Are we getting the PE we were led to believe was on the horizon during the KS?

[Infinitron]

Except that Sawyer's wording of "classes excel and suffer" is very curious. Mechanics updates seem to indicate that PE classes will not suffer at anything, they will have advantages, but not disadvantages. Their will not be armor or weapon restrictions based on class for example. Seems to me that PE classes will just be blank-slate defaults and their "class" will just be a bonus so they do something a little better than other characters. But getting that bonus isn't offset by a restriction or penalty, it's just a bonus.

 

 

Well, a character's disadvantages can be defined by the enemies opposing him. If a character needs to have certain "advantages" to win a particular fight with ease and he doesn't have those advantages, then that's an implicit disadvantage.

 

 

 

My turn. Do you really want to play a game where Your Mage and Fighter have the exact same health and physicial toughness as each other, exact same armor rating as each other, and exact same damage output as each other from first level to 20th level?

 

 

Of course not. Because that's more than just balancing - it's oversimplifying.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Infinitron

[decado]

I'm still going to hold my final judgement

 

You've been tearing up and down the forum for the past few weeks, saying the game is going to suck.  If that's you withholding your final judgment I'd hate to see the finished product.

Edited August 8, 2013 by decado

[Chrononaut]

 

Except that Sawyer's wording of "classes excel and suffer" is very curious. Mechanics updates seem to indicate that PE classes will not suffer at anything, they will have advantages, but not disadvantages. Their will not be armor or weapon restrictions based on class for example. Seems to me that PE classes will just be blank-slate defaults and their "class" will just be a bonus so they do something a little better than other characters. But getting that bonus isn't offset by a restriction or penalty, it's just a bonus.

 

 

As I've said before, a character's disadvantages are to a great extent defined by the enemies opposing him. If a character needs to have certain "advantages" to win a particular fight with ease and he doesn't have those advantages, then that's an implicit disadvantage.

 

"With ease". I doubt  though that the game will "hard" block the player in combat, it will just be "do you want to win or do you want to win optimally". I doubt OE will put anything like Stoneskin or various immunities in the game, because they will be afraid that new players will not be able to figure out how to bypass it and ragequit.

 

I'm only speculating, but it'll still probably be an easy game that any casual gamer will be able to bumble their way through, using tactics or optimal use of abilities will make it just that easier (at least on standard difficulty).

 

My overall point though is that it seems OE is guided by a design philosophy of making a CRPG that is accessible to more casual gamers, but removing most of the more "ragequit inducing" aspects of the IE games (making a bad character cause you didn't read the manual/tooltips), extremely powerful monsters, hard immunities and counters which function like puzzles. The question remains though, will they pull the heart and soul out of the IE experience in order to try and make your average Steam gamers into a CRPG fan. I doubt you'll see anything like the Basilisk, Genie, Tanarri or anything too outrageously powerful which would be seen as "inbalanced".

 

In fact, blatantly "unfair" enemies, mind-bending puzzles and the like are a hallmark of oldschool CRPG's, it was only back in the 90's and 80's that they could away with putting stuff into the game which would infuriate the player so much.

 

Of course in the perfectly mathematical robot designer mind these things were nothing but fluff that should be removed, even if they removed the soul of the game.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Chrononaut

[decado]

"With ease". I doubt  though that the game will "hard" block the player in combat, it will just be "do you want to win or do you want to win optimally". I doubt OE will put anything like Stoneskin or various immunities in the game, because they will be afraid that new players will not be able to figure out how to bypass it and ragequit.

 

For example, why do you feel comfortable making sweeping statements like these?   Do you have absolutely any evidence upon which to base any of these assumptions?  At all?

[Chrononaut]

 

"With ease". I doubt  though that the game will "hard" block the player in combat, it will just be "do you want to win or do you want to win optimally". I doubt OE will put anything like Stoneskin or various immunities in the game, because they will be afraid that new players will not be able to figure out how to bypass it and ragequit.

 

For example, why do you feel comfortable making sweeping statements like these?   Do you have absolutely any evidence upon which to base any of these assumptions?  At all?

 

I'm speculating bro, you should try it sometime. It wouldn't surprise me though, it fits in with the general picture being built of PE's design philosophy by the updates. Why else would they remove unviable character builds?

[jethro]

Except that Sawyer's wording of "classes excel and suffer" is very curious. Mechanics updates seem to indicate that PE classes will not suffer at anything, they will have advantages, but not disadvantages. Their will not be armor or weapon restrictions based on class for example. Seems to me that PE classes will just be blank-slate defaults and their "class" will just be a bonus so they do something a little better than other characters. But getting that bonus isn't offset by a restriction or penalty, it's just a bonus.

 

 

I think classes should be defined by their weaknesses as much as their strength. PE character system seems to be designed by some kind of Bethesdaerian idea of your characters being able to "do anything" (even that update from Cain mentioned "Your characters" when justifying not having class restrictions).

 

J.E.Sawyer: "If you want to hurt fighters, use attacks that target Reflexes or Psyche, which are their weakest base defenses"

 

Is that a weakness or not? It seems one to me.

 

If you think only absolute restrictions are worth noticing: Whether I can't use a sword or can use it only with a massive penalty isn't much of a difference. 

Edited August 8, 2013 by jethro

[Chrononaut]

Also, the Siren's from BG1, as I remember it was game over if they dire charm'd your PC/whole party

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I speculate that PE will cure AIDS.

[decado]

I speculate that PE will cure AIDS.

 

And if it doesn't, we were fundamentally mislead on the Kickstarters!

[decado]

 

 

"With ease". I doubt  though that the game will "hard" block the player in combat, it will just be "do you want to win or do you want to win optimally". I doubt OE will put anything like Stoneskin or various immunities in the game, because they will be afraid that new players will not be able to figure out how to bypass it and ragequit.

 

For example, why do you feel comfortable making sweeping statements like these?   Do you have absolutely any evidence upon which to base any of these assumptions?  At all?

 

I'm speculating bro, you should try it sometime. It wouldn't surprise me though, it fits in with the general picture being built of PE's design philosophy by the updates. Why else would they remove unviable character builds?

 

 

1) How can you remove something before it exists?

2) On that note, how is creating a system that minimizes broken character building a bad thing?

3) How does #2 lend itself to any insights regarding what kind of spells will be in the game, or how hard mages will be to hit?

 

You aren't speculating.  You are "speculating."

[Chrononaut]

I speculate that PE will cure AIDS.

AIDS is totally unbalanced curse which only infuriates players, it must be removed from game life

[jethro]

Also, the Siren's from BG1, as I remember it was game over if they dire charm'd your PC/whole party

No, it was reload time. Now do you really want to sell me unavoidable reloads as a feature? Unavoidable even through clever play? What's the challenge in that?

[Chrononaut]

 

 

 

"With ease". I doubt  though that the game will "hard" block the player in combat, it will just be "do you want to win or do you want to win optimally". I doubt OE will put anything like Stoneskin or various immunities in the game, because they will be afraid that new players will not be able to figure out how to bypass it and ragequit.

 

For example, why do you feel comfortable making sweeping statements like these?   Do you have absolutely any evidence upon which to base any of these assumptions?  At all?

 

I'm speculating bro, you should try it sometime. It wouldn't surprise me though, it fits in with the general picture being built of PE's design philosophy by the updates. Why else would they remove unviable character builds?

 

 

1) How can you remove something before it exists?

2) On that note, how is creating a system that minimizes broken character building a bad thing?

3) How does #2 lend itself to any insights regarding what kind of spells will be in the game, or how hard mages will be to hit?

 

You aren't speculating.  You are "speculating."

 

It's not about "broken character building", it's like creating a BG Mage with low intelligence or a Fighter with low strength without even reading any of the tooltips and then expecting to not fail at the game. Of course it should be possible to create a bad character in an RPG, doesn't mean players should.

[tajerio]

It's not about "broken character building", it's like creating a BG Mage with low intelligence or a Fighter with low strength without even reading any of the tooltips and then expecting to not fail at the game. Of course it should be possible to create a bad character in an RPG, doesn't mean players should.

 

I'm really struggling to understand why you keep posting in this vein.  The developers have created their system.  You wish they had made another IE game.  They are instead making a game that takes inspiration from the IE games while innovating in a number of key respects.  None of this is changing.  So what, exactly, is the purpose of repeatedly declaring that it will be a bad game?

[Chrononaut]

 

Also, the Siren's from BG1, as I remember it was game over if they dire charm'd your PC/whole party

No, it was reload time. Now do you really want to sell me unavoidable reloads as a feature? Unavoidable even through clever play? What's the challenge in that?

 

Why do I need to explain why it was fun? Because powerful instant-kill creatures were cool, because they reinforced the setting and the power and fantasy of it.

[Infinitron]

 

Also, the Siren's from BG1, as I remember it was game over if they dire charm'd your PC/whole party

No, it was reload time. Now do you really want to sell me unavoidable reloads as a feature? Unavoidable even through clever play? What's the challenge in that?

 

 

I think PE might have similar powers (dire charming) but they'll be much more time limited. So you'll lose control of a party member for a minute instead of for the entire battle and then some. That means it'll no longer be an instant-reload trigger.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Infinitron

[Chrononaut]

 

It's not about "broken character building", it's like creating a BG Mage with low intelligence or a Fighter with low strength without even reading any of the tooltips and then expecting to not fail at the game. Of course it should be possible to create a bad character in an RPG, doesn't mean players should.

 

I'm really struggling to understand why you keep posting in this vein.  The developers have created their system.  You wish they had made another IE game.  They are instead making a game that takes inspiration from the IE games while innovating in a number of key respects.  None of this is changing.  So what, exactly, is the purpose of repeatedly declaring that it will be a bad game?

Because I want to min-max and PE won't let me?

I don't believe I was replying to you.

[Infinitron]

You can still min-max, but it'll be min-maxing to get the best hitter, or best dodger, or best archer, instead of min-maxing to get the best character overall

[Chrononaut]

You can still min-max, but it'll be min-maxing to get the best hitter, or best dodger, or best archer, instead of min-maxing to get the best character overall

Oh? Might be a good game after all then.

 

But how do you know that when we don't even know what the attribute system is (if it even has one)?

Edited August 8, 2013 by Chrononaut

[Hormalakh]

 

It's not about "broken character building", it's like creating a BG Mage with low intelligence or a Fighter with low strength without even reading any of the tooltips and then expecting to not fail at the game. Of course it should be possible to create a bad character in an RPG, doesn't mean players should.

 

I'm really struggling to understand why you keep posting in this vein.  The developers have created their system.  You wish they had made another IE game.  They are instead making a game that takes inspiration from the IE games while innovating in a number of key respects.  None of this is changing.  So what, exactly, is the purpose of repeatedly declaring that it will be a bad game?

 

 

See the post I made about dead horses in the "horses and cloaks" thread.

 

hint:

 

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Malekith]

 

You can still min-max, but it'll be min-maxing to get the best hitter, or best dodger, or best archer, instead of min-maxing to get the best character overall

Oh? Might be a good game after all then.

 

But how do you know that when we don't even know what the attribute system is (if it even has one)?

 

The same way you know PE will be bad would be my guess...

[jethro]

Why do I need to explain why it was fun? Because powerful instant-kill creatures were cool, because they reinforced the setting and the power and fantasy of it.

 

 

There are better ways to do this. A mighty creature that just blows you out of its cave with his breath would awe me. Or an old dragon that continues to talk to me in a derotagory manner after the whole group tried to attack it. Or simply laughs at the puny humans that try to attack it. Or the deamon that acts like it is swallowing my fire ball and asking if I want really really want to play with him. Or the mage that turns on a mighty shield-spell and continues to read in a book about spear-fishing.

 

Not that your reasoning here is necessarily bad. A select few creatures (max 1 or 2 per game) that have an insta-kill feature are a simple way to create legendary beasts. It might be a feature worth to consider weighing its advantages and disadvantages, but on the other hand it is not something that makes or breaks the game.

[decado]

 

But how do you know that when we don't even know what the attribute system is (if it even has one)?

 

 

irony.jpg

[SymbolicFrank]

Some people, it appears, want to have imbalance and feel that making choices between greater or lesser combat viability for the sake of other, usually peripheral benefits is essential to a cRPG.  While that's definitely a legitimate viewpoint, in a game wherein the principal focus is combat (as Josh has said) I think that presenting that sort of imbalance harms the game deeply.

 

Let's see...

 

Ok, we know that all stats (attributes) are equally important, and there are no dump stats. Let's generate some valid (non-gimped) chars:

 

So, while your generic AD&D fighter would look something like (dice throws):

 

STR 18/00

DEX 16

CON 17

INT 8

WIS 7

CHR 3

 

with D&D 3 you got something like (point buy):

 

STR 16

DEX 12

CON 12

INT 10

WIS 10

CHR 10

 

and with PE you might get something like:

 

STR 14

DEX 12

CON 12

INT 12

WIS 12

CHR 12

 

???

 

For the other classes you could change the max stat around, but there is probably no real need.

 

What was the saying again: "Jack of all trades, Master of none"?

Edited August 9, 2013 by SymbolicFrank

[Elerond]

In PE could make fighter that has stats that you metioned

or you could also make fighter that has:

 

STR: 10

DEX: 11

CON: 10

INT: 18

WIS: 10

CHR: 13

 

And it would be as viable build as one you made. Of course there would be challenges where your build would be better and others where my build is better, but overall they both are as viable builds.