Jump to content
IndiraLightfoot

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

Recommended Posts

When I say that IE games have bad combat, I don't mean the coding, more the 2e rules that obviously they couldn't control. Seriously **** THAC0. But that's my point, the games used a horrible (or horribly outdated, whatever you prefer) ruleset and saying that PE should be more like the IE games is really backwards thinking.

That's quite a bit different from your Originial statement on this thread, where you flat out condemned the IE games' gameplay.

 

Gameplay encompasses a hell of a lot more than just the combat ruleset.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That. I want the game to play exactly the same as the IE games. That doesn't mean i want D&D ruleset.

By the same logic IWD had diferent gameplay than IWD2 because 3d E, PS:T played diferently than all the others, BG games played diferently than IWD games due to system modifications etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I say that IE games have bad combat, I don't mean the coding, more the 2e rules that obviously they couldn't control. Seriously **** THAC0. But that's my point, the games used a horrible (or horribly outdated, whatever you prefer) ruleset and saying that PE should be more like the IE games is really backwards thinking.

Thac0 is exactly the same as d20 positive it's just you read the numbers differently. Mechanically there is no difference, it is merely a matter of presentation

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When I say that IE games have bad combat, I don't mean the coding, more the 2e rules that obviously they couldn't control. Seriously **** THAC0. But that's my point, the games used a horrible (or horribly outdated, whatever you prefer) ruleset and saying that PE should be more like the IE games is really backwards thinking.

Thac0 is exactly the same as d20 positive it's just you read the numbers differently. Mechanically there is no difference, it is merely a matter of presentation

 

 

And presentation is extremely important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And presentation is extremely important.

Right. So what's the better proposal here? How else do you present a character's hit chance in a way that can actually fit on a character's stat screen?

 

personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference (in presentation) between "Thac0" and "attack score". When presented with a Person's AC, you have to do the exact same Math to figure out what you have to roll to score a hit.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thac0 never bothered me. I can do addition and subtraction. I just have to laugh when people use thac0 as an example of bad D&D 2E rules. Sure it's unintuitive but the end result is it takes you a second longer to calculate your chance to hit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thac0 never bothered me. I can do addition and subtraction. I just have to laugh when people use thac0 as an example of bad D&D 2E rules. Sure it's unintuitive but the end result is it takes you a second longer to calculate your chance to hit.

But that requires the ability to add two plus two. Apparently it is a rare skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dream: If you're going to say that everything is "subject to change because SAWYER" then there's not much to debate, is there?

 

If you believe that Josh Sawyer wants to ruin this game, then I suggest you ask for a refund now.

 

I'm not trying to debate; I'm just stating why I have reservations about it. I'm still sure the game will be good (else I wouldn't have funded it), but I'm not expecting it to be the second coming.

 

Edit: If it turns out I'm wrong and the game ends up being the best thing since sliced bread I can confidently say I'll be happy to have been proven wrong.

Edited by Dream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest change from the IE games I like:

 

Any class can fill any combat role.

 

 

Biggest 2 changes from the IE games I dislike:

 

Underpowered mages

Cannot use any party member as party spokesperson


God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest change from the IE games I like:

 

Any class can fill any combat role.

Have they actually said this?

 

What I've read is that i.e. rogues are optimized for massive damage to single targets, not crowd control or tanking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Biggest 2 changes from the IE games I dislike:

 

Underpowered mages

 

I don't see how you can determine any class being underpowered when we haven't seen any of the combat yet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can determine any class being underpowered when we haven't seen any of the combat yet.

STM is a mage-o-phile and very much enjoys the AD&D convention of wizards starting weak and ending up as the most powerful class in the game. Perfectly balanced classes across the "level continuum" isn't something he seeks.


http://cbrrescue.org/

 

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forests and fields in which you walk. Immerse yourself in the outdoors experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person.----Fred Bear

 

http://michigansaf.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Biggest change from the IE games I like:

 

Any class can fill any combat role.

Have they actually said this?

 

What I've read is that i.e. rogues are optimized for massive damage to single targets, not crowd control or tanking

 

Right.  Each class is aimed at a specific combat role, and it is easier to build them to fill that role, but they're not limited to that role.

 

This isn't going to be like DA2 where you must have a tank and only warriors can tank.

 

Ideally, I'd like to see a game where I can load up the party with just mages, and then those mages can both do enough damage and crowd control that I don't need anyone else.


God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.  Each class is aimed at a specific combat role, and it is easier to build them to fill that role, but they're not limited to that role.

 

This isn't going to be like DA2 where you must have a tank and only warriors can tank.

 

Ideally, I'd like to see a game where I can load up the party with just mages, and then those mages can both do enough damage and crowd control that I don't need anyone else.

K. Every class, but not every build, can fill any combat role I guess. I forgot that there are no dump stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Sylvious utopia of all mage party shall very most likely be realized and not horribly gimped, and its a good thing.

 

Really do like what they're doing with mages and having spells turn into per-encounter instead of per-rest after you level up enough so you always have access to the lower end spells each fight. Anytime I had a mage they spent more time thumb wrestling them selves then casting spells unless it was an absolute necessity.


Def Con: kills owls dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every class can fill any combat role. Doesn't mean they will, or that they can fill every role.

 

I don't see why this is a problem. At worst, this means you can have 6 different classes and specialize them all into single-target damage dealing. How is the ability to do that with 6 different-class characters any different from being limited to only being able to do that with 6 same-class characters, and still having the option to just roll with those 6 same-class characters?


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

Yeah I don't think it's a problem. If we had no variation in are classes (like 2nd edition) then I see a problem. Ultimately rigid structures just aren't as fun to me. In IE games it was sorta ok (though it drove me bonkers anyway) since you have up to 6 total chars so you kinda get to mess with everything, really. But on a personal level, developer your character and you have a specific idea and the game refuses to allow it to happen because its to rigid, that's just a bummer.

 

Also I kinda feel like im being argumentative on a subject we both agree on. Think I'm just looking for crap to keep my mind busy after the news this week (not PE related, R.I.P Ryan Davis).


Def Con: kills owls dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just pre-game complaining, in my view.  It happens with every game, Kickstarted or not.  Following this will be the post-game complaining, followed by post-post-game complaining.  Then the nostalgia phase.

 

Jesus, this was one of the best descriptions of the twenty tens that I ever read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Underpowered mages

I'll take underpowered mages over overpowered mages any day, but then you know that already.  Besides, after all the years of overpowered casters, it's only fair that the melee types get to be useful for a change. :fdevil:

 

Honestly, I'm really happy with what I've seen so far, as it's exceeded my expectations on many levels (I was expecting more 2E-like rules when funding the project, which is why I didn't back for higher than I did, as I loathe 2E D&D.)  I obviously won't be able to say for sure until they've shown us more of the ruleset (I'd like to see some stuff on the classes we don't know much about yet) but so far I'd say I'm getting a better game than I was expecting (though I'll admit to being a bit disappointed with crafting no longer being a skill...not sure how it will work now.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the crafting wasn't even dependent on the crafting skill for anything. Think it just lowered cost of things or... something. Still curious to what exactly is involved though either way as a universal 'crafting skill' was awkward.


Def Con: kills owls dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the crafting wasn't even dependent on the crafting skill for anything. Think it just lowered cost of things or... something. Still curious to what exactly is involved though either way as a universal 'crafting skill' was awkward.

 

I was never sure what the "crafting skill" represented, whether this was equivalent to smithing and armor/weapon maintenance, or some sort of general mechanic... but I guess now that it's been removed it doesn't matter. I didn't like the idea of a skill called "crafting" but I still don't know enough about how it would have worked to be able to tell whether I'll miss it or not.

Edited by mcmanusaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want the game to play exactly the same as the IE games. That doesn't mean i want D&D ruleset.

 

But isn't the ruleset one of the greatest determinants of how a game "plays"? How else would you define "how it plays"? Just based on the inclusion of features present in IE games, and the exclusion of those absent therein?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't the ruleset one of the greatest determinants of how a game "plays"? How else would you define "how it plays"? Just based on the inclusion of features present in IE games, and the exclusion of those absent therein?

It depends on what you mean by "how a game plays." If you interpret "play" as the literal motions of the mouse and keys, then yes, ruleset is a big part of what determines that (the other major factor is the UI).

 

However, I think it's more useful to interpret it another way: How does the game feel when you play it? For the sake of discussion let's define the feeling of playing a game as that game's aesthetic of play. The aesthetic of play of a game is (partially) determined by its mechanics, but you can arrive at the same aesthetic of play through multiple routes.

 

To make an analogy, if the aesthetic of play were a bowl of ice cream, the mechanics would be the spoon. Mechanics are the method by which you experience a game, not the game itself. Mechanics become meaningless when dissociated from the aesthetic they're intended to create: The spoon doesn't get you very far if you have nothing to eat with it. Likewise, you can serve the same aesthetic with radically different mechanics and different aesthetics with the same mechanics applied in a different context. Just look at how different in feel the IE games are when they (mostly) use the same engine and ruleset.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the IE 'feel' difference amongst them selves is just in the setting. Though PST does have that snazzy right-click menu...

 

I'd say 'feel' of play has a lot to do with animations, how fast characters move in general, how fluid mouse movements and the like are. It sounds like a no brainer but a lot of games can screw that up A LOT. How fluid is the camera? does it have a build up on when holding a key down, how responsive is it when you mouse-drag the screen, or when you corner hold the cursor to move it? All of that can make or break how the game 'feels' even when the math behind the combat and 'mechanics' are all the same.

 

Rules and setting are also big parts of it, of course. It takes all of it to make a game feel truly great in my opinion, fail to hard on either side and it feels either watered down, lacking in some way or just plane clunky.

  • Like 1

Def Con: kills owls dead

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...