Tyranny Pre-Release Thread

[Infinitron]

Attributes:



The recommendation-by-expertise is a nice gimmick.

 

[Sannom]

The only problem I see with this logic is that every map and video I've seen of the game world specifies a unique continent (?), so what is the sea worth exactly ? Beside fishes and coastal trade, which is pretty much unnecessary since there's a freaking pax mongolica in the game.

Trade between cities in the same empire can still be a thing, right? And some sea routes are probably much more practical than going on land.

 

[CptMace]

Define practical. Shipping your cargo by sea was a very - very risky business in ancient Rome (so I guess it wasn't any better before). I've read that there were already some sorts of insurances for merchant ships back then specifically because it meant losing a shit ton of gold to have an accident by sea.

 

[Jack]

WTF? The asian guy mentions Kyros as "she" in this video.
Wasn't he a male in the previous talks?

TRANNY

Also lol at people taking this setting seriously at all.

 

[Hyperion]

It doesn't change the fact that it would be as far from historically correct as you could go. A few rare exceptions where a widow takes ownership of the family estate/land does not make up for the majority of cases where both parts are alive and the ownership of the land falls into the hands of the male. It would have been less outrageous if they had made up some mumbo jumbo about the women having a connection to the sea and being superior navigators. While it wouldn't be correct, it would be more believable than women owning ALL the LAND.

Not to mention the majority of resources are on land, you wouldn't even be able to build your ship unless you got the wood from trading with a woman, hoping she doesn't give you the middle finger. All that trading you're going to be doing, where exactly do you get these items? From the LAND.

- The people on the sea can't survive without resources from the land.
- The people on the land don't need shit from the sea.

What easier way to keep a woman locked in the kitchen without chains than some bullshit piece of paper saying she owns the joint? Sounds pretty cis-misogynistic to me.

 

[Infinitron]

Skills:




Zombra might be happy to learn that you can apparently only take points in a spellcasting skill if you've taken an Expertise in that spell school. In other words, there does seem to be the possibility to build a "Fighter" character who can never learn to cast spells. Although perhaps there will be a way to gain a spellcasting expertise during the game?

 

[Hyperion]

Any confirmation on whether or not you can utilize ally skills for dialogue checks?

 

[Bohrain]

Define practical. Shipping your cargo by sea was a very - very risky business in ancient Rome (so I guess it wasn't any better before). I've read that there were already some sorts of insurances for merchant ships back then specifically because it meant losing a shit ton of gold to have an accident by sea.

By sea do you mean within visible distance of the coastline or in completely open waters?
I think horses have to eat the amount they can carry in 11 days, so unless you are transporting something relatively light and valuable lenghtier trips are better done through water whenever possible.

 

[Rostere]

There was never something like matriarchy. All societies across all ages were patriarchal up until very modern times, and in said very modern times non-patriarchal social models are still a novelty, and seem to not work out in terms of biological sustainability of population, hence they are sick and wrong by nature. If these hacks at Obsidian want to sell anyone social structure in which only females may legally own land (and this is a big fucking deal, like BIGGEST one there can be in bronze/iron age setting when comes to material goods, perhaps second only to control over ore), they are just... stupid. Simply stupid. And this setting is stupid.

But there have been matriarchal societies (look here - and that's just mentioning current ones, historically a lot of societies have been matrilineal, which can be shown from burial sites), and there are social animals with seemingly matriarchal power structures.

I think what you mean to say is that matriarchal societies were largely wiped out somewhere during the Bronze Age, which seems to have happened IRL. Also, the taming of the horse could have had some impact. It's not hard to imagine really, that as soon as societies start to have armies, all matriarchal societies get wiped out in a few hundred years of random events. Early on, taking another tribe's women must have been pretty much the only reward in war. It's no surprise that a patriarchal society where women are subservient would fight harder to protect "their" women, or for that matter that any society which raises army gets taken over by men and becomes patriarchal.

 

[CptMace]

Define practical. Shipping your cargo by sea was a very - very risky business in ancient Rome (so I guess it wasn't any better before). I've read that there were already some sorts of insurances for merchant ships back then specifically because it meant losing a shit ton of gold to have an accident by sea.

By sea do you mean within visible distance of the coastline or in completely open waters?
I think horses have to eat the amount they can carry in 11 days, so unless you are transporting something relatively light and valuable lenghtier trips are better done through water whenever possible.

I did mean long trip oversea yes. You're right though, coastal navigation is way less hazardous, so maybe that makes the travel more practical in the end.
That would still be a meager consolation compared to the revenue you get from owning land imo though.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Wondering if going unarmed is viable, and if it has cool custom animations.

 

[Sannom]

Unarmed seems designed as the harder option. It also has an exclusive relationship with the Dodge skill.

 

[Infinitron]

An unarmed character seems like it can dump Parry (ie, Finesse) completely, which could lead to some interesting builds.

 

[Fry]

There was never something like matriarchy. All societies across all ages were patriarchal up until very modern times, and in said very modern times non-patriarchal social models are still a novelty, and seem to not work out in terms of biological sustainability of population, hence they are sick and wrong by nature. If these hacks at Obsidian want to sell anyone social structure in which only females may legally own land (and this is a big fucking deal, like BIGGEST one there can be in bronze/iron age setting when comes to material goods, perhaps second only to control over ore), they are just... stupid. Simply stupid. And this setting is stupid.

But there have been matriarchal societies (look here - and that's just mentioning current ones, historically a lot of societies have been matrilineal, which can be shown from burial sites), and there are social animals with seemingly matriarchal power structures.

Rather hilariously, that link promises "6 modern societies where women literally rule" and then provides 6 examples of matrilineal societies where women don't literally rule.

For clarity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

Matriarchy is a social system in which females hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property at the specific exclusion of men, at least to a large degree. While those definitions apply in general English, definitions specific to the disciplines of anthropology and feminism differ in some respects.

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe exceptions may exist or may have. Matriarchies may also be confused with matrilineal, matrilocal, and matrifocal societies. A few people consider any non-patriarchal system to be matriarchal, thus including genderally equalitarian systems, but most academics exclude them from matriarchies strictly defined.

 

[Zombra]

I like Subterfuge aka the "all that noncombat stuff" skill.

 

[SionIV]

Why are we even arguing this? Women have been second rate citizen through most of our history. They weren't allowed to vote, with a few exceptions they weren't allowed to be a part of politics, women had very few legal rights back then.

Married Women's Property Act (1870) UK

Before 1870, any money made by a woman either through a wage, from investment, by gift, or through inheritance automatically became the property of her husband once she was married. Thus, the identity of the wife became legally absorbed into her husband, effectively making them one person under the law. Once a woman became married she had no claim to her property as her husband had full control and could do whatever suited him regarding the property: “Thus, a woman, on marrying, relinquished her personal property—moveable property such as money, stocks, furniture, and livestock--- to her husband’s ownership; by law he was permitted to dispose of it at will at any time in the marriage and could even will it away at death”

This is just one example. Sweden was one of the countries that were first in line to give women legal rights to certain things, and even then they weren't equal to men and while the husband might not have been in control of the property, her family was and she had no say in that.

Women were not equal to men, they did not have the same rights as men, and it was VERY RARE for them to own land.

It's alright if they want to be a unique snowflake and create a 'special' universe. It's just absurd to think that women owning all the land is based on any historical evidence. They wanted to create equality and that was more important to them than being historically correct.

 

[Zombra]

Why are we even arguing this?

Good question.

 

[Fry]

It's either this or continue arguing whether or not the interstitial art looks kinda like Dragon Age 2.

 

[harhar!]

Why are we even arguing this? Women have been second rate citizen through most of our history. They weren't allowed to vote, with a few exceptions they weren't allowed to be a part of politics, women had very few legal rights back then.

For most of history men weren't allowed to vote either. Of corse, if you just look at one side of the coin (the rights) you will conclude that women are "second class citizens" but this is obviously dumb. You also have to look at the responsibilities a husband had to his wife (he was legally and socially obliged to care for them) and his country (draft), which his wife did not have. Back in the day being forced to fight in wars was linked to your voting rights as well. Nevertheless, women got that for free, while men are still drafted in many countries. How is that for second class citizenship?

(Though I don't disagree with the larger point of your post that they think that message trumps historical accuracy.)

 

[Roguey]

They wanted to create equality and that was more important to them than being historically correct.

Tyranny doesn't take place on Earth.

 

[vonAchdorf]

An unarmed character seems like it can dump Parry (ie, Finesse) completely, which could lead to some interesting builds.

Looks like it gets less bonus points than Parry though, at least in this example. Are there unarmed classes?

 

[Hyperion]

Looks like it gets less bonus points than Parry though, at least in this example. Are there unarmed classes?

No classes, just skills. But I'd say going a mixture of Unarmed + Vigor magic is a pretty good way to roleplay your own Monk.

Expect gear with +unarmed damage as well, just like in The White March.

 

[SionIV]

They wanted to create equality and that was more important to them than being historically correct.

Tyranny doesn't take place on Earth.

You're correct.

I got the feeling when I saw the pictures and videos that they were taking inspiration from certain time periods in our own history, and that there was a somewhat realistic tone to the game. I find the whole concept of splitting up sea/land based on genders to be silly, and it breaks the immersion for me. It'll be interesting to see how they handle it, but from where I'm standing right now, it reads as a 'gender equality' stunt.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Looks like it gets less bonus points than Parry though, at least in this example. Are there unarmed classes?

No classes, just skills. But I'd say going a mixture of Unarmed + Vigor magic is a pretty good way to roleplay your own Monk.

Expect gear with +unarmed damage as well, just like in The White March.

I just looked at the screens again - if they have Sword and Shield Expertise, they will probably have unarmed expertise or two-handed expertise as well.

 

[Roguey]

that there was a somewhat realistic tone to the game

Even with the descriptions of archers leaping into the air and raining arrows down on their enemies?