Jump to content
Ulquiorra

Power of classes (Realism vs. Filling unlimited power)

Power of Classes  

187 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think about limited power for classes in eternity ?

    • Everywon must hve supernatural and greatpower (especially player)
    • Some classes shoud have great power but not all of them
    • Only few classes shud have big power, but most of them shoud be t "normal" level
    • Everywons power must be as realistic as possible (allmost all of them shoud be normal or week)
    • Everywon must be week
    • Other
    • I don't care ... wheres my cheesburger ?!
  2. 2. What do you think about power limits in eternity ?

    • NO limits ( 1 spell or hit and whole village becomes smoking ruins and crater
    • With some limits but not to big ( not 1 hit dragon can be killed but if you put 7 dragon shoud lie dead))
    • Some reasonable limits (dragons not killed by 1 hit blows, somehimes even 150 hits don't do much demage)
    • Fully limited (even fighting week enemys is a challenge)
    • other
    • Don't care ...
  3. 3. What do you think about adding some suernatural abilytys to other classes than spellcasters ?

    • Yes ( some type of magic for fighters and others)
    • No (magic is only for mages)
    • I don't care....


Recommended Posts

Not as much. Elves and dwarves are generally playable.

 

Dragons are mostly enemies that are just another bag of XP in the end.

The way they were (ab)used kinda killed a lot of their mistique and awe.


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to be able to lay waste to continents and slay gods, but Im willing to wait for the expansion to get there.

Somehow I doubt there will even be an expansion...


Pillars of Eternity Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests - an isometric fantasy stealth RPG with optional combat and no pesky XP rewards for combat, skill usage or exploration.


PoE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's GateJosh Sawyer doesn't like the Baldur's Gate series (more) - PoE is supposed to reward us for our achievements


~~~~~~~~~~~


"Josh Sawyer created an RPG where always avoiding combat and never picking locks makes you a powerful warrior and a master lockpicker." -Helm, very critcal and super awesome RPG fan


"I like XP for things other than just objectives. When there is no rewards for combat or other activities, I think it lessens the reward for being successful at them." -Feargus Urquhart, OE CEO


"Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat [...] the lack of rewards for killing creatures [in PoE] makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game)" -George Ziets, Game Dev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

above poster is a professional troll, do not feed.


Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not as much. Elves and dwarves are generally playable.

 

Dragons are mostly enemies that are just another bag of XP in the end.

The way they were (ab)used kinda killed a lot of their mistique and awe.

 

Yeah right ... and elves and dwarves are not xp bags where you kill them or take  quest form them ...

 

Dragons, elfves, dwarves are generally at the same level of over used and i don't know what "Playable" is changing ..

 

Orlans where gonna be used only in this game propaby and they playable, is fact that they are mix betwen halfling/ nome/ goblin with new name and are playabe makes them more original ?

 

So we cab putt dragons but call them Ondard's and make playabe will solve the problem ?

 

btw. don't say that dragons can't talk or give you quest like dwarw or elf becouse we seen that allredy...

Edited by Ulquiorra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

above poster is a professional troll, do not feed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqL7jyrXhLs&t=0m5s Edited by Helm

Pillars of Eternity Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests - an isometric fantasy stealth RPG with optional combat and no pesky XP rewards for combat, skill usage or exploration.


PoE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's GateJosh Sawyer doesn't like the Baldur's Gate series (more) - PoE is supposed to reward us for our achievements


~~~~~~~~~~~


"Josh Sawyer created an RPG where always avoiding combat and never picking locks makes you a powerful warrior and a master lockpicker." -Helm, very critcal and super awesome RPG fan


"I like XP for things other than just objectives. When there is no rewards for combat or other activities, I think it lessens the reward for being successful at them." -Feargus Urquhart, OE CEO


"Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat [...] the lack of rewards for killing creatures [in PoE] makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game)" -George Ziets, Game Dev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're dissatisfied with the implementation of dragons in many existing games, then it might be prudent to discuss methods of improving their implementation. Unless, of course, powerful, flying, reptilian creatures are inherently a terrible game design element for some reason.

 

 

 

above poster is a professional troll, do not feed.

 

Aww man, you inadvertently fed him! "You said the word even the Knights who say 'Ni' can't stand! You just said it again! Oh no! Now I'VE said it! AHHHHHhhhhhhh!"

 

:)  A troll is sort of like a T-rex. Just remain perfectly irrational and unproductive and he won't see you!


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power creep drives me nuts... I'm still waiting for a game that treats magic very conservatively in that their are few spells and abilities. I'd like to see most of them be subtle and a few really powerful ones you can pull off perhaps once per encounter. (aka Lord of the Rings treatment of magic, but I know it probably wouldn't be popular)

  • Like 1

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. - Julius Caesar

 

:facepalm: #define TRUE (!FALSE)

I ran across an article where the above statement was found in a release tarball. LOL! Who does something like this? Predictably, this oddity was found when the article's author tried to build said tarball and the compiler promptly went into cardiac arrest. If you're not a developer, imagine telling someone the literal meaning of up is "not down". Such nonsense makes computers, and developers... angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)  A troll is sort of like a T-rex. Just remain perfectly irrational and unproductive and he won't see you!

shirt_trex.png

Pillars of Eternity Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests - an isometric fantasy stealth RPG with optional combat and no pesky XP rewards for combat, skill usage or exploration.


PoE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's GateJosh Sawyer doesn't like the Baldur's Gate series (more) - PoE is supposed to reward us for our achievements


~~~~~~~~~~~


"Josh Sawyer created an RPG where always avoiding combat and never picking locks makes you a powerful warrior and a master lockpicker." -Helm, very critcal and super awesome RPG fan


"I like XP for things other than just objectives. When there is no rewards for combat or other activities, I think it lessens the reward for being successful at them." -Feargus Urquhart, OE CEO


"Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat [...] the lack of rewards for killing creatures [in PoE] makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game)" -George Ziets, Game Dev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're dissatisfied with the implementation of dragons in many existing games, then it might be prudent to discuss methods of improving their implementation. Unless, of course, powerful, flying, reptilian creatures are inherently a terrible game design element for some reason.

 

 

 

above poster is a professional troll, do not feed.

 

Aww man, you inadvertently fed him! "You said the word even the Knights who say 'Ni' can't stand! You just said it again! Oh no! Now I'VE said it! AHHHHHhhhhhhh!"

 

:)  A troll is sort of like a T-rex. Just remain perfectly irrational and unproductive and he won't see you!

 

We need a sentinent tribal raptors in the game. The player gets introduced to them when the chiefs daughters almost gets killed by a poacher and you happen to save her. She wooes you with her sexy fat ass reptilian tail and her soothing magic reptilian speak puts your party to sleep. You awake in her village surrounded by raptors dancing preparing for a feast. Confronted by the menacing t-rex chieftan of the tribe. ( who serves as the games dragon fight) What happens next up to the player...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Look, here's all I'm saying. I think there's a discrepancy in the discussion. You're thinking that you're "against" this, and myself and some others are "for" it. But what is "it"? Being powerful? An ant is powerful. It's just not very powerful compared to humans, or dragons. So, obviously, the only constructive way to look at this topic is "Let's try to find the range of power that is the most acceptable." We might find out what's not powerful enough (like, perhaps, the inability to ever take on any more than 6 combatants at once -- one for each of your party members), and where exactly is TOO powerful for the game's own good.

 

I'm talkign about PERSONAL power.

 

Take LOTR movies as an example. Think Aragorn.

Norman human being with normal human physical limiations.

No lifting 10 tons or swinging super-sized swords. No punching dragons.

 

For other types of power - like political power - that's something that would be interesting to see.

 

RPG's and fantasy games are often so fixated on personal power and bigger NUMBERS instead of depth.

 

Kinda an interesting train of thought. For a game ot be interesting, do you even need ever increasign power? Think Sam Fisher - he's no more durable or stronger at the end of hte game than he is at the begining.

HE becomes more "skilled" as the player becomes more skilled (playing smart) and as he gets new gadgets that increase his options.

LOTRO...

So nothing special.

You mean like Legolas and his little shield surfing, feat not seen repeated by any other character?

Or him soloing one of those mumakils?

 

I have a feeling you are one of those "I am so much better than the rest of you, my character is a barbarian, but I bring depth to character by not having any combat skills, instead handicapping myself with poorly suited musician skills to show his innate desire to be a bard"-people.

No offense, everyone plays as they like, but your game of desire would never actually sell anything, resulting in PE being first and last of it's branch.

 

People overall do not want to pay for a game where they can be average joe instead of being real life average joe.

 

Sam Fisher is completely different type of game, it never HAS any increase in any statistic and instead purely relies on player skill. It is not RPG even in the most remote sense. PE is supposed to be RPG. Apples and oranges.

 

Political power and so fort, sure they could be there. But making a niche indie game with idea "your characters suck as hard in the end as they suck in the start" is going to see Obsidian dumping PE after first game. Just not going to pay the cost to do more.

 

Regarding idea on character power growth...

As characters grow in power, why would they trouble themselves with problems clearly far beneath their abilities? That is why challenges over the game grow as well. Random highwaymen? Easily dispatched, too minor inconvenience to even mention in the game at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not as much. Elves and dwarves are generally playable.

 

Dragons are mostly enemies that are just another bag of XP in the end.

The way they were (ab)used kinda killed a lot of their mistique and awe.

 

Yeah right ... and elves and dwarves are not xp bags where you kill them or take  quest form them ...

 

Dragons, elfves, dwarves are generally at the same level of over used and i don't know what "Playable" is changing ..

 

Orlans where gonna be used only in this game propaby and they playable, is fact that they are mix betwen halfling/ nome/ goblin with new name and are playabe makes them more original ?

 

I'm not taking about "originality" ... I'm talkign about mis-use.

 

Yes, dwaves nad elves are a staple of fantasy RPGs, but at least they are varried. They don't serve a singular purpose and tehy can be (and have been) done in different ways.

 

Dragons are there to be killed. Usually very easily...by pricking it to death for half an hour.

 

In practicly ever fantasy RPG, if there are dragons, you are gonna run into one and fight it. And those great, majestic, powerfull creatures loose so much of their awe because of that.

When's the last time you were actually afraid of a dragon in a game?

 


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So nothing special.

You mean like Legolas and his little shield surfing, feat not seen repeated by any other character?

Or him soloing one of those mumakils? [/qutoe]

 

I hate  those parts.

 

 

I have a feeling you are one of those "I am so much better than the rest of you, my character is a barbarian, but I bring depth to character by not having any combat skills, instead handicapping myself with poorly suited musician skills to show his innate desire to be a bard"-people.

No offense, everyone plays as they like, but your game of desire would never actually sell anything, resulting in PE being first and last of it's branch.

 

 

No, but I do like to have a more rounded character that has skills that make sense for him and the world.

 

And you are assumign your "game of desire" would be sheer brilliance?

 

 

/>

People overall do not want to pay for a game where they can be average joe instead of being real life average joe.

 

Sam Fisher is completely different type of game, it never HAS any increase in any statistic and instead purely relies on player skill. It is not RPG even in the most remote sense. PE is supposed to be RPG. Apples and oranges.

 

You're not an average joe technicly. Is Sam Fisher an Average Joe?

 

Also, game mechanics are fluid and interchangable. Game design is a sea of possibilities. Different type of game? Yes. Does it mean mechanic can't be mixed, tweaked or influenced? No.

 

 

 

Political power and so fort, sure they could be there. But making a niche indie game with idea "your characters suck as hard in the end as they suck in the start" is going to see Obsidian dumping PE after first game. Just not going to pay the cost to do more.

 

Except they don't. That is only your own limited perception.

Your character is skilled at the begining and he does become more powerfull - but the power is mostly shown/implemented in a different way. Not HP or damage buffs or high stat increases. But feats, options, skills and increases are small and rare.

 

 

 

Regarding idea on character power growth...

As characters grow in power, why would they trouble themselves with problems clearly far beneath their abilities? That is why challenges over the game grow as well. Random highwaymen? Easily dispatched, too minor inconvenience to even mention in the game at that point.

 

Because swords and arrows stop being a problem when you're a high level because..... why exactly? You are so badass arrows refuse to hit you?

Because clearly, navy SEALS are so high level that entire armies pose no threat to them.

 

And good job advocating encounter scaling b.t.w.


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So nothing special.

You mean like Legolas and his little shield surfing, feat not seen repeated by any other character?

Or him soloing one of those mumakils? [/qutoe]

 

I hate  those parts.

 

 

I have a feeling you are one of those "I am so much better than the rest of you, my character is a barbarian, but I bring depth to character by not having any combat skills, instead handicapping myself with poorly suited musician skills to show his innate desire to be a bard"-people.

No offense, everyone plays as they like, but your game of desire would never actually sell anything, resulting in PE being first and last of it's branch.

 

 

No, but I do like to have a more rounded character that has skills that make sense for him and the world.

 

And you are assumign your "game of desire" would be sheer brilliance?

 

 

/>/>

People overall do not want to pay for a game where they can be average joe instead of being real life average joe.

 

Sam Fisher is completely different type of game, it never HAS any increase in any statistic and instead purely relies on player skill. It is not RPG even in the most remote sense. PE is supposed to be RPG. Apples and oranges.

lockquote>

 

You're not an average joe technicly. Is Sam Fisher an Average Joe?

 

Also, game mechanics are fluid and interchangable. Game design is a sea of possibilities. Different type of game? Yes. Does it mean mechanic can't be mixed, tweaked or influenced? No.

 

 

Political power and so fort, sure they could be there. But making a niche indie game with idea "your characters suck as hard in the end as they suck in the start" is going to see Obsidian dumping PE after first game. Just not going to pay the cost to do more.

 

Except they don't. That is only your own limited perception.

Your character is skilled at the begining and he does become more powerfull - but the power is mostly shown/implemented in a different way. Not HP or damage buffs or high stat increases. But feats, options, skills and increases are small and rare.

 

 

 

Regarding idea on character power growth...

As characters grow in power, why would they trouble themselves with problems clearly far beneath their abilities? That is why challenges over the game grow as well. Random highwaymen? Easily dispatched, too minor inconvenience to even mention in the game at that point.

 

Because swords and arrows stop being a problem when you're a high level because..... why exactly? You are so badass arrows refuse to hit you?

Because clearly, navy SEALS are so high level that entire armies pose no threat to them.

 

And good job advocating encounter scaling b.t.w.

 

Like it or not, it is there in the LOTR, it is about few exceptional individuals doing what hordes of averages cannot.

 

Stories are always centered around few exceptional individuals, because watching Joe The Boring is... Boring.

 

Now, my game of desire is game in spirit of BG2, and yes it would include becoming more powerful and dispatching opponents who would be challenge early on without bat of an eye later. Including killing dragons. Because that is what makes a great story, exceptional individuals doing exceptional things. Not wondering what shall be the going rate for turnips next season.

 

Also, mixing games can be great or it can go horribly wrong. Trying to push player skill based system into role playing game is something which does not work well, because they are in a way mutually exclusive. RPG idea is to show what the character can do, not what player can do.

 

Now, regardless of how you handle power increase, be it adding feats or whatever, it WILL lead to übercharacters unless you gimp them to remain total mooks in some way, like making them total glass cannons.

As for swords and arrows no longer being an issue is more about who is wielding the sword and shooting arrows. Lowly peasant just does not have the training or equipment simply needs huge stroke of luck to score lethal hit on experienced and well equipped enemy.

Hitpoints are one way to represent this abstraction, they do not need to be taken as gallons of blood which are spilled with every strike, but rather learned ability to roll with the blow, avoid hit from becoming fatal.

 

In the end, we need abstraction of that kind somewhere, else the game system will become too heavy and convoluted to be comfortable. "Ok, so I can avoid all damage for this and if that fails then there is this amount of chance to avoid it from being crippling and that is my ability to avoid it being fatal. And then there is the armour which increases that and reduces this, but if I wear this other armour I get bonus here and negative there"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Like it or not, it is there in the LOTR, it is about few exceptional individuals doing what hordes of averages cannot.

 

 

I don't care. Legolases antics are a jarring exception.

 

 

 

Stories are always centered around few exceptional individuals, because watching Joe The Boring is... Boring.

 

 

Earlier you said "poeple dont' want that".

 

Who is this mythical people in whose name you claim to speak? Last time I checked, I'm people too and I'm pretty sure I disagree with you.

 

 

 

 

Now, my game of desire is game in spirit of BG2, and yes it would include

becoming more powerful and dispatching opponents who would be challenge

early on without bat of an eye later. Including killing dragons. Because

that is what makes a great story, exceptional individuals doing

exceptional things. Not wondering what shall be the going rate for

turnips next season.

 

 

Really? That's all that is to it to make a great story?

I guess Superboy Prime punching realtiy is the height of literal accomplishemnt then.

 

 

 

 

Also, mixing games can be great or it can go horribly wrong. Trying to push player skill based system into role playing game is something which does not work well, because they are in a way mutually exclusive. RPG idea is to show what the character can do, not what player can do.

 

Oh, ye of limited vision. They are not mutually exclusive.

Unless you deciding what spell/skill to use and when does not fall under "player skill".

Things are so black and white for you, aren't they?

 

 

 

 

Now, regardless of how you handle power increase, be it adding feats or whatever, it WILL lead

to übercharacters unless you gimp them to remain total mooks in some way, like making them total glass cannons.

 

No it won't. Again with the absolutes here.

Also, since when is character having a weakness = mook?

 

Is your defintion of a weak character anyone that can't tank a nuke?

 

 

 

 

As for swords and arrows no longer being an issue is more about who is wielding the sword

and shooting arrows. Lowly peasant just does not have the training or

equipment simply needs huge stroke of luck to score lethal hit on

experienced and well equipped enemy. Hitpoints are one way to

represent this abstraction, they do not need to be taken as gallons of

blood which are spilled with every strike, but rather learned ability to

roll with the blow, avoid hit from becoming fatal.

 

Hitpoints are a crap abstraction for everything and remnants of the old days that needs to go away.

 

Even the most experienced and elite can die from a stray bullet. Numbers also have a quality of it's own.

Train with swords...go ahead. I'll pit 3 pesants with pitchforks against you. There's a good chance you wont' get out alive.


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care. Legolases antics are a jarring exception.

Oh, and troll slaying in Moria... Yeah, that was definitely stuff everyone in Middle Earth would do easily.

Or final stand of Boromir, getting so much arrows shot into him that he could pass for porcupine.

 

 

 

Earlier you said "poeple dont' want that".

 

Who is this mythical people in whose name you claim to speak? Last time I checked, I'm people too and I'm pretty sure I disagree with you.

 

Average consumer. Your view on what game should be like is closer to some kind of niche art movie, while I prefer considerably more entertaining style.

Like it or not, money runs the world. While games which cater more to your desired style (based on what you have expressed to desire) have been there, but their economical success has repeatedly fallen flat.

 

Like I said, people do not play games or watch movies to see same stuff they would do in real life.

 

 

 

Really? That's all that is to it to make a great story?

I guess Superboy Prime punching realtiy is the height of literal accomplishemnt then.

Oh, I am sorry if I did not manage to fulfill your high literary desires in short and simple explanation. I guess you missed part of BG2 as well, it was very much like Superboy Prime in storyflow wasn't it.

 

Tales of ordinary folk living ordinary life do not sell. Everyone has one, so why the hell would they want to play/read about it?

 

For some reason autobiography of someone who never did anything exceptional is rarely seen in bestseller lists.

 

 

 

Oh, ye of limited vision. They are not mutually exclusive.

Unless you deciding what spell/skill to use and when does not fall under "player skill".

Things are so black and white for you, aren't they?

Again, it is limited by ability of character. You can choose to have character TRY something, but it does not necessarily work (die rolls). This is start contrast to Splinter Cell where doing something will always succeed if you do it the same way.

 

 

 

No it won't. Again with the absolutes here.

Also, since when is character having a weakness = mook?

 

Is your defintion of a weak character anyone that can't tank a nuke?

So tell me, how can character be head and shoulders above others in skills and still get stabbed in ordinary fight by ordinary lvl1 grunt to death as easily as they could stab to death another lvl1 grunt?

 

Either your feats etc are irrelevant, or they will place characters in completely different category compared to lowest level characters.

 

 

 

Hitpoints are a crap abstraction for everything and remnants of the old days that needs to go away.

 

Even the most experienced and elite can die from a stray bullet. Numbers also have a quality of it's own.

Train with swords...go ahead. I'll pit 3 pesants with pitchforks against you. There's a good chance you wont' get out alive.

History disagrees with you. Pitchfork armed peasantry were repeatedly slaughtered by numerically far inferior forces of knights during middle ages. Only when numbers get sufficiently lopsided can they replace skill and equipment.

 

And again, this stray bullet is represented in always persistent possibility of critical and fumble in RPG-systems.

 

Name system to replace hitpoints which is equally simple and instinctive to understand and use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not as much. Elves and dwarves are generally playable.

 

Dragons are mostly enemies that are just another bag of XP in the end.

The way they were (ab)used kinda killed a lot of their mistique and awe.

 

Yeah right ... and elves and dwarves are not xp bags where you kill them or take  quest form them ...

 

Dragons, elfves, dwarves are generally at the same level of over used and i don't know what "Playable" is changing ..

 

Orlans where gonna be used only in this game propaby and they playable, is fact that they are mix betwen halfling/ nome/ goblin with new name and are playabe makes them more original ?

 

I'm not taking about "originality" ... I'm talkign about mis-use.

 

Yes, dwaves nad elves are a staple of fantasy RPGs, but at least they are varried. They don't serve a singular purpose and tehy can be (and have been) done in different ways.

 

Dragons are there to be killed. Usually very easily...by pricking it to death for half an hour.

 

In practicly ever fantasy RPG, if there are dragons, you are gonna run into one and fight it. And those great, majestic, powerfull creatures loose so much of their awe because of that.

When's the last time you were actually afraid of a dragon in a game?

 

 

I sudgest to continue our conversation about Dragons here http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63281-dragon-in-eternity/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and troll slaying in Moria... Yeah, that was definitely stuff everyone in Middle Earth would do easily.

Or final stand of Boromir, getting so much arrows shot into him that he could pass for porcupine.  

 

 

Arrows are not insta-kills. One would bleed to death, but one doesn't fall down dead immediately. People have survived multiple gunshot wounds and multiple stab wounds mind you.

Boromirs scene is possible.

 

 

 

Average consumer. Your view on what game should be like is closer to some kind of niche art movie, while I prefer considerably more

entertaining style.

Like it or not, money runs the world. While games which cater more to your desired style (based on what you have expressed to desire) have been there, but their economical success has repeatedly fallen flat.

 

Like I said, people do not play games or watch movies to see same stuff they would do in real life.

 

And I again ask you who gives you the authority to spak on behalf of the average consumer?

 

You keep harping on how anytihng other than your narrow view on game mechanics is not entertaining or cannot work - without absolutely ANYTHING to support it.

 

 

 

Oh, I am sorry if I did not manage to fulfill your high literary desires in short and simple explanation. I guess you missed part of BG2 as

well, it was very much like Superboy Prime in storyflow wasn't it.

 

Tales of ordinary folk living ordinary life do not sell. Everyone has one, so why the hell would they want to play/read about it?

 

For some reason autobiography of someone who never did anything exceptional is rarely seen in bestseller lists.

 

Nice strawman there.

Because I was clearly advocating tales of normal people doing absolutely boring stuff, no?

Get your head out of your anus and read what I write for once.

 

Ordinary people can accomplish - and often do - great things. Your insistance that the protagonist of every story has to be essentialy superman is redicolous. There's plenty of stories of "normal" people that do quite well indeed.

 

 

 

Again, it is limited by ability of character. You can choose to have character TRY something, but it does not necessarily work (die rolls).

This is start contrast to Splinter Cell where doing something will always succeed if you do it the same way.

 

 

You choose to focus on the differences and refuse to think outside the box. It never occured to you that different gameplay concepts and ideas can be merged?

Yes, SC is without stats....but offers a consistant challenge. RPG's have stats. So? Does having stats somehow automaticly means all balancing and leveling HAS to be design in just one and one way only?

Some RGP's shower you with attribute points...others give you only 3-4 during the entire game.

Because game X has you become a demigod, that now means that evry RPG must do it?

 

 

 

So tell me, how can character be head and shoulders above others in skills and still get stabbed in ordinary fight by ordinary lvl1 grunt to

death as easily as they could stab to death another lvl1 grunt?

 

Either your feats etc are irrelevant, or they will place characters in completely different category compared to lowest level characters.

 

Again with the black/white mentality...Have you ever heard of a concept called BALANCE?

 

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.

 

 

 

History disagrees with you. Pitchfork armed peasantry were repeatedly slaughtered by numerically far inferior forces of knights during middle ages. Only when numbers get sufficiently lopsided can they replace skill and equipment.

 

Nice job comparing large formation combat - where those knights fought in an organized manner with other knights protecting their flanks - and small group/singular combat.

 

 

 

 

Name system to replace hitpoints which is equally simple and instinctive to understand and use.

 

Hitpoint as an abstraction for everything is no longer necessary.

It used to represent overall combat capacity - how durable you are, trained, hard ot hit, etc.. - but with armor, doge, agility, parry and attack/defense becoming separate skills, it's really redundant for it to serve as anything other than health/life indicator.

 

And health is something that doesn't realy change much with training. Stab me or stab Usain Bolt - not much difference in survival chances.


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Also, maybe people don't die instantly when they become impaled with a plethora of arrows, but their muscles tend to stop working when all their oxygenated blood begins flowing out into their torso cavity (not to mention lungs) instead of to their muscle tissue. Not to mention shock... *shrug*


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From updates i read that in PE will be more them one expierience poll. So basiacly if we will have combat exp and non combat exp then wi will ned to have 2 pools of levels (combat level and uncombat level) or Level calculated as Combat exp + non combat exp.

 

In secound example 1 lvl can be wery simmilar to 10 lvl ...in first one something like in fable.

 

I like overpowerd characters i realy do but i need something else then "Training" to force this .. wy becouse it's not to possible that characters in few weeks change from simple peasant to demigod ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Yeah. I don't think they've provided all the details yet (or made it clear, if they have), but I got the idea that your non-combat skill points and your combat skill points would be separate. So you wouldn't run into that whole "I gained 5 levels, and upped my Frog-Catching skill by 50, but now I suck at combattery!!!" scenario. 8P

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

Levels are an abstraction and being LVL1 doesn't mean you're a totally useless wimp.

 

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.

 

You should also notice that when they fight multiple orcs in LOTR, they fing in tight places, and move so they can't be flanked. Both in Moria and later on. Aragorn was runing around and fighting them on stairs, where they could only come 1 by 1. And mind you, they lost Boromir in that fight.

 

 

 

 

Also, maybe people don't die instantly when they become impaled with a plethora of arrows, but their muscles tend to stop working when all their oxygenated blood begins flowing out into their torso cavity (not to mention lungs) instead of to their muscle tissue. Not to mention shock... *shrug*

 

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.

  • Like 1

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrows are not insta-kills. One would bleed to death, but one doesn't fall down dead immediately. People have survived multiple gunshot wounds and multiple stab wounds mind you.

Boromirs scene is possible.

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?

 

 

And I again ask you who gives you the authority to spak on behalf of the average consumer?

 

You keep harping on how anytihng other than your narrow view on game mechanics is not entertaining or cannot work - without absolutely ANYTHING to support it.

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.

 

 

Nice strawman there.

Because I was clearly advocating tales of normal people doing absolutely boring stuff, no?

Get your head out of your anus and read what I write for once.

 

Ordinary people can accomplish - and often do - great things. Your insistance that the protagonist of every story has to be essentialy superman is redicolous. There's plenty of stories of "normal" people that do quite well indeed.

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.

 

 

You choose to focus on the differences and refuse to think outside the box. It never occured to you that different gameplay concepts and ideas can be merged?

Yes, SC is without stats....but offers a consistant challenge. RPG's have stats. So? Does having stats somehow automaticly means all balancing and leveling HAS to be design in just one and one way only?

Some RGP's shower you with attribute points...others give you only 3-4 during the entire game.

Because game X has you become a demigod, that now means that evry RPG must do it?

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.

 

 

Again with the black/white mentality...Have you ever heard of a concept called BALANCE?

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

Nice job comparing large formation combat - where those knights fought in an organized manner with other knights protecting their flanks - and small group/singular combat.

You are free to show how often ill trained and equipped peasant is known to beat a fully armed and armoured knight in battle.

 

 

 

Hitpoint as an abstraction for everything is no longer necessary.

It used to represent overall combat capacity - how durable you are, trained, hard ot hit, etc.. - but with armor, doge, agility, parry and attack/defense becoming separate skills, it's really redundant for it to serve as anything other than health/life indicator.

 

And health is something that doesn't realy change much with training. Stab me or stab Usain Bolt - not much difference in survival chances.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...