"But it was made for us."

[Bryy]

I almost feel like starting a new thread for this.

[Gromnir]

 

I dunno. Scientists have studied animal physiology for a while now,

 

There we have it. Science has now been brought into the debate. Only someone like Lephys could bring in science and animals into a boob armour discussion.

 

to attract prospective mates in the wild, some animals utilize bright plumage or pheromones. leph suggest that humans need b00bs for a similar reason. therefore, using undeniable logic and a simple syllogism, female avatars in poe need b00b armour.

 

huh?

 

oh, and women in plate are exceptions to the seeming need for b00b armour.

 

...

 

kids, don't do drugs... and if you do, don't post on message boards while clearly stoned outta your mind.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Fatback]

But in to without boobs how would men ever listen to the oh so interesting stories blondes tell or redheads or any other hair colored girl

 

 

Dripping with sarcasm with a hint of truth.

[nipsen]

Ok, then. 

 

Next on the list of topics Obsidian is probably dying to hear our input on: "Should men wearing no armor be depicted with nipples?"

[Ffordesoon]

But in to without boobs how would men ever listen to the oh so interesting stories blondes tell or redheads or any other hair colored girl

 

 

Dripping with sarcasm with a hint of truth.

Yuck.

[Karkarov]

 

Edit: The forums seem to becoming rather ill mannered of late, full of too much outrage and rudeness. Can't we all just get along?

Agreed. Someone says "he bumped into me and didn't apologize. I don't think that's right. HE SHOULD DIE!"

 

And you respond with "Whoa whoa, yeah, he probably should apologize to you, you're right. But, I dunno if his not-doing that warrants death", and somehow, the hostility just gets re-directed at you. As if simply letting it die down like a fire would somehow harm the discussion. 8P

 

WHAT YOU SAY?!?!?!?!?

 

Where you get off bro?  Tryin to preach at us!  I think you need to die Lephys!  Imma get my gat and be right back to ice you foo!

[Hassat Hunter]

 

 

Links for the item degradation in particular.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64048-update-58-crafting-with-tim-cain/?p=1348405

 

I actually liked the idea of item degradation, but most commentors did not.

 

Go play Divinity: Original Sin. It has it.

Going around the various forums it seems universally hated, so it may not make the final cut... so get in while you can!

 

 

I think it makes more sense for a game with one one or two controlled characters. It may not scale well, becoming tedious with six party members. That being said, I liked the idea of a very simple weapon wear implementation. But a tiny but loud minority managed to shout it down.

 

*Keeps on ignoring the boobarmor convo*

 

4 actually. And as said, pretty much everyone seems to hate it. No-one, at all, is a pro after playing it.

That, or they keep their mouths very very shut while there's critisism all around them...

[Monte Carlo]

Simple: stay true to what you said you were going to do when you made the KS pitch.

 

Don't use deliberately lawyerly language afterwards to ferret your way out of doing those things.

 

Obsidian have done this to a certain extent. It certainly looks like an old I.E. game with cherries on top. Will it feel like one, or will Sawyer kill it with his Staff of Balance +5?

 

I don't know is the honest answer. But the MMO / 4E / all-must-have-prizes / altar of balance design philosophy doesn't sound very old-skool to me.

[teknoman2]

Simple: stay true to what you said you were going to do when you made the KS pitch.

 

Don't use deliberately lawyerly language afterwards to ferret your way out of doing those things.

 

Obsidian have done this to a certain extent. It certainly looks like an old I.E. game with cherries on top. Will it feel like one, or will Sawyer kill it with his Staff of Balance +5?

 

I don't know is the honest answer. But the MMO / 4E / all-must-have-prizes / altar of balance design philosophy doesn't sound very old-skool to me.

in the end it all depends on variation. if playing a wizard and going solo is viable and has the same difficulty overall as doing the same thing with a fighter, but requires a completelly different approach on combat tactics and skill builds is fine as would be some class to have it more easy in certain situations compared to others. a bigger problem would be to have a class that nobody bothers to play (or have in the party) because its ineffective early and useless in the long run (bard)

[Sarex]

in the end it all depends on variation. if playing a wizard and going solo is viable and has the same difficulty overall as doing the same thing with a fighter, but requires a completelly different approach on combat tactics and skill builds is fine as would be some class to have it more easy in certain situations compared to others. a bigger problem would be to have a class that nobody bothers to play (or have in the party) because its ineffective early and useless in the long run (bard)

 

But the flip side to that is that you will probably make the other classes worse to play by balancing them to be equal to the bard. You have to ask yourself, is it better to have all the classes balanced or have all/most of them be awesome to play? Balance in a single player game should not be the main focus of attention.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Sarex

[Monte Carlo]

Most people buying this game will play it more than once. If there are two or three classes that are perceived to be 'weaker' and need a good knowledge of the gaming meta to solo the game with, then so what? The sky won't fall in.

 

The current design philosophy isn't very old skool. Old skool is flawed, sure, but new systems feel generic, dessicated, bland. I'd rather have a flawed gem than a plastic one.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Will it feel like one, or will Sawyer kill it with his Staff of Balance +5?

 

I don't know is the honest answer. But the MMO / 4E / all-must-have-prizes / altar of balance design philosophy doesn't sound very old-skool to me.

 

Yeah, this is indeed the crux of the matter. The balance-discussion aside (I do believe balance can go together with classes feeling different enough - for instance D3 RoS), I also read in this is an urgency in keeping classes and even races distinct. Failing to do so, certainly would mean that the IE-magic has dissipated. When playing NWN2, it is a world of difference if you pick a Warlock, a Paladin, a Rogue or a Wizard, for instance. I really, really enjoyed that. It would be absurd if each class in PoE turn out to be more or less equally combat-savvy (something that actually is something of an illness accrued from MMOs - all classes being battle geniuses, just like in D3 I just mentioned). I hope one or two classes, at least, are more survivalists or sneaky silver tongues, or perhaps letting summons do the fighting for them (like Druids). So, I want to see differentiated classes and races. 

Edited May 3, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Monte Carlo]

Most people buying this game will play it more than once. If there are two or three classes that are perceived to be 'weaker' and need a good knowledge of the gaming meta to solo the game with, then so what? The sky won't fall in.

 

The current design philosophy isn't very old skool. Old skool is flawed, sure, but new systems feel generic, dessicated, bland. I'd rather have a flawed gem than a plastic one.

 

I seldom quote myself but I wanted to add a point and couldn't edit.

 

I play a lot of RTS games. Excuse the apples-and-oranges comparison, but let me give you an example.

 

In Medieval Total War 2 you can choose a faction. When you choose that faction you get two difficulty choices. The first is the games overall difficulty. The second is the difficulty of that faction in comparison to the rest. So, for example, playing Denmark is hard: it's a tiny country with the big old Germans sitting to one side and the Russkis to the other. Germany is hard: it's got lots and lots of borders, the French are eyeing their rebellious western provinces and the Holy Roman Empire is crumbling in the middle of Milan's territory. England, OTOH is a medium challenge: it's an island that can quickly decapitate it's Celtic fringes and build trade. Egypt? Easy mode. More precious resources than you could shake a stick at, it sits comfortably south of the most rapacious crusading routes and the Turks take the brunt of the Mongol invasion.

 

Swap out faction for class with an up-front explanation about pros and cons and you have an old-skool philosophy. Wanna play a monk or paladin. Wow, that's going to be tough in 1E AD&D: paladins are alignment-trapped and are only allowed a tiny number of magical items. Monks are the most rear-loaded class ever. Thieves? Man, that's tough with mediocre combat skills and a long progression curve with skills.

 

You pays your money and takes your pick. What are you in the mood for?

 

This is what I genuinely don't understand about the current meta as we see it in this game. I probably never will, I just think balance in a single-player game is almost insanely overrated. If you want to be a twinky content tourist then good luck to you - you payed for it. Instead you get designers sneering about 'degenerative' game play.

 

* shrugs *

[Stun]

I seldom quote myself but I wanted to add a point and couldn't edit.

 

I play a lot of RTS games. Excuse the apples-and-oranges comparison, but let me give you an example.

 

In Medieval Total War 2 you can choose a faction. When you choose that faction you get two difficulty choices. The first is the games overall difficulty. The second is the difficulty of that faction in comparison to the rest. So, for example, playing Denmark is hard: it's a tiny country with the big old Germans sitting to one side and the Russkis to the other. Germany is hard: it's got lots and lots of borders, the French are eyeing their rebellious western provinces and the Holy Roman Empire is crumbling in the middle of Milan's territory. England, OTOH is a medium challenge: it's an island that can quickly decapitate it's Celtic fringes and build trade. Egypt? Easy mode. More precious resources than you could shake a stick at, it sits comfortably south of the most rapacious crusading routes and the Turks take the brunt of the Mongol invasion.

 

Swap out faction for class with an up-front explanation about pros and cons and you have an old-skool philosophy. Wanna play a monk or paladin. Wow, that's going to be tough in 1E AD&D: paladins are alignment-trapped and are only allowed a tiny number of magical items. Monks are the most rear-loaded class ever. Thieves? Man, that's tough with mediocre combat skills and a long progression curve with skills.

 

You pays your money and takes your pick. What are you in the mood for?

 

This is what I genuinely don't understand about the current meta as we see it in this game. I probably never will, I just think balance in a single-player game is almost insanely overrated. If you want to be a twinky content tourist then good luck to you - you payed for it. Instead you get designers sneering about 'degenerative' game play.

 

* shrugs *

Yes.

 

I pointed this out to Josh a while back (although I wasn't nearly as eloquent!), and his response was: "Balanced does not mean equal", or whatever.

 

His argument was that using different classes in subsequent playthrus will still feel totally different since the classes are designed with different strengths and weaknesses. (hypothetical example of this: Warriors can plow through a golem encounter, while mages will suffer a world of hurt against Golems, but at the same time, mages will have an easy time dispensing a giant army of Orcs in a few seconds, while warriors are in for a long drawn out battle against those Orcs).

 

But I don't buy this, and I don't find that kind of design philosophy particularly intelligent. whittle down the pretty words and it's not much different from the 'Rock-paper-scissors' game-design that he swears he dislikes.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

Out of curiosity @Monte Carlo, did you play Shadowrun Returns? If so, what are your thoughts regarding deckers vs. shamans?

 

I'm asking because there was a lot of moaning about how the former is underpowered compared to the latter, and some of it came from people who were, at the same time, arguing vehemently that class balance in single-player games is bogus.

 

I.e., I'm not convinced that everybody who beats that drum will actually enjoy it if and when they get what they asked for. Which is one reason I'm quite happy if class differentiation is through what their specific strengths are in combat (defense, single-target attack, multi-target attack, single-target ranged, multi-target ranged, buff, debuff, etc. etc.) rather than how strong they are. There's a massive amount of variation possible in the latter, without having to make a class unambiguously less powerful in combat.

[Monte Carlo]

No, sorry PJ I never played Shadowrun.

 

The bit I don't get is that Sawyer's idea seems to avoid builds. If I want a mob-slaying fighter in PoE can I make one? It would appear not. OTOH if I want to make a fighter who specialises in one-on-one can I? Or do I play a Rogue, who in this brave new world are, er, fighters too. Or can I make a fighter that does a bit of both, a sort of Jack-of-all-trades?

 

Can I make a mage who specialises in fire magic or summoning stuff or manipulating people's minds? Can I make a cleric who buffs others more than himself or vice versa.

 

I want builds within classes, not a template class dedicated to this specious 'crowd-control' 'heavy-hitter' schtick. Consistent with Bryy's original post, I'm not expecting D&D but when they pitched this game on KS I expected an analogue of the type of games that inspired the originals, not some half-arsed 4th Edition / MMO clone. This is what boils my piss about PoE, to be honest, and the rather condescending attitude towards those of us who won't / can't get with the program.

 

Edit : Just thought about it - I really wanted a 3E / Pathfinder-esque PoE. Not a 4th Ed / MMO one.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Monte Carlo

[IndiraLightfoot]

Heh, now I wish that tried that decker archetype! In IWD2, I have a thief and a monk in my party, but I only see that as me picking stuff I like to play.

I've already completed Shadowrun Returns vanilla with a human street samurai, and now I've begun a new playthrough with a Physical Adept troll. I think what matters is how fun and varied the classes and races feel, at least to me. If a class is a bit OP, I wouldn't mind that one bit.

 

Another example: In D3 vanilla, Blizzard was overly anxious in matters of balance (well, real money was at stake, hehe), so there were endless tiny patches nerfing all sorts of odd builds, just to make sure that everything was just even, so the entire field was levelled, and it actually felt pretty dull and barren. It was certainly one factor that made me stop playing it.

Edited May 3, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Monte Carlo]

^ Agreed, Indira, but I guess a game that (eventually) wants ladders and PvP has to have that stuff factored in.

[PrimeJunta]

The bit I don't get is that Sawyer's idea seems to avoid builds. If I want a mob-slaying fighter in PoE can I make one?

Sure. It's called a barbarian.

 

It would appear not. OTOH if I want to make a fighter who specialises in one-on-one can I?

Sure. It's called a rogue.

 

I want builds within classes, not a template class dedicated to this specious 'crowd-control' 'heavy-hitter' schtick.

Why?

 

The way I see it, the character system in a game is there to support character concepts you want to represent with it. What difference does it make if your mob-fighting, hard-hitting, mobile fighter is called 'barbarian' as long as you can make one?

 

The thing I liked least about AD&D (which was greatly mitigated in 3e/Pathfinder) is the way the classes were straitjackets. Pick your class/kit, assign your abilities, and your advancement is just about entirely on rails, a few minor features like which thief skills to advance or which weapon to specialize aside. On the other hand, 3e had way too many classes with way too little differentiation between them. The fighter, ranger, and barbarian are almost entirely interchangeable, and the cleric and druid aren't well differentiated either.

 

Personally I prefer classless systems. Just define character advancement as skill trees, and let players go wild.

[teknoman2]

 

in the end it all depends on variation. if playing a wizard and going solo is viable and has the same difficulty overall as doing the same thing with a fighter, but requires a completelly different approach on combat tactics and skill builds is fine as would be some class to have it more easy in certain situations compared to others. a bigger problem would be to have a class that nobody bothers to play (or have in the party) because its ineffective early and useless in the long run (bard)

 

But the flip side to that is that you will probably make the other classes worse to play by balancing them to be equal to the bard. You have to ask yourself, is it better to have all the classes balanced or have all/most of them be awesome to play? Balance in a single player game should not be the main focus of attention.

 

i did not say balace all classes to match the weakest, i said dont make a pointless class in the first place. 

as for balancing, say that you are playing solo and are beset by 50 zombies. they are slow, they are clumsy and they are weak against fire. so if you are a wizard, you spam a few fireballs and problem solved. if you are fighter you can tank them (harder than blasting them) and a ranger can kite them by shooting and moving away using his superior move speed. so this situation is easy and fast to solve for the wizard, medium speed and a bit hard for the fighter and slow but relativelly safe for the ranger. some other situation may be easier to deal with for a fighter but hard for a wizard (an enemy imune to magic but with no physical defense for example)

[IndiraLightfoot]

OT, I know, but Steam has this big sale on Shadowrun Returns, and all this talk about it made me get that expansion, Dragonfall. And it seems to have a few nice reviews under its belt too.

 

PrimeJunta: I like both; confining classes and classless systems. And classless systems come in all sorts of varieties. The one in Skyrim comes to mind (what you do often you get good at), and then we have Path of Exile's extremely large and complicated skill tree . Still, since I really like D&D 3.5, it's hard to beat that huge variety of classes and prestige classes on offer there.

[ManifestedISO]

"Half-assed MMO clone" ... doesn't sound right, but never played one--yet ... still don't see the danger. Gonna go make some toast now, and ponder the veracity of that point where unstoppable presuppostion meets immovable expectation.

 

Oh, and I want in on this shoulder fad ...

 

*shrugs* 

[Volourn]

"Most people buying this game will play it more than once."

 

Doubtful. Most people who buy this game will not play it more than once. In fact, many won't even complete. Don't confuse the hardcore with the majority.

\

For the reecord, I likely will play it more than once assuming it is as fun as I expect it to be.

[dyrhet]

I think wanting characters to be well balanced in combat is entirely reasonable because frankly, that's where the game is. I'm hardly the sort of tabletop gamer who demands balance, my favourite games are things like Burning Wheel and Torchbearer where balance just plain does not exist, by design. But those games are consistently fun because combat is not the priority, and players are specifically encouraged to pursue their personal goals, and that's what the game is about.

 

This game though, and the IE games in general, have stories that are more or less set in stone. They can be a little reactive and that's lovely, but they're inflexible due to the nature of the medium. And the games mostly, let's be honest, consist of combat. There's little bits of gameplay around the edges: choosing dialogue options, disarming traps, etc, but it's thin stuff. It's stuff that I like and want very much to be in the game, but it is only tenuously "play". Combat is where you actually pit your skill as a player against the computer and hope to win. In a tabletop game, your socially oriented character can participate in genuine social challenges that test them and carry some sort of consequences. In most video games, so little attention is paid to "gamifying" dialogue that the challenge is reduced to (rarely) picking the right option and having pre-emptively put enough points into a given conversation skill or stat.

 

in a game where combat is the priority (and whatever you say, basically every RPG ever set to code is one of those) everyone should be just as good at fighting (though in different ways) because that's the way their contributions to gameplay actually matter.

[Volourn]

No.