarily somehow "better". Two completely different systems more often fail to compliment one another than compliment one another.

Trying to stuff player skill as decisive part of RPG is horrible idea. The very name ROLEplaying game shows it. It is not about your abilities, but character's abilities. You just hint to character what they should try, and their skills define if they succeed.

 

Player skill IS a decisive part of a RPG.. player reflexes aren't. But tactics/strategic planing is done by the player - not the character - and it is a skill.

 

 

 

 

Have you heard of concept called FUN.
That is the most important part of games, it has to be fun preferably for large audience.

And again, RPG-battle is an abstraction to a point, not a goddamn simulator. Single skilled fighter can defend against multiple opponents by maneuvering in combat. Something we were practicing in Krav Maga.
Keep moving, keep all opponents to the front. Keep moving, never get stuck with one etc.

That is the kind of stuff that in RPG-battle is going on, abstracted by the die rolls and bonuses.

 

And your concept of fun trumps everyone elses? Because God forbid, people actually have fun with something you might not? You are so dead-set again any change, even without knowing the specific of hte change.

You can't say to me that a different system won't be fun. That is something you just don't know.

 

And I don't give a rats ass about your Krav Maga.

 

 

 

 

Hit point as simplification is very necessary. More you add different values which affect to this and that, more convoluted and less intuitive you make the system.
Counterintuitive is bad, it makes things unnecessarily difficult to judge and learn.

 

A system being intuitive and a having few values are NOT one and the same. Simpler? Maybe.

After all, do weapons need anything mroe than a DPS value? Not really...it's the simplest and most intuitive, right?

But isn't mass/weight intuitive? Isn't reach intuitive? Not exactly rocket science here.

 

 

 

 

 

I like how you accuse me of strawmannery for simply asking what you had to say about an example that seemingly followed your "Skilled adventurers should be easily slain by 5 or 6 Lvl 1 foes" line of reasoning, THEN you immediately pretend I said "You should regularly fight hundreds upon hundreds of foes at once in P:E and EASILY dispatch them! *jovial laughter*"

 

You weren't simply asking.  Don't do that "innocent victim" routine with me. They way you wordered it you deliberately ask a loaded question that makes a mockery of my position. So it's either mockery or a strawmen worded as a question. Take your pick.

 

And hunderds of foes WAS your example..not mine.

 

 

 

But, since you brought it up? Yes... I believe 200 rats (who are OFTEN represented as Lvl 1 foes) should be easily dispatched by a party of 6 people, some of whom can summon fire with their minds. So, I believe it is possible. Of course, that isn't to say 200 of anything should be taken on, or that I even think you should ever be confronted with 200 rats.

 

Rats are lvl 0. I don't ever want to fight such pathetic oponnents.

You seriously want to fight rats? Why not fight flies while your'e at it?

 

It is your flawed assumption that level scaling has to be explonential and that LVL1 has to be pathetic. That is not the case, nor is it a law or requirement for a RPG.

 

You want to start as a dirt farmenr and become a god? Well I want to start as a capable soldier and reach elite status. Those two are mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

Also, Aragorn and the other heroes of Middle Earth fought in the middle of giant battles (such as Helm's Deep), and never took an axe to the back or an arrow through the neck or arm, much less died. Are they so skilled that they can literally track 50 different archers all around them, and 10-15 orcs/uruk-hai within 5-10 feet of them? For hours on end? Also, even fighting against mythologically stronger/fiercer-than-men beasts, they simply fought on without fatigue stopping them.

 

 

Redicolous argument is redicolous. Do I even need to adress this?

Large-scale battles are a compeltely different affair. Not only did Aragorn and gang have thousands of other soldiers with them protecting their flank and occipying the enemy. So at no point did hunderds of enemies focus on them, or was in position to attack at once. And archery in big battles in long-range saturation affair. Not precision sniping (unless you are an elf).

Ultimatively, it's a matter of luck more than much as skill.

please keep it friendly

please keep it friendly

Too late for that. Trashy's gone into Game_Exile(or whatever his name was) level of hostility.

it's never too late.

You weren't simply asking.  Don't do that "innocent victim" routine with me. They way you wordered it you deliberately ask a loaded question that makes a mockery of my position. So it's either mockery or a strawmen worded as a question. Take your pick.

 

And hunderds of foes WAS your example..not mine.

I actually was, my fellow discussionian. If you interpreted it as mockery, then I apologize, because that wasn't my intention. I simply took your example (That 5-6 Lvl1, aka the-lowest-level-of-skill-any-enemies-can-have-represented-by-a-level-system, foes should be able to take out your level whatever adventurer, whom you said Aragorn would suffice in representing), distilled the reasoning behind it, and rolled with that reasoning to create an example plenty far enough toward an extreme end of the spectrum simply to show that the reasoning does not hold up. It is either incomplete, or it only applies to a smaller scope than you intended.

 

I was in no way calling you an idiot, or attempting to mock you. And just because I find a problem with your argument doesn't automatically mean every single aspect of it is false. I'm not saying Aragorn is a TERRIBLE example. I think he's a good one, too. But he and the other heroes of Middle Earth are far more "powerfully" portrayed than you think.

 

And I still believe there's a disconnect by what we mean by the term "power," hence all the explanation. I have 2 options: Attempt to clarify because I believe we're talking about the same thing, or simply scoff at everything you say and re-iterate my claim, suggesting that you're both crazy and incapable of comprehending my line of thinking on the matter.

 

The latter, I believe, is completely uncalled for. Therefore, I choose to observe what I can, and try to bridge the gap via explanation and questioning.

 

 

Rats are lvl 0. I don't ever want to fight such pathetic oponnents.

You seriously want to fight rats? Why not fight flies while your'e at it?

 

It is your flawed assumption that level scaling has to be explonential and that LVL1 has to be pathetic. That is not the case, nor is it a law or requirement for a RPG.

 

You want to start as a dirt farmenr and become a god? Well I want to start as a capable soldier and reach elite status. Those two are mutually exclusive.

A) I never said "We should fight rats." In fact, I specifically pointed out that I wasn't necessarily even advocating rats as enemies. It is a fact that other games present rats as level 1 foes, so I used them to make an example (within the context of other games, that do that) of how silly it would be for the game to even present you with an actual combat-mechanic scenario (intended for you to fight and win) against so many level 1 foes that you have no hope of victory (replace rats with 200 farmhands with crossbows, if you'd like.)

 

B) I don't determine what properties a mathematical system has. Logic does. If you're level 20, and an enemy is level 1, and you're not SEVERELY more capable of taking out that enemy, then what's the point in having levels beyond 4 or 5?

 

C) Have you ever seen videos of master martial artists fighting like 50 of their students at once? They don't even get touched... These are real, actual people in the world. They don't have soul powers, and there is no magic. No fictional exaggeration. They allow dozens of at-least-partially-trained (some of them fairly well-trained) students to attack them at once, however they wish, and they simply flow through all of them. I know it's not exactly the same with weapons, but it's pretty close. Only so many people can attack you at once, and if you're skilled enough, you know how to manage all those physics at work within the limited space from which attacks can even be launched.

 

Sure, that doesn't apply to bows and such, but, again, you either pit the character against so many bows that he can't possibly not-get feathered with arrows and die (and you have no more game), or you don't and you have the rest of a game/story. It comes back to Aragorn and the rest. How is it that all the other soldiers are falling left and right to arrows from entire groups of archers casually riding in Mumakil pavilions, yet none of the heroes of the story ever even take an arrow?

 

You can call it luck, but then you can say that higher HP and such simply represent the same luck.

 

There's a difference between "The main characters should be quite capable of dying" and "the main characters should have to confront things that would obviously kill them no matter what, but I still also want the story to somehow go on."

 

You either want to present vulnerable heroes with overbearing situations and have "luck" get them through, or you want to forcibly make sure they never face more than they can take on. That's just how it is. You can't do neither. It's impossible. And it's very hard to program "luck" in so that you can actually play the game without having to retry battle 73 times before your party doesn't HAPPEN to get hit with 12 arrows in the first 30 seconds of combat (which they could do nothing about). Hence HP.

 

Am I advocating 7,000,000 HP? No. Lots of games get ridiculous with it. But, there is a reason for it that is INHERENT to video games. That's why heroes in the Lord of the Rings books didn't have hitpoints, and you don't see how much damage enemies are doing to them.

 

So, this isn't my opinion versus your opinion, with all completely exclusive details *rings fight bell*. This is simply me taking value in a lot of what you're saying, and simply contributing my own observations of potential inaccuracies, in the interest of determining exactly what would be the best way to represent all of the topic at hand within a cRPG. i.e. what would be of the most use to P:E's development and design.

 

If you feel I'm wrong about something, then correct it. That's exactly what I'm doing. I never said I was god. Based on my current understanding of things, and my observation and reasoning skills, I've presented what I believe to be further evaluations and accuracies IN ADDITION to what was already accurate and useful in what you've been saying.

 

How's about we co-op the discussion, rather than deathmatching it? Hmm?

 

*Presents hand for handshake*

I actually was, my fellow discussionian. If you interpreted it as mockery, then I apologize, because that wasn't my intention. I simply took your example (That 5-6 Lvl1, aka the-lowest-level-of-skill-any-enemies-can-have-represented-by-a-level-system, foes should be able to take out your level whatever adventurer, whom you said Aragorn would suffice in representing), distilled the reasoning behind it, and rolled with that reasoning to create an example plenty far enough toward an extreme end of the spectrum simply to show that the reasoning does not  hold up.I was in no way calling you an idiot, or attempting to mock you. And just because I find a problem with your argument doesn't automatically mean every single aspect of it is false. I'm not saying Aragorn is a TERRIBLE example. I think he's a good one, too. But he and the other heroes of Middle Earth are far more "powerfully" portrayed than you think.

 

 

 

So Reductio Ad Absurdum then?

Because that's what it is - "distilling" the basic reasoning and pushing it to the extreeme.

 

And not really. Aside from Legolas antics, they are pretty much normal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 A) I never said "We should fight rats." In fact, I specifically pointed out that I wasn't necessarily

even advocating rats as enemies. It is a fact that other games present rats as level 1 foes, so I used them to make an example (within the context of other games, that do that) of how silly it would be for the game to even present you with an actual combat-mechanic scenario (intended for you to fight and win) against so many level 1 foes that you have no hope of victory (replace rats with 200 farmhands with  crossbows, if you'd like.) 

 

Your example misssed it's mark then. You certnaly didn't frame it like it was a hopeless fight.

 

Obviously the number of enemies and their power are a factor of balance, but it's exactly the notion that LVL1 is pathetic that I'm fighting against.

 

 

 

 

B) I don't determine what properties a mathematical system has. Logic does. If you're level 20, and an enemy is level 1, and you're not SEVERELY more capable of taking out that enemy, then what's the point in having levels beyond 4 or 5?

 

What's the point of playing the game at all? Levelign is an improvement, but why does the improement have to be exponential?

Isn't the adventure, the atmospehre, the immersion THE most important thing about a  RPG? Not being a demigod and the most powerfull SOB ever?

 

So the question is - why MUST one be SEVERELY more capable? Also, what constitutes as "severly more capable"?

 

I think the problem here is obvious, given that some people expressed desire to de-throne gods.

Obviously people want/expect vastly different power levels.

 

Some people want Batman (movie)

Some people want Sueprman (JL cartoons)

Some poeple want comic Superman (that holds black holes in hands)

 

These desires are not mutually compatible.

 

 

 

Have you ever seen videos of master martial artists fighting like 50 of their students at once? They don't even get touched... These are real, actual people in the world. They don't have soul powers, and there is no magic. No fictional exaggeration.

 

Staged videos.

I will belive one man taking on 50 when I see it live, in real life-or-death combat.

 

Also, figting with bare hands and with weapons are two completely different things. A hit with a fist won't kill you. A sword stab likely will. That wihout going itno the specific of weapon raeach, ranged weapons and stuff like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It comes back to Aragorn and the rest.

How is it that all the other soldiers are falling left and right to arrows from entire groups of archers casually riding in Mumakil pavilions, yet none of the heroes of the story ever even take an arrow?

 

ALL the other soldiers? No, not even close.

 

 

 

You can call it luck, but then you can say that higher HP and such simply represent the same luck.

There's a difference between "The main characters should be quite capable of dying" and "the main characters should have to confront things that would obviously kill them no matter what, but I still also want the story to somehow go on."

 

With whom are you arguing again?

Also, HP is not luck.

 

 

 

You either want to present vulnerable heroes with overbearing situations and have "luck" get them through, or you want to forcibly make sure they never face more than they can take on. That's just how it is. You can't do neither. It's impossible. And it's very hard to program "luck" in so that you can actually play the game without having to retry battle 73 times before your party doesn't HAPPEN to get hit with 12 arrows in the first 30 seconds of combat

(which they could do nothing about). Hence HP.

 

If they get trough a fight then they could take it on, now could they?

 

Of course, for the sake of gamepaly you can't have total realism, so characters should be more durable than normal. You have to give a player time to react to things, so dying from 1 hit is not advisable in games with multiple characters.

 

However, the idea that HP HAS to be buffed with levels is just plain STOOPID. There is no inherent need for it.

 

 

 

 

 

Am I advocating 7,000,000 HP? No. Lots of games get ridiculous with it. But, there is a reason for it that is INHERENT to video games. That's why heroes in the Lord of the Rings books didn't have hitpoints, and you don't see how much damage enemies are doing to them.

 

Nicks and bruises in general (except Boromir).

 

Inherent to videogames? Only some. And quite a few mechanics are simply leftovers. Someone did it first, it worked and everyone else jumped on the bandwagon. Doesn't mean it's the only way to do things or that things have to be done that way.

 

I have seen it in some indie games. I have done it myself by modding and changing the mechanics and leveling schemes of games (like BG2).

 

More like 4-5 arrows.

And yes, it is possible to get up after that...you'll still die. And dont' tell me how deep they were in or exactly what kind of internal damage they caused. You do not know, so don't pretend you do.

Like I said - people in real life SURVIVED seemingly impossible injuries. So no, I don't think it's far-fetched for a guy with 4 arrows in his chest to manage 2-3 swings before he dies.

Let's see, we know how long the arrows are (one being drawn in very clear detail by Lurtz, we know how little we see poking from Boromir's chest after being hit. And we know where those arrows hit.

 

Human chest does not have massive excess of space there to take arrows, your lungs make massive target which puts wind out of you extremely fast.

 

He is not just "swinging", he is actually killing opponents who are NOT handicapped by having arrows poke through their vital parts.

 

 

It is YOU who makes the assertion that a differnt mechanic cannot work, so it's up to you to prove it.

And you have no authority.

X being sucesfull is NOT a proof in any way, shape or form that Y cannot be sucesfull - especially not since something similar to Y also sells well.

Ever heard of proving negative being impossible? Onus is on one making the positive claim, thus you.

Your example of Y being completely different games (Splinter Cell is one example you dragged out) and nowhere near similar.

While game which is closest to Y being Baldur's Gate series, which was successful and did not have any of the stuff you want.

 

PE is in a way a niche game. If you are so worried about sucess, then why aren't you advocating going for the Lowest Common Denominator? After all, that would guarantee even MORE sales. Except of course, it wont' be the game you want anymore....

PE wants to gain same position as Baldur's Gate, as classic of one niche. You are not going to achieve same amount of success if you start to kick the original one in the nuts by trying to turn it into completely different style.

 

It has been done before with games which had great audience and then are being "revived" in totally different way. It has ended up in flops. X-COM-series is prime example.

 

 

Plenty of heroes are rather ordinary - at least in terms of capability. I think mine and your definition of extraordinary is completely different.

Who are ordinary heroes who do ordinary things?

Name few.

 

 

 

Player skill IS a decisive part of a RPG.. player reflexes aren't. But tactics/strategic planing is done by the player - not the character - and it is a skill.

Alas, success in action is dependant on character ability and NOT player skill. You may get bright idea of having thief backstab the big foe, but if character cannot deliver, then all player skill is for naught.

 

You only guide the characters towards goals, it is their skills which define the outcome.

 

 

 

And your concept of fun trumps everyone elses? Because God forbid, people actually have fun with something you might not? You are so dead-set again any change, even without knowing the specific of hte change.

You can't say to me that a different system won't be fun. That is something you just don't know.

 

And I don't give a rats ass about your Krav Maga.

Different systems are fun, in different games. If you want to revive the grandness of Baldur's Gate, you can't go look at Final Fantasy for hints.

 

And you should pay more attention to people who actually practice stuff which has relation to what characters in RPG do, because RPG rules are meant as simplification of what actually takes place, as good P&P game masters know. It is not static standing and swinging but mobile melee simplified to couple die rolls and few stats.

 

 

 

A system being intuitive and a having few values are NOT one and the same. Simpler? Maybe.

After all, do weapons need anything mroe than a DPS value? Not really...it's the simplest and most intuitive, right?

But isn't mass/weight intuitive? Isn't reach intuitive? Not exactly rocket science here.

How you replace hitpoints with life while making everything in combat depend on variety of "dodge", "parry", "armour" and whatnot while maintaining the intuitiveness?

It is not intuitive if you have to scroll 3-7 different variations of defense trying to figure out how you want to keep your characters from dying.

remake the poll, it is currently full of spelling mistakes and arbitrary and vague choices. 

So Reductio Ad Absurdum then?

Because that's what it is - "distilling" the basic reasoning and pushing it to the extreeme.

 

And not really. Aside from Legolas antics, they are pretty much normal.

My bad. I forgot... the correct way to discuss something with someone is to assume there ISN'T any reason behind what they're saying, and just arbitrarily give their words whatever meaning you wish, in whatever context you wish. I'll do that next time.

 

Of course you push it to the extreme. How the hell else do I point out the folly of the path of reasoning? "So, do you want them to fight like... 25 things?" How does that convey that the NUMBER of enemies I'm suggesting is the brunt of the point? You would've said "Ummm... *scratches head*... I don't get it. Sure. They could fight 25 enemies. Why wouldn't they be able to?"

 

What's the point of playing the game at all? Levelign is an improvement, but why does the improement have to be exponential?

Isn't the adventure, the atmospehre, the immersion THE most important thing about a  RPG? Not being a demigod and the most powerfull SOB ever?

 

So the question is - why MUST one be SEVERELY more capable? Also, what constitutes as "severly more capable"?

It doesn't have to be exponential. It has to be mathematically sequential. Level 2 shouldn't be exponentially better than level 1. It should be some amount of an improvement (addition) over level 1. Such is the nature of math.

 

So, let me use better words: One must be proportionately more capable, at level 20, of taking down a level 1 foe. Just like someone on the 20th stair of a stairwell should be that much higher than someone on the first stair. I don't understand what you're confused about. If you don't want to use a leveling system, then so be it. But you can't go around making level 1 enemies tough to a level 20 party. And if you're simply going to increase their numbers to no end, then why ever make an enemy higher than level 1?

 

I think the problem here is obvious, given that some people expressed desire to de-throne gods.

Some people's desire to de-throne gods has just as much bearing on your specific arguments as it does on my specific arguments. i.e. None.

 

Some people want Superman? Some people want a first-person shooter. Does that stop us from discussing this game within the realm of it being an RPG? Methinks not.

 

Staged videos.

I will belive one man taking on 50 when I see it live, in real life-or-death combat.

 

Also, figting with bare hands and with weapons are two completely different things. A hit with a fist won't kill you. A sword stab likely will. That wihout going itno the specific of weapon raeach, ranged weapons and stuff like that.

 

Well, then we can all just not believe anything we don't see with our own eyes, I suppose, and call it a day. And I actually specifically acknowledged that weapons were different from fists.

 

ALL the other soldiers? No, not even close.

You're right. Hardly anyone died in any of the Lord of the Rings battles. Maybe like 5 people. Max. What was I thinking? What kind of point could I possibly have been trying to make? Silly me...

 

 

With whom are you arguing again?

Also, HP is not luck.

I didn't say HP was luck. With whom are you arguing? o_o. I guess when something doesn't seem to make any sense at all, you always assume the person's a crazy idiot rather than considering that you might have failed to understand my point? A constructive tactic. One that serves forum discussion well.

 

If they get trough a fight then they could take it on, now could they?

Yup. And since the fight was designed by the story writer/game designer, I'd say that means you intentionally made sure they could get through it. Which might have... Oooh! It was! That was my point! 8D

 

Of course, for the sake of gamepaly you can't have total realism, so characters should be more durable than normal. You have to give a player time to react to things, so dying from 1 hit is not advisable in games with multiple characters.

 

However, the idea that HP HAS to be buffed with levels is just plain STOOPID. There is no inherent need for it.

Well, I just explained that you have 2 options: Pure miss chance (with all hits being quite lethal), or HP. So, if you want to keep talking about how HP is pointless without addressing that dilemma (the pros and cons of both methods), have at it. I'm just here to point such things out, not to make sure you consider things.

 

 

 

 

 

Inherent to videogames? Only some. And quite a few mechanics are simply leftovers. Someone did it first, it worked and everyone else jumped on the bandwagon. Doesn't mean it's the only way to do things or that things have to be done that way.

I meant to say "exclusive to videogames." My mistake. But, yes, it is inherent to the video games that represent health. Either you have a binary alive/dead system, or there's some actual quantity of "health" between "just fine" and "dead." That is represented mathematically. Whether it's actual individual hit points, or a percentage bar. It's all the same thing. Just different sizes, and different units of measure.

 

It's no different from skill points, that represent a skill level. Or character levels that represent an entire set of attributes and ability. You know, kinda like how the soldiers in the army around Aragorn could only kill like 3 things before they dropped like flies, but Aragorn could successfully dodge and take on like 50 things.

 

Ahhh, crap. I forgot... that never happened. Darnit. If only I had functioning senses, or the ability to present valid points.

 

Let's see, we know how long the arrows are (one being drawn in very clear detail by Lurtz, we know how little we see poking from Boromir's chest after being hit. And we know where those arrows hit.

Human chest does not have massive excess of space there to take arrows, your lungs make massive target which puts wind out of you extremely fast.

 

He is not just "swinging", he is actually killing opponents who are NOT handicapped by having arrows poke through their vital parts.

 

And? Like I said before, people survived incredible injuries before - it's well documented. Boromirs last, heroic stand is a great moment.

 

 

 

 

Ever heard of proving negative being impossible? Onus is on one making the positive claim, thus you.Your example of Y being completely different games (Splinter Cell is one example you dragged out) and nowhere near similar.

While game which is closest to Y being Baldur's Gate series, which was successful and did not have any of the stuff you want.

 

I reject your assertion. I don't have anything to prove to you and I don't have to.

 

It's common knowledge that as games evolved, geres mixed and new mecahnics were introduced, borrowed from other games and so forth. Games changes over time and new game types evolved.

So it's obvious that changing element and mixing element can and does work.

 

 

 

PE wants to gain same position as Baldur's Gate, as classic of one niche. You are not going to

achieve same amount of success if you start to kick the original one inthe nuts by trying to turn it into completely different style.

 

It has been done before with games which had great audience and then are being "revived" in totally different way. It has ended up in flops. X-COM-series is prime example.

 

So you want the exact same thing?

I want BG...but IMPROVED. Of course, what constitutes as improvement may not be the same for you and me.

 

And while I agree the new X-Com failed in general to live up to expectations, not every change and mechanic was for the worse. Flops happen.

 

And yet here you are, decreeing from on high that a single change is undeniably bad because...well, because it's not like the old one. That seems to be your only real objection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alas, success in action is dependant on character ability and NOT player skill. You may get bright idea of having thief backstab the big foe, but if character cannot deliver, then all player skill is for naught.

 

You only guide the characters towards goals, it is their skills which define the outcome.

 

But still your guidance. It's not complete character skill. And I still fail to see what point you are trying to make here.

I guess you think I want to turn PR into Splinter Cell or something based on nothing more than a mechanical comparison I made.

 

 

 

 

 

Different systems are fun, in different games. If you want to revive the grandness of Baldur's Gate, you can't go look at Final Fantasy for hints.

 

While I think FF games suck, I still say you are wrong. I can look for hints and inspiration EVERYWHERE. Nothing is off-limits.

 

 

 

How you replace hitpoints with life while making everything in combat depend on variety of "dodge", "parry", "armour" and whatnot while maintaining the intuitiveness?

It is not intuitive if you have to scroll 3-7 different variations of defense trying to figure out how you

want to keep your characters from dying.

 

Easy. Games already do it and have done it.

Start with 100 HP. End the game with 100HP (unless you invested a point in CON or have a magic item) There's your health/life.

You're tought at start, tough at end. Your ATT, DEF, DODGE and armor/weapon may change.

 

More inuitive than the HP = everything in one package crap.

My bad. I forgot... the correct way to discuss something with someone is to assume there ISN'T any reason behind what they're saying, and just arbitrarily give their words whatever meaning you wish, in whatever context you wish. I'll do that next time.

 

Of course you push it to the extreme. How the hell else do I point out the folly of the path of reasoning? "So, do you want them to fight like... 25 things?" How does that convey that the NUMBER of enemies I'm suggesting is the brunt of the point? You would've said "Ummm... *scratches head*... I don't get it. Sure. They could fight 25 enemies. Why wouldn't they be able to?"

 

 

The correct way to discuss something is to not assume to much about the other guy and try to grasp what he is saiyng insted of tryign to read between (non-existing) lines.

 

And that is what you are doing. So yes, I find your entire tirede pointless. Reductio Ad Absurdum is bad debating and it is what you were doign by your own admission.

So you try to show the folly of my reasoning by stretching it to the extreems (and thus figthing not what I said, but the overblown version of it) - O.K., I get it. It is an relatively effective method otherwise no one would use it...but it still silly and missing the point entirely.

Because apparently you never got my point.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't have to be exponential. It has to be mathematically sequential. Level 2 shouldn't be exponentially better than level 1. It should be some amount of an improvement (addition) over level 1. Such is the nature of math.

 

Of course. I never denied or argued that.

Just stating that in many games the power growth really goes out of control.

 

 

 

 

Some people's desire to de-throne gods has just as much bearing on your specific arguments as it does on my specific arguments. i.e. None.

 

Some people want Superman? Some people want a first-person shooter. Does that stop us from discussing this game within the realm of it being an RPG? Methinks not.

 

If you think peoples desires/expectations/preferrences have no bearing on the game, then you are delluding yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right. Hardly anyone died in any of the Lord of the Rings battles. Maybe like 5 people. Max. What was I thinking? What kind of point could I possibly have been trying to make? Silly me...

 

What was your point?

If you don't know then I sure as hell can't help you.

 

How the hell do people survive wars anyways?

 

 

 

 

I didn't say HP was luck. With whom are you arguing? o_o. I guess when something doesn't seem to make any sense at all, you always assume the person's a crazy idiot rather than considering that you might have failed to understand my point? A constructive tactic. One that serves forum discussion well.

 

You didnt' say directly. You did imply, as the HP was supposed to be health, defensive skill and luck rolled into one. Or basicly "how difficult you are to kill".

 

Did I understand your point? Honestly I have no idea what your point is trying to be anymore. And I have a sneaky suspicion you didn't understand mine either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I just explained that you have 2 options: Pure miss chance (with all hits being quite lethal), or HP. So, if you want to keep talking about how HP is pointless without addressing that dilemma (the pros and cons of both methods), have at it. I'm just here to point such things out, not to make sure you consider things. [/qutoe]

 

 

Aaaaand you really do not get it do you?

I'm not against HP - I'm against the specific implementation of it.

 

 

 

 

It's no different from skill points, that represent a skill level. Or character levels that represent an entire set of attributes and ability. You know, kinda like how the soldiers in the army around Aragorn could only kill like 3 things before they dropped like flies, but Aragorn could successfully dodge and take on like 50 things.

 

Ahhh, crap. I forgot... that never happened. Darnit. If only I had functioning senses, or the ability to present valid points.

 

That's actually a flawed example.

The action (and cammera) is centered on Aragorn, so naturally you get to see how many he killed. The kill-count of other soldiers is not known. Some die wihout killing anyone. Some kill a lot and survive the battle. It's how wars and battles work.

Every time I see a thread worth commenting on, it has already degraded into a string of way too long posts raging about something with barely any connection to the original topic

 

Since this is somehow about LOTR power levels now: AFAIK Aragorn is about 80 years old at that time, with at least 60 years combat experience, while Gandalf is some sort of minor godling. Neither one is in any way a normal human being. Boromir, being actually human, drops to his knees with every arrow he gets and stops fighting at all on the third (at least in the movie version, too lazy to get up for the book).

 

Now I think what our paladin here wants is something like the DSA p&p system (known as realms or arkania or something like that in the rest of the world, used in drakensang among other things)... the power curve there is usually rather shallow, especially concerning hitpoints and armor. A critical attack from the ominous lvl 1 brigand can instantly bring down your lvl 10 fighter if you screw up your parry roll (or let yourself get surrounded, as your number of parries per round is limited). Works well in actual p&p imho, but I don't think we'll see anything like that in PE.

 

My bad. I forgot... the correct way to discuss something with someone is to assume there ISN'T any reason behind what they're saying, and just arbitrarily give their words whatever meaning you wish, in whatever context you wish. I'll do that next time.

 

Of course you push it to the extreme. How the hell else do I point out the folly of the path of reasoning? "So, do you want them to fight like... 25 things?" How does that convey that the NUMBER of enemies I'm suggesting is the brunt of the point? You would've said "Ummm... *scratches head*... I don't get it. Sure. They could fight 25 enemies. Why wouldn't they be able to?"

 

 

The correct way to discuss something is to not assume to much about the other guy and try to grasp what he is saiyng insted of tryign to read between (non-existing) lines.

 

And that is what you are doing. So yes, I find your entire tirede pointless. Reductio Ad Absurdum is bad debating and it is what you were doign by your own admission.

So you try to show the folly of my reasoning by stretching it to the extreems (and thus figthing not what I said, but the overblown version of it) - O.K., I get it. It is an relatively effective method otherwise no one would use it...but it still silly and missing the point entirely.

Because apparently you never got my point.

 

Well, I'm sorry. If you're backing an entire system of power moderation (as illustrated by your "I think even out at level 20, a level 1 enemy should be quite formidable."), I'm going to evaluate that system. What else am I supposed to do?

 

"I think we should use a ruler to measure everything."

"Well... erm, what if you have something that's, say, 40 feet long, and you might need to measure it?"

"I shall use LATIN to call you a moron for DARING to suggest that a ruler only works in certain situations! u_u"

 

I asked a simple question. If you don't want to answer it, then don't. Telling me it was obviously stupid, rather than asking for clarification, accomplishes nothing but you being an arse.

 

 

I'll just summarize what's going on here, and be done with it, since you don't care about doing anything but fencing with my words all day:

 

You don't want gods or superheroes as characters in P:E. That's fine. You want normal, vulnerable people, in a fantasy setting. That's all fine and dandy. No one said it wasn't. I started pointing out things (like magic) that might just be outside the bounds of what you want, no matter what. Then you went all "Nope, LOTR has people who are perfectly normal." Then, people said "with all due respect, the people in LOTR NEVER get severely wounded (except when the story NEEDS them to, like Boromir), even after fighting hundreds upon hundreds of foes, not always just in a choke point where they're coming 1-by-1, and not always in a formation with lots of other peeps covering their backs and flanks, AND with archers alllll over the place, whom I think would attempt to aim for commanders/important folk if given the chance, not to mention all the orcs and uruk-hai are supposed to possess beastly strength, so..... MAYbe LOTR isn't as good of an example as you thought. That's all."

 

And suddenly you NEED to shred up that argument. You're just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. The purpose of pointing that out was to get closer to "Okay, what would be good boundaries for you, then?". The only thing I was trying to point out was "Well, this kind of stuff was in LOTR, too... is that still within your limits?" And you had to go pretending like it didn't exist, like no one even had a point at all. I don't know why you did it, but that's what you did.

 

And yes, if you start being a disrespectful arse like that, I'm not going to tip-toe around your flowerbed anymore. If you punch me, I'm going to punch back. Now we're even. Only, when you say "Why did you punch me?! I'll punch you for that!", it goes nowhere.

 

So, this is where it goes.

 

P:E's gonna have magic in it, and soul powers, and if that displeases you, then I'm truly sorry. I am. But, either discuss the possibility of ways in which it could FEASIBLY please you better, or just stop typing. One or the other. No one's attacking your preferences, and even if they were, THAT would be pointless. So, let's just go on about our business, shall we?

Well, I'm sorry. If you're backing an entire system of power moderation (as illustrated by your "I think even out at level 20, a level 1 enemy should be quite formidable."), I'm going to evaluate that system. What else am I supposed to do?

 

"I think we should use a ruler to measure everything."

"Well... erm, what if you have something that's, say, 40 feet long, and you might need to measure it?"

"I shall use LATIN to call you a moron for DARING to suggest that a ruler only works in certain situations! u_u"

 

I asked a simple question. If you don't want to answer it, then don't. Telling me it was obviously stupid, rather than asking for clarification, accomplishes nothing but you being an arse.

 

Who is exactly insulting whom now?

 

You put words into my mouth and fabricate situations outside of the system to find problem with it.

So no, I don't consider your concernes valid, because they are a product of how you think an overblown system works, rather than asking me to clarify it.

You got hung up the numbers, missing the point instead.

 

OR to make it real clear - "there won't be anything that's 40 feet long assuming a properly balanced system".

 

I mean, how hard is it to understand what I've been saying all this time?

Small power curve, no HP inflation, focus on skills/feats, numbers matter.

 

 

I'll just summarize what's going on here, and be done with it, since you don't care about doing anything but fencing with my words all day:

 

If there's anyone doing fencying it's you.

I'm not the one who gets so hanged up on semantics or finding flaws in comparisons/examples that he misses teh point.

 

 

You don't want gods or superheroes as characters in P:E. That's fine. You want normal, vulnerable people, in a fantasy setting. That's all fine and dandy. No one said it wasn't. I started pointing out things (like magic) that might just be outside the bounds of what you want, no matter what. Then you went all "Nope, LOTR has people who are perfectly normal." Then, people said "with all due respect, the people in LOTR NEVER get severely wounded (except when the story NEEDS them to, like Boromir), even after fighting hundreds upon hundreds of foes, not always just in a choke point where they're coming 1-by-1, and not always in a formation with lots of other peeps covering their backs and flanks, AND with archers alllll over the place, whom I think would attempt to aim for commanders/important folk if given the chance, not to mention all the orcs and uruk-hai are supposed to possess beastly strength, so..... MAYbe LOTR isn't as good of an example as you thought. That's all."

 

Magic is a staple of fantasy. I see no problem with magic. Mages have fleshy bodies in the end too.

 

And I disagree with your assesment of LOTR. You seem to be a big fan of overblowing things in an attempt to make a point.

People in LOTOR never get severely wounded? Yeah, that's kinda expected. Unless you count Frodo's wounds, Gandalf and Boromir dying... Yeah, the gist of combat is to NOT get severely wounded. A severe wound is usually "game over".

 

I still don't see any problems with LOTR because as far as fantasy goes, it is very believable.

 

 

And suddenly you NEED to shred up that argument. You're just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.

 

Funny you should mention that..because that's how you come off to me.

 

 

 

The purpose of pointing that out was to get closer to "Okay, what would be good boundaries for you, then?". The only thing I was trying to point out was "Well, this kind of stuff was in LOTR, too... is that still within your limits?" And you had to go pretending like it didn't exist, like no one even had a point at all. I don't know why you did it, but that's what you did.

 

I don't pretend anything.

But I did fail in getting my point across, and now I doubt I can. Obviously you treat every media exactly the same and have a train of thought and reasoning that doesnt' really mesh well with mine.

 

 

 

 

And yes, if you start being a disrespectful arse like that, I'm not going to tip-toe around your flowerbed anymore. If you punch me, I'm going to punch back. Now we're even. Only, when you say "Why did you punch me?! I'll punch you for that!", it goes nowhere.

 

I wasn't aware you were tip-toing around anything.

 

 

But, either discuss the possibility of ways in which it could FEASIBLY please you better, or just stop typing. One or the other. No one's attacking your preferences, and even if they were, THAT would be pointless. So, let's just go on about our business, shall we?

 

I already done that. You must have missed that.

Edited February 6, 201313 yr by TrashMan

I already done that. You must have missed that.

Sorry. It must have happened while I was reading that last post of yours, which was somehow typed while you had already stopped typing and gone on about your business. Phenomenal feat, that.

 

For what it's worth, I'm sorry that you find fictional, exaggerated powers so irksome, and I hope P:E, in its finality, will suit your preferences enough to be enjoyable. Good day to you, sir. *bow*

Magic is a staple of fantasy. I see no problem with magic. Mages have fleshy bodies in the end too.

 

And I disagree with your assesment of LOTR. You seem to be a big fan of overblowing things in an attempt to make a point.

People in LOTOR never get severely wounded? Yeah, that's kinda expected. Unless you count Frodo's wounds, Gandalf and Boromir dying... Yeah, the gist of combat is to NOT get severely wounded. A severe wound is usually "game over".

Gandalf doesn't die. He's an immortal angel. Wizards in Tolkien are immortal angels sent by the gods to aid mortals. From Tolkien's personal letters, as cited by wikipedia: "Tolkien refers to Gandalf as an 'angel incarnate'.[13] In the same letter Tolkien states he was given the form of an old man in order to limit his powers on Earth. Both in 1965 and 1971 Tolkien again refers to Gandalf as an angelic being.[14][15]"

 

Unrelated to that:

 

As for the topic at hand... A normal person with realistic abilities fundamentally limited to realistic abilities can't kill a dragon or cast a spell or so on. Real people don't have tangible "souls" that have "powers." The fact that the majority of poll respondents want P:E to be a true-to-life medieval combat simulation (except with wizards, trolls and dragons, even though real world arrows and swords could kill you with a single blow in a world without wizards, trolls or dragons,) is absolutely befuddling. As is the terrible spelling of the poll. I may have said this all before but there's too much wall-of-text here for me to look back.

Actually, a normal person could kill a dragon.

But he has to be both lucky, smart and skilled.

 

All it takes is a good hit in a vital spot (heart, brain, eyes). How you realise that hit is another matter. Sneak in while the dragon is sleeping? Ambush? distraction? Drop a giant boulder on it's head?

Actually, a normal person could kill a dragon.

But he has to be both lucky, smart and skilled.

 

All it takes is a good hit in a vital spot (heart, brain, eyes). How you realise that hit is another matter. Sneak in while the dragon is sleeping? Ambush? distraction? Drop a giant boulder on it's head?

 

Maybe with a team of 6, you lure it to a favorable terrain (that you've studied, and is the optimal place to fight it), and make it think it's only fighting one person (mask the scents of everyone else while they hide behind rocks/outcroppings, etc.?), and have everyone ambush it at once. Two people each go for an eye with ranged weaponry (or spells/abilities), blinding it, then two others make to slice its wings so as to ground it permanently. Then comes the luck, with it thrashing around angrily (but probably still as smartly as it can), and people trying to draw its attention with sound/movement/scent at this point, and avoid its fire and claws and tail, and getting set up for a good thrust to the vitals. *shrug*

 

I can't imagine it would be an easy task, and you couldn't always lure a dragon somewhere. But, that being a best-case scenario, the dragon would still not be at much of a disadvantage, if any, pound-for-pound.

 

I agree that it shouldn't be a DPS-attrition-fest, like it is in many games. The dragon should be almost CONSTANTLY changing/producing major factors that require alterations to strategy, and the utmost attention to strategy even WITHOUT the changing factors.

 

And, as far as character power goes, I don't think a fireball should do uber damage to a dragon, but it should serve well enough to blind it as well as an arrow, if striking a dragon's eyeball. MAYBE its eye even has resistance to fire/heat, so maybe it would only cause temporary blindness, and some other type of magic would be necessary to cause permanent damage to its eye.

Edited February 9, 201313 yr by Lephys

I don't see the eye having resistance to fire being watery and all, but it's a dragon in a fantasy setting so there's no firm rule there.

 

Yeah, I don't see a party of 6 winning againt a mobile, flying dragon - it would have to bring it down first and revent it from taking off again (via spells, trickery, or terrain like a cave). Even then fighting a dragon should require a LOT of preparation and luck.

Then again, I dont see a dragon as particuary fast/nimble, given it's size.

Actually, a normal person could kill a dragon.

But he has to be both lucky, smart and skilled.

 

All it takes is a good hit in a vital spot (heart, brain, eyes). How you realise that hit is another matter. Sneak in while the dragon is sleeping? Ambush? distraction? Drop a giant boulder on it's head?

How does a normal person kill something that doesn't exist, and never existed in the first place? If people and fictional fantasy races in P:E are all as realistic as you guys want (ergo, humans are the only race in the game,) how is this anything but an exercise in save-scumming? Any dragon worth its salt (and we're making this a realistic simulation, remember?) would just fly overhead and blast you with fire, roasting you alive in one go. Since all your arrows are at best steel-tipped and fired from composite or longbows, they're probably going to just *doink* bounce off the dragon's scales, and you've already implied that nothing but a supercritical hit to the eyes as in Fallout is going to do the job.

 

Similarly, what dragon would go to sleep in a place easily accessible by humans wearing full steel plate clanking around carrying all manner of supplies, weapons, trinkets, ingredients, potions, etc.? Much less with its head right under a giant, precariously balanced boulder that sits atop a rising tunnel/stairwell for quick and easy access for people to drop it like a Sword of Damocles. Since this is going to be a realistic simulation, the physics of soundwaves obviously have to apply, meaning anyone who is well-armed and armored would wake up the dragon, assuming they could climb a mountain or dive blind into a cave underground wearing 65lbs of steel plate armor.

 

Besides, what if this is an Eastern Dragon, how can your band of merry ordinarymen kill a being on par with the gods, which lives in "the heavens," either literally always in flight, or even in the heaven of spiritual belief itself? How do you make an accurate phsyics simulation of heaven? Obviously your realistic party can't fly anywhere because airplanes haven't been invented yet, and magic isn't real or realistic. Will the tallest mountain in the Project: Eternity simulation be equal to or greater than Everest? If you want to make a falling attack on Qinglong the Azure Dragon, guardian of the East, you need to climb to the top of this mountain and wait for it to fly by, if it shows at all.

 

Now, of course, you would have died well before the halfway point due to the thin oxygen, exertion and low temperatures and the lack of modern mountain climbing equipment (as this is a realistic reflection of real human capabilities.) Even if, somehow, your party of clanking steelmen made it to the top, they'd die even faster because all of those factors would be greatly multiplied. And no, rogues can't "stealth" past the weather or climate. How would that be realistic? This is a simulation!

Edited February 9, 201313 yr by AGX-17