- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 100,193
Josh argues just like DU in Site Feedback threads.
This is actually a really great post. I haven't played Dark Souls, so it's good to hear how someone made this interesting.Posted my thoughts over there, not that it's going to make a difference http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60875-merged-cooldown-thread/page__st__580#entry1220626
Also, it's been hinted that P:E will not reward XP for combat, so no need to worry about people trying abuse this for grinding.
This is a really good post and I hope Sawyer replies to it, but I doubt he will. He's been largely ignoring most of the more insightful posts in that thread and has only been counter-trolling Shrek or getting in small responses. This kind of makes me think he doesn't really have a good answer to a lot of the ideas being expressed, or can't talk about them.Posted my thoughts over there, not that it's going to make a difference http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60875-merged-cooldown-thread/page__st__580#entry1220626
I was describing circumstances that occur constantly in IE games.
Dark Souls is an excellent game, but it also solves the problem in the opposite direction. It respawns creatures after rest, not on your way back to the campfire. This is also acceptable within the fiction of Dark Souls because it is quite close to being a world full of monsters and undead. This is not always the kind of area population that the BG/IWD games had.
A theoretical 12th level wizard in PE will probably have about the same number of 5th level spell slots as an equivalent wizard in D&D. Let's say that's 2 or 3. In IWD, you could cast Hold Monster your two or three times in a row and then you'd be done casting 5th level spells for the fight. It would work the same way in PE. The main mechanical difference that I'm considering is when/how you regain your 5th level spells following the fight.
A theoretical 12th level wizard in PE will probably have about the same number of 5th level spell slots as an equivalent wizard in D&D. Let's say that's 2 or 3. In IWD, you could cast Hold Monster your two or three times in a row and then you'd be done casting 5th level spells for the fight. It would work the same way in PE. The main mechanical difference that I'm considering is when/how you regain your 5th level spells following the fight.
Ohoho, we got under his skin somewhat at last.
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60875-merged-cooldown-thread/page__st__120#entry1219445A theoretical 12th level wizard in PE will probably have about the same number of 5th level spell slots as an equivalent wizard in D&D. Let's say that's 2 or 3. In IWD, you could cast Hold Monster your two or three times in a row and then you'd be done casting 5th level spells for the fight. It would work the same way in PE. The main mechanical difference that I'm considering is when/how you regain your 5th level spells following the fight.
Ohoho, we got under his skin somewhat at last.
There should just be natural regeneration of spells/abilities that vary on the specific spell/ability, the current state of the character and any other important aspects like a character's natural abilities or perks.
It essentially works as a form of cooldown since it's measured in real time instead of game time and addresses the issue of rest spamming.
So, say, every 5 minutes, you regain 1 use of spell X.
I am of course assuming that spell slots and limited usage of spells still applies. If we have unlimited usage of spells, it will be hard to design cooldowns as anything other than WoW or Dragon Age-esque. That would be bitterly disappointing.
That's probably what I'd like to see, assuming we have cooldowns and a non-Vancian way of spell selection.
I was describing circumstances that occur constantly in IE games.
Dark Souls is an excellent game, but it also solves the problem in the opposite direction. It respawns creatures after rest, not on your way back to the campfire. This is also acceptable within the fiction of Dark Souls because it is quite close to being a world full of monsters and undead. This is not always the kind of area population that the BG/IWD games had.
Again this is a red herring. Why do you focus on the return journey being slightly tedious? It doesn't matter as long as the player can potentially get something enriching out of that return journey. Consider the following scenario
How in the world would that experience not be fun?
- Party finds a campsite just outside the entrance to a dark cave
- Party camps and decides to explore the cave
- They get a ways through but run out of spells, while also thinking that maybe they could use some different spells to what they have currently. So they make the decision to go back to the campsite, rest and memorize new spells
- On the return journey back to the point in the cave they encounter a rare monster because it's now night time and when they entered the cave previously, it was day. It drops a rare piece of loot.
- The player now feels thankful that they went back and rested, not only did they get new spells but they got a shiny treasure too.
This is a really good post and I hope Sawyer replies to it, but I doubt he will. He's been largely ignoring most of the more insightful posts in that thread and has only been counter-trolling Shrek or getting in small responses. This kind of makes me think he doesn't really have a good answer to a lot of the ideas being expressed, or can't talk about them.Posted my thoughts over there, not that it's going to make a difference http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60875-merged-cooldown-thread/page__st__580#entry1220626
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60875-merged-cooldown-thread/page__st__580#entry1220651
I was describing circumstances that occur constantly in IE games.
Dark Souls is an excellent game, but it also solves the problem in the opposite direction. It respawns creatures after rest, not on your way back to the campfire. This is also acceptable within the fiction of Dark Souls because it is quite close to being a world full of monsters and undead. This is not always the kind of area population that the BG/IWD games had.
rations-like resource and cannot be performed in certain locations is better than cooldowns.
Captain Shrek said:Hi.
In my mind there are two important parts associated with implementing a system of magic in (video) games.
1) Mechanics based balance
2) Narrative / Lore considerations
Since we are playing a game, there is no doubt that the former always trumps the latter; that is to say that you have to balance the system before you can invent a cool lore.
This made clear, we can now proceed onto some intelligent discourse.
The first question is what to call magic:
I would claim that magic is something that is not a physical skill i.e. it is not a mental skill (Diplomacy, alchemy) or a strength or (solely) agility based skill (like weapon handling or thievery). Magic means evoking something un-natural by definition. Please, I am talking about the magic as the staple of fantasy setting. There are other views of what magic is; I am not concerning myself with them. Thus magic is doing what no normal person can do with normal means. There are again two facets of this "magic":
1) Magical items
2) Magical skills
By magical items I indicate objects that grant (negative/positive) bonuses on usage or consumption. This may or may not intersect with Alchemy which is a mental skill. These items will impart traits to the user that will (or should) alter their skills one way or another (drastically) beyond their capacity without any obvious ability to do so.
By magical skill I mean the capacity to invoke effects that are paranormal through incantations or sigils or glyphs or similarly esoteric products (ingredients). It is obvious to me and so should it be to you, that only magic that can change things significantly in the game world would be respected. For example a spell to shave belly hair is neat but has no consequence on gaming experience. Same holds true for magical items as well. Ring of back itching +3 is not a very useful item unless for the sake of hilarity.
Good.
Magic need NOT be visually spectacular always. It can have visually unappealing results. That is okay as long as the above condition of usefulness is satisfied.
Secondly, magic needs to be at least as powerful as Physical skills in the game IF the game allows a pure "magical" path. This is a balance issue.
Finally, magic must be at least capped to some level without allowing a play to win spell. The same holds for Melee/ranged/rogue skills as well. Again a balance issue.
As long as these three points are satisfied, a good storyteller can now design lore to surround and "explain" magic.
Here is where the real discussion starts:
Let me tell you what I think about magic.
To me, magic is essentially something that is overpowered by definition. It has to be so, because otherwise it would lose its awe-inspiring nature. This does not imply by necessity that magic be rare. But it OUGHT TO BE RARE, because without its exquisite scarcity it would stop being interesting. This is a narrative point of view which allows the story to become seamless. If magic is both powerful and common, e.g. existence of teleport and resurrect spells or even something as simple as fireball spell being 'easy' once per day cast, I for one, would be hard pressed to find a meaningful story that I can relate to.
But that seems a bit contradictory to the earlier necessary claim that magic should be balanced wrt Physical skills. Because balance would require magic to be cast at least once in a while. To resolve this dilemma, there has to be a system in place which will stop you from becoming super-powerful during a game and at the same time give you options that are not easily exhausted just because magic is rare.
There is another problem associated with the issue that deals with whether the game is single player single character game or a party based game. I am certain that the former forces you to choose a system of magic that is based on ideas like regenerating mana or easily acquired ingredients (time (vancian) or spell components). I will not consider these games because they do not confirm to my view of magic. This is a relative choice and I welcome you to have your own views regarding them.
Now there have been quite a few implementations of magical systems for party based games. I will not bore you with recounting them. Rather I will give you my version of an ideal system:
In order to have a balanced yet rare magical system , I propose that the caster lose something with every cast. Not a (at least quick) regenerating thing, mind you, so that the game can be turned into a waiting game. But something that will be difficult to acquire. I am not going to support stamina or mana as a resource since if one has somewhat powerful spells that heal and another spell that hurt, then it would become a rinse and repeat game of cast 1 and cast 2. Instead this resource that one loses should be rare reflecting the difficulty to cast spells. To counterbalance the rarity, increase the number of options (spells) that each require different resource (or more practically a mix and match) thus always giving the player a tactical choice. This way the player can always either act as a nuker or a buff-caster.
There is no doubt in my mind that the above system only works well for party based games where the Spell caster can choose a role according to his options while being flexible about the role itself. He can effortlessly switch from one role to another as a particular ingredient becomes available and thus be crucial to conflicts in the game, never feeling useless and never making the magic system feel over the top.
Crusty, you should write who it is that you're quoting so we don't have to click through the link to see.
Music update is up by the way...if anyone missed. A lot of fluff talk but the samples are solid.