They have already told us we can we can make "full reactive" and/or "click&forget" characters. Like a warrior full of activetable skills or a wizard casually wanding(or Grimoire Slamming ^_^) with 50 passives.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]
- Thread starter Anthony Davis
- Start date
They have already told us we can we can make "full reactive" and/or "click&forget" characters. Like a warrior full of activetable skills or a wizard casually wanding(or Grimoire Slamming ^_^) with 50 passives.
Enjoyable in spite of their rule-set, enjoyable in spite of their lack of micro-management in combat, enjoyable in spite of having round, enjoyable in spite of having inventory-tetris, enjoyable in spite of almost all of their combat mechanics...
Sounds like Sawyer thinks the IE-games were enjoyable in spite of themselves entirely, so he's making an IE-game that isn't at all like one in order to compensate
Maybe he enjoyed their stories?
Brotherman Bill
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,933
You are grunking hard here.
First: Omg, can't believe codex is being so uncritical
Then: leave IE designs alone!11!! How can he trash my favourite designs?
I'm pointing out this inconsistency.
Oh, and it's perfectly fair to criticize something you like. In this case it's extra useful for a couple of reasons: First, he has to make a new system so why not improve it where he feels it can use improvement? And why wouldn't he want to justify these improvements? Carbon copying it wasn't an option anyways. Second, since this game is an IE-like, why not use it as a reference point?
Lastly - the very structure of PE is based on the IE games. Complaining that he "trashes" minor designs is like complaining about the paintjob. I mean we have here essentially slightly modified attacks of opportunity, it won't change the game into something else.
Well, it's not looking anything like NWN2 where everyone and their grandmothers get AoO when you get past them even they are battling with another. Now only trained fighters (or maybe other melees too with proper skills) can do that and only in a defensive mode.
And it happens only when you try to walk out of that engagement area, we can still do other things(drink potion, casting spells?) or even walk 1-2 steps by the looks of it. But my guts are telling me that they are going to add another skill/passive (probably for rogues) that gets us more AoO against any other move than close combat.
Also classes are getting some basic ways to get rid of it and even that fails we can always use crowd control effects on enemies. I know i will with my knockdown happy monk (if game allows it...)
And it happens only when you try to walk out of that engagement area, we can still do other things(drink potion, casting spells?) or even walk 1-2 steps by the looks of it. But my guts are telling me that they are going to add another skill/passive (probably for rogues) that gets us more AoO against any other move than close combat.
Also classes are getting some basic ways to get rid of it and even that fails we can always use crowd control effects on enemies. I know i will with my knockdown happy monk (if game allows it...)
This is bullshit, even for you, and you know it. How is asking that the Codex be critical even remotely comparable to asking Sawyer which things he's actually gonna implement from the IE-games? I'm posting stuff both positive and critical about P:E - what I was asking about in this thread was the absolute non-existance of critique from certain posters.
Except I'm not asking for him to post only videos about which things he loves in the IE-games and is going to use in P:E either. I'm asking why his sole purpose in doing these design-talks is telling us why the IE-games suck and how P:E is going to be different. You'd think, if an IE-like really was what he wanted to make, that he would be talking a lot about what of its design elements he's going to implement when he's talking about the basic functions of the game, right?
You're basically saying that we're standing on too ends of the spectrum I'm overly critical here and asking Sawyer why he is overly critical about the IE-games, while you're on the opposite end. We're not though. I'm pretty balanced in both praising the good stuff about P:E and I'm asking Sawyer to not only focus on what they IE-games did wrong but also what they did right, since I think that both are pretty fucking important when you're making a game based on another game. It baffles me how this is a steep demand.
Oh ho ho ho ho ho ho ho.
The sum of all the design changes he's doing are minor changes? Give me a break. Even the changes I support - changing the system from AD&D for example - are pretty fucking huge.
Bingo. But then Sawyer made NWN2, so colour me unsurprised. I guess he didn't do all that listening and learnin' from players playing the game that he always talks about there, eh Roguey?
I'm glad that they are at least working on a way to make melee opponents some kind of challenge in a game that is heavily inspired by IE. Do not want more of this kite and riddle them with arrows/magic business. But pathfinding better be damn good, and a way of showing characters engagement radius would be ideal.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 24,793
Like I said before, they work just fine in NWN 1. When you proc an AOO it clearly states so in floating text, as well as in the combat log. The rules for provoking one are extremely simple to memorize:
* run into someone's threat-range and fail a tumble check
* run away from someone's threat-range and fail a tumble check
* drink a potion in someone's threat-range
* cast a spell in someone's threat range
* fight unarmed in melee without Improved Unarmed Combat
* fire into a melee with a ranged weapon
What could be simpler?
* run into someone's threat-range and fail a tumble check
* run away from someone's threat-range and fail a tumble check
* drink a potion in someone's threat-range
* cast a spell in someone's threat range
* fight unarmed in melee without Improved Unarmed Combat
* fire into a melee with a ranged weapon
What could be simpler?
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 100,489
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 24,793
Good point, good point.
Rake
Arcane
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,969
And yet you want Grappling, Tripping, Disarming, stunning, charging etc in a RT game? There is no way to micromanage 6 REACTIVE characters at the same time. IE games worked exactly because except from the casters the other classes were passive. A good melee is always reactive with many activated option in TB games. In a RTwP is shit design. If you say that the melee combat would be deeper as TB, i agrre but that's beside the point by now.
Rake
Arcane
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,969
I know. But by now that desision is already made. The game will be RTwP. So what's the point of asking for more "reactive" melee with many "options", when it's more likelly to have instead of IE "boring"melee NWN2 infuriating one if you go that way? Combat was never Obsidian's stronger point anyway. They could recreate something similar to IE combat. But to improve on that? NWN2 is what we got.
I don't get what you are trying to say to be honest. For TB/TRwP debate(how did we get on this subject?) i don't mind. Most of my IEgame play throughs were like semi-turn based with activated auto-pause after every turn option and never touching them till next turn. NWN2 had(has) serious AI problems and i always used my fools in puppet mode to protect my sanity.
About AoO,
They are telling us engagement ring/area is for one person per attacker, if someone is attacking your "cannon fodders" you can safely bypass them with other party members unless they are a figther who had the skill and defensive mode on. I dont think that would be a common combat scenerio. So unless you run away from while some enemy meleeing you, you are fine most of the time.
Its not restricted to mods, mods only enhance it, making some fighters(or maybe other classes) dangerous to stand near. Still you can add some summons into that ring for safer movements.
And if they deliver the levelling up system they promised, everything will be optional for your party. Arm everyone with passive skills and play without pausing ever and only with your mouse hand or you can become a control freak like me and want to control them step by step with shitloads of actives or try to balance it while giving frontliners passives and rangers actives (mostly like IEs/NWNs)
About AoO,
They are telling us engagement ring/area is for one person per attacker, if someone is attacking your "cannon fodders" you can safely bypass them with other party members unless they are a figther who had the skill and defensive mode on. I dont think that would be a common combat scenerio. So unless you run away from while some enemy meleeing you, you are fine most of the time.
Its not restricted to mods, mods only enhance it, making some fighters(or maybe other classes) dangerous to stand near. Still you can add some summons into that ring for safer movements.
And if they deliver the levelling up system they promised, everything will be optional for your party. Arm everyone with passive skills and play without pausing ever and only with your mouse hand or you can become a control freak like me and want to control them step by step with shitloads of actives or try to balance it while giving frontliners passives and rangers actives (mostly like IEs/NWNs)
Clarifications like that would be very handy if only they have been accessible to people who read the forums of the company making the game.
Clarifications like that would be very handy if only they have been accessible to people who read the forums of the company making the game.
I feel violatedo_O
tuluse
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2008
- Messages
- 11,400
Good information here, especially with regards to limiting kiting.
However, it does raise questions in my mind now. How will the game show if you are in an AoO zone? Will there be some kind of warning mechanism so you don't accidentally move your fighter who's engaged with 3 enemies and instantly gets raped?
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 100,489
Although, its not really clear if the focus on the what he will be changing from the IE games is reflective of his design approach or his update subject selection approach. He's probably far more interested in the mechanics he's actually designing than the one's he's implementing.
I haven't seen all of the talks, so grain of salt, but I didn't get the impression he was complaining about the IE games being broken so much as addressing things about those games that he thought could have been better when he played them. At a general level, IE games were DnD combat in a RTwP form. Remove the DnD and you have RTwP combat. So in that sense, he's saying "here's how I will implement IE style, RTwP combat without using DnD rules and in a way that I think fixes some of its flaws." At a more specific level, it seems like its really a question of whether he's using DnD mechanics or not.
uaciaut
Augur
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
- Messages
- 505
What do you want to hear? "Old ad&d rpg's did everything perfectly, here's how we'll immitate them". They're presenting things by starting from how the mechanic worked in those games and improve on it. Do you expect Sawyer to say how neat those games were since you could pause them and strategically assign commands to make the best of your party's positioning and skills in order to defeat your enemies? Or do you actually think that the mechanics he's criticizing here worked perfectly?
In before they present an element that's very similar to something in the old rpg's and i see a lynch mob yelling "not original" all over the place.
Ooooooh shit, and using NWN2 as the good example! How about that. Class A shit incoming, bros!
...and know to work well in a turn-based environment.
hiver
Guest
:facepalm:
its not aggro at all, ffs.
It doesnt have anything to do with agression gathering, as such.
It doesnt have to do with groups, but individual characters.
Its situational and positional. Its f`ing aoe, with restrictions of not dealing general damage to an area but to specific individual opponents.
also, for fuck sake, they didnt say "we are going to make a DnD game." did they?
They said they are going to make a new game based on infinity, BG games and shit.
BASED ON!
/
90 % of posts in this thread are sooooo dense its real struggle even to look here.
its not aggro at all, ffs.
It doesnt have anything to do with agression gathering, as such.
It doesnt have to do with groups, but individual characters.
Its situational and positional. Its f`ing aoe, with restrictions of not dealing general damage to an area but to specific individual opponents.
also, for fuck sake, they didnt say "we are going to make a DnD game." did they?
They said they are going to make a new game based on infinity, BG games and shit.
BASED ON!
/
90 % of posts in this thread are sooooo dense its real struggle even to look here.
Excidium
P. banal
Holy shit that would be the best RPG ever.BASED ON!
.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.