702 réponses à ce sujet

[Vaeliorin]

Haexpane wrote...

I'm not sure what you mean by balanced gameplay in BG2.  AD&D 2E wasn't even well-balanced internally as a tabletop game.  D&D has spent two editions trying to iron out the imbalances, in fact.

What I mean by balanced gameplay is in comparision to DAO of course.  Do you think DAO is more balanced than BG2? I'm not talking perfection.  I'm talking real world games that made it to market.

I don't think anyone who has played both games would suggest that DAO is more balanced than BG2

I've played both, and I think that DA is far more balanced than 2E D&D.  Honestly, I can't think of a system that's more imbalanced than 2E D&D (except maybe 3.X D&D.)  Non-caster characters actually have a reason to exist in DA, but they really don't in 2E.  Add in the fact that D&D has never quite gotten over the whole "you're only as good as your items" hurdle (items play a much less important role in DA) and I think it's strange that anyone would suggest that DA isn't more balanced than 2E D&D.

AlanC9 wrote...
There shouldn't have been any purist complaints -- RTWP is about the best way to handle the AD&D action system.

Real purists were the ones complaining that the Gold Box games botched AD&D.

I was going to say that you were wrong, but Sylvius already kind of did it for me.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

The best way to handle AD&D actions is the same way they're handled at a table.  Turn-based.  It's the way I'd like every RPG to play.

Also, the Gold Box games botched AD&D.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
I think
this is a given.  I'd probably go so far as to say it's virtually
impossible to give out RP XP in a single-player cRPG, given that the
game doesn't know if you're roleplaying or simply randomly clicking on
replies.

The game shouldn't have to reward roleplaying, 
Roleplaying is the reward.  Reolplaying is the whole reason the game
exists.

I'm not saying that they have to, simply that it's something that commonly occurs in PnP groups.  And it's not so much a reward for roleplaying, but rather for exceptional roleplaying.  It's basically an incentive to do things that make the game more fun for everyone.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 29 juillet 2010 - 10:40 .

[kraze07]

DaySeeker wrote...

kraze07 wrote...

Guys who think like the OP are ruining gaming. I could care less if a game is realistic I just wanna have fun being immersed in a fantasy world, and play a game with deep a story and traditional RPG style gameplay. Even the JRPGs are being dumbed down on consoles these days. Just look at how FFXIII turned out.

I don't see how endless slaughter equals immersion into a fantasy world or deep story.  FFXIII has experience based systems that relied on killing enemies to level up and had a pretty traditional world layout; I am not sure how this makes your point.  What is your point?  I think it would be the opposite of "dumbing own" if you could do more then enter an area, destroy everyone, watch cutscene, enter next area, destroy everyone, watch cutscene.  You point seems contradictory, "Don't change anything" and "See how when they change stuff they're stupid."

Uh, no it didn't. Try playing some of the older FF games and you'll see that it didn't. No world map or towns to explore is not a traditional world layout for a JRPG. They either have one of these things or both.

That's getting away from the point of the thread though. People are acting as if it's mandatory to go running around the map looking for enemies to kill for exp. Those of us who want to maximise stats and gear shouldn't be punished because some people want their game to be more realistic. It's a dark fantasy rpg, we don't want realism we want dragons and darkspawn to kill, loot to drop, experience to gain, and stat points to place.

[guru7892]

Mission based XP is prefered for me; but the reason for it is devalued when you don't have alternate ways of dealing with situations. Ultimatly it will mean that the outcome is same and the situation is the same. I end up going through a dungeon, killing X ammount of monsters, and getting Y ammount of XP.



It can also be tough to go through a game with different play styles when you have multiple classes. by definition classes have differnt sets of skills. This means that you can't play a stealthy game because you most probably have a Warrior in your party who can't sneak to save his life.



if we wanted more realism in the game I would suggest you create a system where different actions reward XP associated with their skill. classes would determine the ammount of XP given. So Warriors would get more XP for killing with swords and thus be more inclined to that play style, where as rogues would become better at sneaking and stealing items; this doesn't mean you can't have a rogue who can kill things with a sword, but he honestly wouldn't care to learn multiple sword styles as opposed to learning how to pick locks.



oh and I'm the camp that isn't into hard core stats, and swapping out and comparing items every 15 minutes. I actually really enjoyed Mass Effect's treatment of weapons in that I would prefer a couple really interesting weapons than a ton of slightly differen't weapons with stat bonuses (the reason why I still haven't bought borderlands). However when it comes to lore, fantsay settings tend to better support the 'tons o weapons' model, but I wonder why they can't have several legendary weapons and items with stories and sidequests behind instead of all this loot searching and equipment selling. (hint?)

[Vaeliorin]

kraze07 wrote...
It's a dark fantasy rpg, we don't want realism we want dragons and darkspawn to kill, loot to drop, experience to gain, and stat points to place.

Okay, but let me ask you this:  How is any of that incompatible with XP not being awarded for killing monsters, but instead being rewarded for completing tasks, discoveries, and other various significant in-game events?

[Dave of Canada]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Okay, but let me ask you this:  How is any of that incompatible with XP not being awarded for killing monsters, but instead being rewarded for completing tasks, discoveries, and other various significant in-game events?

Hawke: Sir.. I'm exausted.. I've just slain thousands of darkspawn and dragons to get.. your diary.. is this it?
Old Man: Thank you, good man. Here's your reward.
[You recieve 5 gold, 1100 experience!]
Hawke: Thank god.. wait one stinking minute here.. I don't feel any stronger?
Little kid: Sir, sir! I've lost my kitten!
Hawke: Wait a bloody second, kid. I'm having a mid life crisis.
Little kid: I've lost my kitten!
Hawke: Is that it? <points over at the kitten>
Little kid: Yes, thank you kind sir! 
[You recieve 5 gold, 2200 experience! You leveled up!]
Hawke: Wait one damn moment.. I'm.. stronger now? Finding that damn kitten made me stronger, yet slaying those darkspawn .. no? What the hell is wrong with this universe!?!

[soteria]

You're still gaining experience at the same rate, presumably. You just get it for overcoming the enemy's force rather than for hunting down and slaughtering every last enemy out there.

[soteria]

@Dave of Canada: Your scenario is no different from what is in the game already. I'm not sure what your point is, to be honest. Are you complaining that individual experience points don't cause you to be more powerful?

[kraze07]

Vaeliorin wrote...

kraze07 wrote...
It's a dark fantasy rpg, we don't want realism we want dragons and darkspawn to kill, loot to drop, experience to gain, and stat points to place.

Okay, but let me ask you this:  How is any of that incompatible with XP not being awarded for killing monsters, but instead being rewarded for completing tasks, discoveries, and other various significant in-game events?

It lessens the feeling of growth and progression for your character. A system that rewards exp for killing enemies and completing task would work well though. Sort of like how many MMOs reward exp for every little thing. That way you don't have to go chasing down every kill but would still be able to progress through the game without it becoming unbalanced.

Modifié par kraze07, 30 juillet 2010 - 06:07 .

[Dave of Canada]

soteria wrote...

@Dave of Canada: Your scenario is no different from what is in the game already. I'm not sure what your point is, to be honest. Are you complaining that individual experience points don't cause you to be more powerful?

When I'm in the Deep Roads slaying Darkspawn, I expect to be getting stronger and better at fighting instead of getting all the experience from returning a lost kitten or given a woman some money.

[Vaeliorin]

Dave of Canada wrote...

soteria wrote...
@Dave of Canada: Your scenario is no different from what is in the game already. I'm not sure what your point is, to be honest. Are you complaining that individual experience points don't cause you to be more powerful?

When I'm in the Deep Roads slaying Darkspawn, I expect to be getting stronger and better at fighting instead of getting all the experience from returning a lost kitten or given a woman some money.

Sure, but for example in the Deep Roads in DA, you'd get the experience for making progress through the Deep Roads.  For example, in say Ortan Thaig, you'd get experience for getting to that area where Ruck is instead of for killing all the monsters along the way.  That would mean that you could feasibly sneak past all the darkspawn, and not be punished for it.  The idea is to allow the character to still advance without every scenario always having to involve killing everything in sight.

Also, I'm totally going to get myself to the point where I can go up a level for giving the little girl her dead cat in BG, just to spite you.

[Dave of Canada]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Also, I'm totally going to get myself to the point where I can go up a level for giving the little girl her dead cat in BG, just to spite you.

I forget what game it was but there's one game where you can skip one of the toughest boss fights by showing the boss a corpse of a dead cat / woman / man and they'll think you're deranged and let you by safely.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Also, I'm totally going to get myself to the point where I can go up a level for giving the little girl her dead cat in BG, just to spite you.

Off-topic, but I hate that you can't uncover that whole map.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
Also, I'm totally going to get myself to the point where I can go up a level for giving the little girl her dead cat in BG, just to spite you.

Off-topic, but I hate that you can't uncover that whole map.

There's several maps you can't uncover completely.  It drives me batty.  There's a spell (I want to say it's Clairaudience/Clairvoyance) that will uncover the whole map that I'm always tempted to memorize, but it's such a worthless spell in actual game terms and spell slots are so limited that I never actually memorize it.

Speaking of BG(well, BG2 really) you get XP for learning spells as well as opening locks/disarming traps (I realize the latter 2 are already in DA), and those are examples of some ways that XP can be awarded without having to kill anything...(hey, I'm trying to be kind of on-topic here!)

[yoda23]

Tirigon wrote...

JustinVx5 wrote...

im sorry but this is really dumb if u dint like rpgs dont play'em stick to CoD

I´m sorry but you are really dumb, or at least it seems like that if you misunderstand me completely....

First, I HATE CoD, it´s one of the (very) few games who manage to suck as much as WoW imo....

Secondly, I never said I hate RPGs. I just want them improved.
What I DO, however, hate is senseless levelgrinding and uber-equipment farming (Again, look at WoW or most other MMOs and you know what I hate..)

Ahh the Ad Hominem attack smells great this morning! Smells like victory.

[yoda23]

Vaeliorin wrote...

angj57 wrote...
But do remember that Baldur's Gate 1 was a pretty radical shift for RPGs in that it scrapped the old turn based system and went with real time gameplay. I'm sure a lot of purists thought that this was blasphemy and was pandering to casual gamers, but looking back it was a logical change which kept the important aspects of RPGs while improving the gameplay experience. Try and keep an open mind.

It made the gameplay experience worse.

Turn-based forever!


:innocent:


Oh, and yeah, xp per kill is kind of traditional, and certainly old school, but I think it's something that would be better done away with, unless it's a game that's largely focused on combat.

Turn based was NOT eliminated in BGII just hidden from the player until the player paused. If you played the vampire sequence in Amn then you know what I am talking about. 

[yoda23]

Oh I forgot Amn was before the CONTROLLER folks came on board... So silly of me.

[Astranagant]

hahaha, oh wow, OP.

What part of Blood Age: Bloodigins' promotional/advertising fooled you into thinking it was ever meant to be anything but violent? The entire game logo motif is blood spatter.

[Vaeliorin]

yoda23 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

angj57 wrote...
But do remember that Baldur's Gate 1 was a pretty radical shift for RPGs in that it scrapped the old turn based system and went with real time gameplay. I'm sure a lot of purists thought that this was blasphemy and was pandering to casual gamers, but looking back it was a logical change which kept the important aspects of RPGs while improving the gameplay experience. Try and keep an open mind.

It made the gameplay experience worse.

Turn-based forever!


:innocent:


Oh, and yeah, xp per kill is kind of traditional, and certainly old school, but I think it's something that would be better done away with, unless it's a game that's largely focused on combat.

Turn based was NOT eliminated in BGII just hidden from the player until the player paused. If you played the vampire sequence in Amn then you know what I am talking about.

Yes it was.  When the game was unpaused, multiple units could move concurrently.  That's not turn-based.  In a turn-based games, units move in sequence, only one at a time.

Oh...and I'm replaying the BG saga at the moment, so...your ad hominem doesn't really apply.

[Tirigon]

Astranagant wrote...

hahaha, oh wow, OP.

What part of Blood Age: Bloodigins' promotional/advertising fooled you into thinking it was ever meant to be anything but violent? The entire game logo motif is blood spatter.

This is the first reasonable argument in favor of xp per kill I´ve seen here.

[Haexpane]

Vaeliorin wrote...
 
I've played both, and I think that DA is far more balanced than 2E D&D.  Honestly, I can't think of a system that's more imbalanced than 2E D&D (except maybe 3.X D&D.)  Non-caster characters actually have a reason to exist in DA, but they really don't in 2E.  Add in the fact that D&D has never quite gotten over the whole "you're only as good as your items" hurdle (items play a much less important role in DA) and I think it's strange that anyone would suggest that DA isn't more balanced than 2E D&D.

I said BG2 and DAO not 2E D&D.   I know BG2 is a modified AD&D ruleset, but it's not D&D .

So you think 1 hit killing 60% of mobs on nightmare in DAO is balanced?  How about soloing the Archdemon?

Vaeliorin wrote...

The best way to handle AD&D actions is the same way they're handled at a table.  Turn-based.  It's the way I'd like every RPG to play.

 Well BG2 wasn't turn based, what crpgs did you like that were turn based again?

[Haexpane]

kraze07 wrote...
 . Sort of like how many MMOs reward exp for every little thing. That way you don't have to go chasing down every kill but would still be able to progress through the game without it becoming unbalanced.

Exactly, people RAIL against MMOs here, but the facts are MMOs have had 11+  years of balancing and real time testing by milliions of players.  They've figured out that people like to get XP for EVERYTHING they do.

Opening chest, completing quests, killing monsters, etc...   Why remove XP for one thing just because you don't like the "killing" component?

[Haexpane]

[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
 


Oh, and yeah, xp per kill is kind of traditional, and certainly old school, but I think it's something that would be better done away with, unless it's a game that's largely focused on combat.[/quote]
Turn based was NOT eliminated in BGII just hidden from the player until the player paused. If you played the vampire sequence in Amn then you know what I am talking about.[/quote]
Yes it was.  When the game was unpaused, multiple units could move concurrently.  That's not turn-based.  In a turn-based games, units move in sequence, only one at a time.

Oh...and I'm replaying the BG saga at the moment, so...your ad hominem doesn't really apply.

[/quote]

yeah BG2 is real time w/ pause.  It doesn't change into TURN BASED , it is what it is.  A fantastic battle system, that is very challenging and rewarding

[Felfenix]

I'd be all for EXP being removed from killing, lock picking, and all that petty means stuff, and being gained from results, so that you gain EXP from whatever means you accomplish something, without any dumb exploits. If I wanna do nothing but "grind mobs" I'll go play some F2P Korean MMO.

[AlanC9]

Vaeliorin wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
There shouldn't have been any purist complaints -- RTWP is about the best way to handle the AD&D action system.

Real purists were the ones complaining that the Gold Box games botched AD&D.

I was going to say that you were wrong, but Sylvius already kind of did it for me.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

The best way to handle AD&D actions is the same way they're handled at a table.  Turn-based.  It's the way I'd like every RPG to play.

Actually, Sylvius was agreeing with me.

Maybe you don't remember AD&D right? All moves are called at the beginning of the action round, before initiative rolls. The Gold Box games trashed this by rolling initiative first and letting characters pick their moves as their turns came.

The IE wasn't perfect by any means. Strictly speaking there should be a single round for everybody, with a plot phase and then an execution phase. But in practice DMs often permitted modification during the round, since the AD&D rules are kind of vague as to what happens when a called move is impossible or insane by the time the character gets his action. Regardless, the end result in the IE is pretty close to what a full implementation would give you.

[In Exile]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Okay, but let me ask you this:  How is any of that incompatible with XP not being awarded for killing monsters, but instead being rewarded for completing tasks, discoveries, and other various significant in-game events?

Hawke: Sir.. I'm exausted.. I've just slain thousands of darkspawn and dragons to get.. your diary.. is this it?
Old Man: Thank you, good man. Here's your reward.
[You recieve 5 gold, 1100 experience!]
Hawke: Thank god.. wait one stinking minute here.. I don't feel any stronger?
Little kid: Sir, sir! I've lost my kitten!
Hawke: Wait a bloody second, kid. I'm having a mid life crisis.
Little kid: I've lost my kitten!
Hawke: Is that it? 
Little kid: Yes, thank you kind sir! 
[You recieve 5 gold, 2200 experience! You leveled up!]
Hawke: Wait one damn moment.. I'm.. stronger now? Finding that damn kitten made me stronger, yet slaying those darkspawn .. no? What the hell is wrong with this universe!?!

Guard: There is no possible means for you to pass.
Hawke: [Intimidate] I'll stab you?
Guard: No. Sorry. Not scared.
Hawke: [Persuade] Please let me go through?
Guard: No. Tell someone who cares.

Hawke: [murders darkspawn]
Hawke: [level up]
Hawke: [murders more darkspawn]
Hawke: [murders some elves]
Hawke: [level up]
Hawke: [murders some wolves]

Guard: You're back. You still can't pass.
Hawke: [Persuade] I have urgent matters with your superiors. They would be quite wroth with you if you keep me waiting [Succes!].
Hawke: Huh. Apparently killing lots of things made me more persuasive. I also know how to build better traps, seem to have learned alchemy, AND an now an epic-level tracker. Man, is there anything killing can't do?